I enjoyed the joust. And loved the missing “h” in the title! This is further to my supportive comments on Dave’s original article.
Road User Charges (RUCs) were introduced on 1 April 1978, a month after I replaced John Becket (who had been seconded from the railways!) as the PM’s transport adviser. RUCs were motivated by the desire to make trucks pay their way.
The railways had long argued that rail paid for its own RoW whereas trucks were free riders on private motorists. In essence this had been correct. But no longer.
RUCs comprised three components: guidance, space and wear.
The cost of pavement wear fell on trucks. Heavy axles wear out pavements. Alternatively expressed, heavy axles demand stronger pavements. Pavement wear by a truck was assessed for the licensed gross weight (chosen by the owner) and the axle configuration supporting that weight. Truck owners could reduce RUCs by choosing to have more axles. There was a trade-off between extra axles and reduced payload.
Space refers to road capacity, the ability to handle the volume of traffic. Traffic was measured in Passenger Car Units. (Car 1 PCU. Motorcycle 0.5 PCU. Truck a few PCUs.) Costs of road widening, climbing lanes, alignment straightening, etc were spread on a PCU basis.
Guidance was an assortment of lesser costs such as road signs and markings that were spread per vehicle.
Trucks were fitted with hubodometers and paid RUCs per 1,000km (in advance) for their travel. Petrol powered cars paid via a levy on fuel. (Diesel cars paid RUCs.)
Although there is a lot of averaging in the RUCs it did mean that the trucking industry as a whole was paying for provision of, and use of, the nation’s roads. Tanker operators complained they were paying too much. The RUCs system assumed they were always at their licensed weight when in fact their back-hauls were empty.
So, wither the argument that rail is disadvantaged by providing its own RoW!
Where to from here? Massive quantities of coal in Queensland and iron ore in Western Australia travel from mine to port in unit trains and on tracks owned by the private sector. Moving these quantities by truck is unthinkable-- until one sees it actually happening in southern Mongolia! (Thousands of articulated trucks crossing the desert bumper-to-bumper.)
But NZ doesn’t have such transport demands, other than perhaps logs.
As an aside, the odd thing is that road pavements within the forests are built to State Highway standards yet the logging rigs using those pavements can be 120 tonne, and even 140 tonne gross weight—over twice the maximum allowed on State Highways. Word of caution: don’t forget bridges, which perform differently to pavements.
As for rail’s 18 tonne maximum axle weight, it is low. But would investment in heavier gauge rail be economic? And can the existing viaducts, bridges and culverts withstand the increased loads? If the benefit:cost ratio were favourable the private sector could invest.
I need to study the EY report to comment on it. But a quick look leaves me puzzled. I read: “Modelling assumes that all new trucks on the road consistently carry 9.6 tonnes and does not attempt to adjust for empty return trips.” I thought one of the issues was big trucks (payload 30 tonne or more) smashing pavements. And I wonder whether truck trips to/from rail heads were tallied.
Just looking at the National Land Transport Fund Budget figures for 2021-2024. Total funds under management -$24.3 billion - includes local authority transport spends, central government loans and other top-ups to the Land Transport Fund. Road user charges, fuel excise and vehicle registration budgeted to raise $13.39 billion, 55%, of the total funds under management for land transport. The Land Transport Budget spending includes $1.3 billion, 5%, for rail improvements and $13.8 billion, 56.7% for (direct) road operations/maintenance and improvements. So it seems that road user charges cover the physical road operations/maintenance/improvements but not the indirect expenses such as road policing, general safety initiatives, reducing congestion via public transport.
So many different ways to skin this cat, as it were?
Thanks Andrew. In my experience, government accounting documents tend to be very long and confusing, and its hard to align figures across multiple documents. So, as you say, there are many different ways to skin this cat.
* Outflows included NZ Police Road Policing Programme ($415m), safety programmes (labelled "Road to Zero") ($781m) & Rail Network Investment Programme ($142m net of taxpayer funding). Public transport received $497m (mostly for fare subsidies), plus a further $566m for infrastructure.
* Most inflows were from road users (RUC and fuel excise duty).
Dave, I am late with this comment but have recently come back from 2,300kms on a N.I. holiday drive up the west coast from Wellington, as far as the Bay of Islands and back 'down the middle'. I read your post before this trip and as an economist interested in some transport issues, I knew that RUCs are intended to make trucks pay their way. I have learned more from Ron Allan here. But I have sympathy with the Bryan Crumps of this world, heightened by the battering my bum took from the poor roads I drove on during my trip. Apart from about 300kms of quite new dual carriageway, the other 2000kms I would subjectively divide in thirds, classed as really poor; tolerable and 'OK'.
We tell people 'trucks do pay for their wear and tear on roads', but this is based on a model that assumes we are building and maintainin our roads to the expected standard, and especially that incipient damage is quickly remedied. I drove over countless damaged shoulders, big 'potholes' and other deformations of our roads that can only have been caused by trucks' axle weight limits imparting force that overwhelms the road surface. Max two tonne cars, mostly 1.5 tonnes, even at major frequency compared to trucks, surely do not deform our roads as we find them now.
So perhaps we should be spending more on our roads - I read everywhere now that most longer-distance drivers feel our roads are poor - in terms of surface smoothness mostly. The extra we need to spend (and some of this is simply our poor quality work, some the problematic land most of our roads are built on) surely must mostly come from trucking, judging by the kind of damage we all see. The formulae for axle loads and number of tyres translating a truck's weight to per sq mm tyre to road contact I understand was derived a long time ago - one of the two major test beds being in South Africa. I don't think we are helping ourselves in a discussion of 'road costs vs rail' to sound as glib as we do when we say we have a RUC system that makes trucks pay. I think the model is deficient, and we could all use some work that improves our understanding of where our obvious road damage is coming from, and why.
Interesting comment on in-house design and build for rail on the Big substack by Matt Stoller
"Rail transit projects in San Francisco are coming in under budget and ahead of schedule. Why? BART "did in-house engineering work on its new train cars, sped up production, and now the project is being delivered early and 15% under budget."'
J Keys Government started the Great Train Robbery back in 2008-2009 about the same Time as Mr English said they'd Build More State Highways for Less, you can't have Quality if you Spend Less $$$ ???
Now getting back to the Great Railway Wagon Robbery 2008 Kiwi Rail's Hillside Workshop's Designed & Built a Modern Container Wagon which they followed on with a 35 Wagon Prototype TrainSet to Test the Design out leading up to the Start of a Building of 3000 of these Wagon's over 10 years! The Project had an Estimated Value of $300 Million Dollar's that's when instead of this Money being Spent here in NZ Employing Kiwi's across a Huge Range of Trades & Local NZ Businesses! No the First of the 500 Wagon Contract was awarded to Communist China by the National Government reason being Hillside Workshop's wanted $12.5Million added to their Quoted price of $50Million taking the First 500 Cost to $62.5 Million Dollar's!
Now English didn't Question why NZ Price $12.5 Million dearer than China just gave China the Contract! The wagon's started to Arrive with Issues with the Break's they blamed the Breakshoes ? Then there was Cracking of the Weld's & They Signed up a deal to Bring in Chinese Worker's which were setup around NZ in Kiwi Rail's smaller Wagon Repair Workshop's too Grind out & ReWeld the Faulty Workmanship! The Break issues was never really Rectified because the Design that Hillside Workshop's Designed & what the Chinese were Building for us wasn't too the same Design! I've talked with former Kiwi Rail Engineer's who showed me the First of the Boggy Wheel sets from China alongside NZ Prototype Wagon's Our were a Solid Casting made at Hillside where as the Chinese are Flat Bars Crisscrossing with several large Bolt's with Holes which were wearing away allowing the Break's to NOT APPLY properly which Resulted in the Train Set's from China NOT STOPPING within 60 Metres of the Design Spec's unlike the New Zealand Wagon's which were of a High Quality Design & Build !
Getting back to the extra $12.5 Million Originally wanted by Hillside Workshop's was to Upgrade the 2 Large Workshop Overhead 100Ton Gantry Crane's capable of Lifting a Complete Diesel Railway Locomotive when Replacing their Traction Motor Wheel Set's plus Lifing of Lighter Wagon's! There was other Modern Engineering Equipment they needed for this 10 year Contract!
Now even if the NZ Cost per wagon was slightly dearer than the Chinese at least that Cost would have been Kiwi Wages who would have been paying Taxes therefore the Government would have been get all that Taxe money back ! I understand that several other NZ Firm's were involved in Building Components for the NZ Project! 1000's of Well Paid Kiwi Job's & 100's of Young Kiwi Apprentices would have been trained over those 10 years across many Trades !
Then we had a Change of Government with NZ First Labour Coalition Government with Shane Jones RGF Regional Growth Fund giving Hillside Workshop's $20Million to upgrade the Facility BUT STILL NO NZ MADE WAGON'S Rolling out of Hillside Workshop's! Then the Labour Government under Jacinda's Raines she said we'll Bowl it All Over & Build you a New Modern Workshop which has a new Office at the Front going to Employ 45 People compared to Hillside back in it's Hayday had a Workforce of over 1200 !
Now this New Workshop Office plus Newly Setout Railway Yards is supposed to be COSTING Over $80Million if they can find the original Contract which I understand is well Over Budget! So instead of Upgrading a Perfectly Functional Workshop Foundry & the many Covered Car & Wagon Shop's with Rail access! Shane Jones spent $20 Million & Jacinda another $80+ Million when really $12.5 Million was all that was needed!
There's another Story to this Sad Sargure & that's the Story around A&G Price Engineer's in Thames who had Designed & Quoted to Build The New Diesel Locomotive's for Kiwi Rail which sadly English Key National Government didn't even Consider that Kiwi's were capable of Building High Quality Railway Equipment here in NZ even though A&G Price and Kiwi Rail had been both doing it for Over 130 Year's & A&G Price Engineer's are still Building & Repairing Railway Equipment under it's Private Ownership! So if you look at the Other side of Kiwi Rail it's more than just a Freight Company it has been a Huge Engineering Facilities around NZ which has been Slowly Destroyed by Our Government's Labour & National !
I'm not a Foamer I'm just an Engineer who can see the Benefits of Running a Well Oiled Railway Network along Our Narrow But Long Country with it's 2 Main Islands with it's Ferry System that has served NZ Well & should continue!
I'm the person behind BUY BACK CONTROL of MARSDEN POINT OIL REFINERY & We The General Public Shareholder's are Now over 52.6% therefore We have Control & we will be taking that Control very soon!
Cheers & GOD Bless
Karl Barkley
Engineer Farmer
Shareholder in CHANNEL INFRASTRUCTURE formally NZ Refining Company
I enjoyed the joust. And loved the missing “h” in the title! This is further to my supportive comments on Dave’s original article.
Road User Charges (RUCs) were introduced on 1 April 1978, a month after I replaced John Becket (who had been seconded from the railways!) as the PM’s transport adviser. RUCs were motivated by the desire to make trucks pay their way.
The railways had long argued that rail paid for its own RoW whereas trucks were free riders on private motorists. In essence this had been correct. But no longer.
RUCs comprised three components: guidance, space and wear.
The cost of pavement wear fell on trucks. Heavy axles wear out pavements. Alternatively expressed, heavy axles demand stronger pavements. Pavement wear by a truck was assessed for the licensed gross weight (chosen by the owner) and the axle configuration supporting that weight. Truck owners could reduce RUCs by choosing to have more axles. There was a trade-off between extra axles and reduced payload.
Space refers to road capacity, the ability to handle the volume of traffic. Traffic was measured in Passenger Car Units. (Car 1 PCU. Motorcycle 0.5 PCU. Truck a few PCUs.) Costs of road widening, climbing lanes, alignment straightening, etc were spread on a PCU basis.
Guidance was an assortment of lesser costs such as road signs and markings that were spread per vehicle.
Trucks were fitted with hubodometers and paid RUCs per 1,000km (in advance) for their travel. Petrol powered cars paid via a levy on fuel. (Diesel cars paid RUCs.)
Although there is a lot of averaging in the RUCs it did mean that the trucking industry as a whole was paying for provision of, and use of, the nation’s roads. Tanker operators complained they were paying too much. The RUCs system assumed they were always at their licensed weight when in fact their back-hauls were empty.
So, wither the argument that rail is disadvantaged by providing its own RoW!
Where to from here? Massive quantities of coal in Queensland and iron ore in Western Australia travel from mine to port in unit trains and on tracks owned by the private sector. Moving these quantities by truck is unthinkable-- until one sees it actually happening in southern Mongolia! (Thousands of articulated trucks crossing the desert bumper-to-bumper.)
But NZ doesn’t have such transport demands, other than perhaps logs.
As an aside, the odd thing is that road pavements within the forests are built to State Highway standards yet the logging rigs using those pavements can be 120 tonne, and even 140 tonne gross weight—over twice the maximum allowed on State Highways. Word of caution: don’t forget bridges, which perform differently to pavements.
As for rail’s 18 tonne maximum axle weight, it is low. But would investment in heavier gauge rail be economic? And can the existing viaducts, bridges and culverts withstand the increased loads? If the benefit:cost ratio were favourable the private sector could invest.
I need to study the EY report to comment on it. But a quick look leaves me puzzled. I read: “Modelling assumes that all new trucks on the road consistently carry 9.6 tonnes and does not attempt to adjust for empty return trips.” I thought one of the issues was big trucks (payload 30 tonne or more) smashing pavements. And I wonder whether truck trips to/from rail heads were tallied.
I was today years old when I found out what NIMT means, after seeing it at Wellington station all these years 😅
I think the headline is a bit of a Freudian slip Dave: "wither" means "shrivel"; I hope you meant "whither" ("where to")
Either that Murray or Dave is even more clever than we thought and has engaged us with some top-level punning.
Just an oversight on my part, rather than an indication of cleverness. Alas!
A question for Bryan and Murray: should I change the title to "whither", or leave it as "wither"?
Well, I think the pun (regardless of whether you meant wither or whither) is quite apt!
Great images Dave, as always.
Just looking at the National Land Transport Fund Budget figures for 2021-2024. Total funds under management -$24.3 billion - includes local authority transport spends, central government loans and other top-ups to the Land Transport Fund. Road user charges, fuel excise and vehicle registration budgeted to raise $13.39 billion, 55%, of the total funds under management for land transport. The Land Transport Budget spending includes $1.3 billion, 5%, for rail improvements and $13.8 billion, 56.7% for (direct) road operations/maintenance and improvements. So it seems that road user charges cover the physical road operations/maintenance/improvements but not the indirect expenses such as road policing, general safety initiatives, reducing congestion via public transport.
So many different ways to skin this cat, as it were?
Thanks Andrew. In my experience, government accounting documents tend to be very long and confusing, and its hard to align figures across multiple documents. So, as you say, there are many different ways to skin this cat.
The indirect expenses you cite appear to be present in 22/23, or at least that's how I read pages 233 & 267 of https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/annual-report-nzta/2022-23/nltf-annual-report-2022-23.pdf.
* Outflows included NZ Police Road Policing Programme ($415m), safety programmes (labelled "Road to Zero") ($781m) & Rail Network Investment Programme ($142m net of taxpayer funding). Public transport received $497m (mostly for fare subsidies), plus a further $566m for infrastructure.
* Most inflows were from road users (RUC and fuel excise duty).
Dave, I am late with this comment but have recently come back from 2,300kms on a N.I. holiday drive up the west coast from Wellington, as far as the Bay of Islands and back 'down the middle'. I read your post before this trip and as an economist interested in some transport issues, I knew that RUCs are intended to make trucks pay their way. I have learned more from Ron Allan here. But I have sympathy with the Bryan Crumps of this world, heightened by the battering my bum took from the poor roads I drove on during my trip. Apart from about 300kms of quite new dual carriageway, the other 2000kms I would subjectively divide in thirds, classed as really poor; tolerable and 'OK'.
We tell people 'trucks do pay for their wear and tear on roads', but this is based on a model that assumes we are building and maintainin our roads to the expected standard, and especially that incipient damage is quickly remedied. I drove over countless damaged shoulders, big 'potholes' and other deformations of our roads that can only have been caused by trucks' axle weight limits imparting force that overwhelms the road surface. Max two tonne cars, mostly 1.5 tonnes, even at major frequency compared to trucks, surely do not deform our roads as we find them now.
So perhaps we should be spending more on our roads - I read everywhere now that most longer-distance drivers feel our roads are poor - in terms of surface smoothness mostly. The extra we need to spend (and some of this is simply our poor quality work, some the problematic land most of our roads are built on) surely must mostly come from trucking, judging by the kind of damage we all see. The formulae for axle loads and number of tyres translating a truck's weight to per sq mm tyre to road contact I understand was derived a long time ago - one of the two major test beds being in South Africa. I don't think we are helping ourselves in a discussion of 'road costs vs rail' to sound as glib as we do when we say we have a RUC system that makes trucks pay. I think the model is deficient, and we could all use some work that improves our understanding of where our obvious road damage is coming from, and why.
Interesting comment on in-house design and build for rail on the Big substack by Matt Stoller
"Rail transit projects in San Francisco are coming in under budget and ahead of schedule. Why? BART "did in-house engineering work on its new train cars, sped up production, and now the project is being delivered early and 15% under budget."'
Matt Stoller
Monopoly Round-Up: Apple Becomes the Bad Guy
J Keys Government started the Great Train Robbery back in 2008-2009 about the same Time as Mr English said they'd Build More State Highways for Less, you can't have Quality if you Spend Less $$$ ???
Now getting back to the Great Railway Wagon Robbery 2008 Kiwi Rail's Hillside Workshop's Designed & Built a Modern Container Wagon which they followed on with a 35 Wagon Prototype TrainSet to Test the Design out leading up to the Start of a Building of 3000 of these Wagon's over 10 years! The Project had an Estimated Value of $300 Million Dollar's that's when instead of this Money being Spent here in NZ Employing Kiwi's across a Huge Range of Trades & Local NZ Businesses! No the First of the 500 Wagon Contract was awarded to Communist China by the National Government reason being Hillside Workshop's wanted $12.5Million added to their Quoted price of $50Million taking the First 500 Cost to $62.5 Million Dollar's!
Now English didn't Question why NZ Price $12.5 Million dearer than China just gave China the Contract! The wagon's started to Arrive with Issues with the Break's they blamed the Breakshoes ? Then there was Cracking of the Weld's & They Signed up a deal to Bring in Chinese Worker's which were setup around NZ in Kiwi Rail's smaller Wagon Repair Workshop's too Grind out & ReWeld the Faulty Workmanship! The Break issues was never really Rectified because the Design that Hillside Workshop's Designed & what the Chinese were Building for us wasn't too the same Design! I've talked with former Kiwi Rail Engineer's who showed me the First of the Boggy Wheel sets from China alongside NZ Prototype Wagon's Our were a Solid Casting made at Hillside where as the Chinese are Flat Bars Crisscrossing with several large Bolt's with Holes which were wearing away allowing the Break's to NOT APPLY properly which Resulted in the Train Set's from China NOT STOPPING within 60 Metres of the Design Spec's unlike the New Zealand Wagon's which were of a High Quality Design & Build !
Getting back to the extra $12.5 Million Originally wanted by Hillside Workshop's was to Upgrade the 2 Large Workshop Overhead 100Ton Gantry Crane's capable of Lifting a Complete Diesel Railway Locomotive when Replacing their Traction Motor Wheel Set's plus Lifing of Lighter Wagon's! There was other Modern Engineering Equipment they needed for this 10 year Contract!
Now even if the NZ Cost per wagon was slightly dearer than the Chinese at least that Cost would have been Kiwi Wages who would have been paying Taxes therefore the Government would have been get all that Taxe money back ! I understand that several other NZ Firm's were involved in Building Components for the NZ Project! 1000's of Well Paid Kiwi Job's & 100's of Young Kiwi Apprentices would have been trained over those 10 years across many Trades !
Then we had a Change of Government with NZ First Labour Coalition Government with Shane Jones RGF Regional Growth Fund giving Hillside Workshop's $20Million to upgrade the Facility BUT STILL NO NZ MADE WAGON'S Rolling out of Hillside Workshop's! Then the Labour Government under Jacinda's Raines she said we'll Bowl it All Over & Build you a New Modern Workshop which has a new Office at the Front going to Employ 45 People compared to Hillside back in it's Hayday had a Workforce of over 1200 !
Now this New Workshop Office plus Newly Setout Railway Yards is supposed to be COSTING Over $80Million if they can find the original Contract which I understand is well Over Budget! So instead of Upgrading a Perfectly Functional Workshop Foundry & the many Covered Car & Wagon Shop's with Rail access! Shane Jones spent $20 Million & Jacinda another $80+ Million when really $12.5 Million was all that was needed!
There's another Story to this Sad Sargure & that's the Story around A&G Price Engineer's in Thames who had Designed & Quoted to Build The New Diesel Locomotive's for Kiwi Rail which sadly English Key National Government didn't even Consider that Kiwi's were capable of Building High Quality Railway Equipment here in NZ even though A&G Price and Kiwi Rail had been both doing it for Over 130 Year's & A&G Price Engineer's are still Building & Repairing Railway Equipment under it's Private Ownership! So if you look at the Other side of Kiwi Rail it's more than just a Freight Company it has been a Huge Engineering Facilities around NZ which has been Slowly Destroyed by Our Government's Labour & National !
I'm not a Foamer I'm just an Engineer who can see the Benefits of Running a Well Oiled Railway Network along Our Narrow But Long Country with it's 2 Main Islands with it's Ferry System that has served NZ Well & should continue!
I'm the person behind BUY BACK CONTROL of MARSDEN POINT OIL REFINERY & We The General Public Shareholder's are Now over 52.6% therefore We have Control & we will be taking that Control very soon!
Cheers & GOD Bless
Karl Barkley
Engineer Farmer
Shareholder in CHANNEL INFRASTRUCTURE formally NZ Refining Company
027 5940090