[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AP to Darwin on hold "YET AGAIN"
- Subject: Re: AP to Darwin on hold "YET AGAIN"
- From: Chris Brownbill <cbrnbill@enternet.com.au>
- Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 22:50:50 +1000
- Newsgroups: aus.rail
- Organization: .
- References: <3ac11618.398792@can-news.tpg.com.au> <3ac1e129_3@news01.one.net.au> <3ac2dca5@nap-ns1.netconnect.net.au> <3AC2E602.3695086E@fang.omni.com.au> <3ac2fa24.39775763@can-news.tpg.com.au> <3ac34765$0$25479$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <3ac3ea1b.6429987@can-news.tpg.com.au> <3ac49246$0$25489$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au> <3ac67c5d.3116165@can-news.tpg.com.au>
- Xref: news1.unite.net.au aus.rail:34032
Maurie Daly wrote:
> It is generally agreed though ,(BTE and PC confirm this ) that heavy
> trucks that are doing regular long distance trips are underpaying
> their way ,and trucks used for short trip deliveries within the cities
> are being overcharged , as well as the poor motorists who are being
> grossly overcharged.
>
Many years ago, and I wish I could recall where, I read a report on the physics of road damage which claimed that an average truck did the same damage to road surface and bridge structures as many millions of cars - presumably because of the much greater deformation due to the heavier axle-load.
If this ratio is true, then to have true cost-recovery of our roads, just about the entire cost of interstate highway maintenance would have to be funded by trucks.