True, fuel efficiency meaning less petrol consumed & lower tax take is an aspect i'd not considered. Has that trend continued since the EV subsidy was canned? I'd expect the uptake of EVs was counterbalancing the fuel inefficiency of the ever larger Ute, and without a subsidy the EV sales dropped.

In any case, part of the massively increased cost in road construction is due to having to build roads that can safely take the weight of the trucks getting larger since the National legislation changes in 2014; those heavier trucks travelling faster is also part of the reason why there are more pot holes. Yet the operators that have gotten extremely wealthy have never had to pay their way to use the roads. Unlike the various rail / coastal shipping operators who could transport far more freight far more efficiently (if less time flexibly).

[–] Dave 2 points 2 months ago (9 children)

RUC is weight based. If the weight is an issue, shouldn't the government just increase the cost of RUC in the higher bands?

[–] TagMeInSkipIGotThis 2 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Here's the thing. Freight transport is obviously important to the country's economic activity, so i'm actually OK with some form of public funding for road freight.

But I also think the heaviest freight would be better off the roads altogether and that in an ideal world long distance freight would also not be transported the length of the country. This could make roads safer, cheaper to build and reduce emissions by using more efficient vehicles.

Now, that implies that yes, low RUCs on heavy trucks is a problem, but its a multi-faceted one and the problem is that our current government's transport strategy just roads roads roads.

[–] BalpeenHammer 3 points 2 months ago

Isn't you and I driving also important to the country's economic activity? I drive to work, I drive to the stores. I drive to the gym and recreational activities. That's all economic activity.

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)