Heavy Vehicle Amendment - Act now

**jono035** · 10th June 2009, 20:24

James Deuce: Yeah, I 100% agree that trucks aren't going anywhere in the kind of time frame that they want, but that also doesn't mean that we can't focus on where we want to go in the future, which should really be a focus on rail for centralised transport.

Wikipedia lists transmission/distribution losses in USA/UK as 7.5%, so with proper infrastructure, which we ultimately need anyway as more transport goes electric, then you'll be better off energy-usage wise straight off the bat, ignoring the extra inefficiencies of tire wear, oil consumption, brake pad consumption etc. Never mind the fact that you'll use less energy simple because rolling resistance is less, and a train doesn't have to brake/accelerate all the time.

It won't happen in the time frame they want, but it has to be the ultimate destination nonetheless.

**The Stranger:Me** · 10th June 2009, 21:22

Originally Posted by NDORFN

You're suggesting we encourage NEW paradigms to fail?. People who support trucks don't do so with any indepth logic behind thier arguement, they just argue for trucks because they're passionate about them. It's always the same old fall-backs "NZR failed, how would we get goods from railheads onto shelves, blah, blah, blah...". Never with any scope on WHY they failed, or how road and rail actually inegrate etc... Stop worrying truck-heads... there will still be trucks for you to put posters of on your walls and draw pictures of and make models of and generally idolise. There just wont be so many of them ruling the roads whilst chewing them up, and because there's less of them, each of your beloved boner-inducing rigs will be even more special

Wow, I'm speachless - and somewhat concerned for the people of Matamata.

What of that pile of utterly purile gibberish constitutes the "indepth logic" you accuse your opponents of lacking?

**NDORFN** · 10th June 2009, 23:50

Originally Posted by The Stranger

Wow, I'm speachless - and somewhat concerned for the people of Matamata.

What of that pile of utterly purile gibberish constitutes the "indepth logic" you accuse your opponents of lacking?

Read previous posts of you want an answer to that.

**The Stranger:Me** · 11th June 2009, 00:20

Originally Posted by NDORFN

Read previous posts of you want an answer to that.

Faaarrrk just read your previous posts.
What a treasure trove of indepth info - for anyone doing a psychology thesis.

**NDORFN** · 11th June 2009, 00:25

And yours, for anyone studying early childhood education. I'm over it dude. ...Unless you wanna have a fight about it? I'll punch your face in. Oh and, my Dad is bigger than yours.

**JMemonic** · 11th June 2009, 01:13

Its not really going to alter much, why? you ask.

A vast majority of our goods are now containerised, these are at international standards which are not going to alter just for NZ 2 fully loaded 20 foot boxes are well over 55 ton and a fully loaded 40 foot is under, so it will make relatively little difference in most cases.

Someone earlier made the comment that it is possible to get a container from point A to Point B fast on a truck than on a train, I recently spoke to a chap that operates a logistics company specialising in moving goods all around NZ, he informed me that he can get goods from Auckland to Christchurch in the same time it takes for a truck on the rail system and at the same price, often though he ships goods the truck drops the box at either of the Auckland ports it gets loaded then shipped to Lyttelton, loaded to a truck and delivered to the destination, its not that much delay, and costs considerably cheaper using this method. Apparently its only a small percentage of goods that are trucked between islands now.

**jono035** · 11th June 2009, 06:15

Fully loaded boxes are also vastly in the minimum I would suspect, 28 tonnes is a lot to wedge into a 20ft container...

**scracha** · 11th June 2009, 08:37

Originally Posted by JMemonic

Its not really going to alter much, why? you ask.

A vast majority of our goods are now containerised, these are at international standards which are not going to alter just for NZ 2 fully loaded 20 foot boxes are well over 55 ton and a fully loaded 40 foot is under, so it will make relatively little difference in most cases.

So basically our roads are made for 40 tonnes and that's partly why they're turning to $hit?

**JMemonic** · 11th June 2009, 09:59

Originally Posted by scracha

So basically our roads are made for 40 tonnes and that's partly why they're turning to $hit?

I think (and this is just my opinion) that they are barely made to that standard, I spoke to another bloke once who was a civil engineer specialising in roadway construction, he basically told me that the roads are historical, in such that they were originally built at a time when loads were lighter and more was railed, and that if you wanted to compare our roads to those in other country's we needed to take into consideration the money that has been spent in them for those projects and how it has affected the layout of the roads, (I suspect this guy was a closet motorcyclist but I never knew).

The example that he used of an internationally famous situation was route 66 in the USA, he pointed out that when the new free way went through towns literally disappeared, and the old historic roads went into to disrepair, this scenic journey was move to what is essentially a straight line of a road.

I guess he was trying to say was sure we can spend the money and get a bankrupt country (we are nearly there from what the media says), potentially the loss of some of our small towns, and boredom with straight roads over long distances, (think Canterbury plains all over NZ).

**Supermac Jr** · 11th June 2009, 16:42

up the weight limit, but put on a couple of extra axles.
or put em trucks onto the tracks - voila!

**NDORFN** · 11th June 2009, 17:40

Originally Posted by Supermac Jr

up the weight limit, but put on a couple of extra axles.
or put em trucks onto the tracks - voila!

This guy for Prime Minister

**scracha** · 11th June 2009, 18:38

Originally Posted by JMemonic

roadway construction, he basically told me that the roads are historical, in such that they were originally built at a time when loads were lighter and more was railed, and that if you

If the Romans could make roads that lasted over 2000 years then how come Fulton Hogan can't make roads that last 2 months?