This week, Stuff revealed that Auckland Transport (AT) spent over $2 million installing seven speed tables (longer speed bumps) in Avondale. A short time later, AT ripped one up again, after residents complained about it causing house-shaking vibrations.
It was a masterclass in how not to do infrastructure, exquisitely timed. Just as the Infrastructure Commission released a draft National Infrastructure Plan warning against exactly these kinds of mistakes, AT provided a textbook example of one.
The draft plan warns against premature project announcements, inadequate business cases, and poor asset management. AT appears to have anticipated these recommendations and done precisely the opposite.
Residents explicitly opposed the speed tables during consultation. AT pressed ahead anyway. When they caused structural vibrations exceeding international thresholds for ‘human comfort’, it quietly removed one. The cost? Over $300,000 per speed table, not including removal costs, which it declined to specify.
Somehow, AT managed to create infrastructure that satisfied nobody. Residents got house-shaking vibrations. Motorists got pointless obstacles. The area’s local councillor called the situation ‘unacceptable’. Even the speed tables must have felt aggrieved, with one of their number demolished barely two years after installation.
This is the same organisation that previously removed two raised crossings in Titirangi for identical reasons, with Auckland mayor Wayne Brown calling it wasted money. AT learned from past mistakes – by perfectly repeating them.
The Commission’s draft plan recommends that infrastructure providers become ‘sophisticated clients’. AT achieved the opposite. It plumbed the depths of unsophistication. It specialised in, and perfected, the art of delivering projects nobody wants.
The draft plan calls for transparent cost reporting. AT quietly conducted a demolition during routine maintenance. While this is less disruptive and costly than a sole-purpose mission, it feels like a homeowner hiding a DIY disaster from neighbours.
The Infrastructure Commission has offered a pathway to better infrastructure outcomes through better planning, consultation, and value for money. AT has offered the alternative: spending millions building infrastructure that residents explicitly oppose, causes structural damage, and ends up being demolished.
Perhaps there is hope. This debacle offers lessons that could help solve New Zealand's infrastructure problems. The sacrifice of unwanted speed tables might not have been in vain.
Nick is a Senior Fellow, focusing on local government, resource management, and economic policy. This article was first published HERE
It was a masterclass in how not to do infrastructure, exquisitely timed. Just as the Infrastructure Commission released a draft National Infrastructure Plan warning against exactly these kinds of mistakes, AT provided a textbook example of one.
The draft plan warns against premature project announcements, inadequate business cases, and poor asset management. AT appears to have anticipated these recommendations and done precisely the opposite.
Residents explicitly opposed the speed tables during consultation. AT pressed ahead anyway. When they caused structural vibrations exceeding international thresholds for ‘human comfort’, it quietly removed one. The cost? Over $300,000 per speed table, not including removal costs, which it declined to specify.
Somehow, AT managed to create infrastructure that satisfied nobody. Residents got house-shaking vibrations. Motorists got pointless obstacles. The area’s local councillor called the situation ‘unacceptable’. Even the speed tables must have felt aggrieved, with one of their number demolished barely two years after installation.
This is the same organisation that previously removed two raised crossings in Titirangi for identical reasons, with Auckland mayor Wayne Brown calling it wasted money. AT learned from past mistakes – by perfectly repeating them.
The Commission’s draft plan recommends that infrastructure providers become ‘sophisticated clients’. AT achieved the opposite. It plumbed the depths of unsophistication. It specialised in, and perfected, the art of delivering projects nobody wants.
The draft plan calls for transparent cost reporting. AT quietly conducted a demolition during routine maintenance. While this is less disruptive and costly than a sole-purpose mission, it feels like a homeowner hiding a DIY disaster from neighbours.
The Infrastructure Commission has offered a pathway to better infrastructure outcomes through better planning, consultation, and value for money. AT has offered the alternative: spending millions building infrastructure that residents explicitly oppose, causes structural damage, and ends up being demolished.
Perhaps there is hope. This debacle offers lessons that could help solve New Zealand's infrastructure problems. The sacrifice of unwanted speed tables might not have been in vain.
Nick is a Senior Fellow, focusing on local government, resource management, and economic policy. This article was first published HERE
3 comments:
If I was going to build a speed bump on my driveway, I would struggle to spend $10,000 on materials and labour.
When AT spends $300,000 on the same bump on a road, where does the other $290,000 go ??
Honestly, where the hell is it ?
It's rinse and repeat in terms of design.
Cones ?
Who's pockets does it go into ?
I really would like an honest answer from somebody with inside knowledge.
Latter day Council staff skills seem confined to
1) the contrivance, promulgation and application of pro maori policies
2) the administrative letting of contracts. Directly employed staff are too unskilled to judge technical aspects. But they think speed bumps and the like are within their grasp. Whilst NZ claims to be low in corruption, the contractors seem indirectly to largely determine the scope. I have been intrigued by the concrete footpath replacement and upgrade programme. Tons and tons of perfect concrete were replaced. Speed bumps and traffic islands seem similarly contractor/cosy consultant led. Many of these have to be redone whenever the road is resealed. Near me a very minor side street crossing a very light intermitted traffic street had Stop signs; two signs and two white lines. Been replaced by a roundabout with scores of metres of line and curb paint. Now 5 islands and14 vulnerable signs!! All the adjacent footpaths and kerbs were remade in extensive concrete (then immediately and repeatedly dug up for infrastructure prompted by building developments adjacent).
As well as many efficency accounting auditor requirements the Auckland Council urgently needs a CO2 generation auditor.
Roadway work is deemed to requires "traffic management". A hundred or so cones at a dollar or so a day plus lazing shepherds for and stop/go sign operators. Also giant modern sign trucks and drivers etc etc.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.