Councils spent millions replacing new road signs after Simeon Brown’s speed limit edict

The transport minister’s decree to increase speed limits around schools came at significant cost to councils, and newly released emails show the extent of the backlash.

Official information requests show five of New Zealand’s largest councils spent $7 million replacing brand new speed limit signs around schools after a 2024 rule change by transport minister Simeon Brown, at almost exactly the same time that senior government ministers were publicly telling those same councils to stop wasting money.

In 2024, then transport minister Simeon Brown wrote to councils around the country to inform them he had signed a new rule which would “deliver on the government’s commitment to reverse blanket speed limit reductions”.

Brown’s rule, known as Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024, was a response to a Labour government policy that introduced a number of changes to lower speed limits around schools and some city centre streets. As the opposition transport spokesperson, Brown launched a successful media campaign against the changes. He framed the slower speed limits as “anti-car ideology” and a hamper on productivity.

In government, Brown took a similarly ideological approach, promoting highway projects with unrealistic cost estimates and changing rules to effectively eliminate all government funding for cycling or walking projects. But none of his transport policies generated as much backlash as his changes to the speed limit rules around schools.

Labour’s previous rule change required councils to bring in 30km/h limits around schools and on many central city streets. Brown’s change was signed in late September 2024 and ordered the reductions to be reversed by July 2026 unless strictly justified by safety evidence.

Councils were required to switch from permanent 30km/h limits near schools to variable limits, which revert to the ordinary road rules outside of school hours. That change was supported by the majority of public submitters but was opposed by several local councils who had just gone to the effort of replacing the signs and were now being ordered to install new ones. Variable signs require LED signing that can change based on the time of day, or static signing with new timetables printed on them. NZTA Waka Kotahi funded 51% of the sign changes, with local councils covering the remainder.

Wellington City Council was required to introduce the new variable limits outside all 81 schools within the city. After receiving Brown’s letter, the council warned the government the changes would cost ratepayers $2.75 million. The final bill to the council came in well over that: $3,963,373, more than $1.2 million above its own estimate. That broke down to roughly $2.3 million on construction, $750,000 connecting new electronic signs to the power grid, and a further $900,824 on project management, design and consultation.

A letter to the Ministry of Transport, signed by then mayor Tory Whanau and chief executive Barbara McKerrow, warned the changes would “have significant implications for our city streets, exacerbating existing road safety issues”. The WCC letter argued that the changes required by Brown would have “the lowest benefits and very low value for money (cost-benefit ratio of 0.1) compared to permanently reduced speed limits around schools (cost-benefit ratio of 10.6)”.

Auckland Council put its share of the direct cost of design, construction and replacing existing signs at $2.53 million. That’s notably smaller than the initial estimate – Auckland Transport warned the public in 2024 that the changes would cost as much as $25m. Whau Local Board member Sarah Paterson-Hamlin was a particularly vocal opponent, writing a letter to Brown stating: “This is a shocking waste of public funds and represents central government overreach, in addition to being unsafe and a step backwards for our environment.”

Christchurch City Council got off comparatively lightly, with a total cost of roughly $87,000. The council’s letter to Brown was mostly concerned about losing the flexibility to tailor speeds street by street. The council argued the new approach “does not take into account safety requirements in all school travel scenarios” and said its preference was “to have the flexibility to assess the best solution for each school in consultation with them”.

In its submission opposing the draft rule, Hutt City Council noted it had already spent roughly $570,000 installing permanent speed limits around 43 suburban schools. According to the council’s response to a request from The Spinoff under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA), it had budgeted $352,000 to replace the signs at Brown’s direction.

“Our council leaders have had a natural reluctance to make the changes as the earlier speed limit reductions were made in the best interest of the safety of children in our city”, a council officer wrote to NZTA. The official council position was that: “Hutt City Council does not support the proposed reversing of speed limits, particularly in school zones and areas with high pedestrian and cyclist demand.”

Staff from Hamilton City Council also opposed the changes. Council documents listed the advantages of Brown’s policy as “none known” but warned that the disadvantages included “risk of the number and severity of crashes increases”. The total cost for Hamilton came to $138,000.

A judicial review brought by the transport advocacy group Movement sought to halt the reversals before they took effect, arguing that the changes would waste even more public money. The High Court declined to grant an injunction in April 2025, and the rollout went ahead.

Analysis by Timothy Welch, an Auckland University lecturer specialising in transport, found that the lower speed limits implemented before Brown’s order caused a 17% reduction in crashes on local streets with reduced limits. On corridors with higher traffic volumes, crashes were down 7%.