Bl***dy crap NZ roads

[MSTRS:Me]

...their work turns to shit 6 months to a year after completion...

Pffft!! There's major arterial urban roads in Napier that'd be lucky to retain a resealing for more than 6 HOURS.

[p.dath]

Transport operators pay considerally for the use of the roads through Road User Charges, and according to their lobby group the Road Transport Forum, pay more than their fair share.

You can't really trust what a lobby group say ...

[MSTRS:Me]

You can't really trust what a lobby group say ...

...except when it's motorcyclists doing the lobbying!

[diggyduo]

Perhaps not in NZ ... I've just been reading up on the subject. It's actually quite a complex science, and many countries have done many experiments. One of the tough issues is the formula needs to vary quite a bit from country to country because the conditions are so different.

So reading up on your links to to the NZTA standards in the TOTO thread ()http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/chipsealing-hot-mix-asphalt/index.html, it looks like Transit New Zealand only requires Quality Assurance for State Highways, not for any other road which is not classified as a State Highway. Is this how you read it?

[SPman]

Yes, but how many km of road in a given square km? I suspect NZ has a lot more than West Australia (or am I assuming too much desert?).

Quite true. Away from the population cores and main roads, most roads are dirt (cue Motu...) There are only 2.3 people /m2

Yeah. But dozing a flat track through the sand and sprinkling a bit of lime on top is a tad less expensive than the reasonably serious teraforming required here. Leaves a fair wad of budget for surfacing yes?

Whilst hotmix is making small inroads on regional roads, most roads are just sprayed tar/granite chip seal. OK, the road bases are generally a lot stronger with a lot less work, but this is countered by being able to seal longer stretches for the savings involved - but the actual sealing costs are comparable with NZ costs. So, why do they stand up, so much better? There is a very small amount of "slickage", but, that's generally from prolonged traffic pushing the chip slowly into the tar over a period of months, if not years. I have yet to see melted tar on the roads, in temps of up to 45C! In NZ I'd see it often, from 23-24 C and up! Could it be that the contractors here actually use the materials they are supposed to use, and if it fails, they have to tear it up and reseal, in the proper materials, at their own expense? and the DMR, for all their idiocy, actually check the work?

[Ocean1]

the actual sealing costs are comparable with NZ costs. So, why do they stand up, so much better? .... Could it be that the contractors here actually use the materials they are supposed to use, and if it fails, they have to tear it up and reseal, in the proper materials, at their own expense? and the DMR, for all their idiocy, actually check the work?

It's quite likely that the bitumen spec's are different. Materials available to contractors here are just what the oil companies stock. That used to be just 2 grades, not sure now.

Whatever the discrepency in materials the results are certainly different, I've spent a fair bit of time on WA roads and by and large the good roads are better and the rural ones are, as you say often completely unseald. It's a better aproach, there's less of a problem with ... goodroadgoodroadgoodroadgoodroadgoodroadgoodroadSH ITLOOKATTHATFUCKING GREAT HOLE...

The road I live on was chipsealed two years ago. It's a fucking abomination.

[p.dath]

So reading up on your links to to the NZTA standards in the TOTO thread ()http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/chipsealing-hot-mix-asphalt/index.html, it looks like Transit New Zealand only requires Quality Assurance for State Highways, not for any other road which is not classified as a State Highway. Is this how you read it?

Correct. Next you would need to read the regulations in every city to find out weather they implement the NZTA standard, or some lesser standard. My expectation is that within a regions limits the standard of roading should be similar, by may vary from city to city.

With Auckland consisting of 5 cities, it's concievable there could be five different roading standards ...

[diggyduo]

So in summary.

1. The road surface could be better but realistically the cost/benefit isn't far enough into the benefit part of the ratio for road users who are sensible and legal.
2. People who want something else from NZ roads need to fuck off to some other flat boring country and bitch about the price of petrol or how much tax they pay or some other shit there instead.

This is an open forum so it is great to get all input. I might add a number 3 to your post

3. Buy a car and reduce the risk further! (Unfortunately i think many people have chosen this option.)


I guess since you have trawled through 60 odd posts (which at 30sec per post would be half an hour - enough to change some naps, prepare dinner, walk the dog etc) before you posted that you put some thought into your reply.

So what is your benefit vs cost ledger? No digs meant here, I am genuinely interested in your thoughts.

I can get the ball rolling:

Costs:
Higher short term cost in rejigging the seal mix, perhaps even needing to tailor it for certain regions in the country
Training burden for the companies in instructing the requirements for the new mixes, (and not to add buckets of kerosene in when the boss aint looking)
Unemployment may increase due to the reduction in ongoing maintenance.
Notes:
Bit of a bugger about the increase in short term cost - obviously government would prefer a greater cost spread over a longer time as a sudden increase is a greater target for the opposition to highlight

Benefits:
Lower ACC- or perhaps less of an ACC increase
Lower insurance premiums for those with full insurance, a service that is currently ridiculously high - or at least less of a premium increase.
Some people might make next Christmas that otherwise might not . These people would be local area noobs as unpredictable road conditions are not likely to catch out the experienced locals that know the road well.
Perhaps long-term financial gain in the reduction in road maintenance (not well versed here).
Notes:
As an aside, some of the prime suspects during summer also create the biggest problems during rain - namely the dreaded shiney patches of tar. I have left this out of the discussion cos most people ride super conservative in the wet anyway - I would hazard a guess that most motorcyclist second guess most roads at the first sign of rain which I think is the best approach. But I don't think the same should be true for summer. It would be more of a secondary benefit than a prime motivator.

As for legal speeds, the closest I have come to a cropper was in a 45 km hr corner, with a wife and pack on the back, following a camper-van that was in turn being held up by a SUV/Boat combo on the Coro-Thames road, under the shade of tress, with a line of cars behind me that would happily of tested AGV's safety claims given half a chance. After doubling back to see what caused the prob, it was a long blob of sludgy seal in the RH tire track. To be honest, at the time, I was more annoyed about not seeing it than the fact it was there. In hindsight I think it is worth investigating whether this sort of situation might be over come and we can reduce our risks down to cars and ourselves rather than sweaty roads wilting under a NZ summer.

As for the fear of increased cost, this is not really our problem. If improvements were to come, I am sure the Government would make the implications clear, and they would only be actioned the bean counters were crystal clear the majority of their voting base (who keep them in power after all). supported the impetus

All of this crap road stuff won't stop me from riding, I just wonder if the situation might be improved somewhat. You never know. Some day women might get to Vote and Milk might not be delivered to our abodes.

[diggyduo]

..........