| Archive - these pages are part of the continuing record of Executive Government - for the current Administration, see www.beehive.govt.nz |
The previous chapter has examined the options for enhancing road management practices. Regardless of what options are deemed to be appropriate there needs to be a range of compliance mechanisms to ensure management practices comply with the requirements of the regime. Various mechanisms are available and these are set out in the following table.
| Detailed Legislative Prescription | Licensing | Road Safety System | Performance Based Funding Contract | Health & Safety in Employment Act Approach | Status Quo | |
| Court order and Fines. | * | * | * | |||
| Removal of licence. | * | |||||
| Special audit. | * | * | * | |||
| Imposed special conditions of operation. | * | * | * | * | * | |
| Removal of funding. | * | * | ||||
| Publication of non-performance with National Standards | * | * | * | * | ||
| Intervention at operators expense. | * | * | * | * | ||
| Appointment of a Commissioner | * | |||||
| Suing for civil damages. | * | * | * | * | * | * |
Chapter three outlines the various principles that the Ministry believes should be used when assessing the various options. In reading the table below, reference will need to be made to these principles (see Chapter three).
The following table provides an assessment of how well each option performs against these principles, based upon the Ministry of Transport's experience with these regimes.
It is acknowledged that this is a subjective assessment and it is provided simply to provide assistance in assessing each option as to its suitability to provide New Zealand with safer roads.
| Detailed Legislative Prescription | Licensing | Road Safety System | Performance Based Funding Contract | Health & Safety in Employment Act Approach | Status Quo | |
| Clarity, certainty and practicality | Only for simple systems | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Flexibility | None | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Produce good safety outcomes at reasonable cost | No for complex systems | No | Yes | Yes | Possible | Possible |
| Neutrality between different road controlling authorities | Possible | Possible | Possible | Possible | Possible | No |
| Accountability for good traffic management outcomes | Maybe | Maybe | Yes | Yes | Maybe | Unclear |
| Compatible with NLTS | Difficult because inflexible | Possible | Possible | Possible | Possible | Yes |
Various options for road management have been presented in Chapter 4. Whichever option or mix of options are finally chosen, road controlling authorities will need the power of operational management over the roads they are responsible for. The existing statutory powers and duties of road controlling authorities have been reviewed to check whether they are appropriate or sufficient. For convenience they have been grouped in this chapter into three categories:
Whilst this chapter sets out the powers and duties of road controlling authorities the list is not comprehensive. Comment is invited on the appropriateness of the powers and duties of road controlling authorities set out in this chapter and on other powers and duties that road controlling authorities currently have. A number of specific questions are asked. Comment is also sought on whether the existing powers and duties in legislation are necessary.
In reviewing the powers and duties consideration should be given to the need for:
Safety powers are those powers that road controlling authorities need over the activities of others to help achieve the safe operation of the roads for which they are responsible. Safety duties are the legislative duties a road controlling authority has to ensure public safety.
The Land Transport Law Reform Bill No 2 has been introduced into Parliament to allow road controlling authorities to set speed limits for the safety of all road users by following guidelines and procedures set by the LTSA. It is proposed in this legislation that if a road controlling authority does not follow the correct procedures or applies an inappropriate speed limit the LTSA will have the power to rescind that speed limit.
Pedestrians often require access alongside or across the roading corridor.
The needs of pedestrians with disabilities are recognised by legislation which places a requirement on Transit New Zealand and territorial authorities when forming a road. This requirement seeks to ensure that reasonable and adequate provision is made for the kerb and channel of any footpath so as to permit safe and easy passage from kerb to kerb of any mechanical conveyance normally and lawfully used by a disabled person. Section 331 of the Local Government Act allows the Director-General of Social Welfare to give exemptions from these requirements.
Are these powers still required, or are the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1993 sufficient?
The roading corridor is shared by a number of user groups such as cyclists, car users and heavy motor vehicles.
Currently territorial authorities and Transit New Zealand have powers to:
Should any new legislation be enabling, or should it place a definite duty on the road controlling authorities to provide for these modes of transport?
If road controlling authorities have a duty to provide for each mode should this extend to a requirement to provide separate facilities and, if so, in what cases?
Territorial authorities and Transit New Zealand have the ability to require a land owner to remove, lower or trim any tree or hedge overhanging or overshadowing a road, to prevent damage to the road or obstruct traffic. They do not have the same ability to address these concerns on the grounds of public safety. This need may arise, for example, where the shade from trees could, in winter, cause icing which would make conditions treacherous for road users. (Sections 355 Local Government Act & 55 Transit New Zealand Act)
Should all road controlling authorities have these existing powers?
Is there any need for these powers to be enhanced?
There is a general requirement for all properties to have direct access onto a "public" road or onto a private road which has access to a "public" road (Section 321 Local Government Act). However, where Transit New Zealand or a territorial authority is concerned that the safe operation of an existing road may be compromised through the creation of additional access points (for example, through a subdivision) onto that road, they may declare the road to be a "limited access road" (Section 346 Local Government Act, Section 88-98 Transit New Zealand Act). Such a declaration gives Transit New Zealand or the territorial authority additional control over the approval, design and location of such access points.
Where a landowner is refused access onto a territorial authority limited access road, or is unhappy with the conditions attached to the approval, that landowner may appeal to the Planning Tribunal against the decision of the council. The decision of the Planning Tribunal on any such objection shall be final.
However, there is no right of appeal against a decision by Transit New Zealand on access to one of its limited access roads.
Should all road controlling authorities be able to declare roads to be limited access roads?
Should there be a right of appeal against a road controlling authority declaring a road to be limited access road or should the road controlling authority have the power to make the final decision?
Should State highways be treated any differently or should any differences be based solely on road hierarchy?
The present Transport Act has a wide definition of road, so that Police can enforce road safety laws. We need therefore, to ensure that appropriate provision is made for the Police to have access to all roads to which the regime applies.
Are any changes required?
Road controlling authorities have certain powers to ensure that they can protect their roads from activities that may cause physical damage or may reduce the utility of the roads. Detailed below are those powers that road controlling authorities have for land and asset management.
Under existing legislation road controlling authorities have duties placed upon them to provide for certain types of activities. These duties are also outlined.
Road controlling authorities have power to protect the roads for which they are responsible from damage caused by overweight and/or over dimension vehicles and loads. They also have power to ensure that the safe use of their roads is not jeopardised by the operation of these vehicles.
The provisions for restricting access to roads by weight or dimensions of vehicles are contained in the Transport Act 1962, the Traffic Regulations 1976, and the Heavy Motor Vehicle Regulations 1974. These provisions are confusing and vary depending upon who the road controlling authority is. In addition to the various provisions outlined above, a territorial authority has the ability to make bylaws for either closing a road to all heavy motor vehicles or reducing heavy motor vehicles over a specified weight. This mix of powers can lead to inconsistency and further confusion. Details of these provisions are provided in Appendix two.
Where a person wishes to construct or modify a vehicle in such a way that it does not conform to standard dimensions, the approval of the LTSA must be sought. In giving any approval the LTSA may impose certain conditions including restrictions on where a vehicle may operate.
Where a person wishes to operate a vehicle or transport a load which is over dimension they must obtain a written "over dimension" permit from the Police. The criteria for road controlling this activity is determined by the LTSA and based on safety - to ensure that the vehicle can safely transport the load and that the safety of other road users is not compromised.
If a person wishes to operate a vehicle or transport a load which is in excess of the allowable weight, a written permit must be obtained. "Over weight" permits are issued by Transit New Zealand and approved road controlling authorities for local roads. The criteria for issuing a permit is based upon preventing damage to road infrastructure. In some cases Transit New Zealand may need to restrict vehicles over a certain weight from using a section of road due to:
Pilots may be required to escort overweight and over dimensional vehicles. At present, criteria are set by Transit New Zealand and the LTSA on when a pilot should be used. Transit New Zealand is currently reviewing its requirements so they are more in line with the criteria set by the LTSA.
Is the present process of imposing conditions on the use of over dimension vehicles sufficient to ensure they operate safely?
Should the criteria for both over weight and over dimensional permits be set by one organisation?
Should the issuing of permits also be done by one organisation?
If so, which organisation should have responsibilities in this area?
Does the criteria for deciding when pilots should be used also need to be set by one organisation?
Could there be a simplified system where all that would be required is for pilots to be licensed and made accountable should anything go wrong?
Under section 72 of the Transport Act territorial authorities and Transit New Zealand have bylaw making powers which allow them to control and restrict not only heavy motor vehicles but also stock, the erection of signs etc. These bylaw making powers are covered below (see 6.3.5).
Are these bylaw powers necessary?
Should all road controlling authorities have these powers?
In addition to the powers territorial authorities have for restricting access to roads due to weight and dimension (see Appendix three), they also have the ability to restrict use for environmental reasons such as noise. A number of territorial authorities have used their bylaw making powers to prohibit the use of heavy motor vehicle engine brakes in urban areas.
Are these bylaw powers necessary?
Is the placing of restrictions on the use of roads for environmental reasons more appropriately dealt with through the Resource Management Act?
Legislation dealing with the erection of bus stops and shelters is very prescriptive, especially in terms of detailing the consultative process that is required to erect a bus stop.
The power to erect shelters associated with bus stops and taxi stands is given to territorial authorities under section 339 of the Local Government Act. Similarly section 68 of the Transit New Zealand Act provides Transit New Zealand with powers to construct parking places and other facilities of benefit or advantage to users of the land transport system or for improving public safety.
Current legislation states that the siting of stops, stands, depots, or other facilities required for public passenger transport operations should be in accordance with accepted principles of town planning and sound traffic management (section 594ZZI Local Government Act).
Currently regional councils are responsible for the approval of all bus routes. Some control of the provision of public passenger transport infrastructure could be exercised through approved regional land transport strategies (section 24 Transit New Zealand Act).
Are legislative provisions such as section 339 of the Local Government Act and section 68 of the Transit New Zealand Act necessary?
Should the road controlling authority have the final say over the location of stops, stands or other facilities for public passenger transport?
Who should be responsible for the erection of bus stops?
Protecting land for future roading purposes, or existing roads from inappropriate adjoining land use, can be achieved under the provisions of the RMA (1991). These provisions (see Appendix four) already provide for a neutral regime across all road controlling authorities.
Similarly, the provisions contained in the Public Works Act (1981) allow for all road controlling authorities to compulsorily acquire land provided certain consents are obtained.
Is it appropriate for all road controlling authorities to have access to these provisions?
If road controlling authorities are to be responsible for the condition of the roads under their control, as well as the safety of all road users using those roads, then they must have powers to deal with any situation that has or could result in damage being caused to any section of road. These powers could be similar to those that currently apply to rail service operators and contained in the Rail Safety and Corridor Management Act 1992. A brief outline of some of the provisions contained in that Act is set out in Appendix five.
Is a legislative right to damages necessary?
Do road controlling authorities have sufficient protection under the general law?
Some road controlling authorities have highlighted problems that have arisen as a result of the changes in the management of public utilities. When the present regime was originally developed utilities were almost all publicly owned; many were local authorities themselves. Their rights to use, free of charge, public property such as the road reserve and to dig up the road itself derived from their status as public bodies. Disruption to the public caused by excavations was controlled by negotiation between officials, often within the same organisation, who could also ensure that utilities coordinated their works.
Although the utilities have moved into the private sector they have still retained their rights to the road and the road reserve. However, now that they operate in a fully commercial environment, they are obliged to put the interests of their shareholders before those of road users and rate payers. Territorial authorities find that they have limited power to control a utility company which wishes to assert its rights. One example of a problem arising from this situation is where utility companies are now wanting to erect structures on footpaths rather than face the cost of purchasing adjoining land.
Another common example is where road safety can be compromised by utility companies digging up a stretch of road, often many times in one year. The quality of the pavement once it is reinstated, can also give rise to safety concerns.
These changes in circumstance raise the question as to whether it is appropriate for a privately owned organisation to enjoy the right to occupy the road reserve.
Should the power of road controlling authorities in relation to utility access and activities be modified?
There are other miscellaneous powers that road controlling authorities have that are not strictly related to road safety or land and asset management. This section looks at whether such powers are needed.
In 1992 an amendment was made to the Local Government Act 1974 to deal with the removal, storing and disposal of abandoned vehicles from a road. The objective of the amendment was to streamline the procedures to allow for a more effective and efficient system for the removal of abandoned vehicles.
A territorial authority may authorise any person to remove an abandoned vehicle but, before doing so, that person must notify a member of the Police of their intention to do so.
Should the powers for removing abandoned vehicles be available to all road controlling authorities?
Parking enforcement is carried out for three principle reasons:
A road controlling authority may need to establish no parking areas (eg, clearways, and the marking of double yellow lines, etc.) for the safe flow of traffic. No parking areas may also be established as a means of reducing traffic congestion. This has an environmental as well as a safety benefit.
Road controlling authorities use parking meters to raise revenue.
Parking wardens currently check the status/road worthiness of parked vehicles on behalf of the LTSA and Police. Fines are issued for non-compliance with vehicle safety standards. At present territorial local authorities get 50% of any fines from tickets issued by a parking warden for a stationary offence. Some territorial local authorities operate a diversion scheme whereby the fine is waived if registration is completed within a month.
At present there are three levels of enforcement officers who can deal with parking enforcement activities. There are the Police and territorial authority parking wardens. In the case of the Lyttleton harbour tunnel, there are privately employed traffic officers who have certain powers in relation to road controlling the use of the tunnel. These officers are contracted to Transit New Zealand.
Should checking for stationary offences be carried out by individuals other than the Police?
Should all road controlling authorities have the ability to undertake parking enforcement including issuing tickets for stationary offences and should there be an obligation on them to do so?
Should there be national consistency in the provision of diversion schemes?
Is there scope for rationalising current parking enforcement provisions?
Should all road controlling authorities be able to make bylaws and collect revenue in this area?
If bylaws are not to be used what other powers of enforcement should be available to a road controlling authority?
At the moment road safety data currently flows between territorial authorities, Transit New Zealand, Transfund, LTSA, Police and the Ministry of Transport. This is done for a number of reasons, eg, identification of black spots, funding applications, national provision of crash information etc.
Would a new regime need enhanced provisions for the sharing of road safety data?
Should there be a legislative requirement to provide certain types of data?
Should one agency have an overview of this process?
Bylaws may be made under section 72 of the Transport Act 1962 by territorial authorities or Transit New Zealand in respect of the management of roads under their control. Bylaws may be made for a whole range of purposes including: regulating the weight of loads passing over bridges; prescribing routes for stock; prohibiting any class of traffic; restricting signage; prescribing fines etc.
It is arguable that only public bodies should have access to bylaws, especially where fines are collected for non-compliance.
An alternative approach is that road controlling authorities might be authorised under legislation to do such things as mark roads, place signs, prescribe stock routes subject to the overall guidance of rules made under the Land Transport Act 1993.
Should all road controlling authorities have the power to make bylaws?