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.
| 
