Steve
Lynn Sleath has already provided information on the New Zealand study, but unfortunately the others are not available electronically. The references to the Australian studies are:
Economics of Road Vehicle Limits Study done from 1974 to 1976 by the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities (NAASRA), now Austroads;
The Review of Road Vehicle Limits Study, also by NAASRA in 1985; and
The Mass Limits Review undertaken by the National Road Transport Commission from 1994 to 1996. Copies of the work of this project (6 reports in all) are available from NRTC (see www.nrtc.gov.au) We may be able to provide an electronic copy of the Executive Summary if you want.
As far as benefits go, an order of magnitude can be gained by looking at a task of 1000 tonnes over 1000 kms undertaken by our Australian 6 axle articulated vehicles. For pavement costs alone a simple calculation can be done at a cost of 3.5 cents per ESA km. The value comes from the reduction in the fleet necessary for the task. The vehicle cost increases from (say) $1.50 to $1.55 per kilometre for the extra 3 tonnes payload. The figures below do not include return travel (double the savings) or bridge costs but you should be able to see the trend.
Pre increase
Post increase
steer
6
6
drive
16.5
17
triaxle
20
22.5
ESAs
5.06
6.15
tare
16.5
16.5
gross
42.5
45.5
payload (tonnes)
26
29
task (tonnes)
1,000
1,000
trips
38.46
34.48
costs
distance (kms)
1000
1000
ESA kms
194,489
212,191
unit cost ($)
0.035
0.035
total cost
$6,807
$7,427
increased cost
$620
benefits
total travel (kms)
38,462
34,483
unit cost (per km)
$1.50
$1.55
total cost
$57,692
$53,448
total savings
$4,244
B/C
6.85
I am dealing here only with the pure financial aspects of a mass limit increase, not the political aspects about how to charge for the additional costs etc. I agree that they are difficult issues but it needs to be clear that, in most cases, the benefits of more productive trucks will exceed the costs. Savings in fossil fuels, gaseous emissions and other environmental benefits are also be to had. The main problem is that the road agency pays and the community benefits through lower prices. If a more productive (and significantly safer) configuration such as a B-train could be introduced, the benefits are even greater.
Cheers
Bob Pearson
Pearsons Transport Resource Centre P/L
PO Box 421
Mitcham Vic 3132
tel: + 613 9844 2555
fax: + 613 9844 2209
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, September 12, 2002 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Not daytime running lights but truck size and weight
In a message dated 9/10/02 8:53:03 PM Mountain Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes:
Studies have been done, including at least 3 in Australia and 1 in New Zealand that show there is a very positive economic impacts on society from increasing truck size and weight. The costs are indeed for pavements and bridges but the savings in transport costs (passed onto the community) at at least 4 times higher than the costs. There are certainly challenges, including ensuring that trucks pay for any additional road and bridge wear, packaging the weight increases to provide the best outcomes and overcoming community fears about bigger and heavier trucks.
Hi Bob -
I figured that my comments would elevate your heart rate, and the heart rates of many others on this list.
I enjoyed reading your response, as I have never seen such studies. The "4 times" benefit/cost ratio would be quite impressive.... but I'm sorry to say that I am still quite skeptical. Are any of those studies available on the internet?
I spent much of my career working for governmental agencies, and trying to plan our road budgets. I could never figure out a way to recover the costs of the damage from overweight trucks and buses.... since fines were collected in the court system and benefited their budgets and the budgets of the enforcement agencies.
Trying to raise taxes on trucks is like committing suicide for a bureaucrat -- but that is what has to happen if larger, heavier trucks are to be charged for increased pavement and bridge damage on public roads.
I understand the fourth power equation (and have worked with Professor Matt Witzak - now at Arizona State University - on asphalt-related technologies), so the additional axle ideas work great for the pavements. The bridges remain a huge and seemingly insurmountable problem for larger GVW's. We already spend staggering amounts of money on bridges in comparison to at-grade pavements.
In summary, there seem to be big problems for most road agencies in considering bigger and heavier trucks.... but it is the actual budgetary problems that pose the most difficult challenges.
A leading-edge idea currently being forwarded by the Reason Public Policy Institute is to develop a separate truck tollway system utilizing very large trucks for intercity freight transport. You may want to check it out at www.reason.org, or www.rppi.org. Since there would be no truck weight changes on public roads, government agencies are not impacted, and society could capture the economic benefits that you claim. If those benefits are as large as you claim, a private truck toll road system would be astoundingly efficient (except, perhaps, for muriel and others who apparently don't want us to drive or our economies to grow).
Best regards,
Steve Mueller
Denver, CO, USA
