Red tape isn’t just affecting road transport — recently there was a news article about licenses, permits and registrations to open a café. In the NT, it was the least at 22, Victoria the worst, at 30.
Having been a part of the road transport productivity boom with safer vehicles, including the B-double with a standard trailer to the rear (tandem/tri – 1988); the Stinger Car carrier (1989); and the 19 metre B-double (1996) — it is hard to see it happening in today’s world.
SUBSCRIBE to the PowerTorque newsletter
The 19 metre B-double was a great example of pushing the boundaries — as a fuel tanker it was designed and built before access was approved. The unusual axle spacing (now accepted as normal) was necessary to comply with the B-double axle spacing mass schedule and to achieve weight distribution.
But much of that productivity boom would not now be history without the unwavering support and commitment from many industry icons, and advice from a superior, ‘Don’t tell me it can’t be done, tell me what needs to be changed so that it can be done.’
The bureaucrats need to change and adopt this same approach.
More than 30 years back an application B-double (logging) access in northeast Victoria was initially rejected on the basis that a bridge (at that time recently constructed) was unsuitable for eight-axle B-doubles at 59 tonnes.
The issue was raised with a bridge engineer who was involved in the design of the bridge, and suddenly the bridge was suitable and access approved.
About 15 years back when triaxle converter dollies were new to NSW, industry was advised that many bridges in NSW were unconditionally unsuitable for Type 1 road trains with 12 axles.
A crisis meeting with bridge engineers and subsequent review resulted in all of the referenced bridges being suitable with a conditional requirement of a minimum dimension (real world vehicles) from the first drive group axle to the last axle of the rear trailer.
When the project that has become PBS was first proposed and endorsed by the states, operators were excited at the prospect of a future with hope for a pathway to productivity. But what wasn’t considered was the limitations that could imposed by the states in regard to access.
Access is supposedly based on technically prescribed performance requirements, length, height, tracking ability, etc. Sounds simple, however the stumbling hurdle is bridge assessment. The NHVR initiated through the Heavy Vehicle Safety Initiative (HVSI), the Strategic Local Government Asset Assessment Project (SLGAAP).
SLGAAP is a government funded initiative to optimise heavy vehicle access on the local road networks across Australia to support local government in their role as road managers with bridge capacity and access decision making.
In the early stages this provided confidence that bridge assessment for HPFV access might be a new and technically based track for decision making.
Unfortunately, that hasn’t been the case with other assets (some state managed assets on major freight routes).
How can a HML route in a LGA suddenly be limited to GML by changing the “engineer in charge”. Surely the same technical standards with the same factors of safety should have been applied in the assessment? Obviously not.
Access advice — if you want access on a new route, survey the route yourself, before you apply. Endeavour to identify limitations, and whilst you may not be able to technically assess any bridges, the route survey will identify specifics and may save you an unnecessary application fee cost.
PBS issues
Following is a broad overview of comments from operators who were canvassed.
The regulator doesn’t have jurisdiction over road access and they are a lame duck on the issue. It’s all about the road manager, and none of this will be fixed under the seven year long HVNL review.
When application is made to the NHVR, frequently the regulator tells me to contact the local road manager. So now, I contact the local road manager before I make application to NHVR. That way if the local road manager says no, at least I don’t waste my application fee. So much for a one stop shop!
The local government registry of infrastructure is often inaccurate or non-existent. An access application was rejected because of the “bridge” being unsuitable for A-double because of the bridge spans — it was actually four (4) box culverts.
Road managers know well that the vehicles requiring access approvals under PBS are safer and better for the environment; however, they also know that they can’t easily put new rules in place for the general access fleet.
So, the “compliance and oversight” ladened hopes and inconsistent dreams of road managers are applied to the only cohort they have a right to inflict them upon, those vehicles requiring access approvals. These road managers would rather an unassessed and unaudited, general access vehicle on its network than an assessed and audited, purpose-built vehicle with less than 10 per cent more weight.
The cost of having to apply for multiple permits for different convertor dollies and then have them merged into one permit, A-doubles (livestock) road train combination up to 12 axles.
There is disconnect between state and local government road managers, and the NHVR has failed to provide the single contact point vs industry’s needs and equipment investment for productivity.
Bridge assessments are costing from $500 through to a quoted $10,000 plus and are almost always followed up with a request for an extension for time.
At Trucking Australia in 2022, the then CEO of the NHVR, in the access session, stated that the fee paid for permit applications didn’t cover the costs incurred by the NHVR. The NHVR budget is included in the heavy vehicle cost base, which helps to determine heavy vehicle road user charge, so regardless, industry still pays.
Triaxle dollies continue to be an issue — tandem axle group mass and a tare weight penalty.
Rail crossings — Intersection stacking continues to be a road block, with rail management deliberately impeding road transport.
One operator spent more than $100K, for 1200 plus applications — with just over 500 access requests being granted (42 per cent).
On a positive, the NHVR access portal function is good, but the content process is very slow and the resolution very poor especially on smaller mobile devices.
