Responses from two of the country’s biggest transport lobby groups yesterday highlight what could probably be described as the business as usual approach to transport in NZ.
First we have the NZ Council for Infrastructure Development, the lobby group for those that build and finance infrastructure and who have never seen a project they didn’t like or one they didn’t think should be bigger and more expensive. Not content with having managed to get the East-West link moved to near the top of the queue are already calling for a second East-West link in the form of the destructive motorway from the Airport to East Tamaki.
“Transport agency proposals to address East-West traffic flows released for public consultation yesterday will help address urgent freight needs in the Penrose-Onehunga area in Auckland. But the long term solution must be one which connects Auckland’s commercial and industrial heartland in Penrose, Mt Wellington and East Tamaki and also caters for planned residential intensification and growth from the eastern suburbs to the airport,” says Stephen Selwood CEO of the New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development.
“In order for Aucklanders to provide worthwhile feedback on the proposals it is essential that they understand the full benefits and costs of each option and the long term strategic implications.“The options proposed are concentrated on the Onehunga-Penrose catchment zone which, while still the largest in terms of employment, represents just one fifth of the $11 billion per annum generated across the industrial zones bordering the Manukau Harbour and Tamaki Estuary. Little information has been provided, to date, on the benefits, costs and strategic implications of the alternatives proposed.
“Connectivity to East Tamaki as well as further south to Mangere and on to the airport is not planned for improvement in these proposals, except through improved bus movement.
“How these areas will be connected into the future has great bearing on what the appropriate solution is for this first phase of investment.
“One option considered in earlier analysis included a motorway south of the Manukau Harbour. It provided long term connectivity not only between the industrial areas, but for all communities in the east of Auckland accessing employment and the airport.
“It was almost immediately terminated following public reaction, leaving a northern Manukau Harbour solution as the most politically acceptable. However, given that the proposals released yesterday provide no new east west connectivity for Glen Innes, Panmure, Howick, Pakuranga, Botany and the industrial areas of East Tamaki and Mt Wellington it is not clear how existing and projected growth demand in these areas will be addressed.
“Too often major projects in New Zealand are developed in a piecemeal fashion and modified and reduced to satisfy environmental and local interests without adequate consideration of strategic implications or the relative cost of lost accessibility and reduced economic efficiency.
“The East-West connection is a critical corridor linking not just the two busiest stretches of motorway in the country and three of the largest employment zones, it is a strategic link on the national highway network providing long term resilience and capacity for all road users crossing the city from east to west.
“It is critical that this project is seen as a strategic east west link for Auckland. That means providing adequate capacity to and through Auckland’s industrial heartland and supporting network connectivity region-wide,” Selwood says.
There are some really pull your hair out type comments in this statement.
Firstly it’s clear the NZCID are now trying to paint the East-West link as some kind of temporary fix up despite some of the options (like Option E) basically amounting a $1 billion+ motorway along the foreshore of the Mangere Inlet. There’s nothing temporary or short term about it.
It also ignores that the East-West Link has long been seen about improving access on the northern side of the harbour because as the NZCID point out, that’s where the largest portion of businesses and therefore freight movements are. Also let’s not forget the project has long been sold as being needed to improve freight movements.
Perhaps because the current proposals better deal with freight movements they are also trying to shift the argument back to having the motorway option by talking about the residents of the eastern suburbs. In doing so they basically suggest that the ability of Eastern suburbs residents to drive to the airport should come ahead of the liveability and communities of residents who live in Mangere.
If they were really concerned about how Eastern suburbs residents and about providing them better connectivity then a quicker, cheaper an much less destructive option would be something like we’ve outlined in the Congestion Free Network. Two busways running at high all day frequencies connecting East Auckland with the rest of the region enhances connectivity not just for trips to the airport but for a wide range of other activities too. Some may say that Eastern suburbs residents won’t catch a bus but it’s worth remembering that people have said the same thing about North Shore residents yet the busway has been spectacularly successful.
Of course the NZCID won’t like the idea because it only costs a fraction of what a motorway does.
The other lobby group making news is the Road Transport Forum (RTF) in response to the suggestions from the NZTA’s Cycling Safety Panel that it be mandated for vehicles to give cyclists at least 1.5m of space when passing. Ken Shirley the CEO of the RTF has been rubbishing the suggestion and in doing so said:
“There’s a dual responsibility, the cyclist also has to be more aware of the impact of the impact they might have on vehicles, whether it’s a car or a truck because that can be very severe”
Yep because cyclists can really do some damage to a 40 tonne truck or having to slow down for 10 seconds is just such a horrific concept.
“One of the problems is blind spots on trucks and cyclists unaware of those blind spots and there’s a lot of technology that’s new to the market with infra-red and radar up the side of the truck giving an audio and visual warning to the the driver that in fact there might be a cyclist sitting in the blind spot”
Of course as soon as anyone suggests making technology like this a requirement Shirley is the first to jump up and down complaining about it.
“Too many cyclists don’t appreciate how vulnerable they really are,”
Cyclists are vulnerable primarily because of how other road users act and even the most safety conscious cyclist has sometimes been involved in tragic crashes.
“I think they’re a bit light on actual cycle education – we see some outrageous behaviour from cyclists – and a lack of appreciation of the blind spot, particularly with heavy vehicles.”
Nothing like the good old tar all people on bikes with the same brush.
Processing...
A few years back these dinosaurs were the only voices heard in transport debates. The fact that they now sound so out of touch with reality reflects how much things have changed in recent years.
Let’s say that for some reason, we had to go out to public consultation on the type of armoured vehicle the army needs.
Would we let General Dynamics or Rheinmetall or BAE put in a submission? Hell no. So why are we letting an industry body, who GAIN MONETARILY from the choice made, to even have a view? They come in when we go to tender.
The entire process is unethical.
Yes, amazing how poor many of our business, political and media ‘leaders’ are at recognising conflicts of interest and acting accordingly. Who brought them up?
Slightly off topic but linked to the recommendation of making passing distances enforceable.
I think altering our law so as to reflect the relative vulnerability of different road users is the way to go. In my opinion I think it would be worth putting into law a rebuttable presumption that in the event of an accident the “stronger” vehicle is at fault. So if there’s a cyclist vs car incident the starting point is that the car driver was in the wrong. Similarly, if there’s a pedestrian vs bicycle incident the cyclist will be at fault unless the facts indicate otherwise. Of course this idea would require more refinement but I think it has serious potential to make our roads safer for everyone, cyclists included. If drafted correctly, this should encourage people to take greater caution on our roads by forcing people to appreciate that the “stronger” their chosen mode of transport is the more danger it poses to those around them.
I reckon this should be considered in conjunction with making the passing distance enforceable or, at the very least, instead of. The current proposed law reform for passing is largely unenforceable in practice for obvious reasons (short of cyclists all riding around with GoPros!). The proposal seeks to alter behaviour by the threat of being fined (the actual likelihood of this being slim) and the consequent publicity surrounding the law change which will presumably include a public safety campaign (and invariably the anti-cyclist vitriol online too). These same principles apply to my idea above which I think will resonate more and improve safety for all vulnerable users.
Of course I’m 100% in favour of preventing conflict altogether through well-designed transport infrastructure that caters to all modes. I do not mean to suggest my idea should replace this since it’s clear that it is way more effective to modify behaviour through design than through sanctions. The proposed law changes should complement good design.
As a motorist, I *want* protected cycle lanes because I don’t want an effing cyclist slowing me down.
I don’t see why more motorists don’t realise the *best thing* for drivers is dedicated PT and cycle lanes to get the slow bastards off the same lanes we are using!!
In fact, hypothetically the perfect “mass mover” would be something like:
Bus lane-cycle lane-car lane-car lane-median-car lane-car lane-cycle lane-rail
Why do we ever need more than 2 lanes? One to pass, one to drive. The problem is we do not enforce the road code so speeds for 1, 2, or 3 lanes seldom differ dramatically (you can’t go any faster than the car in front of you, so if left hand, middle, and right hand lane are all doing 100kmh you might as well have a single-lane road anyway)
But will the Police ever enforce the most basic rule of all – keep left? I’m not holding my breath
what keep left law you communist muppet?
The very first rule in the road code.
Rubbish. If i am going to Northland i am on the far right lane cause i am going the furthest out of the city.
Then you’re technically breaking the law.
From http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/about-driving/keeping-left.html
Option E requires a road bridge over the motorway right beside the new Onehunga reclamation. The bridge was rejected by the community previously, doubt that’s going to change.
The existing roads and interchange is a traffic bottleneck, directing more vehicles at it isn’t going to help.
For these reasons, all options A-F don’t look like they’ll work.
The south side of the harbour looks like a better prospect.
The proposed cycle clearances should be enforceable. Hopefully this should lead to improved infrastructure
Thank god car drivers never do anything outrageous on the roads, and are always fantastic when it comes to blind spots. Think of the damage if everyone didn’t always drive like saints, could be 20,000 hospitalization a a year…
I’m inclined to suggest that if a motorway needs to be built it should be tolled as part of the move towards road pricing. So far there has been little evidence that it is actually needed, or that the required effect cannot be delivered through other projects, reminiscent of Puhoi-Walkworth.
I doubt that the BCR would stack up to put it high enough on the proriity list, although the governments investing ahead of the curve comments mean that CID probably wouldn’t see this as an issue.
I’d expect that the proponents of an over engineered scheme should be willing to underwrite the investment, both organisationally and individually. It’s about time that those who expect others to fund there infrastructure wish lists put some skin in the game.
Before anyone suggests that this argument should be applied to the CLR, my thoughts are that the costs associated will be borne by the whole community and those most in favor are ready to pay the price that will be asked of them. I certainly am.
I don’t understand the need for Option E New Foreshore Connection. I see that it provides a new motorway standard link between SH20 and SH1 but to what purpose? Such a connection already exists at the southern end of SH20 in Manukau.
For the record I work at a plant near the Church St – Neilson St intersection and I travel around that area routinely on weekdays. In the last several years I have never encountered a significant holdup.
Is the NZCID saying that there are important and necessary freight traffic movements that are currently not possible on the existing road network? I don’t see it.
Rail is most efficient way of moving freight anyway.
Too right, but try telling that to the petrol heads I share a smoko room with.
There is actually a rail line running right into the plant and it connects directly to Kiwirail’s freight and shunting yard at Southdown but it has clearly been derelict for years. Instead we have a daily procession of truck and trailer units driving through despatch taking away finished goods. It’s such a waste of potential.
I suppose you would establish stations at all the end users of these products? Seems efficient
For bulk users (which we have so many in NZ, seeing our primary industries focus…) it is VERY efficient. If the network isn’t run-down and can be depended on to deliver your stuff, primary industries users pile on rail systems. Have a look at the US, the land of cars… and kilometre-long freight trains.
Shaun, amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics, and logistics is about the rail network. Can’t move the same tonnage over the same distance with the same speed with trucks as you can with railways.
I think that they will be in for a significant fight with the Onehunga community on any significant changes to the foreshore or around the port, volcanic cone areas. These areas are now getting re-established and well used for recreation, further cutting off from or destruction of the foreshore isn’t going to be welcomed. What also concerns me is with some of the options is protection of the Onehunga line rail corridor extension to the airport as they try and fit in better interchanges with the SH20
The Onehunga Foreshore group are big supporters of the foreshore road as they think they will be able to get mitigation similar to what’s happening next to SH20 out of it.
Interesting Matt, not what I was suspecting as a Onehunga resident
Whilst I agree that a lot of cyclists (and most motorists, I would wager) fail to appreciate the significant blind spots that exist for truck drivers – even in a flat-fronted truck you lose sight of a standard-height 700mm road cone at least three metres in front of you – that does not mean that the current treatment of cyclists is in any way acceptable.
Cyclists are treated legally as though they are motorists, despite there being a clear disparity to anyone with something approximating an open mind; we’re limited to our body’s peak output, we’re not in a protective cage, we’re physically capable of passing to the left or right of pretty much any stationary vehicle without having to cross the centre line, etc.
I think a general campaign to heighten awareness of the blind spots that exist for truck drivers would be very useful, for all road users. I certainly didn’t grasp the visibility challenges that face truckies until I got my truck licence, and having got it I am much more aware of them as a cyclist.
Have you seen this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8
The only real way to deal with this issue is to change arterial roads so that people cycling can’t be hit. For that we need separation all the way into the intersection – just like the Beach Road cycleway now.
As we know, the Dutch have been designing their arterials like this for decades and have half the traffic crash death rate of NZ. http://caa.org.nz/general-news/forgiving-intersections-the-way-forward/
First Kirkbride Rd, now this. Council need to hurry up and get the airport rail route designated