Something has been bugging me (okay a lot of things) about the announcement of heavier trucks by Steven Joyce last week and today I realised what it is. Once we get them they aren’t going away, at least not through political channels (unless a Green MP is Transport Minister).
Why?
Well, the government is going to spend tens of millions strengthening bridges throughout the country to handle these trucks and trucking companies are going to invest in the trucks capable of the heavier loads. Labour is unlikely to reverse the decision after those two actions have taken place (the powerful Trucking Lobby would ensure they were crucified in the media as anti-business or wasting taxpayers previous infrastructure spending) in my opinion, so now they are coming, they are here to stay, unless trucking becomes much less economic. This post from Fare Free New Zealand examines some of the safety, economic, environmental and peak ‘cheap’ oil issues relating to the decision:
5000 mammoth rigs add to road-clogged mayhem
Over Easter weekend 12 people perished in road smashes, and dozens more were hospitalised.
But during the same week the government announced that up to 5000 over-sized super-rigs will be permitted on our roads, with loads up to 53 tonnes each.There are already too many vehicles clogging up our roads. Trucks are involved in 16% of all deaths on NZ roads, even though they comprise only 4% of the vehicle fleet. Another 5000 mammoth trucks will make our roads even more deadly.
More fuel guzzling trucks will also churn up our roads and waste precious fuel as we reach peak oil and peak asphalt .. and undermine rail freight services.Peter De Waal comments:
The NZ Herald Editorial on Wednesday Apr 7, 2010: “Danger from heavier loads simple physics” about the proposal to increase the weight limits of trucks used on selected our roads, does not raise any serious opposition to the plan.
The decision to use 53 tonne as opposed to 44 tonne trucks on New Zealand’s 60-year-old fragile roading system is one based on faith, not economics.
New Zealand’s roads were well-built, but poorly engineered. The lack of adequate shoulder areas and the sharp radius of turns throughout the system point to shortcuts in planning and budgets. Such fine details of road construction are lost on most commuters, as they drive small vehicles weighing only 1000-2000 Kg. Trying to punt a heavy truck around such bends, where you are totally committed to the line you choose at the start of the apex, is a different matter entirely.
Trucks are around 8 times less energy efficient than rail transportation. The price of oil is predicted to rise sharply after 2012, so any “efficiency gains” from the use of heavier trucks is likely to be wiped out.
A recent article by Kurt Cobb about future oil supplies, shows world oil production – currently around 86 million barrels-per-day (BPD) – will fall to 80 million BPD by 2016; 67 million BPD by 2020; and to 60 million BPD by 2023.
These numbers are based on research by Glenn Sweetman of the US Government’s Energy Information Administration, an authoritative source. In the same period worldwide demand is slated to increase to 90 million BPD by 2016; 95 million BPD by 2020; and to 98 million BPD by 2023.
The highly efficient stock market will respond to this shortage by bidding up prices, to levels far higher than seen in 2007 when oil briefly reached US$147 a barrel. This will effectively shut-down world trade. So much for the National parties’ optimistic predictions of ever increasing trucking volumes.
The problem of road wear will be greatly increased buy the use of heavier long-distance trucks. It will fall to ratepayers and families renting housing to foot the bill for strengthening bridges and frequently rebuilding broken-up highways. The materials required for this repair work are also rapidly increasing in price, such as the diesel fuel to power heavy excavators etc., but most importantly asphalt, for which a world-wide shortage has begun. The NZ government also believes that such excess weight vehicles can be restricted to a few specially-strengthened roads. The recent grounding of a coal bulk carrier in the Great Barrier reefs shows, with all it’s potential for environmental disaster, that if money can be saved by taking a short-cut, it will be.
Given the oil and asphalt crises about to burst on New Zealand, it would be prudent to prioritise rail and shipping, and limit the distances and weights trucks can carry.
The trucks themselves have a relatively short life span of around 10 years. Railway rolling stock lasts for decades. The New Zealand public are effectively paying for an entirely new transport infrastructure every decade. No wonder New Zealand is so far behind other OECD countries. The economic dividend of this waste is paid to trucking bosses and their political supporters, but the real political dividend is the individualism and atomisation of the workforce that small, highly competitive trucking companies create. No capitalist government, be it National or Labour, wants to see the resurgence of rail, and the rail unions.
I recently listened to an interview of Colin Campbell about his life-long career as an oil geologist and Peak Oil where he made the point that “China had it’s economic boom at 5 seconds to midnight.” The same blind subjectivism seems to rule New Zealand’s bosses, who think their overdeveloped sense of personal entitlement and some vague idea of “New Zealand exceptionalism” will make up for a global energy shortage. “Yeah, right.”
Such short-sighted planning, based only on the needs of the next quarter’s profit report, are about to undo the current crop of leaders. But you won’t read that in the New Zealand Herald…
Processing...
That last sentence about how the public has to pick up the tab to allow trucking companies to make more profit really leaves me gob-smacked. It just goes to show that National is intent on paying back it’s political donors via corporate welfare that will leave us all poorer and more polluting as a society.
The interesting thing will be if councils allow them, if they don’t then unless their destinations border the state highways then they won’t be able to be used. I wonder if there will be any way to easily identify trucks carrying extra weight. I imagine a few operators would flout the weight limit rules and just drive where they wanted to(some probably do already)
Well I don’t think any council should… If it is right wing council it wants to keep rates as low as possible and this will raise them and if it is a left wing council it wants safety and pollution as low as possible and this will raise them…
It seems like a no brainer to stay at 44 tons (and even review this weight as maybe too high if RUCs don’t cover the damage) but so does leaving the PTMA alone… In both cases private companies (trucking and bus companies) want the short term profits at the expense of the rate paying public and Joyce has given it to them…
“the Ministry of Transport has admitted this by stating it is only fair that ratepayer pick up the tab for 50% of the extra damage done to local roads”
Do you have a source for this? I’d assumed that the RUCs would have been formulated in such a way as to cover all road damage. But you’re saying that it is a policy position that they aren’t.
As for the quoted article, it mixes in so many different issues that I can’t figure out what it is proposing. It starts out talking about truck size safety, wanders off in to peak oil theory, includes a mention about a cargo vessel grounding, compares rolling stock and truck lifespans, compares NZ to other OECD countries (as if we were the only country in the world to have trucks on our roads), introduces a theory about union influence, and talks about wear and tear on roads and who should pay for it. I think the overall theme is that rail should be used for more freight transport, but until we have rail spurs terminating in every supermarket, petrol station, factory, and farm in the country then trucks will continue to be a feature of the transport landscape. The question then is simple: Do we want fewer larger ones, or more smaller ones?
Here are the url’s of the articles I based my opinion piece on:
NZ Herald Editorial: “Danger from heavier loads simple physics”:
Kurt Cobb on future oil supplies:
Peak Asphalt:
Colin Campbell on his life-long career as an oil geologist and Peak Oil
These are informative pieces based on solid research. I would also recommend having a look at:
“US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015”:
Their seems to be a convergence of informed opinion and data around shortages starting in 2012. New Zealand’s head-in-the-sand leaders must get these reports, after all what do Parliamentary Services and the GCSB get paid for?
I guess when you have a personal fortune of $50 million and live at 35,000 feet like Key does you see the world differently.
Regarding rtc’s comment: “That last sentence about how the public has to pick up the tab to allow trucking companies to make more profit really leaves me gob-smacked”
• Rogernomics was about the privatisation of profits and externalisation of costs for corporations. Truck and bus operators don’t pay the cost of the damage they cause to the roads now, let alone for 53 tonne vehicles. Labour and National are as one with this pro-market formula. The sale of billions of publicly-owned assets such as Telecom, rail, forestry, power generation, airports, state housing, education, etc. the list goes on and on. The rich have pulled $billions out of NZ over the last 25 years and New Zealand society has paid the price with reduced living standards and all the social problems it causes. The issue now is that “PERIL” means that it will no longer be possible to externalise operating costs. By “PERIL” I mean:
• Profitability crisis – squeezing the lifeblood of capitalism, capitalism has always had a “free lunch” from the earth and workers, now that’s over
• Ecological crisis – undermining the natural basis for civilisation
• Resource crises – oil, water, food, minerals, land, you name it
• Imperial crisis – U.S. Power is declining, but global capitalism cannot support a bigger hegemon
• Legitimacy crisis – both the leaders and the led are loosing faith in capitalism’s destiny as it becomes more transparently undemocratic
If you want to know more I suggest you read Grant Morgan’s essay “Beware! The End Is Nigh” on unityaoteoroa.blogspot.com
sorry I can’t get the URL’s to come up on this post… Have a look at Fare Free NZ – they are being posted there.
“the Ministry of Transport has admitted this by stating it is only fair that ratepayer pick up the tab for 50% of the extra damage done to local roads”
Do you have a source for this? I’d assumed that the RUCs would have been formulated in such a way as to cover all road damage. But you’re saying that it is a policy position that they aren’t.
Obi – this was in the Herald last week http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10636549
“The ministry says local authorities will receive 50 per cent of the cost of extra wear and tear as Government subsidies, leaving ratepayers “who benefit from the regional stimulus and economic and community benefits” to meet the rest.”
Thanks Matt. The AA guy quoted in the article says that the government hasn’t detailed how the RUCs will be allocated, which might (or might not, depending on interpretation) contradict the 50% statement. I wonder if there is a primary source from the Ministry?
(It would be nice if journalists would list sources for their articles, such as academic papers and Wikipedia do. It is as if journalists still expect us to take their word for the things they write. While I think things have changed and in the Internet age people expect to be able to both verify information and to use primary sources to better inform themselves about issues.)
Peter: “The rich have pulled $billions out of NZ over the last 25 years and New Zealand society has paid the price with reduced living standards and all the social problems it causes.”
I’m not sure what “pulled $billions out of NZ” is supposed to mean. Are you saying that money is being lost to the NZ economy? If so, how?
But what reduced living standards? By any objective measure NZ is a much better place than it was in 1984. People have much higher incomes, unemployment is lower, the goods and services available are much improved, and NZ is a far more interesting place to live. More people have access to tertiary education and you could argue that health services have improved. We’re more multicultural, have more bars and cafes, and more “stuff happens” to make NZ a vibrant and fun place to live. I did most of my growing up in pre-1984 NZ and have absolutely no desire to go back to things the way they were.
“By any objective measure NZ is a much better place than it was in 1984.”
Have you read the State of the Environment report released last year..? It measured the massive decline in our environment over the last 20 years, so maybe “by most objective measures”…
I will say this has been a pretty “hard left” post, I’ve asked a libertarian to do a guest post to spark some debate…
Jeremy: “It measured the massive decline in our environment over the last 20 years, so maybe “by most objective measures”…”
I don’t see a massive decline. Vehicles have become much cleaner and more efficient and the old bangers which characterised NZ’s vehicle fleet are mostly gone. We’ve started to generate power from windmills. Recycling was rare in the 1980s but is normal now. We have energy efficient appliances and lighting. Proper sewerage treatment is more widespread… the sewerage ponds out near the airport are closed and Wellington isn’t dumping raw sewerage in to the sea at Moa Point. We have far more land protected in national parks and other conservation areas. Most of the dirty manufacturing industry has moved overseas. We’re protecting wetlands that would have been seen as waste land 20 years ago. We’re protecting native birds on offshore islands. And we did all that while growing our population and increasing our incomes by a large amount.
There are obviously still problems such as erosion, protection of native birds on the mainland, and leakage of agricultural waste in to rivers and lakes. But these have been a problem for a long time, aren’t getting worse as far as I can see, and NZ has one of the best environments in the world.
Read the report Obi, it is by the independent Environment Commissioner, it makes for poor reading…
Are you talking about the report at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/enz07-dec07/index.html Jeremy? I’ve read all the “at a glance” summary sections and it is pretty upbeat. I didn’t see anything to suggest a massive decline in our environment, which pretty much agrees with what I see looking around me.
“The question then is simple: Do we want fewer larger ones, or more smaller ones?”
Fewer, smaller ones. Less road damage, less lumbering trucks holding up traffic, less damage in an accident.
The fact is that I would reduce the current trucks max from 44 to 30. We’d save GOBS on roads maintenance. And we’d only have, maybe, 25% more trucks (smaller ones) on our roads, which isn’t much – seeing that (roughly speaking, correct me if you have better figures) only about 4-5% of our traffic is trucks. So by a minimal amount of extra traffic, we’d end up with massive savings (due to the fact that the x4 road damage multiplier works backwards too).
@Obi, yes… I guess we have a different opinion then of what is acceptable decline and increase in per capita consumption but that is only natural…
@Max, how about when a road reaches resurfacing we lay it so it can handle 3 ton vehicles and if the trucking companies want to use it they can pay for the rest of the required thickness…
With these larger trucks I worry about stability of the logging and bulk trucks especially. These had a terribly high rollover rate, until they were allowed to be 2m longer in the early 2000’s. Allowing 53 tonne trucks would make these trucks unstable once again, and we could see a higher accident rate.
This rule change wont actually affect too many trucks. Trucks carrying light goods such as supermarket deliveries generally run out of space in the truck before they reach the weight limit.
Logging and bulk trucks will benefit the most, however these have a very diverse range of routes, with deliveries to a variety of rural areas, so will need alot of council approvals before they are able to be much use.
I think this is a stopgap measure for introducing 25m long, 62 tonne trucks which is what the RTF really want.
Max you make an interesting point about whether there’s a good business case for reducing the maximum weight of trucks. I wonder if the Ministry of Transport has ever analysed that?
Max – of the $2.4 bn per year which goes into the National Land Transport Fund, nearly $900m of it comes from road user charges (fuel duty comprises about $1.3 bn). The way the system works is that if you take trucks off the road, you do reduce the costs of maintenance, but you also reduce the RUC money going in. Roughly, the system is designed to be revenue-neutral.
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/national-land-transport-programme/2008/national-summary/img/figure1.gif
Except 50% of local roading costs are paid for out of rates, not the NLTF, meaning trucks are getting a piggy back from the ratepayer…
Most trucks wont be able to take advantage of the higher weights, as at some point they need to travel on council roads to get from A to B, then to C. This will require so many permits it wont be worth it, also over a week a truck may travel through maybe 20 areas needing permits. The weight restrictions may be different for each council & therefore un-workable.
A truck may need 53t of RUC to get from Auckland to Wellington, but if the truck returns through New Plymouth it may only be allowed to run at 44 (current weights) tonne. Is it worth running RUC at 53 tonne when only half the journey will be at that weight?
Also, it is worth purchasing a truck that needs to made up to a couple of tonne heavier to take advantege of the new weights when they can only be carried part of the time?
The problem with rail is that goods still need to travel by road (truck) to and from railway lines. In a small county like NZ there is too much double handling for the short distance travelled.
Ian, yes you’re right in that if councils say “no” to heavier trucks then basically the whole rule change is dead in the water.