House of Commons - Transport

Select Committee on Transport Eighth Report

4 Balancing the needs of the freight industry and wishes of the wider public

77. The needs of the freight industry are of course closely aligned with the needs of the general public because of the public's reliance on the efficient distribution of goods. However, there are some areas where the industry comes into conflict with particular groups—such as householders, motorists or passengers on public transport—and the Government is required to intervene to balance their competing needs. EWS Railway, noting similarities between the problems faced by the rail freight and road haulage industries, explained that operators are not "just moving freight for the sake of it" but that "it is going for energy production, construction, and increasingly for delivery to supermarkets for the consumer."[139] The Central London Freight Quality Partnership described the problem as it relates to road haulage:

The general public's perception of a lorry or a truck is that they don't want them on the road. They are a no-no. They get stuck behind them. The only time they want them is when they want a delivery made or they want to go into the store and find the goods on the shop floor, and it is big issue getting them to understand that.[140]

Conflicts between passenger and freight services

78. The Institution of Highways and Transportation admitted that transport planners had focused on passenger transport and we have neglected freight transport."[141] And in emphasising that "very little, if any" infrastructure funded by Government is provided solely for freight, the Minister seemed to imply that the Government's priority was passenger transport.[142] The British Ports Association considers that passenger transport currently has "policy priority" over freight, which, it says, is a particular issue for rail freight as a result of "unforeseen and dramatic rises in passenger numbers."[143] The RMT would rather the Government had control over both the passenger and freight networks in order that it could take a more strategic approach.[144]

79. The rail freight industry looks to Network Rail to prioritise appropriately between passenger and freight services; to deal with what the Freight Transport Association called the "ongoing tension" between the two using suitable franchise arrangements and Track Access Charges.[145] A witness from Network Rail explained:

We have to balance those requirements [of passenger and freight operators] every day, both in terms of the short-term operation of the network […] and how we allocate the capacity that is available, how we develop the network […] I think we try to work very hard across the whole of the industry to get as much as possible a consensus, as much as possible based on objective criteria and appraisal and evaluation of the benefits.[146]

80. As ever, capacity is the major concern of the industry. EWS highlighted concerns that passenger services were prioritised at times when the network was not at full capacity, either during planned engineering works or during an incident: "freight does not vote and by and large a passenger train, however many people are on it, will tend to get priority over a freight train in the event of disruption." EWS is working with Network Rail on this issue. Capacity for freight can also be encroached upon by wider, long-term objectives, such as Crossrail and new passenger services on the North London Line.[147]

81. Freight on Rail suggested that some relatively inexpensive upgrades of existing lines could reduce conflicts between passenger and freight services. It would be possible, we were told, to get from Felixstowe to Crewe without using the West Coast Main Line by upgrading some sections of line that are currently used only lightly by passenger services. EWS pointed out that, since freight operators voluntarily stay out of the way of passenger trains during the morning and evening peaks, EWS would like access during the day and early evening. The possibility of Network Rail undertaking some of its engineering work during the quiet period in the middle of the day rather than during the night was also raised. Network Rail acknowledged that there was much still to be done, working with the train operators to make better use of the capacity, more of the time.[148]

82. Again, it seems that Network Rail is aware that it needs to do something about the problems that freight operators face when passenger services are prioritised ahead of freight trains, but there is not yet a coherent plan. We are pleased that Network Rail are talking to the industry about the respective priorities of passengers and freight, and that a reasonable working relationship appears to exist. Network Rail must progress its thinking in relation to providing reliable capacity for freight, even in the event of network disruption. Network Rail must recognise the importance of freight instead of treating it as the poor relation of passenger services. Operators should he able to see a clear link between the Track Access Charges that they pay and the service that they receive.

83. Freight must not be undervalued. The need for high profile and much needed improvements for passengers must not sideline the importance of schemes designed to improve the efficiency of freight transport. Upgrades that will benefit freight must not disappear from consideration. Studies into the possibility of high speed and upgraded rail must include an assessment of the benefits of freeing up existing capacity for freight. Similarly, the potential for increased capacity for passenger services should be given due consideration in relation to proposals for a dedicated freight line.

84. Analogous issues relating to inland waterways were described to us. While British Waterways believe that they are getting the balance between freight and leisure users about right, GPS Marine Contractors and Sea and Water are concerned that high tariffs for commercial traffic (double that for leisure users) are resulting in fewer operators using the waterways.[149]

Out of hours deliveries in urban areas

85. Schemes to restrict the movement of lorries at night and at the weekends are designed to minimise the disruption caused by deliveries. However, the Freight Transport Association and others told us that such restrictions in urban areas have made the delivery of goods increasingly difficult and contributed to congestion during peak hours of the day.[150] The Institution of Highways and Transportation called local night time restrictions on deliveries "one of the key impediments to supply chain efficiency".[151]

86. Several of our witnesses told us that there is a case for looking at relaxing such restrictions in the wake of vehicle and best-practice improvements.[152] While TfL believes that some restrictions on vehicle size are appropriate for certain urban residential areas, it says that delivery by low-carbon, suitably sized vehicles should be encouraged in order to "reduce CO₂ emissions, lessen road-user risks and minimise congestion."[153] The London Councils Transport and Environment Committee pointed to restrictions on the noise of operations at night, such as the Dutch PIEK project which limits the volume of night time activities to 65 decibels, as a potential way to resolve the issue,[154] although the Freight Transport Association reminded us that customers can be reluctant to receive deliveries in the middle of the night.[155]

87. The Government's Sustainable Distribution (1999) says the following regarding the possibility of shifting lorry traffic away from the peak hours:

This could help to ensure efficient access for vital goods and services, at the same time as playing a very constructive part in helping to reduce traffic-related problems. Clearly it would not be acceptable if it meant increased disturbance for local residents, so there is a need for local authorities to work with industry and central Government to examine the potential for reducing lorry noise, including the disturbance caused by loading, unloading and handling.[156]

88. The Central London Freight Quality Partnership did not believe that the Government has a coherent approach to make decisions about night time deliveries or is doing enough to explore the possibility of allowing out of hours deliveries subject to noise limits.[157] Although a consensus might not be reached, bringing people together to discuss potential advantages of relaxing restrictions, such as reduced congestion and emissions, can lead to solutions being identified.[158] The Minister mentioned plastic rather than metal equipment and radios that turn off automatically when cab doors are open.[159] The Freight Transport Association praised the Government for its production of a toolkit for local authorities to improve understanding of the potential advantages and disadvantages of relaxing delivery restrictions and its support for several pilot schemes that are ongoing.[160]

89. The Government has also promoted the development of Freight Quality Partnerships to provide a forum for dialogue between local authorities, the freight industry, business communities, residents and environmental groups and are designed to achieve best practice in environmentally sensitive, economic, safe and efficient freight transport.[161] Witnesses suggested that Freight Quality Partnerships are a good way to ensure interested parties work together on freight issues and understand one another's perspectives. The Central London Freight Quality Partnership considered that a requirement for FQPs in Local Transport Plans would be a positive step and could lead to more expertise in freight transport being developed in local authorities.[162]

90. While out of hours deliveries must not be allowed to cause unacceptable disturbance to residents, best practice and an increasing imperative to reduce peak congestion in urban areas mean that relaxations of blanket delivery bans should now be seriously considered, where appropriate. The Government has been praised for its Freight Best Practice scheme, which is encouraging among other things the development of quieter equipment, and Freight Quality Partnerships are increasingly facilitating productive communication between freight operators, businesses and local residents. But we are concerned that instances where local agreements have been successfully negotiated are still relatively rare and progress towards wider adoption of noise restrictions, rather than delivery bans, appears to be slow.

139 Q 244 Back

140 Q 474 Back

141 Q 42 Back

142 Q 478 Back

143 Ev 207 Back

144 Q 151 Back

145 Q 109 Back

146 Q 242 Back

147 Ibid Back

148 Qq 243-245 Back

149 Qq 313 & 314 Back

150 Ev 174 Back