View the feedback we have received on the Implementing a forward-looking cost base for heavy vehicle charges C-RIS paper.

• How important is the aim of reducing the volatility of heavy vehicle charges?

  Very

• Are there other issues that need to be considered when ITMM decides whether to adopt the forward-looking cost base to set heavy vehicle charges in the future?

  They need to consider their part, construct roads properly and manage the costs.

• Do the current expenditure categories allow for a fair estimate of the collective asset lives with each category?

  No

• Do you agree that, if possible, year-to-year adjustments to the regulatory portion of heavy vehicle registration charges should be implemented through an automatic adjustment mechanism in the Heavy Vehicle Charges Model Law?

  I think it should be results based, we only pay for the jobs completed. At the moment we pay for quality roads and infrastructure but don't get it and the result is more mechanical breakages and accelerated maintenance along with a corrupt entity called the NHVR

• Do you agree with allocating local government road expenditure to FLCB asset and expenditure categories via jurisdictional category expenditure over each year of the three-year regulatory period?

  We just need one body nationally to control this. In our shire area there are 3 levels of government that manage the roads and it is very disjointed to say the least. The council will resurface a road to about 30 mts from the main road claiming the rest is Vicroads responsibility, Vicroads claim it is a National responsibilty and in the end nothing gets resolved.

• Do you agree with the expenditure categories? If not, please outline your preferred approach.

  Costs need to be reflective of road usage, how can a B Double of 30 tonne gross and a B Double of 84 tonne gross have the same impact on the roads ?

• Do you agree with the local government road expenditure forecasting methodology? If not, outline your preferred methodology.

  It doesn't seem to matter what forecasting is used the roads are not up to standard

• Do you agree with the proposed approach regarding hybrid and electric heavy vehicles? If not, what is your preferred approach and what information should this approach be based on?

  It seems the user pays model is not working and the old road tax system would be fairer, based on tonnes per klm travelled.

• Do you agree with the proposed treatment of toll roads and non-standard financing projects? If not, please outline your preferred approach.

  The heavy vehicle industry contributes to road infrastructure and then is also expected to pay again to use it. Have a look at the west gate tunnel for example and Northconnex

• Do you agree with the use of ABS’ Government Financial Statistics data to forecast the local government road expenditure for the FLCB model? If not, provide details of your preferred source for government road expenditure.

  Currently we pay and very little work is done

• Is there other information that should be published?

  The authorities need to control costs, the over use of traffic control costs billions and sometimes add to risk. On recent trips I noticed two traffic control utes, 1 on either side of the road fast asleep with no roadworks even look like happening. There is a bridge north of Injune that has traffic lights on both sides of the bridge repairs with no work being complete but traffic control 24/7. Surely the lights don't need someone to flick them on and off, they manage OK in towns. In NSW Transport for NSW mange to park a a ute with flashing lights and the ute driver is then productive but if a contractor is used the traffic management diver just sits in the ute non-productive but still at a cost. It the council mows the lawn on the roadside they put a sign out "Mowing Ahead", it a contractor does the same job they add to risk by multiple signs and utes again with non-productive people at a cost to us, and on & on it goes.

• Do you support the transition to the forward-looking cost base method?

  No