To start, I have the following question.

What is the difference between a solid white centerline and a double yellow line?

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8520/road1rz3.jpg

I have offen seen campers and hire cars making the manoeuvre as illustrated with the red line. As far as I know there is no other country where a right turn lane is marked in such a manner.

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/4186/road2ua5.jpg

Would this not be better?

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/2151/road21re6.jpg

In regards to your second post. No. I believe it works very well in NZ and any kind of change to that you mentioned would be rediculous. As for the tourists, there is no need to conform to europan standards - they should learn our road rules - and properly- just as they should when attempting to drive in any country that is foriegn to them. There is no excuse for their idiotic and slow driving in their camper vans they need to sort their shit out or get off our roads.

And as for your first post. 1 - yes you can legally pass on a white line either broken or unbroken.

2 - I do not believe you will find a driveway in to which you could even consider to turn as these double yellows are most commonly found on state highways in the country side. If say you did - you WOULD be allowed to pull into a driveway, if you could not you would have to do a u-turn - breaking the double yellow anyway. To say that you could not would be ludacris.

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/4186/road2ua5.jpg

Yes I see a lot of uneducated nimwhits doing this dumb maneuver. Ah if turning right at the above intersection you are meant to drive across the broken lines so as not to be a hinderer to the remainder of traffic!

In regards to your second post. No. I believe it works very well in NZ and any kind of change to that you mentioned would be rediculous. As for the tourists, there is no need to conform to europan standards - they should learn our road rules - and properly- just as they should when attempting to drive in any country that is foriegn to them. There is no excuse for their idiotic and slow driving in their camper vans they need to sort their shit out or get off our roads.

And as for your first post. 1 - yes you can legally pass on a white line either broken or unbroken.

2 - I do not believe you will find a driveway in to which you could even consider to turn as these double yellows are most commonly found on state highways in the country side. If say you did - you WOULD be allowed to pull into a driveway, if you could not you would have to do a u-turn - breaking the double yellow anyway. To say that you could not would be ludacris.

Yes I agree with this

As for the diagonal white hatched area before right turning bays, this isn't such a bad thing really.

In australia, you have a similar arrangement, but the lines are NOT intended to be driven on and are often covered in raised studs. Instead, you do the maneover like the red arrow in the above diagram which is of course stupid. In saying that, their actual road marking layout is a little different than here in NZ so it doesn't seem too much of an issue.

I don't think that altering the marking will really achieve anything. Yes, tourists would benefit from having similar road markings as in their country. But using that basis for change, we'd change almost everything about our roads, including driving on the right hand side.
The reality is that when ANYONE drives in a country that is foreign to them, the onus is on THEM to learn and understand the law of the road in the country they intend to drive on. The markings above I don't think are dis-similar enough to warrant changing.

What I do find needs changing is the God-Damn Left turn rule where we have to give way to oncoming right-turning traffic which is turning into the same street as you.

Aussie brought the rule in during the 1970's, and so did we. It was brought in to help reduce road congestion which at the time, worked well due to the typical road design and engineering of the day.

These days, our roads are engineered a little different and now that rule's benefit is now negated. Aussie have since changed back to the original rule like all other countries have. NZ is now the only country that I'm aware of which has the rule.

That is a rule that confuses people and causes a real danger to locals and tourists.

Oh, as for that centre line issue as above?

Yes, there is some inconsistancy around the country as to what sort of markings various councils use and that does need sorting out.

The Solid Yellow Line means "do not cross" - This typically is used in passing lanes and approaches to intersections and typically refers to the banning of an 'overtaking' maneuver. A Double yellow line is the same, but the rule applies for traffic on both sides of the carriageway.

Technically, a solid yellow line means that crossing of the lines under any circumstance is prohibited. This includes turning into driveways and into side roads where there is no break in the lines. This rule holds true and is actively enforced in the US, but would seem loosely enforced here.

The broken yellow lines is a warning that you are approaching a continuous yellow line. Therefore you should not begin any move that would mean that you would be on the wrong side of the carriageway when the solid yellow line begins. If you are already on the other side of the carriageway when you see broken yellow lines, you must move back to your side of the road before the solid yellow line begins.

The Solid White Line is used in a number of areas and the rules are meant to be the same for wherever it is used, though there are exceptions.

1) Edge Line - Anything to the left of this line is the road shoulder. You may not cross the edge line during normal driving movements unless you are pulling over to stop (if stopping permitted), or are turning into or out of a driveway etc.

2) Lane Markings - Sometimes a solid white line is used between lanes travelling in the same direction. This line means "stay in lane". It is mostly used approaching intersections. It is also sometimes used on sharp curves, tunnels, and other areas where the changing lane maneuver might be a greater hazard than usual. On motorways, they sometimes use it to help reduce 'weaving' across lanes which causes capacity and safety issues.

3a) Centre Line - A centreline approaching an intersection serves as a warning of an intersection approaching, and also as a marker which shows drivers when they can make the actual turn move which is the break in the centre line at the intersection. Taking a wide angle turn by crossing the line early would be banned for example.

3b) Centre Line - The other use is rare in NZ but is occasionally used. It is probably the one area that has ambigious meaning... as I'll explain.

Typically it is used on a four lane arterial route and demarcs the opposite flows of traffic.

The problem is that in most cases where you have this road layout, you'd normally see a solid double yellow lines. BUT... it might be desirable to permit turning traffic into and out of driveways which the double yellow technically does not permit.

So, if the roading authority WANTs to permit those turns, the only line marking that is really permitted is a broken white line which is found on any normal highway or urban street.

The dilemma here is that since the road in question is a four laned road, there is no way for a driver to determine whether the next lane to the right of him is 'another lane going in his direction' or is an 'oncoming lane'. This is because all the inter-lane markings are the same.

In Australia, this arrangement is quite common and they solve it by making the centre lane a thicker broken white line. But it is still confusing and not immediately obvious especially if the paint is a little faded or worn.

So councils here seem to use the solid white line instead. While the white line normally means 'do not cross' during normal driving, it does allow crossing during such moves as turning into and out of driveways. This is similar to that of the edge line.

Yes the turning give way to the right rule is confusing to tourists, but so are alot of rules that are unique to our country.

I still feel that the rule of giving way to turning traffic is good, when the rule doesn't get used its because there is traffic behind the car that has to give way. This is usually on better designed roads, but on the smaller one lane roads which are still very common it still works well.

Yes the turning give way to the right rule is confusing to tourists, but so are alot of rules that are unique to our country.

I still feel that the rule of giving way to turning traffic is good, when the rule doesn't get used its because there is traffic behind the car that has to give way. This is usually on better designed roads, but on the smaller one lane roads which are still very common it still works well.


But the real issue with this rule is that it is awkward for local drivers here too.

If I am turning left and there is an oncoming car turning right, I have to not only look to him, but also behind me to see if there is another car going straight ahead which wold then permit me to turn left 'without' giving way, on the basis that he has to give way in turn.

That is distracting and annoying. Sometimes in a rear view mirror it can be hard to judge distance and speed of the car going straight ahead. This creates a hestitation 'stop - no I can go, no stop, oh yes, he is going straight, quick go'.

The general principle with driving is that a driver, when going forward, should only really be concerned about what is ahead of them - they should not have to be concerned with what is going on behind them.

In regards to your second post. No. I believe it works very well in NZ and any kind of change to that you mentioned would be rediculous
As for the tourists, there is no need to conform to europan standards - they should learn our road rules - and properly- just as they should when attempting to drive in any country that is foriegn to them. .

NZ has been gradually changing signage and marking to conform to international standards for the last 20 years.

The fact is that the flush turning lane is not found anywhere else. Its unique in the world.

Yes I see a lot of uneducated nimwhits doing this dumb maneuver. Ah if turning right at the above intersection you are meant to drive across the broken lines so as not to be a hinderer to the remainder of traffic!

As stated above. In EVERY other country the flushed area means ''Don't go there''. It is confusing to anyone coming from any other country.
Do you read the road code for every country you vist?

As for the diagonal white hatched area before right turning bays, this isn't such a bad thing really.

In australia, you have a similar arrangement, but the lines are NOT intended to be driven on and are often covered in raised studs. Instead, you do the maneover like the red arrow in the above diagram which is of course stupid. In saying that, their actual road marking layout is a little different than here in NZ so it doesn't seem too much of an issue.

In other words the aussies just mark their roads like everyone else = flushed area means stay out.


I don't think that altering the marking will really achieve anything. Yes, tourists would benefit from having similar road markings as in their country. But using that basis for change, we'd change almost everything about our roads, including driving on the right hand side.
The reality is that when ANYONE drives in a country that is foreign to them, the onus is on THEM to learn and understand the law of the road in the country they intend to drive on. The markings above I don't think are dis-similar enough to warrant changing.

There is the issue of basic clarity. Every country has it's own differences but there are certain marking principles that are adhered to by most countries.


What I do find needs changing is the God-Damn Left turn rule where we have to give way to oncoming right-turning traffic which is turning into the same street as you.

Aussie brought the rule in during the 1970's, and so did we. It was brought in to help reduce road congestion which at the time, worked well due to the typical road design and engineering of the day.

These days, our roads are engineered a little different and now that rule's benefit is now negated. Aussie have since changed back to the original rule like all other countries have. NZ is now the only country that I'm aware of which has the rule.

That is a rule that confuses people and causes a real danger to locals and tourists.

Another example of a really dumb rule that should be done away with.

:bash: Unfortunately I see this many times a day, everyday around the North Harbour industrial estate and Glenfield. In all honesty the likelihood that all these are tourists is very remote. Just your run of the mill white/blue collar kiwi workers or soccer mums who got their license and then promptly forgot the rules and how to drive!

Pretty self explanatory...

Open Road (speed limit 80km or higher)

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3794/markingopenrdvm2.jpg

Urban / Town (speed limit <80km)

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/753/markingcityjg4.jpg

You guys need to get out more.
Just point the f**ken car forward and drive! :)

^^ :lol: Even though it could sound hypocritical I agree

You guys need to get out more.
Just point the f**ken car forward and drive! :)
lol, thats f**ken gold bro :lol:

Im gonna use this thread to post my wish list for roading in NZ. Bear in mind this is utopia type stuff which would cost a fair few bob. Either way I dream of a day when our national roading consists of...

A triangular freeway network links the cities in the fastest growing areas of the country. Auckland/Hamilton/Tauranga. To be fair I think this really is necessary to start planning for now. They will thank us in 25 years for having the foresight.

SH1 motorway extension north is a damn good look but can we take it all the way to Whangarei please.

Another motorway system going north of Wellington all the way to Wanganui. This will bypass the Kapiti towns, Levin, Palmy, Feilding.

Dont forget Christchurch. A new motorway from Waipara in the north to Ashburton in the south running to the west of the airport. With excellent links to the city of course.

Dunedin probably doesnt need it. Due to geography there is really only two roads in and out of town and Transit NZ has done a good job there.

Other towns/city pairs that could benefit from a motorway link; Tauranga to Rotorua -- Picton/Blenheim to Nelson -- Hamilton/Taupo.

Bypasses for Timaru, Ashburton, Blenheim and Oamaru in the south as well.

Im gonna use this thread to post my wish list for roading in NZ. Bear in mind this is utopia type stuff which would cost a fair few bob. Either way I dream of a day when our national roading consists of...

A triangular freeway network links the cities in the fastest growing areas of the country. Auckland/Hamilton/Tauranga. To be fair I think this really is necessary to start planning for now. They will thank us in 25 years for having the foresight.

SH1 motorway extension north is a damn good look but can we take it all the way to Whangarei please.

Another motorway system going north of Wellington all the way to Wanganui. This will bypass the Kapiti towns, Levin, Palmy, Feilding.

Dont forget Christchurch. A new motorway from Waipara in the north to Ashburton in the south running to the west of the airport. With excellent links to the city of course.

Dunedin probably doesnt need it. Due to geography there is really only two roads in and out of town and Transit NZ has done a good job there.

Other towns/city pairs that could benefit from a motorway link; Tauranga to Rotorua -- Picton/Blenheim to Nelson -- Hamilton/Taupo.

Bypasses for Timaru, Ashburton, Blenheim and Oamaru in the south as well.

Wow... That's a lot of roads... Goodbye "clean green".

I like good roading too. What about a motorway all the way from Wellington or Auckland? and please.. that greeny cleany cliche is like a red rag to a bull 4 me. I think the only reason we lay claim to that is becaues there only 4millions of us so we dont leave too much mess. If NZ has a population 3 times that with our current environmental practices we would have horrific polution.

I like good roading too. What about a motorway all the way from Wellington or Auckland? and please.. that greeny cleany cliche is like a red rag to a bull 4 me. I think the only reason we lay claim to that is becaues there only 4millions of us so we dont leave too much mess. If NZ has a population 3 times that with our current environmental practices we would have horrific polution.

Hehe, you don't know me very well yet so you'll know that I was very tongue in cheek when I said that (it is also why I " "d it). ;)

^^ Ah ha, I see. Very well then. We agree. :)

If the govt and transit really pull there fingers out could be a 2030 scenario.

Blue= motorway
Orange = 4 lane highway or expressway

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/9046/niroadsi3.jpg
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6585/siroadnn1.jpg

^^:applause::okay::bow::cheers:

Imagine the cost of that proposal though.... we're talking what... $20-30 billion? Just to take possibly the most obvious motorway extension (that is not already planned or under construction), being Puhoi to Warkworth.

In order to reconstruct this road to motorway standard you'd have to do some incredible earthworks (unless you just 4-laned the existing road alignment, which would be pretty unacceptable. What are traffic movements along these other corridors too? I doubt the Picton-Blenheim road has particularly high volumes, Southland's population has been declining for decades, while the Desert Road is actually the quietest part of SH1 in the North Island (excluding north of Kaitaia I think).

With that kind of money you could probably have a high-speed electric rail system throughout NZ.

And think of what oil prices might be in 2030.... in my opinion there's a good chance of having less cars on the road than there are at the moment.

Imagine the cost of that proposal though.... we're talking what... $20-30 billion?

Probably. Amounts to about $1 billion a year in road construction


Just to take possibly the most obvious motorway extension (that is not already planned or under construction), being Puhoi to Warkworth.

In order to reconstruct this road to motorway standard you'd have to do some incredible earthworks (unless you just 4-laned the existing road alignment, which would be pretty unacceptable. What are traffic movements along these other corridors too? I doubt the Picton-Blenheim road has particularly high volumes, Southland's population has been declining for decades, while the Desert Road is actually the quietest part of SH1 in the North Island (excluding north of Kaitaia I think).

Picton Blenheim has pretty variable flows. It gets pretty busy southbound with ferry arrivals.
Southland's population is stable at the moment.
Desert Road handles about 3500 vehicles per day. It isnt very busy. It would be a low priority section for 4-laning. You also have to take into account that with a faster, more streamlined SH1 route through the north island the traffic volumes (and especially truck volumes) will increase.


With that kind of money you could probably have a high-speed electric rail system throughout NZ.

And think of what oil prices might be in 2030.... in my opinion there's a good chance of having less cars on the road than there are at the moment.

A high speed rail system throughout NZ would cost far in excess of the roading upgrades and be totally dependant on massive subsidies to keep it running. Very, very expensive.

^^ Isn't $1 billion a year approximately Transit's current budget? Most of that goes to maintenance, and recently to motorway construction in urban areas that probably need it more than rural highways.

So we'd probably need to double the amount of money spent on roads each year to create such a system.

With New Zealand's population estimated to never actually reach 5 million, and start declining after 2040 I doubt this amount of roading will be required. I see lots of freight returning to rail once deisel becomes super-expensive, and hopefully we have a few more massive windfarms to power an electrified system.

I guess I just feel a reliance on roads is pretty shaky when one looks long-term. Sure there are some big gaps in the rural highway system (like the Kopu Bridge and the roads north of Wellington and Auckland), but NZ isn't a country with 10 million people. If it was I imagine that system would definitely be needed.

^^ Isn't $1 billion a year approximately Transit's current budget? Most of that goes to maintenance, and recently to motorway construction in urban areas that probably need it more than rural highways.

So we'd probably need to double the amount of money spent on roads each year to create such a system.

With New Zealand's population estimated to never actually reach 5 million, and start declining after 2040 I doubt this amount of roading will be required. I see lots of freight returning to rail once deisel becomes super-expensive, and hopefully we have a few more massive windfarms to power an electrified system.

I guess I just feel a reliance on roads is pretty shaky when one looks long-term. Sure there are some big gaps in the rural highway system (like the Kopu Bridge and the roads north of Wellington and Auckland), but NZ isn't a country with 10 million people. If it was I imagine that system would definitely be needed.

I would agree with Kaas's plan IF there was the traffic volume to justify it. Very VERY rarely do I get held up, even during holiday periods, when I drive out of the city. I would say any rural highway expansion beyond the Waikato expressway would be rather fruitless. New Zealand is not a dense country, it's not a country with many commuter cities - like European nations with vast motorway networks attest to.

Again, I'd agree in principle with Jarbury's suggestion about a national high speed railway network; however, I would say that it would be much more prudent to first set up a national rail network in the first place! Grab back everything from Toll and renationalise everything. Then set about connecting close by cities with 160kph trains and then start worrying about the viability of a high speed network which requires far more investment.

There are so many cross country coaches that I believe there is some demand for intercity travel, however, it shouldn't come at a premium.

^^ If there's to be viable high-speed rail, I think it would really only be commuter-type stuff from Auckland to Hamilton. If some of the towns between Auckland and Hamilton were only 45-60 min from downtown Auckland via rail then this could ease some of the pressures on growth in Auckland (and would provide affordable housing for those who work in Auckland too).

I'd agree that anything faster than 160 kph is 'pie in the sky' stuff though. Even Australia doesn't have anything like that yet.

Oh my bloody god at the very least!! Wellington to Palmerston North corridor and Waipara to Ashburton do need to be linked by motorways. These areas are densely populated by our own local standards and must have sufficient decent transport links because they are growing in population people! Thats it- I feel so strongly about this that I will get out there tomorrow with a shovel, the orange fluoro hazard vest I bought off trademe and a marmite sandwich and few beers and start building the four lane super highway out of Christchurch. I hope to have the Ashburton extension completed by October(weather and year pending). Will keep you posted on progress. Then I will invite all ssc people to Christchurch for the ribbon cutting ceremony. We can do a convoy in our cars, led by Rooty's coolmobile. When this is complete I will single handedly electrify the train link from Christchurch to Ashburton. If we are all still alive- Svarty I want you to take pride of place sitting in the front carriage OK! :)

Oh my bloody god at the very least!! Wellington to Palmerston North corridor and Waipara to Ashburton do need to be linked by motorways. These areas are densely populated by our own local standards and must have sufficient decent transport links because they are growing in population people! Thats it- I feel so strongly about this that I will get out there tomorrow with a shovel, the orange fluoro hazard vest I bought off trademe and a marmite sandwich and few beers and start building the four lane super highway out of Christchurch. I hope to have the Ashburton extension completed by October(weather and year pending). Will keep you posted on progress. Then I will invite all ssc people to Christchurch for the ribbon cutting ceremony. We can do a convoy in our cars, led by Rooty's coolmobile. When this is complete I will single handedly electrify the train link from Christchurch to Ashburton. If we are all still alive- Svarty I want you to take pride of place sitting in the front carriage OK! :)

If you start electrifying that train, I'll WALK down from Auckland and start building it too! :lol:

I would agree with Kaas's plan IF there was the traffic volume to justify it. Very VERY rarely do I get held up, even during holiday periods, when I drive out of the city. I would say any rural highway expansion beyond the Waikato expressway would be rather fruitless. New Zealand is not a dense country, it's not a country with many commuter cities - like European nations with vast motorway networks attest to.
It's not a vast motorway network. More like what one might expect in Norway or Finland. Nothing special.


Again, I'd agree in principle with Jarbury's suggestion about a national high speed railway network; however, I would say that it would be much more prudent to first set up a national rail network in the first place! Grab back everything from Toll and renationalise everything. Then set about connecting close by cities with 160kph trains and then start worrying about the viability of a high speed network which requires far more investment.

There are so many cross country coaches that I believe there is some demand for intercity travel, however, it shouldn't come at a premium.

A high speed rail connection anywhere in NZ will come at a premium.

It's strange the way on the hand you say that NZ is too thinly populated to justify road expansion (a good road network is the most suitable for less densely populated countries) and then advocate a high speed rail network which inherently requires large population bases and densities to make it work. Seems a tad contradictory.

Oh my bloody god at the very least!! Wellington to Palmerston North corridor and Waipara to Ashburton do need to be linked by motorways. These areas are densely populated by our own local standards and must have sufficient decent transport links because they are growing in population people! Thats it- I feel so strongly about this that I will get out there tomorrow with a shovel, the orange fluoro hazard vest I bought off trademe and a marmite sandwich and few beers and start building the four lane super highway out of Christchurch. I hope to have the Ashburton extension completed by October(weather and year pending). Will keep you posted on progress. Then I will invite all ssc people to Christchurch for the ribbon cutting ceremony. We can do a convoy in our cars, led by Rooty's coolmobile. When this is complete I will single handedly electrify the train link from Christchurch to Ashburton. If we are all still alive- Svarty I want you to take pride of place sitting in the front carriage OK! :)

:lol::lol::banana::cheers::laugh::okay::rofl::hahaha::pepper::|:applause::applause:

It's not a vast motorway network. More like what one might expect in Norway or Finland. Nothing special.



A high speed rail connection anywhere in NZ will come at a premium.

It's strange the way on the hand you say that NZ is too thinly populated to justify road expansion (a good road network is the most suitable for less densely populated countries) and then advocate a high speed rail network which inherently requires large population bases and densities to make it work. Seems a tad contradictory.

No no - I didn't say high speed, if you read through I said:

"Again, I'd agree in principle with Jarbury's suggestion about a national high speed railway network; however, I would say that it would be much more prudent to first set up a national rail network in the first place!"

Since Norway and Finland manage to run a network, I don't think it's THAT far fetched to say that a railway network can't be built. I said high speed could come later if the demand is there.

"close by cities with 160kph trains and then start worrying about the viability of a high speed network which requires far more investment."

160kph is not high speed, it's a standard speed line.

If I could see that there was excessive traffic on the roads (which there rarely is) then I would agree with you. Around Auckland the main bottlenecks seem to be areas which are having roading investment such as up north to Orewa and down south to Hamilton, both of which are gaining duel carriageways at least. A motorway all the way down to Taupo would be excessive to say the least! I could perhaps begin to entertain the idea of a motorway to Tauranga, but even that would be a push as I have never been stuck in traffic out that way.

I agree totally with a national electrified train network. Europe (the seemingly perfect child) was great for me with such ease that came with wanting to travel around. Regular trains going basically everywhere ensured people could go where they needed at a reasonable price and in well-furnished trains. A nation-wide step in this direction can only be good for New Zealand and with more frequency of use, by my logic, development throughout regional centres would also be encouraged. My only fear is that if this were to happen, I do not wish to see a too heavily-'sydincalised' network that can cause chaos to the system should pay issues and the like be raised (France/Italy as examples). Though, considering New Zealand's small population and the crap that the train people already have to deal with now, it seems a future electrified national network is just what we need.

^^
The trouble is, is that people go on about Europe but emit the fact that they are refering to countries with far higher population numbers and densities.
Svarty refered to Norway (a European country with comparible population density) as having a high speed system. Norway has 1 high speed line running from Oslo to the airport. A distance of 60km or roughly from downtown Auckland to Mercer. Finland also has a high speed line to Tampere from Helsinki (Auckland to Huntly). In Norway and Finland there is far more road/ motorway contruction as for these countries roads are more practicle in the whole. So for those that would advocate building a high speed line from Auckland to Wellington I challenge to find any such comparison anywhere in the world, because I sure can't think of any at all. Even in the densely populated countries of Europe high speed lines have been shelved in favour of motorway contruction as high speed lines are inherently 1. extremely expensive to build 2. aren't fanancially rendible
I'm not against rail but considering the costs involved in developing high speed lines (far in excess of road costs) as opposed to the benifits I don't think it would work in NZ.

Anyway. I did another wee drawing :)

Here's what I think they should do with the Mt Wellington Interchange

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8153/mtwlg1sr7.jpg

I can't see the connection from the Southern to the South eastern east bound?

Bad eyes? Degraded concentration? Don't know, but another gem from the Kaas well!

^^ A high-res version of that would be nice.

To settle the "high-speed rail" argument, what I originally stated was that the kind of money that would build the motorway/carriageway network Kiwikaas outlined above "could", in my opinion, be better spent building something like a high-speed rail network. Subsequent posts informed me that a high-speed rail network would be MUCH more expensive, so I changed my view to supporting a better 'standard-speed' network around NZ.

I think the biggest point is that expanding our rural motorways would cost huge amounts of money and take an enormously long period of time (how long have they been building the Waikato Expressway now?) and generally current traffic flows aren't high enough to justify this.

I think the higher-volume roads around Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch in particular do need a big upgrade, but generally this is planned or under construction to some extent already. I generally advocate rail investment over road investment because of the current HUGE imbalance in favour of roads, and the fact that with skyrocketing oil prices set to continue into the future, nobody can really say with certainty that anyone will be able to afford to drive to Taupo in 30 years time.

I think enough people are always going to want to drive and I dont think petrol prices increasing will have too much impact. I reckon after initially pulling our car usage back we just get used to it and think nothing of it after a while.

Honest to god Petrol would have to hit $5 a litre before I consider other options. I think that was what I was paying in Norway which doesnt have fantastic high speed train networks believe it or not. Going from downtown Oslo to Gardermoen Airport is a convenient quick and easy trip but costs a bucket load of cash to use no matter what currency you ultimately pay in.

And volume of traffic isnt necessary the only reason to upgrade a road. Safety has to be a big reason. Anyone having driven into Tauranga from Auckland knows the road isnt the most pleasant to drive. Further to my comments re WLG and CHC- add SH2 Auckland-Tauranga to the list for immediate motorwayification.

^^ There are already plans to upgrade SH29 between Hamilton and Tauranga, to be the main route from Auckland-Tauranga. Although it's longer than SH2, it doesn't have the Karangahake Gorge, which is obviously a pretty major impediment to widening that road. Add the SH29 upgrade to the Waikato Expressway and you should have a pretty damn good road from Auckland to Tauranga.

Is this better Jarbury?
Kane. East-Southbound connections are unnecessary. Traffic coming from Pakauranga via the Eastern Highway isn't heading south.

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/4355/mtwlg1aa6.jpg

^^
The trouble is, is that people go on about Europe but emit the fact that they are refering to countries with far higher population numbers and densities.
Svarty refered to Norway (a European country with comparible population density) as having a high speed system.

Argh! Kaas read what I said again, please! I said that AFTER a standard network of railway was implimented that the possibility of high speed rail could be investigated. Norway might only have one high speed line (which I wasn't talking about) but it does have a national network of standard speed lines!

In my initial post I only mentioned 160kph!!! Anyway, going back to roading - like I said before, the main areas of high traffic are getting the investment they need at least. Also, I like your redesign for the south eastern, it is much needed as that junction is highly frustrating.

^^
Ok mate. Point taken indeed.
I'll stop bullying now;)

Yeah great redesign. Only worry would be that you end up with 3 on-ramps onto the southern within a very short distance. I know that you're not adding MORE traffic, but splitting in into even more ramps might mess things up.

I guess ramp metering would help a bit though.

http://www.transit.govt.nz/news/images/Logo_TNZ.gif
Hamilton Regional Office

Media Release

7 January 2008
Ngaruawahia Bypass design underway

Work has started on the design of the State Highway 1 Ngaruawahia Bypass, which will further progress the development of the Waikato Expressway.

The project is part of Transit’s commitment to develop the Waikato Expressway as the key strategic transport corridor for the Waikato region.

Transit acting regional manager Kaye Clark says the design process for the Ngaruawahia Bypass, to be carried out by Hamilton’s Bloxam, Burnett and Olliver Ltd, will take it one step closer to construction by refining its design, investigating the soil conditions and obtaining resource consents.

Mrs Clark says, “Transit will be working closely with Waikato District Council, local iwi and all affected landowners to progress the design. This will provide certainty for all residents and stakeholders regarding the specifics of the bypass route and its subsequent effects on the future development of Ngaruawahia and Horotiu.”

The designated bypass route starts immediately south of the Mangawara Stream Bridge on SH1 in Taupiri, turns left onto SH1B on Gordonton Road for approximately 2.6 km, then heads south towards Lake Areare and Lake Road. It then crosses the Waikato River approximately 400m south of the Horotiu Bridge, and rejoins SH1 at Hutchinson Road, just North of the Fonterra dairy factory at Te Rapa.

The 12.5 km Ngaruawahia Bypass will connect to the SH1 Waikato Expressway between the proposed Huntly Bypass to the north and the Hamilton Bypass to the south. It will also connect to the planned Te Rapa Bypass at Horotiu, which is part of the Hamilton Western Corridor route.

Minister of Transport, Hon Annette King says, “The Waikato Expressway is a key deliverable in Transit’s State Highway Plan and I am delighted to see it progress. The Government made a commitment to address the Waikato region’s transport needs in our May 2006 budget, and development of the Waikato Expressway was recognised as an important strategic investment.”

Mayor Peter Harris says Waikato District Council is delighted with the news.
“This is a major section of the new expressway, and with design now underway we can optimistically look forward to construction starting in the foreseeable future. The completion of the Waikato Expressway will be the single biggest factor in promoting growth and progress in the region.
“The Expressway runs through the Waikato District, which is an important economic hub, and will provide vital links between New Zealands’ larger commercial centres and export ports,” Mr Harris says.

The Waikato Expressway is being constructed in sections as priorities are determined and funding becomes available. Two sections of the expressway, at Mercer and Ohinewai, have already been completed. The Cambridge Bypass section is currently being designed and funding has been allocated to design the Rangiriri Bypass.

The design of the Ngaruawahia Bypass is expected to be completed by late 2010. Transit’s 2007/08 State Highway programme indicated that construction could start within the 10-year period it covers.
http://www.transit.govt.nz/includes/images/20080108-ngaruawahia-bypass-taupiri-horitu.jpg

Watching the Waikato Expressway being built is like seeing the BNZ tower slowly go up in Auckland. Im sure someone else said it better somewhere on these forums, mighta been metroman but can we find that oil off invercargill and get the gold out of those westland hills soon so we can build these roading projects quickly.

If the govt and transit really pull there fingers out could be a 2030 scenario.

Blue= motorway
Orange = 4 lane highway or expressway

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/9046/niroadsi3.jpg
http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6585/siroadnn1.jpg

^^ I think that deserves a *mailage* to both Tansit and the Govt.:)

btw: When I used my KiwiBank online the other day, the 4 letter security code I had to enter was kaas LMFAO!:lol:

Completed Awatere Bridge replacement
SH1
North of Seddon and 25km south of Blenheim
http://www.transit.govt.nz/content_files/projects/Project136_ImageFile1.jpg


Approved Arahura River Bridge replacementSH6
West Coast

Start Date: ONTRACK plan to start construction in the second half of 2007.
End Date: 2009
http://www.transit.govt.nz/content_files/projects/Project168_ImageFile1.jpg

Approved Kopu Bridge Replacement
SH25
5km south of Thames on SH25 at the North of the Waihou River

Design is expected to be completed in 2006/07.
Construction is expected to start within five years, and take 2-3 years to complete.
http://www.transit.govt.nz/content_files/projects/Project116_ImageFile1.jpg

Completed Church Road to Avalon Drive four-laning
SH1
Hamilton City
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3212/terapaavaloner2.jpg

Under Construction Avalon Drive Bypass
SH1
Hamilton City
http://www.transit.govt.nz/projects/avalondrive/gallery/maps/full/20070209-Avalon-b4-and-after-566.jpg

Approved Ruby Bay Bypass
SH60
Between Nelson and Motueka at the top of the South Island
Start Date: End of 2008
End Date: Mid to late 2010
http://www.transit.govt.nz/content_files/projects/Project234_ImageFile1.jpg
http://www.transit.govt.nz/content_files/projects/Project234_ImageFile2.jpg
http://www.transit.govt.nz/content_files/projects/Project234_ImageFile3.jpg

Under Construction Mangatawhiri Deviation
SH2
At Mangatawhiri township (just east of the Mangatawhiri Stream), 10km east of the SH1/2 Junction.
Start Date: Construction started in November 2006
End Date: Late 2008

http://www.transit.govt.nz/projects/mangatawhiri/gallery/maps/full/20061102-Map-Inset-566.jpg

Under Construction Bell Block Bypass
SH3
New Plymouth

A four lane highway with a significant intersection in the form of a grade separated interchange

Just a couple of illustrations to show how SH1 upgrade might look.
As you can see the road varies form motorway to expressway to 4 lane road with double yellow centre line or flush median.

Desert Rd. I really like this one

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8615/desertrdsj0.jpg

Just up the road

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/7775/desertrd2by1.jpg

Just south of Taupo

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/7421/taupopc2.jpg

Tirau by-pass and interchange

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2238/tirauar5.jpg

more please! I like these. Well done! The last picture is my favourite.

Just a couple of illustrations to show how SH1 upgrade might look.
As you can see the road varies form motorway to expressway to 4 lane road with double yellow centre line or flush median.

Desert Rd. I really like this one

Just up the road

Just south of Taupo

Tirau by-pass and interchange


^^ Good stuff Kaas - Keep it coming. I like it.

I'l really like to see all four lanes sections have some kind of hard median. double painted lines just isn't good when your got oncoming traffic in both lanes doing probably 120km+ per hour (since they are likely overtaking).

The dual passing lanes just north of Rolleston are particularly bad - There are frequently accidents on here though to date, most seem to be people losing control by running into trees etc on the side of the road. Oh the mess if they swerve into oncoming traffic.

I think transit should have a policy of when they build passing lanes, they should make them a metre or two wider, and have a wire rope barrier in the middle. It would also remove the stupidity of those last minute people who like to get ahead of that last car before the passing lane runs out - only they usually leave it too late and they end up over the double yellow lines - potentially fatal move.

The double-passing lanes on SH2 just before the SH25 turn-off have two lanes on each side with a wire barrier in between. I agree that this situation should be more common.

Kaas, pretty drawings but is there really a point to 4 laning the Desert Road? This is the quietest stretch of SH1 in the North Island (south of Kaitaia). Surely 4 laning between Auckland and Whangarei would be a better option?

One out of the box. A revamped ferry terminal in Wellington with direct motorway connections

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/6725/wlgferrynx6.jpg

more please! I like these. Well done! The last picture is my favourite.

Good stuff Kaas - Keep it coming. I like it.

Thanks guys

I'l really like to see all four lanes sections have some kind of hard median. double painted lines just isn't good when your got oncoming traffic in both lanes doing probably 120km+ per hour (since they are likely overtaking).

Remeber youre looking at a continuous 4-lane road. The overtaking dynamics change with less sudden lane changing, swerving etc.
A standard overtaking lane only lasts a km or so so when the lane starts the driver behaviour is more reminisant of the start of a grand prix with motorists overtaking as many vehicles as possible in a short distance.


The dual passing lanes just north of Rolleston are particularly bad - There are frequently accidents on here though to date, most seem to be people losing control by running into trees etc on the side of the road. Oh the mess if they swerve into oncoming traffic.

I think transit should have a policy of when they build passing lanes, they should make them a metre or two wider, and have a wire rope barrier in the middle. It would also remove the stupidity of those last minute people who like to get ahead of that last car before the passing lane runs out - only they usually leave it too late and they end up over the double yellow lines - potentially fatal move.

Short passing lanes should probably have some sort of extra division.
The highway between Rolleston and ChCh should be a constant 4 lanes.

The double-passing lanes on SH2 just before the SH25 turn-off have two lanes on each side with a wire barrier in between. I agree that this situation should be more common.

Kaas, pretty drawings but is there really a point to 4 laning the Desert Road? This is the quietest stretch of SH1 in the North Island (south of Kaitaia). Surely 4 laning between Auckland and Whangarei would be a better option?

The Desert Rd currently handles about 3500 vehicles a day. That's indeed not a busy section of highway. The reason I divided it was for continuity on the route. Also this stretch is often severely misty at low cloud cover so a divided road is very safe indeed. Also due to the fact that land aquissitions are non existant on this stretch is would be very cheap. The sections just north of the main straights (as pictured) would require alot of bridge and excavation work though. Also a more evenly graded, wider highway would be less likely to be closed due to snow and ice

Let's just put this stretch down near the bottom of kiwikaas's program

Upgrading the Desert Road to reduce the number of closures and to improve safety does make a lot of sense. That might be straightening and resurfacing rather than 4 lanning I suppose.

I'm curious to see if you can construct a 4 lane route between Puhoi and Warkworth with your awesome skills on modifying Google Earth images.

Upgrading the Desert Road to reduce the number of closures and to improve safety does make a lot of sense. That might be straightening and resurfacing rather than 4 lanning I suppose.

I'm curious to see if you can construct a 4 lane route between Puhoi and Warkworth with your awesome skills on modifying Google Earth images.


Thats right up there on my list.
Desert road is easy. Copy, paste hahaha.

^^ I had a talk about it with other people in my office a year or so ago. We figured the alignment would probably have to be quite far west of the current SH1 route to miss all the mountainous terrain around there. That would mean it would bypass Warkworth (probably a good thing), and might mean a whole new alignment of the Dome Valley Road would be necessary (once again, probably a good thing considering how dangerous that road is).

^^ Kaas you have way too much time on your hands. That new ferry terminal design is awesome and worthy of a post to transit and toll/ontrack.

Only one slight criticism of it is that roundabout thats under the ferry exit ramp - The traffic goes around it counter-clockwise.

Not sure how this would work here since half the drivers can't drive around the regular roundabouts properly, let alone a reversed one. Sorry Kaas, not really a criticism of you, but more of the average driver here who got their drivers licenses from a packet of Weet-Bix.

On the point of ferry crossings - why is it that in NZ if you want to get a ferry crossing, you must turn up an hour before departure (and usually have a ticket in advance) whereas in most european ferry services, you just rock on up to the boat with 5 minutes notice, grab a ticket and get on and go.

What's the go? Why is it so slow here?

^^ Kaas you have way too much time on your hands. That new ferry terminal design is awesome and worthy of a post to transit and toll/ontrack.

Only one slight criticism of it is that roundabout thats under the ferry exit ramp - The traffic goes around it counter-clockwise.

Not sure how this would work here since half the drivers can't drive around the regular roundabouts properly, let alone a reversed one. Sorry Kaas, not really a criticism of you, but more of the average driver here who got their drivers licenses from a packet of Weet-Bix.

On the point of ferry crossings - why is it that in NZ if you want to get a ferry crossing, you must turn up an hour before departure (and usually have a ticket in advance) whereas in most european ferry services, you just rock on up to the boat with 5 minutes notice, grab a ticket and get on and go.

What's the go? Why is it so slow here?

I like to doodle about with mspaint now and then:)
Good call on the roundabout. My 17 years driving on the right is beginning to show. I'll do a correction on that.
I made the ramp(s) to and off the ferry 2 lanes (like is the case in Europe) for fast loading and off loading with the exit ramp running straight to connect with the motorway. No shunting on and off the ferry as is now the case.

^^ I had a talk about it with other people in my office a year or so ago. We figured the alignment would probably have to be quite far west of the current SH1 route to miss all the mountainous terrain around there. That would mean it would bypass Warkworth (probably a good thing), and might mean a whole new alignment of the Dome Valley Road would be necessary (once again, probably a good thing considering how dangerous that road is).

unfortunately though that mountainous terrain seems to continue all the way west to the Kaipara, any route through there just seems destined at one point to encounter escarpment after escarpment at some point. Though I guess if you went north west directly from Puhoi there may be a route that stays more or less level (by following one of the many creek valleys) to Woodcocks (though just south of Woodcocks is an escarpment which would require a viaduct to overcome) to meet with the North Auckland railway and follow the route of the railway to state highway one near wellsford (though north of Kaipara Flats it gets rugged again after being somewhat level between Woodcocks and Kaipara flats). Warkworth and the Dome Valley road would be almost completely bypassed.

I'm guessing that the current alignment of state highway 1 was chosen because it was the easiest route to deal with (well without bypassing Warkworth that is) I think there is only one major escarpment along that particular route, the one just after Mahurangi West rd. I think this would be the main challenge of a route that stays close to the original alignment (though this could be overcome by a viaduct), though the narrowness of many of the valleys (and the fact that there are several properties along them) would also be a challenge.

I like to doodle about with mspaint now and then:)
Good call on the roundabout. My 17 years driving on the right is beginning to show. I'll do a correction on that.
I made the ramp(s) to and off the ferry 2 lanes (like is the case in Europe) for fast loading and off loading with the exit ramp running straight to connect with the motorway. No shunting on and off the ferry as is now the case.

What would be interesting is if someone actually did a feasibility study of building a Cook Strait Bridge (or Tunnel, or combination).

I think the Muldoon Govt looked at it as an add-on the the think big projects but decided (rather wisely) to drop the idea when at the time as engineers suggested that it couldn't really be done.

Apparently bridging was too difficult because of the pier depths and strong currents (and winds), tunnelling is too difficult due to depth and a suspended/rest on the ocean floor tunnel is probably also too hard due to current and possibly risky since we are in an earthquake zone. (that tunnel would fill with water mighty quick if it ruptured - Major loss of life and chaos... has a certain ring to it doesn't it?

But of course we have moved along 25 years from that, and we have seen many amazing projects spring up abroad so I wonder if they reviewed such ideas, would it now be possible and just how much would it cost?

I'd like to see a four lane bridge + rail line. (The Rail is a MUST) OK, it would have to be tolled at a significant price, but in this day and age where we pay $300+ to take a car on a 3 hour trip to wellington and back does seem a little steep. Surely, a bridge with a 30 minute crossing and even say costing $100 per car (and no big wait at the ferry terminal) would boost economic ties between the North and South Islands. I can see massive boosts to tourism as for both domestic and international. A lot of people in the NI have never been to the SI and vice versa, likewise with foreigners.

Just a thought.

WTF is up with LTNZ and Transit, just get the fuck on with it and stop with this secondary investigation bullshit :bash: :ohno: :nuts:

Anger over Waikato Expressway downgrade

By BELINDA FEEK - Waikato Times | Tuesday, 04 March 2008

Land Transport New Zealand's proposal to downgrade two sections of the Waikato Expressway was thrown back in its face after a meeting with district officials in Hamilton yesterday.

The regional land transport committee was unimpressed with LTNZ's decision to withdraw funding for the $500 million Hamilton bypass through which SH1 traffic would be diverted along the eastern side of the city.

The committee was equally annoyed with a suggestion to downgrade the Huntly bypass from four lanes to two lanes and instead include more passing lanes.

The Hamilton bypass runs from Lake Rd, Horsham Downs, in the north, to south of Tamahere at Discombe Rd. The Huntly section runs from south of Ohinewai to Gordonton Rd.

The $1.2 billion Waikato Expressway is made up of eight bypasses and is designed to move heavy traffic off roads with poor safety records, and to reduce travelling times between Auckland and Hamilton.

In a written decision, LTNZ said it would defer funding of the Huntly bypass until lower cost options were found and it withdrew its funding for the $500 million Hamilton bypass because it was too expensive.

Hamilton city councillor Dave Macpherson said city officials were "appalled" at LTNZ's decision, saying the organisation was completely out of touch with the city's transport needs.

"They've taken no account of all the work that has been done in this year's regional land transport strategy.

"Not only that, the hundreds of thousands of money ratepayers have spent in preparing this strategy."

Mr Macpherson said he couldn't understand why more paperwork had to be done when Hamilton and Huntly were ready for the design phase, and the Te Rapa bypass was ready to be built. "People expect surety and now it's all been thrown back up in the air again."

Waikato district councillor Allan Sanson said previous assurances from LTNZ clearly meant nothing.

"This region has taken ownership (of the issue) but the Government hasn't taken any ownership."

Hauraki Mayor John Tregidga said it was imperative the expressway went ahead to reduce the amount of heavy traffic off SH2 and 27.

"It really concerns me the number of accidents we've been having on that stretch and it's been going on a long time."

Mr Tregidga's concerns were backed by the release of the 2007 regional council road toll figures for which Waikato now holds the title for the highest toll.

Ninety people died on the district's roads, which also include fatals from Taupo.

Even Transit NZ officials struggled to back LTNZ's decision, with representative Barry Dowsett saying its investigations had shown the expressway needed all of its sections to be totally beneficial.

LTNZ representative Myles Andrews said he appreciated the region had been waiting for this project "for quite some time" but it had been hard for LTNZ to complete the project without a "wider strategic view".

"There will be the need for some secondary investigation but by and large it can continue as planned."

The committee agreed to write to Transport Minister Annette King about its concerns over the risk of any delays to the expressway due to LTNZ's resolutions.

National's Hamilton East MP David Bennett said LTNZ's decisions were a huge "slap in the face" for the district.

"People of the Waikato are demonstratively upset and very concerned by the Government's lack of commitment to this region in respect of this issue...this is a strategic road that needs to be built."



http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikatotimes/4425104a6579.html

Amazing.
Amazingly stupid

Come on LTNZ, Transit, Councils, Govt etc

JUST BUILD THE FUCKING THING!

Just like we've always done huh?

Have a study to decide what to do, then a few years later, we revise the strategy because of changing circumstances, then decide on a cheap option, but which there is still no funding so we wait a few more years then have another study and a few public discussions to find what people want, only to find that they want one of two options, both are too expensive, so they go for a cheaper option which requires land acquisitions, which take time to process, but since they are too tight to get on with it, by the time they do the land is too expensive and construction is too because of inflation and the project gets canned so in another few year we will... have another study to find a suitable alternate option.

I reckon our authorities must almost waste as much time having studies than they do actually building results.

Here in Chch it is quite remarkable how only in the last year or so, the councils did a study to map out future land transport needs in the south of Chch. One of the requirements was for an extension to the southern motorway from Hallswell Junction Road, to the back of Templeton.

Gosh, I wonder how much money they spent analysing traffic models to come up with that!. If one looks back at the 1960's Master Transport Plan, you'll see that our councillors had the right idea all along since that plan too has a motorway to the back of templeton, in virtually the same alignment.

^^
Yes, it's funny how they need to hire 101 consultants these days to do the work of a draftsman and an engineer 40 years ago.
Long live outsourcing.
I don't understand why they weren't securing the route back in the 1960s/70s already. Crazy that such a basic connection is still incomplete in 2008

Exactly exactly exactly. I dont use the Auckland Hamilton road but I think its strange that a city of 1.5million and a major provincial centre of 150k that are a stones throw away from each other arent joined my a motorway.

The following is a true story- I actually have a vivid memory of reading the Herald back in 1989 as a 7 year old and seeing an article saying that the two cities will be linked a motorway by 1997. Back then I thought 'great, but that is so far away.' 18 years after reading that article it STILL hasnt happened.

A plague on your houses Transit.

So does anybody actually believe a cross Cook Strait bridge would be built? How deep is that channel anyway? It would have to be a major engineering feat- the type that would have its own show on Discovery Channel.

The following is a true story- I actually have a vivid memory of reading the Herald back in 1989 as a 7 year old and seeing an article saying that the two cities will be linked a motorway by 1997. Back then I thought 'great, but that is so far away.' 18 years after reading that article it STILL hasnt happened.

So does anybody actually believe a cross Cook Strait bridge would be built? How deep is that channel anyway? It would have to be a major engineering feat- the type that would have its own show on Discovery Channel.

^^ Ha ha - Why does that not surprise me?

In 1962, The Chch Master Transport plan had the northern motorway going through the suburb of St Albans. The part of the suburb on the alignment looked al run down since obviously, no-one would want to spend money doing up houses wtc that would be demolished.

After many reviews and strategies and studies later.... in 1993, Transit drops the designation and the land is sold. Now, it's plastered with town houses.

Now, since access to Chch from the north is just crap these days, then I am waiting for yet another study which will recommend reinstating the designation for the motorway. But of course, now that its all built on, it will never be cost effective to construct with all the land acquisitions etc.

I'm interested to see LTNZ find a 'cheaper option' to quote their words in the newspaper article. On the basis that construction costs for roading seem to be going up at about 10% per year - I'm willing to put money on it that 'ultimately' the solution they pick, will be a more expensive one, if only for all the delays and procrastination along the way.

Transit and other parties just don't get it do they?

Has this slipped in under the radar?

Or have not been keeping tabs on these forums enough?

http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=2033

:cheers:

hang on, aren't the pedestrian bridges over the Roskill extension cable stayed, so the ormiston Rd bridge wouldn't exactly be the first in NZ as the article says? lol

hang on, aren't the pedestrian bridges over the Roskill extension cable stayed, so the ormiston Rd bridge wouldn't exactly be the first in NZ as the article says? lol

Not sure but although they don't specifically say it, their statement would suggest they were really meaning 'first cable stayed road/vehicle bridge'

Cool - I like these bridges so it's good to see one in NZ. Unfortunately I live in the south island so won't see it often. Maybe we could have a cable stayed Lyttelton Harbour Bridge one day.

Transit New Zealand

Hamilton Regional Office

Media Release

13 March 2008
Public Information Day for Cambridge Bypass


The people of Cambridge will have an opportunity to find out more about the proposed design for the State Highway 1 Cambridge Bypass later this month.

Transit New Zealand is holding a public information day on Wednesday the 26th of March at the Cambridge Town Hall, from 2 to 7pm. The information day will enable anyone with an interest in the project to find out more about the proposed bypass design and provide the design team with their feedback.

The design of the Cambridge Bypass began in April last year and preliminary geo-technical and land surveys are now almost complete. Transit has also determined approximately how much wider the current route designation needs to be to meet current highway safety design and environmental standards, and to cater for future four-laning.

Transit regional manager, Kaye Clark says Transit hopes to lodge Notice of Requirement (NoR) documentation for the extended land designation required for the bypass by early next year, with Waipa District and Waikato District Councils.

Mrs Clark says, “Public input is a very important part of this project. Anyone who is interested in this project will find the information day useful, and their feedback on the proposed design will be welcomed.”

Representatives from Transit and their engineering, property and resource management consultants will be available at the information day to discuss the design.

Transit New Zealand

Hamilton Regional Office

Media Release

13 March 2008
Public Information Day for Cambridge Bypass


The people of Cambridge will have an opportunity to find out more about the proposed design for the State Highway 1 Cambridge Bypass later this month.

Transit New Zealand is holding a public information day on Wednesday the 26th of March at the Cambridge Town Hall, from 2 to 7pm. The information day will enable anyone with an interest in the project to find out more about the proposed bypass design and provide the design team with their feedback.

The design of the Cambridge Bypass began in April last year and preliminary geo-technical and land surveys are now almost complete. Transit has also determined approximately how much wider the current route designation needs to be to meet current highway safety design and environmental standards, and to cater for future four-laning.

Transit regional manager, Kaye Clark says Transit hopes to lodge Notice of Requirement (NoR) documentation for the extended land designation required for the bypass by early next year, with Waipa District and Waikato District Councils.

Mrs Clark says, “Public input is a very important part of this project. Anyone who is interested in this project will find the information day useful, and their feedback on the proposed design will be welcomed.”

Representatives from Transit and their engineering, property and resource management consultants will be available at the information day to discuss the design.

Not to harp on [again] about how dumb transit and LTNZ are but:

A couple of weeks ago they were told that part of the Waikato Expressway was to be downgraded or if not, scrapped, due to a lack of funds..

So now they are to spend more money doing another study (any surprises here?) for a road that I can't see as being any more beneficial than the one they have just downgraded.

What's the go with that?

Notice of Requirement is basically like a resource consent application, and gives Transit the right to acquire any necessary property, so it's a little more than just another report.

I can't believe the amount of bullshit we have to go through now in NZ to build a fuckn road! its only a road! they are everywhere! what does it matter if we build another one! just get out the fuckn diggers and mow down the countryside because at the end of the day and once all this consultation, numerous reports and investigations are done with its going to be built anyway!

I can't believe the amount of bullshit we have to go through now in NZ to build a fuckn road! its only a road! they are everywhere! what does it matter if we build another one! just get out the fuckn diggers and mow down the countryside because at the end of the day and once all this consultation, numerous reports and investigations are done with its going to be built anyway!

I like your way of thinking KingKong1. They should just get out there and do it.

Does anyone know what sort of red tape authorities have to go through in other developed countries to build a road etc? Sometimes I get the feeling that we have far more bureaucracy here than elsewhere.

laughs gee sounds like winnipeg study the hell outa it to make it go away

I don't think NZ has more red tape now than many western countries.
I think the biggest difference is that while most western countries were developing their highway networks at a furious pace in the 1950's-60's-70's and early 80's, NZ pretty much stopped in the mid 70's only to pick up the programme 25 years later. In the meantime the population and traffioc levels had increased enormously along with land aquisition and construction costs. Legeslation had also become far more complexed. All in all NZ is running hard to stand still.
The 4-lane Auckland-Hamilton route should have been completed 25 years ago already. Now basic city to city connections are being delayed because expensive urban routes need to be completed way later and at far greater cost.
In a nut shell, NZ is struggling now because of a quater of a century of transport being put on the backburner by consectutive govts. As a teenager in the 1980's I could clearly see the impending problems then but the government and electorate were focussed on the economic survival of NZ at the time. Developement made way for cut-backs in spending.
Just a wee note. In 1985 the harbour tunnel project in Auckland was costed at $400 million. A 6 lane bridge from Stanley Pt to Mecanics Bay at $1 billion in 1988.

Adjusting those amounts to inflation and current economic climate and they'll sound more rational. It's like the arguement that is often used about petrol prices. In Britain they did an analysis which involved adjusting petrol prices to inflation and up until last year petrol prices had remained much the same across 40 years!!!

You're also forgetting that urban highway structures in Auckland and Wellington are generally well developed anyway! We don't have the population density to require HUGE urban motorway systems. I agree that the Waikato Expressway should be build and the political hand-wringing in regards to this project is rediculous but to say that urban roading structure in Auckland and Wellington is under developed is wrong. What is underdeveloped is public transport infrastructure.

Agreed. NZ has pretty well developed urban networks.
Unlike many countries NZ did the urban motorways first.
The development gap of 25 years largely effected the motorway/expresway projects between Auckland and Hamilton and Wellington and Levin.
In the 1980's many motorists argued that due to the lack of funds a motorway connection between Auckland and Hamilton was'nt fesible but a simple 4-laning was. I tend to agree that as an interim measure the govt could have quite cheaply simply added 3.5m on either side of the existing highway (such as SH3 from Hamilton Airport to Te Awamutu) for much of the distance with an eye to future upgrading to expressway standard.

^^ since when were Auckland and Wellington the 'whole of nz'

virtually zero of the planned urban motorways in Christchurch were actually built and that city is now paying for it with incredibly slow average commute times (public transport was run down and had little development during the 1960's, 70's and 80's to allow for the planned motorways that were never actually built!!!).

Actually i think that Christchurch is the perfect example of how screwed up this country can get eg "lets abandon public transport initiatives and build motorways but not actually build them and then sell off all the land 30 years later".

Actually i think that Christchurch is the perfect example of how screwed up this country can get eg "lets abandon public transport initiatives and build motorways but not actually build them and then sell off all the land 30 years later".

You're spot on sensible...

I did quick plot on Google Earth and came up with some interesting facts. My plotting is based on memory from what I remember of the 1962 Master Plan for Christchurch. This plan included the following Motorways which the plan suggests should be completed for a greater christchurch population of 500,000:

1) Northern Motorway - 33km (Waltham to Saltwater Creek) - 6 lane Waltham to Ohoka Road, 4 lane to Saltwater Creek.

2) Southern Motorway - 17km (Waltham to S of Templeton) - 6 lane to Curletts Road, 4 lane to S of Templeton

3) Lyttelton Spur - 2.5km (Waltham to Opawa) - 4 lane

4) Tunnel Road - 6km (Woolston to Lyttelton ) - 4 lane Woolston to Tunnel N portal, 2 lane in tunnel

5) Fendalton-Avonside - 4km (Fendalton to Avonside) - 4 lane

6) Johns Road to Northern Link - 3km (1km west of Belfast to 500m E of Northwood) - 4 lane

7) Spur from Belfast to Northern - 1km (Top end Belfast to Chaneys interchange)

That is a total of 24km of 6 lane motorway and 40.5km of 4 lane motorway and 2km of 2 lane motorway (tunnel)

46 YEARS on from those plans - we so far have:

1) Northern Mwy - 7.5km of 4 lane (inc spur to Belfast) and 3km of 2 lane.

2) Southern Mwy - 2.5km of 2 lane

3) Tunnel Rd - 6 km of 2 lane (part is 3 lane if inc passing lane)

4) Lyttelton Spur - 1km of 2 lane to expressway std

Now the ONLY parts of the 1962 plan that have actually been built to the degree stated in the orgiginal plan is the 2km of the Lyttelton Tunnel and the first 1km of the Northern Mwy from Belfast which was orignally going to just be a 1km spur/on-off ramps joining to the main motorway where Chaneys On-Ramp is now. ALL of the other plans have either been built to a reduced specification, planned but not built, or completely scrapped.

Now I'm not exactly saying that we should have built all those motorways - Some such as the Fendalton-Avonside link I think would have been a bit inappropriate (although the first 500m of it was actually built on the alignment that is now part of Harper Ave).

By and large though, many of the more recent proposals such as the woodend bypass, southern mwy to templeton are much the same as the 1962 plan, but with minor alterations and in most cases, some downsizing.

^^ interestingly i have hand drawn maps of the 1962 masterplan (i drew them myself!!!!!!!!!!). This is because i wasnt allowed to photocopy the original i was looking at (it was quite worn). ill try get them up some time, looked absolutely crazy. I certainly agree its ridiculous how little of what was planned was actually built, when you list it like you have it looks like a joke.

So next time you Aucklanders or Wellingtonians are stuck on your motorways or cursing your late train spare a thought for us on the plains. Were stuck on some pokey two lane road with 178 sets of traffic lights between us and work! Even if we are in a bus!

Indeed. Christchurch had a severe bout of Adelaide (and to some extent Sydney)sickness ie: cancelling everything and then selling off all the corridors. You really have to wonder what they were thinking. Typical political buck passing.
An interesting note is that of the 3 main cities, Christchurch would have been the easiest and cheapest of the 3 to build a top-class road and pt network. With nearly 4 decades of urban expansion and the sale of crucial corridors this is now quite a different story.

Plans for a arterial road/ expressway through Hagley Park from the 60's, 70's and 1980
http://www.archives.govt.nz/exhibitions/currentexhibitions/chch/images/hp/hp-road-master-plan-1.jpg
http://www.archives.govt.nz/exhibitions/currentexhibitions/chch/images/hp/hp-road-proposed-deviation-1980-1.jpg

Yes, the council actually started building the section between Fendalton Rd and Salisbury St. They built it much as per the 1967/69 revision of the plan which had the road running along the alignment of the current Hagley Ave, then veering off where the bend in the middle of harper Ave is. The council ditched the Grade Separation of the Fendalton/Deans/Harper intersection however.

If you drive along Harper Ave, you can see that the first bit is built to a more motorway like standard where by the carriageway is a 4 lanes plus a hard shoulder that is a full lane width. At the curve, the road narrows to a 4 lane but no shoulder. By the time the council got to the curve, and before they actually started building the road across the park to Salisbury, the mounting public opposition got too much for the council so they abandoned it.

The thing that really annoys me about all this is that in general, many of the oh-so-important reports and studies that we are doing now are proving that much of the original 1962 plan is still going to be needed anyway. The council and governments should have just got on with the job rather than procrastinating so that they can do another report in 10 years time.

On a similar point, I was looking at transits website last week and was reading about the proposed Cambridge Bypass. The actual designation of the corridor was in place in the early 1970's and was for a full 4 lane motorway style route. Later, the government downgraded it to a two lane route and thus sold off the surplus land. Now, it is interesting to hear that Transit propose to build it initially as a two lane route, with [re]designation for a future 4 lane route. So now the government has to go and buy all that property... again. Go figure!

Its no wonder that we are now struggling to build the required infrastructure now that land prices have increased along with construction costs, court costs, RMA costs and the like.

Hopefully, we will make it rich from the oil fields in the GSB - Then those royalty payments can contribute to building a decent road and rail system.

Have I missed something, it sounds like you guys are saying parts of the Waikato Expressway are being downgraded and that it might not even be four lanes for the entire length?

http://www.archives.govt.nz/exhibitions/currentexhibitions/chch/images/hp/hp-road-proposed-deviation-1980-1.jpg

I had heard that this was once being condsidered. It looks so gruesome in the picture.

This is a road that even I would have objected to.

I don't think NZ has more red tape now than many western countries.
I think the biggest difference is that while most western countries were developing their highway networks at a furious pace in the 1950's-60's-70's and early 80's, NZ pretty much stopped in the mid 70's only to pick up the programme 25 years later. In the meantime the population and traffioc levels had increased enormously along with land aquisition and construction costs. Legeslation had also become far more complexed. All in all NZ is running hard to stand still.
The 4-lane Auckland-Hamilton route should have been completed 25 years ago already. Now basic city to city connections are being delayed because expensive urban routes need to be completed way later and at far greater cost.
In a nut shell, NZ is struggling now because of a quater of a century of transport being put on the backburner by consectutive govts. As a teenager in the 1980's I could clearly see the impending problems then but the government and electorate were focussed on the economic survival of NZ at the time. Developement made way for cut-backs in spending.
Just a wee note. In 1985 the harbour tunnel project in Auckland was costed at $400 million. A 6 lane bridge from Stanley Pt to Mecanics Bay at $1 billion in 1988.
During that period, the Public Finance Act was passed by Roger Douglas, and not much later Ruth Richardson passed the Fiscal Responsibility Act, under the pretext of preventing another Think Big from bringing the IMF to our doorstep.

In Welly, duplication of the Mt Vic & Terrace Tunnels is back on the table. The pillars for the still-unfinished 2nd Terrace Tunnel can still be seen from the Cable Car.

I had heard that this was once being condsidered. It looks so gruesome in the picture.

This is a road that even I would have objected to.

Yes indeed. Me too

Yes, the council actually started building the section between Fendalton Rd and Salisbury St. They built it much as per the 1967/69 revision of the plan which had the road running along the alignment of the current Hagley Ave, then veering off where the bend in the middle of harper Ave is. The council ditched the Grade Separation of the Fendalton/Deans/Harper intersection however.

If you drive along Harper Ave, you can see that the first bit is built to a more motorway like standard where by the carriageway is a 4 lanes plus a hard shoulder that is a full lane width. At the curve, the road narrows to a 4 lane but no shoulder. By the time the council got to the curve, and before they actually started building the road across the park to Salisbury, the mounting public opposition got too much for the council so they abandoned it.
.

Yes. I know the stretch. It always looks a bit curious with it's motorway style shoulders.

Have I missed something, it sounds like you guys are saying parts of the Waikato Expressway are being downgraded and that it might not even be four lanes for the entire length?

Yep - thats right. The current proposal is for the Cambridge Bypass section to be built to 2 lane, with land designated (again) for future widening to 4 lane.

A couple of weeks ago, LTNZ stated that the Hamilton and Huntly bypasses would be reduced to two lanes as well, though they made no mention of whether they would still have land designated for future widening to 4 lanes - One would assume so but with our authorities, you can never quite tell what they'll do.

I suppose it depends on whether Transit currently owns the land required for a 4 lane road or not. To quote LTNZ that they are are downgrading it "because they want a cheaper solution as they don't feel that the 500m needed for the Hamilton bypass is justified"

So, OK, maybe a 2 lane option will cost only $300m - That is all well and good since they will save $200m... But in 10 years time, predictable growth in traffic will prove the authorities wrong and they will need to widen it to 4 lanes anyway. Adding the extra 2 lanes will cost say another $700m which will of course take the total price for the full 4 lane route to $1000m ($1b)

So I can't see how LTNZ can back their statement that they want a cheaper solution when clearly, it WILL cost them MORE in the long run.

This is exactly the mentality of authorities of the late 1970s thru early 1990s when most improvements to transport infrastructure was either deferred, half assed, or scrapped, only to come back to haunt us now. In 10 or so years time, we'll be playing the same tune to the planners of the Waikato Expressway.

Actually, one area that didn't get as starved of roading development to the same degree is Dunedin.

I believe originally, Dunedin was to have a 4 lane southern motorway from the Andersons Bar Road intersection to East Taieri. The Northern Motorway was for 4 lanes from North Dunedin (Pine Hill) to Waitati.

Today, The northern motorway has been generally built to its full length, albeit to only 2 lanes, though they've had a number of curve easements, passing lanes etc added to refine the route over more recent years.

The southern motorway is a 2 lane section for the first couple of km, then it passes through Caversham valley as 4 lane urban arterial. At the top of Lookout Point, the motorway begins again as a full 4 lanes all the way to Mosgiel where it narrows to 2 lane. The extension from Mosgiel to East Taieri has been scrapped, although in some locations, the current 2 lane SH1 carriageway was upgraded and looks like one side of a motorway carriageway where there is a very wide shoulder on one side of the road.

Only recently, was the East Taieri Bypass section officially dropped completely. There are still plans to upgrade the first section of the DSM to 4 lanes, and link the first section to the main part, thus bypassing Caversham Valley urban route.

I don't think there are any plans to upgrade the Northern Motorway from Dunedin to Waitati - The more recent traffic count only shows average daily traffic volumes to be around 7000 vpd so the current road should be adequate for the forseeable future.

I think there was also a small very short motorway style route to better link the city centre with Port Chalmers. It wasn't to be a full motorway all the way out, but mostly was to be a large flyover I think from downtown and running over the railway yards and inner port areas before linking up to the existing road to port chalmers. I think it was dropped completely and instead, the current flyover across the railway was built which I think is an interesting structure.

Now this is all in spite of Dunedins population remaining relatively static since the 1970's - yet they have by and large got most of the motorways that was planned for them. Chch, Akl and Welly have all grown much faster, yet in Chch's case, we haven't got bugger all.

^^
I wasn't aware that the East Taieri Bypass had been completely scrapped. That's a shame.
The Caversham Bypass was supposed to be 4-lanes but it was downgraded to 2-lanes at the last moment by the Lange govt. The duplication is planned to take place sometime.
The reservation for the continued motorway running from Caversham up to Lookout Pt still seems to be intact next to Main South Rd.
The Northern Motorway was only ever a motorway by name. It is basically just a normal 2-lane highway and lost it's official motorway status (finally) about 15 years ago.

Actually, one area that didn't get as starved of roading development to the same degree is Dunedin.

Now this is all in spite of Dunedins population remaining relatively static since the 1970's - yet they have by and large got most of the motorways that was planned for them. Chch, Akl and Welly have all grown much faster, yet in Chch's case, we haven't got bugger all.

Yes that's true to some extent but also a bit misleading. The scale of motorway development in Dunedin was and still is minimal compared to that required for Akld, Wgtn, Chch along with areas like the Waikato and Tauranga.

The northern motorway hardly warrants its designation and once construction commenced it had to go the full route or it would have been literally a road to nowhere.

The southern motorway has been built in fits and starts since the mid-1960s. The Burnside-Abbotsford section was completed around 1972 (my family home was right next door and I recall as a child walking its rather short length on its opening day). The flyover at Andersons Bay Rd was built in the early 1980s and the Fairfield-Mosgiel stretch in the early 2000s. So far it is over 40 years for an incomplete 12 km stretch of motorway and the current plans to widen the Caversham Valley bypass to four lanes will still not complete the motorway as it won't be 100km all the way to Lookout Point. I believe the original proposal was for a four lane tunnel through Lookout Point into the city.

Yes that's true to some extent but also a bit misleading. The scale of motorway development in Dunedin was and still is minimal compared to that required for Akld, Wgtn, Chch along with areas like the Waikato and Tauranga.

The northern motorway hardly warrants its designation and once construction commenced it had to go the full route or it would have been literally a road to nowhere.

The southern motorway has been built in fits and starts since the mid-1960s. The Burnside-Abbotsford section was completed around 1972 (my family home was right next door and I recall as a child walking its rather short length on its opening day). The flyover at Andersons Bay Rd was built in the early 1980s and the Fairfield-Mosgiel stretch in the early 2000s. So far it is over 40 years for an incomplete 12 km stretch of motorway and the current plans to widen the Caversham Valley bypass to four lanes will still not complete the motorway as it won't be 100km all the way to Lookout Point. I believe the original proposal was for a four lane tunnel through Lookout Point into the city.

Quite right - but like the Chch plans, they were designed for an eventual greater Chch population of about 500,000 which we are about 70,000 short of. Dunedins master plan would have too been intended for an eventual population of a figure I don't know - presumably somewhere in the vicinity of around 200,000-250,000 perhaps - Something Dunedin is unlikely to get to for many more years yet - if ever.

The point I am making is that of the original motorways planned for the four main centres that were all done in and around the early 1960's, it would be fair to say that Dunedin certainly got a decent share of motorway development. Sure, they are not complete, and some have only recently had major upgrades such as the Fairfield-Mosgiel section.

But when you consider that the last motorway development christchurch had was the 2.5km, 2 lane Southern Motorway which was completed about 1981. It was built around the same time as the 2 lane Andersons Bay-Caversham section. But as you point out as per the Dunedin Northern Motorway - Its construction hardly warrants being called a motorway.

Since then, Dunedin has had two motorway upgrades - The Lookout Point to Burnside which was completed in the early 1990's and the Fairfield Bypass completed early 2000's - both are four laned sections. Christchurch's last four lane motorway section was a 2 km section of the northern motorway between Ohoka and Lineside Road Interchanges - finished somewhere in the late 1960's!

As for Auckland and Wellington - Auckland obviously has had a lot more and it needs it given it's rapid population growth.

Wellington has had a small extension to the the Porirua Motorway by removing traffic lights at Porirua, and some slight rearrangement of lanes etc on the thorndon viaduct, and a small extension along Hutt Road before Upper Hutt turnoff (which isn't a motorway technically, but as a general appearance of one).

some slight rearrangement of lanes etc on the thorndon viaduct

What kind of changes would that be? It was built as 3 lanes each way and always has been.

I can't believe the shortcuts Transit New Zealand is planning on taking in the Waikato.

They will be responsible for injuries and deaths.

Plans for a arterial road/ expressway through Hagley Park from the 60's, 70's and 1980
http://www.archives.govt.nz/exhibitions/currentexhibitions/chch/images/hp/hp-road-master-plan-1.jpg
http://www.archives.govt.nz/exhibitions/currentexhibitions/chch/images/hp/hp-road-proposed-deviation-1980-1.jpg

imagine if they built this but after the motorway veers away from Harper ave it went into a tunnel under hagley park and Victoria street reamerging near colombo with distributers onto barbadoes and further east to fitzgerald... we can only dream.

KaneD... i was always under the impression that where the planned motorway veered off from the current Harper ave alignment the remainder of Harper ave was to be closed and returned as park land??????

What kind of changes would that be? It was built as 3 lanes each way and always has been.

Wasn't it at some point 5 lanes? I remember in the early eighties, being somewhere along the wellington motorway and having overhead lane signals with the middle lane operating on a tidal flow.

imagine if they built this but after the motorway veers away from Harper ave it went into a tunnel under hagley park and Victoria street reamerging near colombo with distributers onto barbadoes and further east to fitzgerald... we can only dream.

KaneD... i was always under the impression that where the planned motorway veered off from the current Harper ave alignment the remainder of Harper ave was to be closed and returned as park land??????

Yes, you're right on the mark here too - the rest of Harper Ave would be closed and presumedly returned to parkland.

With that in mind, the net result wouldn't have been to bad since it isn't like the council was simply carving up park and turning it to road - It was a bit of both going on.

But still, I think many in Chch had motorway phobia in those days.

Your idea of a under park tunnel would sound awesome - If built today it would resemble a combination of the Sydney Cross City Tunnel and the Eastern Distributor perhaps. Ohhh what a dream that would be to have

The Northern Motorway section from Bealey Ave to Waltham Rd was meant to be an elevated 6 lane structure with a number of ramps along the way, including some to join up to the Fendalton-Avonside Mwy. I would imagine that the new flyover they are building in Tauranga would be a similar concept, but only 4 lanes.

I guess if there's a point reached where ChCh starts to intensify you might end up with more roading projects within the city, and the numbers of people to actually allow fund the road. I guess a toll road might be possible if you were to cut&cover the tunnel.

It seems like Chch is obsessed with sprawling at the moment though (ie Pegasus) so most roading improvements will probably need to happen on the edge of the city.

Wasn't it at some point 5 lanes? I remember in the early eighties, being somewhere along the wellington motorway and having overhead lane signals with the middle lane operating on a tidal flow.

I don't think that the thorndon overbridge could even have tidal flow, it's physically two separate 3 lane bridges side by side. The only thing I can think of is that before the Ngauranga flyovers connecting the gorge to the motorway, when the motorway was only used for traffic to and from the Hutt valley, and the Hutt road between Ngauranga and Thorndon was still Sh1. I think the Hutt road might have had tidal flow back then but I'm not sure.

Overall Wellington has had almost no new motorway construction since the Ngauranga flyovers (1984). All we have had is several interchanges and some four laning + median barriers on existing 2 lane sections of sh1 and sh2 (but no interchanges on those sections, with the exception of mackays crossing).

I think the Hutt road might have had tidal flow back then but I'm not sure.


It was tidal flow.

The Upper Hutt by-pass was opened in 1987 or 88 I believe. It's a typical example of a severely downgraded project as was typical at the time.

It was tidal flow.

The Upper Hutt by-pass was opened in 1987 or 88 I believe. It's a typical example of a severely downgraded project as was typical at the time.

OK, so it was Hutt Road that had the 5 lane arrangement and not the motorway?

If you look at the northern end of the Thorndon viaduct as you are heading into welly, you can see that some minor alignment works have been done as the start of the viaduct, there is quite a gap between the road edge and the edge of the bridge.

And yes, I forgot the Ngauranga, Newlands interchanges too.

Still, this make Chch's development look especially bad in the last 25 years.

OK, so it was Hutt Road that had the 5 lane arrangement and not the motorway?

.

Yes. The Hutt Rd was 5 lanes with tidal flow between Aotea Quay and Ngauranga prior to the completion of the Ngauranga interchange in 1984

I guess if there's a point reached where ChCh starts to intensify you might end up with more roading projects within the city, and the numbers of people to actually allow fund the road. I guess a toll road might be possible if you were to cut&cover the tunnel.

It seems like Chch is obsessed with sprawling at the moment though (ie Pegasus) so most roading improvements will probably need to happen on the edge of the city.
I'm not sure that I'd agree with you here.

Here is an example of access from the north into the city starting at Woodend (about as far out as most commuters would live).

Woodend township - 2 lane 50kph road
Woodend to Pineacres - 2 lane 100kph road
Pineacres to North Kaiapoi - 2 lane 100kph motorway
North Kaiapoi to North Belfast - 4 lane 100kph motorway
North Belfast to Northcote - 4 lane 60kph road
Northcote to Mairehau - 2 lane 60kph road
Mairehau to Bealey Ave - 2 lane 50kph road
Bealey Ave - 6 lane 50kph east/west distributor road

So as you can see it starts out well but then as you get closer to the centre of town the road capacity starts getting smaller not bigger (until you strike Bealey Ave anyhow). This is a recipe for severe congestion and this is exactly what you get. What is needed is an express route right into the middle of town. Transit owned the land for it but sold it all off in a fit of stupidity back in the 90s.

What is needed is an express route right into the middle of town. Transit owned the land for it but sold it all off in a fit of stupidity back in the 90s.

...to the city council (Gary Moore) who seem to have sold the lot off to developers. Terrible waste.

^^ Some years ago (about 8 I think) I spoke to a fairly senior person at Transit's Chch office and went into quite some detail as to why they dumped the Northern Motorway section through St Albans....

Their reply was somewhat convoluted and complicated:

You see, Transit owned most of the land and had done so for quite some years. But, Transit wasn't able to build it because they didn't have the funds to do so. They didn't have the funds to build it because the funding authority, Transfund, wouldn't provide funds because the project didn't anywhere near meet the benefit cost ratio level required at the time. Transfund said it was unlikely to meet the criteria for funding for 15-20 years (remember we had slower population growth then).

In the meantime, the Chch City Council had been continually getting complaints from residents in the St Albans area who lived near the road corridor that their properties were being severely devalued with all the vacant sections, rundown housing and the big old MED (Municipal Electricity Dept) yards. The pressure was then on the council to address this issue.

They in turn put pressure on Transit. The council wanted commitment that it would be built within 10 years so that it could satisfy residents (and commuters!). However, that could not be guaranteed with the funding issues at the time, so Transit and CCC tried to negotiate on a split funding arrangement whereby the council contributed. Unfortunately, with the Benefit Cost Ratio so low, Transit could only provide minimal amounts of funding. The council wasn't in a position to commit the massive shortfall.

But wait... there is more... (Yep - just like those TV ads!)

At around the same time, the CCC was developing the Eastern Ring Route from Northcote to Woolston via Burwood and Aranui. Transit had agreed to provide funding to the CCC since that it wanted to take ownership of the route as a State Highway. When completed, SH74 would be relocated from Cranford Street (or a future St Albans Motorway) to the ring road. The motorway route would then become a local road only.

Now... Transit isn't in the job of building or funding local roads. In fact, if you look at the rather broad mission statement of transits, it's role it to provide a transport infrastructure at National and Inter-Regional levels, NOT localised infrastructure, which of course is exactly what a St Albans Motorway would primarily be - a road to relieve congestion for predominately local traffic.

So I think that really, it might be hard to blame Transit entirely for not building it, after all, why should they when they would already have an adequate road to meet their objectives of providing for inter-regional traffic.

So then, it becomes a council issue. Now the council can still apply for funding from Transfund, but Transfund won't supply full funding for local projects typically other than for exceptional cases, usually after flood damage repairs for example. I forget the funding portions they used to contribute but in general I think it was something like 25%. Either way, the council would still have to provide a massive amount of cash.

Now the other issue comes down to land... I am pretty sure that by law, if a government is in ownership of land that becomes surplus to government need, then it first must be offered to the original owners, then to Maori, before being able to be sold to another party. I'm not sure whether the CCC is considered as a government department (eg: Transit transferring ownership to the local council), or whether from the perspective of the law, it is considered a separate entity. If it was a separate entity, then the govt would have had to have sold the land back to the original owners, then the council try to negotiate re-purchase of it. That of course would potentially increase the price to the council significantly.

Can anyone shed any light on our property acquisition laws?

As you can see, it's all a bit of a mess really and I don't think that any one party is at fault. Obviously our quirky land transport funding schemes are a mess and certainly are a major problem.

I can provide a little more information on property acquisition.

Basically when a requiring authority like Transit, a city council, the Ministry of Education etc. designates land for a future development, they vest a huge interest in that piece of land. They don't necessarily need to take ownership of it, but generally they do - and obviously if they want to develop it for a motorway they would have to take ownership. Under the 1940 Public Works Act they have the right to forcibly take the land as long as they provide adequate compensation (although it's incredibly unusual for them to actually have to TAKE it, usually the threat is good enough to make property owners sell up). A designation comes with its own set of conditions, and effectively creates a "mini special purposes" zone in which the activity can operate.

However, there is a time limit on designations, which I think is about 10 years. After that point the requiring authority needs to renew its designation, which means that it needs to show that it's still worthwhile having such a designation and that it's made some progress (or will in the future) to actually use the designation for the original stated purpose. It's not necessarily that difficult to renew a designation - as for example the Avondale-Southdown railway link has been designated for like 50 years and I don't see it getting built any time soon - but obviously in this situation a case could no longer be made.

Once the requiring authority no longer requires the land and/or the designation has lapsed, they need to at least offer it back to the original owner first. In some cases decades may have passed, and it can be quite a challenge, but that is the law. There is some sort of process where the designation can be "transferred" to another government agency (like the SH20A extension through Mangere becoming Housing New Zealand land), but I'm not exactly sure what the process is.

But to get back on topic, if this urban motorway in ChCh is now so badly needed, I'm quite surprised the cost-benefit ratio didn't stack up. At least you guys have a decent bus system down there.

Thanks Jarbury and KaneD for the rundown on corridors.
Transfering the SH20A extension to HNZ was a shame. It would have been the perfect corridor for the airport rail link and a darn sight cheaper than the Manukau crossing option.
As for selling off the Northern Arterial/Motorway corridor in ChCh. Madness.

A question. Could the CCC (or any other city council) apply to LTNZ for funding for road widening of main arterial roads even if these don't constitute being part of the State Hwy network if it is shown that these routes are of the highest priority and suffering chronic congestion?

^^ Absolutely. A large chunk of the money for most council road upgrades comes from central government in one form or another. As it should... after all why should my petrol taxes help pay for when I drive on the motorway but not help pay for the local roads I drive on?

A question. Could the CCC (or any other city council) apply to LTNZ for funding for road widening of main arterial roads even if these don't constitute being part of the State Hwy network if it is shown that these routes are of the highest priority and suffering chronic congestion?

Yes indeed, any local authority may apply for funding from LTNZ as part of the National Land Transport Program. Whether they will agree to fund a particular project is another story though.

Unfortunately our government seems to put a higher emphasis on funding projects that have a more national or inter-regional importance. This happens to also fit into line with what Transit's key role is.

See the government seems to work on the basis that "traffic congestion caused primarily by local residents going to local destinations" is a strictly local problem that should be fixed and funded locally. The exceptions to this are where local traffic routes tend to follow the same corridor as inter-regional routes, such as the motorways in Auckland and Wellington.

The trouble is, in Christchurch, there isn't a State Highway (Inter-regional road) that goes into the central city from the north anymore. So therefore, the central governments road funding scheme won't rate any project very highly, unless it meets the Benefit Cost Ratio's which of course seem to place a higher emphasis on projects that provide benefits to the whole country, rather than those that are only proposed so that they can save 5 minutes off 10,000 commuters trip to work each day. LTNZ, will typically provide a only a small percentage of funding to local projects which further reinforces it's belief that local congestion is a local problem.

Arguably, local councils could be also to blame for many traffic congestion woes since in theory, when they zone land on the outskirts of town for residential development, it is the council responsibility to make adequate provision for those that live in the new developments to get around. This includes both public and private transport.

I think this is new. There was vague plan a few years back to convert the rail viaduct for road use as part of a bypass (when it looked almost certain that the line would be closed).

$25 million bypass to replace gorge road
KATHY WEBB - The Dominion Post (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4461775a6045.html) | Thursday, 03 April 2008

The highway running through a notoriously unstable gorge could be replaced by a $25 million bypass on the Napier-Wairoa Road within three years.

Transit has asked Hastings District Council to designate 281,000 square metres of farmland for three kilometres of new road and a 160-metre bridge to span Matahorua Gorge on State Highway 2, about halfway between Napier and Wairoa.

The road is the only link between Wairoa and Hawke's Bay Hospital in Hastings, and is carrying increasing numbers of stock, logging and freight trucks.

The narrow, winding gorge road is often blocked by slips, with rocks damaging vehicles.

Heavy vehicles have to slow to about 30kmh to navigate the winding gorge, while its narrowness and absence of passing lanes or shoulders make it difficult for large vehicles to pass each other.

Transit says the high cost of keeping the gorge open has made it a financially unviable piece of road. And the extent to which the wider region depended on it for economic, social, and health needs had given it priority on the regional transport project list.

The improved road would make travel easier and faster, reduce congestion, and help promote regional economic investment by providing a more reliable route.

Regional manager Rob Bramley said it was good to see real progress being made on the upgrade. "It's a major, it's a very important project. It will bring Wairoa and Gisborne much closer."

Negotiations were being done on a tender to manage and oversee the design and build contract, which would be advertised.

The design work should be completed during the next financial year, with construction starting in the middle of next year and completed within two years, he said.

The $25 million tagged for the project will come out of a 10-year regional petrol tax of five cents a litre, introduced several years ago.

The gorge will remain in use until the new road and bridge are finished.

More work starts on notorious highway
5:00AM Monday August 11, 2008
By Mathew Dearnaley

Engineers have begun design and investigation work on two more stretches of the notorious Maramarua highway through the northern Waikato, as a first-stage $46 million bypass nears completion further west.

The Government's newly established Transport Agency has awarded a $3.4 million design contract for a 6km bypass of the Maramarua village at the eastern end of the troubled highway, before the Thames turnoff, and for investigation of a realignment of a 4km stretch near Kopuku.

Although construction is unlikely to start before 2011, the two-pronged design contract has been let to Opus International Consultants as the Government agency prepares to complete in October a 7.2km bypass of Mangatawhiri village between Pokeno and Maramarua.

The two new sections are expected to cost anything between $116 million and $180 million, according to the most recent material on the agency's website, based on last year's national state highways forecast.

Agency regional manager Kaye Clark says design work has already begun on the Maramarua Deviation and an investigation for a preferred route for the adjoining Kopuku realignment has also started.

The Kopuku stretch will link the two main bypasses along SH2, and the route investigation work follows an agreement by the Auckland Regional Transport Committee to contribute $1.5 million of the region's allocation of Government funds.

Even though most of the road is in the Waikato, officials reckon 60 per cent of vehicles involved in crashes along it belong to Aucklanders.

The three projects will produce a relatively straight line for more than 15km, replacing a winding route which claimed almost 40 lives in road smashes over five years to 2005, but it will remain a mainly two-lane highway albeit with more passing lanes.

Ms Clark said that although the new section of road would offer better safety and passing opportunities, it would reflect the agency's national strategy of developing SH1 via Hamilton and SH29 over the Kaimai Range as the preferred traffic route between Auckland and Tauranga.

Cash approved for northern bottlenecks
5:00AM Thursday August 21, 2008
By Mathew Dearnaley

Government transport officials are considering four-lane motorway and expressway links north of Auckland to Warkworth and Wellsford as part of upgrades costing up to $1.8 billion.

The Auckland Regional Transport Committee yesterday approved - although not without opposition from some members - $8 million of road and intersection developments aimed at easing traffic bottlenecks on State Highway 1 through Warkworth.

That will be the first stage of a $17 million joint venture between the Government's new Transport Agency and Rodney District Council to upgrade all five main intersections between the highway and local roads.

The committee's approval clears the way for construction to start during summer.

The first stage will include widening the 400m section of SH1 between Woodcocks Rd and Whitaker Rd to four lanes, improving the intersections at both ends and adding a combined walking and cycleway for non-motorists travelling between Mahurangi College and Warkworth's town centre.

But in a separate meeting, the Auckland Regional Council expressed concern at an agency proposal to start investigating a potential new route for a 15km motorway extension between Puhoi and Warkworth.

In a study of long-term links between Auckland and Wellsford, the agency has confirmed that SH1 is its preferred route serving a national function.

It wants to leave SH16 to keep providing regional service.

It has ruled out elevating SH16 to national importance as an extension of Auckland's western ring route, or investigating building a new main artery inland, roughly following the northern railway line.

But a draft report which the agency is circulating among interested parties proposes building a four-lane motorway on a new alignment between Puhoi and Warkworth, and then an expressway of similar capacity over the 19km section to Wellsford.

The report also proposes pressing ahead with a realignment of the difficult Schedewys Hill section north of Puhoi, upgrading an extension of the Northwestern Motorway to a four-lane expressway to Brigham Creek Rd, and extending the Northern Busway to Silverdale.

The realignment may form the first section of a future motorway.

But the report says that although an extended busway would ease congestion between Orewa and Silverdale, public transport is unlikely to have much effect on overall growth in the study area because of its dispersed population.

It acknowledges that "external factors" such as the availability of oil could affect travel demand, and should therefore be monitored.

But it says development north of Auckland is already putting pressure on SH1 and its main alternative route, SH16.

That has left the regional council unimpressed, and it will urge the transport agency to reconsider securing land designations for a new motorway to Warkworth.

Instead, it wants to encourage the management of developments in support of Auckland's growth strategy, aimed at containing urban sprawl within designated parts of the region.

A council officers' report said the environmental costs of such a motorway through difficult terrain were likely to be no less challenging than the $365 million Orewa to Puhoi toll road, and "may well be unaffordable in the foreseeable future".

The agency's northern manager, Peter Spies, said his organisation was simply consulting the council and other interested parties on the desirability of "future-proofing" a preferred route for long-distance travel needs.

It was too soon to discuss route possibilities, except to say that any bypass of Warkworth would be to the west of the town.

Even the short-term Warkworth project was too much for some Auckland Regional Transport Committee members yesterday, including Cycle Action Auckland chairman Bevan Woodward, who questioned "throwing $8 million at a 400m length of road".

He unsuccessfully sought a review to consider what savings could be made through "travel demand management" such as reducing road freight and providing public transport.

But Rodney Mayor Penny Webster said rail was already carrying 80 per cent more long-distance freight through the region than trucks, and her council was promoting travel plans in schools and the community.

It seem that National is keen on toll roads and PPPs.
National's plan tips 4 or 5 big toll roads
TRACY WATKINS and NZPA - The Dominion Post | Monday, 25 August 2008

National is tipping four or five big toll roads under its plans to allow for privately funded roads – with Wellington's Transmission Gully high on the list.

The party's transport spokesman Maurice Williamson says motorists will be happy to pay $3 to $5 if it means shaving 40 minutes off their trip.
more (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4667569a23917.html)


Then again maybe not ...
No $50/week roading tolls - English
Updated at 11:06am on 25 August 2008

National says it would not impose costs of up to $50 a week on motorists to build new roads.

Deputy party leader Bill English has backed away from estimates previously made by the party's transport spokesperson.

Maurice Williamson said on Agenda on Sunday that a National Government would build new roading projects through Public Private Partnerships, which could impose tolls of between $3 - $5 per trip.

However, Mr English says those comments are "a bit exuberant."
more (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2008/08/25/12436e72905f)


Here's some of the projects that they may or may not be considering:

Transmission Gully;
The Waterview motorway on State Highway 20 in Auckland;
A second harbour crossing;
The south Waikato expressway and State Highway 1 north of Auckland.


I wish National would come up with a policy position and then stick with it consistently rather than getting a number of contradictory stories.

^^ We know that National are very, VERY keen on roads based upon good old Mr. Williamson, General Motors wet dream incarnate.

Does anyone here realistically see the Waterview Connection being built without a $5 toll? I certainly don't.

You drive it 10 times a week, there's your $50.

^^ $5+ is pretty realistic - with $2, I don't imagine there would be much left over after paying for collection, enforcement, etc. Apparently to cover the full cost of Tranmission Gully a toll of $10 per trip is required.

Nats on toll roads: the plot thickens - was Williamson really over enthusiastic?

in a bizarre twist, Progressive leader Jim Anderton raised doubts about Mr Williamson's sincerity, after exposing embedded electronic formatting in the Williamson statement to uncover an earlier draft in which it appeared his comments about "over-enthusiasm" were added later.
[Source: The DomPost Nats in damage mode over tolls (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4668556a23917.html)]

It was rather silly to release a statement containing the draft version - plain text is the way to go for press releases - another Nat stuff up. And to think this bunch has a fair chance of running the country.:ohno:

a few years ago when fuel taxes increased throughout the country I recall numerous people bitching and moaning that "why should we pay for Aucklands roads?"

Now of course that National have basically blurted out their plan to make it more of a user pays system, intentionally or otherwise, it is interesting that we hear the backlash from the public again.

I say bring it on. I would like to see more toll roads because with the current economic climate from the fossil fuel reliance perspective, maybe if people have to start paying the real cost of their travel, it might make them think twice about buying the gas guzzling SUV or that nice pompous mantion on that lifestyle block out in the sticks etc.

Maybe this will only help encourage more denser living spaces which of course makes constructing and running a commuter rail system far more economic

As for pricing of the waterview connection, I will put my money that it will be $7 per private car. We only need to look at Sydney's motorway developments to figure out that it is going to cost more than Nationals $2

Yeah if $2 half funds a $365 million road (Alpurt B2) then I don't see how the same amount can fully fund a $1.89 billion road.

Do the maths.

Something I've always wondered after seeing the motorway in Napier-Hastings (it's apparently called that, even though it's all in Napier) is what constitutes a motorway? I mean, that thing is only one lane each way...what gets it the special title of 'motorway' as opposed to any other semi-urban piece of state-highway? I had a quick look and there are roads that seem just like that (albeit not as long, but many have more lanes) in New Plymouth, Palmerston North, Invercargill, Tauranga...probably every small city in the country, but there seems to be something special about this Hawke's Bay one =/

It's called the Hawke's Bay Expressway hense not a motorway.
The rules governing motorway designation were changed in the 1990s so that no only a true motorway can be called as such -divided,min 2 lanes per direction (with exception of the Terrace Tunnel), no peds/ cyclists, grade seperated junctions.
Examples of formerly motorway designated roads that are no longer so designated:
1. Dunedin's Northern Motorway
2. SH3 New Plymouth (a short stretch of 1km just before entering the urban area from the north)
3. Christchurch's Southern Motorway (will become a motorway in a few years)
4. Pakuranga Hwy (Waipuna Bridge), Auckland

It's called the Hawke's Bay Expressway hense not a motorway.
The rules governing motorway designation were changed in the 1990s so that no only a true motorway can be called as such -divided,min 2 lanes per direction (with exception of the Terrace Tunnel), no peds/ cyclists, grade seperated junctions.
Examples of formerly motorway designated roads that are no longer so designated:
1. Dunedin's Northern Motorway
2. SH3 New Plymouth (a short stretch of 1km just before entering the urban area from the north)
3. Christchurch's Southern Motorway (will become a motorway in a few years)
4. Pakuranga Hwy (Waipuna Bridge), Auckland

The designation of the term "Motorway" still actually stands on those above roads, but only really as a legal designation rather than as a physical one - In a round-about way, it is a bit like a paper road - That is, the "Route" is still designated a motorway - or paper-motorway if you like, but the physical road may not be built as such.

These roads used to have the green "Motorway Begins" and "Motorway Ends" signs, but were removed to try and avoid confusion with the public since most people (NZ and abroad) typically expect a motorway to be of a higher grade than the road actually is. Interestingly, The Chch Northern Motorway has a 3km 2-lane section of motorway just before Woodend. This is sign-posted accordingly.

But they are still technically motorways - Well, at least this is true of the Dunedin, Christchurch and probably part of the Napier-Hastings route.

The reason that the "motorway" designation still exists is so that they can continue to enforce the "No Pedestrians, No Horses, No Bicycles" rule.

In Tauranga, they are not motorways, even though they seem to be built of a higher standard than many motorway sections - They are Expressways. This is because these roads permit cyclists and pedestrians.

In Hawkes Bay, I'm not sure but from memory, the "original section" still has a "Motorway Designation", but the rest was built as an Expressway as it permits cyclists etc. I think the original middle bit still has the "No Cyclists etc" restriction which technically makes that bit a motorway. In name however, to keep it consistent, It is officially known as the Napier-Hastings Expressway

In NZ, the grades of roads are:

1) Controlled Access Road - (Motorways) which have no side access, grade separted junctions, no pedestrians, no horses, no bicycles. Typically they have two or more lanes each way. (Examples: Auckland Motorways, Wellington Motorway, Chch Northern Motorway)

2) Limited Access Road - Expressways which have "restricted amounts" of side access but do permit pedestrians and cyclists. These roads usually have grade separation of major intersections, or high capacity at-grade intersections such as large roundabouts and multi-lane traffic signals. Roads often have more than one lane each way (Tauranga Expressways, Nelson Stoke Bypass, Most of Napier-Hastings Expressway)

3) Limited Access Road - A regular part of State Highway where the addition of extra side access points (property access) is generally not permitted as doing so poses long term route performance problems. A significant percentage of NZ's state highways fall into this category but usually they are busier roads near cities. Most new "Highway Realignments" around towns are usually designated as such.

4) Regular State Highway - Anything else that is a state highway that doesn't fit the above categories.

That's interesting. I thought the designations had been changed since they removed the signs.
Well atleast they did remove the signs. It was a little rediculous

Yeah the Napier-Hastings Motorway is a funny one. Most locals wouldn't know the difference. I think its officially called the Napier-Hastings Expressway but locals always call it the 'motorway'. It was built so Hastings residents could have a direct route to the Airport, as one of the conditions of building it north of Napier. Otherwise Hastings people would have to go via Clive or Taradale.

It is built to be eventually widened to a duel carrigeway in the future, when traffic justifies duplication. It really should be done now as too many useless people don't drive the speed limit but prefer to sit at 70km for the 20km journey and there's not much opportunity to overtake, well at least not during work hours.

The expressway was first built in 1961 and has taken a bloody long time to finish. In fact in probably won't finish for years, with the southern extension and the Havelock arterial being stalled. There is provisions for new over passes at Kennedy and Meanee Roads, with proposals for flyovers at the northern end near the airport. I think they've gone for the big roundabouts for any future intersections, as they're much cheaper and pretty efficient provided useless drivers stay in their lane.

(it's apparently called that, even though it's all in Napier)

Oh yeah it not entirely in Napier at all. In fact the far majority lies in Hastings District. It goes right through the plains and finishes at York Rd in Flaxmere on Hastings' southern side.

^^
The bit that was designated as a motorway was from Taradale Road to Pakowhai Road only - not quite all in Napier, but nearly so. It is still labeled as Napier - Hastings Motorway on some maps (eg Google Maps (http://maps.google.co.nz/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=-39.535954,176.871128&spn=0.059575,0.162563&z=13)). AFAIK the rest of the expressway has not been considered as a motorway at all.

Personally, I'd like to see the name changed to Hawkes Bay Expressway throughout and only changed back to motorway when it is motorway standard.

Also, I've cycled the bit between Kennedy Rd and Meeanee Rd when I lived in Napier - there were no signs banning cycling and AFAIK are none now.

That's interesting. I thought the designations had been changed since they removed the signs.
Well atleast they did remove the signs. It was a little rediculous

I think the removal of the signs was mostly done to avoid confusion - Most people in the world term motorway as a high speed, multi lane, divided highway.

As more and more tourists opt for self drive travel, it would be conceivable that a tourist might travel in the right hand lane thinking it was the same direction of travel as the left lane... because "I'm on a motorway"

So maybe it was purely for clarity reasons that the signs were taken down.

I think the designation of 'motorway' might have been uplifted on some parts of 'two lane' motorway where it is envisaged that a true motorway would never be required nor justified. Possibly the Dunedin Northern Motorway could be one such example as could the original section of the Napier-Hasting Expressway.

Certainly the easiest way to tell is to see if pedestrians and cyclists are prohibited from the main traffic carriageway... If they are, then the legal motorway designation still stands. I know this is true for the Chch Northern and Southern Motorways, and the Tunnel Road Motorway. I think it is also true for the two lane section of the Dunedin Southern Motorway.

Yeah, the Dunedin Motorway (I still don't know how anyone every considered that road going out of town to the north on SH1 a motorway...it has a passing lane somewhere and that's about it) is definately well segregated in that regard, and resembles a 'proper' motorway.

^^
Actually there are 2 at grade intesections on that road as I recall and 4 overbridges.

^^ Correct, Is there two at-grade intersections? Or one?

I know one is at the top of a saddle, don't know about the other

^^
There is another one down at the flat about 2km from Waitati

^^ Correct again... I do remember now.

I shall take notice of this on my way up to Iron Maiden...I do recall overbridges now that you mention it, but they looked to me like cycleways/walkways =/

2 are road bridges and the other 2 are driveways/access roads to farms

2 are road bridges and the other 2 are driveways/access roads to farms

I think they are all single lane bridges from memory? Maybe one of them is two lanes.

^^
2 of them are about 4 - 5 metres wide and the 2 access roads are 1 lane

this really isn't a motorway in my opionin

What constitutes a motorway... pretty obvious:

1) At least two lanes in each direction
2) No access points from properties
3) All road access grade separated
4) No pedestrian access/cyclist access etc.

^^ Genarally right, but there's always exceptions (eg The Terrace Tunnel in Wellington). Could add something to the "two lanes in each direction bit" such as "or leading to a road that is a proper motorway". That'd cover all on/off ramps and oddities like the Terrace Tunnel.

Well I would argue that the part of the Terrace tunnel with only 1 lane isn't really a proper motorway. I would argue the proper motorway beings when the road becomes 4 lanes.

There are two issues at stake here. The first is the physical description and the second is the legal description.

From a physical perspective, the road (Dunedin Nthn Mwy & others) most certainly is not a motorway, hence the removal of signs stating so

But legally the road is still a motorway to ensure that the corridor can still be operated as one (eg: no peds, cyclists etc) and possibly be developed to a true motorway in future (such as in the Chch Sthn Mwy)

Govt confirms $1b spend on motorways
New 2:41PM Tuesday May 19, 2009

The Government has confirmed plans to increase spending on motorways by $1 billion over three years.

Transport Minister Steven Joyce said the confirmation came with the release of the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding.

Mr Joyce had previously said the money would come from a mix of new money, increases in fuel taxes and reallocating spending within the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF).

Critics of the move targeted the $420 million reallocation as it took money from public transport and other initiatives.

Another $283 million would be gained from increases in fuel taxes from October 1, which partially replace the previous government's plans for regional fuel taxes.

The Government would also be putting in an extra $258m to help pay for Wellington passenger rail infrastructure

Mr Joyce said investment levels across all activities would increase from 2008/2009 levels with the government spending on rail in Auckland largely not coming from the NLTF.

"Funding for state highway construction had increased significantly on levels indicated in the previous Government Policy Statement to 35 per cent of the NLTF, with over $1 billion of additional investment going into the network over the next three years," Mr Joyce said.

"The NLTF will provide around $10.7 billion over 10 years for investment in state highways."

Investment in the rail freight network would be made subject to achieving a reasonable commercial return over time, he said.


The statement lays out government policy for land transport planning and funding over a 10-year period, replacing the last document released in August 2008.

Strange how roading is not subject to the same criteria for funding.

Oh man he is so utterly stupid.

I seriously hope that we get nailed by $3 a litre petrol next year. Nothing else is going to get into his head the need for public transport.

I have written more here: http://transportblog.co.nz/2009/05/19/government-takes-us-back-to-the-60s/

Stupid and arrogant. The fact he is dismissing investment in rail freight is a real worry. This is actually quite scary it's transport planning from another age.

I notice oil has crept back up around US $60 a barrel. We are going to find ourselves in a whole heap of trouble in future.

I have written more here cam: http://transportblog.co.nz/2009/05/19/government-takes-us-back-to-the-60s/

Oh man he is so utterly stupid.

I seriously hope that we get nailed by $3 a litre petrol next year. Nothing else is going to get into his head the need for public transport.

I'd hope that would only be for the areas concerned though, not the whole of the country. Having said that, I'd have loved passenger trains for inter-city travel to be plausible (are they cheaper than buses in the NI?) for my weekend Invercargill-Dunedin trip. It's going to cost me $16 which isn't bad, but I envisage a train being cheaper for some reason. But hey, this isn't Europe I guess.

I'd hope that would only be for the areas concerned though, not the whole of the country. Having said that, I'd have loved passenger trains for inter-city travel to be plausible (are they cheaper than buses in the NI?) for my weekend Invercargill-Dunedin trip. It's going to cost me $16 which isn't bad, but I envisage a train being cheaper for some reason. But hey, this isn't Europe I guess.

Yes i'm personally referring more to rail PT within the larger cities, particularly Auckland which desperatly needs it to get people off our congested motorways. In saying that it would also be good to see some more inter city services as well.

We are also talking about rail freight services which the minister has not put any funding into. Do you remember how the cost of just about every household item went through the roof when oil got to about US$150 a barrel last year? That's because the trucking companies were passing their cost on to us. Motorists were also paying $2.20 a litre for petrol towards the end there which made it very expensive just to get around. Many people just had to pay this as there was no alternative depending where they lived.

As Jarbury points out in his blog we need to plan for a time when oil will not be as cheap and plentiful as it has been and will probably be prohibitivly expensive. This government is in denial and planning like we are living in a different age. In my opionion it's worse then shortsighted it's irresponsible.

Richard, if petrol was $3 a litre then an Invercargill-Dunedin-Christchurch railway link might become viable again.

I think I've come to a typical "headdesk" moment of my posting. If I had the energy I'd be foaming at the mouth a bit more. Joyce is shaping up to be rather a muppet though with absolutely no understanding of what a well balanced transport system entails. The best cities in the world are the most connected through both road, rail and through ports (be they air or sea).

I just hope that as the Regional Council is heading in the right direction we'll get a Regional Land Transport Strategy that is good, and that'll be able to ride things through and not do too much damage before either we get a decent government and/or high oil prices make the country realise what a dumbass Steven Joyce is. Or he might realise that in order to put "economic growth" at the centre of transport policy you need to actually take into account future petrol prices.

I am starting to think that we're really going to miss the ARC. They're certainly the only council in Auckland that has any idea what they're doing.

I just hope that as the Regional Council is heading in the right direction we'll get a Regional Land Transport Strategy that is good, and that'll be able to ride things through and not do too much damage before either we get a decent government and/or high oil prices make the country realise what a dumbass Steven Joyce is. Or he might realise that in order to put "economic growth" at the centre of transport policy you need to actually take into account future petrol prices.

I am starting to think that we're really going to miss the ARC. They're certainly the only council in Auckland that has any idea what they're doing.

1): By the time oil prices are high enough to make Joyce look like a retard, it will be too late to do anything, as the cost of construction is heavily dependant on the cost of oil. We will be stuck with our motorways. At least we could convert them for cycling.

2): In order to put economic growth at the centre of transport policy, you do NOT need to take into acount future petrol prices. PT more cost effective than driving, for the majority of journeys, even at current petrol prices. Given that the national party is driven to build roads on a basis of ideaology rather than on a basis of economic productivity, their mindset will not change, even with increased petrol prices. IMO.

At the end of the day, National is pandering to their constituents rather than their ideology. Their constituents are owners of Chelsea tractors (more than one) and they drive everywhere. They own a house with a mortgage in a middle class suburb and view the buses are dirty wastes of space which take up room on their roads.

Building roads for these people is a very simple way to buy votes.

My Commute Sucks (http://www.mycommutesucks.org/)

We need an NZ version of this!

I remember a few years ago, the North Shore City Council took a survey of how residents would like to see transport in the city develop. The results for the survey were something like:
-prefrence for private transport ~22%
-prefrence for public transport ~43%
-prefrence for walking and cycling options ~35%

Given that the North Shore traditionally has a prefrence for the national party, and given that this survey was conducted in the early 2000s, before we saw crazy petrol prices, I am coming to the conclusion that people voted for the National party for reasons other than transport strategy.

Problem is that people often lie on surveys to make themselves look good. It's like those surveys about drinking habits or whether or not people smoke (and if they do how much). I agree that there is some pressure there, but generally when you really get down to it, people want the ability to drive (they just don't want the other drivers there). :lol:

You'll have to excuse this slightly jaded view, but the more I talk to people and interact with people I know, the more I know that they'd not change their habits unless it really suited them or there were significant mitigating factors to push them to take public transport. The status quo is so much more simple.

That's where the push factors have to come in a little svarty. It just isn't affordable for use to continue to subsidise road users so much. Just think of all the land in Auckand that is wasted in parking, for example. There is a huge cost in that land - which is passed on to everyone.

@Svarty
I don't see why people would think that voting for PT makes them look good. The survey probably was confidential, and, I always thought that a prefrence for driving would make you look good. Symbolises power, and everyone knows that real men dont catch the bus or ride their bikes to work.

Good point about people wanting to continue to drive, but would want others off the road. However, if I wanted to drive, I would vote for private transport. I remember that the North Shore City Council made it quite clear that one of the disadvantages of a public transport city is that journeys by car may in fact end up being slower, as a result of bus priority measures.

I agree with your last paragraph. I would also say that many people think that public transport is not suitable for Auckland, as it is has a low population density.

That's where the push factors have to come in a little svarty. It just isn't affordable for use to continue to subsidise road users so much. Just think of all the land in Auckand that is wasted in parking, for example. There is a huge cost in that land - which is passed on to everyone.

I agree, but how many people on the street generally think in those terms? We think of it because we have read international case studies, we have looked at the data and we have also microanalysed lots of different factors associated with the detrimental impact of such auto-centric planning. Others people don't like to analyse that much.

I got into a right blazing row with my girlfriends father because I think he's so wasteful - all he wants is a simple life and he really, really doesn't care about the data from elsewhere - it is all disregarded as "won't work here because here is unique". How many times have we heard that sentiment? :lol:

@Svarty
I don't see why people would think that voting for PT makes them look good. The survey probably was confidential, and, I always thought that a prefrence for driving would make you look good. Symbolises power, and everyone knows that real men dont catch the bus or ride their bikes to work.

Good point about people wanting to continue to drive, but would want others off the road. However, if I wanted to drive, I would vote for private transport. I remember that the North Shore City Council made it quite clear that one of the disadvantages of a public transport city is that journeys by car may in fact end up being slower, as a result of bus priority measures.

I agree with your last paragraph. I would also say that many people think that public transport is not suitable for Auckland, as it is has a low population density.

You're not taking into account the "feel good" mentality of people. Why is it that people are so proud of giving to charity? They certainly don't like it so much when they're taxed and the government gives a greater proportion of GDP to charity. Why? Because they no longer feel that their little commitment makes a difference and they no longer get that endorphine rush of "doing the right thing".

A lot of people say they endorse a green lifestyle and think the planet should be saved because they know it's the right thing to do, yet I can bet that most of those people don't compost or go out of their way to live sustainably. Lip service is always so much easier than action and that's why I'm just cautioning against taking a survey as gospel.

The population density argument is bollocks. Brisbane and Perth clearly show that you can have reasonably good public transport in a low-density city.

You're not taking into account the "feel good" mentality of people. Why is it that people are so proud of giving to charity? They certainly don't like it so much when they're taxed and the government gives a greater proportion of GDP to charity. Why? Because they no longer feel that their little commitment makes a difference and they no longer get that endorphine rush of "doing the right thing".

A lot of people say they endorse a green lifestyle and think the planet should be saved because they know it's the right thing to do, yet I can bet that most of those people don't compost or go out of their way to live sustainably. Lip service is always so much easier than action and that's why I'm just cautioning against taking a survey as gospel.

Ture, I did not consider this at all. But would this really be enough to skew the results of a survey strongly away from private transport? I dont know.

You are right jarbury. I would also say that population density is influenced by the available transport options, and not the other way round. Ie build more roads, see a reduction in population density. develop PT, see an increase in population density.

The population density argument is bollocks. Brisbane and Perth clearly show that you can have reasonably good public transport in a low-density city.

Go for Melbourne rather than those examples. Melbourne has a population density similar to Auckland and it actually has a usable network. I found Brisbane to be sadly lacking at times and very difficult to traverse in places (remember my Capalaba example). Perth is also good only when on a train - get to a bus and it gets a bit shocking in places. Take a quick look at Transperth just for interests sake! The train system knocks the socks off a lot of cities, but then the catchment areas for those train stations are sometimes absolutely terrible - look at the Northern Suburbs line. A lot of the stations are even in the middle of the motorway surrounded by deadspace and car parks.

Yeah Melbourne and Sydney both have similar population densities to Auckland, but far better public transport. I mention Brisbane and Perth because they have significantly lower densities than Auckland yet still have better public transport (not like it's hard to be better than us though).

Regarding the feel-good factor, there's a famous "The Onion" article about 98% of Americans approving of better public transport for other people to use. I think that generally hits the nail on the head.

Richard, if petrol was $3 a litre then an Invercargill-Dunedin-Christchurch railway link might become viable again.

Well, the Southerner used to run that route until 2000 or so, but I heard it ran at a loss. Would you know if it was like that since its inception, or just in its twilight years?

Richard, if petrol was $3 a litre then an Invercargill-Dunedin-Christchurch railway link might become viable again.

Not For passenger travel it won't. The most likely result would be a boost in bus travel. The costs of re-passengerising a line for regular use, when it that has been solely freight is a significant burden.

That's why there was such a stink over the possibility of the NIMT going freight only a few years ago, once it goes it is a huge step to bring it back.

Yeah Melbourne and Sydney both have similar population densities to Auckland, but far better public transport. I mention Brisbane and Perth because they have significantly lower densities than Auckland yet still have better public transport (not like it's hard to be better than us though).

Regarding the feel-good factor, there's a famous "The Onion" article about 98% of Americans approving of better public transport for other people to use. I think that generally hits the nail on the head.

^^ Humans are generally selfish people and are only interested in their own advantage, usually, at the expense of everyone else.

I still put PT usage patterns down to the fact that it has to meet THREE key objectives before people will be encouraged to use it. The more objectives it achieves, the more likely people are going to use it.

SPEED, CONVENIENCE, and COST

See most people just want to get to work as quick as possible - As that website pointed out, people generally hate commuting and therefore want to spend as little time as possible doing it.

For the most part, most PT in NZ fails the SPEED test - Simply put, the fairly long average headway times between buses, the slow stop-start nature on them, the sprawling nature of out suburbs with sometimes limited coverage of our buses means that average door-to-door times are just way too long - It's just easier to get in the car.

For the most part, COSTS to catch the bus aren't particularly useful either. Many would say that with decent PT we wouldn't need a car so they compare total car running costs to PT, which invariably shows in PT's favour - But since most NZ'ers really do need a car to get out and about on weekends etc to those remote beaches, mountains, rivers that are too far from anywhere to be practically served by PT, then you can't really include all car running costs.

An as for convenience - well the combination of the above two factors, plus the fact that it just isn't seen as cool, you cant listen to your own music (without stuffing un-healthy earbuds in you ears) and cant have phone calls in private etc, exposure to cold/heat/wind/rain/snow while waiting for buses for half an hour because you missed the last one by two minutes, it just makes for a rather unpleasant start to the day (like any of us need that!)

FWIW, the hassles and costs of the above, this ultimately means that I'd personally spend about an extra hour away from home each weekday - That is time I'd rather spend with my wife, or socialising, or catching up on extra work if I'm too busy etc etc - Time is valuable to most peoples busy lives so unless PT in NZ really can make a big dent in the issues I've mentioned, I'm afraid that most NZ'ers just aren't going to try it.

Obviously there is one way to actually solve all those issues - the solution lies with local and central governments in providing the proper planning, funding, frameworks in place to ensure that PT is successful.

Not For passenger travel it won't. The most likely result would be a boost in bus travel. The costs of re-passengerising a line for regular use, when it that has been solely freight is a significant burden.

That's why there was such a stink over the possibility of the NIMT going freight only a few years ago, once it goes it is a huge step to bring it back.

Tracks are required to be maintained to a higher standard to operate passenger services - But how much higher I don't know, nor do I know what the typical difference for cost of maintenance between lines used for passenger services are. I wouldn't have thought it would have been terribly much however - compared to how much we spend on roads each year.

But more importantly I would think it would be more expensive to have to repurchase land and construct passenger rail facilities if former land and facilities have been demolished and sold off. This can add to significant cost which is why (I think anyway) that all existing rail corridors around the country need to be investigated for possible future passenger rail use, and ensure that land is designated accordingly so it cant be built on for reasons other than the purpose of providing passenger rail services. But no, this would be too difficult for our government wouldn't it?

all existing rail corridors around the country need to be investigated for possible future passenger rail use, and ensure that land is designated accordingly so it cant be built on for reasons other than the purpose of providing passenger rail services. But no, this would be too difficult for our government wouldn't it?

It is called Railbanking, and is reasonably common O/Seas

Excellent points KaneD. Public transport has to be made better for people to use it. And the thing is, in Auckland particularly, where it is made better people are using it! Patronage on the Northern Busway is 70% up on what is was this time last year - and last year the whole busway was open.

Excellent points KaneD. Public transport has to be made better for people to use it. And the thing is, in Auckland particularly, where it is made better people are using it! Patronage on the Northern Busway is 70% up on what is was this time last year - and last year the whole busway was open.

That's excellent - The whole issue of PT is a fine balance really. Because most parts of our towns and cities are rather low density, it makes it more difficult to service adequately with PT. Low density means more bus routes to cover the same population which then translates to a higher cost to operate, which then makes it less easy for a government to justify over just building another road for our cars. Narrow minded I know, but that unfortunately appears to be a fairly important underlying fact.

Some people have made previous comments about how Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth have excellent PT systems - From past experience, and along with many that I've spoken to, the general consensus is that certainly in the more inner-mid suburbs, and along well populated rail corridors, PT services are excellent - but get to the typical mid-outer suburban sprawl, and the services aren't nearly as good. In addition, if we look at PT in some of Australia's smaller urban centres then the PT service is virtually non-existent in some areas.

I'm sure that a good amount of that will be due to the lower urban density of outer suburbs. I think this is where a radical shift in the way our councils allow for future development will become a key factor in future - I know the Chch City Council is making reasonable progress towards intensifying development along key suburban areas... The only problem is that much of that isn't near a rail corridor, but might be useful for a future tram route perhaps.

The interesting thing is that while density MAY assist public transport it is not utterly essential for public transport to be successful. Sydney and Melbourne have similar densities to Auckland, while Brisbane and Perth actually have much lower population densities to Auckland. Yet all 4 cities have MUCH greater public transport use.

Why? Because their systems didn't suffer from 50 years of complete neglect.

In particular, the new railway lines in Perth (one goes north and the other south) run through very low density residential areas. But because of greater feeder bus services these railway lines have been very popular and very successful. I do think that intensification is essential around public transport corridors to bring people closer to public transport - but it is not essential for the system to at least be moderately successful.

Build the system, then focus on land-use patterns, rather than waiting for land-use patterns to change before building the system. That's my point.

^^

Yes. In fact, you don't have to look to Australia to see that PT can function inlow density suburbs, we can see places in Auckland where PT use is high, despite the areas being low density sprawl. This is proof that you can have decent PT at low densities.

^^
Yes. In fact, you don't have to look to Australia to see that PT can function in low density suburbs, we can see places in Auckland where PT use is high, despite the areas being low density sprawl. This is proof that you can have decent PT at low densities.

Yes, but there is no hiding the fact that although PT in low densities can work, it is much harder to get it to work due to the higher relative cost. In addition, lower density living areas usually mean cheaper land, which in turn means cheaper for the government to buy so they can widen the road. And in general, if a government wants to solve a very localised traffic congestion issue, then if they throw money at widening the road, they can be certain that it 'will' solve 'that' specific issue since the default behaviour of people is that they will use their cars, but if they throw the money at PT, there is no guarantee it will solve the problem as most people will still simply stick to their cars and put up with the problem unless its severe enough - Of course, as we all know, this is very narrow minded thinking, but it is the way it works.

Note also that a higher population density also have a double effect - Not only do more people live closer to a bus or train along it's say 10km route, but also it often happens that a higher density area is a more expensive area to build a new motorway or widen existing roads? This makes the return on investment for a PT system more viable.

Remember that although Perth and Brisbane have lower population densities, this is largely because of the general local authority boundary areas of those cities covering large amounts of undeveloped land which distorts the figures. In general most NZ cities are generally built of of fairly contiguous bands of development, whereas in Australia, you get lots of pockets on development in the outer areas. If you excluded the undeveloped land, and just aggregated the population of the actual developed parts, the density probably works out similar, if not higher than in NZ.

To put it another way, I would doubt that the density of a 5km radius of Central Auckland's is the same as the equivalent in Syndey's and Melbournes, which have far more intensive apartment development. Also, most typical modern urban-sprawl subdivisions in the suburbs in Oz and NZ are usually of 500-700 square metres in size. And with both countries having similar demographics in terms of average household size, then surely this equates to a similar density overall?

I don't quite have all the figures readily available KaneD, but I am pretty sure that overall Auckland has a similar density to Melbourne and Sydney and a density much higher than Brisbane and Perth. That is even taking those factors you've mentioned into account.

Auckland's population density is actually fairly reasonably high when compared with other "new world" cities in USA, Canada and Australia. Just to prove that looks can be deceiving, Los Angeles actually has one of the HIGHEST population densities of any US city.

I don't quite have all the figures readily available KaneD, but I am pretty sure that overall Auckland has a similar density to Melbourne and Sydney and a density much higher than Brisbane and Perth. That is even taking those factors you've mentioned into account.

Auckland's population density is actually fairly reasonably high when compared with other "new world" cities in USA, Canada and Australia. Just to prove that looks can be deceiving, Los Angeles actually has one of the HIGHEST population densities of any US city.

Good point jarbury - Just did a google seach and fund a page that has this sample of cities (among others) - I must admit I am rather surprised by a few of them. (figures in people per square kilometre)

Mumbai 29650
Seoul 16700
Shanghai 13400
Cairo 9400
Singapore 8350
London 5100
Moscow 4900
Tokyo 4750
Warsaw 4300
Cape Town 3950
Paris 3550
Vienna 3400
Dublin 2950
Kuala Lumpur 2750
Milan 2750
Toronto 2650
San Francisco 2350
Helsinki 2100
Sydney 2100
New York 2050
Auckland 2000
Copenhagen 1850
Vancouver 1650
Chicago 1500
Melbourne 1500
Adelaide 1350
Portland 1300
Perth 1200
Gold Coast 1100
Brisbane 950
Quebec 950
Boston 900
Kansas City 900

I still contest that some of the calculations are a bit skewed since I am sure that much of the spotty developed outer areas include all the undeveloped land in between. It would come as no surprise to me really since cities like Perth, Brisbane and Melbourne have plenty of land which to keep spreading out. Sydney and Auckland are a little more constrained.

I am sure that New York with it's similar density to Auckland would suggest a similar point - It would be hard to believe that Manhatten has a similar population density to Auckland's central area. This would be also offset by very spotty development of outer suburbs in New York (as is typical of American cities). And it would be interesting to hear what the PT service is like in New York in areas that are in the outer areas - I'm picking that unless you live next to a rail line, you probably don't get much at all.

Have a look at this site for more info about various things population related etc:

http://www.citymayors.com/sections/rankings_content.html

Yeah that's pretty much what I expected. In Auckland most development since the 1970s most new development in Auckland has been on fairly small sections - of around 400 square metres.

By contrast, much of the recent sprawl in other cities has sections of 1000 square metres or more. This is the advantage of managing Auckland's sprawl from the 1970s onwards, and somewhat curbing it over the last 10 years (or only allowing it in some areas).

I think the fact that Auckland's motorway network was not completed in the 1970s also means that sprawl has been somewhat limited. This all means that Auckland's density is actually pretty good for public transport - it's just a shame we have a rubbish network and that our cul-de-sacs are difficult to serve by public transport.

It would be great to think that one of the first priorities of the new Supercouncil was implementing a metro rail system like the one you were discussing. :cheers:

Those density figures I always get my knickers in a twist about. A number attached to a city doesn't give a true impression of that said city's urban form. Plus, Auckland's density listed there is taken from Demographia and then listed on City Mayors, and as has been established Demographia have a strong anti-urban approach. Don Brash is a member of Demographia and thus I question their underlying motive at listing Auckland as "high density" as other land use figures place Auckland at around the 1,100 people per km squared mark.

An example:

Obscured density

Firstly, as we can see from this example there are clusters of mid-rise and highrise development centred around underground metro stations and shopping areas with pedestrian plazas. Now, as you can see there is also a copious amount of "dead" green space in this shot. This will significantly lower the density figures for the area as that dead space is counted as part of the city.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/4190/density.jpg

Our next example, shows an urban forest (a protected landscape) which is completely surrounded by dense apartments which are served both by commuter rail and light rail as well as having frequent shopping areas. This forest again simply lowers the density of the area significantly.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6793/density2.jpg

Density through land use

Here we see an example from East Auckland. As you can see, there is quite a consistant coverage of houses in this area and nothing like the provision of greenspace, thus boosting the density figure due to land utilisation.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3412/aucklanddense.jpg

We can also see the same with Toronto, a new world city that is touted as having a very high density. Here at least you can see the dense corridor of development along the metro line down the centre, but you also don't see the same level of greenspace which results in a lowering of the density figures.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/6535/torontox.jpg

Thus we see, the ease of transport provision is not something easily quantified by a meaningless density figure. Cities built along corridors of density are far easier to adaquately serve by PT than cities that simply infill almost every piece of land available to them.

It would be great to think that one of the first priorities of the new Supercouncil was implementing a metro rail system like the one you were discussing. :cheers:

Not going to happen due to costs. We have to be realistic afterall. If you do want to discuss this though, the Auckland Public Transport thread has started talking about it (rather than the roading thread).

Svartmetall that is pretty much spot on to my argument about the 'published' population densities - They are generally a load of crap on the whole.

Density is averaged over the whole city area (which in itself can be ambiguous and vary in definition from country to country) which as you say, will include varying types of development (or not as the case may be).

What is more important is perhaps the urban density of the catchment area for a particular rail line, tram or bus route. This is probably why a rail service in Wellington's Lower Hutt is far more viable than say a service on Christchurch's Main North Line.

It boils down to the key fact that more people live within 500 metres of a railway station on the Lower Hutt line than do on the Main North Line. This really reinforces the need for local councils to zone for infill housing along these corridors.

Slightly more on topic however:

I see that the Western Ring Route has a 'future Southdown rail corridor' along part of it... I wonder if now that the motorway is going ahead, will that spell doom for the railway (or if not, push it into the 'maybe we'll build it in 20 years time' bracket)?

Excellent point svarty and well illustrated too. Generally I use the "population density" argument when people say the Auckland's density are too low for a decent public transport system.

Yeah that's pretty much what I expected. In Auckland most development since the 1970s most new development in Auckland has been on fairly small sections - of around 400 square metres.

By contrast, much of the recent sprawl in other cities has sections of 1000 square metres or more. This is the advantage of managing Auckland's sprawl from the 1970s onwards, and somewhat curbing it over the last 10 years (or only allowing it in some areas).

I think the fact that Auckland's motorway network was not completed in the 1970s also means that sprawl has been somewhat limited. This all means that Auckland's density is actually pretty good for public transport - it's just a shame we have a rubbish network and that our cul-de-sacs are difficult to serve by public transport.

And a proposal in the States would remove tax benefits on suburban properties over 3000 sq ft (http://www.arizonahousingbubble.com/2007/mcmansion-busting-democrats-propose-removing-tax-benefits-for-homes-larger-than-3000-square-feet/) (roughly 278 sq m). Something worth looking into for NZ, and Demographia's worst nightmare. :)

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/c/c/9/49HansQ_20090527_00000485-7-State-Highway-Projects-Funding.htm

7. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Transport: Is it Government policy to ensure that the benefits outweigh the costs for new State highway projects prior to approving funding for them?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : Yes, the Government’s general approach is to ensure that not just State highways but all transport infrastructure projects are assessed for full benefits over costs and are value for money. That policy is, of course, implemented by the New Zealand Transport Agency. We also take into account the wider economic development, productivity, and safety benefits when evaluating transport projects.

Dr Russel Norman: What are the corridor benefit-cost ratios for each of the seven roads of national significance announced in March?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We do not yet have full benefit-cost ratios for every individual project on the roads of national significance, as the New Zealand Transport Authority is currently developing and assessing the way in which those projects will be developed. I can, however, tell the member that the Victoria Park tunnel in Auckland has a benefit-cost ratio of 2.8 and the proposed Waterview Connection has a benefit-cost ratio of 2.4. That compares with the previous Labour Government’s twin two-lane tunnel option, which had a benefit-cost ratio of 1.2

Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen any reports that go back and analyse the benefits and costs of State highway projects after construction, and look at how that compared with the pre-construction analysis?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I have. The Motu group has conducted an interesting post-construction analysis of the economic benefits of the Auckland Northern Motorway extensions to Silverdale and Ōrewa. Its report showed that the benefit of building the motorway, expressed in cost-benefit terms, was between 6.3 and 21 times the cost. This was far better than the pre-construction analysis, and it shows the potential for major new State highway projects to create strong economic benefits in the regions in which they are developed.

Dr Russel Norman: How can it be economically responsible for the Government to announce in March seven roads of national significance and commit an additional $1 billion towards building them, without any prior analysis of the economic costs and benefits of the projects, as the Minister admitted in his answer and as has been confirmed from this letter from the New Zealand Transport Agency, which says that even after the announcement of the seven projects, no benefit-to-cost ratio analysis has been done?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said, some elements of the roads of national significance have benefit-cost ratios that are known currently, and for the others that will become known as the projects develop over time. On the subject of benefit-cost ratios, I say they are only one part of the answer, because the Auckland rail infrastructure upgrades that were signed off by the previous Government, with support from the Greens, suggested that the upgrades had a benefit-cost ratio of, to quote Treasury, “about 1”. That is about the most generous benefit-cost ratio assessment I have seen Treasury come up with so far.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he support the commitment of his Government towards high-quality spending, and how does he know that these seven projects, involving billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, are high-quality spending, when he announced that he would progress them before he had done the analysis as to the benefits versus the costs?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is well known that the seven projects referred to are on corridors of absolutely national significance across the country, and of course the projects are supported by road users and others in the communities. Each project, before it proceeds, is subject to a full analysis on the construction costs and the benefit-cost ratios, and the decisions will be made on that basis.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister not operating a double standard, because on the one hand he said to the Bus and Coach Association, with regard to public transport projects, that there has to be a cost-benefit analysis to see that they make sense in their own right, whereas when it comes to the ideologically driven, economically illiterate decisions to invest in these seven motorway projects, there is no requirement for the seven projects to have a benefit-to-cost analysis done prior to the decision to go ahead with a project—it is a double standard?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am happy to have a conversation about economic literacy with the member opposite, at any time that he cares to name.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was absolutely no attempt to answer or address that question. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any assistance. The member should reflect on the question he asked. Where he introduces that kind of material into the question, he can expect that kind of answer.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table the letter from the New Zealand Transport Agency, in which it says no benefit-cost analysis has been done on these seven major projects.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We do not yet have full benefit-cost ratios for every individual project on the roads of national significance, as the New Zealand Transport Authority is currently developing and assessing the way in which those projects will be developed.

Wow. Setting aside roads of national significance, before even checking to see whether these roads have a benefit or not. Why the hell would you designate them as roads of "national significance" before even checking to see if building them will be useful or not? :nuts:

Have a read of this whizz: http://www.bettertransport.org.nz/2009/05/economic-benefits-of-roads-of-national-significance-unknown/

Interesting read. It really does blow away much of the credibility of the government as being a business minded government.

I am also interested as to how he got a figure of a cost-benfit value of "about 1" for rail projects:
1) How can someone assume that ALL rail infrastructure projects have the same economic value.
2) This value probably assumes that increased PT investment will have absolutely no effect on land use patterns. Instead, it would focus on the immediate, short term benefit. Hence, a significant proportion of the economic benefits of increased investment into PT is ignored.

Yes I have enormous problems with the way BCRs are put together. The focus on time savings benefits is wrong, the absence of reference to environmental and social costs is wrong, the ignorance of longer term land-use change is wrong.... I could go on and on.

These are fundamental flaws in a system that appears to guide almost all our transport funding decisions.

That is absolutly outrageous. However it confirms what i've always though i does not matter how good an argument gets put in front of this guy he's plowing on regardless.

Still good work by Russel Norman it's the first time someone has actually pinned this slimy weasal down on the issue. Sadly this won't make the Herald or probably any of the other papers so most of general population will go on blissfully unaware.

Speaking of unnecessary roads...

Hollyford road up for debate again

By SHANE COWLISHAW - The Southland Times Last updated 05:00

The long-running debate about the viability of a road through a pristine region of Fiordland has again resurfaced.

The Southland District Council received a record 201 submissions on its long-term plan, 37 of which were in support of a road link between Haast and Hollyford.

The proposed route has been a hot topic for several years, with groups heavily divided over the issue.

Invercargill MP Eric Roy, who has walked the length of the possible route, said he had been a proponent of the idea for a while and wanted a serious analysis of its effect and cost.

The idea was a win-win situation because it would open up South Westland to Southland and provide significant savings in road transport costs, he said.

Stewart Island councillor Bruce Ford also supported the proposal and suggested the project was just as worthy as a national cycleway.

Mining roads had been through the area before and the beauty of the area should be easily accessible to everyone, he said.

"A lot of that ground that a proposed road would go through is not particularly flash, other than in the Green people's eyes, and in my mind everybody should be allowed to have a look, not just those people who have a bloody pack on their back; that's being selfish," he said.

However, Southland District Mayor Frana Cardno was against the proposal and said it would have a big environmental impact.

The road would have to be tolled and while in the past she had been a proponent of the idea, she now believed protecting the national park was more important, she said.

"When building a road there's going to be controversy and in lots of ways we have something unique in our national park and the question has been asked, should we just protect it?"

Forest and Bird also maintained its long-running opposition to the proposal.

Infrastructure Minister Bill English could not be contacted yesterday.

Literally no one lives in the area in question, and the distance is about Auckland to Hamilton which surely would be massively expensive to build. And for a road to nowhere (sorry Haast). I also find it odd that Southlanders are in support of it, considering it would would mean people touring the West Coast wouldn't have to enter the rest of Southland (and Otago would be cut out completely) to get to Fiordland.

^^
It would be a spectacular route but in this case the cons outweigh the pros significantly.

I just love this mentality that everywhere has to be wheelchair (or atleast walking frame) accessible
"A lot of that ground that a proposed road would go through is not particularly flash, other than in the Green people's eyes, and in my mind everybody should be allowed to have a look, not just those people who have a bloody pack on their back; that's being selfish," he said.

and who are these ''green'' people and what's with their eyes? :lol:

All I know is that in that sentence he contradicts himself..."it should be accessible to everyone to enjoy...but it's fairly crap that area and no one would want to see it anyway"

^^
It would be a spectacular route but in this case the cons outweigh the pros significantly.

I just love this mentality that everywhere has to be wheelchair (or atleast walking frame) accessible


and who are these ''green'' people and what's with their eyes? :lol:

Although I am in a wheelchair and would like to have access I do not believe the environment should be destroyed to "improve" access. It is not my right to demand such a thing, Eric Roy's pathetic attempt to label people as "selfish" is nonsense.

Five of the country's top 10 most dangerous roads are in the South Island.

They include the nation's most treacherous stretch of road -- Marlborough's State Highway 62 between Spring Creek and Renwick.

The road, known to locals as Rapaura Road, was rated the highest for fatal and serious injury crashes per volume of traffic.

The assessement was made by KiwiRAP, a joint initiative between the Automobile Association, Ministry of Transport, Transit New Zealand, Accident Compensation Corporation, Land Transport New Zealand and police.

KiwiRAP's analysis of crashes on the nation's highways reveals shocking statistics for the South Island.

For total crashes per kilometre of highway the island barely rates, with only two stretches -- State Highway 1 on Christchurch's north-east fringe and SH1 from Dunedin to Mosgiel -- entering the country's top 30 at 27 and 28 respectively.

However, when traffic volumes are factored in, the South Island rockets up the standings.

Five of the top 10, and 14 of the top 25, most dangerous roads in the country are in the South Island when rated per kilometre travelled.

Otago and Southland are massively represented in the rankings with their low traffic density roads still resulting in numerous serious crashes and deaths and achieving eight spots on the nation's top 25.

KiwiRAP assessed roads in two categories: "collective risk", based on the number of crashes per kilometre of road and "personal risk", the number of crashes per kilometre travelled.

While collective risk showed the crash density -- busier roads naturally have more crashes -- personal risk showed an individual's chance of being in a serious crash on a road.

Marlborough's Raupara Road is just 12.7km long and has a relatively low traffic volume but it produced four fatal crashes and two serious injury crashes from 2002 to 2006.

No. 14 on the top 25 most dangerous roads was the Murchison to Westport road, which had 10.2 serious or fatal crashes per 100 million vehicle kilometres driven.

The Rapaura Road had a rating of 772.4 crashes per 100 million vehicle-kilometres.

Canterbury emerged surprisingly well from the rankings with no roads in the top 25.

Compared to other districts Canterbury has 39 per cent of its roads classed low or low-medium risk -- the lowest in the country -- and the second lowest percentage of high-risk roads.

KiwiRAP spokesman and AA motoring affairs general manager Mike Noon said the road assessments were useful for people to recognise the danger in roads that may not immediately appear dangerous.

Noon said AA surveys showed people were good at recognising the value of seatbelts and airbags.

However, their ability to recognise the danger in hazards such as trees beside roads, narrow verges, ditches and roadside water was much worse.

The ratings would be further developed into a star-rating system for stretches of road which would be released next year, he said.

Many of the roads high on the personal risk top 25 were in high tourist-use areas.

These include the road to the Waitomo Caves (No. 2) and the Te Anau Milford Road (No. 3).

Noon said the assessment might be extended to known tourist roads in the future.

RISKY RIDES

South Island roads and their ranking in the top 25 most dangerous roads in the country:

1. SH62 from Spring Creek (SH 1) to Renwick (SH 6)

3. SH94 from Te Anau to Milford

7. SH8 from Alexandra to Milton

8. SH96 from Mataura to Ohai

9. SH1 from Invercargill to Bluff

13. SH8 from Omarama to Cromwell and SH 8A

14. SH6 and SH67 from Murchison to Westport

15. SH6 from Haast to Wanaka

16. SH8 from Alexandra to Palmerston

20. SH94, SH95, SH97 from Lumsden to Manapouri

21. SH93 from Clinton to Mataura

23. SH7 from Hanmer Springs to Reefton

24. SH60 from Motueka to Collingwood

25. SH1 from Oamaru to Dunedin

5 in Otago, 5 Southland, 1 each in all the others (except Nelson, but it's about 1 hectare anyway). And SI roads are said to be the best in the country =/

Also, anyone have a NI counterpart to this article?

EDIT: Btw, I count a total 10 Otago and Southland roads on the list (if you include Haast to Wanaka which is a little bit on the West Coast), the article only says 8...

I'm actually really pleased the government might get round to building the road.

Although I am in a wheelchair and would like to have access I do not believe the environment should be destroyed to "improve" access. It is not my right to demand such a thing, Eric Roy's pathetic attempt to label people as "selfish" is nonsense.

Building a road will only destroy as very tiny fraction of the enviroment. It may be a small eyesore, and will involve a very very tiny number of trees acut down and earthworks, but it will be one of the more senic routes in the country. Using your logic we should have never built the Te-Anau to Milford road, and in doing so it destroyed Fiorland National Park.

It will also boost tourism, by making it easier for tourists without the time in the country to do lots of walking to see the area, and it will be more conveniant for a senic tourist after Milford and the west coast, to travel down the west coast to Milford, and then use the Milford road through Fiorldland to Te Anau and back up to Queenstown. Milford is really really senic, but it is a little hard to get to, being a little out of the way. The road will rectify this problam.

What's the route for this road?

^^
I couldn't find anything on the internet so I drew an approximated route

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk100/kiwikaas/haast-hollyford.jpg?t=1244189624

Btw. Theyve been discussing this atleast since I was a child. It's a proposal that keeps resurfacing every so many years.

What would the cost be though? Roads in Fiordland are notoriously expensive to build.

^^
Indeed. It looks deceptively short on the map but it would be the equivilant of atleast 90 mins driving time from Haast to the end of the Hollyford Rd. You're most likely looking at a price tag from $1-2 billion

Can't see that ever being built - the cost and the environmental effects would be astronomical.

^^
Think it would be a shame if they did.
I did the Hollyford Valley some years back and it would be a great shame if there was a road running along the upper valley. Think of all those friggin touring cars

Half the charm of Milford Sound is that it's so inaccessible. When you're there you really do feel like you're in another world.

It is one of the most beautiful places I have ever visited. Let's not risk changing that.

I agree.
That part of the country is both beautiful and special, it hasn't yet been destroyed by humanity.

Building a road will only destroy as very tiny fraction of the enviroment. It may be a small eyesore, and will involve a very very tiny number of trees acut down and earthworks, but it will be one of the more senic routes in the country. Using your logic we should have never built the Te-Anau to Milford road, and in doing so it destroyed Fiorland National Park.

Wrong actually - Building a road through the Hollyford currently goes against the core policy to limit human development in and around our National Parks. In it's current form, building a new road would mean contravening this policy.

This is very different to when the Te Anau to Milford road was built - The road was built well before 1952 which is when Fiordland National Park was established.

It will also boost tourism, by making it easier for tourists without the time in the country to do lots of walking to see the area, and it will be more conveniant for a senic tourist after Milford and the west coast, to travel down the west coast to Milford, and then use the Milford road through Fiorldland to Te Anau and back up to Queenstown. Milford is really really senic, but it is a little hard to get to, being a little out of the way. The road will rectify this problam.

With regards to boosting tourism, yes, perhaps it would help make Milford more accessible, but only just.

The vast majority of foreign tourists base themselves in and around the Queenstown area because that is widely regarded around the world as the South Islands major tourist hub. While other areas will develop over time, Queenstown will still remain as the most popular South Island destination for the forseeable future.

Currently a one way trip from Queenston to Milford via Te Anau is 286km

Milford to Hollyford is 46km
Queenstown to south of Jacksons Bay is about 240km
The bit that is missing is around 100km

Therefore, a road from Queenstown to Milford via Haast is significantly more than the current route.

Haast to Invercargill is 383km (via Wanaka)
Haast to Invercargill is about 420km (via Hollyford)

So I'm not really sure just how a road through Hollyford Valley to Hasst would actually be of significant benefit to anyone?

Personally, IF another route to Milford is desired, then my personal pick is a road from Glenorchy through to Hollyford. This would be something like 125km each way from Queenstown to Milford, and the bit that is missing is only about 12km, some of which could be tunnelled to minimise environmental impact.

this image is in the NZ highways thread in infrastructure and mobility, any idea where it is? Says it's north island
http://www.davidwallphoto.com/images/%7B9FE33677%2D0853%2D44CA%2DAD77%2D72DA5CF5F3B7%7D%2Ejpg

Desert Road in winter?

I would say the Bruce Road going up Mt Ruapehu, but I don't think that has a centre-line. Perhaps the road up the Turoa (southern) side?

I can't think of many other places that would be THAT elevated in the North Island.

yea my guess was turoa. There's nothing really so high above clouds and snow otherwise

I thought Bruce Rd too at first, but didn't think it was sealed.
Now that I think about it I'm pretty sure it is sealed......

Bruce Road is sealed, but I don't think it has markings down the middle. I haven't driven up it for about 3 years though, so I might be wrong.

It's Bruce Rd.
http://www.davidwallphoto.com/searchresults.asp?tx=ruapehu+road&ts=&c=&g=38,44,89,46,49,68,43,40,47,45,70,48,63,31,55,39,61,56,53,58,36,52,41,60,62,69,59,54&Lids=&Gids=&p=1&n=14185&phrase=all

pic showing it off from the air
http://www.davidwallphoto.com/images/%7BD335FCFA%2D9291%2D4AAA%2D884D%2D10338484A349%7D%2Ejpg

A classic kiwi highway shot

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3488/3291706965_ffd386a905.jpg

Where's the sheep?

I'd Say, SH2 over the Rimutakas
Photo is on the Wairarapa side heading up.

Bruce road does have a double yellow centre line on that corner, to stop nobs overtaking..

I'd Say, SH2 over the Rimutakas
Photo is on the Wairarapa side heading up.

Nearly right - it's just on the Wellington side where the Rimutaka Trig Track starts.

Here's the view from the top:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3395/3292524812_028abb58b0.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12497592@N02/3292524812/)

Govt hampering debate on heavy trucks, say activists
4:00AM Tuesday Jul 21, 2009
By Mathew Dearnaley


Critics say the move to allow truck loads to be increased will take freight away from rail.


Pro-rail campaigners say the Government is seeking public support for heavier trucks without producing evidence of economic benefits to justify the extra wear on the country's roads.

The Campaign for Better Transport in Auckland says submissions due by Friday on a draft rule change allowing truck loads to be increased to 53 tonnes or more have been hampered by the Ministry of Transport's refusal to provide a report on claimed productivity benefits from Canterbury road trials.

Transport Minister Steven Joyce said last month in announcing the proposed change that the trials and other research indicated productivity gains of 10 per cent to 20 per cent, offering a potential annual increase in gross domestic product of $250 million to $500 million.

That compared with an estimated $85 million to $100 million needed to strengthen bridges and roads to reap the full benefits of a system of issuing permits from early next year to allow heavier or longer vehicles on certain routes assessed as being able to cope with them.

Mr Joyce said trip numbers would reduce by 16 per cent and fuel use by 20 per cent, and that the trials had shown a decrease in total vehicle emissions.

But the Auckland campaigners are annoyed the ministry has refused to provide them with a report on the trials to assist with the preparation of submissions, on the basis that it contains commercially sensitive information gained from freight and trucking firms.

A ministry spokeswoman also refused to provide the Herald with the report yesterday, although she said an application by the newspaper for it under the Official Information Act would be considered.

The campaign submission argues that larger trucks will attract more freight away from rail, which they say United States studies have found uses 12 times less energy than road haulage for each tonne carried.

"It is bizarre for Government to subsidise trucking and undermine a railway business that is actually owned by the Government," the submission says.

"If the minister is truly concerned about reducing the fuel consumption of shifting freight around then greater efforts could be made to increase the utilisation of the rail network."

Campaign spokesman Jon Reeves said an allowance in the rule change for the Transport Agency to approve loads of 53 tonnes or more meant trucks "could be huge Australian road trains".

Mr Joyce said last night that the efficiency of both road and rail needed to be improved and denied that the Government planned to subsidise one freight mode at the expense of another.

Road carriers would be expected to pay for any extra wear and tear caused by heavier permitted loads.

The minister said the Transport Agency was already able to issue permits for over-size loads, and the main focus of the rule change was to allow road controlling authorities to issue permits under controlled conditions for loads of up to 53 tonnes, compared with 44 tonnes now.

"I'm certainly not looking to let 60 or 70 tonnes on the road - that's not the point."

He said there was no intention to increase the width or height of trucks, although the change would allow their length to be extended by two metres to 22m, to cater for the dimensions of shipping containers.

A Road Transport Forum official said Australian road trains could reach a maximum length of 53.5m.

Automobile Association motoring affairs manager Mike Noon said that although his organisation supported greater efficiency for freight movements, it was keen to ensure the costs would be borne fully by the operators and councils would be reimbursed for wear on local roads.

It would also push for extra training for drivers of heavier loads, which it wanted to carry special markings to alert other road users.

Senior association analyst Mark Stockdale said he had discovered an oversight in the proposed rule change, as no allowance had been made to tighten brake-testing requirements before a vehicle received a six-monthly certificate of fitness.

Transport Agency spokesman Andy Knackstedt said it was not aware of an oversight "but we will follow this up with the AA to ensure any concerns are addressed".

Is any one surprised?

Actually I am by the very fact the NZ Herald actually carried said article.

Yeah it's interesting that they wont release the report at all though. I imagine the Herald should be able to get a copy under the official information act in which case we will be able to judge for ourselves.

Can only think -WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

Yeah i suspect they have greatly overstated the findings of the trial. Still we won't know that until it's released, maybe that's not the case. The whole thing just makes them look dodgy.

I wrote the Campaign for Better Transport submission, so yeah it's pretty nice to see the Herald running that article.

And I also emailed off my submission thanks to the Campaign for Better Transport submission.

Make a Submission – Say No

You have the chance to submit against this proposed rule change until Friday July 24th. We have provided a template submission to make this process as simple as possible – just download the template for your submission here (http://www.bettertransport.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/large-truck-submission.doc) (feel free to add or remove anything you like to personalise your submission) and email it to info@nzta.govt.nz

Please include your name, address, contact phone number and email address at the end of the submission. More information on making a submission can be found here (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation/vehicle-dimensions-and-mass-amendment/making-a-submission.html).

Here is a brief summary of the Campaign for Better Transport’s submission:

The CBT considers that the proposal to introduce bigger and heavier trucks onto New Zealand roads is fundamentally flawed. This is for a number of reasons outlined below, and detailed further in later sections of this submission:
Insufficient information has been provided to explain the economic justification for the proposed changes.
Larger trucks will lead to significantly more wear and tear on roads. Unless the extra wear and tear on roads is paid for through increased road-user charges then the changes will simply involve an increased subsidy for the heavy trucking industry.
Increasing the maximum size and weight of trucks will mean that trucking competes more directly with rail for bulk goods transport. It is bizarre for government to subsidise trucking and undermine a railway business that is actually owned by the government.
Potential safety effects of larger trucks.
Other environmental effects of larger trucks, such as greater CO2 emissions, more particulate matter pollution and more noise pollution.

The CBT considers that the proposed changes will not result in better transport alternatives for New Zealand, but instead increase our dependency on trucking for moving freight around the country.

So make sure your voice is heard and get your submission email off by Friday this week!

National RSS Email Print
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Full cost of heavier trucks questioned
4:00AM Wednesday Jul 22, 2009
By Mathew Dearnaley


Influential organisations representing engineers and local councils are questioning the economic justification for introducing heavier trucks to the country's roads and bridges.

They fear the road user charges system will not recover the full costs of extra damage from trucking firms for loads of 53 tonnes or more, leaving ratepayers and taxpayers to make up the shortfall.

Both the Institution of Professional Engineers and Local Government NZ claimed yesterday that not enough analysis of the costs of allowing heavier loads had been undertaken to demonstrate whether productivity gains would outweigh these.

"There is considerable concern that analysis of the costs to date has not been adequate," said the institution director of public policy Tim Davin of a permit system for loads heavier than the existing limit of 44 tonnes, which the Government hopes to roll out from February.

"It cannot be argued that it will improve productivity without such an analysis."

His concern was reinforced by Local Government's manager of development and infrastructure, Geoff Swainson, who feared greater damage to councils' roads "on which the pavements are generally thinner than on state highways."

"Even now, without extra loads on them, councils are facing huge liabilities for bridge replacements."

Transport Minister Steven Joyce said last month, in announcing the proposed change, that trials approved by the previous Labour Government on selected roads and other research had indicated a potential annual increase in gross domestic product of $250 million to $500 million a year.

But Mr Swainson said that without taking into account the full costs of heavier loads, including pavement repairs and potential road widening, the benefits risked being substantially over-stated.

His concern has been heightened by advice from the Transport Agency that a preliminary cost estimate of $85 million to $100 million to prepare for the move would cover only 300 bridges on state highway routes most frequently used by heavy trucks.

But Road Transport Forum chairman Simon Tapper, of Auckland trucking firm Tapper Transport, said his industry was keen to pay its way and would support measures to ensure local councils received adequate reimbursement for any extra damage.

He was confident sufficient checks and balances would be added to the system, once the Ministry of Transport considered all submissions due in by Friday, including the possibility of requiring a satellite positioning system to ensure trucks stayed on routes.

Hee hee, we really have stirred things up a bit now.

From the Herald yesterday

12:00PM Thursday Aug 27, 2009



A $8.7 billion funding package announced this morning is the largest investment in land transport in New Zealand's history, says the NZ Transport Agency. Photo / Richard Robinson.The country's land transport network will have $8.7 billion spent on it during the next three years, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) announced today.

The funding will be managed through the National Land Transport Programme. Projects which boost economic growth, productivity and employment have been targeted.

"This is the largest land transport investment in New Zealand's history, and it represents a 17 per cent increase from the previous three-year period," NZTA chairman Brian Roche said.

"This additional investment will deliver significant benefits for New Zealand now and in the future."

The programme invested in projects in all regions, providing guaranteed funding levels for each region over the next three years.

Most activities had funding increases, including:

* a 21 per cent increase for public transport ($899 million over the next three years);

* a 19 per cent increase for New Zealand's state highway network ($4.5b over the next three years);

* a 14 per cent increase for local roads ($1.9b over the next three years).

"Our primary focus in this programme is a series of targeted investments that will help to address the important challenges New Zealand faces with land transport -- in particular improving the efficiency of key transport routes, improving public transport and easing severe congestion in key urban areas, upgrading important freight and tourism routes, and improving safety and access to markets, employment and areas that contribute to economic growth," Roche said.

The three-year timeframe allowed for investments with a longer-term view, and for local government and the wider land transport sector to plan ahead.

Sixteen regional transport committees and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) were involved in developing the programme.

"This collaborative process has allowed us to build an overview of land transport requirements across New Zealand and to balance regional and national priorities in deciding on the best investment programme to maximise value for money across the country," said Roche.

- NZPA

I've just noticed a pretty massive error in the Land Trasnport report on the allocation of funding for Southland; it states the region's population as 45,100. This is the population of Southland DISTRICT I believe, the whole of Southland (inc Invercargill) is approx 93k.

See for yourselves http://www.nzta.govt.nz/publications/nltp/docs/southland.pdf, page 5 'Regional summary' and compare to the other regions (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/publications/nltp/index.html) who have the entire populations listed. :ohno::ohno:

that's pretty sloppy

I've just noticed a pretty massive error in the Land Trasnport report on the allocation of funding for Southland; it states the region's population as 45,100. This is the population of Southland DISTRICT I believe, the whole of Southland (inc Invercargill) is approx 93k.


Yes I noticed that and wondered what was going on.

I don't usually rely on the population estimates as they are fraught with issues. E.g. With respect to Nelson, the separate town of Richmond is sometimes included in the population bringing the total to around 58,000. Conversely, in some centres outlying suburbs or towns that have built out to the boundaries of the city are excluded.

Companies seeking rich productivity gains from heavier trucks on selected routes have shown unwillingness to pay extra costs to local councils.

But Transport Minister Steven Joyce is telling ratepayers not to quibble, saying all will benefit from potential productivity gains of $250 million to $500 million a year from allowing trucks to carry loads of up to 53 tonnes under a proposed new permit system.

More here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10598601)

Joyce really has no clue in neither road engineering issues nor economics.

Damage done to a road by a vehicle is proportionate to the fourth power of the mass of a vehicle. This means that even though 50 tonne trucks weigh 14% more than 44 tonne trucks, they damage the road around 70% more. A single 44 tonne truck does the amount of damage equivilant to around 250,000 cars.

For an economically efficient system, we would have a system as close as practically possible to a user pays system. Subsidies do not usually go hand in hand with economic efficiency.

Interesting whizz pat. User pays systems have not really taken off in NZ though and I cant imagine a bunch of unionists truckies being keen to pay extra.

This demonstrates staggering hypocricy, earler this year Joyce voiced his unhappiness at subsidies given to a logging company to get their logs on rail. Yet here he is a few months later telling us to suck it up and fork out a subsidy for the truckies.

He said regarding subsidies:

. "It is the old government's direction and it is inconsistent with the new approach."

Full article here:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/2305835/1m-to-get-logs-off-road


This takes away any last shred of credibility he may have had. He's nothing but a stooge for the rtf. What a joke.:lol:

More news to the public reinforcing the fact that road users, especially these heavy trucks are being subsidised by rate payers and not RUCs/fuel taxes.

NZ Herald 2009/09/21 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/transport/news/article.cfm?c_id=97&objectid=10598601)

"Local Government and the Traffic Institute fear ratepayers will be exposed to heftier costs for repairing local roads, because user charges on heavy vehicles cover only half the bill through the national land transport fund."

And too be expected from your typical right wing big business they do not actually want to pay their own way, and guess what is Fuck wad Juices response..."But Transport Minister Steven Joyce is telling ratepayers not to quibble, saying all will benefit from potential productivity gains of $250 million to $500 million a year from allowing trucks to carry loads of up to 53 tonnes under a proposed new permit system. Jesus H. Christ, this guy has his head stuck so far up the arses of his trucking buddies he can't smell the roses for the shit! $250 to $500 million in potential economic benefits, how fracken vague can he be. Which is it? Yep, a sure sign no economic benefit analysis has been run - he is just making guesses! What a total tosser! Come on business oriented readers don't you want to know were your hard earned dollars are really going! Up in smoke if you ask me.

He will prob be quoting some study that was completed by a pen-pusher. You should find out what one it is.

And wheres Labour on this issue? Under goff's 'leadership' they are completely useless.

Not worried about Labour at the moment. If and when they are in next, if 1) they have a F. wit for transport minister and 2) the party as a whole is as inept as the current government, then I shall lay into them with as much verve and loathing. I'm not politically biased, but can't stand lazy inept politicians, who are also morons.

The problem is that the study done wont be released to the public. Looks to me that the "study" may in fact contradict the governments RTL and trucking buddies.

The fourth power applies to weight per axel, not total weight. I've worked out that a 53 tonne truck with 8 axels would do 8100 times the damage as a 1.5 tonne car with 2 axels.

Given that it costs me around 5c a kilometre in petrol tax, for a 53 tonne truck to pay its way in an equivalent way, that would be around $305 a kilometre. I very much doubt they would pay that much.

^^
Thanks for the correction.

Even though a truck damages the road 8100 times more than a car, it would be unfair to expect trucks to pay 8100 times more. Cars take up more road space per unit mass than a truck, which places extra expenses on the government (in terms of expanding capacity).

Subsidised road network `elephant in room' Published:
Thursday October 15, 2009

Source: NZPA

New Zealand's state highway network is subsidised by about $1.5 billion each year, which is scuppering the coastal shipping industry, the New Zealand Shipping Federation says.

It cited a government-commissioned report, the Rockpoint Corporate Finance report, Coastal Shipping and Modal Freight Choice, for the New Zealand Transport Agency, which was released last week.

The 253-page report assessed the prospects of coastal shipping increasing its share of the freight market from road and rail. It was produced in response to the Ministry of Transport's Sea Change initiative to increase use of the industry.

It found that users of the state highway network were paying only 40% of the full costs of providing roading infrastructure, said New Zealand Shipping Federation executive director Sam Buckle.

Buckle said there was a lot of talk about the cost to the taxpayer of the rail network.

"However, the chronic under-pricing of roads is the elephant in the room," he said.

"The report shows that users of the state highway network are effectively subsidised to the tune of $1.5 billion per year."


Based on Treasury's $20b valuation of the state highway network the report calculated that if operating commercially it should generate about $2.5 billion in revenue each year. Instead, it only generates approximately $1b - a shortfall of $1.5b, he said.

"This is possibly the biggest issue in the transport sector. It artificially cuts the price of moving freight by road, creates a competitive advantage for trucks, contributes to congestion and emissions and denies taxpayer billions of dollars in much-needed revenue."

Buckle said management and pricing of road use did not meet government expectations of no subsidies in the transport sector and for the market to determine how freight was transported.

The report said rail, which received significant government funding, was coastal shipping's most direct competition and if it was forced to increase prices to be profitable it could boost coastal shipping.

The report made a number of recommendations, including the Government spelling out what it wants from KiwiRail, from a commercial and national good point of view.

It also recommended getting more information on freight movement through ports, road and rail, which would be publicly available.

New Zealand's maritime regulations should be more pragmatic to allow a competitive coastal shipping industry to develop.

Regions should also formally analyse their existing freight requirements and growth over the next 10 years.

Coastal shipping should also be better promoted, the report said.

It accounted for 3% of the freight market.

The country relied heavily on international carriers and the commercial domestic fleet comprised just 15 vessels over 45m in length, including the five Cook Strait ferries.

Tony Friedlander, the chief executive of the Road Transport Forum, which represented road freighting interests, could not be contacted for comment.

The fourth power applies to weight per axel, not total weight. I've worked out that a 53 tonne truck with 8 axels would do 8100 times the damage as a 1.5 tonne car with 2 axels.

Given that it costs me around 5c a kilometre in petrol tax, for a 53 tonne truck to pay its way in an equivalent way, that would be around $305 a kilometre. I very much doubt they would pay that much.

^^ Actually even that is misleading - If you go by that rule then you're assuming that if all the trucks disappeared overnight, the road surface would last 8100 times longer?

I think you'll find that the greatest damage caused to road surface and foundations are actually caused by natural weathering - ice, freeze, heat, melting, cooling, wet, dry, freeze, heat cycles cause more damage necessitating repairs.

A new report by Rockpoint Finance has found that users of the State Highway network are paying only 40 per cent of the full costs of providing roading infrastructure. In effect, that represents a $1.5 billion dollar annual subsidy.

As Rockpoint observes, we have different ownership models and expectations for different transport infrastructure. Shipping infrastructure - ports - are (largely) owned by local government but operated commercially. They value their assets and expect to generate a return on them, reflected in their pricing.

By contrast, the rail network is state owned, needing an annual subsidy of $90 million just to cover its operating costs. There is no realistic thought of a return on the rail network's capital value.

But while rail has been widely derided for its lack of commercial viability, virtually nothing has been said about a road network that is neither managed commercially by its owners nor with any expectation of a return on its capital value.

Full story here (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10603999&pnum=0).

Quite refreshing to see someone point out the hypocricy of the governments transport policy.

^^Yes it is refreshing to see all the facts being put on the table for a change. This report has been out a few days. The silence from the pro road brigade has been deafening. 1.5 billion dawarfes the 90 million a year Kiwirail subsidy.

Not a word from Tony Freidlander and the RTF as yet. I'd expect some sort of rebuttal from them to come out now it's been highlighted in the Herald. He's usually adament that trucking companies pay all their costs.

Actual report can be found through the link below.


http://www.rockpoint.co.nz/publications/rockpoint2.php

Steven Joyce: Road users paying their way
4:00AM Friday Oct 23, 2009
By Steven Joyce


Who is subsiding who in our transport system is a debate that comes up regularly, but reheating the argument won't change the facts.

Some simple back-of-the-envelope calculations show that, contrary to NZ Shipping Federation executive director Sam Buckle's view, road users do pay their share of the costs of our roading system.

The roading network - which takes most of the load in keeping New Zealand moving - does, in fact, pay its own way.

Using the latest National Land Transport Programme, we can see that road users will pay approximately $8.7 billion over the next three years for the country's roading system by way of petrol taxes and road-user charges.

Under the hypothecated road revenue system that is now operating in this country, all of this money generated by road users is reserved for the maintenance and development of the roading system, as well as other related costs - like road policing and supporting public transport services that reduce congestion.

We wouldn't normally present this in strict profit-and-loss terms as Mr Buckleseeks to do, but let's give it a go and see how it looks.

The national operating costs of the roading system - that is, everything except investment in new roads and ratepayers' contribution towards local roads - adds upto around $5.2 billion (over the next three years).

That means the "revenue" exceeds the "operating costs" by around $3.5 billion, or 40 per cent - that's a pretty good margin in anyone's language

Of course that doesn't include depreciation, which for the state highway network is about $378 million a year.

Even including that and a contribution by central government for the depreciation of local roads, you're still looking at a pretty good "profit".

As a country we made the decision to invest all the money obtained from the road back into further developing the roading system - but only where the benefits outweigh the costs. We can treat that broadly like our investment case.

As an alternative, the Transport Agency could pay the Government some in tax and the rest in dividends; and then the Government would reinvest it again, and given the return on investment we would.

But that would be a money-go-round that I'm picking taxpayers would consider unnecessary.

Of course we then get into the argument about whether various transport users pay their external costs.

While it's always hard to nail down exact amounts for social costs, road users pay their licensing costs, they pay ACC to cover accident costs, and they will pay a carbon charge through fuel prices when the Emissions Trading Scheme commences (as will other transport modes).

Let's compare the roading network with rail's profit and loss.

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.

In short, the roading system today is largely funded by road users, but the costs of the rail system are certainly not covered currently by those that use rail.

While I'm not privy to the situation for coastal shippers, I note Mr Buckle's comments about coastal shipping targeting a commercial return and being required to meet "commercially established port charges".

My response to that is that's as it should be - not just for coastal shipping but for the entire transport system.

The Government wants to see subsidies minimised and decisions based on commercial realities.

As Transport Minister I strongly believe that we will need all three transport modes - road, rail and maritime - performing well if we are to boost productivity and continue to grow as a trading nation.

Being productive as a country means having all your assets working well.

All of the cogs need to be turning together. However, you also need to ensure the right goods are being sent to market via the right transport modes, otherwise you risk getting an inefficient result which lowers productivity and limits growth.

There are some goods that are suited to rail, some to ship, some to road, and some to a combination of all three.

It's the transport industry's job to ensure that each mode provides its clients with the lowest reasonable costs so they can choose the mode for their goods and pay the right price.

Taxpayer support for one mode ahead of another will screw the scrum and create costs in the system that will detract from our country's goal of economic growth and productivity.

All modes and operators need to focus on being efficient and competitive, and providing the best service they can - without subsidy - to get our goods and people to market.

* Steven Joyce is the Minister of Transport.

The national operating costs of the roading system - that is, everything except investment in new roads and ratepayers' contribution towards local roads - adds upto around $5.2 billion (over the next three years).

Don't local roads make up the bulk of the roading system?

Shhh... don't tell joyce or the puplic!

Something that's been bothering me with roads lately has been councils painting cycle lanes everywhere to be environmentally friendly. 5 years ago there must have been 15 or so 4-lane roads in Invercargill, now there's half that. They get replaced by cycle lanes and big diagonal stripes to fill in all the wasted space. I've seen it in other places too. It's kind of annoying, it means you can't pass someone who drives really slowly!

Don't local roads make up the bulk of the roading system?

Exactly, i would be interested to see the figure that ratepayers are putting into local roads. If road users are paying their way and local roads make up the bulk of the roading system then why is a ratepayer contribution required? Isn't he contradicting himself there?

I also notice he's excluded investment in building new roads. At about $8billion over the next decade for state highways that's about $800 million a year he's not counting. That means about $2.5 billion over the next three years off his "profit" of $3.5 billion. He's also admitted to not factoring in $378 million per year for depreciation state highways and curiously an undisclosed sum for depreciation of local roads. Once all these things are factored in how much of the $8.7 billion is surplus? If we took away the ratepayer subsidy for local roads how would it look then?

The thing that bugs me here is the double standard he points out the the rail system made $80 million more than it's operating costs but then says that the cost of having to invest $200 million per year in new infrastructure negates this. Yet he dosn't even factor in the fact that he's investing $800 million a year in new infrastructure when evaluating the cost of our roading system.

What's the difference here? Local roads receive a big subsidy from ratepayers which allows him to plough most of the fuel excise duty into state highways. Yet rail receiving some a subsidy to renew it's neglected infrastructure is a "problem"


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"

^^ Yes exactly the point I have been trying to make for months now! The scary thing is Wayne public will see his piece and buy into it fully!