It has been a few months since NZTA approved an increase in the maximum weight of trucks allowed on New Zealand’s roads: from 44 to 53 tonnes. This change was made in the face of pretty overwhelming opposition to the change, from people concerned about the safety risk of such massive vehicles, but also it was pointed out that the increase in weight could lead to significantly greater degradation of our roads.
Another matter that has arisen, and is reported in the NZ Herald today, is that it would seem a significant number of roads will actually need to be upgraded to even take these giant trucks. Here’s an extract from today’s article on the matter:
Auckland’s Southern Motorway – one of New Zealand’s busiest highways – has up to a dozen points too weak to support new, extra-heavy trucks already plying the roads.
The Transport Agency admits it will take years of strengthening to make the collection of bridges and other structures “compliant” for the new trucks, weighing up to 53 tonnes, and up to 22m long.
Auckland Harbour Bridge has also yet to be cleared for use by the new big trucks, though a structural feasibility study is under way.
Considering that the Harbour Bridge has struggled to manage carrying normal weight trucks on its clip-ons in recent years, I find it pretty unlikely that the 53 tonne trucks will be able to travel on it. The article continues:
The agency has issued a list of 11 structures on the Southern Motorway and two on its long Grafton Gully on-ramp needing structural assessments of whether they need strengthening for use by the new trucks.
These include bridges over Tamaki River and Puhinui Stream.
The southbound Takanini motorway off-ramp bridge over Spartan Rd had been assessed and was likely to be strengthened in the next year, Mr Knackstedt said.
I wonder what the cost of these upgrades to the Southern Motorway will be? Surely this could should be completely met by operators of the new and heavier trucks, considering they’re the ones creating the problem. Somehow I doubt they’ll be hit up for the cost, and we’ll end up with even more transport dollars being spent on helping out the trucking industry.
Processing...
Steven Joyce has already said the new road costs they impose on these trucks won’t cover the upgrades and maintenance, the reasoning was that we will benefit from the increased economic activity generated by these bigger trucks. I think this is rubbish and just goes to prove that the government is giving trucking companies subsidies while at the same time getting upset if Kiwirail offer one.
With the revisions of RUC that’re underway, I can’t help but wonder just how much less trucking companies will be contributing to the upkeep of the roads their businesses damage. Bad enough that the permit system doesn’t charge at a level commensurate with the significant increase in road damage (every doubling of axle load increases damage to the road surface to the 4th power. So if an axle load of 2 does damage of 2, load of 4 does damage of 16) but now we’ve got a truck-friendly government reviewing the entire system under which we try and capture the direct costs of that damage.
Herald editorial on the issue
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10666571
For another view on things. NZTA don’t seem to be in a hurry to approve more heavy trucks:
http://www.nztransport-logistics.co.nz/home/free-articles/truck-industry-most-big-truck-applications-rejected.html
But yes, people should be lobbying to ensure that truck firms /do/ pay the the costs of the road upgrade. It is also worth remembering that strengthening an urban road or highway to deal with these trucks, will be a lot cheaper than strengthening a rural road. I can fill people in on the road engineering if anyone is interested.
“According to the Transport Agency, all is not lost. While it will be some time before mega-trucks can use the Southern Motorway to carry freight to and from Auckland’s port, consignments could be split up and sent by rail between the port company’s inland distribution centre at Wiri and the waterfront.
The irony is palpable. New Zealand’s freight “task” is predicted to increase by 70 to 75 per cent over the next 25 years, and Mr Joyce has plumped for heavy trucks as a more efficient freight-mover than rail or coastal shipping. That may be so in the long run but in the short term it will be rail to the rescue.”
Thanks for strengthening the case for rail Mr Joyce.
My comment on that editorial, yet to be published, is scathing of the Herald’s lack of inquisitiveness about Joyce’s role as “Minister of the RCF”, particularly his insistence that rail projects be completely economically self-sufficient while in the same breath giving trucking companies an invisible taxpayer subsidy by not requiring them to pay in full for the damage that trucks do to roads. The editorial is a start, but it’s hardly the damning condemnation of Joyce’s open alliance with the RCF to the exclusion of of rail that is needed.
About time the NZTA send Joyce a subtle memo about this something along the lines of:
“Dear Minister,
On 53 tonnes trucks, kindly f*** off.
Yours sincerely,
NZTA”
Shame that the Minister doesn’t care what NZTA has to say.
There will be no major increase in axle weights as it will cost trucking companys too much. Under existing and new rules maximum axle weights remain the same. 8.2t on a dual tyre and 6 on a single axle. This means a 6 axle truck and trailer can run at 43t, but not many of these combinations run at those weights beacuse the RUC costs too much, 7 or 8 axles is much cheaper for 44t. The same will apply for 53t, and trucks will run 8-9 axles, so wear on the road will be the same. The problem in most cases is that bridges are not strong enough to carry the weight.
Trains are not a viable option in this country as the distances are great enought to warrant the double handling of freight, unless we want to put railway lines back into every town and comunity. How would we like to have our houses bulldozed to make room for more railway lines, or have them next door and them running 24 hours a day?
Ian is factually incorrect on several points:
There is an increase in maximum axle weights to 8.8 tonnes on a dual tyre axle (see the NZTA website for verification of this information).
Since NZTA can only approve permits for so called “high productivity vehicles” for state highways there will frequently be a requirement for double or triple handling with such vehicles.
As a ratepayer I shall be seeking assurance from my local authority that they will NOT be squandering my rates and those of my neighbours to boost trucking company profits.
We are about to do it for a motorway in Mt Albert… How are railways any different..?
Not to mention a hell of a lot more houses are required to be bowled for a 6 lane motorway than there is for a double-tracked rail line.
Why would we need more rail lines? There is an extensive and underutilised rail network spanning the country, which in some places is literally rotting in the ground through disuse. Why not use those lines instead of letting all that sunk capital go to waste.