Last May, Auckland Transport eliminated all mention of the “Healthy Streets” approach from the Roads and Streets Framework.

A three page annex on the topic was removed, as well as discussion about how to incorporate it. I checked for the key concept words and they, too, were missing.

Is this important?

Yes. The Roads and Streets Framework is the guiding document for helping designers identify priorities in each street to enable quality design. The Healthy Streets approach is an integral part of it, ensuring the built designs create a healthier transport network.

If it was being used, we wouldn’t see Auckland Transport proposing projects which still – in 2021 – refuse reallocate road space to the sustainable transport modes.

Yesterday, Councillor Henderson took the bold and admirable step of opposing a project because it fails to provide safe mobility and access for the children and youth of his electorate:

Where this goes next will be interesting. We’re in the middle of consultation for the Long Term Plan. Auckland Transport failed to meet the key performance measures on cycling in the last plan, and this draft simply dumbs the measures down for the next ten years, in a way that is inconsistent with the Auckland Climate Plan.

Councillors are also considering the Regional Land Transport Plan, fully aware of the legal risk of signing off on any plan that doesn’t reduce emissions in line with their own Climate Plan’s clear targets. Councillors must choose between a programme which continues to create safety and transport emissions problems, accepting a position that downplays public and active transport’s potential contribution to transport decarbonisation, or insist that there is ample opportunity to decarbonise transport.

When I realised, in January, that the Healthy Streets approach had been removed, I contacted a Councillor, and asked:

Do you know if this was explained to the Councillors, and if there’s any mitigation, eg a separate document or piece of work to replace this?

The Councillor sent a request for information to AT on the 25th January. I followed up with Auckland Transport on the 6th February.

I am yet to see a reply.

Ironically, this change was made during a pandemic, while cities and international organisations were accelerating and promoting plans for enabling better, more healthy uses of the public realm – like recreation, dining, walking and biking. In London, the Healthy Streets approach has helped achieve a focus on health, with designs like this:

Colvestone Crescent, image thanks to Jon Burke, via twitter

If we are to meet the demands of what climate science is telling us we must do to avert an environmental catastrophe, and reduce the impact of the warming world we are already experiencing, our streets will need to look radically different in the coming decades, with many more cooling trees and green spaces, increased opportunities for walking and cycling, and fewer, cleaner, smaller and slower motor vehicles. – Jon Burke

We wrote about the Healthy Streets approach in August 2018, when Auckland Council hosted an Auckland Conversations event on the topic, in which we were lucky enough to hear details first hand from the Healthy Streets approach’s originator, Lucy Saunders.

As Matt wrote:

Unlike some of the more “wishy washy” design guides that end up being ignored by road engineers, Healthy Streets has a series of very specific guidelines that are used to help improve street design outcomes across ten key indicators.

The approach arose, in part, to balance London’s “link and place” concept – which focuses more on space allocation on arterial roads – by broadening the considerations to be more outcomes-focused, and to work for all street types. Our Roads and Streets Framework is also based on “link and place’, although we call it “place and movement.” Removing the “Healthy Streets” approach from the Framework leaves it unbalanced.

Sydney has just released their NSW Movement and Place Framework. Again, they use the Healthy Streets indicators, in combination with the region’s longer-established local objectives.

So were AT never keen on the approach? When Lucy Saunders spoke at the Auckland Conversations event in 2018, Auckland Transport’s CEO Shane Ellison said:

Lucy, can you wave your wand and make it all happen now please? It’d make my job easier… We’ve got a lot of work to do but thankfully we have Council and Central Government and a Board of AT where they are 100% aligned. We have a once in a generation opportunity to make transformational change in Auckland with the funding that’s achieved through ATAP, and which is targeted at almost all parts of the model that Lucy presented. So we are committed to delivering on that. It won’t be easy. Let’s not kid ourselves. I’d like to have the wand. But we’re 100% committed to that.

Lucy would’ve known that it was nothing like a wand required, but sustained support from strong leadership.

So why has this happened? I’ve read the presentation to Council’s Planning Committee that AT made in May last year. There is no mention of Healthy Streets nor its removal. But it does give the rationale for reviewing the Roads and Streets Framework, including (my emphasis):

15. Following the release of the original Framework in 2017 a number of issues emerged, including the potential for additional project costs to be driven by the design elements included in the Framework. This Framework has been revised to address these issues and incorporate the latest international best practice from other similar frameworks.

If the reason for its removal was the cost of the approach, this should have been specifically flagged to Councillors and Local Boards, who may have suggested other ways to approach the situation:

  • We’re in the midst of renewing road renewals contracts. Instead of just renewing the existing layout, contracts could include some of the basic improvements needed for public health.
  • Rather than leave all the improvements up to individual projects to achieve, a tactical low traffic neighbourhood programme for the whole city could be developed. This would raise standards across the city so individual projects could hone in on the remaining indicators that need attention.
  • Council might be able to fund some elements of the healthy streets approach – like water fountains, seats and tree planting, perhaps – from other budgets.

Most fundamentally, there aren’t infinite funds, and a safe system is a bottom line. So is public health. Last year, some Councillors lobbied hard for transport projects that will create greenhouses gases, increase traffic danger, keep people dependent on cars, and pollute our air. Had Auckland Transport been upfront about cost being the reason for taking health out of their design processes, those Councillors would have been confronted with the harsh reality of what their lobbying would achieve: insufficient funds to provide healthy lives for our children and young adults.

Alternatively, if the reason for its removal was that it’s being replaced with best international practice, wonderful. Clearly there are other frameworks available for transforming transport. And one of them could potentially be useful here once adapted to our conditions. I have personally been most impressed by the European SUMP approach, although that starts at a higher level, and would probably quickly hone in on needing something practical, like Healthy Streets.

A simple note explaining this would’ve been fine.

Perhaps more can be gleaned from this paragraph about another change they made during the review of the Roads and Streets Framework:

18. There is a risk that publication of the GIS system containing assessments under the Framework could lead to public comment and disagreement. The likelihood of this is low given the experience of other jurisdictions. The consequence would be a need for stronger communication and explanation. To mitigate this risk we will ensure the map release will only provide the movement and place part of the assessment, with supporting information to explain the outcomes.

Sure, it’s a statement about GIS maps, not Healthy Streets. But it does demonstrate Auckland Transport’s aversion to public discussion. Are we, the public, happy to have information withheld from us due to a (low) risk of “public comment and disagreement”? Or does society need to air and resolve these conflicts, in order to make progress?

What would be normal, in a democracy? In the UK, the Healthy Streets findings are publicly available, despite the obvious “risk” in the way they’ve chosen to aggregate the information into one index. There’s even a recommendation for applying the findings to property and real estate issues:



Auckland Transport said there was support for the revised Framework from Councillors, Local Boards, the AT Māori engagement team, Panuku and the industry. Were these groups each led through the changes and told overtly that the Healthy Streets approach was being removed?

Though disappointing, this change is not such a surprise.

In July 2018, I wrote:

The Statement of Intent has indicated a review:

      Review the Roads and Streets Framework to clarify its emerging financial implications…

Councillors, local boards, advocacy and community groups need to get organised to halt this premature review; it’s a battle of mindsets, and has nothing to do with fiscal prudency.

Auckland Transport’s CEO, Shane Ellison, wrote to assure the mayor on the 27 September 2018:

AT signalled in our proposed SOI that we intended to commence with the review of the Roads and Streets Framework (RASF).

The signalling of this work has resulted in some stakeholders raising concern regarding AT’s commitment to the project…

Please be under no illusion that AT is not committed to the implementation of the RASF, accompanied by the full transport design manual and associated technical specifications. These are considered critical to the safe and effective operation of roads and streets within Auckland and which also have a strong sense of place.

The Healthy Streets approach wasn’t mentioned anywhere in his letter nor in the attached brochure. Nor was there any mention of public health. Yet Auckland Transport is tasked with providing “a transport system that improves wellbeing and liveability.”

A small team at Auckland Transport, called the Healthy Streets and Active Modes team, were specifically engaged to:

support strategic planning for the establishment of Healthy Streets principles and concepts across Auckland Transport. To be considered for this role you will have:
* Experience and technical knowledge of planning for active modes systems or projects and familiarity with Heathy Streets principles and concepts

To elevate health as a priority in the organisation, the leader of this team needed power within the organisation, yet was not put on the Executive Level Team. How can one support the establishment of a new – and clearly controversial – approach, in a change-averse organisation, any other way?

Our need for healthy streets is huge. Our youngest, our eldest, and everyone in between, need quiet streets with fresh air, safety, walkability, nature, freedom. Our streets need to become meeting places for good social health, and attractive for people to bike, walk, scooter, take the bus, or just spend time. This is where our transport investment needs to be, not widening intersections and building new sprawl roads.

There’s no wand required. This just takes leadership and commitment to doing the right thing, one decision at a time.

Auckland Transport:

  1. Why was the Healthy Streets approach removed from the Roads and Streets Framework?
  2. What “best international practice” has it been replaced with?

Share this

75 comments

  1. What does Shane Ellison do, apart from show up to conferences? Does he have any idea of that actual outputs of his organisation?

    1. Its quite a difficult role I imagine, he would be hated on no matter what he does, either by the likes of GA and Bike Auckland or by the likes of residents associations and the anti progress brigade. Then there are the councilors who no doubt promise different things to different people and then blame AT.

      1. Difficult if it was a popularity contest yes, difficult to actually fulfil what is required, not as miuch.

        1. It is a popularity contest when it is in the public realm, I bet if AT really annoyed a large and vocal enough group then they would be punished by council. Even the mayor tries to appease both sides on issues such as speed limits, don’t expect him to back AT if they go all in.

      2. If only there was reams of policy documents and organisation goals he could point to in that case. If only…

      3. My impression is that If he had performed, Greater Auckland would have written about the successes. The public transport ridership increases put in motion by good decisions like the Northern Busway and electrification of the rail system are analysed and referenced here frequently.

      4. In 2018 the government agreed on the adjusted ATAP plan that became even more focused on public transport with a increased share of funds for PT and bikeways and less on roads. Highest on priorities were the NW busway and the light rail to Mangere. Several polls have shown Aucklanders support PT and bikeways.
        But recently the NZTA has brought forward the $1.3 billion Mill Rd project and the $400 million Penlink road project. NZTA is to spend $423 mn on widening Papakura to Drury motorway.
        We still add a measly 4km of cycleways per year
        We have no chance of meeting our emission goals

        1. NZTA didn’t bring them forward, that was the government. So we’re properly screwed if the then government with the Greens at the decision table chose to fund these.

  2. Seems the time is right for the board to be sacked and replaced with a progressive group who will move the organization towards Auckland’s climate goals.

      1. You can’t just fire them all- there has to be due cause. Two new board members were appointed last year including a cycling advocate. From what I understand, it’s an unhealthy environment at board level and senior management. Change is resisted. External pressure is essential.

        1. Wow, Abbie Reynolds sounds amazing. I hope she can start to help turning the supertanker.

          “Abbie Reynolds is a nationally respected advocate for climate change response and sustainability in business. She is chief executive of Predator Free 2050 Ltd and formerly Executive Director of the Sustainable Business Council.

          Abbie’s governance and advisory roles include board member of Sustainable Coastlines and VOYCE – Whakarongo Mai, a member of the government’s Electric Vehicle Leadership Group, the Westpac NZ Sustainability Advisory Panel and a member of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor’s panel on rethinking plastics.

          Abbie’s board member role includes a focus on climate action and transport and will also positively contribute to the council’s overall climate strategy.”

  3. Why it is so difficult for the AT to implement the carbon-zero policy, extra cycleway and so and so?

    It is becoming really frustrating to see zero action plan/goal whereas the overseas countries was able to do it quickly yet here we moving at glacial pace.

    Something not really quite right or they are badly broken?

    1. Broken. They have very little incentive to change, as they keep their jobs when they go for unambitious targets and then don’t even meet those.

  4. Woooo angry comments section.

    And we’re just going to get angrier. I can’t stand the way the documents are great but still, we hear the sirens and wonder if it’s our family hit this time. Cos nothing is changing, despite that safety hoo-ha that happened.

  5. No need to expect anything out of AT: they got no money.

    All you’re going to get out of them for the next few years is a few safety upgrades, AMEI, and inheriting the completed CRL.

    Best for your mental health to really lower your sights.

    1. New Zealand’s carbon budget will be used up in just a few years if we don’t make radical changes immediately. The health of the climate depends on emissions this decade, and the decisions being made that will impact those emissions are being made right now.

      Importantly, the right decisions will free up lots of money, because they are decisions to drop extremely expensive road projects, that are also wasteful, destructive and polluting.

      If they are dropped, there’s plenty of money for changing our streets.

      The choice is: safety, health and climate. Or building roads.

      The only answer I’ve heard is “We can’t change.” But that’s incompetent.

      1. “The only answer I’ve heard is “We can’t change.” But that’s incompetent.”

        Probably cheaper to just golden handshake the old guard out of their jobs and bring in some new blood

      1. Which is a trivial cost compared to all the motorways we are building, and which – traffic calming a dangerous environment – IS something that this blog is supporting. So your point is?

        If you are trying to say “they are doing this, why aren’t you happy”, the answer is that it is too late, too little, and too slow. Any specific project may be great, but if the average is still car-centric BAU, then it’s still a sick organisation.

        1. AT have nothing to do with motorways and I cannot believe that we still have people who do not understand the division of responsibility between AT and NZTA. AT and Auckland Council say that they have no money – that is what prompted my remark.

        2. If Christopher is saying that each of these speed humps comes at a cost of $16k then I completely agree with him. If AT processes result in costs at that level then they are indeed incompetent.
          If you read that thread you will note that Heidi proposed an alternative solution at much less cost.

        3. You are literally letting the system blind you. Our spending nationwide is massively car-dependent. Urban motorways are not independent from transport spending just because they are being paid by NZTA. NZTA by the way also pays for urban roads, and, with their FAR (Funding assistance ratio), for this traffic calming. Spending on motorway sucks funding away from local road and safety improvement, but all we get from you is “its not their responsibility”.

          No. It is. It is up for Council to spend properly to fulfill their safety and climate change and mode shift mandates, and to advocate for proper funding of these at a national level. It is is up to NZTA / MoT to spend properly to fulfill their safety and climate change and mode shift mandates, and to advocate for proper implementation at the local level.

          The fact that we have both sides of the puzzle failing badly (except for some odd projects) is part of the reason we are doing so badly.

    2. It takes less money to use the Road Network Optimisation Programme to optimise Council’s goals than to use it the way they’re using it now, that optimises traffic movement and thus increases traffic, safety risk, and emissions.

      It takes less money to design the Connected Communities without moving kerblines, by reallocating space, than it does to move kerblines and purchase property.

      Proper parking management can both generate significant revenue – while still not internalising all the costs of driving – and create significant reduction in vehicle travel, emissions and injuries.

      It is cheaper to harness the road renewals contracts to make the changes we need then than to have to dig twice.

  6. I am looking at that drive way into what is obviously a carparking area on the Swanson road photo. One thing they did on the recent upgrade of Lambie Road for the Manukau Puhinui Station Airport bus priority was to put bolt on plastic speed bumps on all such driveways. In a line about one metre back from where a vehicle would cross onto the footpath.
    I have to admit I have taken no notice of any of the alphabetic soup of initiatives like this healthy streets thing. I learnt my lesson back in the 1980’s when we got sucked into creating Mission Statement. Next thing everybody got made redundant if I recall. Not that it mattered I got an even better job plus the money. Sometimes its best just to jump to the solutions instead of indulging all this procedural crap. Its getting a bit like education always jumping to the next trendy thing but in this case we are dealing with life and death. So work out what works and try and standardise on it. Still we need to experiment a bit but do it carefully.

    1. You would’ve like the Healthy Streets approach, Royce, because it cuts through the crap and just requires the designers to ask the important questions. Really pragmatic and straightforward.

      AT just didn’t like the answers.

      1. I see Healthy Streets as a big picture sort of thing. But its the detail which makes the difference. Its how we slow a car down at a pinch point or how we get a cycleway across a bus stop that will really make the difference. Speaking of which we only have to wait till June for the Manukau Puhinui Airport link to be operating. I would encourage people to walk the route and observe what has being done. There is very good examples of clever solutions to both of my examples. You will never see them driving past in a car though your mind won’t have time to process them.

    2. My interest in team Mission Statement sessions in directly proportional to how much of a junket is involved.

      Years ago when the entire team flew to Queenstown for a couple of days to work on the mission statement I thought it was a great idea, when we did the session a couple of years later in the seventh floor boardroom not so much.

    3. That Swanson Road image is great. It even has a cyclist standing there wondering where they are supposed to go.

  7. “Last year, some Councillors lobbied hard for transport projects that will create greenhouses gases, increase traffic danger, keep people dependent on cars, and pollute our air.”
    Got some examples of these projects?

    1. Mill Road, there’s over a billion dollars for auto dependency. Papakura to Drury 6-laning takes the total to over $2b.

      1. Care to explain how either of those projects are “auto dependency”?

        Do the bus lanes on Mill Rd give people no choice but to drive? Do the extensive walking and cycling facitilies give people no choice but to drive?

        1. Seriously? This road is enabling even more sprawl, building housing away from jobs and other amenities.

          These suburbs will be car-dependent. While they may enable “choice” in a very limited sense, the urban form they enable will drive their choice towards, unsurprisingly, driving.

        2. I have already had serious rumours from people engaged in the process that there has been a push (probably not successful, but even so) to remove the cycleways from Mill Road, to make the road less expensive. “They can ride on the other roads”. Nothing ever changes.

      2. Both of those are NZTA projects.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending AT and in fact I think that their whole operation should be the subject of a major inquiry with the object of closing it down and integrating it’s operation and duties back into Auckland Council.

        1. The division gets murky though. Many of the roads start as local projects but get picked up by WK when they get too expensive.

          Last year, WK took some of the bigger roads of AT’s hands. AT would have instead made the case for packages of local road improvements and cycling superhighways, if they were doing their work properly.

          Central government’s decision-making is informed by the recommendations coming from AT, and we should be able to expect that advice to be following best practice. Both AT and Council should be advocating for appropriate, sustainable transport investment to support a genuinely compact, healthy, safe and liveable city.

    2. Richard
      Here’s two just in my area.

      Changing of the Esmonde Road bus lane to a T2. Esmonde Road isn’t the problem, it is Lake Road. Bus travel will be slowed; and we are yet to discover whether this will effect every NEX bus; and car travel will be faciliatated.

      And the year before that the Mayor was leading the charge for revitalisation of 40 Anzac that included a car park building . We now know that this car park cost $26.1 plus earthworks, plus land. If you read the research the greatest deterrent to car travel is expensive parking.

      How many kms of bike lanes would this have funded?

      Richard, you are on the wrong side of this argument. The solution does not lie in replacing every fossil fueled car with an EV and it will be BAU. There simply aren’t the resources for this, amongst other things. Already sea bed mining is proposed to ensure that we have enough rare earth metals. The world is going to change and you may have to catch up.

  8. Tom
    So your concern isn’t that that these projects will enable people to safely travel along these roads in a safer and more efficient manner in a variety of different ways, but rather you are against the development of desirable, affordable, higher density housing and new jobs in South Auckland?

    1. it’s a massive new road that will induce massive amounts of new cars, and greenhouse emissions. There’s enough roads in South Auckland (Auckland wide for that matter) as it is. Reallocate road space and intensify current transport corridors.
      it’s not that hard to get your head around.

      1. The current Mill Rd is one lane each way, over capacity, poorly maintained and has dangerous intersections and road sides.
        The project changes this from one general traffic lane each way to one general traffic lane each way, hardly a massive change. The rest of it is a priority lane, be it for buses are T3s and then extensive walking an cycling treatments.

        Add to the fact the city the size of Nelson(something like 140,000 more people) is said to be build down there, I don’t know how you expect the existing road to cope when its already over capacity.

  9. I haven’t seen much progress on enabling children to cycle to school. Politically I thought this had wide support.
    NZTA appear to be providing AT with funding for cycleways.
    https://www.nzta.govt.nz/walking-cycling-and-public-transport/cycling/investing-in-cycling/urban-cycleways-programme/auckland-urban-cycleways-programme/
    But not much is happening. The map linked above shows progress to June 2018. The Avondale-New Lynn cycleway appears to have stalled, and Newton still not started. The AT documentation says they would be establishing a priority list in 2019 but to date there is no list or more importantly a schedule of completion dates on their website. Nothing gets done without a deadline.
    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2020/10/central-auckland-school-fighting-for-nearby-cycleway-upgrade.html
    https://at.govt.nz/cycling-walking/projects-upgrades/

    1. I ride past the construction site for New Lynn – Avondale regularly. They recently demolished the playground in Chalmers Park to make space for grading. It looks like a pretty busy construction site.

      Why do you reckon progress has stalled?

      1. Even on the North Shore with the Northcote to Takapuna cycleway still under construction. They have reached the SH1 overpass on Northcote Road. So it is non-zero progress, however at 5km in a few years it will still take generations until we end up with a viable network of bike lanes.

  10. Mill Rd traffic will pour out onto Flat Bush Rd and Ormiston Rd. They will become gridlocked.
    All our sprawling suburbs cause induced demand and ever increasing circles of congestion. All at high cost for families living there and councils who spend too much on building them and then servicing them.

    1. Traffic growth from population growth isn’t “induced demand”, its just population growth. Induced demand is when you have new trips created from an existing population because travel has becomes easier.

        1. By enabling the 140k new people living down there to use it? Again, that’s population growth. It will however “induce” cyclists, pedestrians, buses and people in T2 or T3 vehicles.

        2. Richard, we have:

          1/ Bad land use planning – such as the greenfields growth in the Auckland Development Strategy. It’s unnecessary because we have ample land for intensification within the built area, and need, for multiple reasons, to do that instead.
          2/ Bad traffic modelling – which is where some types of induced traffic, like the ease of travelling on Mill Rd, are ignored.
          3/ Bad application of the traffic modelling – which should just be used to understand traffic flow at a point in time, but is instead used to calculate TTS between two scenarios – this is a comparison that the flaws in the modelling mean it is incapable of making accurately.
          4/ Bad investment evaluation methods that amplify the earlier flaws.

          These steps are all part of the political economy of car dependence and allow the various industries to continue their road building, automotive industry and greenfields development activities.

          This has been explained before, many times. If you don’t wish to read GA’s many posts on these subjects, take your misinformed comments elsewhere.

        3. Wow, thanks for your abusive trolling comment that completely ignored the question and went on a wild tangent. A great show of intolerance and hate.

        4. Its very far away from cycleable destinations (workplaces, retail, hospitality) and will stay so for our lifetimes or more. Intensification closer in would not be.

          As for bus services. Ah, don’t make me laugh. Densities there won’t support good bus services at our co-funding rates. Also, the bus services will be implemented with a 5-15 year delay compared to the roads (and housing) being opened, because “there’s not enough houses there”. All the downsides of sprawl in transport terms don’t go away because there’s some nice “bus lanes” shown on Mill Road.

          And that assumes that those won’t be “future proofed” instead, and they build it as two normal lanes first, to be more “financially sustainable”.

        5. The quantity demanded of practically every good you can think of is supressed by the supply. The point where a supply curve and demand curve meet is like two blades of a pair of scissors. If you increase the supply of any good the quantity demanded goes up. Increasing the supply of housing increases the quantity demanded, increasing the supply of cinema seats increases the quantity demanded. Same goes for homeless shelters, deep fried fish and ride-on lawn mowers. Saying a road is bad because more people will use it and derive benefit is a weak argument. Saying people should only travel on modes you choose to use is arrogant. Saying people can’t have homes in the southern growth area is downright mean. Shame on you all (except Richard).

        6. 140k — As noted this is the size of a sizeable town. So it should be built it as a proper town then. There are plenty of possibilities for new developments that don’t require driving everywhere. Humans have done this for 1000’s of years. The Dutch figured out how to fit cars in.

          Then it will be easy to justify public transport along Mill Road. You can serve that entire population with only a few stations.

          What are the plans for Mill Road anyway? On the project page it seems it is just a standard 2×2 lane road. There won’t even be separate bike lanes.

          Saying people should only travel on modes you choose to use is arrogant → well this is happening right now, due to only supplying car travel options, everyone has to ‘choose’ driving.

      1. You are correct, but I think why we shouldn’t build mill road is because building such infrastructure out there at all will still induce more car travel than the alternative, increasing density and PT in the existing city limits. Having people live (on average) live closer to their destination will increase the likelihood that they will be able to walk / cycle. Even if all the developments along mill road were highish density (like what we would want in the innerish suburbs), being on average further from destinations will increase the cost of transit regardless of mode, and will produce longer car trips (than the alternative).
        We could incurr that population growth (and spend the associated money) in a different area and produce a better end outcome.

  11. Whatever the planning framework, no excuses for design to ignore health.
    One of the 12 Guiding Principles in the TDM Urban Streets and Roads Design Guide:
    STREETS INFLUENCE OUR HEALTH
    Aucklanders suffer from a deficit of physical activity, which plays a part in growing levels of chronic disease and obesity. Street designs can help people make healthy decisions by supporting walking, cycling and public transport. Street and neighbourhood design play a role in how people move around safely, in their
    exercise and activity levels, and personal wellbeing.

  12. Want to make a real, immediate difference to our use of cars? Triple the cost of petrol at the pump. Not going to be popular, obviously, but I bet it would have immediate effects. I certainly won’t be driving any more if that happened!

    Yes, yes, there would be a huge number of side effects as well, such as businesses going bust, people choosing to work from home, and generally a large re-weighting of many of our priorities, not to mention the gangs (and many others) setting up rackets to steal petrol from cars etc. But you can’t deny it would stop people using cars to such an extent….

    1. I think society will bifurcate.

      Those who can afford it will keep driving.

      Those who can’t will be house-ridden, largely excluded from accessing anything in the city. Things like public transport may help a bit but will only get you so far.

      1. Back when petrol cost 95c per litre people would have thought that would happen if it hit $2.40 per litre, but it didn’t.

        1. Yes but people by and large also didn’t stop driving.

          But seriously, there is currently no other possible outcome. It is so difficult to go anywhere without a car. People just won’t bother.

          And yes we know the solutions. Bike lanes are relatively cheap. We can run more buses. etc, etc. But for some reason these things just stopped happening. Heidi wrote this post for good reason.

  13. Waitakere City Council had plans to reconstruct Ranui Station Road with cycle lanes, speed bumps and low speed limit, making it people and cycle friendly as the main link between the town and the railway station.

    Then the “supercity” happened, and AT took over. They scrapped the cycle lanes, speed bumps and low speed limit, then spent $20 million rebuilding Ranui Station Rd as an exact replica of what was already there.

    AT is good with the big projects, but crap at the smaller local projects.

    1. Great post highlighting what is going on. We need public basic understanding & support behind these type of frameworks. I like this one, seems simple enough for educating en mass.

  14. Thanks for this very full account, Heidi. I wasn’t aware of all the background. Sounds to me as if Shane Ellison’s comment was a giant putdown of Lucy Saunders’ input, and essentially a ‘there’s no way in hell…, you’re asking for the moon’ statement, couched in sexist language. A dismissal. The Healthy Streets approach sounds simple and sensible. We need to know how healthy our streets are. Have you had any answers to your two questions, yet? Most of the comments here are not focussed on the issues you’re talking about, or only obliquely.

  15. Symptomatic of who knows what the hell is going on at AT.
    RSF was such a positive step but started to disappear from visibility or mention pretty shortly after it was presented to such fanfare at places like ACCAB
    If you don’t like the evidence, change the outcome and process so that you can get the evidence you want. And don’t announce it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *