CHEAPER ROADS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 10 January 1931, Page 3

CHEAPER ROADS

SAVED MILLIONS

THE KEY TO IMPROVEMENT BETTER VEHICLES A very vital point in roading policy is touched upon by the Transport .Department, when it says in its annual report: “It is commonly believed that the object of the heavy traffic fees is to make good the damage wrought on the roads by the heavier types of vehicles. This is erroneous, since if the regulations relating to speed and classification of roads are observed, the heavier vehicles do not, so far as existing knowledge goes, cause any greater damage to tne roads." Elsewhere in the report it is stated that important factors are wheel-load, tires, and speed. With the right vehicle used in the right way, a 'gravelroad can carry a traffic which (according to past assumptions) called for a seal or a bitumen road. GIVEN THE RIGHT VEHICLE-! If, given the right vehicle and the right use thereof, a gravel road can carry a given traffic, and can carry it

without damage, why spend money on a more costly road? . In propounding this question, the Transport Department points out that a gravel road costs £IOOO to £ISOO per mile to construct; a third-coat sealing road £2700 to £3900; a penetration road £3500 to £4900: bituminous concrete (5 inches), £5500 to £6000; Portland cement concrete, £6500 to £BOOO. The above cost-equivalents of these several types of road show how important it is that the country should not be put to the expense of a penetration road if a gravel road will do, or to the expense of a concrete road if a penetration road will do. . What, then, are the traffic-equivalents of the several types (asks J.W.T. in the “Post”). According to the Main Highways Board, gravel can take up to 500 vehicles a day; between 500 vehicles a day and 1500 vehicles a day lies the sphere of third-coat sealing and penetration; over 1500 vehicles a day, it becomes a job for concrete. This, however, is only a roughly approximate way of stating the case. Classification, as already indicated, should take into account wheel-load, tires, speed (all three pertaining to the machine), and other factors.

HOW ROADS ARE CLASSED Under the present classification, a fifth-class road (the lowest) can take a maximum gross weight of 2A- tons, represented by a two-axled lorry, but it can take a maximum of 4i tons if the machine is three-axled or multi-axled. Likewise, a fourth-class road can take 6'- tons (multi-axled), as against 4 k tons; a third-class road 8 tons, as against 6£ tons; a second-class road 10 tons, as against 8; a first-class road 15 tons, as against 10 tons. To reduce this to clearer terms, it may be pointed out here that the Tiansport Department analyses the traffic

loading and the loading of the North Auckland peninsula, and finds that in that largo but well-watered and wellrailwayed district, “it appears that fourth-class roads, available for gross loads of 4£ tons on two-axlecl motorlorries and of 6A- tons on multi-axlecl vehicles, would meet all reasonable requirements for road transport for many years to come.” But if the lower-costing type of road is to be retained —saving the construction cost of a higher-type road, and yet avoiding undue maintenance expenditure on the lower type —then the right machines, speeds, ana tires must be insisted upon. On this subject the Transport Board reports in no uncertain terms; and its findings, whether agreed with or nijt, must command attention. By an amendment to the regulations, “the use of the multi-axled machine is encouraged, for the reason that a vehicle of this type will do less damage to the roads even when carrying heavier loads than the ordinary two-axled motor lorry. . . . The carrying capacity of all our roads would be greatly increased without any increase in the construction or maintenance costs.”

HEAVY COST OF SPEED

As to speed-restriction, “when it is realised that, provided both vehicles arc similarly tired and sprung, a truck of a gross load of 2A- tons travelling at thirty miles an hour, will do as much damage as a truck of a gross load of 10 tons travelling at fifteen miles an hour, the necessity for speed-restriction is apparent.”

]j-, is also gathered from the Transport Department’s report that “the use of pneumatic tires is encouraged by allowing increased speeds to motor-lorries fitted with them.’ With badly worn solid tires, “the impact may be as much as six or eight times the static wheelload.” With pneumatic, it “seldom exceeds twice the static wheel load.” But a road policy dependent on speedrestriction is a road policy dependent on inspection and enforcement. Are the county councils and local bodies

that exist in rural districts —where most of the gravel and lower type roads are found—in a position to enforce the conditions and restrictions on which a policy of making the utmost use of gravel and macadam roads must be based ? As a matter of fact, a great many local bodies in New Zealand have not attempted, even yet, the classification of roads, and must be regarded as still further remote from contemplating an efficient system of enforcement. In tne rural districts this is a serious matter. Taking the figures for rural roads, as apart from urban, it is found that, out of 44,799 miles of formed rural roads, 34 per cent .are unsurfaced, no less than 64 per cent. arc surfaced jyith gravel or metal, and only 2 per cent, are dustless (higher type) roads.

BACKWARD LOCAL BODIES According to the Transport Department, the regulations “give road-con-trolling authorities power to limit the wheel-load by classifying the roads under their control, and the classification of motor-lorries limits the speed of the vehicle and also takes into account equipment.” But although the power to classify roads was given to all roadcontrolling authorities as long ago as April, 1925, “only 27.5 per cent, of the rural roads of this country have been classified.” In other words, nearly three-quarters of the rural roads are open to gross loads of 10 tons (twoaxle) or 15 tons (multi-axle). Figures are adduced to show that from 1900 to 1925 New Zealand’s annual expenditure on roads increased in step with the increase in production and in unimproved value of land, but since 1925 the road expenditure lias raced ahead of production and land. “The outstanding prima facie conclusion is that, judged by the standard o previous years, our road expenditure at the present time is more than we can this with the clear finding that the road-bill can be reduced py regulations governing speeds, tire equipment, and types of vehicles, and by the classification of all roads, and it is evident that the Government must face the transport problem. The Department set up to examine the situation has reported in unequivocal terms.. It must be either right or wrong. If right, its warning is one that no Government can afford to ignore.