|
Having driven across the country a few times in recent months, I was  reminded of the number of trucks that we have hauling goods on our national roads. Most people I come across are of the opinion that these huge horses-and-trailers are the bane of their driving existence, and would be happy to never see another one again. Now, it’s never nice being stuck behind these one of the guys (or seven in convoy), but are they really the worst thing in the world?
The fact of the matter is that there are so many of these long-haul carriers on the road because the rail network is, quite simply, insufficient. And in areas where it is sufficient, it’s not nearly reliable enough. Transet – which owns and maintains the bulk of the rail network – is struggling with ageing rolling stock and widespread cable theft, amongst other things. From talking to a number of hauliers and goods producers, the overall consensus seems to be that there’s not really much of an option. Yes, in some instances it can be simpler and cheaper to rail your goods – but only really if it’s going from/to one of the main rail hubs. In most cases, it’s a choice of using a trucking company, or sitting on your stock.
The downsides of having to resort to trucking are relatively obvious. For one, you’ve got an exponential increase in the amount of road traffic – this not only slows down your annual holiday trip to the coast, but also accelerates the rate of damage done to the road network (exacerbated by the extreme loads hauled). This then costs the government more in repairs and maintenance (following the theory that they actually do it) – money which could perhaps be better used elsewhere. Then there’s the environmental impact: Thousands of daily journeys, being run on big diesel-guzzling rigs, kicks up huge amounts of pollution and carbon monoxide – never a good thing for the atmosphere. Rail ostensibly runs off electricity which, while still being generated by dirty coal power, is still more environmentally friendly than hundreds of trucks. (This advantage is somewhat reduced, though, by Transnet needing to use diesel locomotives more often, due to cable theft on their lines.)
Now while these downsides are by no means insignificant (especially the environmental ones), I’d like to put forward a theory that the trucking industry is actually better for the economy than having an efficient rail cargo system. And let me preface it with the disclaimer that I use the term ‘economy’ loosely: Not in the purist, economist sense as seen in analyst’s reports and textbooks, but rather in the fair-distribution-of-wealth-to-all-who-need-it sense. My theory stems from the huge number of small businesses that have come to benefit from the high prevalence of trucks on our roads. Think about the trucking companies; truck stops; diesel depots; farm-stalls; field maintenance guys; breakdown operators; owner-operator-drivers; fleet management companies; vehicle dealers; etc. All of these guys have the trucking industry to thank for their livelihood.
Look, there will always be a need for trucks and haulage (try and get a train to back up to your local supermarket), but if the majority of long-range haulage moved onto the rail system, the resultant job losses and economic hardships would be epidemic. Think of the guy who drove for someone else for ten years, saved up, and then bought his own truck. That’s his business and his meal-ticket – he provides for his family, puts food on the table, maybe puts his kids through school and/or university. He works hard, saves up even more, and eventually gets one or two more vehicles added to the fleet. Now he needs to employ other guys to drive them for him. Their salaries now support their families. He needs a reliable maintenance guy. That’s another family with an income. And this goes on and on, repeated far and wide across the country, amongst all the support industries as well. Yes, there are a couple of big corporate hauliers on the scene, with huge fleets, but this industry is generally characterised by the enterprising chaps who go out on their own to carve an income for themselves (and thus their families).
The alternative is the bulk of the work and the income going to those who run the rail system. We’re not the UK, our rail system isn’t de-regulated, which means it would pretty much all feed up to the boys at Transnet. Now you’re sitting with a situation where, instead of the revenue being spread relatively evenly across the length and breadth of the country (and economic spectrum), it’s now concentrated in the hands of a parastatal – notorious for inefficiency and even corruption. The theory is that this income is then funneled up to the government, being the shareholder, to be spent on the betterment of the country. But not before Transnet has taken its chunk of costs. And how efficiently is the government using its income anyway? It’s basically a case of the market dictating a relatively fair spread of revenue vs it pouring into the hands of a fortunate few. (Don’t even get me started on ‘tenderpreneurs’)
Yes, the end-receivers of the goods being hauled are probably paying a higher price for the privilege (and most likely passing that on to the end-consumers), but I can’t help but feel that the thousands of jobs created compensate for that. I must re-iterate that I can’t ignore the environmental impact here, but from a purely entrepreneurial perspective – wanting to distribute resources and opportunities as efficiently as possible – are trucks not the better option? What do you think?
|