Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


Memorandum by the Railway Development Society (RH 06)

THE ROLE OF THE ROAD HAULAGE INDUSTRY, THE WAY IN WHICH IT OPERATES, ITS CONTRIBUTION TO THE ECONOMY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND ITS IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

There is no doubt that the road haulage industry is vital to the economy of the United Kingdom. Its current market share of the transport is about 65 per cent compared to rail's 6 per cent and the best estimates of rail's potential to regain traffic will leave road at about 55 per cent with rail at 18 per cent, road still the dominant mode. It is convenient with door to door deliveries. Some would argue its very convenience has allowed companies to be lazy in their transport planning, knowing that road will get them there even if there is an environmental price for someone else to pay.

  This state of affairs cannot continue indefinitely. Lorries are increasingly caught in traffic jams which can only get worse. The sensible company transport manager would at least have the rail option in his back pocket for when the situation becomes intolerable.

  Others will no doubt argue how indispensable the road haulage industry is and that it must be accommodated no matter what the cost. We must offer an alternative scenario. One in which sensible government policies and fair treatment of road and rail, will allow each to play its full part. As argued later, we believe that it will only take a fair assessment of the true costs of road haulage, and adjustment of the costs accordingly, to enable rail to fulfil its potential.

  The environmental impact of road haulage is immense. It is an impact for which the industry does not pay, the cost being borne by the country as a whole. Respiratory diseases caused by road traffic alone, are estimated to cause 10,000+ deaths per annum. Diesel particulates are relevant in these deaths.

  Carbon Dioxide emissions form the major greenhouse gas and transport is one of the few areas where the potential for reductions is available with proven technology, ie railfreight.

  Whilst no longer fashionable to mention, road haulage is a profligate user of non renewable energy. Typically, it can take 10 times the fuel to move a load by road compared to rail.

  Again it is not fashionable to mention that roads take up vast swathes of land with hard shoulders and huge sweeping junctions. Not only does road haulage produce greenhouse gases it conspires to remove the green lungs necessary for their removal.

  A comparison with other EU states reveals that UK rail's market share is about one third of the EU average. This is in spite of the fact that continental Europe has a well developed inland waterways network which is in direct competition with the railways for bulk cargoes. The 12-15 per cent extra market share for EU rail, being mainly long distance goods, equates to about 50 per cent of the motorway lorry traffic which is so apparent in the UK. This is why an apparently small increase in rail's percentage modal split, can have a large impact on motorway heavy lorries.

THE IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY OF CURRENT AND PAST RATES OF VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY AND LEVELS OF DUTY ON FUEL

  In the past the levels of VED and fuel duty were kept artificially low to provide cheap transport. Either wittingly or unwittingly this had the effect of undercutting the railways so they could not compete and most traffic moved to road. The road freight industry did not cover a fraction of its true costs and was able to shelter under the umbrella of road taxes provided by the private motor car which paid for the roads, while the wear and tear was done by heavy axle load lorries.

  The recent increases in VED and the fuel escalator have started to redress the balance but even now road haulage only pays 60-70 per cent of its true costs. In deference to recent protests the government seems to have lost its nerve and scrapped the fuel escalator.

  The industry is complaining that foreign competitors will take their business and have threatened to flag out vehicles. However, many of the lorries seen on the protests are under no foreign threat, witness stone hauliers from the Peak District parading in Manchester.

  As a sop to these protests John Prescott offered 44 tonnes lorries and the use of bus lanes. As both these measures will be equally available to foreign hauliers and therefore do not affect the balance, the fact that this partially appeased the industry perhaps revealed the true agenda. The real feared competitor was not foreign lorries but rail. Why else would Peak District stone lorries protest? Several rail served stone depots in Manchester, closed when 38 tonnes lorries were introduced, have recently reopened, with a noticeable reduction in lorry traffic on the A6 trunk road.

  The industry is fond of quoting the VED rate of £5,750 on a five axle (2+3) articulated lorry at 40 tonnes. This was only imposed because of the particularly damaging effect of this arrangement. They are less keen to quote the VED rate of £280 (sic) on a six axle articulated lorry at 38 tonnes (using an eco friendly engine). As this was the maximum gross weight of a lorry up to 1 January 1999, this hardly demonstrates a government assaulting the industry.

  The actual VED rates paid in this country, excluding the aforementioned five axle 40 tonnes lorry, compare well with European averages. Whilst the cost of fuel is more, it must be remembered that there are no motorway toll charges in this country. When this is added into the equation, the actual cost in Europe is more than the UK. The legitimate grievance of the industry is that foreign hauliers can fill with cheap continental diesel and then run on our motorways without charge. This needs addressing by means other than reducing the cost of fuel in this country. This would simply increase the pre-existing imbalance between road and rail in favour of road.

  It is perhaps worth noting that a few years ago diesel was cheaper in this country than in France, the opposite of today. The response of the French authorities was to place severe restrictions on the amount of diesel that a lorry from the UK could bring into France. No doubt this was illegal under EC law but it appeared to have the desired effect.

THE REGULATIONS WHICH GOVERN THE INDUSTRY, AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE SAFETY RECORD AND PROFITABILTY OF THE INDUSTRY

  The compliance with, or disregard for, regulations covering the road haulage industry not only has an effect on safety, which is self evident, but it also affects the economics of that industry and its competitors.

  It has been estimated that if all the regulations covering the industry were enforced the cost of road haulage would rise by 30 per cent. Such a rise would of course put rail, which in general complies with all its regulatory requirements, in a much better position to compete and win traffic from road. However, a rise of this magnitude would severely impact on the cost of goods in the shops and perhaps successive governments have been less than willing to force the issue.

  Roads directly killed 3,400 people last year. If rail approaches 1 per cent of that figure there is a major outcry. Witness Paddington, 31 passengers killed but these were the first casualties since Southall two years earlier, when seven died.

  A graphic example of the difference in attitude between road and rail is the treatment of the "Great Wheel Loss Mystery".

  The wheel studs on road semi-trailers regularly shear at speed, leaving a pair of lorry wheels to bound down the road at 60 mph ready to hit the next oncoming car head on, with unfortunate consequences for the occupants. The attitude of a major figure in the road haulage industry was "wheels have come off vehicles since the days of roman chariots so I suppose we must expect them to do so now". Wheels continue to come off lorries.

  Had anything remotely similar happened in the rail industry the entire fleet would have been stopped, regardless of cost, until a solution was found. Other similar examples have occurred. The net effect of this laxness is that road haulage is cheaper viz-a-viz rail, hence the modal split we see today.

  As a first general requirement enforcement of existing regulations must be improved. Speed and weight limits, drivers' hours and mechanical requirements are routinely flouted, even by some large, so called, "blue chip" companies.

  Policing of heavy goods vehicles is a skilled job often beyond the knowledge of a local PC. There is a myriad of documents and regulations, tachograph discs etc to examine. Perhaps there is a case for a specialised force to deal with transport backed up by effective court and traffic commissioner action.

SPECIFIC AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Overloading

Since the incident involving the Herald of Free Enterprise, shipping companies have had to weigh every lorry to ensure the ship is not overloaded. This information is not passed on to the police or DETR inspectors (probably in deference to British fair play!). Ministry weighbridges are separately provided at some ports but even at the busiest they are not manned 24 hours and an overweight lorry will simply wait on port until the weighbridge closes then continue its journey.

  Weighbridge information from shipping companies should be routinely passed in real time to the authorities so that overweight incoming lorries can be detained and overweight outgoing persistent offenders can be targeted on future journeys.

  Funding should be in place to allow ministry weighbridges in main road locations to be manned much more frequently than at present. Sites are closed so often, through lack of staff, that lorries can take a chance on being stopped, especially when CB radio warnings are given by other drivers of the few occasions that sites are open.

  Haulage companies frequently complain that a customer will order, say a 25 tonnes lorry, only for the driver to find 28 tonnes waiting for him. Any complaints by the driver, receive the threat that the business will be placed elsewhere in future. To assist in enforcement there should be a joint liability for overloading between the haulier and the company who loaded the vehicle.

Impounding of Vehicles

  Every major player in the industry, and all law abiding hauliers, want illegally operated vehicles to be impounded when caught. The government has again shied away from introducing legislation. Whilst the cowboy operators may not mind losing the lorry, which is often old and in poor condition, the impounding of its load is a major disincentive to users of such companies. There appears to be no good reason for delay.

Speed Limits

  All speed limiters fitted to vehicles should be active ie positively apply brakes when overspeeding occurs, rather than passive which allow lorries to overspeed downhill.

  Speed limiters should be more rigorously designed. A case has arisen where the speed limiter fitted by a major manufacturer can be disabled simply by depressing the clutch and revving the engine whilst in motion. The speed limiter remains disabled until the next time that the engine is switched off. This is totally unacceptable.

  The FTA campaign to increase lorry speeds should be resisted. 40 mph x 44 tonnes is quite fast enough on a single carriageway country road and 60 mph is too fast on a crowded motorway.

  The recently mooted GPS satellite speed limiter should be adequately funded and brought into use as soon as possible. Its unique ability to enforce all speed limits is to be applauded and with the right technology it could even enforce police imposed matrix motorway limits or temporary limits.

Drivers' Hours

  Driving a heavy lorry is a demanding and tiring job. It seems incredible that it should be exempt from European directives on working time. The number of hours per day, and the spread allowed, which can be absorbed by loading the vehicle, are excessive and should be reduced. Owner drivers routinely flout the 24 hours rest period by maintaining the vehicle during this time which, although an offence, is virtually undetectable.

Maintenance

  In the section above on overloading the manning of ministry inspection sites was mentioned. These sites are also the locations where regular checks on lorry maintenance standards are supposed to take place. Again lack of funds means they are closed more than they are open. Occasional high profile checks are made for publicity purposes and a recent exercise on the M62 motorway found major faults on over 30 per cent of lorries carrying dangerous chemicals. These sites needs to be open virtually all the time, so that a driver knows his chances of being stopped and checked are considerably higher than the virtual 1 per cent chance at present.

Excise Licence

  The paper disc that forms the licence should be distinctly different from the disc required by private cars. As stated earlier, this can have a value to the haulier of up to £5,750. Surely such a document is worth printing to banknote standards and a different shape, to avoid forgeries and misuse of stolen car discs.

Punishment of Offenders

  Having discussed how little chance there is of being caught for various offences, it is sad to note how small the punishment is for those taken before a court or Traffic Commissioners. All too often the driver is punished as an individual rather than the incident being treated as an offence by a commercial profit making organisation. Fines of £200 are commonplace, about one day's profit for the lorry concerned. Traffic Commissioners routinely issue warnings or admonishments or reduce authorised numbers of vehicles. When a company is authorised for 20 vehicles but is only running 15, what deterrent is a reduction in authorised vehicles of five?

WHAT CHANGES TO GOVERNMENT POLICIES AFFECTING THE ROAD HAULAGE INDUSTRY ARE NEEDED TO BENEFIT THE ECONOMY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

  It could almost be said that the needs of the economy and the environment are diametrically opposed and in the past, the economy has always won. This state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. Without due regard to the environment this country will not be a fit place to leave to our children.

  Any changes to government policy must be with the aim of levelling the playing field between road and rail. Rail does not want, and has never received, preferential treatment. Simply recognition of rail's ability to deliver a better environment is enough.

  The true cost of road haulage, with the hidden subsidy from the private car stripped out, must be calculated. This must include new road costs, road maintenance, policing, accidents, deaths, serious injury, pollution, congestion etc. Once that figure is calculated the Government then has two choices. It can increase the cost of road haulage by taxation to cover its true costs. It will obviously be reluctant to do that. The second choice is to give grants to railfreight to bring its costs down to the subsidised road haulage figure. There is, of course, the third way traditionally followed by all governments for at least 40 years. This is to allow the status quo to continue.

  European States apply other methods of controlling road transport. Weekend and bank holiday lorry bans are quite usual in many countries. Germany has restrictions on the carriage of dangerous chemicals by road, although in this country the HSE somehow managed to "prove" that it is safer to carry dangerous chemicals by road!

  Road haulage interests will claim that allowing 44 tonnes lorries is environmentally friendly because each can carry more so there are less of them. This is a naive argument which history disproves. Every previous increase in lorry weights has resulted in traffic losses from rail to road, which more than make up for the increased weight of each lorry.

  The Peak District stone lorries were mentioned earlier. When 38 tonnes lorries were authorised, four rail served depots in Manchester were closed and the traffic transferred to road, with disastrous consequences for residents along the A6 road. Privatisation of railfreight and a lot of hard work by railwaymen has resulted in two of those depots recently reopening. A move to 40 tonnes has caused some wobbles, but allowing 44 tonnes will certainly close at least the two repoened depots if not others.

  If the Committee wishes to make international comparisons it could look at Switzerland, admittedly not an EC state, but one that has a 28 tonnes road weight limit and a rail share of transport at 45 per cent compared to 6 per cent in the UK. Perhaps the case should be made for reducing the UK road weight limit.

  In the past, no sooner has one increased weight limit been granted than the industry has started to campaign for the next, and 44 tonnes is no different. Already industry sources (Volvo) are pushing for 49 tonnes and one company (Scania), is already running a 60 tonnes lorry. In order to fill a 60 tonnes lorry with consumer goods it needs to be considerably larger, hence this lorry is 28 metres long compared to the present maximum of 18 metres. The lorry has already been demonstrated to members of the European Commission and the manufacturer involved is lobbying hard to make it a new European standard. In dealing with road haulage you are dealing with an industry that is insatiable and one that will not be happy until every last tonne is wrested from rail. Even then, there will be plenty of coastal shipping to attack. 44 tonnes must be resisted. 40 tonnes is accepted as the EU standard for international traffic and there is no need for the UK to start taking the lead in breaching this.

  Over and above all this is the poor state of the nations road bridges. For example, Lancashire County Council have 460 bridges that need strengthening to carry 40 tonne lorries and they estimate it will take them 20 years to complete the work. 44 tonnes will increase the number and time it takes. One can only guess at the effects of 49-60 tonnes and beyond.

  Earlier, mention was made of government grants to railfreight to level the playing field. These have been available for a number of years on environmental grounds, based on so many pence per lorry mile removed from the road, but only for capital expenditure. For years government refused to contemplate revenue grants, calling them a subsidy. This is strange considering how much easier it is to control grant paid per actual train mile run, as opposed to capital grants which can, and have been, misused. A change of heart in the Railways Act 1993 allowed Track Access Grants, effectively a revenue grant per train mile. Assuming that government will not adopt the option of increasing road taxation to cover its true cost, it is this system that needs to be extended to provide the necessary grants to railfreight. One third of rail freight company's costs are spent on gaining track access from Railtrack. EWS have stated that in the USA the comparable figure is around 10 per cent. A similar level in the UK would reduce railfreight costs by 20 per cent and virtually balance road and rail costs.

  Additionally, the capital grant regime, Freight Facilities Grant, needs updating. Documents have been submitted to the Government on several occasions detailing changes. Some have been adopted, others need to be. The rate of grant needs increasing and index linking, despite the view of civil servants that, in their view, the level of grant, is if anything, too high already.

Conclusion

  The remit of the inquiry is to examine the UK road transport industry. It can be seen from this submission that very little needs changing within that industry. It is the interface and comparative position with rail that needs addressing, and it is in this area that the major benefits to economy and environment will arise.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 26 July 2000