PATEA COUNTY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 190, 13 August 1931, Page 11

PATEA COUNTY

Il ROAD CLASSIFICATION I ! LIMITATION OF LORRY LOADS With a view to classifying the roads « throughout the county, the engineer . (Mr L. F. Row) submitted a report on r the county roads t< the meeting of the 1 l Patea County Council at its monthly . meeting last Tuesday. This report fol- [ lowed one made by the Commissioner 5 of Transport to a meeting of represen- . tatives of counties in the No. 8 High./ways District. He recommended the . adoption of class 3 throughout the counties, which would limit lorry loads 5 to 6| tons. The Patea County engineer support- ; ed these recommendations, his report > reading as follows: “At the present time there are no . load restrictions on the highways and other roads in the country, which means that lorries of up to 10 tons r gross weight are free to travel over our roads and bridges. In the case ' of multi-axled vehicles this weight may - be considerably increased and still be = within the statutory limit. As several j of our larger bridges are very old and rapidly deteriorating, it is obvious that > any steps towards reduced loading will . tend to prolong their usefulness. “The greater part of our highway > system has been built up by adding . material from time to time to existing . foundations of varying depth and quali ity. The result is that no definite standard has been attained and some sections are not suitable for tho requirements of modern fast heavilyladen motor vehicles. With such a large percentage of unmetalled roads [ this council is still faced with a con- i struction programme which will extend over many years. In order to conserve funds for this purpose the maintenance costs of our existing surfaced roads and bridges should be kept to a bare minimum by protection as far as possible from excessive loading. At the May meeting of the council, in reply to a communication from the Commissioner of Transport, it was decided that he be asked to undertake a general survey of local transport, probably with a view to a uniform classification of roads within I the No. 8 Highway District. The out- ; come, of this request was a comprehensive report submitted to representatives ' of the various local bodies concerned, t The report concludes by recommending f the following action: (a) The adoption • of a minimum of third-class (6£ ton < loads) roads throughout all counties; (b) where circumstances warrant, the t classification of any individual roads t into lower classes than the third class. 1 “At the present time there are reia- s lively few extra heavy vehicles out- 1 side the larger centres, and the adop- f tion of the above classification would not seriously handicap transport com- i panics. There appears to be little ne- ■' cessity for heavy vehicles to meet our I local farming and industrial requirements, but if some restriction is not adopted we may in the near future be faced with the provisions of road facility for heavy transport lorries , from outside districts. Under the cir cumstances the adoption of the Transport Department’s recommendations would be in the interests of the district. It would enable the council to build urgently needed local roads, before undertaking costly construction to meet the demands of interr a tent extra! heavy traffic which is not essential fori our requirements.” In discussion, the chairman stated! that if the recommendations were adopted, these would have to be subject to the usual winter restrictions. Cr Peat: They restrict themselves — • some of them. The engineer sUted that the counci: I would have the right to institute an} i further restrictions. Cr Johnston asked whether the council could classify the main roads as . Class 3 and the secondary roads as Class * 4, which would restrict them to a load , of 4A tons. ( This arrangement would hardly be fair to others, the engineer stated. f when the county lorries were carting . metal up to a weight of 6$ tons. Back-Road Bridges | On the matter of bridges, the chair- t ' man pointed out that this view wouhi r have to be considered very fully. The i county had a great number of bridges, t and the back roads had their fair share. 1 Up to the present, tho driver who went through any bridge had to bear th. r cost of repairing it. Several years ago. i a man had gone through the Karahake Bridge, and the repairs had cost him something over £2O. The engineer stated that there was

a great deal of difference in the dil- . fercht weights of *he lorries going ov . bridges, at different rates. When the county lorrv had t) go over the Patea j Bridge, all traffic was held up and the roller weTit over at a rate of 3 m.p.h. , The difference between this and a lorry | weighing 6 tons going over at a rate | of 14 m.p.h. was apparent. Another point that would have to be taken into consideration, said the chairman, was whether the council, by mak ing these restrictions, guaranteed that the bridges on the roads were safe for lorries with loads up to 6$ tons. It was decided to defer final decision on the matter until further and fuller information was obtained on this point.