[color=#383838][size=3][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]“Without trucks, Australia stops” is now a fact of modern life.
Some more, some less. The best you can say is that they are about the same.
To the younger members a 'spread bogie' was designed to take advantage of a regulation where if the axle centres on the trailer were more than 10 feet apart you could carry an extra ton butthe front axle of the trailer used to get dragged sideways as the trailer pivoted on its back axle on tight turns (such as a right or left turn into a street) and if done at one spot regularly used to rip up the asphalt.
imagine the damage to the road network. b-doubles can do a lot of damage. a lot of damage has already been done on the highway between adelaide and port augusta. the road has become unsafe due to the high number of trucks over here.
why is it hard for rail to complete at this task?
Those figures are incomplete - the excise collected is higher, that appears to be petroleum only.
The road spending figures also include amenity expenses and the like unattributable to vehicular use.
The NTC has all the information regarding revenue and expenditure.
Based, somewhat loosely, on a survey of local government engineers, the NTC
estimates that 75 per cent of urban local road expenditure and 50 per cent of rural
local road expenditure is incurred solely to provide local access and amenity. This
expenditure, amounting to $1.3 billion for the Second Determination and
$2.9 billion based on the updated data used in the Third Determination, is excluded
from the costs to be recovered from road users.
Pig trailers are not spread trailers. pig trailers are towed behind a rigid truck via an a-frame like a trailer that goes behind a cat. Their axle grouping is similar to a bogie or tri axle semi. A spread trailer is a conventional semi with wide spacing on the bogie.
The numbers do not match what I've seen for total fuel excise collections, less fuel tax credits, from NTC, ATO, PC and the like. I wouldn't dismiss the GSTs relevance to such data either, since it is a tax on a tax, and the excise amount was reduced to account for implementation of the GST.
Local access roads would exist even if cars didn't, as they are necessary to provide property access. Much of the cost is in allocation, grading, drainage, etc. which again would still need to be built despite a lack of cars. Most local roads are funded through local rates and development taxes, and maintenance budgets are close to zero.
The imbalances are obviously going to occur because it is impossible to entirely line up road expenditure and revenue in any particular year, the charges are averaged on a rolling basis to help smooth out any discrepancies.
Are you confusing charging for heavy vehicles with charging across all vehicles? If there is any process to reconcile and smooth total primary road charges with primary road expenditure, it must be informal.
The two are being discussed in this thread when really we should only be considering one (heavy vehicles).
There are obviously minor discrepancies between heavy vehicle revenue (road user charge and registration) and attributable expenditure in either direction on a yearly basis since they are impossible to line up perfectly since revenue changes with registrations and vehicle kilometres, and expenditure changes with major road projects. There is a formal means by which the expenditure is calculated, it's on the NTC website somewhere, from memory it's a three year moving average of expenditure but it may have changed.