There is also another issue here that he has not addressed. How much of the maintanence costs of our roads are caused by road freight and how much of this is covered by their RUCs? All of it? If not then the government (via private motorists) is indeed subsidising road freight and giving it an advantage over other modes. Sound like "screwing the scrum to me"

^^ The argument of whether Road Freight industry pays the cost to repair the damage to roads is a red herring now, it was one 10 years ago and it will always be that way so it therefore is kind of a useless argument.

The reason for this is that for the Road Transport industry to truly cover the cost of damage to the road network, it would suggest the road user charges would have to equate to something ridiculous like $50/kilometre which of course is completely unrealistic and unreasonable. Of course if you wish to promote that argument and have individual vehicles, and therefore companies operating such vehicles, pay their whole share, then bus transport fares, which are typically 50% subsidised anyway, would go up significantly more.

No country in their right mind would charge anywhere near this sort of cost as it would be really detrimental to the economy. If costs were truly paid for by the RT industry, then you can expect a loaf of bread at the supermarket to cost $5/loaf... again, somewhat unrealistic and severely punishes the poor.

Apart from Steve's somewhat imbalanced calculations, conceptually, for a large part of it, he is quite correct and I think the govt has the right idea... and I think it is right for all users of a particular mode of transport as a whole should pay for the total cost to operate the infrastructure they use.

The vast majority of the expenditure on this countries roading network goes on State Highways... Local Roads are part subsidised from the Land Transport Fund as well so only part of local roads get paid for by local ratepayers. Yes, it is still a large amount of cash, but not anywhere near as much as you'd think.

Probably the only area which the govt misses completely is the fact that there are synergies between all modes of transport - rail relies on road, road benefits from rail, sea relies on road/rail and so on. So $500m invested in the rail network 'could' save the road network say $100m/year... yes, year after year... To me that would sound like an excellent return on investment?

The argument of whether Road Freight industry pays the cost to repair the damage to roads is a red herring now, it was one 10 years ago and it will always be that way so it therefore is kind of a useless argument.

I don't agree it's a usless argument it's useful for getting all the facts on the table. The assertation of the roady lobby and indeed the Minister of Transport in this article is that road freight pays it's way and operates without subsidy. Clearly it dosn't it requires private motorists to pay for a portion of the damage it does to our roads in order for it's business to be viable. Therefore as you point out it can't actually operate in a purely commercial basis- it can't actually exist without this subsidy.

That's actually ok with me, of course we need roads and we will always need trucks to move goods and services around. However the main point i'm trying to make here is that Joyce is saying all modes must operate on a commercial basis and his rationale for investing heavily in roads pretty much exclusivly is that road freght already does this. He's being misleading and his policy heavily favours one mode at the expense of others.

Apart from Steve's somewhat imbalanced calculations, conceptually, for a large part of it, he is quite correct and I think the govt has the right idea... and I think it is right for all users of a particular mode of transport as a whole should pay for the total cost to operate the infrastructure they use.

In principle i agree however as you've just said that road freight does not cover the costs it imposes on the infrastructure it uses because this would mean they would have to pay $50 a km. Again that's ok but the point is let's be honest about the facts here Stephen Joyce.

The situation with rail i see as being a bit different at the moment, i would like to see it operate on a commercial basis however it needs some investment pumped into it after decades of neglect. We would hope however that in time it can opertate on a commercial basis.


No country in their right mind would charge anywhere near this sort of cost as it would be really detrimental to the economy. If costs were truly paid for by the RT industry, then you can expect a loaf of bread at the supermarket to cost $5/loaf... again, somewhat unrealistic and severely punishes the poor.

However the thing is costs they incur don't disappear we still have to pay for them we just do it through our fuel taxes. That $50/km still worth of maintanence still has to be paid for. However the difference between the costs they cause and the amount they pay is passed on it still comes out of our wallets. You can either pay more for your loaf of bread or more for your petrol.

Given that in most cities and towns around NZ there is little alternative but to get around in a car this is still punishing the poor isn't it? As you point out there's no getting around it but again let's just admit this is how it is.


Probably the only area which the govt misses completely is the fact that there are synergies between all modes of transport - rail relies on road, road benefits from rail, sea relies on road/rail and so on. So $500m invested in the rail network 'could' save the road network say $100m/year... yes, year after year... To me that would sound like an excellent return on investment?

Yes i agree, what Joyce says is in my opinion correct you want all modes working well and they compilment each other. Like you point out and investment of x amount in rail could save us xx amount in maintanence on our roads by taking some trucks of the roads. Personally I think that's the way to approach it.

However what he says and what he does are two different things and that's the beef i have. He's pushing the idea of getting more freight onto trucks by allowing heavier loads on our roads and pretty much all of the investment in infrastructure going forward is in roading (he's signaled the Kiwirail subsidy will soon be gone).

The vast majority of the expenditure on this countries roading network goes on State Highways... Local Roads are part subsidised from the Land Transport Fund as well so only part of local roads get paid for by local ratepayers. Yes, it is still a large amount of cash, but not anywhere near as much as you'd think.

Yeah i'm aware it's not the full cost of local roads paid for by ratepayers. The figure i have heard is 40% of the cost of local roads is worn by ratepayers however i can't confim this is the case and it does sound quite high. Do you have a figure for the ratepayers contribution to local roads? I would be interested to see what sort of figure it is.

I've done a bit of analysis into the benefits of rail investment compared to road investment - based on a very comprehensive piece of research undertaken by Australian transport academic Todd Litman:

http://transportblog.co.nz/2009/10/26/benefits-of-rail-transit/

Also, the railways was privatised and run as a business with (I assume) a dividend extracted annually and paid to the shareholders. During this time maintenance, capital investment, was neglected.

so to quote Joyce;

The problem for the country with the national rail network is that currently its revenue, once general operating subsidies are excluded, only exceeds the operating costs by about $80 million a year.

There is not enough surplus currently to cover the capital infrastructure renewals we need to keep the network going (something like $200 million a year), let alone further investments we need to make to increase rail's competitiveness.

That really is a damning judgment on a privatised railway? Would he agree it shouldn't have been privatised? Although to be fair I don't know long it has been making a profit, or if it was profitable during public ownership. I have heard that Railways was used as an employment 'sponge' during the Muldoon years so perhaps it need shaking up anyway?

I don't agree it's a usless argument it's useful for getting all the facts on the table. The assertation of the roady lobby and indeed the Minister of Transport in this article is that road freight pays it's way and operates without subsidy. Clearly it dosn't it requires private motorists to pay for a portion of the damage it does to our roads in order for it's business to be viable. Therefore as you point out it can't actually operate in a purely commercial basis- it can't actually exist without this subsidy.

That's actually ok with me, of course we need roads and we will always need trucks to move goods and services around. However the main point i'm trying to make here is that Joyce is saying all modes must operate on a commercial basis and his rationale for investing heavily in roads pretty much exclusivly is that road freght already does this. He's being misleading and his policy heavily favours one mode at the expense of others.

Yes that is true - but I guess the big distorting factor is that people directly don't make private travel on coastal shipping vessels, so we can't reasonably be expected to subsidise the direct costs of running a shipping industry.

The same also holds true for the rail industry, the majority of rail services (barring the suburban services) are freight - the average Joe Public doesn't use most of the rail lines so they too cant be expected to subsidise rail.

But the public can be expected to subsidise roads because almost all of us have to rely on roads for our personal travel.

In principle i agree however as you've just said that road freight does not cover the costs it imposes on the infrastructure it uses because this would mean they would have to pay $50 a km. Again that's ok but the point is let's be honest about the facts here Stephen Joyce.

The situation with rail i see as being a bit different at the moment, i would like to see it operate on a commercial basis however it needs some investment pumped into it after decades of neglect. We would hope however that in time it can opertate on a commercial basis.

It is still hard to determine (and probably impossible).

The majority of the costs in building new roads goes directly to serve private motor vehicle use, rather than supporting the road freight industry. Instead of the Western Ring Route in Auckland being built to allow road freight 'thru-access', I'd rather they siphoned one lane each way off the southern motorway and used it as a dedicated Road-Freight lane - Then we'd see how Aucklanders would really like to spend their money? More expensive motorway upgrades (aka Western Ring Route) or more trains?

The wear that heavy road vehicles create is also misleading since although 1 truck can do as much damage as 1000 cars, you have to remember that you can't expect them to pay 1000 times as much... because there are far more cars than their are trucks. And there are many roads around the country that probably see very little heavy vehicle traffic at all.

In addition, weather also causes a deteoriation in road surface.

I'm not trying to dispel the whole issue here, merely trying to point out that I don't think the maths is quite that simple. It is exceedingly difficult to quantify but my own opinion on the whole is that I think the road transport industry does pay closer to its share of the road maintenance bill than what I think people give it credit - This is only because I personally don't think truck cause the amount of damage as is suggested and that much of it is natural weathering and subsidence.

FWIW however, the one area that is overlooked is the fact that although as mentioned above, most new roading infrastructure is aimed at appeasing the private motorist, the fact is also true that road freight industry users also get benefit from that investment from taxpayers which I agree they don't generally contribute much towards.

However the thing is costs they incur don't disappear we still have to pay for them we just do it through our fuel taxes. That $50/km still worth of maintanence still has to be paid for. However the difference between the costs they cause and the amount they pay is passed on it still comes out of our wallets. You can either pay more for your loaf of bread or more for your petrol.

Given that in most cities and towns around NZ there is little alternative but to get around in a car this is still punishing the poor isn't it? As you point out there's no getting around it but again let's just admit this is how it is.

Yes it does, but poor people generally don't travel around as much so they pay less petrol tax, but they still might eat the same amount so benefit from the cheaper bread price. Rich people travel around more, and use more fuel so pay a greater share of the cost. I know it's still a subsidisation thing of sorts, but probably more beneficial to society to keep food prices down.

Yes i agree, what Joyce says is in my opinion correct you want all modes working well and they compilment each other. Like you point out and investment of x amount in rail could save us xx amount in maintanence on our roads by taking some trucks of the roads. Personally I think that's the way to approach it.

However what he says and what he does are two different things and that's the beef i have. He's pushing the idea of getting more freight onto trucks by allowing heavier loads on our roads and pretty much all of the investment in infrastructure going forward is in roading (he's signaled the Kiwirail subsidy will soon be gone).

Yes, I'm against heavier loads on the roads too - not because it's unpopular with rail proponents, but more because the laws of physics say that if you're in a car and are going to have an accident with a truck, you'd better hope you were in the truck. Having bigger loads only makes this more pronounced.

Yeah i'm aware it's not the full cost of local roads paid for by ratepayers. The figure i have heard is 40% of the cost of local roads is worn by ratepayers however i can't confim this is the case and it does sound quite high. Do you have a figure for the ratepayers contribution to local roads? I would be interested to see what sort of figure it is.

I'll see what I can find. I'm sure that I read somewhere that regional highways (old state highways with plain white shield numbers) are subsidised to 75%, other local roads are up to 50%. Don't quote me on it though.

Yes that is true - but I guess the big distorting factor is that people directly don't make private travel on coastal shipping vessels, so we can't reasonably be expected to subsidise the direct costs of running a shipping industry.

The same also holds true for the rail industry, the majority of rail services (barring the suburban services) are freight - the average Joe Public doesn't use most of the rail lines so they too cant be expected to subsidise rail.

But the public can be expected to subsidise roads because almost all of us have to rely on roads for our personal travel.


It is more likely that the reverse is the case, almost all of us have to rely on roads for our personal travel because roads are subsidised. If they weren't, car transport wouldn't seem as attractive.

It is more likely that the reverse is the case, almost all of us have to rely on roads for our personal travel because roads are subsidised. If they weren't, car transport wouldn't seem as attractive.

Don't think so - I'm sure that the majority of households in NZ would still want to own and run a car, thus requiring roads, even if we had an excellent PT system or even if roading wasn't subsidised by them or even if the cost to run a car was double or triple what it is now. Okay, I'm not necessarily talking about the daily trudge to work and back, but to go to the beach on the weekend, to go to a mates place for the rugby, to go hiking up in the mountains, to go skiing, to take the dog to the vet... and so on.

Don't think so - I'm sure that the majority of households in NZ would still want to own and run a car, thus requiring roads, even if we had an excellent PT system or even if roading wasn't subsidised by them or even if the cost to run a car was double or triple what it is now. Okay, I'm not necessarily talking about the daily trudge to work and back, but to go to the beach on the weekend, to go to a mates place for the rugby, to go hiking up in the mountains, to go skiing, to take the dog to the vet... and so on.

I completely agree. Most of us will continue to use cars. That doesn't take away the fact that cars are dominant in Auckland because they are subsidised.

I completely agree. Most of us will continue to use cars. That doesn't take away the fact that cars are dominant in Auckland because they are subsidised.

But given that there are only 6.7% of households in Auckland without access to a Motor Vehicle, (2006 census). The remaining 93.3% appear happy to continue to pay for some of their local roads out of local rates, and see roads as a core function of Local government.

But given that there are only 6.7% of households in Auckland without access to a Motor Vehicle, (2006 census). The remaining 93.3% appear happy to continue to pay for some of their local roads out of local rates, and see roads as a core function of Local government.

I own a motorcycle (and so I am part of the 93.3%), because there isn't much to private transport. I see public transport as a core function of local government. I am not happy to pay for either via local rates, and would prefer to see the user pay.

Somoething someone said about Nelson roads got me thinking, do the number of multilane roads in a city tell a story (metaphorically speaking)? Probably not, but quite interesting all the same, they can make places seem bigger or smaller than they actually are. A few counts, probably slightly wrong

Invercargill used to have 10-12+ or so from memory but a lot are just single-lane with cycle-lanes and massive median strips now. Used to get a whole lane to yourself on some of them.

Tay St/The Crescent, Clyde St, Dee St/North Road, Queens Drive, Ellis Rd, Bainfield Rd, Tweed St are all currently multilane.
Racecourse Road/Rockdale Rd, Herbert St, Yarrow St, Regent St, Bluff Road, probably one or two others were until recently.

Dunedin has about the same; Princess St, Wharf St/Portsmouth Dr, Andersons Bay Rd, Stuart St, Queens Gardens, Cumberland St, plus some of the other one-way streets are two-three lanes.

Whangarei has.....

Western Hills Drive
Riverside Drive
A small part of Kamo Road, only about 250m.

I suspect topography is also a major feature with road width. As a general impression, towns/cities on plains tend to have wider roads (and the potential for more lanes) than hillier settlements, e.g. in the latter case, Wellington and Dunedin have both adapted inner city streets into one way systems but most city streets aren't that wide, motorways excepted.

It would be interesting to see which city/urban area has the most kilometres of multilane road, including motorways in relation to the population?

I would think Invercargill would top the list, even if it has lost many of theirs to some council hogwash idea of making them only two lanes for the benefit of the cyclists.

Nelson only has a very very short stretch on Haven Road, plus a small bit on the approach to a roundabout on Whakatu Dr.

Surely Ashburton would have to hold the record of being the only town/city in NZ which has a 4-lane road that is NOT a state highway while at the same time, all of the state highways passing through the town are only 2-lane. WTF?

(Update: Looking at Google Maps, it appears that the three 4-lane roads that ashburton had are all now median-divided 2-lane roads. Ashburton had a total length of 3.1km of 4 lane roads, now it has none.)

Invercargill or Palmerston North (14km) would have the most multilane roads per capita I think.
Of the major urban areas I would say Christchurch by quite a shot.
Auckland seems to have relatively few multi lane (not counting roads with buslanes) for it's population and traffic.

NZ cities generally have far fewer multi lane roads than Australian or N.American countries. Even European cities seem to have more generally (with the exception of the UK and Ierland which appear to have far less than cities in continental Europe).

Hastings has only 700m of 4-lane road, and it isn't even a divided road.
Just down the road in Napier, they have 8.8km of it with all of it divided.

Note that I included all bits that are 4-lane including approaches to intersections as long as an individual approach is a minimum of 200m and is identifiable on Google Maps.

Others are:

Gisborne=2.5km (now only 2L divided)
Ashburton=3.1km (now only 2L divided)
Te Puke=0.7km
Rotorua=11.6km
Taupo=0.5km
Hastings=0.7km
Napier=8.8km
Nelson=0.7km
Tauranga=21.31km
Christchurch=53.6km
Rolleston=0.4km

I might have missed some of course, and some in some towns might actually be only 2L roads now.

I'm surprised at Hastings, I've never actually been through the place but I imagined it would have a lot of them....sort of like a smaller Palmerston North.
I just tried to work out how many kilometres of four lane roadway Whangarei has, looks like it's about 4.5 - 5.0km.

How many does the Auckland Urban Area have I wonder... including Motorways? Anyone have a few hours time to google map it?

Done some google earth ruler measurements;

Invercargill currently has approximately 20.7km of multi-lane road. Including the streets I recall being multi-lane previously, it would have had approximately 30km with decreases beginning about 6 years ago.

Dunedin (including 10.3km of motorway) has about 19.8km.

Christchurch has already been mentioned (53.6km)

Interestingly, Balclutha in South Otago has two southbound lanes in one direction for about 1km on Clyde St.

some very interesting statistics...

Hamilton has 19.2km with much of that Non-Divided, that is, squeezing 4 lanes on one carriageway with often just a yellow line or narrow painted median.

This means Inver's has the same even though it has less than a third of its population. Maybe Invercargill doesn't need them.

I think that's probably fair to assume :lol:
not yet at least

Multi-lane roads, where not necessary, have a lot of negative effects. They encourage faster driving (making roads less safe), they make life very unfriendly for pedestrians, they eat up valuable land... and so forth.

I think Invercargill is very smart narrowing down some of its roads to make life easier for cyclists.

^^
How would you respond to the argument that building wide roads is good, even when they are not needed, because it is thinking ahead.

Many of the streets in Invers that were formally multilane are basically large suburban boulevards, so no they definitely didn't warrant it lol.

^^
How would you respond to the argument that building wide roads is good, even when they are not needed, because it is thinking ahead.

Well I am generally of the opinion that widening roads doesn't do much to fix congestion (it just induces more traffic), so I don't think there's any point in forward thinking in that respect.

Probably one of the reasons why there are hardly any roads in Nelson that are multi laned is because the council thinks that by spending millions on either upgrading or building new cycleways that it will curb Nelson's horrendous traffic problems. That and the lack of decent public transport or decent road management (anyone know why there are so godamn many roundabouts in Nelson?) would contribute to the traffic problems.

I wish we had a better council.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/themes/0/images/nzheraldlogo.gif
By Alanah May Eriksen

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3317/3603186568_11900ae251.jpg

St John has doubled the number of new ambulances it buys as more patients are treated and the number of incidents attended soars.

Twenty-four high-tech vehicles, which cost about $200,000 each including medical equipment, were added to the northern region's fleet in the 2008-9 financial year.

Eighteen more were approved for the current year, and most of these are now in operation.

St John northern regional operations manager Gary Salmon said the high number of new units purchased was required to replace the ageing vehicles that had travelled more than 400,000km each.

"The arrival of these vehicles significantly boosts morale among our frontline crews."

He said once the new ambulances had been distributed to some of the 44 stations in the region - around Auckland, Northland, Hauraki and Coromandel - annual replacement numbers were expected to return to normal - usually between 12 and 14 vehicles.

The new ambulance are Mercedes-Benz Sprinters, fitted with state-of-the-art Stryker brand stretchers.

These are widely used throughout the world and can be lowered and lifted to varying heights.

The ambulances included all the latest safety features for patients, Mr Salmon said.

All new ambulances have computers which transfer incident data between the vehicle and the St John communications centre - "like a big pager", he said.

They also have vehicle locators so the communications centre knows where the ambulance is.

Five of the new ambulances were van-style units rather than the usual chassis cab vehicles and held one stretcher instead of the usual two.

They include seats for crew, positioned so they can treat patients while wearing seat belts.

St John tested a prototype unit, first in Auckland and then around the country for a year.

It says the unites have proved popular with ambulance officers.

In the 2008-9 financial year, St John treated and transported 356,562 patients, 42 per cent of them in the northern region.

This was more than 13,000 above last year.

The service attended 295,311 emergency incidents, 20,000 more than in the previous year.

The vehicles were purchased by St John, using a grant from the Lion Foundation.

FIRST AID LOG

St John Ambulances:

* Travelled 16.4 million km in the 2008-9 financial year
* 38 per cent of travel was in the northern region
* 66,800km more than last year
* Treated and transported 356,562 patients
* Attended 295,311 emergency incidents

Funny that. I've seen only a couple of new Sprinters in Nelson. Most of the new ambulances here are actually Fiat Ducatos.

Haast-Hollyford road 'not feasible'

Hopes that the Government would fund a road from Haast to Hollyford Valley in the near future have been dashed.

Economic Development Minister Gerry Brownlee yesterday said there were no immediate plans to proceed with the project.

Southland District Mayor Frana Cardno said the economic climate meant it was not feasible for the Government to contribute vast amounts of money to constructing the road.

Invercargill MP Eric Roy said he supported the idea of building the road, but the Government "couldn't do everything at the same time".

http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/3248193/Haast-Hollyford-road-not-feasible

Heavier trucks move attackedNZPA April 1, 2010, 6:54 am



A move to extend the weight carrying capacity of heavy trucks is "dangerous and wasteful", says motor industry commentator Clive Matthew-Wilson.

Commenting after the Government announced yesterday that it would allow trucks of up to 53 tonnes on public roads, Mr Matthew-Wilson, editor of the Dog and Lemon Guide, said the move was "insane".

A transport rule change, set to take effect on May 1, allows for trucks with the required permits to boost their loads from 44 tonnes to 53 tonnes on specified routes.

Transport Minister Steven Joyce said the Land Transport Rule: Vehicle Dimensions and Mass Amendment 2010 allowed the development of a permit regime for 'high productivity vehicles" to increase their capacity, and there would also be provision to allow for loads above 53 tonnes under specific circumstances.

It would not mean trucks would be wider or higher, but some would be longer.

Mr Matthew-Wilson said that not only was this incredibly wasteful of energy, it was also a serious risk to other motorists.

"One in five trucks were found to have brake faults in 2007, and the larger the truck, the harder it is to stop," he said.

"Trucks make up only 4 percent of the vehicle fleet but cause 16 percent of all road deaths. This risk is only going to rise with larger trucks."

Mr Matthew-Wilson said claims that larger trucks were part of the Government's energy-saving strategy were wrong.

"The Government's own figures show that transporting goods by rail is over five times more efficient that transporting goods by truck," he said.

Mr Joyce said New Zealand's freight task was forecast to increase by 70 to 75 percent over the next 25 years. Rail and coastal shipping would play an increasingly important role in meeting that task, but the bulk of the increase was expected to be carried on roads.

The Green Party said the move would not lower the road toll and would compromise the viability of rail and shipping.

Green Party spokesman Gareth Hughes said the involvement of trucks in road deaths was high and way out of proportion with other vehicles, and increasing the number of heavier trucks would add to the danger.

The increased weight would also be damaging to New Zealand's roading network and leave extra expenses to ratepayers which would not be covered by increased road user charges.

"Neither will they cover the upgrading of hundreds of bridges in our road network to accommodate the increased loads," Mr Hughes said.

He said KiwiRail had estimated it would lose 12 percent of its freight tonnes because of the move to heavier trucks, yet there didn't appear to be any analysis from the Government on how the safer and more sustainable forms of freight transport, such as rail and shipping, would be affected.

Mr Joyce said productivity gains of between 10 and 20 percent could be achieved by using fewer trucks to carry a given amount of freight.

This latest trucking move goes further than the previous enlargement proposal. It's only a matter of time before we get an 18-wheeled Tangiwai.

At the end of the day, it has little to do with "economic efficiency" and much to do with Prostetnic Vogon Joyce's cosiness with the trucking lobby.

I hope the RTF is reading this...

Truck driver charged over tourist's death (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3550154/Truck-driver-charged-over-tourists-death)

A truck driver has been charged over the death of a German tourist, who was killed while cycling in the Manawatu.

Mia Pusch, 19, who had been backpacking through New Zealand, died on January 5 after being hit by a truck while riding along State Highway 3 near Bulls.

A 66-year-old Wanganui man was today charged with careless driving causing death and was due to appear in Marton District Court on May 5.

Ms Pusch, who arrived in New Zealand last October, described the perils cyclists in New Zealand faced in the final entry of her online blog on December 30.

She referred to Kiwi truck drivers as "beasts" who "[drive] permanently at a phenomenal speed in a race against time."

''When one is a cyclist on New Zealand roads, one is not only torn from one's daydreams by diving-bombing magpies but is more often threatened by a more nasty species that really requires more attention: truck drivers,'' Ms Pusch wrote.

''They swerve past the cyclists who are struggling under their own steam at break-neck speed mainly within only a half-metre to a metre gap, all the while aggressively honking their horn.''

A Facebook group set up in memory of the German tourist - Mia Pusch-NZ Cyclists Mourn You - now has 303 members.

Among those to comment on the group's Facebook page was her mother, Gesa Pusch.

"She was just cycling along when she was hit by the truck whose driver states that he just didn't see her," she said in an entry yesterday.

"No word of condolence or apology whatsoever from him or the company he's driving for."

Pusch was the second German tourist killed while cycling on New Zealand roads in under a year.

Last March, Stefan Stoermer, 38, of Frankfurt, was hit by a logging truck on State Highway 2, on the outskirts of Te Puki.

- With NZPA

Finally, some sense from the Granny Herald.

Editorial: Truckies must pay for impact of heavy loads (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10584050)

Editorial: Danger from heavier loads simple physics (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10636704)

Drove over the Rimutaka hill (SH2) last week. I was quite suprised to see a major realignment going on. Here is the project from the NZTA website.

It doesn't give you the scale of the earthworks required though, quite impressive. Will make a huge difference to that road, I reckon.

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/network/projects/rimutaka-corner-muldoons-easing/docs/SH2-Muldoons-Corner-Easing-project-Issue-1-October-2009.pdf

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/network/projects/rimutaka-corner-muldoons-easing/docs/Muldoons-Corner-NewsLetter-Dec-09.pdf

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/network/projects/project.html?ID=11

The Taupo bypass seems to be flying under the radar, perhaps because it is a Taupo District Council project rather than NZTA?

It's a huge project.

http://www.taupodc.govt.nz/Documents/Projects/ETA/ETA%20map%20A4.pdf

http://www.taupodc.govt.nz/Projects/East-Taupo-Arterial/ETA-Image-Gallery/ETA-progress-March-2010/


Funding
The current total project cost is estimated at $110 million including construction, investigation design and land purchase. The New Zealand Transport Agency has approved funding assistance of 76.5% and based on current project estimates, Taupo District Council’s cost will be approximately $25.8 million. Council’s share will be funded by the sale of land it owns and from development contributions.


some good pics and info on this site;
http://www.bettertransport.org.nz/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1568

SH1 "Completed"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3610976/SH1-finally-completed-from-top-to-bottom

Saw this to today. Definitely justifies the money being spent on the roads in golden triangle.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10654735

Auckland and Northland had the most high-risk highways, followed by the Waikato/Bay of Plenty region.

One of the first of a new breed of super-sized trucks is about to hit the roads while doubling as a giant moving billboard depicting an idyllic rural scene.

The new 22m truck-and-trailer unit with all of 10 axles will be launched in Auckland tomorrow before being driven with its maiden load to the Palmerston North home base of Booths Transport, which has spent about $500,000 on it.

But although it will be capable of carrying up to 53 tonnes under a controversial new permit system introduced by the Government in May, it will be restricted to a standard maximum weight of 44 tonnes on roads where bridges and other structures have yet to be strengthened to take the extra loads.

These include Auckland's Southern Motorway, on which the Transport Agency needs to conduct assessments of 11 structures such as bridges over the Tamaki River and Puhinui Stream to see if they need upgrading.

Booths Transport sales and marketing manager Craig Booth said an over-length permit the agency had issued for the new Freightliner truck would allow it to use the Southern Motorway and most other roads with loads of up to 44 tonnes.

It would ply the main routes between Auckland and Christchurch, with 36 wheels to spread the loads and therefore minimise extra road-user charges.

The company had plans to operate more vehicles of the same dimensions.

Mr Booth said that with such a wide expanse on the truck's "curtain" walls, the company had decided to present an attractive spectacle for other road users by using it as a moving billboard for an animal feed supplier.

The artwork spread across both truck and trailer depicts healthy young female farm workers feeding out straw to a herd of cows.

Campaign for Better Transport spokesman Jon Reeves was unimpressed, saying: "Although you can always paint things to look nice ... they are not as efficient as rail and they will be slower going up hills, making it a problem for other motorists."

Mr Booth said the new truck would meet the most modern emission standards and, even before getting permits to carry extra weight, would give greater efficiency by moving 13 per cent more freight by volume than standard length 20m truck-and-trailer units.

The Transport Agency has received 381 permit applications for either over-weight or over-length trucks, 48 of which have been approved and 72 declined.




....right. So Joyce argued for this by saying that it will take trucks off the road by having a smaller number of larger trucks... only for these trucks not to be able to use the bloody SOUTHERN MOTORWAY. So what, they'll use Great South Road? Good move there, take trucks off the motorways and onto suburban roads.

^^
They have similar size truck limits in Sweden, but I suppose its because of all the mootorways there.

I posted on the NZ roads thread in the Highways forum about how the new Ruby Bay Bypass is nearing completion. I went through the roadworks a few times on my way out to Motueka.

This is definitely one of the most important roading projects in the country. Great to see that its getting the priority from the nzta! :banana:

$2 billion Kaimai tunnel proposed



Michele McPherson | 16th September 2010

New route could replace treacherous stretch of road. Photo/File.


Give us your thoughts on this story.

Three routes for a road tunnel through the Kaimai Ranges, linking Tauranga with the Waikato, are being investigated by the NZ Transport Agency - and a preferred option should be locked in by the year's end.

NZTA regional director Harry Wilson says one option involves building a road tunnel near the existing rail tunnel, another is building a tunnel near Thompsons Track, between Katikati and Apata. The third option, known as a summit-level tunnel, involves building a tunnel half-way up the existing alignment of State Highway 29.

So far 10 options have been identified in these three locations.

"To date, high-level cost estimates indicate the price for each option including approach roading would range from $1.5 to 2 billion," Mr Wilson said.

"While we are not discounting the possibility of building a tunnel, the early indication from the cost-benefit analysis shows that the cost of building a tunnel could outweigh the benefits of the project."

Mr Wilson said once the benefits from the Waikato Expressway were realised - moving traffic more efficiently and safely from Auckland to south of Cambridge - the NZTA expected traffic volumes to increase to a level where the rest of the route forming the "golden triangle", between Tauranga, Hamilton and Auckland, would needsupgrading.

New Zealand Road Transport Forum chief executive Ken Shirley said the time and fuel efficiency of a road tunnel, combined with a predicted 70 per cent increase in freight being transported by road and rail over the next 25 years, may well mean a tunnel stacked up in 20 years.

For something as strategic as this tunnel in the "golden triangle", Mr Shirley said all the highways linking to the tunnel, and exactly where it was positioned, also needed to be considered.

Tauranga economic growth agency Priority 1 chief executive Andrew Coker was supportive of further exploration of the idea between industry and NZTA and keen to be involved and understand some of the decision making that was happening.

However, he said the tunnel "sounded very expensive" and the existing road could be upgraded for significantly less cost.

Mr Coker said the growth and economic benefit of a tunnel, to the "golden triangle", which he described as the engine-house of growth for the country's future, needed to be understood.

"I think particularly for a country the size of New Zealand I would encourage the industry and NZTA to continue discussing and exploring the long-term benefit-cost."

The NZTA expects to identify one preferred option by the end of 2010.
Advertisement
The recommended option will then feed into the development of both the Waikato $2 billion tunnel proposed for Tauranga's Kaimai route and Bay of Plenty's Regional Land Transport Strategies.

Acting head of road policing in the Western Bay Sergeant Mark Holmes said police "would encourage any improvements to the current roading structure if the result is a reduction in serious injury and fatal crashes".

While State Highway 29 has been notorious for crashes, Mr Holmes said making the road straight and free from bad weather came with its own set of problems, which would have to be addressed by tunnel designers.

Among these were emergency vehicle access and lengthy road blockages and safety risks should a heavy motor vehicle crash occur in the tunnel.

The announcement has been welcomed by the New Zealand Road Transport Forum, which had been urging the Government to look at a tunnel.

Derek Dumbar, the forum's Waikato/Bay of Plenty director, said the agency's costs were much higher than the tunnel investigation carried out by consultants Connell Wagner for the forum in 2008.

He said Connell Wagner's cheapest option, at the narrowest point of the Kaimais south of Katikati, was just over half a billion dollars for a tunnel 1.2km long.

It meant the Katikati bypass would not be required because all Auckland traffic would use the tunnel.

Mr Dumbar has been promoting the tunnel for nearly three years with the idea that the Port of Tauranga would become the North Island's major port.

He said the heavy transport industry would be prepared to pay tolls to use a tunnel.

Tauranga Mayor Stuart Crosby said the tunnel was absolutely critical to the port becoming New Zealand's number one port.

He understood that another option to the tunnel was to make significant cuts to State Highway 29 over the Kaimais to take some of the steepness out of the road.

^^
Excellent news and some vision..would have to be user pays

How about another harbour crossing for Auckland first

This is definitely one of the most important roading projects in the country. Great to see that its getting the priority from the nzta! :banana:

How is this the most important road projects in the country? I can understand the reasoning behind something like transmission gully or the western ring route but not this tunnel proposal.


Mr Dumbar has been promoting the tunnel for nearly three years with the idea that the Port of Tauranga would become the North Island's major port.



That seems like a rather odd thing to say that a road tunnel, particularly a $2 billion one, is important for port of Tauranga. Especially for one directly next to the rail tunnel. I think a road tunnel is unnecessary. I suggest upgrade the existing road route, the road tunnel is overkill. The justification for this is based on that *maybe* in 20 years there *might* be enough freight to economically justify it. On the other hand the Tauranga rail link is one of the already profitable and very succesful parts of the rail network and most importantly most freight to and from the port travels by rail (50% of exports go by rail and 80% of imports) and the port is also planning to build more metroport rail based inland ports around the country. Currently only one exists in Auckland, in future the Waikato and Manawatu so there should be significant growth in rail freight in and out of Tauranga. To top it all off only $13 million is being spent to double the capacity of the rail line, far cheaper.

^^
Excellent news and some vision..would have to be user pays

Yeah we don't want a mess similar to other places being made here. Time to get things right from the start eh!

How is this the most important road projects in the country? I can understand the reasoning behind something like transmission gully or the western ring route but not this tunnel proposal.


Its one of the most important in the country because tauranga is the hub of the countrys export industry. If things get held up getting to tauranga the entire country suffers.

Transmission gully is only important to ensure that wellington doesnt get cut off from the rest of the country. Route security i think someone has said in the past.


That seems like a rather odd thing to say that a road tunnel, particularly a $2 billion one, is important for port of Tauranga. Especially for one directly next to the rail tunnel. I think a road tunnel is unnecessary. I suggest upgrade the existing road route, the road tunnel is overkill. The justification for this is based on that *maybe* in 20 years there *might* be enough freight to economically justify it. On the other hand the Tauranga rail link is one of the already profitable and very succesful parts of the rail network and most importantly most freight to and from the port travels by rail (50% of exports go by rail and 80% of imports) and the port is also planning to build more metroport rail based inland ports around the country. Currently only one exists in Auckland, in future the Waikato and Manawatu so there should be significant growth in rail freight in and out of Tauranga. To top it all off only $13 million is being spent to double the capacity of the rail line, far cheaper.

Nah there are a heap of accidents on the Kaimai ranges which have killed people and slowed down trucks delivering goods to the port.

Tauranga is going to keep on growing in importance because more and more goods are going to be shipped from the city, especially as ports in the towns are downgraded or closed like gisborne, napier, new plymouth and so on.

Plus given that taurangas metro population will rival Wellington city by 2050, within the golden triangle which will be home to 70% of the entire population, some decent roads are going to be needed so lets do it right in the first place! Lets stop the parochial thinking for once!

This is going to be yet another big project for the city! :banana:

$1.2m Probe into Bayfair roundabout upgrade



Carly Udy | 17th September 2010



About 35,000 vehicles a day travel through the Bayfair roundabout. Photo: Mark McKeown/File.

Give us your thoughts on this story.

A total of $1.2 million has been set aside to fund a 15-month investigation into upgrading the roundabout by Bayfair Shopping Centre.

The NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) will spend the money to look at what can be done to ease congestion at what they deem "one of the busiest" intersections in Tauranga.

The roundabout, which connects Maunganui and Girven Rds, has become increasingly busy during the past 10 years.

Because of its location between the recently-completed Harbour Link project and soon-to-be-under way Tauranga Eastern Link, NZTA says it is in "urgent" need of upgrading to remove the current bottleneck.

More than 35,000 vehicles pass through the roundabout every day, including 2200 heavy commercial vehicles.

The roundabout is frequently congested and the area has also been the scene of four deaths in the past two years - two cyclists and two pedestrians have been hit by a train or a truck.

Last year, Gerrit Bram Bergveld, 28, from the Netherlands, died instantly when he was run over by the rear wheels of a 40-tonne truck and trailer unit - just four weeks after he arrived in the country. He and his 25-year-old Dutch partner were cycling on the roundabout, when he collided with the truck just after 9am.
Advertisement
.

In 2008, two vehicles left the Bayfair roundabout on Maunganui Rd and crashed into a show home.

A similar accident happened on the same site two years before that, involving only one vehicle.

NZTA regional director for the Bay of Plenty Harry Wilson said the investigation would consider ways to reduce congestion at the site, and improve traffic flow and safety at the intersection.

The survey will model current and predicted volumes of traffic, undertake geotechnical testing, examine crash data records, and assess the potential social and environmental impacts of any upgrade.

"It will consider all previously-identified options, including a signalised roundabout and a two or four lane fly-over, and identify the preferred option," Mr Wilson said.

He said the investigation would identify the most effective solution to improve safety and effectiveness for all road users.

The investigation is stage one in a three-stage process.

Its one of the most important in the country because tauranga is the hub of the countrys export industry. If things get held up getting to tauranga the entire country suffers.

Transmission gully is only important to ensure that wellington doesnt get cut off from the rest of the country. Route security i think someone has said in the past.



Nah there are a heap of accidents on the Kaimai ranges which have killed people and slowed down trucks delivering goods to the port.

Tauranga is going to keep on growing in importance because more and more goods are going to be shipped from the city, especially as ports in the towns are downgraded or closed like gisborne, napier, new plymouth and so on.

Plus given that taurangas metro population will rival Wellington city by 2050, within the golden triangle which will be home to 70% of the entire population, some decent roads are going to be needed so lets do it right in the first place! Lets stop the parochial thinking for once!

Tauranga is expected to have doubled by 2050. That is nowhere near rivalling Wellington. I don't know enough about the situation but with your history of somewhat biased posting and Moveaux's points I'm dubious as to whether 2b on a road tunnel in Tauranga, and for freight, is a good idea.

Tauranga is expected to have doubled by 2050. That is nowhere near rivalling Wellington. I don't know enough about the situation but with your history of somewhat biased posting and Moveaux's points I'm dubious as to whether 2b on a road tunnel in Tauranga, and for freight, is a good idea.

I seriously question his posts too. Tauranga is a seriously over-roaded city especially when you consider the number of road projects already underway there. Every time I have been to Tauranga I have been amazed at two things:

#1. The amount of traffic
#2. The amount of large roads relative to its size.

One only needs to look at nearby Hamilton to know that Tauranga definitely has more than its fair share of rapid roadways/expressways/motorways/whatever.

Tauranga is expected to have doubled by 2050. That is nowhere near rivalling Wellington. I don't know enough about the situation but with your history of somewhat biased posting and Moveaux's points I'm dubious as to whether 2b on a road tunnel in Tauranga, and for freight, is a good idea.

Wellington city is only around the 200,000 mark but the wellignton region which includes other places is over 300,000. The greater tauranga area which will include papamoa with 50,000 more people will definitely exceed that by 2050. Stats nz have predicted that even the greater area will be around 300,000 which is rivels the wellington region. Being the hub of the countrys export industry makes it a very important region. Thats why successive governments have put so much money into the region.

I seriously question his posts too. Tauranga is a seriously over-roaded city especially when you consider the number of road projects already underway there. Every time I have been to Tauranga I have been amazed at two things:

You question my posts? All im doing is posting what the nzta has said its doing and what my opinions are. Fact is that the nzta is investing heaps of money into one of the most important regions in the country understand the benefits.

#1. The amount of traffic
#2. The amount of large roads relative to its size.

One only needs to look at nearby Hamilton to know that Tauranga definitely has more than its fair share of rapid roadways/expressways/motorways/whatever.

Hamilton is a much easier city to build roads for, all you need to do is look at the topology of the place. Hamilton definitely needs more infrastructure investment too though, its been neglected for far too long at the benefit of other regions.

Why would the nzta be putting so much money into projects for a region that wasnt important to the economy? Obviously they agree!

Tauranga does need more money put towards public transport though. Probably double the frequency to 15 mins all day on the bus routes and build rail out to papamoa, given the population predictions.

You question my posts? All im doing is posting what the nzta has said its doing and what my opinions are. Fact is that the nzta is investing heaps of money into one of the most important regions in the country understand the benefits.


Hamilton is a much easier city to build roads for, all you need to do is look at the topology of the place. Hamilton definitely needs more infrastructure investment too though, its been neglected for far too long at the benefit of other regions.

Why would the nzta be putting so much money into projects for a region that wasnt important to the economy? Obviously they agree!

Tauranga does need more money put towards public transport though. Probably double the frequency to 15 mins all day on the bus routes and build rail out to papamoa, given the population predictions.

Actually, NZTA doesn't exactly always carry out the best economic analysis - look at the cost-benefit analysis for the Waterview connection in Auckland. It was carried out on a seriously flawed premise and completely ignored induced demand. The economics of road building are also based upon the flawed premise that roads build economies and rail saps economies and requires subsidies - never mind the fact that roads also require subsidies in terms of long-term maintenance etc etc.

Yes, the topography (not topology as that is a branch of mathematics) and geography around Tauranga make it far harder to provide transit infrastructure for, however, you also have to look at growth patterns to see why this situation has been exacerbated. The releasing of land in very inopportune locations such as along the coast has led to the problem of bottlenecking. Why should the country as a whole fund this kind of unsustainable development? Decentralising Tauranga and building a proper second CBD between Mt Maunganui and Papamoa should have been the answer rather than sprawling with featureless suburbs 18km down the coast and then expecting everyone to commute to the CBD. Auckland, for all its planning faults has at least attempted to decentralise and provide multiple employment nodes. Tauranga doesn't appear to be quite so good.

Our other, more important cities need funding first and foremost and growth around Tauranga needs to be curtailed to prevent further exacerbation of current problems. A proper, concerted regional growth plan is needed for that area to prevent the mistakes of the past and currently, I don't think they have proper vision enough for this. (http://content.tauranga.govt.nz/plans/ltccp/2009/Draft%20Summary/Summary%20Document.pdf)

As for public transport, Tauranga has unusable public transport as is. I simply drive there as the city is far to sprawled to sit on a bus for any length of time. The only thing that would work is light rail, but they'll not invest in light rail there if they can't persuade funding for more eligible cities like Chch, Wellington or Auckland.

Everyone I know says Hamilton's roading infrastructure is fine, in fact that is often lauded as one of its pros; no traffic jams. Also pretty sure it would be a lot more sensible for Christchurch to get proper urban rail before Tauranga. Cannot speak on roading in Tauranga, all I know is it has a lot of motorways.

If you want somewhere that needs vastly improved infrastrure, Queenstown springs to mind. A town of 12,000 should not have traffic snarl ups.

Wellington city is only around the 200,000 mark but the wellignton region which includes other places is over 300,000. The greater tauranga area which will include papamoa with 50,000 more people will definitely exceed that by 2050. Stats nz have predicted that even the greater area will be around 300,000 which is rivels the wellington region. Being the hub of the countrys export industry makes it a very important region. Thats why successive governments have put so much money into the region.

This is ridiculous. Wellington's urban area contains 386,000 people. Wellington CITY contains only 180k-odd, yes. The City of London contains only about 10,000. Ignore the local government boundaries, you're warping them to fit your pro-Tauranga parochialism.

Anyway, Tauranga is expected to be between 140,000 and 160,000 at 2026. http://www.stats.govt.nz/~/media/Statistics/Publications/Census/2006-reports/Seminars/Tauranga-City.ashx

I can't find projections for 2050 for either city, if you could enlighten me that'd be good. I saw some projections for Papamoa though, 45-50k for the whole place...not as you believe, in addition to current population.

[QUOTE=Richard7666;63887585]Everyone I know says Hamilton's roading infrastructure is fine, in fact that is often lauded as one of its pros; no traffic jams. Also pretty sure it would be a lot more sensible for Christchurch to get proper urban rail before Tauranga. Cannot speak on roading in Tauranga, all I know is it has a lot of motorways.

If you want somewhere that needs vastly improved infrastrure, Queenstown springs to mind. A town of 12,000 should not have traffic snarl ups.



This is ridiculous. Wellington's urban area contains 386,000 people. Wellington CITY contains only 180k-odd, yes. The City of London contains only about 10,000. Ignore the local government boundaries, you're warping them to fit your pro-Tauranga parochialism.
^^

We can do both at the same time...if they are both Tolled.
The northern gateway into WLG should extend all the way to Palmy...with a hybrid/Expressway/Tollway/duel passing lanes with the cheaper metal wire median barrier seperating the highways

Actually, NZTA doesn't exactly always carry out the best economic analysis - look at the cost-benefit analysis for the Waterview connection in Auckland. It was carried out on a seriously flawed premise and completely ignored induced demand. The economics of road building are also based upon the flawed premise that roads build economies and rail saps economies and requires subsidies - never mind the fact that roads also require subsidies in terms of long-term maintenance etc etc.

That might be but the nzta are going to fund further roading development in the city to ensure that the goods can move to the port freely. If we can get the goods to overseas markets quickly and efficiently then the entire country benefits. Both labour and national saw this and theyve commited funding to tauranga and the bays transport networks. A very smart move.


Yes, the topography (not topology as that is a branch of mathematics) and geography around Tauranga make it far harder to provide transit infrastructure for, however, you also have to look at growth patterns to see why this situation has been exacerbated. The releasing of land in very inopportune locations such as along the coast has led to the problem of bottlenecking. Why should the country as a whole fund this kind of unsustainable development? Decentralising Tauranga and building a proper second CBD between Mt Maunganui and Papamoa should have been the answer rather than sprawling with featureless suburbs 18km down the coast and then expecting everyone to commute to the CBD. Auckland, for all its planning faults has at least attempted to decentralise and provide multiple employment nodes. Tauranga doesn't appear to be quite so good.

Papamoa city will definitely have a cbd, and i think that the mount will keep growing with apartment buildings. The thing is that everyone wants to live near the world-class beaches so the only way to make that happen is for sprawl. Hopefully though there'll be a few high rise apartment blocks in papamoa city in the future.


Our other, more important cities need funding first and foremost and growth around Tauranga needs to be curtailed to prevent further exacerbation of current problems. A proper, concerted regional growth plan is needed for that area to prevent the mistakes of the past and currently, I don't think they have proper vision enough for this. (http://content.tauranga.govt.nz/plans/ltccp/2009/Draft%20Summary/Summary%20Document.pdf)

Auckland and hamilton are already seeing a lot of money pouring in, but they definitely need more. Improving the rail links in the golden triangle is really important too so that freight can be transported by train, and passenger trains can be put into service between the cities in the golden triangle.

Thing is as a country we have an opportunity to build up the region in the right way from the start, rather than having to fix it up later due to poor planning.



As for public transport, Tauranga has unusable public transport as is. I simply drive there as the city is far to sprawled to sit on a bus for any length of time. The only thing that would work is light rail, but they'll not invest in light rail there if they can't persuade funding for more eligible cities like Chch, Wellington or Auckland.

Theres some talk about the smartgrowth putting some political pressure on the government and nzta to develop a light rail line to papamoa but i dunno if thats going to happen any time soon. The bus service needs to be more frequent than it is maybe 15 min frequencies throughout the day rather than the half-hourly. Theres not much we can do about getting people from papamoa or out that way into the cbd quicker aside from the rail option but buses are a damn sight better than driving, despite the nzta giving the green light to the eastern motorway system.

Everyone I know says Hamilton's roading infrastructure is fine, in fact that is often lauded as one of its pros; no traffic jams. Also pretty sure it would be a lot more sensible for Christchurch to get proper urban rail before Tauranga. Cannot speak on roading in Tauranga, all I know is it has a lot of motorways.

Traffic is pretty bad in tauranga and is only getting worse, especially because of the growth out papamoa way.

Hamilton definitely has some problems but not as bad as either of the other two cities. Of course given the important all three cities, the country cant afford to let a problem develop that will increase the cost of doing business for the export industry! Thats why the golden triangle has been given priority funding.



This is ridiculous. Wellington's urban area contains 386,000 people. Wellington CITY contains only 180k-odd, yes. The City of London contains only about 10,000. Ignore the local government boundaries, you're warping them to fit your pro-Tauranga parochialism. [/quote]

So what do you want to compare tauranga with then? Theres not many other cities of similar sizes.

Since youre happy to compare a region to a city, then maybe napier and hastings should be classed 120000+ city by your logic then? If thats the case then just remember by 2050 the population of the western bay should be over 300000.


I can't find projections for 2050 for either city, if you could enlighten me that'd be good. I saw some projections for Papamoa though, 45-50k for the whole place...not as you believe, in addition to current population.

Check out the smartgrowth site it has the projections for 2050 on there.

Options open for $140m Hairini Link :banana:

John Cousins | 22nd September 2010

http://media.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/nz_regionals/www_bayofplentytimes_co_nz/2010/09/210910sp42bop.JPG

An artist's impression of options for the Hairini Link. Image/Supplied.
Have Your Say

Give us your thoughts on this story.

The future shape of Tauranga's new $140 million Hairini Link has been unveiled, with one option featuring Turret Rd reverting to a quiet residential cul-de-sac.

It was one of the options to be unveiled at a public open day today at the Tauranga Boys College gym from 4-8pm.

The New Zealand Transport Agency has completed big-picture options of a project which received a pledge of support from the National-led Government when it won power in 2008.

Rod James, the region's state highway manager, said public consultation was important because of the way the project will affect the community.

The two four-laning options from Turret Rd bridge to Fraser St were to either widen Turret Rd along its current alignment or build a new road that swung out past the motor camp, hugged the Waimapu Estuary side before linking up with 15th Ave by the commercial area.

Environmental impacts have ruled out the option of putting two of the lanes around the other side of Turret Rd's pohutukawa trees. It would have required a big harbour reclamation.

Mr James said it was hard to squeeze four lanes into the skinny Turret Rd corridor and opting for the Waimapu Estuary route would make Turret Rd a more desirable place to live.

Four-laning would not require demolition of the existing bridge built in the 1960s.
Advertisement
It would strengthen and a duplicate bridge built alongside.

Planning called for the bridge/Turret Rd/15th Ave section to be the first major part of the project, followed by the Welcome Bay Rd to Hairini causeway section.

Work was due to start early next year on one of the so-called "easy wins" of Hairini Link - a dedicated left turn into Fraser St for traffic coming up from Turret Rd.

The new direct link from Welcome Bay would not be achieved by a tunnel but the more conventional technique of a cutting through the Hairini interchange, similar to the way Route J out to Bethlehem was a massive underpass through Cambridge Rd.

Once the cutting under State Highway 29 was finished, the existing road down to the causeway from Welcome Bay roundabout could be closed, meaning the Hairini community would no longer be divided by a busy arterial road.

There were two options around where to place the roundabout from Welcome Bay Rd, with one option further away from cultural sensitive areas to Maori, including an urupa.

This option, which needed much shallower embankments, had the disadvantage of requiring the taking of some houses on Hammond St. The other roundabout option would not impact on Hammond St residents.

A lot of the side roads going off 15th Ave would become left in and left out or completely closed. It would sometimes force residents to take a loop around the block.

An extra right-turn lane into Cameron Rd towards the downtown was also planned from 15th Ave. One of the last decisions expected to be made was when to widen Fraser St to accommodate an extra lane for traffic coming from town and heading towards Turret Rd. The impact on properties would include taking out the frontage of the block of shops.

The agency was keen to see what benefits were gained from the other main parts of the project before it looked at this widening, although it would eventually be needed as traffic volumes grew.

The agency has so far received about 60 responses from 227 letters sent out to residents living along the route. It was hoping for a lot more feedback from today's open day.

Relative to the size of the cities in question, Wellington, Lower and Upper Hutt and Porirua are a lot more contiguous than Napier and Hastings. It's obvious on a map.

If I had used the Wellington region I'd also have included the Kapiti coast, Wairarapa etc.

A similar sized city to Tauranga would be Dunedin. It's rather important in the scheme of things.

A similar sized city to Tauranga would be Dunedin. It's rather important in the scheme of things.[/QUOTE]

I think the issue is ..how do we future proof the regions growth.
From 2003 - 2010 the population of NZ has grown by 380k or 54.2K av per year.70% of that population growth is in the golden triangle.
If we look forward at only 10 years..thats an extra 380k of people into the region based on similar growth .20 years..thats 760k
I have always advocated Tolls as the only viable solution to fund road transport at a expressway/motorway level...user pays.
Auckland/Hamilton/Tauranga need to have a seamless connectivity for this significant population gain region wide
You also have Whangarei/Ruakaka/Waipu/Langs that also has had regional council approval to increase its population by 50k combined within 20years..with a mix of industrial/retirement/lifestyle and commuting distance to Auckland once the motorway extension is finished to Te Hana...north of Wellsford . This would give the Whangerai district region a population 120 - 130k up from the current 78k.
We cannot hide from the fact then that Tauranga will be part of a region of 3 million people within 20 years

On saying this.Roads..is only part of the solution. Rail and city public transport has to be enhanced.

These numbers are very real... and a wee concern in the context of our vision of little clean green NZ !!!!:)

These numbers are very real... and a wee concern in the context of our vision of little clean green NZ !!!!:)

When it comes to transport, we are the absolute opposite of this unfortunately. Just look at the amount of money being thrown at Tauranga.

Sorry if this doesn't belong here, but it's part of the study which will determine if Nelson needs a new road (or not). I also think it's quite interesting.

Crunch time for Nelson traffic
From:http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/features/weekend/4167825/Crunch-time-for-Nelsons-traffic

For years Nelson's Rocks Rd has rumbled with the sounds of State Highway 6, as it conveys thousands of cars, buses, bikes, trucks and walkers along the scenic waterfront route in and out of Nelson city.

The rumbling lately has grown louder, as the latest deadline draws near on what Nelson will do to try to solve the city's roading needs, and the place of Rocks Rd in that picture. With a local body election looming, the debate has taken on a sharp edge as local lobby groups step up their campaigns.

Perhaps most vocal has been the Nelson Waterfront Association, which is leading the campaign to get the state highway designation removed from Rocks Rd – a move which would mean almost all of its heavy traffic would have to find another way of travelling across the city.

Around 20,000 vehicles travel the road daily, and 1200 of them are heavy vehicles. Those heavy vehicles are required to use the state highway for cross-city trips (many are travelling to and from Port Nelson) and their number has increased more than any other type of traffic on the road in the past decade, by 20 per cent.

Heavy traffic numbers are expected to keep growing, by 15 to 25 per cent until 2036, according to traffic modelling data contained in the Nelson Arterial Traffic Study – the official report which is now under consideration to help authorities make a final decision on the future shape of Nelson's cross-city roads.

Because Rocks Rd is part of the state highway network, spending on it – and upgrade decisions – lie with the government-controlled New Zealand Transport Agency.

The alternative route in and out of the city, Waimea Rd, is classed as a local road, and is therefore in the hands of ratepayers, although various government subsidies are available for work on it.


I use Rocks Road frequently and Waimea Road as well and the traffic is, honestly, chaotic. For a city of its size, we must have one of the worst traffic problems in the country.

When it comes to transport, we are the absolute opposite of this unfortunately. Just look at the amount of money being thrown at Tauranga.

Id like to see more money spent on rail to Papamoa and increasing the frequency of the bus service, but I guess roading is an easy target in the city and is definitely required in order to cope with the growth out papamoa way. By building the eastern motorway it opens up heaps more land for expansion, and itll ease the traffic congestion that slows commuters and traffic to the port. All good things for the country-wide kiwi economy!

Relative to the size of the cities in question, Wellington, Lower and Upper Hutt and Porirua are a lot more contiguous than Napier and Hastings. It's obvious on a map.

If I had used the Wellington region I'd also have included the Kapiti coast, Wairarapa etc.

A similar sized city to Tauranga would be Dunedin. It's rather important in the scheme of things.\

There a 3km gap between wellington and the edge of lower hutt. Yeah it contributes to wellingtons traffic and cbd but they still rightly claim to be seperate cities. If you included kapiti and all those other areas way out of wellington, then most cities in the country would grow in population quite a bit!

Anyhow its only a comparison and dunedin includes mosgeil most of the time when it really shouldnt, so it makes it much smaller than fast-growing tauranga.

Sorry if this doesn't belong here, but it's part of the study which will determine if Nelson needs a new road (or not). I also think it's quite interesting.

Crunch time for Nelson traffic
From:http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/features/weekend/4167825/Crunch-time-for-Nelsons-traffic



I use Rocks Road frequently and Waimea Road as well and the traffic is, honestly, chaotic. For a city of its size, we must have one of the worst traffic problems in the country.

I recall noting Nelson seemed to have no multilane roads...maybe it's time for the council to get their paint out?

I recall noting Nelson seemed to have no multilane roads...maybe it's time for the council to get their paint out?
There's been a lot more multilane development around the city, especially Richmond. But yes, unfortunately we have no multilane roads and it isn't likely the current council is going to go ahead with any plans any time soon. There are a few proposals like the Southern Link or linking up the Brook Valley (where I live) around to Bishopdale but I can't see why they couldn't just widen Whakatu Drive, which is technically a motorway to a 2X2 layout all the way to Richmond. I can honestly tell you the traffic is horrid and it may not sound like much but 25 minutes for what is usually a five minute trip is way too much time to spend in traffic every morning.

\

There a 3km gap between wellington and the edge of lower hutt. Yeah it contributes to wellingtons traffic and cbd but they still rightly claim to be seperate cities. If you included kapiti and all those other areas way out of wellington, then most cities in the country would grow in population quite a bit!

Anyhow its only a comparison and dunedin includes mosgeil most of the time when it really shouldnt, so it makes it much smaller than fast-growing tauranga.

Your rationalisations to reduce the greater urban areas of Wellington and Dunedin are strange to say the least and don't accord with Statistics NZ or how most locals in those places view their respective cities.

I think Tauranga is way over-serviced with NZTA funding relative to other centres in the country. I don't buy the whole "Tauranga is of national strategic importance" crap. If future port rationalisation undermines POT (and it may), all this roading is a waste of infrastructure. In the 1920s Wanganui was a boom town based on its port; the future isn't cast iron guaranteed.

There's been a lot more multilane development around the city, especially Richmond. But yes, unfortunately we have no multilane roads and it isn't likely the current council is going to go ahead with any plans any time soon. There are a few proposals like the Southern Link or linking up the Brook Valley (where I live) around to Bishopdale but I can't see why they couldn't just widen Whakatu Drive, which is technically a motorway to a 2X2 layout all the way to Richmond. I can honestly tell you the traffic is horrid and it may not sound like much but 25 minutes for what is usually a five minute trip is way too much time to spend in traffic every morning.

you mean the Tasman council vs the Nelson council? I looked on google maps and that Whakatu Dr is multilane in many sections, also a few other roads connected to it. None in 'actual' Nelson though.

you mean the Tasman council vs the Nelson council? I looked on google maps and that Whakatu Dr is multilane in many sections, also a few other roads connected to it. None in 'actual' Nelson though.

Yes, but the on-flow from the traffic coming from Richmond goes through here and continues via Rocks Road or Waimea Road. It would be a good idea because if Waimea Road does eventually become 2X2(which is one of the plans put forward by the council), it means that we could finally have a 2X2 route all the way from near the centre of town out to Richmond, which will be able to take twice the amount of traffic. Other upgrades, should this scenario come into fruition would be the introduction of traffic lights at the intersections between Waimea Road and Main Road Stoke, as well as those at the intersection between Tahunanui Drive and Annesbrook Drive. This would remove two major roundabouts and make the traffic flow easier. We have already seen this along a major intersection on Rocks Road.

On another note, the Ruby Bay Bypass is nearly completed. The middle section is sealed, painted and ready to be connected. It should be finished by November (it was technically supposed to have been completed by June).

When it comes to transport, we are the absolute opposite of this unfortunately. Just look at the amount of money being thrown at Tauranga.
^^
"LOL "Have to disagree with something...otherwise it becomes to boring!
Im a little left of Kiwirob and somewhat right of yourself...a balance in my books.
However if one was to class me..im a classic centerist with a right leaning? voted Winston P and National in order of past two elections.
Im a total believer in user pays...however partial for rail to be somewhat funded due to the total under investment over the past 40 years.
I have a feeling the Super city will be center left ( Happy with Len B as Mayor,if so)...so it will be really interesting the next 12 months.:)

Your rationalisations to reduce the greater urban areas of Wellington and Dunedin are strange to say the least and don't accord with Statistics NZ or how most locals in those places view their respective cities.

Yes they do. Wellington is a region and a city. Wellington is a city of around 200000 but the region is much larger. Pretty simple really.


I think Tauranga is way over-serviced with NZTA funding relative to other centres in the country. I don't buy the whole "Tauranga is of national strategic importance" crap. If future port rationalisation undermines POT (and it may), all this roading is a waste of infrastructure. In the 1920s Wanganui was a boom town based on its port; the future isn't cast iron guaranteed.

The nzta recognise that taurnaga is a fast-growing city thats plays a big part in how well the nz economy performs. If goods are held up at tauarnaga the entire country suffers.

Theres only two major ports in nz and thats auckland and tauranga. Auckland cant expand any further but tauranga can. Tauranga are also part owners of the new northport venture which means all of nz major ports will still be in the golden triangle, along with the majority of the countrys population. Thats far different from a small town port in an isolated part of the country like whanganui.

Tauranga was a small-town port in an isolated part of the country until quite recently. Wanganui was a comparatively large city and thus recieved investment. In 50 years time Tauranga could still be a boomtown, or it could be a Wanganui.

Uglybob is quite correct. Also I see you're still trying to cheat urban Wellingto out of 150k-odd people. That's for another thread I think.

Tauranga was a small-town port in an isolated part of the country until quite recently. Wanganui was a comparatively large city and thus recieved investment. In 50 years time Tauranga could still be a boomtown, or it could be a Wanganui.

Uglybob is quite correct. Also I see you're still trying to cheat urban Wellingto out of 150k-odd people. That's for another thread I think.

^^
Tauranga will be part of a collective conurbation of between 200k -250k in 50 years time based on continued growth of only 2.2 -2.5k per year
Stretching from Papamoa to Katikati.
Why?
1) lifestyle/climate/east coast beach's
2)commuting distance to both Auckland/Hamilton and Tauranga /Mt Manuganui itself for work
3) retirement
4) migration both domestic and international

I wouldnt call it a boom town...as such..more so a lifestyle region of choice.

Only Whangarei/Ruakaka/Waipu/Langs/Mangawhai heads can compete.
Taking into account commuting distance to Auckland...which a number of people already do on a daily basis to North Shore

I think there will be less 200km commuting in 50 years time than today.

Interesting to note that unemployment is the highest in the country up in the "golden triangle"

http://www.dol.govt.nz/lmr/lmr-hlfs-fig3-desc.asp

Although, I'd expect it to bounce back. Although I am suspicious of Tauranga's economy minus home-building & other construction.

As long as Tauranga can attract younger people as well as the elderly it should grow at a decent rate. It'd be my second choice in NZ so I'm sure others feel the same way

government is looking into putting a tunnel under the Kaimai ranges in Tauranga, either under the current pass or further north by katikati. ( was in the herald)
long term plan- but, i think hugely beneficial for the golden triangle, linking the rich fertile waikato with the largest port in the country.

the argument is cost benefits, they dont think it will quite work out out, but you can see how much good it could do for the country..... and tauranga, surely after that the city's road system will be complete???

Work underway on Pyes Pa bypass

http://media.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/nz_regionals/www_bayofplentytimes_co_nz/2010/10/%281280x960%29.jpg

5th October 2010


Give us your thoughts on this story.

After the winter site shut down, work is underway again to complete the Pyes Pa bypass.

The work includes removing the remaining preload material and sealing the road surface on the middle section, constructing the roundabouts at Kennedy's and Pyes Pa Roads, upgrading property entrances on Pyes Pa Road, and landscaping along the route.

Rod James, the NZ Transport Agency's State Highway Manager, says while most of the work is off-road construction of the roundabout on State Highway 36 near the cemetery could cause some disruption to traffic.

The bypass, a partnership between the NZTA, Tauranga City Council and Grasshopper Developments, includes 4.2km of new road. It connects the State Highway 29 roundabout near the tolled section of Takitimu Drive (Route K), to State Highway 36 (near the crematorium).

Once completed, road users will have a less congested, more direct route into the city from SH36 via Route K. People living in the residential section of Pyes Pa Road will have safer local road access their property.

The bypass is expected to be open to traffic in mid-2011.

As long as Tauranga can attract younger people as well as the elderly it should grow at a decent rate. It'd be my second choice in NZ so I'm sure others feel the same way

Yeah all demographics are growing not just the elderly as some people think! If Waikato university continue to expand the place will really boom as a student city. Add that to the growing amount of industry moving from other towns to the city and the place is really going to take off!

government is looking into putting a tunnel under the Kaimai ranges in Tauranga, either under the current pass or further north by katikati. ( was in the herald)
long term plan- but, i think hugely beneficial for the golden triangle, linking the rich fertile waikato with the largest port in the country.

the argument is cost benefits, they dont think it will quite work out out, but you can see how much good it could do for the country..... and tauranga, surely after that the city's road system will be complete???

Making sure there are strong links between the waikato auckland and tauranga are the number one priority at the moment. If there are any bottle necks there it causes huge losses for the kiwi economy, especially once more freight goes through the port once an inland port is built in palmerston north. Thatll allow the frieght that used to be transported from small ports to be linked to the tauranga hub by rail.

Yet another meaningless update from Nelson:
Link: http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/4349649/Rocks-Rd-cost-76-310-per-kilometre

The cost of looking after the 3.7-kilometre stretch of State Highway 6 around Rocks Rd has averaged $76,000 per kilometre in maintenance over the last five years, government figures show.

The cost would shift to Nelson ratepayers if it lost its state highway designation and became a local road, but there were many factors to consider including the likelihood of less maintenance needed if heavy trucks were shifted off the road, Nelson Mayor Aldo Miccio has confirmed.

The road around the Nelson waterfront has this year been pushed to the fore of a controversial debate over the city's future transport needs by a strengthened pro-waterfront lobby group. They are seeking to save the waterfront from further roading development as a result of suggestions on how to improve cross-city traffic flows.

Options contained in an arterial traffic study commissioned by the Nelson City Council, with support from the New Zealand Transport Agency, would see a widened Rocks Rd or one with part-time clearways designed to convey traffic more efficiently.

The Nelson Waterfront Association is leading the campaign to get the state highway designation removed from Rocks Rd – a move that would mean almost all heavy traffic would have to find another way of travelling across the city.

Figures provided to The Nelson Mail by the NZTA show that a 3.7km stretch of Rocks Rd has cost $1.4 million in maintenance since the 2005-06 financial year.

That is an annual average cost of $282,348, NZTA transport manager Mark Owen said. By comparison a stretch of State Highway 60 in Ruby Bay with similar geography has cost a total $150,000 over the same period – an average $30,000 per year over the last five years, or $42,900 per km, Mr Owen said.

"The higher cost of Rocks Rd is largely due to the cost in the last two years of scaling work, which involves stabilising the bank and preventing the fall of debris through the use of fixed netting," Mr Owen said.

He said costs varied from year to year as maintenance needs differed. He added that the figures should not be taken as an indication of what the maintenance costs might be should the highway in question become a local road.

Mr Miccio said if it got to a point where the council would have to decide whether to go ahead or not with that option, the figures would have to "stack up". The public would be involved in that decision through a special consultative procedure.

"If a decision is made to look at another arterial route, everything including costs will have to be weighed up."

Mr Miccio said if Rocks Rd became a local road, heavy trucks could be removed from it and the council could introduce lower speed limits, which would reduce maintenance needs on the road itself.

City council transport manager Andrew James said the council would have the option of moving trucks off Rocks Rd if it became a local road. It could do this by creating a bylaw similar to what it had done in removing heavy trucks off Muritai St and Nayland Rd.

Mr James said taking the trucks off would take a lot of weight off that road, but there were some "serious issues" around retaining the cliff slope and the road-retaining walls.

Mr Miccio said it could be assumed that property values around the waterfront would increase if the amenity value of the area was improved.

Waterfront association chairman Jeremy Matthews said increased property values were not something the group had given any thought to.

Mr Matthews, who is also a real estate agent but was speaking on behalf of the association, said only one association member lived on the waterfront. The remainder were spread across the city.

"It's reasonable to assume the amenity value would be increased for the whole region. That's what's spurring us on," Mr Matthews said.

"No-one has an interest in property values rising or falling."

Mr James said it was hoped that stage 3 reports on the arterial traffic study will be approved by NZTA for release late next week.

The final report, including an option recommendation, is scheduled for the December 16 council meeting although this was yet to be confirmed, Mr James said.

Here are some problems. Firstly, the NIMBY's who live along the waterfront are at odds with those who live on Waimea Rd, Nelson's secondary artery and neither of them are willing to compromise. Secondly, Rocks Road was never built properly because the council built it without using concrete bases and so the land has collapsed over time causing some of the road to sag. All they need to do is to dig up the road and replace it with concrete.

Roading Plan Options Narrowed
From the Nelson Mail
Link: http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/4435797/Victory-road-among-final-two-options

A two-lane road through Victory remains a preferred option for solving Nelson's cross-city transport challenges after the field of options has been narrowed to two.

A final recommendation has now been delayed until early next year.

Nelson City Council principal adviser on transport and roading Andrew James confirmed the list of options being assessed in the arterial traffic study had been reduced from four to two – option A: part-time clearways on Rocks Rd and Waimea Rd, or option B: a new two-lane road between St Vincent St and Beatson Rd.

A final recommendation was to have been presented at next week's city council meeting, but this is now delayed until early next year.

Council chief executive Keith Marshall said it was a "really important issue" for the future of Nelson and therefore it was important that it be done right.

The stage-three report is now set for release about the end of January and the stage-four report sometime in February, subject to New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) sign-off.

Mr James said the delay had nothing to do with the need to bring newly elected councillors up to speed on the topic.

NZTA and the traffic study team formed by the council said there were still concerns about aspects of the latter stages of the study.

Mr James said the study team had gone back to consultant firm MWH, which was handling impact assessments.

"The report needs to address all concerns and there are just a few outstanding concerns around options A and B that need to be expanded on," Mr James said.

He said an example of a query raised was how option A might affect the way traffic from side roads accessed the arterial routes, while NZTA had some questions around option B.

"Option A involves intersection alterations along the arterial routes, which in some cases mean that local side traffic may have to alter its journey to access the arterials. The effect of this alteration on the side traffic level of service is being looked into further."

He said some of the concerns revolved around potential social impacts and others were of a more technical nature. "We have based our concerns on those expressed by the community. We have a good feeling for what they are looking for.

"We are working to make sure the assessment is full and substantial," Mr James said.

Pro-public transport lobby group Nelsust was not surprised at the shortlist and still believed option A would "never be a starter", group convener Peter Olorenshaw said.

"There are very few people who want anything that will increase traffic around Rocks Rd," he said.

Nelsust was surprised at the delay but hoped it might serve to ensure the study team factored into its decision predicted fuel price increases.

"It's good they're making sure the social impacts are being fully investigated," Mr Olorenshaw said.

Nelson Waterfront Association chairman Jeremy Matthews said the delay was positive, given the "grave misgivings" over traffic modelling among a number of people during workshops.

He said the waterfront was important to the whole region, but it was time a decision was made.

"It's frustrating in that we've been waiting so long, but we would rather it was done properly. It's too big a deal not to," Mr Matthews said.

Mr James said it was hoped that a decision, would be ready for inclusion in next year's council annual plan.


So, for those who don't know what the article is talking about, St Vincent Street is the street which runs from the intersection of Haven Road and Halifax Street all the way to the start of the reserve and it will warrant very little uprgades to make it 2X2 with on street parking. This will go through the Railway Reserve and will essentially form the "Southern Link". Both intersections will need the removal of the roundabouts and replaced with traffic lights.

The clearway plan will never work because there will always be those ignorant idiots along the waterfront who will park their cars on the road regardless.

All can be seen on Google Earth/Maps.

Two lane road meaning 2 lanes in both directions (layman's terms), or one lane in each direction?

Two lanes in both directions.

I should probably stop trolling about Nelson's roading plans.

MP's at odds over Southern Link proposal
From: The Nelson Mail
Link: http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/4232657/MPs-at-odds-over-southern-link

Nelson MPs have clashed over Government planning reforms which could see the way smoothed for the city's southern link motorway.

Labour list MP Maryan Street and Environment Minister and Nelson MP Nick Smith have embarked on a point-scoring exercise over the implications of a revised urban-planning process, which Ms Street claims will open up ways to side-step proper processes and allow an easier route for a southern motorway to proceed through Victory.

Ms Street is warning Nelson residents of Dr Smith's motives behind a discussion document which includes as many as 50 proposed changes to the Resource Management Act, the Land Transport Act and the Public Works Act.

She said earlier this week that Dr Smith used a meeting with Auckland's new mayor to launch a discussion document which included the proposed changes.

"These urban planning reforms may well be used in Nelson to side-step proper processes, and past Environment Court decisions, and proceed with a southern motorway link through the Victory community," she said.

The Nelson City Council recently notified 10 plan changes to the Nelson Resource Management Plan. The greater potential impact will be on land development and resource consent processes in Nelson, the council said recently.

Dr Smith said Ms Street's claims were wrong and that she should be supporting the Government's reforms to better manage urban growth and infrastructure planning.

In January the Government appointed two technical advisory groups to review policy around urban design and infrastructure.

Dr Smith said the groups' recommendations formed the second stage of reform, following the passing in 2009 of the Resource Management Amendment Act.

He welcomed engagement by Nelson's new council and the wider community on the "positive proposals" as Nelson needed to do better at planning its urban development.

"My goal is to provide the tools for councils to build competitive cities that offer citizens a great lifestyle, affordable housing, efficient infrastructure and strong economies," Dr Smith said.

He said Ms Street was playing "divisive opposition politics" in saying what she is opposed to without saying what she would do.

"The Government has a positive programme for improving urban design and infrastructure planning and the Nelson council has a thorough process for addressing Nelson's transport challenges," Dr Smith said in reference to the current arterial traffic study.

Ms Street: "This struggle against a southern link through Victory is not over yet."

Gotta love politicians.

If this doesnt serve as a wakeup call for where safety road funding should be applied, I dunno what else will work!


"New Zealand's deadliest roads this year are in the Waikato, while the Wellington region has escaped with the lowest death toll to date.

"
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4483158/Officials-disclose-NZs-deadliest-roads

It's interesting. For a city which I'm voting for as having the worst drivers in New Zealand (Nelson of course) we have one of the lowest fatal crash stats in the whole country. Weird.

Is it just me thinking this, or does the number of accidents with fatalities increase over time with population increases?

Anyone have any photos or info on the Taupo bypass?

Some interesting stuff in here from the nzta. Looks like theyre going to further prioritise funding for the highways.

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation/classification-system/index.html

Seems quite reasonable.

Except:

“For example, the thresholds include the value of export freight through ports. So Tauranga is credited with the export value of all the milk that is transported on Taranaki roads before being processed and railed to the Bay of Plenty for export. That’s an anomaly, especially as all that dairy product never goes near a road in Tauranga.”

http://www.trc.govt.nz/highway-assessment-highlights-sh3-s-roles/

Wow about time this happenned

Twin bridges to be replaced

http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/5714667/Twin-bridges-to-be-replaced

The people of Kurow and Hakataramea have been heard.

After a decade of campaigning, funding for the $20 million project to replace the dilapidated 130-year-old bridges across the Waitaki River has been confirmed, it was announced yesterday. Work is likely to begin next year and is expected to be completed by early 2015.

The twin bridges across the Waitaki River on State Highway 82 have been plagued by lengthy closures. The latest was in February when the bridges were closed for 10 days after high river flows damaged a pier.

Residents became increasingly impatient with the disruption.

This week a 680-signature petition calling for funding for the project was presented to Transport Minister Steven Joyce.

Some put their political support on the line, saying "no bridge, no vote".

In Waimate, a lobby group sent a letter to all 121 MPs this week calling for the project to go ahead without delay.

Waitaki MP Jacqui Dean, who started the petition, said she was delighted to receive the confirmation from Mr Joyce.

"It's been a long process and I have to acknowledge the support of many people."

She could not confirm when construction would start but said it would be as soon as possible.

A spokesperson for Mrs Joyce said detailed planning of the replacement bridge was now under way. An announcement would be made once the construction start date was confirmed.

Kurow business owner Lex Cochrane, who operates Kurow Auto Services said the news was a relief for residents.

"I was a bit concerned that with what's happened in Christchurch, the money might have been tied up."

The bridges would provide security, especially for Hakataramea residents who relied on Kurow for essential services. It was also vital for emergency services, such as the fire brigade and doctors.

He hoped construction would start as soon as possible.

Kurow chief fire officer John Sturgeon welcomed the news, saying that the large fire truck had struggled to get across the ailing one-lane bridges.

"There's not a great deal of room when you're driving a big fire truck across the bridge."

During lengthly closures, a fire engine had to be kept on the other side of the bridges in case of emergency in Hakataramea.

"I'm delighted funding has been confirmed."

Hakataramea farmer and Waimate District councillor Peter McIlraith said the news was "fantastic".

"It's vindication that you've got to voice your concerns. I'm absolutely delighted that they've responded."

He questioned the three-year funding cycle of the NZ Transport Agency's National Land Transport Programme, that the project was subject to.

Ad Feedback "[It] seems to be a bit draconian given the fact the cost of keeping the [existing] bridges open was astronomical.

"From a practical point-of-view, the fact that they're driving down piles and patching it up seems like money down the river."

It had been a long process lobbying the Government, he said. "We've been battling away for a long time.



LONG BATTLE

The campaign to replace the 130-year-old Kurow bridges has lasted more than a decade. 1996: The Herald reported that the Kurow bridges would probably be replaced.

Transit (now NZTA) warns the cost could be as high as $3 million.

1998: The Herald reported that the Kurow bridges were "unlikely" to be replaced in the near future.

2004: Transit regional manager Robert Odams confirmed replacement was not scheduled for some time, as it had been dropped from Transit's 10-year plan.

2008: Transit confirmed the project was back on the agenda, and it hoped to have replacement bridges ready by 2014.

2009: The Waitaki and Waimate communities express concern at a proposed single-lane structure. Transport Minister Steven Joyce announced construction of the new bridges could start "in less than 18 months".

2010: Community leaders welcomed the revised plans to replace Kurow's bridges with two- lane structures.

2011: Bridges closed for 10 days after high river flows caused damage to a pier. Community called for the replacements to be fast-tracked. A petition is presented to Transport Minister Steven Joyce.

2011: September 30, funding for the project is confirmed.

- South Canterbury

The rules of the road change
New Zealand's give way rules were brought into line with the rest of the world this morning, 25 March 2012. As of 5am right-turning traffic has to yield to oncoming left-turning traffic at intersections, and at uncontrolled T-intersections think top of the T goes before me. It is the biggest rule changes for motorists in decades and The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is urging drivers to be patient and courteous when they hit the road today. Experts say the changes will likely see drivers slow down as they adjust, so travel times today and next week could be longer than usual. NZTA spokesman Andy Knackstedt said there will be crashes at intersections today, and there will be crashes at intersections next week, but there are dozens of crashes at intersections every single day of the year. NZTA figures show there are more than 16,000 crashes at intersections each year, which equates to over 300 a week, or 45 a day. Knackstead told TV ONE's Breakfast although "it is not a magic bullet" it is hoped the new rules will knock those figures down in the long run. Knackstead said the NZTA has asked local authorities to look at intersections and possibly phasing in traffic lights if stacks of people are left lining up at intersections when they try to turn right. A $1.2 million campaign has prepared Kiwis for the change through the internet, TV advertising and pamphlets. New Zealand Transport Authority chief Geoff Dangerfield says the message is getting through to the public. "The big message now is for Sunday, for people to be courteous and patient as we all get used to this new rule," Dangerfield said. Road policing manager Rob Morgan said they will not be handing out fines immediately to drivers confused by the change. "Our instruction out there is to take a softly softly approach, to educate the public," Morgan said. "We understand this will be a process over time." Knackstead said NZTA has not asked police to provide more resources this morning and they are happy with the support they have received from police. "They are taking an educative approach, they are not going to be giving out tickets they are going to be giving out brochures and pamphlets." Insurance claims spike expected If collisions occur, insurance companies are likely to back drivers, Chris Ryan from the Insurance Council said. "When any particular road rule changes and people have to get out of their normal habits of driving on the roads and adapt to a new rule we do see a slight spike in insurance claims," said Ryan. "They are usually relatively minor claims and they are usually dealt with pretty sympathetically by the insurance companies."

Too much drama around the give way rules changing, it's no problem at all.

Personally I prefer the old system. What are the benefits, besides the supposed decrease in intersection accidents?

Personally I prefer the old system. What are the benefits, besides the supposed decrease in intersection accidents?

You'd think a decrease in intersection accidents is reason enough.

Blame the intersection, or blame the incompetent driver?

Now we'll have stacks of cars waiting in the middle of the road.

You'd think a decrease in intersection accidents is reason enough.

I don't see the numbr of incidents changing at all, it wasn't a difficult rule to work out, I learn't to drive with this rule, it's just going to confuse people for a few years, rather like when the old rule was introduced.

Now we'll have stacks of cars waiting in the middle of the road.

That's the outcome, then you'll see the public asking for it to be reintroduced.

Blame the intersection, or blame the incompetent driver?

Now we'll have stacks of cars waiting in the middle of the road.

Whys that? Your not even supposed to enter the intersection if you cant make it all the way across.

Whys that? Your not even supposed to enter the intersection if you cant make it all the way across.

Sorry, I was saying that "Why are we blaming the intersection, and not the drivers? I think its the drivers fault if they have poor judgement; they shouldn't have a license."

Too much drama around the give way rules changing, it's no problem at all.

Personally I prefer the old system. What are the benefits, besides the supposed decrease in intersection accidents?

Having driven in both systems (Britain uses the system that NZ is changing to right now) I prefer the new rules. There is far less ambiguity and less chance for an impatient driver to pull some risky move simply because they got tired of waiting. A situation that befell me very often:

Driving down Millhouse Drive in Meadowlands. Want to turn left, car wants to turn right. I pull to the left ready to turn left but wait for the guy to turn right as the road rules used to say. Impatient moron behind me gets tired of waiting and skirts around me, frightening the driver who wants to turn right. I sit there waiting for him to turn right as the rules say. Driver turning right no longer wants to go so waves me to move, then realises he has a moment to turn and turns in front of me.

The new rules prevent this situation from occurring. They are far more clear and now rely upon drivers simply waiting for gaps rather than having to do this "should I or shouldn't I wait for that guy turning right before I turn left because he's taking forever as he's scared he's going to get cut up by that crazy guy behind me who is blowing steam out of his nose in frustration at being stopped from ploughing ahead 10kmph over the speed limit towards the next red traffic light".

A situation that befell me very often:

Driving down Millhouse Drive in Meadowlands. Want to turn left, car wants to turn right. I pull to the left ready to turn left but wait for the guy to turn right as the road rules used to say. Impatient moron behind me gets tired of waiting and skirts around me, frightening the driver who wants to turn right. I sit there waiting for him to turn right as the rules say. Driver turning right no longer wants to go so waves me to move, then realises he has a moment to turn and turns in front of me.

:O

That is f** retarded. I have never had that problem...

I grew up driving in the Waikato and since moving to Sydney I find the give way rule, which is now being adopted back home, really frustrating. I realise that the "old rule" is difficult for people outside of NZ to get used to - but the traffic flows so much better. Sigh...

:O

That is f** retarded. I have never had that problem...

I grew up driving in the Waikato and since moving to Sydney I find the give way rule, which is now being adopted back home, really frustrating. I realise that the "old rule" is difficult for people outside of NZ to get used to - but the traffic flows so much better. Sigh...

I think that is the difference between "big city" and "small city". Auckland has a lot of drivers that engage in this kind of behaviour . I find that the traffic doesn't actually flow better with the right-hand rule due to the delays of "should I go or will someone cut me up" that occur with the right hand rule. It might be noted that I actually learned how to drive in NZ, not the UK so I am someone who was inside looking out when it came to driving in the UK for the first time on a trip back.

:O

That is f** retarded. I have never had that problem...

I grew up driving in the Waikato and since moving to Sydney I find the give way rule, which is now being adopted back home, really frustrating. I realise that the "old rule" is difficult for people outside of NZ to get used to - but the traffic flows so much better. Sigh...

I've found the same issue when driving in the UK and Australia, I much prefer the rule we've just dropped, so much for progress, I don't see why we should be making allowances for old farts who never got used to the rule or immigrants who fail to adapt, it's now going to confuse all those who learnt to drive under it.

I've found the same issue when driving in the UK and Australia, I much prefer the rule we've just dropped, so much for progress, I don't see why we should be making allowances for old farts who never got used to the rule or immigrants who fail to adapt, it's now going to confuse all those who learnt to drive under it.

I think it's a bit rich to blame "immigrants" as even those who learned to drive in NZ don't necessarily think it's the best rule. The rule is quite simple, but it is a bit frustrating and doesn't work on multi-laned roads very well at all. For single-lane roads it works very well as long as people obey it, but when they don't it can be dangerous.

The right hand rule used to exist in other countries. There is a reason they got rid of it and I think the NZ government thought the same.

^^Which other countries? And where they rhd countries like NZ?

^^Which other countries? And where they rhd countries like NZ?

Yes, Australia for one, specifically the state of Victoria. They used to have the rule until they scrapped it. I am not saying we should follow Australia on everything or everything they do is good (as it's not), however, I do think that when a country that has a very similar car culture to NZ, quite a similar urban form to NZ and a fair few cultural traits similar to those in NZ changes the law and has a lower crash rate than NZ it is worth considering. There is evidence out there published by the Automobile Association of NZ that the right hand rule does result in a good number of driver side impact crashes and so I think there is definitely merit to the suggestion. We'll just have to see how it goes!

Found some figures to back up my claim:

New Zealand is the only country in the world to have the current right hand rule.

The existing rule came into effect in 1977. It was adopted from the Australian state of Victoria which had introduced it to assist trams on Melbourne's streets, according to the Automobile Association (AA).

But Victoria changed back in 1993 and experienced a decline in intersection crashes as a result.

The AA supported a change to the rule when it was proposed in the Safer Journeys strategy in March. It said there was evidence that the right hand give way rules are a factor in the 2,560 intersection crashes, and one or two deaths, each year.

A rule change might also help many of the thousands of New Zealanders who head overseas and jump into cars, blithely turning right at the first opportunity and wondering why they cop either abuse, or the front of the left turning car.

It is estimated changing the rules to align with other countries will reduce the social cost of accidents by about $17 million a year.

It would improve pedestrian safety at intersections, where there has been an 88% increase since 2000 in pedestrians being hit, many of them hit by a turning vehicle.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/right-hand-rule-change-in-2012-3807731

^^
Whoa...didn't realise we were the ONLY country that still had the right hand rule.
Obviously we tried to lead but the World did not want to follow :) !!!!

The new rules are definitely a much needed improvement. The reasons why are pretty obvious if you consider the following point:

"When a driver makes a maneuver such as a turn or a lane change, the more directions they have to look in and the more variables they need to consider, the more risky and difficult the maneuver becomes since the brain will have to process more variables in a shorter period of time for each variable."

Rule #1

On that basis, if we look at the first of the two new rules, the rule where two opposing vehicles on the same main road are turning into the same side road. Here are the variables that each driver needs to consider:

Car Turning Right

New Rule

• Driver looks forward to see if there are any cars coming straight on, or turning left that they need to give way to.
• Driver looks forward-right to see if there any pedestrians crossing the road they are entering.

Old Rule

• Driver looks forward to see if there are any cars coming straight on that they need to give way to.
• Driver looks forward-right to see if there any pedestrians crossing the road they are entering.

Car Turning Left

New Rule

• Driver looks left to see if there are any pedestrians they need to give way to.

Old Rule

• Driver looks left to see if there are any pedestrians they need to give way to.
• Driver looks forward-right to see if there are any cars turning right into the same road they are turning into
• Driver looks behind them to see if there are any cars going straight on that the car in front of them would need to give way to.

So as you can see, for the most part, the rules are pretty similar in complexity for the Right Turning car, but much simpler for the Left Turning car.

The problems under the old rule was that it was often difficult for the left turning driver to judge whether to turn or not if there was an oncoming car turning right. On wide roads, the car turning right would need to give way to an approaching car going straight on. This would allow the left turning car to turn safely without having to give way.

However it got tricky on narrower roads where the car going straight on traveling behind the left turning car would often stop and wait for the left turning car to proceed. This was sometimes necessary if there was not enough room between the left turning car and the road centerline. What would happen is a vicious circle where the Left Turning car would give way to the Right Turning car, who in turn would give way to the Straight On car, who would be waiting for the Left Turning car to go. When this happened, drivers often acted indecisively while each other was trying to gauge what the other car was going to do. If both drivers moved at the same time, collisions would often result.

Rule #2

Rule number 2 is where two right turning cars are at a T-Junction. One would be on the Main Road turning into the Side Road, and the other would be on the Side Road turning into the Main Road. The rule change specifically ONLY deals with situations where this occurred at a T-Junction where there was no Stop or Give Way sign.


Car Turning Right from the Side Road

New Rule

• They must give way to ALL traffic on the Main Road

Old Rule

• They must give way to ALL traffic on the Main Road except traffic that is turning Right coming from their Left.


Car Turning Right from the Main Road

New Rule

• They must give way to all traffic coming straight on

Old Rule

• They must give way to all traffic coming straight on
• They must give way to all traffic on their Right turning Right

So as you can see, all drivers will benefit from a less complex decision making process.

In addition, the old rule had two significant problems:

1) Cars turning right out of a side street would have right of way to right turning traffic on their left, but not traffic going straight on coming from their left. An annoying side effect of this was where a vehicle on the side road would be unable to see whether there was any traffic on the main road going straight on coming from the left because a car turning right would be obstructing their view.

2) The road code considers an intersection to be any legal road or private road or driveway where public had access to such as entrances to supermarkets, carparks, petrol stations etc. But for other "private" driveways such as your own residential property or a private business driveway, many considered that "All traffic Not on the Legal Road must give way to all traffic already on the Legal Road" was the rule. The problem here is that it is too confusing... A petrol station of a supermarket has a car park that the public can access and so their driveway entering a road is an intersection. But a small local doctors surgery in a house with 2 or 3 off street parks also has a driveway but that might not be considered an intersection, just like your own private driveway isn't considered an intersection either.