Re: AP to Darwin on hold "YET AGAIN"

["William Miller" <backtran@optusnet.com.au>]

Ah. You said "4400 trucks use the Hume Highway every nite in both
directions" which I took to mean as the total (ie *for* both directions)
when really you meant 4400 in *each* direction.

Roads certainly collect more than they spend - the givernment has decided to
collect tax in this way. It's not a profit really, it's a tax. Profit is
when you work real hard, make a product and get people to fork over of their
own volition, tax (as in this case) is the govt just taking it as another
source of revenue. Also this is more joe motorist than the truckers with a
cross subsidy here from the motorist to the trucker..

Another piont is the "external" costs. Now if you are an economic
rationalist you are not going to like this, however the "profit" numbers do
not acount for road trauma ($Billions IIRC), pollution ($??), excessive use
of an imported fuel (current account). Of course rail has these also,
however they are much less. If you look at it this way it is quite right to
impose tax on the road system since it costs the community a lot more to
have it than merely the up-front numbers.

Interestingly another BTE paper (working paper 40, Competitive Neutrality
between road and rail) states under a full cost recovery model rail and road
transport rates would both go up with road @ 12 % and rail 6%. There seems
to be some inconsistencies in the report though (I have not read it all).

An extract states from the summary::

Under the current road user charging system, trucks overall are
undercharged for their use of the road system. Moreover, larger, more
heavily laden vehicles and those travelling longer distances are charged
the least (per tonne kilometre) while smaller, less heavily laden vehicles
and those travelling shorter distances cross-subsidise them.

And another from the body:

The net effect of the changes (principally full infrastructure charging for
road
and charging for externalities) would be to raise rail FCL rates by 4 per
cent,
road FCL rates by 12 per cent and LCL rates by 6 per cent relative to the
current
post-ANTS situation. Rate changes for B-doubles would be similar to those
calculated for 6-axle semis.

The RTF got quite exicted about this and immediately paid someone to produce
a countering report!

Bill M.



Maurie Daly <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
3ac3ea1b.6429987@can-news.tpg.com.au">news:3ac3ea1b.6429987@can-news.tpg.com.au...
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:36:11 +1000, "William Miller"
> <backtran@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >No, you  must be kidding
> >
> >I did the calc - it results in $484,000 by my numbers - have I got it
right?
>
> No.
> 4400 trucks per nite each way = total 8800 trucks.
> 500 litres of fuel per truck = 500 X 8800 = 4.4 Million litres.
> Excise of 20 cents per litre = 4.4 million X 0.2 = $880.000.00.
>
> >
> >I read somewhere that profit is revenue (which you have) less expenses
and
> >capital charges - you do not seem to have these? What is the Capex and
> >Maintenance on the Hume?
>
> Quite true .
> I dont have the individual maintenance costs for the Hume , but the
> total annual expenditure for roads in 1998 for both States ,
> Territories and the Feds was $7.0 billion.
>
> Total revenue derived from road related charges , taxes and fuel
> excise was $13.7 billion.
>
> ie Roads make around $6.3 billion a year in profit.
>
> This info taken from BTE (Bureau Transport Economics)
> Information Sheet No 13 titled
> Public related Road Expenditure and Revenue in Australia.
>
> MD
>
>
>