Government moves to relax rules for heavy trucks have prompted road safety concerns from The Campaign for Better Transport.

The Ministry of Transport is proposing to allow standard truck maximum weights to increase from 44 tonnes to 45 tonnes, remove the need for permits for maximum load trucks, and allow wider and taller trucks on New Zealand roads, as part of its review of the Vehicle Dimensions and Mass (VDAM) Rule.

Changes to the VDAM Rule were made in 2010 to allow the maximum weight of trucks to increase from 44 tonnes to 53 tonnes on selected roads.

Cameron Pitches, spokesperson for the Campaign for Better Transport, says further relaxing of the rules around maximum weights will put other road users at risk.

According to Ministry of Transport figures, in 2010 trucks were involved in 15% of all fatal accidents. In 2014, trucks were involved in 23% of all fatal accidents, accounting for 67 deaths and 772 injuries.

“The Government expectation that safety would improve by introducing heavy trucks to our roads is clearly wrong. The trend is worrying and more work needs to be done before we relax the rules further,” said Mr Pitches.

“This proposal is specifically designed to increase the trucking industry’s market share of heavy freight, but the public generally want more heavy freight on rail and off the roads.”

In recent years the Government has spent tens of millions of dollars strengthening bridges and roads to support heavy trucks.

The proposal estimates economic benefits to be $634m over 30 years in present value terms, largely resulting from a theoretical reduction in the number of trucks for the same freight task, but Mr Pitches is skeptical.

“Most of the potential benefits seem to be for truck operators themselves, but for the wider community this could easily be offset by the increasing number of accidents involving trucks.”

“Similarly, claims of positive environmental benefits aren’t substantiated if freight is moved from trains,” said Mr Pitches.

In allowing wider trucks and buses on the road, the proposal will also place pressure on New Zealand’s bus and coach manufacturers, as larger buses could be imported directly from the USA and Australia. New Zealand’s manufacturers employ over 250 skilled staff and over 500 specialist subcontractors and suppliers with an estimated turnover of over $50 million this year alone.

Public submissions on the proposed changes close on Wednesday 17^th February.  A pro-forma submission is available here.

[ends]

Truck accident statistics:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Research/Documents/Trucks-2015.pdf

From their latest newsletter “Express”,  Kiwirail forecast during the first half of 2016 they will operate 36,711 rail services which is equivalent to reducing 545,311 truck trips, saving 39.4 million litres of fuel and 106,011 tons of CO2 emissions if the same freight task had of been moved by road.

This discussion document appears in some cases not to be written objectively and is limited in scope. Not taking rail and sea modes into consideration at the same-time highlights weaknesses in the benefits and risks evaluations provided by the Ministry of Transport.

While road transport is important to the economy, rail and coastal shipping are both currently under utilised and offer potential productivity benefits which MoT need to take into consideration.

Many of the changes proposed in this document offer extremely low economic benefits while at the same time it fails to quantify the costs involved in the required infrastructure upgrades. Therefore, submitters are not in a position to make correct decisions as they lack all the information they require.

It would appear safety, environmental factors, direct and indirect costs of truck accidents are not fully taken into account by this document, when it is obvious they must be. According to MoT figures in 2014 trucks accounted for 67 road deaths (23% of all road deaths). Since 1990 truck related road deaths have increased from 14% to 23% of all road deaths. During 2010-14 35% of all fatal truck crashes and 58% of minor injury truck crashes were caused by truck operators. These shocking statistics imply that the trucking industry urgently needs to improve its standards. MoT data shows that when a car collides with a truck, car occupants represent 96% of deaths, 89% of all serious injuries and 83% of minor injuries. The proposals in this document to increase width, heights and mass loadings in this document do nothing to mitigate these worrying statistics.

“The NZ Injury Prevention Outcomes Report – June 2015” released by the Accident Compensation Corporation states that the total costs of all road crashes in 2010 was $2.23 billion dollars and 18% of that figure was directly attributable to the trucking industry. When the insignificant 30 year economic benefits, as mentioned in this document, are taken into account it is clear that most of the proposals are not worth pursuing when measured against the costs trucking related crashes have alone on other road users and society as a whole.

Trucks cause over 99% of damage to the road network, yet only cover 58% of road maintenance costs through Road User Charges. Other motorists, taxpayers and ratepayers are effectively subsidising this industry to the tune of billions of dollars every year. When compared to rail which covers 84% of its operating costs and must pay 100% of the its maintenance costs it would be sensible for the MoT to be putting more resources into promoting freight to be moved by rail instead of by road where possible.

The Campaign for Better Transport recommends that many of the proposals are put on hold until the MoT is in a position to provide the detail we have highlighted as being necessary. Basing decisions on the information contained (and omitted) within this discussion document makes little sense and brings the credibility into question of both the MoT and the Minister.

It is suggested that a comprehensive economic evaluation of all the benefits and costs of the changes proposed here be undertaken by a reputable and independent (preferably overseas based) economic research consultants. It is only in this way that a credible evaluation can be made of the benefits or otherwise to New Zealand of these proposals.

Virtually from the moment he became the Minister of Transport, Steven Joyce was an “enthusiastic” supporter of mega-trucks. He was convinced of the productivity gains to be made from allowing greater maximum loads.

Little heed was paid to naysayers, who focused on the increased threat to safety on the roads. Acting decisively, Mr Joyce decreed that from May this year, trucks would be able to carry loads of up to 53 tonnes on specified routes, up from the previous limit of 44 tonnes. The upshot, three months later, raises questions about his reasoning and his rush.

It is now apparent that Auckland’s Southern Motorway will not be able to support the new trucks for several years. The Transport Agency has conceded it will take that long to make up to a dozen points “compliant” for them. The obvious weak points are bridges, such as those over the Tamaki River and the Puhinui Stream.

The Herald also points out the irony of the Transport Agency’s view, who say that:

..while it will be some time before mega-trucks can use the Southern Motorway to carry freight to and from Auckland’s port, consignments could be split up and sent by rail between the port company’s inland distribution centre at Wiri and the waterfront.

This is an issue that the CBT raised almost a year ago:

Whilst the current legal limit is a gross mass of 44 tonnes, most of the bridges on the state highway network and indeed the local road network were designed and constructed to carry lower loads. However, they continue to perform beyond expectations because of the conservative nature of some designs, material strengths that are higher than allowed for or ongoing upgrades and strengthening programmes.

306 state highway bridges would require strengthening, or detailed investigation and an estimated $85M would be required to fund the work over a period of several years.

Of these bridges, only 13 have already been included on the approved 09/12 Bridge Replacement and Upgrade Programme due to their current condition. The results have not been studied in detail to determine if any of the bridges should be replaced rather than strengthened.

As we’ve said before, this looks like a sop to the trucking industry, who seem to be expecting all other road users to help pay for the necessary strengthening work.

The CBT has made it easy for you, and you can kill two birds with one stone and submit your opposition to big trucks at the same time.

A template submission to the Hamilton City Council is here. Email this one to

A template submission to the Waikato District Council is here.  Email this one to

Yes, you can send a submission to both councils, no matter where you live. With everyone’s help, we’ll get our Waikato Trains Now!

The Herald has a nice juxtaposition of a photo of truck accident blocking the motorway with the headline that BIG trucks are on their way.

Up to 5000 trucks will be eligible to carry heavier loads on public highways from next month.

The Government is basically giving the trucking industry a handout with this.  Road user charges weren’t increased in October for truck trailers, and the necessary reinforcement work for bridges etc. hasn’t been done. I’d also question the supposed economic benefits of $500m from the Ministry of Transport. Does this allow for the fact that trucking firms should pay 16 – 21% more per tonne in road user charges to use a bigger truck?

Furthermore, councils are unlikely to approve permits for heavy trucks without compensation of the damage they cause.  In moving from 44 tonnes to 52 tonnes, trucks of the same axle configuration are also likely to cause twice as much damage to the roading network.

There needs to be stronger regulation of the trucking industry.  There are already too many accidents involving trucks, and the number of roll over accidents will only get worse as trucks get heavier.

Regional transport committees for most of the upper North Island – including Auckland – oppose allowing heavier trucks on main roads despite Government and industry predictions of productivity gains and fuel savings.

Proposed rule changes to allow bigger trucks, subject to a new permitting system, were hotly debated by Auckland’s regional transport committee before members voted on Wednesday 10-5 to reject them.

That followed similar opposition from committees in Northland and Waikato, and a submission from their Bay of Plenty counterpart outlining strong reservations, although without rejecting them outright.

Local Government NZ has also raised concern about the costs for ratepayers of fixing local roads, as diesel road user charges cover only half the bill through the national land transport fund.

It has warned the Government it is unlikely many permits would be issued by its members as road controlling authorities.

But some local councils, including Auckland City, have supported the new system subject to conditions.

The Ministry of Transport has received 285 submissions on the changes and expects to make a report to the minister, Steven Joyce, next month.

Under the proposed changes, road controlling authorities would be responsible for issuing permits for standard-sized vehicles to operate on specified routes with loads between the current maximum of 44 tonnes and a proposed new limit of 53 tonnes.

The Transport Agency would be responsible for permits for vehicles up to two metres longer than the current maximum length of 22m, with loads “above or below” 53 tonnes.

The Auckland debate was spiced up by Road Transport Forum chairman Simon Tapper, a regional committee member, who said the changes would give environmental as well as economic gains by reducing truck movements.

He claimed “a lot of emotional clap-trap” was clouding the debate.

The new rules would enable his company, Tapper Transport, to cut about 10,000 round trips from the 50,000 made annually between its Onehunga hub and the Auckland waterfront.

“That means 280,000km a year would be taken out of the equation – the emission cuts, carbon dioxide savings, would be huge.”

Responding to concerns of other committee members about safety, he said heavier trucks would be required to be able to stop in the same distance as existing rigs, and the extra weight would enhance braking capabilities “because you’ve got more friction on the ground”.

He said it would take only a course in “statistics 101″ to appreciate that fewer truck movements would eclipse any extra risk from heavier loads subjected to tight safety requirements.

Campaign for Better Transport co-ordinator Cameron Pitches questioned the trip savings predicted by Mr Tapper, and said there was nothing in the proposed permit system stipulating controls over emissions or noxious leachates into waterways.

Committee chairwoman Christine Rose did not consider it credible that roads would be safer, and said Mr Tapper should ride a bicycle along a rural freight route to “know what it feels like to fear for your life”.

Mr Tapper acknowledged that road freight consignments would continue to grow, but said providing for larger trucks would enable it to happen at a slower rate.

A submission approved by the committee calculated that an increase in the per axle weight of quad-axle vehicles, from 5.5 tonnes to 6 tonnes, might not seem much but could cause 41 per cent more road damage.

It said larger trucks would undermine the competitiveness of more energy-efficient rail and coastal shipping freight services.

Northland transport committee chairman John Bain said his region opposed the changes because it relied on State Highway 1 and it would only take a big slip caused by larger trucks at sites such as the Brynderwyn Hills to cut it off.

Who will bear the cost of heavier vehicles? Where will the costs of heavier vehicles fall, and will they improve New Zealand’s productivity?

We really don’t know the answers to these questions as the analysis has not been done…[more]

Quite. IPENZ members consist of 10,000 engineers throughout New Zealand.

Whilst the current legal limit is a gross mass of 44 tonnes, most of the bridges on the state highway network and indeed the local road network were designed and constructed to carry lower loads. However, they continue to perform beyond expectations because of the conservative nature of some designs, material strengths that are higher than allowed for or ongoing upgrades and strengthening programmes.

306 state highway bridges would require strengthening, or detailed investigation and an estimated $85M would be required to fund the work over a period of several years.

Of these bridges, only 13 have already been included on the approved 09/12 Bridge Replacement and Upgrade Programme due to their current condition. The results have not been studied in detail to determine if any of the bridges should be replaced rather than strengthened.

In the South Island, no section of SH1 has bridges that can support 50 tonne trucks.  In the North Island Pokeno – Hamilton – Tirau has strong enough bridges, as does Rotorua – Taupo.  No section of SH1 from Taupo to Wellington has bridges that can support 50 tonne trucks.

It is hard to see how heavy trucks can be introduced to the state highway network without doing the necessary bridge strengthening work first.  The proposed implementation date of 2010 seems overly optimistic.