Heavy Vehicle Amendment - Act now

[firefighter]

You know that the truck doesn't necessarily have to be involved in the crash to be the cause of it?

Well geez I had never considered that at all.........

I'm really quite naiive and obviously not that well informed on the subject of topic.

You do realise people/witnesses come and tell us what happened and get in the way yabberring on about how it all happened while your planning your method of extrication.....?

You DO know that right?

(hence I wrote truck RELATED incidents)

[NDORFN]

Well geez I had never considered that at all.........

I'm really quite naiive and obviously not that well informed on the subject of topic.
You should come to my work and teach us all stuff.
You do realise people/witnesses come and tell us what happened and get in the way yabberring on about how it all happened while your planning your method of extrication.....?

You DO know that right?

Wow, the fact that all the people/witnesses that come and tell you what happened are all experts is an astounding coincidence. It must be annoying to be told while you're planning your method of extrication, detailed accounts of the psychological state of the driver who was stuck behind a truck doing 60km through a uphill wind only to find himself in a race with the truck on the next level straight as it selfishly speeds up to 110, or to hear the road surface expert explain that the slickening of the surface due to high volumes of trucks taking a corner that wasn't designed for such traffic caused the car to lose traction, or the diesel build up through two weeks of dry weather which in a single sun-shower has turned the road into a slip'n'slide. I could go on and on, but you've heard it all, obviously.

[meowmix]

So, how may we act on the amendment? Where are public submissions? Better yet, where is the research? I'd be interested in some statistics related to truck weights, truck numbers, efficiency, etc. and how it is related to other forms of transport e.g. rail or shipping.

When it comes down to it, what is the leading smaller road damaging truck (for roads that see less maintenance e.g. provincial highways)? My guess is logging. And logging trucks can't really be replaced. Rail is not that flexible.

However from what I have observed, the rail system for everything else is very underutilised. I'd much rather have my tax spent on upgrading the rail system. It seems our Govt. has the 'patch up' principle to fix problems, rather than actually finding solutions; as is evident on our local road surfaces...

[Patch]

Gah. As if they haven't destroyed the roads enough already, plans are afoot to allow vehicles to operate with up to 55 tonnes laden weight as opposed to the current 44 tonne limit. Watch this space for when this goes to consultation and lets do something about this.


Heavy Vehicle Amendment
HortNZ staff met with the Ministry of Transport officials recently to discuss the amendment to allow heavier vehicles on our roads. This would allow for vehicles to operate up to 55 tonnes laden weight rather than the present 44 tonne limit. Trials have shown a potential 20 percent gain in fuel efficiency and emissions could be made, providing bridges are up to taking the weight.
Bridges on all state highways are being checked for their tolerance of an increase.
The rule amendment will be out for consultation in June and it is hoped the
amendment will be passed by December 2009.

Why?





shove your 10 fucking characters up your . . .

[Mikkel]

They need to make some dedicated roads out of say... steel ...

Asphalt would do.

[NDORFN]

So, how may we act on the amendment? Where are public submissions? Better yet, where is the research? I'd be interested in some statistics related to truck weights, truck numbers, efficiency, etc. and how it is related to other forms of transport e.g. rail or shipping.

When it comes down to it, what is the leading smaller road damaging truck (for roads that see less maintenance e.g. provincial highways)? My guess is logging. And logging trucks can't really be replaced. Rail is not that flexible.

However from what I have observed, the rail system for everything else is very underutilised. I'd much rather have my tax spent on upgrading the rail system. It seems our Govt. has the 'patch up' principle to fix problems, rather than actually finding solutions; as is evident on our local road surfaces...

Rail IS that flexible. Infact, rails were the mainstay in the first 100 years of NZ forrestry, extracting trees from deep within the forrests. From the mid-1900's, the extraction was done by truck to the edge of the forrest where it was taken by train to port, which is what they mostly do now. If they didn't, you'd notice a shit load more logging trucks on the road than you do, we're talking thousands more. It's sufficed to say that the roads would be absolutely fucked.

[C_A]

In terms of future-proofing an investment in frieght-logistics in NZ, think about this... what happens when the oil runs low/out? Is it going to be easier to electrify roads or rails? Anyone who thinks a country can live without an efficient rail system are short-sighted fools. Just like our last government.

how exactly are you going to make all this electricity?
WE use dto live with some moron hippy bitch that reckoned there should only be trolley buses.....
she was also a shallow idiot that didn't think that electricity manufacture factored into this. coal fired power stations and the like.
tell me how you can make a truely 'environmentally friendly' power source to power increased electric vehicles without going nuclear and I'll eat my hat. Don't refer to Chernobyl either coz that's an irrelevant example. Nuclear power wasn't at fault there.
solar, wind, hydro, goat fondling. all great ways of making that sparkly fuzzy tickly stuff that spews out the power points in the walls but it's really not that 'safe' for the environment.
I agree rail has it's merits. In the days of regulated transporting, though, rail was compulsory for out of town freight so, it had to work. It really didn't though, people jsut stockpiled a whole lot more shit they needed, and couldn't get things in a hurry.
I also struggle to see how trucks can casue accidents due to 'diesel build up over a few weeks'. That's generic road philm over high traffic areas, not neccessarily casued any more by trucks than it is cars. I drive down streets that trucks never go down that are way worse in that regard.

[NDORFN]

how exactly are you going to make all this electricity?
WE use dto live with some moron hippy bitch that reckoned there should only be trolley buses.....
she was also a shallow idiot that didn't think that electricity manufacture factored into this. coal fired power stations and the like.
tell me how you can make a truely 'environmentally friendly' power source to power increased electric vehicles without going nuclear and I'll eat my hat. Don't refer to Chernobyl either coz that's an irrelevant example. Nuclear power wasn't at fault there.
solar, wind, hydro, goat fondling. all great ways of making that sparkly fuzzy tickly stuff that spews out the power points in the walls but it's really not that 'safe' for the environment.
I agree rail has it's merits. In the days of regulated transporting, though, rail was compulsory for out of town freight so, it had to work. It really didn't though, people jsut stockpiled a whole lot more shit they needed, and couldn't get things in a hurry.
I also struggle to see how trucks can casue accidents due to 'diesel build up over a few weeks'. That's generic road philm over high traffic areas, not neccessarily casued any more by trucks than it is cars. I drive down streets that trucks never go down that are way worse in that regard.

I'm all for nuclear energy. It's nuclear waste I'm not too keen on, especially in a country with fuck all civil-security, and no where to store it! We don't have a problem with electricity production in NZ, we have a problem with electricity consumption, which is something the gummint is currently addressing. As for the future, there is an abundance of damable rivers with little environmental impact that hasn't already been caused by farming, HUGE untapped potential in tidal power generation in the Cook Straight, wind-farms, methane-farms etc... the future isn't going to consist of LESS potential for cost effective power production which is what you seem to think, it's going to consist of MORE. So to recap stupid, future = More electricity for less, less oil for more. I'm sure you struggle to see how trucks cause accidents due to diesel fume build up... I'm sure you struggle to see alot of things.

P.S After deregulation of transportation in NZ, a company called Railfrieght showed the potential for an integrated frieghting system combining short-haul trucking with long-haul trains. This again was improved on massivly by Transrail. Transrail unfortunately came up against the '88 crash and were struck down to square one. With the eventual sale of the railways to an Australian company for $1, the major problem to further development was the way the government made it so incredibly easy for trucking companies to operate profitably without paying thier dues for the damage and inconvenience to other road users. Why? Because there was more tax-revenue from trucking companies using public roads, than a rail company that owned it's own road. So while that "moron hippy bitch" (totally agree with you on that one) was attempting to fuck over our cousins across the ditch by selling them a dog with an agreement that they clean it up before selling it back to us, we saw a massive increase in truck traffic, but now the logical thing to do is utilise it to it's full potential before it becomes another write-off.

[miSTa]

Just because trucks will be able to have heavier load doesn't necessarily mean that they will. At the same time, having trucks be able to carry more doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in truck numbers.

[Elysium]

Trains can only go from point A to point B.

There is only one line = delays waiting for the line to clear.

Multi-handling. Load up the truck, take to rail yard, unload, load waits for a train to be available, load up train, arrive destination, shunting and unloading, truck waits for load, picks it up, heads to final destination.

No different to what trucks do. Take Linfox for example. They supply the Woolworths supermarket chain in Australia and here in NZ and there is a lot of unloadig and loading involved from DCs. In fact some stuff is sent from Wellington on truck for Palmerston North but the truck will go straight to Auckland to pick up more stuff for Palmy and then come back down here to the DC, then on to the supermarks.

There is a lot of goods that really should be hauled on a trunk line but you will still need trucks for Fresh goods.

[scracha]

Why?

Mainly because the roads can't cope with these loads.

Damage done to the road rises exponentially with the weight. That's why in most countries there are VERY strict penalties on overloaded trucks.

1 x 55 tonne trucks will do a lot more road damage than 5 x 40 tonne trucks so the potential fuel savings may be outweighed by the cost of road repairs and the certain increase in lives lost due to poor road surfaces.

Essentially the trucks cause pretty much all the damage to the roads. Never mind bikes, your average family sedan caused feck all wear and tear in comparison.

[h20boy]

I've been told it costs around $1 000 000 to lay 1km of rail over virgin land...around 3 times this for roads capable of withstanding high volumes of traffic and heavy loads.

I work on various rail sites around the North Island and it is safe to say that a huge percentage of NZ's rail infrastructure is being used to only a fraction of is potential...witness the 2 full trains each weekday morning and afternoon through Auckland...followed by empty trains all day.

[Elysium]

I've been told it costs around $1 000 000 to lay 1km of rail over virgin land...around 3 times this for roads capable of withstanding high volumes of traffic and heavy loads.

I work on various rail sites around the North Island and it is safe to say that a huge percentage of NZ's rail infrastructure is being used to only a fraction of is potential...witness the 2 full trains each weekday morning and afternoon through Auckland...followed by empty trains all day.

The rail industry should never have been privatised, never works nor makes profit(the amount Corporates expect) which is why is in a bad state. Only the govenment has the money to properly run the rail system.

[NordieBoy]

Riiiiighhht.......

Iv'e personally been to far more car related accidents than truck related accidents........but that's just me and most people I work with

And no airship related accident I'll bet...

[NDORFN]

I've been told it costs around $1 000 000 to lay 1km of rail over virgin land...around 3 times this for roads capable of withstanding high volumes of traffic and heavy loads.
I work on various rail sites around the North Island and it is safe to say that a huge percentage of NZ's rail infrastructure is being used to only a fraction of is potential...witness the 2 full trains each weekday morning and afternoon through Auckland...followed by empty trains all day.

Not sure if this is true but I do know that once tracks are laid, the maintenance costs compared to roads are nominal.