The Condition of Our State Highways

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › The Condition of Our State Highways

1 | 2 | 3

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2708849 18-May-2021 09:55

Jase2985:
Was speaking with a Downer rep the other day about the surface replacement done at the end of the road. They propose the design to council, council either accept that design or they say its too expensive. they go for the cheap option and within 3 weeks the chipseal is de-laminating.

Its exactly as scott3 said "My general feeling is that the NZ approach to roading is to keep short term costs low, rather than looking for the long term optimal soultion."

happens everywere, build a few new motorways in Auckland a 2 lanes each way, within 5 years they are at capacity. Spend the time and a little bit extra money from the get go and make the road base 3 lanes each way wide, and just use the 3rd lane as a hard shoulder/bus only lane. when traffic gets to the poinbt of outgrowing the 2 lanes each way seal and open the 3rd lane. the extra cost is nothing in the scheme of things, but its way less disruption and cost doing it that way then having another year of roadworks while they widen the road.

Short sightedness is all it is. and people complaining at the short term cost with out knowing what it could cost long term.

Years ago, I was motoring in France on holiday. I came across a bridge that was wide enough for 4 lanes but had only the two of the roads we were on.

I asked a French friend why that bridge was extra wide. Her reply was that the new bridges were always built to allow the road to be widened to 4 lanes later because it was cheaper to build the correct width bridge once than build a two lane bridge now, then demolish it and replace it with a four lane bridge in 10 years time.

Always struck me as a sensible approach.

Jase2985

13457 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2708854 18-May-2021 10:09

boosacnoodle:

Jase2985:

happens everywere, build a few new motorways in Auckland a 2 lanes each way, within 5 years they are at capacity. Spend the time and a little bit extra money from the get go and make the road base 3 lanes each way wide, and just use the 3rd lane as a hard shoulder/bus only lane. when traffic gets to the poinbt of outgrowing the 2 lanes each way seal and open the 3rd lane. the extra cost is nothing in the scheme of things, but its way less disruption and cost doing it that way then having another year of roadworks while they widen the road.

Have you heard of "induced demand"?

i never said make it wider to induce demand, i said the option is there should the demand get to the point where it is needed.

Auckland will always be horrible for public transport no matter what you do, its sandwiched between 2 harbours, and is spread out over 51km north to south, over half the land in-between is unbuildable due to hills (waitaks, Whitford, brookby etc) or harbours.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2708855 18-May-2021 10:10

backfiah:

What makes you think we don't have the population to support that? Based on the number of cars I see on SH1 at all times of the day, I don't think it'd be hard to fill up a train if it was fast and reliable (i.e. we invested in the rail infrastructure!).

What makes me think we don't have the population? Several things.

Have a look around the world to see where there is decent intercity/town public transport and have a look at the population densities. I pretty sure you won't find any where the population distribution is like ours.
Take a look at the numbers on the Hamilton Auckland service. Last time I saw them published they weren't all that flash.
If we had the population to support such services we would have them already.

Number of cars on SH1? I'm not sure where you are located and between what points you see these cars but I'll make the following comments.

How far are these drivers travelling. Perhaps their trip is less distance than the drop off/pick up points would be on a train.
How many of these journeys originate or finish along SH1. Do they start or finish some distance from SH1?
How hard to fill a train? I refer to my comment about the Hamilton Auckland service which arguably parallels SH 1 between two large urban centres.

Fast and reliable trains. There in lies another problem which revolves around our narrow gauge railway which isn't suited to fast trains. The investment to change that would be huge.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Jase2985

13457 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2708856 18-May-2021 10:11

Geektastic:

Years ago, I was motoring in France on holiday. I came across a bridge that was wide enough for 4 lanes but had only the two of the roads we were on.

I asked a French friend why that bridge was extra wide. Her reply was that the new bridges were always built to allow the road to be widened to 4 lanes later because it was cheaper to build the correct width bridge once than build a two lane bridge now, then demolish it and replace it with a four lane bridge in 10 years time.

Always struck me as a sensible approach.

Absoluteltly is costs you cents on the dollar to build it wider with the future in mind, as opposed to making it wider at a later date, and that doesnt count the extra disruption it causes.

D1023319

524 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#2708860 18-May-2021 10:18

tdgeek:

Your point is 100% correct but what about funding? Can't increase taxes, can't increase rates

I don't think our taxes or rates are being spent efficiently. Reduce government overheads and political expenditure e.g. on cycleways

Jase2985

13457 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#2708862 18-May-2021 10:18

backfiah:

What makes you think we don't have the population to support that? Based on the number of cars I see on SH1 at all times of the day, I don't think it'd be hard to fill up a train if it was fast and reliable (i.e. we invested in the rail infrastructure!).

47% of NZTA's spend is on new roads at 1.3 billion per year. Imagine if we spent that on track realignment, passing loops, and electrification...

unless the trains go to where people work then its a hard sell for people,

1 bus 1 train and 1 ferry to get me to work. if i walk 3km its 1 bus and 1 ferry. it doesnt work for everyone.

if i could catch public transport that didnt cost me more than driving and it comparible in time i would do it, but its aproximatly $20 per day to catch public transport and it takes 1.5h each way. compared to driving it takes me 30mins in the morning and 35-45 in the afternoon.

It doesnt work for everyone.

backfiah

219 posts

Master Geek

#2708865 18-May-2021 10:32

Technofreak:

What makes me think we don't have the population? Several things.

Have a look around the world to see where there is decent intercity/town public transport and have a look at the population densities. I pretty sure you won't find any where the population distribution is like ours.
Take a look at the numbers on the Hamilton Auckland service. Last time I saw them published they weren't all that flash.
If we had the population to support such services we would have them already.

The population density in Wellington, Kapiti, Palmerston North, Taupo, Hamilton, Auckland is pretty high last I checked. Given the number of people travelling between these places, seems like the demand is there. Who says you need high density all along the route? Lots of lines in Japan go past very small towns across the countryside.
This is the classic example of half-assing something and then being "surprised" when it gets bad results. The Hamilton-Auckland service is a joke, with too few services, too many stops, and the ridiculous transfer point. Imagine if we built a highway in the same way, where you have to get out of your car and transfer to another one halfway along, and you can only use it twice a day at unsociable hours. "Build it and they will come..."
This is just a cop-out. Road transport has been hugely subsidised by the taxpayer (including those who don't drive, of course) for literally *decades*. Rail on the other hand has been ignored and not maintained until very recently. Services are not just going to pop up without investment in them, especially when the government is, for some inexplicable reason, greatly incentivising the use of highly-inefficient and inequitable private transport.

Technofreak:

Number of cars on SH1? I'm not sure where you are located and between what points you see these cars but I'll make the following comments.

How far are these drivers travelling. Perhaps their trip is less distance than the drop off/pick up points would be on a train.
How many of these journeys originate or finish along SH1. Do they start or finish some distance from SH1?
How hard to fill a train? I refer to my comment about the Hamilton Auckland service which arguably parallels SH 1 between two large urban centres.

Fast and reliable trains. There in lies another problem which revolves around our narrow gauge railway which isn't suited to fast trains. The investment to change that would be huge.

Sure - but we're talking about the state highways here, where most trips outside of urban areas are going to be pretty long. A good public transport system will have a main high-speed train which is accompanied by reliable local transport at each stop.
Most of them start and finish very near to SH1, yes. Mostly in the cities it passes through/near. Though the nice thing about trains is you can always add a service to Napier on SH2 or New Plymouth on SH3, too ;)
See earlier. If I offer you a $10 ride from Hamilton to Auckland but it takes 6 hours in my car, you wouldn't take that, so why would you take a half-assed train?

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/nights/audio/2018745426/can-narrow-gauge-rail-support-high-speed-trains

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

backfiah

219 posts

Master Geek

#2708867 18-May-2021 10:33

Jase2985:

unless the trains go to where people work then its a hard sell for people,

1 bus 1 train and 1 ferry to get me to work. if i walk 3km its 1 bus and 1 ferry. it doesnt work for everyone.

if i could catch public transport that didnt cost me more than driving and it comparible in time i would do it, but its aproximatly $20 per day to catch public transport and it takes 1.5h each way. compared to driving it takes me 30mins in the morning and 35-45 in the afternoon.

It doesnt work for everyone.

Agreed! I'm not blaming any individual person here, it's the *system* that is failing us. If we invested properly in public transport, then you would be able to do exactly that (and also improve your quality of life through not dealing with traffic for 1+ hours a day...)

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2708919 18-May-2021 11:38

backfiah:

The population density in Wellington, Kapiti, Palmerston North, Taupo, Hamilton, Auckland is pretty high last I checked. Given the number of people travelling between these places, seems like the demand is there. Who says you need high density all along the route? Lots of lines in Japan go past very small towns across the countryside.
This is the classic example of half-assing something and then being "surprised" when it gets bad results. The Hamilton-Auckland service is a joke, with too few services, too many stops, and the ridiculous transfer point. Imagine if we built a highway in the same way, where you have to get out of your car and transfer to another one halfway along, and you can only use it twice a day at unsociable hours. "Build it and they will come..."
This is just a cop-out. Road transport has been hugely subsidised by the taxpayer (including those who don't drive, of course) for literally *decades*. Rail on the other hand has been ignored and not maintained until very recently. Services are not just going to pop up without investment in them, especially when the government is, for some inexplicable reason, greatly incentivising the use of highly-inefficient and inequitable private transport.

To address your points.

Yes the population density in some of these areas is high by New Zealand standards but not by overseas standards. There is pretty good public transport in the Wellington region, within Auckland and Hamilton, but not between cities and major towns.

I agree there is no need for high density all along a route, but there needs to be sufficient population at either end or at major points along the route to sustain a regular service.
Correct the Hamilton Auckland service is a bit half arsed with it stopping at Papakura, then having to change if you want to go right into Auckland. Too few services is because there isn't the demand. I don't think you can say there's too many stops. There's only two stops between the Hamilton and Papakura.

Unsociable hours? They might seem unsociable to you but those times of the day are to cater for when the bulk of people need to travel. These are pretty standard times of the day for any public transport. Outside these times there isn't sufficient patronage.
Road transport hugely subsidised? Do you have figures to back that up? I don't think the Road Transport Forum would agree.

Yes rail has been and to a large extent is still being ignored.

Compared to rail, bus services are relatively cheap to set up and operate. I've seen private enterprise doing public transport in some parts of the country where there was a demand, but it was only at specific hours between specific destinations, usually around work start and finish times. If there was a viable business there would be operators running regular scheduled services now.

I don't see how the government is incentivising private transport. In fact the reverse could be argued with some of the big subsidies from local and central government for public transport. I pay for services I never use in my rates.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Inphinity

2780 posts

Uber Geek

#2708923 18-May-2021 11:47

Jase2985:

unless the trains go to where people work then its a hard sell for people,

1 bus 1 train and 1 ferry to get me to work. if i walk 3km its 1 bus and 1 ferry. it doesnt work for everyone.

if i could catch public transport that didnt cost me more than driving and it comparible in time i would do it, but its aproximatly $20 per day to catch public transport and it takes 1.5h each way. compared to driving it takes me 30mins in the morning and 35-45 in the afternoon.

It doesnt work for everyone.

Yeah, public transport simply is not viable for me to get to and from work reliably.

The AT journey planner suggests I would have to leave at 4:56pm to arrive by 8:00am the next day for work, with 3 buses and a journey time of approx 1hr 38min (but surprisingly, only $6.80 each way). I could then camp out until 8:18am the next day to return home, a trip that will take 1hr 49min. SO basically, I come in Sunday night, sleep at work all week, and go home Saturday morning.

Or I can drive for 30 - 45minutes each way at a time that suits me.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2708936 18-May-2021 12:17

Jase2985:

Absoluteltly is costs you cents on the dollar to build it wider with the future in mind, as opposed to making it wider at a later date, and that doesnt count the extra disruption it causes.

Right. But it costs I guess twice as much (maybe more, maybe less) to build a bridge twice as wide. If there's no expectation that the traffic will double in the planned lifetime of the bridge, you've just wasted half your money.

With a bit of planning, you could hedge your bets by building a 2-lane bridge now, then later when increased traffic warrants build another 2-lane bridge a few meters away, and use each bridge for one direction of traffic, with a median between the roads leading to each bridge.

However, I believe that *every* bridge on SH1 should be upgraded to (at least) 4 lanes when it is replaced.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2708946 18-May-2021 12:34

backfiah:

Sure - but we're talking about the state highways here, where most trips outside of urban areas are going to be pretty long. A good public transport system will have a main high-speed train which is accompanied by reliable local transport at each stop.
Most of them start and finish very near to SH1, yes. Mostly in the cities it passes through/near. Though the nice thing about trains is you can always add a service to Napier on SH2 or New Plymouth on SH3, too ;)
See earlier. If I offer you a $10 ride from Hamilton to Auckland but it takes 6 hours in my car, you wouldn't take that, so why would you take a half-assed train?

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/nights/audio/2018745426/can-narrow-gauge-rail-support-high-speed-trains

Define pretty long. I'd argue most trips are no more than 30 to 40 km which isn't far.

Agreed good public transport will have a high speed train. Most of our terrain doesn't support the requirements of a high speed train. The article you linked alluded to this problem but understated it.

Reliable public transport at each stop. Once again it needs to be regular and most stops cannot sustain that. The problem is most people will need to drive to the stop. Once they are in their car it takes a lot more incentivisation to get them back onto public transport.
There used to be a passenger rail service to New Plymouth from both Auckland and Wellington many years ago but only once or twice a day certainly not at the regularity needed to entice people away from using a motor car.
The train Between Hamilton and Auckland is definitely half arsed and it's highly subsidised. To make it better to the point it becomes a viable alternative for most people to using their car will cost a lot of money thus requiring a significantly greater subsidy. They'd be much better off running a decent regular bus service to Papakura.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2708953 18-May-2021 12:40

Road transport has been hugely subsidised by the taxpayer (including those who don't drive, of course) for literally *decades*. Rail on the other hand has been ignored and not maintained until very recently.

This is completely untrue. Rail has been protected and subsidised by the government practically from its inception. It used to be illegal for trucks to carry stuff from one city to the next -- all freight had to go by rail. There was huge infrastructure like railways workshops dotted around the country to build and maintain the engines and rolling stock. It's only since the privatisation of Rogernomics that maintenance has been deferred and lines closed. Public transport by rail is also heavily subsidised by local government.

IMO the best thing to do would be to close the railways entirely apart from commuter lines, and replace the tracks with roads. Trucks could then use those roads, which would be well suited to them with easy gradients. Even if the "rail" road was one lane, convoys of trucks could use it in much the same way as trains do now, with the existing sidings as passing locations.

backfiah

219 posts

Master Geek

#2708988 18-May-2021 13:44

frankv:

Road transport has been hugely subsidised by the taxpayer (including those who don't drive, of course) for literally *decades*. Rail on the other hand has been ignored and not maintained until very recently.

This is completely untrue. Rail has been protected and subsidised by the government practically from its inception. It used to be illegal for trucks to carry stuff from one city to the next -- all freight had to go by rail. There was huge infrastructure like railways workshops dotted around the country to build and maintain the engines and rolling stock. It's only since the privatisation of Rogernomics that maintenance has been deferred and lines closed. Public transport by rail is also heavily subsidised by local government.

IMO the best thing to do would be to close the railways entirely apart from commuter lines, and replace the tracks with roads. Trucks could then use those roads, which would be well suited to them with easy gradients. Even if the "rail" road was one lane, convoys of trucks could use it in much the same way as trains do now, with the existing sidings as passing locations.

Rogernomics was literally decades ago at this point ;)

As to your idea - trains are around 5-10x more energy-efficient than trucks per km per tonne of freight. Encouraging *more* trucks instead of fewer will just make our upcoming energy crisis even worse.

K8Toledo

1014 posts

Uber Geek

#2709039 18-May-2021 14:59

Technofreak:

Has anyone else noticed the deteriorating condition of many of our state highways?

We drove the SH5 Napier/Taupo road in October last year and my wife and I both commented on the poor state of that road in some sections. I see recently there is a proposal to reduce the speed limit on that road to 80kph using accident statistics as the reason. Greg Murphy was also in the news regarding SH 5 complaining about the condition of the road and stating the speed limit wasn't the problem. Having seen the state of the road I agree with him and say it's fair to say the condition of the road is a major factor and speed is not necessarily a factor.

SH 5 isn't the only state highway with issues. SH 1 north of Taupo has some issues as well. The new expressway north of Hamilton isn't too flash in places and drew strong criticism from a trucking company owner recently. No doubt there are plenty of other examples fellow Geekzoners are aware of.

SH3 to New Plymouth used to be pretty bad, particularly through the gorge.

I live in Northland. Secondary highways up here would be some of the poorest roads in NZ. Generally unsealed, rough & potholes galore.

Around four years ago a slip closed one lane of the main rd between SH1 & Mangawhai. It took two years for the council to repair it.

Work takes me all over Kaipara region. My car (BMW 530i) requires a wheel balance every 3mths because potholes and stones keep moving the weights around.

Yesterday the front shocks were replaced......to quote my mechanic "they were absolutely blown".

NZ is a small country with limited resources. Roads are very, very, expensive to build and maintain,.

Is the problem a number of heavy trucks on the road especially the trucks over 44 tonnes or is it that the road taxes are not being spent on the roads? I know the truckies complain about how much money they spend on road user charges with the inference they don't get value for money.

Ex truck driver here.

Axle weight matters not so much (gross) weight. The limit for trucks is 6 tons per axle.

HPMV permited combinations (up to 60 ton) are strictly B-Trains and twin steer Truck&Trailer units pulling tri or quad axle trailers. They have a fluoro H on the grill.

Also truck drivers generally whinge & whine more than a two year old. :D

1 | 2 | 3