Editorial: Truckies must pay for impact of heavy loads

Opinion

It is a sign of the times when those keen to see heavier trucks on our roads cite a less-polluted environment and reduced fuel consumption. Even so, many other road-users will find their case hard to swallow. They see only an increased road-safety hazard and greater damage to the country's roads. It is unlikely they will be persuaded by the Transport Minister's "enthusiastic" support for a rule change that would allow trucks to carry a maximum load of 50 tonnes, up from the present 44-tonne limit, on specified routes subject to the issuing of permits.

Introducing this change will commit the Government to a fight similar to that being waged in the United States and Europe. This is set against background forecasts of a dramatic increase in the amount of freight hauled by trucks over the next decade. This must be moved as efficiently as possible.

The trucking lobby points to the productivity gains of allowing greater maximum loads, as well as reduced costs and fuel use. It also notes that fewer truck movements will ease road congestion. A quoted example is that of International Paper, which sends 600 trucks a week from an Alabama mill to south-east markets. With the higher limit proposed in the United States, it would use 450 trucks, cutting the kilometres driven by 31 per cent and fuel use and emissions by 18 per cent.

A six-month trial in Canterbury last year, initiated by the previous Government, found similar benefits, and an estimated 10 to 20 per cent productivity increase from consolidated loads. This appears to have convinced Steven Joyce. Not so Green MP Sue Kedgley, who says heavier trucks will endanger lives because of their bulk and because they take longer to stop. Our roads are also ill-equipped for heavy trucks because they are windy, narrow and steep, she says.

Ms Kedgley's first note of concern is one that will be shared by many other road-users. It is largely impossible to combat this, even though trucks will have to have a special check to ensure their braking system is appropriate. Her complaint about the nature of this country's roads, however, disregards the fact that a permit system will allow the trucks only on specified routes.Of much greater significance is the question of ensuring the costs of extra road upkeep are met by those who benefit from using the heavier trucks. In the first instance, it is expected to cost $85 million to $100 million to strengthen bridges and roads to get the full benefit of the permit system.

The previous Government was thinking of imposing extra operating costs on users of the permit system. That seems fair, although it would be essential that the money raised from trucking firms for additional maintenance costs found its way to the appropriate strip of road. If an extra cost was not imposed, the Government will probably simply adjust the road-user charges regime.

This is designed to ensure the money collected from trucks reflects the added damage they cause. It became contentious last year when it was raised overnight by Mr Joyce's predecessor, Annette King, who said she wanted to ensure trucking firms paid their share towards highway building and maintenance. Trucks choked city-centre streets in retaliation. That clash prompted a working party examination of the formula for setting road-user charges. Nothing concrete seems to have emerged from this.

The economic benefits provided by heavier trucks are undoubtedly real. But so, too, are the concerns about safety and road wear. A watertight guarantee that those trucks will pay their fair share will be essential if the public are to accept them as a necessary presence. Those gaining the benefits must be shown to be paying the bill.