| Archive - these pages are part of the continuing record of Executive Government - for the current Administration, see www.beehive.govt.nz |
The purpose of this paper is to stimulate debate on how to improve the way in which we manage our roads. While there are many good safety and traffic management practices in place today, there is no consistent approach across the roading network in this country.
This document sets out five options for a legal framework that would:
The status quo is also listed as a further option for consideration.
The five options range from a detailed legislative prescriptive regime to one based on the Health and Safety Empolyment Act approach. Some of the options would formalise and expand on some existing practices. It is possible to combine elements of most options. The Ministry does not hold a firm view as to which option or combination of options should ultimatley be adopted.
This paper does not contain specific policy recommendations nor does it deal with questions of funding.
New Zealand's roading legislation comprises two parallel regimes - Part XXI of the Local Government Act 1974 and the Transit New Zealand Act 1989. The approach, in particular that in the Local Government Act, is out dated, contains duplications and is inconsistent. The removal of Transit New Zealand's funding function to Transfund, on 1 July 1996, also raises the question of whether Transit New Zealand still requires a separate legislative regime. In the light of the review of the Local Government Act currently being carried out by the Department of Internal Affairs, it is timely to re-examine the roading provisions of the Local Government Act and those of the Transit New Zealand Act, with a view to consolidating them.
In Transport Directions 1994-1999 the Ministry set a goal to ensure that the transport sector would operate in a commercial environment. One of the initiatives toward achieving this goal was the promotion of private sector investment in, and management of, roading infrastructure. However, a Land Transport Pricing Study report has concluded that the law at present does not cater adequately for the possibility of private sector provision and management of roading. The report recommended that roading legislation should not distinguish between private and public sector roading providers.
While the Transit New Zealand Act requires Transit New Zealand to operate a safe and efficient State highway system, the Local Government Act does not impose a clear duty on territorial authorities to adopt good road and traffic management practices. The fact that much has been achieved in this area, and continues to be achieved, is thanks only to the dedication of key players. However, there are concerns that safety standards are not always as high as is desirable, and that the level of commitment to good traffic management practices varies between road controlling authorities. Privately owned roads open to the public are generally not subject to any safety standards. A mechanism is required to promote a high and consistent standard of safety.
In the strategy document Transport Directions 1994-1999 the Ministry of Transport announced its intention to:
The management of New Zealand's roading system has seen a number of significant structural changes in recent years. In 1989 Transit New Zealand was established to manage the State highways and distribute road funding to local authorities. In the same year local authorities themselves were reorganised, achieving important economies of scale. Since then the system of competitive pricing procedures governing the spending of Transit New Zealand funding has been introduced on State highways and gradually extended to local authority roads. Finally, in July this year, Transit New Zealand's funding function passed to a new agency, Transfund.
Other changes may also arise if the private sector plays a greater role in the provision and management of roading.
Despite the institutional changes that have taken place the law governing roading management has remained largely unchanged. Accordingly, it is timely to review this legislation to determine whether it is still capable of meeting the demands now being placed on it and which could be placed on it in the future.
This discussion paper is intended for members of local authorities, managers in road controlling authorities, traffic engineers and those with an interest in the roading system, in particular road safety. The document focuses on legal issues and management systems, and does not address questions of funding.
Six other discussion documents have recently been circulated by the Ministry. Road funding and such related matters as user charges are being examined in the context of the five part Land Transport Pricing Study (LTPS). The LTPS aims are:
Outside the framework of the LTPS, a Ministry discussion document The investigation and reporting of road accidents was released in March 1996. It outlines the current system of road crash investigation and explores opportunities for improving the system, in particular by extending the jurisdiction of the Transport Accident Investigation Commission to include certain road crashes. Crash investigation is one of the tools of an effective road management system. The actions implemented as part of that review will need to be considered when formulating policy recommendations arising from consultations on this document.
Chapter two discusses current best practice in providing a safe and efficient roading system. It concludes that much has been achieved to date. It notes that the achievements aredue in the main to the pro-active attitudes of key players, as the legislation, in particular that covering local authority roads, largely ignores safety and there is little specific duty placed on managers to adopt good practices. The chapter concludes that it is risky, particularly in view of the trade-offs which some road controlling authorities may face, to leave such matters to chance.
Chapter three reviews the problems identified in the previous chapter and proposes a number of criteria for analysing possible solutions to these problems. Chapter four examines five options for enhancing the road management regime and analyses each in terms of the criteria set out in chapter three. A discussion on the status quo is also provided. Chapter five provides a summary of how well each option measures up against the principles presented in chapter three. The chapter also sets out the compliance mechanisms that could be applied to ensure that our roads are managed safely.
Chapter six provides examples of the powers and duties that road controlling authorities currently have. Consideration should be given to which of these powers and duties will need to be retained, or enhanced, in choosing the most appropriate management regime.
Finally, chapter seven and eight detail how the issues in this document will be progressed and the process for consultation.
The development of a new road management regime will take some time. It is intended that, once submissions on this discussion document have been received, the Ministry, having reviewed submissions on this document, will issue a further discussion paper developing in greater detail the option, or combination of options, to be pursued. The Ministry will then be in a position to develop detailed policy recommendations for the Government.
If you or your organisation wish to make a written submission on any aspect of this Road Management Review Discussion Document, please send your comments by Thursday 31st July 1997 to:
In general terms, it is suggested that a road management regime should be capable of delivering a roading network which offers:
In this context, "efficient" is understood to include the concept of "reasonable cost" so that safety improvements and other improvements (such as capacity) should only be provided when the benefits of providing these improvements outweigh the cost of doing so.
As a first step, this review examines whether the current regime is successfully delivering this level of service.
Over the last few years a number of important initiatives have been taken in the fields of road construction and traffic management to improve the safety of the roading system. These include:
Other initiatives include a greater recognition of safety benefits in the funding process, and the publication of Traffic Safety/ Management Guidelines for road controlling authorities. These initiatives are briefly outlined below:
The Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA), which has a statutory objective to promote safety in land transport at reasonable cost, maintains databases of road crashes, including such details as location and presumed causes. The principal source of information is the Traffic Crash Report filed by the Police. This information is made available to all road controlling authorities.
On the basis of data provided from the Crash Information System databases, sites with a significant crash history (in general, five or more crashes of the same type) are identified as "accident black spots". Every three to five years, depending on the frequency of crashes, a joint crash investigation study is carried out on the roads of each road controlling authority.
A team, often led by an independent consultant and usually including the road controlling authority, and the LTSA, visit all the black spot sites within the area under the control of the authority. The team examines the sites and makes recommendations for low cost remedial work.
The LTSA monitors the effect of the remedial work on the crash sites. It reported recently that this work had been responsible for a crash reduction of 26.2% (a decrease of 2,891 crashes) at the investigated sites, resulting in a saving of around $1 billion in economic costs.
Transit New Zealand has developed a project-based safety audit procedure to be applied to construction works. A guideline setting out the procedure was issued in 1993. The aim of the procedure was to identify potential problems and take measures to eliminate or reduce them. It was further noted that, while accident black spot investigations were beneficial, it was desirable to prevent the crashes happening in the first place.
The procedure provides for an independent audit team to review a project at four stages - identified as Feasibility Study; Project Assessment; Final Design; and Pre-Opening. The guideline document includes checklists of issues to be considered at various stages of the project.
The audit procedure is compulsory for all State highway projects of a value greater than $5,000,000 and is applied to a sample of 20% of other projects. The procedure is not binding on territorial authorities.
There is no provision for special monitoring of an audited project once it is operational. The project could be included in the general crash investigation monitoring undertaken by the LTSA as described above, and in routine post-construction audits carried out by Transit New Zealand.
The Christchurch City Council has developed its own process for auditing traffic engineering projects. This process is based on TNZ guidelines which are derived from UK and Australian models.
It involves audits at five stages of a project:
Manukau City Council has adopted a similar approach.
The safety audit procedures described above apply only to individual projects, and essentially terminate once the project has been completed.
A systems approach (as used in the rail and civil aviation sectors) requires that auditing be continuous: ie that a system be permanently in place to cover not only new projects but also operational matters. Transit New Zealand has in recent years been working on such a system.
Transit New Zealand has developed a "safety management strategy" designed to cover a network of roads as a permanent monitoring process. It is intended to be a comprehensive approach to safety issues, and instruments such as crash investigations and project safety audit will be incorporated into its framework. The strategy is the responsibility of the network management consultants - the contractors responsible for day to day management of the State highways.
The safety management strategy is based on a continuing process of inspections and performance monitoring. It comprises the following main components:
Bidders for network management contracts are required to develop a draft strategy as part of their tender proposals.
In Transit New Zealand's Canterbury district, where a version of the strategy has been in place for some years, an informal network of contacts ("a crash reporting network") has been built up to supplement the information on the LTSA crash database derived from the Traffic Crash Reports. In addition, a system has been established to anticipate the formal black spot investigations by taking low cost action if two crashes with similar characteristics are identified at one site. Problems requiring greater remedial work are reported to the road controlling authority for possible inclusion in future works programmes. The strategy provides for a "deficiency database" listing problem areas to be set up. A copy of a flow chart, setting out this version of the Safety Management Strategy is attached as Appendix one.
A significant difference between this and the project-based safety audit is that this does not rely on external checking, but requires the contractor to perform its own monitoring. This resembles the "safety system" approach used in the rail and aviation sectors.
Proposals for road construction projects are assessed according to a process which takes into account their potential for reducing road crash facilities and injuries. The Statistical value of life used in these calculations was increased by nearly ten fold in April 1991. This has had the effect of giving much greater priority to projects which have road safety benefits. The statistical value of life is updated regularly and now stands at $2.11 million.
The LTSA, in consultation with Transit New Zealand and local authorities, has published a set of voluntary guidelines on best practices in traffic management. It is hoped that these guidelines will improve the quality and consistency of traffic management across the country.
In 1995 there were 581 fatalities, 3,153 serious injuries, and 13,700 minor injuries on New Zealand roads. The total estimated social cost is in the order of $2.9 billion. Road factors (that is, engineering standards, the nature of signage and road furniture and traffic management generally) have been identified as a contributing cause in approximately 10% of road crashes. Therefore road crash statistics can provide an indication as to whether the road management regime, and in particular the measures described above, are successfully delivering a fair level of safety. In 1993 New Zealand ranked 11th out of 24 OECD countries in terms of deaths per 10,000 vehicles with a rate of 2.7, more than twice the top ranking country, the United Kingdom, with a rate of 1.3. There are of course many other causes of road crashes such as speeding and drink driving. Also some countries collect their statistics in a way which shows their performance in a more favourable light. Nevertheless, with a rate so much higher than the best performing country, all factors in crashes, including road factors, require close examination.
Furthermore, the Peer Review on Traffic Enforcement carried out by representatives of Australian State and Federal Police made the following comments on road markings and signage in New Zealand:
"Whilst travelling around both islands, the Group was concerned that the road markings and the signage was less than the standard that Group members were accustomed to in Australia. This included single broken lines going around blind corners and over hills with restricted vision and poor standard of speed limit signs."
Although the statistics show that New Zealand is improving its road safety record, the existing legislative framework presents a number of risks to future performance of this country's roading system. Principally, this arises from the failure of the legislation to place a clear duty on managers involved in infrastructure management (or offer incentives to them) to give priority to safety and good traffic management practices. In fact, the measures described above are thanks only to initiatives taken by some major road controlling authorities. To that extent, these practices are vulnerable to future structural changes. There would be clear benefits in "locking in" these initiatives.
The lack of legal provision for traffic engineering standards can create other problems as well. One example is the inconsistency in the road environment that can be experienced when travelling on similar roads around the country. This often arises from managers and engineers adopting, on similar roads, slightly different approaches to signage, road furniture, shoulder width and traffic management generally. An example of this, which is often encountered, is inconsistent posting of advisory speeds for corners and other hazards. Often the posted speed allows for some margin, but occasionally the posted speed is the absolute maximum.
Each approach may be safe in itself, but the variation between them can confuse motorists and thus create hazards. There would be considerable benefits in imposing a greater degree of consistency between road controlling authorities.
There are a number of other features in the present legal regime which are not helpful to the effective management of the roading system, both now and in the future. These are:
These issues are described in greater detail below.
Provisions governing safety standards and traffic management practices on our roads are a mixture of statutory requirements, regulations, rules, non-binding guidelines and informal requirements tied to funding.
There is no comprehensive body of legal provisions specifying what safe roads are and whose responsibility it is to provide them.
The fragmented and incomplete nature of these provisions contains certain risks. These are:
A single, comprehensive set of provisions would clarify the duties of participants in the sector, and highlight accountabilities more effectively.
It could be argued that a single regime would be inappropriate, as there are a number of institutional differences between Transit New Zealand (a Crown entity), elected local authorities and private sector operators. However, experience elsewhere has shown that a single regime can be applied successfully to all participants in a sector. For example, in civil aviation the requirement to put in place a safety system (described further below), is applied to operators of all sizes, and types, and also includes the Airways Corporation and airport companies. This regime can work because it is flexible as to the nature of the safety system and does not simply impose blanket specifications.
A single regime reduces the risk of inconsistencies and distortions in the sector. An example, in the roading area is that, as mentioned above, Transit New Zealand is required to carry out safety audits on certain categories of project, while other road controlling authorities are not required to do so.
Briefly, the existing legal regime is as follows:
Part XXI of the Local Government Act sets out territorial authorities' roading functions. It does not impose a general duty on territorial authorities to build and provide safe roads. Section 353 (General Safety Provisions as to Roads) appears to relate largely to safety during road repairs. The Local Government Act is quite specific on some aspects of road construction (for example, section 325 on road width and section 329 on gradient), but is silent on others. Overall, it does not provide a comprehensive package of provisions to address road safety.
The Transport Act also contains general provisions, which provide the power for the Minister of Transport to ensure that Transit New Zealand and territorial authorities maintain roads in a safe condition. It provides the Police with the power to take such steps as may be reasonably practicable to eliminate or reduce any hazard to the safety of traffic. The Act also provides for the LTSA to approve the use of traffic control signs, lights, notices and markings for experimental purposes.
Rules may cover a wide range of matters in the land transport sector, in particular relating to technical requirements and standards. These may apply not only to vehicles but to the roading infrastructure. The LTSA plans to begin drafting a Rule on road signs and markings during the 1996-97 financial year. This will incorporate the provisions of the existing Transit New Zealand Road Signs and Marking Manual.
The Safety (Administration) Programme does not provide money for physical road works.
District plans prepared under the Resource Management Act (1991) and roading programmes prepared under the national land transport programme, also contain road safety elements.
A large number of organisations are active in the roading sector, representing both central and local government and voluntary agencies. The functions of such bodies in relation to road management often overlap, while responsibilities are fragmented. As a result, accountabilities can be unclear.
Furthermore, many participants in this sector have non-roading responsibilities. A significant example is that of local authorities who have responsibilities to provide services such as water and sewerage systems and public amenities such as libraries and sports facilities.
In addition local authorities are also often keen to promote the development of their community by encouraging residential and industrial subdivisions or major shopping centres. Indeed, councils have an obligation to provide properly for population growth and have a legitimate interest in promoting employment. Clearly urban development can bring significant benefits in the form of increased jobs and improved community amenities. However, such development usually has significant transport implications.,
One view is that when the expenditure pool is limited, it is appropriate that different needs such as roading, building or public health safety be prioritized by directly elected councils in consultation with citizens through annual plans. The Resource Management Act, process, with its provisions for appeals, provides for balancing transport and other urban development needs.
An alternative view is that pressure to fund local amenities may result in important traffic management initiatives being given a lower priority than desirable from a safety point of view. Furthermore, all urban or commercial development is subject to consent from the relevant local authority, exercising its regulatory functions. Such development has significant transport implications, these may include increased truck traffic near industrial subdivisions, congestion around shopping malls and supermarkets and the impact of new development on aterial roads. Sometimes these implications are not given their proper weight, when the costs and benefits of new development projects are being assessed. These trade-offs confronting councils have the potential to compromise traffic management and safety. The opportunity to recourse to the planning tribunal available under the RMA can be protracted and expensive.
The lack of formal accountabilities has a number of implications. As mentioned above, the traffic implications of a major new development may not be taken into account. A further example is that of the crash reduction studies, whose recommendations are not binding. As at January 1996, the recommended remedial work had been reported as completed at only 64% of sites. Although in some cases it appears that the work was not carried out due to lack of funds, in other cases it has been suggested that the road controlling authority had other priorities. Occasionally the road controlling authority had simply neglected to report the completion of the job.
The principal organisations involved in the provision of road management are:
Amongst other things, the LTSA maintains a database of crash information and assists some road controlling authorities with investigations of sites with a significant history of road accidents ("black spot investigations"). The LTSA also provides some funding for Road Safety Coordinators employed by some territorial authorities. It also contributes funding via the Safety (Administration) Programme to a number of community projects.
In all, there are seven Acts, and various regulations, Rules, standards, guidelines, safety plans and land transport strategies which form the current safety regime of our roads. These are implemented via a range of different organisations. The piecemeal nature of this system has led to a situation where there is no clear accountability and where safety issues may be over looked.
The Local Government Act's roading provisions contain a large amount of detail in some areas and say nothing on other matters that appear to be of at least equal importance. For example, section 319 lists the "General Powers of Councils in respect of Roads". This includes details down to a provision empowering territorial authorities to sell surplus spoil. Other similar provisions are section 330 which empowers a territorial authority to make maps of its roading network, and section 339 which empowers a territorial authority to build bus shelters. These are actions which a territorial authority would be expected to be able to undertake under general powers without being specifically empowered to do so.
The Local Government Act also contains prescriptive provisions such as sections 325 and 329 which specify road width and gradient respectively. The Transit New Zealand Act contains similar detail. The Local Government Act, however, contains little in relation to road safety.
This approach is not only a reflection of an outdated legislative approach but also the consequence of the rather ad hoc way the Acts have developed over a long period.
Current practice is often to specify outcomes in legislation and leave procedures to the discretion of the organisations concerned. The current legislation is generally silent on the matter of outcomes in relation to road safety.
The Ministry of Transport strategy paper Transport Directions 1994-1999 set out a policy goal that the transport sector should operate in a commercial environment to encourage long term cost effective innovation, flexibility, customer service and replacement of assets. A number of measures are proposed to meet this goal, including the divestment (wherever possible and practical) of local authority transport operations and the introduction of National Transport Strategies.
A further measure was the promotion of private sector investment in, and management of, roading infrastructure.
The Government Strategy Statement Toward 2010 stated that "..As the economy grows, pressure on infrastructure will increase. Recognising this the Government has agreed to include land transport as a new strategic priority. Pricing and other policies will be put in place to ensure an efficient level of investment in land transport." The document also noted that "there is scope for private investment in most areas of infrastructure, including some now dominated by public investment, such as roads."
The discussion document Roading As Economic Good released by the Ministry of Transport in December 1995, as part of the Land Transport Pricing Study, included a review of the possibility of private sector involvement in the provision of roading. The document identified the following as possible benefits of private sector management over public sector management:
The document, recognising the benefits that had already been derived through contracting out construction and maintenance, noted that provision and management of roading remained exclusively a public sector responsibility. It suggested that there were benefits from private sector involvement in these areas as well, although it considered that it was unlikely that the private sector would ever play a major role.
The document concluded that these benefits would be achieved only within a regulatory framework which was neutral between the public and private sectors. In other words, a single legal regime should govern the roading activities of territorial authorities, Transit New Zealand and the private sector, to ensure that consistant outcomes are achieved.
It should be noted in passing that land use controls for roading are already largely impartial ("neutral") between public and private sectors (see sections 166 and 167 of the Resource Management Act).
Recently a number of proposals have been floated for the private sector to construct and operate roads. These proposals are being made in areas where the publicly owned network has been perceived as unable to cope with demand. The most serious proposal appears to be the joint announcement of utilities investor Infratil and the Rodney District Council to build a bridge, and approximately 7 kilometres of limited access road, linking the Whangaparaoa Peninsula and the yet to be built extension of Auckland's Northern Motorway. Suggestions are also being made for privately built roads in tourist areas funded by tolls, where the lack of economical traffic volumes is made up for by road users' greater willingness to pay for access.
However, at present, the only specific provision in legislation for privately owned roads relates to roads in subdivisions which are constructed by the property developer and are invariably handed over to the local authority as soon as possible. Aside from this the legislation ignores the possibility of the provision and management of roading by the private sector.
This lack of clarity or certainty is not conducive to the promotion of private sector involvement, as envisaged by Toward 2010. Furthermore, it is not clear what powers if any presently exist to impose safety standards on a privately owned road, if one were established.