Truckies say higher speed limits won’t boost freight efficiency

Transport Minister Simeon Brown cited overseas countries with 50 km/h urban speed limits as evidence that his similar policy was reasonable, but omitted the fact that those countries allow municipalities to lower the limit as they see fit.
On Thursday, Brown cited a document sought by the Green Party from the European Transport Safety Council as evidence that 50 km/h was “the standard” across similar countries. But he neglected to read beyond that line, where the document said his proposal was concerning, contradicted scientific consensus, and “would lead to an increase in road crashes, injuries and deaths”.
The countries Brown cited allow local municipalities to lower the European 50 km/h standard, the majority of which have done so. Critics of his proposal, including some local councils, raised concern that his legislation did not include similar local provisions.
Green Party spokesperson for transport Julie Anne Genter pressed Brown on Thursday for evidence backing his drive to raise speed limits nationwide. 
It followed an exchange between the pair last week, in which Associate Minister for Transport Matt Doocey answered on behalf of Brown and cited six overseas countries as evidence the proposition to raise urban speed limits to 50 km/h had good precedent. 
Doocey said of Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Japan, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, “these six countries all have default speed limits of 50 kilometres per hour or more on urban roads”, which is what his Government’s proposal sought to emulate.
Genter challenged Brown this week, backed by information supplied by the European Transport Safety Council. The council said the New Zealand Government’s proposed speed limit changes were concerning, as they “would ignore the scientific evidence of the lifesaving benefits of lower speeds”.
But Brown’s claim that a 50 km/h limit was the standard in these countries was not untrue.
The advice given to Genter said this was the case, as Brown was quick to retort in the House. “I’m happy to table the information that she actually wrote to me about yesterday, which says ‘in Norway, the standard speed limit in urban areas is 50 km/h. In Sweden – ditto. In Denmark – ditto’.”
But this wasn’t the entire picture, as Brown only read partial quotes. Only in the case of Norway was “standard speed limit in urban areas is 50km/h” the end of it; in every other instance, the statement was followed by a clarification that local municipalities could – and often did – mandate a lower speed limit of 30 or 40 km/h. 
Genter agreed it was a matter of what “standard” was understood to mean. In this case, it was a standard baseline, not what you would expect to see driving in to one of these cities.
The document said “more and more European cities have recently reduced the urban default speed limit to 30 km/h including Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam”, and cited data from 40 European cities that linked improved road safety to a 30 km/h limit.
Data from the Brussels region showed a reduction in toxic gases, crashes and noise in the wake of lowered speed limits, all while “journey times were largely unaffected”. 
50 km/h may well have been the “standard” according to these documents, but only because it was a baseline from which local municipalities can revise their own limits. Brown’s rule does the opposite, mandating a higher baseline without the opportunity for local change.
Local councils have expressed concern. In its submission on the policy, Kāpiti Coast District Council wrote “we believe the changes proposed are illogical and irresponsible”. Hamilton City Council pointed out “none of the proposals for reversing speed limit reductions have a safety assessment associated with them.” 
Genter told Newsroom Brown was being “quite disingenuous” by using these six countries to back his claim. “He’s very disparaging of science and data. He’s just going to use any line that seems to support the approach that he’s already committed to taking.”
The current proposal was not what was campaigned on, she said. “National campaigned on reversing speed limit reductions, except where it would be unsafe to do so.” But in the final policy statement on transport, “they have removed the words ‘where it is safe to do so’, and are essentially admitting that that’s not the case”.
The impetus for the speed changes was to do with efficiency and a reduction of travel times, Brown told Newsroom.
“The reality is we need to make sure we’ve got an efficient network, and there’s a range of things that we can do.” Part of this was to raise urban limits to 50 km/h, but further efficiencies were sought on the motorway, where certain sections were slated to rise from 100 to 110 km/h, he said.
However, these efficiencies did not extend to commercial freight operations, as lorries were still capped at 90 km/h.
Transporting NZ chief executive Dom Kalasih said “dead right, it doesn’t directly impact us”. He also admitted rising petrol costs could counteract any efficiencies saved on the road.
For Kalasih, the biggest boon was to be found in overtake rates. As passenger cars were free to travel faster, they could pass large trucks more quickly, lowering the overall time spent in a risky situation. He said it was a “better approach to how the road system is managed”. But on the flip side, the sheer speed could counteract any risk reduction.
Professor Simon Kingham, formerly the chief science advisor to the Ministry of Transport, had an alternative.
Instead of two speed limits, he proposed setting a blanket limit for all vehicles. If drivers were so concerned about the risk of overtaking trucks, setting everyone at the same speed would theoretically bring the overtake rate to zero. 
When asked about this proposition, Brown dismissed it as “quite simplistic”. 
It’s not the first time an idea of Kingham’s has been quashed by the Ministry of Transport. Before his role of chief science advisor was disestablished, Kingham had offered technical advice around the proposal to increase speed limits, but was repeatedly turned down.
He said the decision to raise speed limits “was always completely devoid of evidence, and it’s becoming even more extremely devoid of evidence”.