The next step in the process of constructing the Puhoi-Wellsford “holiday highway” road of national significance was taken today, with NZTA announcing a preferred route alignment between Puhoi and Warkworth. Interestingly, it seems that geotechnical difficulties are delaying Warkworth to Wellsford section, so it might be a while longer before we find out the preferred alignment for that part of the road. Here’s a map of the Puhoi-Warkworth preferred alignment:
A few thoughts of mine immediately come to mind, looking at the map above:
- If you were going to just do a Warkworth bypass in the short term (as proposed by Operation Lifesaver), then it would be quite easy to link in at the southern end with Perry Road.
- It seems a bit pointless and a waste of money to duplicate state highway one for a few kilometres at the southern end of the route. Why not just simply upgrade the main road?
- The smooth route alignment around Schedewys Hill (the sharp bends in the existing State Highway One to the norther of Mahurangi West Road) is going to rely upon some pretty amazing earthworks or viaducts as the terrain around there is pretty steep.
Somewhat helpfully, NZTA have produced a “fly through” video of the proposed route:
It’s interesting that the video speeds through parts of the middle section, as those are the bits that I find most interesting. I haven’t quite counted the number of viaducts and huge “cuts” yet, but it seems as though even this section of the project is going to require some pretty amazing engineering feats to deal with the terrain.
It really makes you wonder why not just upgrade the existing alignment?
Processing...
Why can’t we just build the operation life saver option, oh wait!, National doesn’t want to do that, they want to try and do the least cost efficient way of wasting our money possible. So guys, Cars Win again!, digusting pigs the lot of them, Hang in Hell National! and Stephen Joyce and Mr English especially.
I DONT WANT HOLIDAY HIGHWAY, OR ANY OF THE MENTION RONS(ROADS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANTS) I WANT THE CBD LOOP BUILT, AIRPORT RAIL LINK AND OTHER IMPORTANT RAIL PROJECTS BUILT NOW! NOT IN 20-40 YEARS TIME NOW!!!!!!!
This is actively being discussed on Newstalk ZB. So tune in and voice your opinion on the radio, and don’t limit your comments to this blog.
What is the general gist of feeling on it?
A large number of people say it will be great for the long weekends. Nothing being said of the benefits on a daily basis for Auckland with the rail tunnel.
Some people also mention about this being an Auckland project, rather than a RONS.
Those are some huge cuttings and viaducts that will be needed if this is any indication. The other thing I find odd is the that from Perry Rd why keep going north so far forcing cars back east for a couple of km’s, the cynic in me thinks that this is to leave enough quite a bit of room that the council will then be encouraged to rezone for development. Also long term we are likely to see Warkworth sprawl north towards where the interchange will be as that will be the best place to attract customers to.
A waste of money. The “honourable” Steven Joyce? Oh come on.
Your “Operation Lifesaver” was discussed in parliament today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgyjjElidfs
There are some mighty viaducts to be built. They are shown in the animation as yellow, rather than orange, and at a couple of points you can see where the software used has created an artificial shadow from the proposed deck.
There is a lot of cut and fill, too, especially at the south end where I do wonder whether the better option would be to upgrade the existing road. It would be helpful if the animator had used slightly more clear colours to show cut and fill, separately.
I understand that the soils in this area are relatively unstable and difficult to work with, so I assume a thorough geotech investigation was done to develop the costs used for the B/C.
Looks like NZTA are going to blow the whole budget on the Puhoi-Warkworth section. Any coincidence that Joyce and Key have holiday homes at Omaha?
“It seems a bit pointless and a waste of money to duplicate state highway one for a few kilometres at the southern end of the route. Why not just simply upgrade the main road?”
Most of the safety benefits of a motorway come from removing random intersections (both minor side streets and property entrances), and from removing slow moving and vulnerable traffic such as bicycles and scooters. It is common practice in NZ to upgrade an existing road in to a dual carriageway, but leave all the random intersections and place. Also, the non-motorway traffic has no alternative route so continues to use the upgraded road. This sort of cheap “bodge” upgrade fails to deliver safety benefits.
So… by doing the job properly with a new motorway route, there won’t a problem with dangerous entrances to farms and what ever else exists on that stretch of SH1, and cyclists will be able to continue to use SH1. Only it will be a lot less busy and might actually be a pleasant ride.
I’m sick of NZ doing gaffer tape infrastructure. That applies to dual carriageways with random intersections, to railway stations built with insufficient capacity, to railway stations that require the driver to run from one end of the train to the other before continuing the trip, to an electrical grid without sufficient redundancy, to building bridges that require clip-on sections just a few years later, to railway networks that are electrified in the middle but not at each end, and all the other ways that NZ saves money with a short term solution that doesn’t allow for growth and which will require us to live with deficiencies for the life of the infrastructure.
I dont really care if it goes ahead, because there are benefits although their are negatives too.
But at least widen the section between the Johnstones Hill Tunnel and Mahurangi west Road. Then keep building on the existing route cutting out that large bend before leaving the SH1 at Moirs Hill Road.
The first half of the new route is just a waste of money and would be too much hassle buying extra property.
Yeah I do agree with you there Chris S, but when it comes to roading projects National wants hassle they want to do it the most expensive way possible. If this was a public transport project, they wouldn’t want to have the hassle of bulldosing any houses down, or even spending too much on building the route over complicated terrian. The type of improvements public transport gets feel like they are bought from a second hand shop.
Not only that, the biggest issue will be access, this will be reduced once the highway is built, making the existing SH1 the only alternative at least if they proposed a major realignment of the dangerious sections of highway first, and built a bypass around Walkworth, this wouldn’t reduce the chances of them building the 4-lane highway in the future.
The Mahurangi West road- Puhoi bit is almost an entire duplicate. Why not 4 lane the existing road.
There is also no Puhoi interchange killing the town, and no south of Warkworth interchange so Warkworth to Oreaw traffic can not benefit.
“I’m sick of NZ doing gaffer tape infrastructure. That applies to dual carriageways with random intersections, to “railway stations built with insufficient capacity, to railway stations that require the driver to run from one end of the train to the other before continuing the trip”
Why do you list so many PT projects as examples that fall short, obi, when we all know the reason Auckland can’t have good PT is because all the money is going into gold-plated motorway schemes? Heck, we aren’t, in practice, even allowed to shift Auckland’s own money to PT projects, because NZTA will say “sorry, no co-funding available”.
I do not disagree with your arguments in favour of removing local access to express-way type of roads. But that can easily be done by building new LOCAL ROADS running in parallel to the existing state highway (roads with curvature and bridge needs that would likely create about a tenth to a third of the motorway cost). Building a whole new alignment is a collossal waste compared to the aletrnative options.
But to go a little further in my criticism of your position – no, we should NOT build our infrastructure “by default” for massive future growth (especially not in areas like roads where induced demand kicks in if you provide them too massively). What we need is future-proofing. The ability to expand LATER, at reasonable cost.
The problem with Britomart was not that it was built too small – the problem was that the plaza and the Quay Street alignment was not protected for a widened access tunnel (if it had, we might increase Britomart’s capacity easily for something in the 20-50 million dollar range). The problem of bridges that need clip-ons is not that they need clip-ons, but whether the foundations and approach locations are designed appropriately, so that the clip-ons can have the same standard. But design for some over-engineered future? No thanks. That leads us into pharaonic projects of the kind Steven Joyce likes so much.
We should stop calling this the Holiday Highway – this road is almost certainly going to be a full motorway, rather than an expressway or highway. Holiday Motorway doesn’t have quite the alliterative ring to it though.
It would be definitely easier and cheaper to upgrade the existing road just north of the tunnels, but this would make it harder to toll the motorway as there would then be no readily available “alternative route” as required before a route can be tolled.
Obi – I agree with you re intersections. Most other OECD countries have robust limits on new intersections on to state highways and good luck putting a new driveway onto ANY road with a 100km/h limit in most of Europe and North America. If NZ had done this, and had started doing this years ago when we should have, then many of these hugely expensive new alignments simply would not be needed now.
Over the last 5 years or so in NZ, Transit and now the NZTA have definitely tightened up on new accesses, but we are left with a legacy of a decades of pretty much unfettered ribbon development along our state highways all through New Zealand. Much of this blame can be placed squarely onto local district councils, most of whom just see another development contribution and more rates by encouraging more piecemeal development and sprawl.
The problem here is that there is direct correlation between the number of intersections and the accidents by all users.
The way it normally works in New Zealand goes like this:
1. A State Highway, originally constructed in the 19th century and designated as a state highway in the 1950s, runs as the “main street” through the town.
2. Over the years the town expands in a ribbon like fashion along said State Highway. Businesses like the visibility and ease of access along the road and locate progressively further out along the state highway.
3. Due to the number of intersections the 50km/h zone is gradually expanded, slowing through traffic. Greater intersection controls are required, with the first roundabouts and maybe traffic lights showing up. There starts to be calls in the community for a “bypass” road ostensibly to speed the above through traffic, but also increasingly for commuters in the town to reach their new subdivisions that stretch along each side of the state highway. These subdivisions are often cul de sacs with their only access off the state highway.
4. On the periphery of the town along the state highway 2-20 acre “lifestyle” blocks start to be subdivided. Many of these will access the state highway directly, increasing the number of access points and decreasing safety. The 100km/h limit will need to be revised downwards, initially to 80km/h.
5. At this time (generally sometime between the 1960s to 1980s) a bypass will be built around the town. This isn’t a motorway or expressway – rather a fairly cheap two lane highway built to the design standards of the day. It may, when designed, been intended for possible upgrade to expressway or motorway standards in the future if ever required.
6. Businesses along the “old main road” start to want to relocate on to the bypass road for the visibility and ease of access. The council’s district plan is weak in this regard, and there is little motivation by the council to prevent this and stop the gutting of the original main street. In fact, many of the councillors will own these businesses.
7. The new bypass reaches Stage 3 above, progressively assuming more of a “main street” function due to piecemeal development, with auto centric ‘big box’ retailers starting to come to the town. Often national chain stores, this businesses have the muscle to dominate an often fairly subservient district council, who often will even go into bat for the developers and fight the NZTA or predecessors to allow more access.
8. Over the years the state highway has turned from a nice little road with a Level of Service (LOS) A or B, mainly serving the local region, to an inter-regional freight and holiday route. Due to a number of factors such as comparatively cheaper fuel, progressive disinvestment in the rail system, increasing population, and dairy conversions, the traffic AADT on the state highway has gone from being under 5000 in the 1950s to maybe 10-15000 by the 2000s. This is a level where users will experience LOS C, D, and even E at times. The friendly little small town where people used to look forward to stopping for a icecream and to fill up the Cortina is now a long 50km/h annoyance to many road users, particularly those on their way to the holiday house on long weekends. The town itself is now a elongated ribbon like shape with little sense of a community center anymore. The quality of life within the town is also degraded by the large amount of through traffic, making it difficult at times to safely cross the main road on foot.
9. Pressure starts to mount for the road to be upgraded to address safety and to relieve congestion. Unfortunately the original bypass is now degraded by development and accesses to the extent that it cannot be easily upgraded, without massive and (politically unpleasant) disruption to the community.
10. The Government begins looking at bypass options again. Road design best practice now dictates that the new road should not have any driveway access points, be to a 100kmh standard, and shouldn’t be too close to residential development to comply with strict noise regulations – which didn’t exist when the first bypass was built. This often rules out cheaper upgrades to the existing highway. However all the “easy” alternative routes have been already developed and the first bypass used up the only future road designation. The road will have to be pushed through the land that hasn’t been developed, and there is a reason it hasn’t been developed. Viaducts, tunnels and huge earthworks will be required, pushing the cost into the realm of two or even three orders of magnitude over the cost of the first bypass.
11. The cost is at a level where the road will need to be tolled to make the BCR even slightly justifiable. This will usually mean that the new road will require full access control – a motorway in other words.
12. The local businesses above now clamour to relocate as close to the new motorway interchanges as possible, USA style, as this is now the best spot to be for visibility and ease of use…