Scenario D - Energy Absorbing UP Device
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Front
|
Cost spread over (yrs)
|
|
|
Side
|
Cost spread over (yrs)
|
|
|
Rear
|
Cost spread over (yrs)
|
|
|
|
Cost margin
|
10
|
15
|
20
|
Cost margin
|
10
|
15
|
20
|
Cost margin
|
10
|
15
|
20
|
Rigid
|
-$ 343
|
-34
|
-23
|
-17
|
-$ 806
|
-81
|
-54
|
-40
|
-$ 761
|
-76
|
-51
|
-38
|
Articulated
|
$ 67
|
7
|
4
|
3
|
-$ 777
|
-78
|
-52
|
-39
|
-$ 734
|
-73
|
-49
|
-37
|
Cost margin- the amount ($) that the UP cost for each vehicle would have to be adjusted by to give a Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) of one (Note: these are approximate as the BCRs are based on the Likely case which is a 15 year period).
Annual revenue ($ million)
|
20,699
|
Average distance travelled laden - rigid (km per year per truck)
|
13,106
|
Front UP mass (kg)
|
110
|
Average distance travelled laden - articulated (km per year per truck)
|
57,541
|
Distribution of trucks across fleet
|
Proportion
|
Typical
empty mass (tonnes)
|
|
Typical
loaded mass
|
Typical payload
|
FUPmass reduction
|
Percentage payload lost
|
2 axle rigid truck
|
40%
|
5
|
|
15
|
10
|
0.11
|
|
3 axle rigid truck
|
30%
|
6
|
|
23
|
17
|
0.11
|
|
4 axle Twin-Steer rigid truck
|
10%
|
8
|
|
27
|
19
|
0.11
|
|
2 axle rigid truck with 2 axle dog trailer
|
15%
|
8
|
|
30
|
22
|
0.11
|
|
3 axle rigid truck with 3 axle dog trailer
|
5%
|
10
|
|
42.5
|
32.5
|
0.11
|
|
Total rigid truck
|
|
|
|
|
101
|
0.6
|
0.55%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 axle semi-trailer
|
5%
|
7
|
|
24
|
17
|
0.11
|
|
5 axle semi-trailer
|
20%
|
10
|
|
40
|
30
|
0.11
|
|
6 axle semi-trailer
|
40%
|
12
|
|
45.5
|
33.5
|
0.11
|
|
7 axle B-Double
|
5%
|
12
|
|
57
|
45
|
0.11
|
|
8 axle B-Double
|
5%
|
15
|
|
62.5
|
47.5
|
0.11
|
|
9 axle B-Double
|
15%
|
18
|
|
68
|
50
|
0.11
|
|
Double Road Train
|
5%
|
20
|
|
85.7
|
65.7
|
0.11
|
|
Triple Road Train
|
5%
|
25
|
|
125.2
|
100.2
|
0.11
|
|
Total articulated truck
|
|
|
|
|
308
|
0.9
|
0.29%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rigid plus articulated trucks, proportioned for distance travelled
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.33%
|
Potential revenue loss per year ($ million)
|
|
|
|
|
|
69
|
Source: ABS (2002) Year Book Australia for revenue and distance travelled, ABS (2005) for vehicle numbers and ABS, NRTC Cost Allocation Model for fleet distribution.
Scenario A - Low Effectiveness UP Device
|
|
Front
|
|
|
Best Case
|
Likely Case
|
Worst Case
|
Rigid
|
3.3
|
2.3
|
0.9
|
Articulated
|
20.3
|
14.2
|
5.9
|
Scenario B - Most Likely Effectiveness UP Device
|
|
Front
|
|
|
Best Case
|
Likely Case
|
Worst Case
|
Rigid
|
4.0
|
2.8
|
1.2
|
Articulated
|
24.8
|
17.3
|
7.4
|
Best Case - 25 year pay-off period @4%, costed for fatalities, injuries and other costs
|
Likely Case - 15 year pay-off period @7%, costed for fatalities, injuries and other costs
|
Worst Case - 10 year pay-off period @12%, costed for fatalities and injuries cost only
|
Notes
The revised Benefit-cost ratios were calculated as follows:
170 000 km with 500 kg additional front axle load = $3545 = $0.0041 per 100 kg per km per year.
Articulated trucks, annual cost = 62 278 trucks x 57 541 km x $0.0041 = $14.69m.
Rigid trucks, annual cost = 194 394 trucks x 13 106 km x $0.0041 = $10.44m.
The cost used was conservative as it assumes that a rigid vehicle damages the road as much as an articulated vehicle.
100 kg was used instead of the worst case 110 kg as a compromise between the mass effect of a short wheelbase cab-over articulated as compared to a bonneted articulated truck or other longer wheelbase rigid trucks. Refer page 28.
Source: ABS (2005) for vehicle numbers, ABS (2002) Year Book Australia for distance travelled, and NTC (2006) for road damage cost.
Share with your friends: |
