The numbers for air quality impacts are extremely dodgy. They are highly sensitive to minor changes in assumptions or technique. That has been demonstrated by two NZ reports which had quite different numbers for premature deaths - the HAPINZ Christchurch study and the earlier MOT one that covered all NZ.

And of cours elarge quanitities of pollution come from heating using biorenewable fuels…

Let’s take your point 1:”The best estimate of total provider/external costs is $5.59 billion p.a., i.e. just over double the current charges” is followed by, “However, almost half these costs relate to the target return on road infrastructure assets. The majority of these assets have no viable alternative use (opportunity cost) and it is arguable whether a return should be charged on these.”

Given that such a return is not charged on similar rail assets, it would be absurd to expect that a return is sought on the rail infrastructure that has no alternative use. So we get back to road charges being roughly equivalent to road costs. The recovery of costs from trucks vs cars is a point, but a key component of that is the maintenance costs on local roads which are disproportionately caused by trucks, but of which half are recovered from ratepayers. I support recovering these costs from road users, but it wont make an iota of difference to road vs rail as it is LOCAL roads.

2. The cost recovery you talk of also includes assets that are non-recoverable, so once you take that into account your figure goes up enormously. You should also note that as the figures are 2001, the sulphur and benzene levels in diesel and petrol respectively have dropped dramatically (sulphur being most important as the levels have gone from 1500ppm to 500ppm to 50ppm this year over this time). This is a positive move which should reduce this net cost by over 50%. Things have moved on.

fastbike you might not recall, but the rail network was nationalised, it no longer has to make a commercial return. The road network does generate a return in that there is a surplus of revenue generated compared with that spent on maintaining it at current state, that surplus is currently largely spend on improving roads and public transport.

If you read the STCC main report you will also see that buses in Auckland contribute 19x the pollution cars do per vehicle km, so have to attract 19 car passengers per trip to break even environmentally. You will also see that the case study on freight that the environmental cost per tonne km of road vs rail freight between Napier and Gisborne is the same, and between Wellington and Auckland, road had an advantage. Presumably you’ll rethink your ideological blinkers about trains good, trucks bad or else junk the parts of the report you don’t like.

If you read the MoT review of the Cost Allocation Model, you will find that it confirms that trucks, at that time, overpaid the RUC necessarily to fund the costs they imposed on the roading system (excluding local road share) by about 20%. This has probably now come close to even given inflation. If you ask for Cabinet papers on vehicle charges you see this noted.

Go to the MoT website, download the full Surface Transport Costs and Charges report. Remember there have been some major changes since then such as:
1. Dramatic cuts in sulphur and benzene in transport fuels;
2. Significant increases in public transport subsidies and subsidies for rail infrastructure, removal of rail from commercial private ownership;
3. Three fuel tax increases and two RUC increases (albeit for vehicles only up to 7 tonnes);
4. Significant increases in roading construction.

I don’t care whether people use road or rail, I think both modes have enormous comparative advantages doing particular tasks, but you are absolutely dreaming if you think that the competition between them is anything but at the margins. You, and so many in the Green party adopt an irrational childish attitude to transport that does not reflect the facts. The most reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the STCC report is that urban congestion is a major source of economic and social cost and should be addressed, and the only answer to that is to price all modes efficiently. Neither roads nor public transport should be privileged.

The key point remains, the STCC report quotes the total climate change cost for rail in NZ at $10m p/a and the Greens want to spend easily $2 billion to eliminate this - it is madness!

Apart from the above, it should have concluded

NZ standard is 50mgm3, now 2and a half times the recommended WHO margin for safe levels of PM.

The problem is even at that level the cost is STILL disproportionally borne by those who don’t have a voice. Further, while we all have some measure of advantage from this x-subsidy, the most advantage goes to the high consumer, ie: rich people. Not a healthy strategy really.

Whereas, steel wheels are so much more efficient. Even more than buses. (its the stop/start thing again) Rail can move thousands. Notably it did so for footy matches. There is no way buses could compete at real rail costs.

Factor in the health inequity, and it almost makes trains compulsory.

Toll, like NZ-Rail has been priced by an accountant. Even aircraft were not so dumb as to price all seats the same.

IMHO - The solution is obtainable if pricing rail and other public transport is by auction of every journey and to have it seamlessly fungible. I can sell my seat into the city that I don’t want next Monday at 8:30. If I miss the bus, i forfeit unless someone bids for that journey or part thereof. This ‘freedom’ to travel via public means will always maximise revenue while moving the most people across the most efficient modes.

The commuter/traveler gets the option of delaying (or travelling earlier as the case may be) for the price break.

Let the market micromanage itself. -> Get accountants out of the way and let Queuing theory reign.

Then AirQuality will improve outa-sight. Roads will decongest.
Health will improve.

Win Win!

The upwardly rising morbidity associated by a linear causative relationship [with a zero zero origin] to sub PM2.5 (mostly diesel emissions with pah/metal on activated carbon) is a direct subsidy paid disporportionately by selected groups of people… Asthmatics, Diabetics, Immunocompromised, thoracic function impairments and other co-morbid conditions was predicted long ago by yours truly. Many prevalent medical conditions are exacerbated by vasorestriction alone, stroke and heart failure are . The WHO recently acknowledged that there is no margin of safety with PM10 and reduced the WHO standard for 24hr exposure at 20mgm3, down from 70. NZ standard is

You’re pulling figures out of thin air yet again … how about providing your source ? And we want peer reviewed studies, not those dodgy right-wing think tanks again!

In the interim, here’s some real data:

1. “Surface Transport Costs and Charges: Main Report” Ministry of Transport March 2005

a summary for the total road system of the provider/external costs and
the corresponding current charges. Key findings may be summarised as:
- Current charges total some $2.63 billion p.a., or $2.34 billion if roading rates are excluded as not being a user charge.
- The best estimate of total provider/external costs is $5.59 billion p.a., i.e. just over double the current charges.
…and …
The ‘social cost recovery’ (charges: external costs ratio) is significantly greater for cars than for trucks (whether or not a return on non-recoverable assets is included in the costs). I.e. trucks are not paying their way {Emphasis mine}

2. “Surface Transport Costs and Charges: Summary Report” Ministry of Transport March 2005

… When the total charges (excluding rates) paid by users are allocated across the vehicle fleet according to type we find that:
- cars directly pay 64% of their costs,
- trucks directly pay 56% of their costs
- buses directly pay 68% of their costs.

.. and …

Air pollution costs of $442 million per annum are partially paid for by the health system, while climate change costs are not paid for by anyone. Water quality and quantity costs are not fully paid for by anyone either.

… and …
As a commercial entity, rail must earn a return on recoverable assets while under the current system road users do not directly pay a return on roading assets.

3. “NEW ZEALAND EVIDENCE FOR HEALTH IMPACTS OF TRANSPORT” commissioned by the Public Health Advisory Committee (by Professor Tord Kjellstrom and Dr Sarah Hill) Dec 2002

This report studied adverse effects of our current tranport mix:
- Safety
- Air pollution (vehicle emissions)
- Noise
- Physical activity
- Community disruption and social isolation
- Environmental and other factors

I recommend reading it, especially the summary. You’ll see how our current car and truck centric transport dependencies impose massive social and economic costs on individuals and society.

Add to them -

What is the cost of road repairs incurred per truck per year?

- because they do WAY more damage to a road than a car does.

ciao BJ