The situation: Auckland Transport is in a lonely race to raise speeds on hundreds of local streets (over 1500, in fact) under the new Speed Rule. This is evidently by choice – other cities are taking a more considered and rational approach.
Tuesday’s post covered the last-minute rescue (by advocates) of two pockets of Ponsonby and Manurewa, and the serious questions this raises about the consistency (and transparency) of AT’s approach. We also looked at Homai Station, recently upgraded to get ready for CRL opening. AT worked with the nearby school for blind and low-vision children to ensure accessibility and safety… and is now raising speeds to 50km/h on a quiet dead-end street that links the station to the school.
The impacts of these widespread speed reversals ripple well beyond just schools and neighbourhoods. Today’s post shares some more examples of how they threatens the safe and efficient functioning of the transport system as a whole – undermining investment in CRL, the cycle network and other efforts to free Aucklanders from traffic.
We finish with some wild examples of the signage currently rolling out, which may cause you to question not only AT’s obscure and irregular application of the Speed Rule, but even reality itself. It’s like Project K, again – but at scale, and across the city.
Will anyone pause this slow-mo schemozzle of inconsistencies and unintended consequences – not least, to resolve the legal conflict between AT’s application of the Rule and its statutory duties under the relevant Acts? Stay tuned.
Want to raise your voice on this? Add your name to this petition (and see more options for action here).
Why is AT raising speeds around train stations in town centres?
Last week I found myself in Avondale, where speed reversal signs were already being installed around Avondale Primary School in Road Safety Week no less. (The signs were still blanked out, but the National Speed Limit Register says the new speeds apply from last Thursday 15 May – but as of Monday 19 May, only one of the signs had been unveiled.)
As per AT’s Speed Reversal Map Viewer, these are the 30km/h streets around Avondale Primary School that AT believes it must revert to 50km/h, with brief exceptions on school days only.
What’s striking about this particular set of speed reversals “for school reasons” is that it incudes Layard St, which is the main access to Avondale Train Station. This detail isn’t clear on AT’s map above, so I’ve highlighted it below. Note that these streets are also an ‘on-ramp’ to the citywide cycle network, which gets you off-road to New Lynn, Westgate, the City Centre, Mt Roskill, Onehunga, and more.
Why are these streets going back up? Presumably because AT thinks “school” was a reason for these speed reductions (we can’t be sure, because the consultation material is no longer online). Either way, over 300 children attend this school, so that’s a pretty big impact already.
But at least 1000 people a day also use these streets to get to Avondale Station, at a rough estimate based on the most recent available numbers. And the daily flow of people will be even higher when CRL opens next year.
So the biggest impact of AT’s strict application of the speed rule “because of school” is on thousands of people moving around between the station and town centre. They’ll now cross paths with drivers who’ve been given the official go-ahead – in the name of “productivity” – to drive at 50km/h on these streets.*
* Except in the following time slots. (Can you read this fine print at 30km/h, let alone 50km/h? No? Hold that thought).
Layard Street is also home to a medical centre and new apartments, as well as the school and train station. So the safer speeds in this tightly focused area play a broader local role in safety and quality of life.
Moreover, in 2022 this area got some physical traffic-calming as part of Eke Panuku’s work to uplift Avondale and its growing local population. Crayford St West, which runs downhill past the school, got new planting and raised crossings – not just for school reasons, but explicitly “to improve the safety and street appeal of the connection from the train station to the town centre” and to “increase safety for people walking and cycling”.
The people in question include children, of course, and on weekends as well as weekdays (there’s a cool bike track inside the school grounds). But it also includes thousands of new residents within walking distance. Down on Great North Road, new housing and a community centre are coming to the long-empty ‘Three Guys’ site and apartment buildings are popping up around the racecourse. There’s even more housing (by Kāinga Ora and Ockham) at the other end of the town centre.
This is big-picture stuff. This small pocket of safely walkable 30km/h streets is a key element of Avondale’s redevelopment, and of maximising the value of CRL to reduce congestion on Auckland’s roads.
And now AT is putting these streets back up to 50 km/h, thanks to their reading of the Speed Rule, because “school”.
It’s not just Homai and Avondale: let’s add Meadowbank to the list of perverse outcomes from AT’s speed reversals, with impacts across all modes of transport. Meadowbank Station sits within a quiet, walkable, bikeable, no-exit (for traffic) residential enclave – whose 30km/h streets are about to be raised by AT back to 50km/h, despite local disquiet.
The purple patches are schools, but look what else is in this picture. A train station. A large retirement village. And what’s that green path? Oh, just the biggest investment in cycling infrastructure in Auckland (so far).
Why is Auckland Transport raising speeds around major new bike infrastructure – oh and the NW Busway?
It’s not just Avondale and Meadowbank where AT is rolling back the safe speeds that give safe access to public transport and long-distance bike network – which will have the effect of discouraging uptake, reducing the value of these investments and their decongestion effect.
Check out Te Atatū South, where Te Whau Pathway is currently taking shape and the NW Busway and WX express services are growing ridership by the day.
This area is full of schools, and it’s also full of people who live within cooee of alternatives to driving: the Northwestern Cycleway, Te Whau Pathway , and the Te Atatū interchange for the brand new WX express buses. Raising speeds on these streets back to 50km/h will send people back into cars. Great move.
By the way, one of the purple patches on the map above – with a variable speed zone incoming – is Tirimoana School. The photo below came to us via social media and we have every reason to believe it’s real.
If you’re looking for an even more high-profile examples of speed reversals that will actively undermine investment in alternative modes, check out Pt Chevalier. Long a high-achiever for active modes, its brand new cycleways along the main routes are now attracting even more people to go by bike, and growing local walking and bus use too.
In March, AT’s automatic counter recorded an average 500 bike trips per day on Meola Rd – well on the way to the business case target of 700 bike trips a day in 2028 – plus over 700 walking and scooting trips per day. Note, this counter doesn’t capture the trips at each end of Meola, including primary school travel, shopping trips, and commuters on Pt Chevalier Rd.
Everyday scenes like this are normal now. It looks like the renders.
But AT is set to roll back 30km/h limits across most of the short streets and cul-de-sacs of most of the peninsula. As a community appeal for keeping the 30km/h limits on the quiet local feeder streets puts it: raising speeds is “the equivalent of removing fences and lifeguards from around a brand new and highly popular public swimming pool.”
But wait, there’s more!
If you take a look at the Speed Reversal Viewer, you’re bound to find more examples like the above – and also, a whole lot of quiet self-contained neighbourhoods who have no idea their speeds are about to go back up (Kelston! Balmoral! and more). Because this is happening with zero consultation, and minimal publicity.
The point is that most 30km/h areas, the “reasons” for safer speeds – even if schools happened to be one of them – are an overlapping Venn diagram including residential streets, retirement villages, community requests , access to great new public transport options, and access to new cycling infrastructure. This is a whole transport system issue; and reversing safe speeds is self-harm on an institutional scale.
Is this what anyone wants? Is it even what the former Minister of Transport (and still Minister for Auckland) wanted when he rewrote the Speed Rule?
We’ve called the situation Kafkaesque, and the examples in this week’s posts are just a fraction of the dangerous, disproportionate and downright silly impacts of AT sticking to its early – and increasingly lonely – understanding of the Speed Rule. Knowing that other cities have taken a more reasonable approach, there’s no conceivable reason AT can’t moderate its approach, with the Minister as needed, and with support from elected representatives
Bonus fine print: the illegibility of “variable” school speed signs
So, the safety figleaf in the Speed Rule was the introduction of “variable” 30km/h zones around schools. Leaving aside the fact that this is actually a safety downgrade, because it shrinks safe speeds back to a narrow window of time and space around school gates, and leaves children unprotected for the majority of their journeys to school…
…how does this look and work in practice? And how’s AT going at rolling out these zones? Here are three examples, just from Avondale alone.
The fine print (1): Layard St
Remember the variable speed sign on Layard St outside Avondale Station. Can you recall the time slots when you must drop your speed from 50 km/h to 30km/h? (If you could even read them, that is.) They were:
8.25am – 9.00am
2.55pm – 3.15pm
SCHOOL DAYS
Now check out the signs for the 5-minute parking spots outside Avondale Primary School – photo below from Layard St; there are similar spots on Crayford St West.
It’s hard to read, but the 5-minute parking applies from:
8.30am – 9.15am
2.30pm – 3.15pm
SCHOOL DAYS ONLY
So if you’re a kid who’s getting dropped off a bit late, between 9am and 9.15am, or collected early, between 2.30pm and 2.55pm, you’ll be doing so amidst drivers who’ve been told they can go 50km/h.
The fine print (2): Victor St
If you’re still squinting at the small print on those P5 signs, you’ll want to head to Specsavers before reading on. This is the safe speeds area for reversal around Avondale College, Avondale Intermediate and Rosebank School, which together have a combined roll of over 3700 children and young people.
Here’s a brand new sign outside Avondale College, operative as of Monday 19 May, on Victor St approaching Rosebank Road, as seen from about 20m away. Now imagine you’re going 50 km/h. Can you read it?
Maybe you need to be a bit closer to make out the fine print. Say less than 10 metres. How about now? (At this point, longtime readers may be having flashbacks to 2015, when AT ran into trouble with a new design for street signage that didn’t pass the readability test.)
Still struggling? Okay, here’s how that sign looks when you’re standing right underneath it.
Now a quick pop quiz, without thinking too hard: You’re driving along Victor St. It’s 9am on a Tuesday, You see this sign. How fast should you be going?
Wait, sorry, it’s actually Wednesday. How fast should you be going now?
You may have other questions, such as: why is the sign telling you this after you’ve already driven past the school gate, and are already within 20m of Rosebank Road, a 50km/h street? Great question. You’d have to ask AT.
The fine print (3): Racecourse Parade
Funnily enough, the first signs I spotted in Avondale were on Racecourse Parade, a short cul-de-sac that isn’t part of the existing 30km/h zone. Why does it have new signs? Because a section of Great North Road – the main shopping drag, and a busy bus route – is getting a variable 30km/h limit for short bursts, morning and afternoon, on school days. At all other times, it’ll be 50km/h.
So, this quiet dead-end street has a shiny new sign, for people driving towards Great North Road (see below). According to the sign, you should drive at a stately 30km/h from 8.25 – 9.00am and 2.55 – 3.15pm on school days. The rest of the time, it’s 50km/h (but watch out for the traffic-calming bump-outs ahead).
Even weirder, Racecourse Parade apparently now needs a shiny new 50km/h sign, to remind incoming drivers to speed back up once they’ve escaped the school bubble. And here it is: less than 100m from the end of this dead-end street.
The point is: just as with the safe speeds areas that were saved at the last minute, the process of printing these signs – let alone installing them – should have been a cue for everyone involved to stop and ask: wait, why are we actually doing this? Do we even have to?
Processing...
There’s one change that isn’t being talked about but is potentially going to cost a serious number of deaths and serious injuries, and that is Te Irirangi Drive, which is reverting from a fairly reasonable 60km/h back to the insane 80km/h that it was before the Safe Speeds programme was put in place. If you think people drive badly on that stretch of road now, wait until they do their usual red light running but at speeds of 80-100km/h! People will be dying and their blood will be on Simeon Brown’s (and Chris Bishop’s) hands.
100%, I used to cycle it once a month on Sunday morning while it was still 80 and every time there were crashes from the night before to ride around.
That’s horrifying. Thank you for sharing this example – another location to advocate for, and keep an eye on.
Problem is it’s one of the roads that caused the public angst with the speed reductions in the first place and a small part of the reason we are losing most of the progress on speeds. The public very much do not like the idea of lowering this road I remember reading the data (AT has now hidden) a large majority was against lowering it in the first place (as you know AT did it anyway). Browns vote majority jumped around 8000 votes with the promise to reverse the speeds and Luxon had around a 16,000 vote majority in the electorate covering this road. The data inconveniently tells us the road was no safer at 60 than 80 with no reduction in deaths over the period it was 60. I notice driving it at 60 took significantly longer too (you hit more red lights) so I would say the travel time argument does stack up here too. Besides it’d be nice if we kept the future airport light rail corridor high speed (wait for the arguments to keep the palm trees lol). I generally think these speed increases aren’t actually as bad as the blog here is making out. The rural roads aren’t being raised (which is actually where the vast majority of the deaths you could prevent by lower speed limits were) there’s plenty of deaths in 50 areas sure but when you actually look at how it’s almost always a drunk driver, drugged driver or someone who was ignoring every road rule in the book we can’t pretend like the same thing wouldn’t have happened if the sign said 30 over 50 those sort of people just don’t care. Certainly not bad enough to write 5 articles on in quick succession basically moaning about the same thing and drawing straw man arguments out like complaining about the fact a cul de sack that didn’t need to be lowered legally in the first place is going back up legally. Its still worth noting you are right 50 is more dangerous than 30 but people don’t give a damn about evidence. Many of these 30 zones never had deaths on them before they were lowered because people just used common sense.
I get it you’re locked in an ideological anti car battle with the motorists and you both think that any small thing not going your way is somehow the end of the world and losing the ideological battle to even sacrifice one road even a culdesac where you can’t even get to 50 before it ends YES that’s how insane some of these posts are. Then the motorists are just as bad they think to give 1m, 15secs, anything away, is to lose the ideological battle, even if that battle is an invented one. As someone on the centre of the issue it was funny seeing people complain about the reductions and it has been HILARIOUS seeing some of these arguments and whinging on here trying to stop any single road from going up even if some clearly aren’t safety issues.
do you think someone should check Colah – it’s clearly the same user, just smart enough (surprising for a petrol-huffing cager) to use a non-NSW town/city name this time – into a mental institute? this determination to bully and mock people should be concerning.
then again, the pro-pollution, pro-death establishment actively encourages this sort of vicious mentality. can’t expect better from a de-evolving homo sapiens.
I second that observation, debris everywhere, most Sunday mornings. Not looking forward to seeing and having to negotiate that mess again.
There was nothing wrong with Te Irirangi Drive being 80km/h in the first place. It was originally 100km/h speed limit when it was first built! (before all the traffic lights were put in).
There are few driveways, all major intersections have traffic lights and there are numerous slip lanes to access properties. It is very similar to Albany Expressway (which is also 80km/h) in this respect.
I think you forgot the bit where the problem was it might be too efficient of a speed for this blog to handle, wouldn’t want people getting anywhere by car quickly. I drove it at 80 the other day it felt safe and it was much much faster than 60 you even get more green lights now.
“efficient” lmao nothing about cars is efficient
Righto, troll. Did you ever stop to think (unlikely) that it’s the phasing of the lights that make the real difference to journey times? Or that crash severity at 80km/h is far higher than at 60 – looking at the crash stats, since the speed limits were lowered in 2023 there has been only one serious crash. It’s the seriousness that is the key takeaway.
The road sign lobby is making money hand over fist.
Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 5.9
(1) A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.
(2) A driver must not drive a vehicle on a road that is not marked in lanes at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in half the length of roadway that is visible to the driver.
So at 50kph in optimal conditions part 1 says you need to be able to see about 35m down the road, part 2 says 70m.
40m and 80m respectively if it’s wet and you are on the ball.
How many of these reversals are less than the required sight length, especially when they have curves or blind crests?
AT directors should be in prison for the crossings, especially the Saint Jude Street death-trap, on the New Lynn – Avondale Cycle Path. Adding speed to the equation just makes it worse. I imagine trying to tell a capable independent child how to traverse a cycle path where every crossing has different protection/rules, or no protection/rules. It’s criminal.
See details in this post.
https://rcd.typepad.com/personal/2022/06/avondale-new-lynn-path-first-ride-time-out-2021-22.html
Have the people at AT completely lost their heads? How else to explain the “Alice in blunder land” speed reversal. I sadly predict mayhem, lack of enforcement (how could you enforce unreadable, contradictory signage?) and death/injury
All those streets around Avondale should remain permanently at 30 km/h. They’re not thoroughfares, they’re narrow roads with plenty of traffic calming by design. Victor Street and Layard Street in particular were notorious ran running streets.
And I absolutely agree these variable speed limit signs are just a ridiculous waste of money. The print is so small nobody is going to notice the applicable times while they driving, only those who are highly familiar with these streets. Most drivers only have time to read the big number in the circle.
It’s astounding how anyone in the right mind can justify putting the speeds back up when they were only recently dropped two years ago? Another case of dumb lawmaking and dumb interpretation of that very lawmaking.
General safety requirements for traffic control devices
Traffic control devices, whether used singly or in combination,
must contribute to the safe and effective control of traffic, and
must:
(a) be safe and appropriate for the road, its environment or the
use of the road; and
(b) not dazzle, distract or mislead road users; and
(c) convey a clear and consistent message to road users; and
(d) be placed so as to:
(i) be visible to road users; and
(ii) be legible to road users, if of a type that includes
written words or symbols; and
(iii) allow adequate time for the intended response from
road users; and
(e) comply with the relevant requirements in Schedules 1, 2
and 3; and
(f) be maintained in good repair.
I draw your attention to the Traffic Control Device Rule section 3.1.d.iii
These signs do not comply with the TCD Rule and are therefore unenforceable. The font size and amount of information on the sign is too small to read and contains too much information for a driver travelling at 50kmh to absorb and react to. Therefore the signs do not comply with the rule. It is illegal for AT to put up a sign that does not comply with the TCD Rule.
There have been many instances before where AT has not been able to implement restrictions which are technically feasible under the Road User Rule and other Land Transport legislation but which do not have a corresponding and approved Traffic Control Device. In these cases AT’s position has always been that it cannot implement the restriction due to lack of an approved Traffic Control Device.
Problem is, this sign is an approved Traffic Control Device as it’s specified in the TCD Manual. Whether the sign does in fact comply with all aspects of the rule, feel free to put your best argument forward to NZTA.
I would suggest Greater Auckland (or anyone who wants to appeal a speeding ticket given pursuant to these signs) challenge AT on the legality of the signs with particular reference to the above TCD Rule clause.
Who owns the signage company? Got to be some sort of deal going on there.
Unfortuantely, the project was called ‘Safe School Speeds’, and the project was to reduce speeds around schools to comply with the prevoius statutory requirement under the old rule to reduce speeds to 30 (urban) or 60/variable 60 (Rural) by some point in 2026. AT have no choice here, the rule was specifically written to hit them hardest.
So it’s even harder to understand why AT hasn’t followed the Hamilton/ Dunedin route, given HCC and DCC used virtually identical language (and maps) to consult on safe speeds around schools within a wider local context. See for example:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240507030814/https://hamilton.govt.nz/parking-and-transport/roads/road-safety/safer-speed-limits-around-schools/
https://web.archive.org/web/20241203065804/https://www.dunedin.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/899229/DCC-ISMP-Maps-Appendix-B.pdf
Under the previous rule, the bare minimum would have been to consult on school gate areas only – but Hamilton, Dunedin, and Auckland (and other localities) wisely took the opportunity to ask communities (with schools in) how they felt about safer speeds *beyond just the school gate*.
The results showed broad support for safer speeds in residential areas, regardless of the presence of a school. Hamilton and Dunedin’s approach under the new Speed Rule – which results in keeping their 30km/h areas – has evidently been accepted by NZTA and the Minister.
So AT stands very much alone in insisting it must reduce safety on the streets it controls.
When there are two officially acceptable options, one of which is in line with statutory obligations (and saves lives) and the other of which contravenes them (and costs lives)…
…it is VERY illuminating to see which option a road-controlling authority chooses to jump towards – and in AT’s case, cling to, regardless of emergency exits and knowing it will cause harm.
The “just following the law” defence doesn’t stack up. Simeon may have deliberately wanted to punish Auckland’s children with his Speed Rule but AT’s approach, especially now he is no longer Minister of Transport, is indefensible and shameful.
AT’s leadership chose not to ask the key question “how do we retain as many of our safe speed zones as possible?. Other council’s did just that and have found a pragmatic solution. They consulted in very similar language to AT. Minister Bishop has given them the nod. This is all covered here https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2025/05/14/holding-out-for-a-road-safety-hero/
It is a political, not a legal decision to go ahead with making streets more dangerous. Rather that just letting this happen the Mayor must and can intervene to sort out AT’s mess. It should not have to wait for the first serious injury or death.
Just like the Israeli government, AT does not care about your children. If you cannot afford a tank, you deserve to be dead, and your children have no right to breathe either.
bah humbug
Why is all the hate piling in on AT for this now by Greater Auckland Blog. This writer is even questioning if this is what the Minister wanted. This absolutely all at the demands of the previous Transport Minister and the new one has done nothing to overturn it.
Simpleton Brown even had a bunch of signs up in his electorate crowing about how he was forcing the speed limits back up.
The signs have to comply with the sizes set by the Minister in his Traffic Control Devices Rule not chosen by AT. The speed limits are going up because a majority of the country voted for these evil right wing clowns not because AT wants to put them up.
But this blog would rather blame AT than the government for some reason.
Would it be satisfying if AT took some calcium supplements and grew enough backbone to stand up to the government – hell yeah that would be awesome. BUT it can’t. It is a creature of laws and it is required to be politically neutral. Sticking the middle finger up to government and refusing to do exactly what the Minister demanded they do would be an inherently political move.
The position that AT has no choice but to “follow the law” as a result of changing government priorities is exactly why the Mayor and Chair of the Transport committee hasn’t intervened up to now (it is also AT’s “we are just following orders” defence).
And if you look at the advocacy (from GA and others https://www.bikeauckland.org.nz/let-communities-have-their-say-on-speed-limits-minister-urged-to-remedy-unfair-and-dangerous-speed-rule/) after the list of reversals came out in March it was accepted that the Speed Rule required AT to reverse every safe speed zone around schools. The “pile on” was focused on the Minister and his ability to direct NZTA to allow consultation and/or amend the rule.
However, what changed – and this is the important bit – other councils went public in April with a different approach to retain their zones. Notably Hamilton and Dunedin – councils that consulted using the same language as AT. (AT of course knew this much earlier but kept it quiet from the Mayor, council and the public – just as AT has not been transparent about all the errors in their own assessment).
AT’s has gone out on a limb with an unnecessary and sweeping interpretation of the Speed Rule. Perhaps that was unsurprising when their original legal advice was in the context of wanting to do the right thing by Simeon – as Minister of Transport and Auckland rather than defend their award winning safe speed programme.
So I think you ask a valid question. It needs to be asked whether AT deserves a pile on. When the first fatality happens I think we will look back at this point in time (when signs are going up that don’t even follow NZTA’s guidelines) and say 100% AT’s leadership could have stopped this nonsense but made a political decision to reverse safe speeds.
FYI Here’s the letter that went to the Mayor yesterday explaining exactly why he now urgently needs to intervene to stop AT’s unnecessary, dangerous and wasteful widespread imposition of higher speeds.
https://www.bikeauckland.org.nz/urgent-request-for-mayor-wayne-brown-to-halt-speed-limit-increases/
At the same time the Minister shouldn’t be let off the hook. Sign up here
https://www.bikeauckland.org.nz/sign-the-open-letter-to-the-transport-minister/
During its whole history, AT’s legal approach has been “if it threatens a 1970’s approach to road expansion, it’s legally risky” when what was always needed was “how can we use the law to enable us to deliver a best practice transport system?”
The approaches are like black and white.
The former leads to unnecessary death and injury, the latter to upholding health and wellbeing.
This situation with speeds is just the latest, most egregious example.
Who wouldn’t lose all respect for them for this? We are all negatively impacted.
Btw, Hamilton and Dunedin didn’t use the middle finger. AT doesn’t need to, either.
But they do need to explain why they were such yes-men when Simeon first laid out his evil plans.
Given that AT are now implementing unsafe speeds through Meadowbank, where cycling has increased hugely with the GI2TD path, how can we campaign for the installation of seperated cycle lanes on Meadowbank Road and others as the main feeders to the path? This road is already hugely busy with cars driving and parked both sides, buses, and frequently rail buses, and is not safe for the large number of cyclists now using it with increased speed limits. Numbers have increased hugely during the period of lower speeds – funny how slowing traffic makes people feel safer and more able to use other means of transport….
If cars must be allowed to go faster, the only sensible solution I can see is the removal of parking to allow the installation of seperated cycle lanes.
Every time I’ve been down Meola Rd lately there’s been at least one vehicle parked in the cycleway.