Road vs rail transport

[bogan]

This actually becomes a moot point, for if all the RUC collected would actually be spent on roading we'd have far better roads than we do now. Blame the consolidated fund...



RUCs on light vehicles are a moot point, for the tax take from petrol is much of a muchness compared to the diesel version and RUCs. Be better if both fuels were taxed though, for driving consumption down would have positive flow on effects.



My daily driver is a 50 tonne unit on 9 axles and it's at around $0.58 per km, or $580 per 1000 km. We're doing about 250,000 km per year, and there's plenty of big rigs that do this type of mileage, so how can one figure the transport industry is being subsidised on this topic? Include the RUC for the tradies diesel runabout and the overall running cost is much the same as if he was running a petrol version...so I'm puzzled how one can make the assertion that light diesel vehicles provide a subsidy to the larger ones...the numbers don't stack up??

Having just got back from an unplanned trip to the US for a funeral, the sight of stack trains stays with me, never a practical solution for NZ of course...but that's a pretty serious way to move bulk numbers of boxes.

Road vs rail will be mired in the discussion pits as long as one lobby is better connected than the other I'd say. And then the protests about Auckland Ports wanting to extend the wharf a little, I'm guessing Joe Public has a segment that's way out of touch with any reality

Have you a source for that assertion?

Because it does 250,000km worth of road damage in a year. The notion of bigger vehicles being subsidised by smaller ones for road damage hinges on the fact that bigger ones do more damage; I doubt it would even be linear by weight, you'll probably find that twice the weight is 3 times the road damage; I was just using per ton/km for ease of comparison. Ie, your daily driver costs $11.6/ton.kkm while my bike costs over $200/ton.kkm, my van over $30/ton.kkm how can you possibly think bigger vehicles are not being subsidised by smaller ones?

[caspernz]

Have you a source for that assertion?

The NZTA calculator for petrol vs diesel light vehicles confirms personal research, petrol version being only a little more expensive in running costs per annum.

Because it does 250,000km worth of road damage in a year. The notion of bigger vehicles being subsidised by smaller ones for road damage hinges on the fact that bigger ones do more damage; I doubt it would even be linear by weight, you'll probably find that twice the weight is 3 times the road damage; I was just using per ton/km for ease of comparison. Ie, your daily driver costs $11.6/ton.kkm while my bike costs over $200/ton.kkm, my van over $30/ton.kkm how can you possibly think bigger vehicles are not being subsidised by smaller ones?

Interesting logic on the last bit, wouldn't think to compare it that way. Vehicle types aren't even the same yet you make a valid point on pavement wear. So if we make the RUC cost for trucks in the order of $30/ton.kkm we'll have a valid case for rail again

[bogan]

Interesting logic on the last bit, wouldn't think to compare it that way. Vehicle types aren't even the same yet you make a valid point on pavement wear. So if we make the RUC cost for trucks in the order of $30/ton.kkm we'll have a valid case for rail again

Sorry, I was unclear, I am questioning the assertion that RUC's gathered (inc excise tax) would more than pay for the maintenance of the roads.

Maybe, like I said above, I'm not sure the damage increase is linear with weight. In any case, when RUC reaches such a value, we'll have valid cause to claim trucking is no longer subsidised in that fashion; whether that creates a good case for rail is another story...

[Swoop]

Well, the loss-making railways are in for another shakeup.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=11866318


Interesting since Auckland is throwing $$'s at the inner city loop, but commuter rail is viable in a large city.
Unfortunately the moronic labour Clarke/Cullen government emptied the piggy-bank on this rail buy-back fiasco yet did not require long distance freight to utilize it. So essentially wasted money in an attempt to prop-up its union and voter base.
Nationwide rail? What does the future hold in store for it? Freight? Tourism? Abandonment (rip up the tracks and scrap the lot)?

[TheDemonLord]

Nationwide rail? What does the future hold in store for it? Freight? Tourism?

There needs to be:

High Speed Commuter rail - imagine being able to commute from Whangarei or Hamilton to Auckland to work - using the Train.
Mass Transit rail - The Underground, the Metro - all the big cities in the world have realised that these things work and are great for getting around a city
Tourist services - Currently most major airports around the world have a Rail link - so that jetlagged visitors don't have to drive (or catch expensive Taxis) from the Airport to the inner city (where their Hotel is)
Freight - All I'm going to say is we have 3 times the number of trucks on our roads (per capita) when compared to the UK.

[FJRider]

Sorry, I was unclear, I am questioning the assertion that RUC's gathered (inc excise tax) would more than pay for the maintenance of the roads.

That assertion is merely a moot point. It would depend on where the funds gathered from RUC charges went. If it goes into the consolidated fund (as speeding [and other]fines) go ... RUC charges are not the only "provider" of funds for this account. Nor is road repairs the only subject of spending from the consolidated fund.

The downside is ... citizens of NZ do not decide priority of spending.

Maybe, like I said above, I'm not sure the damage increase is linear with weight. In any case, when RUC reaches such a value, we'll have valid cause to claim trucking is no longer subsidised in that fashion; whether that creates a good case for rail is another story...

Damage comes with an increase of use ... not necessarily with a increase in weight of vehicles (but commonly given blame for). An increase of the volume of traffic on roads not designed/expected/built for ... do not help. The "New" state highway one in the south island is a good example of this. In this case ... rail (at the moment) is not an option due to earthquake damage.

As is the the case in "Cause of accidents" ... cause of damage to roads is should not be put down to just one factor ... but to a number of factors. In the "blame game" ... just look at where the finger is pointed (and just as importantly .. at who is doing the pointing).

[GazzaH]

When the oil runs out, it would be good to know that long distances could be travelled by electric trains, leaving local/commuting to electric cars and bikes. Electric planes? No chance!

[Swoop]

There needs to be:

High Speed Commuter rail - imagine being able to commute from Whangarei or Hamilton to Auckland to work - using the Train.

I have been informed that a re-commencement of the Hamilton to Auckland rail service is planned.
If the Snailways want to get with the times, USB charging ports and wifi connectivity would bring them in line with other services.
I loved the UK trains last year.

[Voltaire]

There needs to be:

High Speed Commuter rail - imagine being able to commute from Whangarei or Hamilton to Auckland to work - using the Train.
Mass Transit rail - The Underground, the Metro - all the big cities in the world have realised that these things work and are great for getting around a city
Tourist services - Currently most major airports around the world have a Rail link - so that jetlagged visitors don't have to drive (or catch expensive Taxis) from the Airport to the inner city (where their Hotel is)
Freight - All I'm going to say is we have 3 times the number of trucks on our roads (per capita) when compared to the UK.

What sort of 'work' are we talking about?, the days of Presenteeism are numbered, I could do most of my work from a laptop anywhere.
I take the train into town rather than the car but the bike/scooter is about 1/2 the time door to door.
Other than the rush hour I imagine the Auckland trains are pretty empty.

[TheDemonLord]

What sort of 'work' are we talking about?, the days of Presenteeism are numbered, I could do most of my work from a laptop anywhere.
I take the train into town rather than the car but the bike/scooter is about 1/2 the time door to door.
Other than the rush hour I imagine the Auckland trains are pretty empty.

I love working remotely - but there are still jobs where there is either a need to be present (ie non-office work) or there is an expectation to be present (such as a service role)

All I'm going to say is: No rail link from the North shore to the City, No Rail link between the 2 of the most densely populated areas in the Country.

[russd7]

Sorry, I was unclear, I am questioning the assertion that RUC's gathered (inc excise tax) would more than pay for the maintenance of the roads..

they obviously don't now, already been two deaths on the road between Riverton and Wallacetown due to tar bleed and wet roads, add to that the seven other vehicles that have left the road since nov last year (one of those a cop).

the reason given, not enough money to repair the roads

[Voltaire]

I love working remotely - but there are still jobs where there is either a need to be present (ie non-office work) or there is an expectation to be present (such as a service role)

All I'm going to say is: No rail link from the North shore to the City, No Rail link between the 2 of the most densely populated areas in the Country.

Only way they are ever going to happen in your lifetime is if foreign firms build it as NZ firms are like watching paint dry.
Auckland transport is going to get worse before/if it gets better.
Milk, tourists and wine can only pay for so much...

[BMWST?]

i think a lot of the long haul stuff could actually be done with more rail.Whatever the truth of funding is Rail Build and maintain the tracks,the NZ tax payer builds the roads,then we all pay to use it.There is no doubt RUC is onerous for heavy vehicles but the heavy vehicles do strss the roads.I belive some of the biggest trucks are just to big for some of our roads.The cost of RUC pales in comparison if the truckies had to build their own roads.Another poster ha alreadu pointed out that some time in the near future we will need systems other than diesel trucks to move our freight.

[Ocean1]

Damage comes with an increase of use ... not necessarily with a increase in weight of vehicles.

At least one official report put the share of maintenance costs due to damage caused by trucking at over 90%, I don't doubt that at all.

i think a lot of the long haul stuff could actually be done with more rail.

Rail for freight ceased being an option pretty much forever once they sold off all of the rail sidings, shunting yards and port facilities. Thank you NZR/RMTU. You could still deliver inter-city, but you'd have to make new facilities just out of town, where the freight would get transferred to ......

Overseas experience shows it's almost impossible to retro-fit light rail to cities that never had it, the cost involved in buying up hundreds of existing multi billion dollar city-center buildings to establish the corridor is just insurmountable. Me, I'd do it anyway, fuck the rest of the budget for a decade or two, you end up with a city that's actually useable. Elevated rail is fucking ugly, still needs bulk land for terminals and in most instances ends up well short of any effective capacity. Sydney was recently talking of dismantling theirs. Underground is the way to go I think, absolutely hideous cost but at least you get an effective solution.

[TheDemonLord]

At least one official report put the share of maintenance costs due to damage caused by trucking at over 90%, I don't doubt that at all.



Rail for freight ceased being an option pretty much forever once they sold off all of the rail sidings, shunting yards and port facilities. You could still deliver inter-city, but you'd have to make new facilities just out of town, where the freight would get transferred to ......

Overseas experience shows it's almost impossible to retro-fit light rail to cities that never had it, the cost involved in buying up hundreds of existing multi billion dollar city-center buildings to establish the corridor is just insurmountable. Me, I'd do it anyway, fuck the rest of the budget for a decade or two, you end up with a city that's actually useable. Elevated rail is fucking ugly, still needs bulk land for terminals and in most instances ends up well short of any effective capacity. Sydney was recently talking of dismantling theirs. Underground is the way to go I think, absolutely hideous cost but at least you get an effective solution.

Well, if we rounded up all the people on the Benefit and put them to work, wouldn't be so bad...