News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Push to make trucks pay 

Push to make trucks pay

07 Jan, 2010 08:11 AM
THE long-haul trucking industry is facing renewed calls to pay its way, as pressure mounts to get heavy vehicles carrying dangerous goods off the roads after a spate of fatal accidents.

The Australasian Railway Association is increasingly confident that the review of the tax system by the Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry, will recommend road-user charges that will recover from the trucking industry more of the money spent building and maintaining main roads.

The New Zealand Government imposes road-user charges on ''diesel-powered heavy vehicles like trucks'', according to its Transport Agency website, while the Dutch Government announced last November that it would impose kilometre-based charges for all cars and heavy goods vehicles from 2012.

The rail association's chief executive, Brian Nye, said smaller trucks - such as those used by couriers and for deliveries to households and small businesses - were subsidising the massive B-double trucks and road trains that travel the highways.

''The current way we price road use is no longer sustainable,'' Mr Nye said. ''For example, I also own a farm, and to register a nine-tonne truck cost me less than to register my ute.''

Mr Nye was commenting after the Rail, Tram and Bus Union - with the support of the rail association and the motoring body NRMA - announced it would begin a campaign to change the law to require the transport of dangerous goods, such as fuel and chemicals, to and from the nearest available rail hub.

The NSW Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell, has called on the State Government to restore the subsidy it once provided for companies transporting fuel by rail, rather than road.

''Labor should acknowledge their mini-budget mistake [in November 2008], reinstate the subsidy and start promoting greater use of rail to transport freight, especially hazardous goods, across NSW," he said.

The Premier, Kristina Keneally, said using rail to move dangerous goods was ''an attractive proposition'' but would ''require a very different rail network from the one we currently have''.

''There is still the need to move things from a rail hub to their final destination and you can't build a rail system that provides a door-to-door service,'' she said.

A 2006 Productivity Commission report found that heavy trucks contributed just over $1.6 billion to the total road spending of $10.4 billion. The fuel excise raised $1.07 billion, while $550 million came from registrations.

In a report for the House of Representatives economics committee, Philip Laird, a freight and logistics expert at the University of Wollongong, used a benchmark established by a NSW road freight inquiry to calculate that the unrecovered costs of road transport were $3 billion a year. These included $1.5 billion in construction and maintenance, $850 million in road trauma and $850 million in pollution and carbon emissions.

The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics last year estimated the volume of freight to be carted around Australia would double within the next 20 years.

Mr Nye said the cost of the Melbourne-Brisbane inland freight line was $3.5 billion, which ''could remove every truck from the Newell Highway''.

The rail union says one train of 24 wagons, each carrying up to 60,000 litres of fuel, could replace up to 150 fuel tankers on the road.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
The Puppet Keneally said rail transport would ''require a very different rail network from the one we currently have''? I don't suppose for a minute that she is referring to one that actually receives some government funding for maintenance, does she?
Posted by bluhills, 7/01/2010 12:19:10 PM
It was rail unionists who wrecked the rail transport system with their go-slow-work-to-rules racketeering, extended strike action & no-card no-start racket. Now they want the road transport industry to fund its restoration.
Posted by jock, 7/01/2010 4:21:19 PM
Don't blame the truckies or trucking companies. If Australia had a decent rail network, many of the trucks would be off the roads. Why aren't the royalties from mining invested in a decent rail infrastructure?
Posted by Greenie, 8/01/2010 6:51:40 AM
The "very different rail network" is actually the one we used to have and which used to work very well. Thirty years ago if I needed a part for a machine I telephoned the seller in suburban Sydney and they consigned it "COD rail" from their local station. It then went on the mail train overnight and arrived at the local rail depot, where a local courier picked it up and brought it right to me by about mid-morning. I paid him the invoice value plus freight. Now when I want something from a capital city I order it online, pay by credit card or EFT, and wait for some damn contract logistics company to find it in their warehouse, eventually move it to their despatch dock, load it and send it to another depot where they "lose it" overnight, then in a day or so it comes to the regional/rural carrier depot, and if I'm lucky, they call me to say I can come and pick it up. Oh - and I can track it all the way on line to see just how slowly it is being shuffled around. Please don't talk about the convenience of door-to-door service from road freight. The poppet (puppet) Premier is just siding with the TWU, who caused the abandonment of the rail freight system in the early 1980s.
Posted by AJ, 8/01/2010 7:39:55 AM
The trucking industry should not be compromised for the failure of government to invest or manage rail. Howard had the resources and era to build a world class rail network but believed the market would sort it out. Australia is simply to big a country with too few people for such a system to work. All it creates is duopolies and oligopolies and supports inefficiencies with costs which can be passed onto the consumer. Let's see Australia built for the future instead of for political terms.
Posted by Future Vision, 8/01/2010 7:43:34 AM
The $3.5B proposed cost for the rail network is pie-in-the-sky dream figures. Add in the cost of rolling stock, additional staff, handling facilities at every point the train stops, and it's more like $30B. Add in another $100B for interest and fees on loans, and the taxpayers are saddled with debt for 100 years, just like all the previous rail networks did. In the 1980s, the WA Govt was still paying interest on loans from the 1890s for rail infrastructure. Add in the fact that recent railway infrastructure such as the Adelaide-Alice Springs-Darwin link, is struggling to pay its way, and generate enough business to overcome the enormous cost of the rolling stock and its running cost. What about a train wreck? One train wreck caused by a level crossing smash resulted in a $30M damages bill, a huge loss of goods, and a rail network out of action for a week. One passenger train wrecks has the potential to kill dozens and dozens of people - and we've had numerous train wrecks in the last 5 years, that only just avoided a big death toll by pure luck. Ahhh, but a lot of those train wrecks were caused by trucks, eh? Far better, to ban trucks completely, and make them disappear forever.
Posted by Ron N, 8/01/2010 7:53:49 AM
Mr Nye - Here's a simpler solution than your rail dream that will become a regular-loss incurring, debt burden for the next 100 years. Try putting the effort into removing cowboys from the trucking industry. Remove the bikie links. Remove those who use any type of drug, be it alcohol, or illegal drugs. Clamp down on despatchers and drivers who insist on excessive hours behind the wheel. Introduce thorough and highly professional driver training schemes that give truck drivers the status they deserve for their accumulated skills and good driving record. There's no difference in the road toll between two cars colliding head-on at a combined 200kmh, as there is with a car colliding with a truck at a combined 200kmh - and regular head-on smashes occur between cars, due to poor driving skills. However, I don't see calls for all cars to be removed from roads, because the road toll is unacceptable. It's time for driving skills of EVERY driver to be upgraded, and stages of proficiency introduced. Three quarters of the car drivers on the road don't even have a clue about cutting in front of trucks, or allowing trucks room to turn. Let's get some common sense into the overall solution.
Posted by Ron N, 8/01/2010 8:05:08 AM
Have just driven from Sydney to Adelaide and cannot imagine how many semis, B doubles, and road trains I passed on the way. Every truck afforded me due courtesy in both passing and overtaking. Doesn't every motorist pay for the raods, when we ALL buy fuel the Federal Government takes excise and duties ???? And why does that money go into consolidated revenue, and not immediately go into roadworks ?? Where is the duty of care ?? The Newell Highway - instead of being upgraded, has had the speed limit downgraded to 100. It appears easier for the bureaucrats to change the speed signage rather than upgrade to road conditions, provide overtaking lanes, provide additional truck rest areas etc etc . . .
Posted by Driven up the wall., 8/01/2010 8:59:56 AM
How does this brains trust think that primary produce gets to markets and food onto the supermarket shelves...? Last time I looked there were no train stations out at the farm or at isle 5 in Woolies or Coles. Idiots !!!!!
Posted by thomasthetank, 8/01/2010 9:06:08 AM
All reads a bit like the start (or renewal) of a union turf war really. Rail used to work just fine in conjuction with local/regional road until the combination was dismantled. Oh - on the subject of road safety - I've investigated 2000 or so crashes in the last 20 years, (including lots of heavy vehicle crashes and some 200+ km/h combined speed B-double crashes - fairly nasty). Goods trains don't carry passengers, and train crashes are about as rare as aircraft crashes. Rail is an extremely safe mode of transport because of the rigid physical separation from oncoming traffic and the very limited exposure to any intersecting traffic. Articulated road vehicles are less than half a percent of the total number of vehicles on the road, but are involved in more than 1% of fatal crashes - that is, they are over-represented by a factor of two in killing people on the road. Heavy transport should not be on the road any further than it has to be - it should be on rail. A proper rail network is also massively better for the environment over time.
Posted by AJ, 8/01/2010 10:45:57 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
06 January, 2010
POLL
Q: Do you believe your farm business will turn a profit in 2010?

Definitely
(10.4%)

Probably
(16.2%)

Maybe
(17.8%)

Break even
(15.2%)

Probably make a loss
(40.4%)

Total Votes: 512
Poll Date: 04 January, 2010

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...