AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Operators Must Understand What "Track Costs" Means

10th July 1964, Page 56
10th July 1964
Page 56
Page 56, 10th July 1964 — Operators Must Understand What "Track Costs" Means
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

By H. R. FEATHERSTONE

Secretary, Traders Road Transport Association

IT is probably true to say that most people engaged in the operation of road transport have hitherto taken only a passing interest, if any at all, in the subject of track costs, They have tended to regard it as something academic and theoretical, far removed from, and having little relevance to, the practical operation of transport. The publication (The . Commercial Motor, June 26) of Dr. Beeching's report on the relative track costs of rail and road over trunk routes suddenly brought it home vividly that, theoretical as the subject undoubtedly is, the practical overtones are very appreciable. Road transport ignores at its peril a suggestion that taxation on lorries should be doubled, or even trebled!

What exactly does Dr. Beeching's study seek to prove? Simply that heavy lorries engaged on trunk routes do not pay a fair share of the cost of providing and maintaining the roads on which they run. The report calculates that, assuming a two-lane dual-carriageway trunk road, a 10-toncapacity vehicle pays, in fuel tax and annual duty, 3.08d. per mile, compared with an estimate of 8-09d. per mile as the cost of providing the road. Put another way, a 16-ton-capacity vehicle running 75,000 miles a year should pay £3,500 per annum in tax instead of the £1,400 which it pays now.

The publication of these figures provoked a spontaneous reaction from both the friends and foes of road transport. This was neither surprising nor unreasonable. The whole point about track costs, infra-structure costs, or system costs (call them what you will) is that they depend entirely on a series of assumptions and approximations. According to the assumptions which are made, an answer can be produced to prove almost anything. The whole subject is riddled with difficulties, and it is not altogether surprising that the Inland Transport Committee of the Economic Commission for Europe has failed to reach any final conclusions after years of study at Geneva.

Calculating Costs and Shares The subject resolves itself into three distinct parts, each with its own problems. First, to decide what are the total costs to be borne by road users as a whole. Secondly, to settle a basis for sharing the total costs between different classes of road user. Finally, to find a method of taxation, or a combination of methods, which will yield the right amount from the individual vehicle and from the non-vehicle road user. • It is important to ,note that Dr. Beeching's report does not deal directly with the first point. He is not saying that road users as a whole pay insufficient to cover the provision and upkeep of the road system. Nor does he deal with c28 the third point—methods of levying the correct amount of tax. The report concentrates attention on the second aspect and seeks to show that the owner of the heavy lorry is not paying his fair share.

How do the Railways Board reach, this conclusion? As the basis of his comparison, Dr. Beeching has taken the total cost of building a new trunk road, reduced the resulting' figures to annual interest charges, and then added the cost of maintenance, signalling, police, etc. Estimates have been made of the price of land, the cost of maintenance, policing and signalling.

The total cost thus produced has been divided into those costs occasioned by the heavy vehicle and those attributable to all vehicles. In the former category are included (a) the additional construction costs which are dire to the need for additional strength and easier gradients for heavy vehicles; and (b) the greater part of the annual maintenance costs.

A Startling Conclusion From " various available estimates of the cbst of road construction and from analyses of the components of construction costs ", the report reaches the conclusion that vehicles over 1 tons unladen should be charged £350,000 per route mile out of a total cost of £450,000 per mile for building two-lane dual carriageways, i.e. seven-ninths of the total cost of construction!

The eight million other vehicles would collectively pay two-ninths of constructional costs, whilst non-vehicle beneficiaries (pedestrians, public utilities laying gas, electricity, water, sewage and telephone services) would apparently contribute nothing.

A heavy proportion of maintenance costs has then been allocated to the heavy vehicle on the basis of results of wear tests carrried out by the American Association of State Highway Officials. This is one of the most questionable assumptions of all, since the A.A.S.H.O. findings do not allow for other types of road, other climatic conditions and the effect of vehicle speed on road wear.

The costs attributable to all vehicles were allocated to light and heavy vehicles on a " space " basis, assuming the heavy goods vehicle to be the equivalent of three private• cars—a further very doubtful assumption.

This brief summary does less than justice to the complexity of the calculations, but it does Rive some indication of the very large number of assumptions which must be made in any study of track costs based on the scant existing information.

Continued on page 57


comments powered by Disqus