|
Resolution
number HW/2024/123
MOVED by Deputy
Chairperson B Burns, seconded by Member A White:
That
the Howick Local Board:
a)
tuhi ā-taipitopito / note the urgent decision made on 1 July 2024
to formalise the Howick Local Board’s input into Auckland Council's
submission on the Draft Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits, as
follows:
i)
the Board note the
extremely short timeframe for providing feedback means that the Howick Local
Board has not had time to consult with the public to seek their feedback on
the proposal. It also means that this feedback is being provided via an
Urgent Decision which does not allow for elected members to vote on the
feedback (in support or against).
ii)
in regard to
relevance to the Howick Local Board Plan 2023, the Board:
A)
note the advocacy
to Auckland Transport for “Improvement in freight and commuter
connectivity for business communities.”
B)
note the objective
to have “Vibrant town centres”.
iii)
in regard to local
impact, the Board:
A)
support proposed
changes which will revert former speed limits to their pre-2022 restrictions
with the potential impact of improving traffic flow throughout our ward and
beyond.
iv)
in regard to local
examples, the Board:
A)
note that reverting
former speed limits to well used commuter routes such as Ti Rakau Drive; Te
Irirangi Drive and Pakuranga Road will reduce travel time.
v)
in regard to Proposal 1: require cost benefit analysis for
speed limit changes, the Board:
A)
support the use of
cost benefit analysis to encourage a focus on the higher-risk, greater
value-for-money areas.
B)
acknowledge that
there will likely be an increase in administrative burden and therefore costs
as a result of this change, which may lead to less changes.
vi)
in regard to Proposal 2: strengthening consultation
requirements, the Board:
A)
support that
RCA’s should use reasonable efforts to consult with persons who use the
road (not just live on/nearby) for which a speed limit change is proposed.
B)
support the
requirement to increase transparency of decisions in response to feedback
received, acknowledging that closing the communication loop is critical to
bringing the community along any changes.
vii)
in regard to
Proposal 3: Requiring variable speed limits outside school gates during
school travel periods, the Board:
A)
support variable
speed limits outside of school gates during school travel periods as a
pragmatic way of reducing speed during higher risk periods.
B)
acknowledge that
outside of these hours there may still be students using school grounds who
will not be protected by lower speeds.
C)
acknowledge that
the cost of electronic variable signs are significantly higher than static
signs, but deliver a greater impact on busier roads over the more passive
static sign may on quieter roads.
D)
suggest that
central government should cover all of the costs of installation of variable
speed limit infrastructure, as they are responsible for determining the
location and operation of the schools. This funding should not reduce funding
provided to the Ministry of Education for educational outcomes and be in
addition to normal operational funding.
E)
support the
proposal to amend the Road User Rule to introduce default variable speed
limit times as part of the Road Code, which will help ensure familiarity and
compliance.
viii)
in regard to
Proposal 4: Introduction of a Ministerial Speed Objective, which will set out
the Government’s expectations for speed management, the Board:
A)
support the
introduction of a Ministerial Speed Objective as a communication tool to set
expectations and improve transparency.
B)
note that nothing
within the Ministerial Speed Objective should limit or prevent Local
Government from delivering on their responsibilities, and that RCA’s
should be able to exceed the Government’s expectations without punitive
measures.
ix)
in regard to
Proposal 5: Proposing a schedule of speed limits classifications for each
road type, the Board:
A)
support the clear
and transparent setting of speed limit classifications based on the type of
road.
B)
support the
proposed exceptions which provide RCA’s the ability to adjust the
standardised speeds to adapt to localised environments.
C)
crash data must be
utilised correctly to define the cause of the crash and not used in blanket
form to present a “number.”
x)
in regard to
Proposal 6: Proposing to update the criteria RCAs must meet when submitting
speed management plans for certification, the Board:
A)
note that Auckland
has a unique and unusual arrangement where Auckland Transport is responsible
for setting speed limits, whereas in every other local government this sits
with the relevant local or regional council.
B)
suggest that
Auckland Transport consult with, and understand the local knowledge of the
Local Board, before implementing any changes.
C)
suggest that
changes must be “needs based” and not part of blanket decision
making.
xi)
in regard to
Proposal 7: Proposing that certain speed limits reduced since 1 January 2020
will be reversed by 1 July 2025, the Board:
A)
support the return
of former speed limits on arterial roads. In particular Pakuranga Road, Ti
Rakau and Te Irirangi Drives should return to their pre-2022 speeds. Te
Irirangi Drive will play a key role in reducing travel time to the Auckland
Airport once the East - West link is created.
1)
note that Pakuranga
Road has no cycle lane or alternative cyclist commuter route linking Howick
to Pakuranga and the increase in traffic speed increases the nuisance to
motorists from cyclists traveling at their lower speeds, increases the
difference in speed between cyclists and motorists, and makes Pakuranga Road
more dangerous for cyclists. Note there is no work underway by AT to solve
these issues.
2)
note that Ti Rakau
Drive is expected to have a physically separated cycleway provided as part of
the Eastern Busway project.
3)
note that Te
Irirangi Drive is expected to have a physically separated cycleway provided
as part of the Airport to Botany project.
B)
acknowledge that
there will be a significant cost in returning roads to their previous speed
limit.
C)
acknowledge that
there are locations where the local school and community supported a 30km/h
zone which will no longer be possible under this change e.g. Saint Kentigern
College.
D)
request that all
schools have a variable speed system outside their schools if required. The
speed must not be part of a blanket decision but based on local conditions.
xii)
in regard to
additional feedback:
A)
note that Auckland
has an unique and unusual arrangement where Auckland Transport is responsible
for setting speed limits, whereas in every other local government this sits
with the relevant local or regional council.
B)
support enabling
speed limits of up to 120km/h on roads that are built and maintained, and
will be managed, to safely accommodate that speed. Any roads designed for
this speed or greater must be specifically constructed, maintained, and
managed.
C)
support ensuring
that economic impacts and the view of road users and communities are
considered alongside safety implications when speed limits are being
reviewed.
CARRIED
|
