Puhoi-Wellsford SH1 Upgrade

[LucyJH]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/ ... d=10628274

Anybody feel inspired to write a letter? I would but I'm too busy driving my fiendish agenda to make you all work against each other in a totally unilateral way

[Chris Randal.]

I hate to say it but her article does actually make sense!

[LucyJH]

I don't think it does on several levels. First, she says that there are lots of accidents on that road but then she acknowledges that the new toll road has dramatically reduced accident levels.

Second, what she is supporting is a $1.4 billion project to build what will (likely be) an entirely new, tolled road but in fact what she's actually saying is needed is a small bypass around Warksworth and Wellsford (nowhere near $1.4 billion of cost).

Third, she completely fails to acknowledge the existence of induced traffic or the likelihood that the motorway will lead to greater development of the coastal areas of Rodney, thus leading to more traffic, more congestion, more delays and, inevitably, more accidents.

Fourth, she provides absolutely no evidence that those accidents levels she's talking about are unusually high compared to other comparable stretches of road in NZ. I mean, how many people died in the Waikato on our roads in the last 5 years? How many people died in central Auckland? How many people died in Auckland because of air pollution caused by congestion?

[cbtadmin]

Good points Lucy. The article was so well informed I actually wonder if it was ghost written by someone.

[Chris Randal.]

I don't think it does on several levels. First, she says that there are lots of accidents on that road but then she acknowledges that the new toll road has dramatically reduced accident levels.

Second, what she is supporting is a $1.4 billion project to build what will (likely be) an entirely new, tolled road but in fact what she's actually saying is needed is a small bypass around Warksworth and Wellsford (nowhere near $1.4 billion of cost).

Third, she completely fails to acknowledge the existence of induced traffic or the likelihood that the motorway will lead to greater development of the coastal areas of Rodney, thus leading to more traffic, more congestion, more delays and, inevitably, more accidents.

Fourth, she provides absolutely no evidence that those accidents levels she's talking about are unusually high compared to other comparable stretches of road in NZ. I mean, how many people died in the Waikato on our roads in the last 5 years? How many people died in central Auckland? How many people died in Auckland because of air pollution caused by congestion?

My point is that she is looking at it from the point of view of a Northland resident, not an Auckland-centric.

If you read it like that it does make sense.

Also - she is pointing out that Mike Lee speaks only for Auckland - not points North of the ARC area.

[Riggles]

I don't think it does on several levels. First, she says that there are lots of accidents on that road but then she acknowledges that the new toll road has dramatically reduced accident levels.

What is wrong with saying this? What is pointed out is that the new toll road has avoided an equally dangerous section of road resulting in "dramatically reduced accident levels". Therefore based on this president that if the rest of the route was upgraded a similar reduction could be expected.

Second, what she is supporting is a $1.4 billion project to build what will (likely be) an entirely new, tolled road but in fact what she's actually saying is needed is a small bypass around Warksworth and Wellsford (nowhere near $1.4 billion of cost).

Where do you get this from, the only value I saw her quote was $2.3Billion and the entire article is about the whole route not just the bypasses. If she was only talking about the bypasses she would not have raised the accident issue in your first point.

Third, she completely fails to acknowledge the existence of induced traffic or the likelihood that the motorway will lead to greater development of the coastal areas of Rodney, thus leading to more traffic, more congestion, more delays and, inevitably, more accidents.

I thought that this was what the article is about. She is saying that the road upgrade would be of great benefit to the 250,000 people living up north.
In relation to your more congestion, more delays and more accidents. This would be true in relation to the condition of the new road the day it opens but not in relation to the do minimum situation.

Fourth, she provides absolutely no evidence that those accidents levels she's talking about are unusually high compared to other comparable stretches of road in NZ. I mean, how many people died in the Waikato on our roads in the last 5 years? How many people died in central Auckland? How many people died in Auckland because of air pollution caused by congestion?

The other sections of road are not "comparable stretches of road in NZ" and are vastly different. Also the article is about the Puhoi to Welsford upgrade and therefore it is perfectly acceptable that she didn't talk about air pollution in Auckland caused by congestion.

[cbtadmin]

From the article:

But this is not about Northland prosperity or total project expense. The main issue here is road safety. SH1 from Puhoi to Wellsford in its present capacity as a two lane single carriage way is unsafe.

In the first three quarters of 2009 alone, 100 accidents occurred here.

Eight people were killed. Since the new Northern Gateway dual carriage toll road from Orewa to Johnstone's Hill in January 2009 (to the end of August 2009), there were just five accidents and no injuries. The numbers speak for themselves.

I'm confused about the Northern Gateway reference here. The author says there were 100 accidents and 8 deaths between Puhoi and Wellsford for Jan - Aug 2009. Then compares this figure with the much shorter stretch between Orewa and Johnstone's Hill. Do the five accidents include the old Orewa route as well as the Northern Gateway? Isn't this comparing apples and oranges?

The numbers do not speak for themselves. Anyone have access to the figures to confirm this?

[jarbury]

I am not sure what the figures are Cam, but what she's saying sounds like it relies on some pretty dodgy stats.

I think the best counter-argument is to use the analogy that Puhoi-Wellsford is like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. There is no doubt we should improve that road, and a Warkworth bypass, some corner realignments and other safety improvements would do the world of good, and probably fix 95% of the problem. The thing is that minor improvements don't make headlines like 35km new motorways do.

In other words, the holiday highway is complete overkill, done for political reasons and to encourage sprawl. The really stupid thing is that such a big bang approach means we will have to wait even longer for the benefits than we would otherwise if we built simple bypasses and upgraded the existing route at various blackspots.

[Riggles]

I'm confused about the Northern Gateway reference here. The author says there were 100 accidents and 8 deaths between Puhoi and Wellsford for Jan - Aug 2009. Then compares this figure with the much shorter stretch between Orewa and Johnstone's Hill. Do the five accidents include the old Orewa route as well as the Northern Gateway? Isn't this comparing apples and oranges?

The numbers do not speak for themselves. Anyone have access to the figures to confirm this?

ok so the existing 35km section to the north had 100 accidents and the new 7km section had 5.

Now if we break out our calculator we can see that the new section has 1/4 the accidents at a per km rate. It also seems that on the new section not only is the chance of having an accident reduced but the risk of injury in the event of an accident is reduced as well.

[cbtadmin]

OK, maybe thats what the author means.

If you require medical treatment in Auckland, you allow yourself plenty of time for the journey and hope that for whatever reason, the road is not closed.

Anyone got an actual figure on how many times the road between Puhoi and Wellsford has been closed? There is always SH16 anyhow.

Greater traffic volumes now mean when travelling from the North, precautions must be taken in case of delays...If you have an early morning flight at the airport, it's best to go the night before.

I suspect most congestion occurs in Auckland, not on the Puhoi Wellsford section.

I don't have a problem with improving the safety of this section of road, or a bypass around Warkworth (Wellsford businesses surely don't want a bypass do they?), but instead of spending $2.3bn we should consider other options other than the gold-plated ones.

[Riggles]

I think the best counter-argument is to use the analogy that Puhoi-Wellsford is like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. There is no doubt we should improve that road, and a Warkworth bypass, some corner realignments and other safety improvements would do the world of good, and probably fix 95% of the problem. The thing is that minor improvements don't make headlines like 35km new motorways do.

In other words, the holiday highway is complete overkill, done for political reasons and to encourage sprawl. The really stupid thing is that such a big bang approach means we will have to wait even longer for the benefits than we would otherwise if we built simple bypasses and upgraded the existing route at various blackspots.

Of course the counter to that could be that doing patch work on the existing route would be like trying to heal a shotgun wound with a sticking plaster.
Currently here are two big reasons for why the route is being looked at for an upgrade.
1) there is a high level of accidents resulting from poor geometry and high traffic volumes
2) the route is a RONS being key to the economic growth of everything north of Auckland

The fact that is gets busy on public holidays is just a side issue.

As we have seen with the rest of the country is that doing patch upgrades, although they tend to reduce the severity of accidents they don't really address the problem. This is why if you look at the number of serious accidents over the years it has continued to go up and up in step with traffic growth even though the road toll may have gone down

[Riggles]

Anyone got an actual figure on how many times the road between Puhoi and Wellsford has been closed? There is always SH16 anyhow.

I don't think she is talking about the road being closed but more it being impracticable due to congestion.

I suspect most congestion occurs in Auckland, not on the Puhoi Wellsford section.

It is not general congestion she is talking about but the unreliability of the travel times on the route. All you need is one car to crash, or a few slow moving trucks and then people get all upset. The greater the chance of this the less likely people are to make the trip.

I don't have a problem with improving the safety of this section of road, or a bypass around Warkworth (Wellsford businesses surely don't want a bypass do they?), but instead of spending $2.3bn we should consider other options other than the gold-plated ones.

At this point I would not be calling the option gold platted. Looking at the price and length it would need to be rather basic 4-lanning. A gold plated option would be up at $5billion

[cbtadmin]

I don't think she is talking about the road being closed.

No, she said the road could be closed at a time when you need it most. So how often has it been completely closed? None, I'd say.

It is not general congestion she is talking about but the unreliability of the travel times on the route. All you need is one car to crash, or a few slow moving trucks and then people get all upset.

Well, yes, same for any road. So how often does Puhoi - Wellsford get congested then? Any actual figures?

[LucyJH]

how much does the economic growth of Northland actually depend on people being able to drive to Auckland 8 minutes faster?

Also, I'm not arguing that this new road won't improve safety - I'm just saying at what cost? I imagine we could make a massive difference to road safety by buying everybody in NZ a volvo but are we gonig to? No, because it would cost bazillions...

We can't just throw money at particular projects because a Minister likes them. It would be nice to have some objective analysis of what is the greatest priority...

[Nick R]

I think all these arguments are vaild, but they would be for any highway in the country. (although you can't blame Mike Lee for saying it isn't a priority for the Auckland region, it's his job to worry about Aucklanders not Northlanders).

My problem is this doesn't really address whether a $2.3 billion toll motorway is most appropriate in this case nor if it is the best use of highway funds. So far all we have seen is the full highway or nothing. I hope it will come if they develop the project further, but we need to see a proper evaluation of a full range of options. What about, for example, spending $1 billion on bypasses, rebuilding the sections with the worst geometry and four laning where there is the most congestion... or $2 billion doing the same all the way to Whangarei?


The quote from the article regarding the "250,000 New Zealanders who live north of Albany and use SH1" is perhaps a little misleading. Only about 130,000 people live in Northland District (north of Wellsford). Over 100,000 live in Rodney district, mostly on Whangaparoa or in Orewa, for whom an extension north of Puhoi would have little consequence.

[Riggles]

how much does the economic growth of Northland actually depend on people being able to drive to Auckland 8 minutes faster?

Why ask this question when it is the time saved for only half the 35km route?
In any event if you want the answer you will see it in the benefits for the project that gave it a BCR of 0.8. Similar to the 0.9 for the electrification of the Auckland Rail network.

Also, I'm not arguing that this new road won't improve safety - I'm just saying at what cost? I imagine we could make a massive difference to road safety by buying everybody in NZ a volvo but are we gonig to? No, because it would cost bazillions...

The reason this road is a RONS is not because it has safety issues but that as the name implies it is a great economic significance to the country.

We can't just throw money at particular projects because a Minister likes them. It would be nice to have some objective analysis of what is the greatest priority...

I would imagine that there has been some objective analysis and that is why this road is a RONS. I take it you have some other projects that are of greater priority, have you done any adjective analysis to reach this conclusion?

NOTE: My comments are only based on the information provided which puts this project in better light than what I would have originally thought. I endorse the idea however am undecided on the option at hand.

[cbtadmin]

I would imagine that there has been some objective analysis and that is why this road is a RONS

We've been over this before. No there isn't.

[Nick R]

have you done any adjective analysis to reach this conclusion?

Well so far there have been a lot of adjectives used to describe this proposal . So far we have heard adjectives like 'safe', 'economic' and 'nationally significant', but nothing yet to back it up.

[Riggles]

We've been over this before. No there isn't.

What do you base this claim on?

I recall back at the last election National was talking about making certain strategic routes that were key to the economic growth of the country into what they called RONS. The purpose of which was to speed up the consenting process for roading projects that were of national importance.

From looking at this section of road on a map it is rather clear that it is the main link to the north of the north island. What is also clear is that for the function it has been tasked with providing it is notably inadequate forcing economic growth to only be to the south of Auckland.

From what I can see here the main reason people don't like it is because it is a road and not a rail track.

[jarbury]

I'm yet to see any evidence that RONS means anything more than "Steven Joyce likes it".