Future historians may seek to understand why early 21st century New Zealand struggled to get value from its infrastructure spending. They will need to look no further than Auckland's achievement in speed bump construction and subsequent destruction. 
 
This week, Stuff revealed that Auckland Transport (AT) spent over $2 million installing seven speed tables (longer speed bumps) in Avondale. A short time later, AT ripped one up again, after residents complained about it causing house-shaking vibrations.  
 
It was a masterclass in how not to do infrastructure, exquisitely timed. Just as the Infrastructure Commission released a draft National Infrastructure Plan warning against exactly these kinds of mistakes, AT provided a textbook example of one. 
 
The draft plan warns against premature project announcements, inadequate business cases, and poor asset management. AT appears to have anticipated these recommendations and done precisely the opposite. 
 
Residents explicitly opposed the speed tables during consultation. AT pressed ahead anyway. When they caused structural vibrations exceeding international thresholds for ‘human comfort’, it quietly removed one. The cost? Over $300,000 per speed table, not including removal costs, which it declined to specify. 
 
Somehow, AT managed to create infrastructure that satisfied nobody. Residents got house-shaking vibrations. Motorists got pointless obstacles. The area’s local councillor called the situation ‘unacceptable’. Even the speed tables must have felt aggrieved, with one of their number demolished barely two years after installation. 
 
This is the same organisation that previously removed two raised crossings in Titirangi for identical reasons, with Auckland mayor Wayne Brown calling it wasted money. AT learned from past mistakes – by perfectly repeating them. 
 
The Commission’s draft plan recommends that infrastructure providers become ‘sophisticated clients’. AT achieved the opposite. It plumbed the depths of unsophistication. It specialised in, and perfected, the art of delivering projects nobody wants. 
 
The draft plan calls for transparent cost reporting. AT quietly conducted a demolition during routine maintenance. While this is less disruptive and costly than a sole-purpose mission, it feels like a homeowner hiding a DIY disaster from neighbours. 
 
The Infrastructure Commission has offered a pathway to better infrastructure outcomes through better planning, consultation, and value for money. AT has offered the alternative:  spending millions building infrastructure that residents explicitly oppose, causes structural damage, and ends up being demolished. 
 
Perhaps there is hope. This debacle offers lessons that could help solve New Zealand's infrastructure problems. The sacrifice of unwanted speed tables might not have been in vain.