An article in yesterday’s Herald on Sunday confirmed a suspicion that I have had for a while now: one of the primary reasons Steven Joyce is so keen on another harbour crossing (despite its absurdly high price tag and absurdly low cost-benefit ratio) is because that would make it possible for heavier trucks to get across the Waitemata.
New engineering work to strengthen the Auckland Harbour Bridge is needed to cope with the supertrucks now allowed on our highways.
The work is detailed in a draft NZ Transport Agency report that documents the constant maintenance needed to keep the country’s best-recognised structure in service…
…Transport minister Steven Joyce said yesterday that a new harbour crossing would be essential within about 15 to 20 years but that meant a decision needed to be made soon.
The draft report also clearly identifies the most urgent work to be done – strengthening the original bridge structure for trucks that are now able to carry loads weighing up to 53 tonnes. The previous maximum was 44 tonnes.
My understanding, from listening to NZTA state highway chief Tommy Parker at a recent transport committee meeting, is that the centre span is fine and always has been: up to handling 44 tonne trucks. Further to that, the clip-ons have been strengthened over the past few years and are now in a condition seen by the NZTA to allow their ongoing use for an ‘indefinite period’. That’s fantastic news, as I had been hearing that the clip-ons would need replacing within 20-30 years: a task that would probably require an alternative crossing in place first.
There was one caveat on what Tommy Parker said about the clip-ons, and that was that the use of them by trucks would need to be ‘managed’ into the future: to ensure their ongoing long-term integrity. I interpreted that as meaning that at some point in the future it might be necessary to restrict trucks from using the clip-ons – as was necessary while the strengthening work was being undertaken over the past couple of years (notice the world didn’t end?)
The bridge’s overall excellent condition was confirmed by NZTA in the Herald article:
NZTA regional asset manager Steve Mutton said work was under way to work out how much the bridge’s centre section needed to be strengthened.
He said the bridge was in “fantastic condition” thanks to steady maintenance.
Mutton said a 100-year plan for the management of the bridge would be created in the next few years to chart the future use of the bridge.
So if the bridge is in “fantastic condition” and traffic volumes across it are steady or falling, why on earth would Steven Joyce consider another crossing “essential” within the relatively short period of the next 15-20 years?
I guess so his heavier trucks have an option. Even if it does cost $4-5 billion. And that excludes the cost of potentially upgrading the bridge in the short term so his “supertrucks” can go over it.
Processing...
We need information on how many of these so called super trucks are out on the road already. There is a suspicion that rail has already lost the contract for the transport of Newsprint from Kawerau to Auckland for the Herald to these trucks. Would someone who understands the mechanics of the official information act see if they can ascertain how deep the rot has spread.Otherwise the poor motorist, Taxp[ayer and ratepayer will be paying for the upgrade and maintainence of structures throughout God Own.
Map of approved HPMV routes are here- http://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicle/your/over/maps.html Seems to be a very complex system.
You can also download an excel spreadsheet that shows all applications on their current status
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicle/your/over/status.html
They even use terminology to make it seem like arguing against them would be stupid, rather than super trucks of such they’re called “High Productivity Motor Vehicles”. What a joke, under Joyce and Key NZTA have turned into a branch of the trucking association.
Surely the answer is to just force these extra large trucks to use the WRR, most will be originating from either south of Auckland or from around Penrose or East Tamaki so getting to SH20/SH16 shouldn’t be to hard. Also they are only likely to be heading either further north or the areas around Albany so its not like they will hugely disadvantaged.
Yes. Trucking is already a hugely subsidised business in New Zealand (road wear is related to the cube of a weight), this is just the icing on the cake.
The answer is simple. Cost up the extra work on the bridge required to bring it up to strength for the larger trucks, divide by the numbers of larger trucks expected and say a 20 year period and then charge each larger truck this amount. Or is it only planned cycle/walkways over the bridge that need to consider tolling to recover construction costs?
The government has already stated they won’t make the trucking companies pay the full cost of the impact these larger trucks cause as they believe that we will benefit economically from them so everyone should help subsidise them.
Oh please. The cost of a permit for a super-heavy truck doesn’t even capture all the road damage created by the additional weight – most of those costs are borne by the local authority/authorities over whose roads the behemoth will travel. So there’s no chance of Joyce making his mates at the RCF pay extra to use a Harbour Bridge, new or otherwise.
Yes, I’m not holding my breath for this to actually happen. The same man is this morning quoted in the Herald as saying he’d like to see more evidence that child booster seats save lives.
The same man is waiting for evidence that lowering blood alcohol concentrations saves lives.
“So if the bridge is in “fantastic condition” and traffic volumes across it are steady or falling, why on earth would Steven Joyce consider another crossing “essential” within the relatively short period of the next 15-20 years?”
1. A redundant path in case of a disaster putting the current bridge out of commission. I hope that Christchurch has taught us a lesson about critical infrastructure.
2. Auckland’s population is predicted to grow, and after the current recession passes then traffic volumes will increase in line with this growth. A couple of years recession-created aberration in an otherwise smooth growth curve is not a good predictor for the future.
obi, the recession didn’t hit properly until late 2008. The flattening of traffic growth occurred before the recession’s effects took hold, and in any case we’ve also had a growing population through that time. So your hypothesis that it’s just the recession and once the economy picks back up we’ll see a ramping up of traffic growth doesn’t stand entirely on its own.
Plus, recession or no, if petrol prices stay high then it’ll take incredible growth in wages to get people driving the way they used to. I note that we’ve only just broken a road toll of 100 for the year in the last couple of weeks. This time last year it was 166. High petrol prices put people off driving, it’s that simple. We saw the same in 2008, where an abnormally-low road toll was attributed to fewer kilometres travelled due to a petrol price spike. At current progress, we’ll be on track for the lowest road toll in many decades and might actually achieve Labour’s target of fewer than 300 fatalities in a single year – all without Joyce doing a single damned thing to improve road safety in any meaningful way.
The state highway traffic volume graph from a day or two ago showed pretty constant growth from 1989 to 2007, a slight dip from 2007 to 2008, and then not much change since then. To me that shows a pretty positive correlation with the state of the economy including the collapse of the economy in the last year or so of the last government.
On the other hand, I don’t see any correlation between the highway traffic volume graph and this inflation adjusted oil price graph below. If there was a correlation then we would have seen a decrease in vehicle kilometers from 2000 to 2008 instead of an increase, and we would have seen a big increase in vehicle kilometers in 2009 when the oil price crashed.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_chart.asp
Traffic has been flat since about 2005 obi. That’s quite a difference from the 5 year growth rates over the previous 15 years.
While traffic growth may recover, it’s certainly taking its time (and seems to be dipping downwards again in most recent months).
But Obi there is total redundancy in the brand new SH18…. Or perhaps there is a sudden need for dozens of big rigs to go to Northcote? And I wouldn’t bet on a relentless onward march of traffic growth anytime soon. Or at least there is certainly a good chance that the trend of the last 4/5years being as long lasting as the boom of the previous decade. Why is this? Cost, especially of fuel. Remeber we already have been enjoying population growth, and are you fully confident of a return to previous economic growth? The whole OECD is still awash in debt and the critical in put into our whole system is still unaffordably expensive, and likely to remain so and worse. Well unless the global economy crashes further, but that wouldn’t help. There is a good chance that this is as good as it gets, no return to business as usual, not here, not in the UK, not in most of the US, and not in Japan either. Just sayin’.
All those people haven’t been climbing onto Auckland’s rackety old trains cause they’re sad old spotters, it’s because they are normal rational people, driving isn’t working in AK anymore and those lucky enough to be near our woefully incomplete network are doing what works best for them, and this is really new in post 1950s AK. And, I reckon, structural, the old certainties are going.
Joyce’s bridge and big truck plans are irresponsible payola for a privileged sector and outrageous if not near criminal.
“But Obi there is total redundancy in the brand new SH18”
About 170,000 people a day cross the bridge, including all the busway passengers. There is absolutely no way they’ll all be able to commute around the long way for several years while a new bridge or tunnel replaces the current bridge if it is destroyed or damaged beyond repair. That means Auckland will be brought to its knees. There needs to be an alternative. A rail tunnel under the harbour might be that alternative… it is nice that someone is at least considering the issue.
The BART tunnel was certainly very useful for San Francisco when the 1989 earthquake broke the Bay Bridge and put it out of service for quite a few months.
I was there at the time. I recall all the various harbour ferries were also pressed in to service. I never made it out to Alcatraz because the tourist ferry was shuttling people to and from Oakland.
Is it really a priority to duplicate the bridge in case it is ‘somehow destroyed’? If that happens we may well have a whole lot of other problems too…. I really don’t see this as the most pressing issue for our transport investment policy.
We have plenty of other roads that get to the Shore. Disaster redundancy is there.
We don’t need these trucks, if they have an argument about an increase in efficiency it can only be calculated by ignoring road damage and upgrades etc. I get it that Joyce wants to help this sector get richer but is there no limit to how much he will make us all pay for this, do they, like completely own him?
This could be true that SJ wants to spend Billions more to get a new harbour bridge thats not needed so his mates can drive big trucks over the harbour. Looks like an expose waiting to happen. Come on John Cambell would be worth following this one up.
do they… completely own him?
yes.
Where are these trucks heading? Not aware of any heavy industrial zones on the North Shore. If they are heading into Northland they are going to be way too big to get over the Brynderwyns. Might be worth asking NZTA where their projections come from.
They don’t have to be any longer in order to carry the extra weight, provided their axle load ratings have been checked, so being heavier doesn’t automatically mean they’re not going to fit on SH1 north of Puhoi. They will be slower, though, making the trip that much more painful for everyone stuck behind them.
Trucks should be using the then completed Western Ring Route……there is absolutely no reason why they should be cutting over the bridge at that point when the motorway network is complete….a decent toll on trucks using the bridge will help enforce the “go-around” policy….
NZTA have actually being doing well resisting Joyces push to allow heavy trucks everywhere on the network.
Luckily their focus on strict engineering is helping us this time.
The harbour bridge needs millions of dollars just to study if heavy trucks can go on the bridge.
I understood the original bridge was designed to take heavy military loads, in case NZ was invaded from the north – a column of heavy tanks or something like that. As such, it’s a bit of a surprise that the central four lanes would require strengthening.
Even if that is the case (never heard of it, and when did we ever have main battle tanks in NZ anyway???), it’s not relevant. A war-time scenario is not comparable to everyday wear and tear on a 50-plus year old bridge. The bridge could probably take 100 ton trucks on the central span. But it would be pretty knackered after a short while of that.
So putting on 50 tons right now probably wouldn’t be a problem. Until a few years later…