Wellington City Council voted last week to write a draft plan for speed management across the city where some main routes would be 40kph, and 80% of routes would drop to 30kph while major routes such as State Highway 1 would likely remain at 50kph.
From here, a full plan will be developed including public consultation and more votes will be brought to council before new limits come into effect. said it came after Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency introduced new speed management rules on May 19.
A report to the council showed that, between 2012 and 2021, there were 3992 injuries on Wellington city’s road network, including 31 deaths and 650 serious injuries.
Almost a third of those involved pedestrians or cyclists. The social cost was estimated at $945m.
It also said the change would mean about $529 million saved due to crash reduction over 40 years. The report suggests 16.3 deaths or serious injuries would be prevented each year.
The changes would cost $44.8 million to implement, and would see traffic travel times increase significantly, according to the report. The lost time would cost people $327m over 40 years.
As reported on stuff.co.nz: https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington/129884656/wellington-city-council-votes-for-plan-to-cut-80-of-citywide-speed-limits-to-30kph
Taupo is now following in reducing most of it’s inner city streets to 30km/h.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300703591/central-taup-speed-limits-to-be-reduced-to-30kph
OOps
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/wellington/132363358/brakes-hit-on-wellington-speed-reduction-plan-after-250m-error-spotted
“Certainly it needs to be corrected in public … I think what I’ve found supports what people instinctively believe, that our streets are not that unsafe. The cost of the extra time travelling at a lower speed is more significant than the reduction in accidents.” Good to see a councillor working for the people rather than ideals. This report had multiple people working on it and was also independently reviewed, yet the gross error was only picked up when a councillor (who opposes the reductions) picked it up? What else is “missed” with these reports and studies?