The report by Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) and Heriot-Watt University, which formed the basis for the government's decision not to allow a trial of longer, heavier vehicles (LHVs), suggests that road freight will continue to grow, and, as a result, there will be a greater number of trucks
on the road. On the flipside, the report suggests the introduction of LHVs could damage the rail freight industry and this is one of the main points picked up by the government in its decision to reject a trial.
A closer look at the report shows that the road transport industry offered a mixed response to the prospect of LHVs running in the UK. While some thought it could be a good thing, that could offer large cost savings, others were less enthusiastic, doubting that LHVs would benefit the industry and may even lead to a cut in haulage rates. The threat of operational restrictions, such as limiting the routes LHVs could use, was also seen as a stumbling block for the uptake of larger trucks, because it would restrict the ability to obtain backloads.
On the other hand, the rail industry was extremely vocal in its objections, with the likes of EWS and Freightliner submitting their own research into the predicted impact of LHVs on freight movements by rail. Their
research suggests that 20% of current rail business would transfer to LHVs at 60t and 40% at 82t, with the deep-sea container business most at risk of changing mode - notwithstanding the risk of future rail growth being stunted. Other issues raised by the report was the lack of suitable parking for such large trucks, and the fact that the law would need to be changed to allow them to go above 40mph on a motorway and dual carriageway and 20mph on single carriageways.
On the safety side, the report highlights concerns about current bridge structures and their ability to withstand the extra weight, as well as problems with longer trucks blocking junctions and becoming stuck while negotiating existing street furniture. Proposals to restrict the use of LHVs to certain types of roads would need EU approval, according to the report, as would being to stipulate certain safety features such as steering axles, electronic stability control and collision mitigating braking systems.
The Road Haulage Association (RHA) and the Freight Transport Association (FTA) both expressed their disappointment at the decision. Roger King, the chief executive at the Road Haulage Association, says:"We always knew there would be some aspects of the road network that would be unsuitable for LHVs, which was why we wanted to operate a system of registered routes." However, King says the RHA membership is relaxed about LHVs. "While we wanted a trial, many of our members felt that the use of LHVs could have resulted in a reduction in haulage rates."
Geoff Dossetter, external affairs director at the FTA, adds: "It's clear the rail lobby is being protected, and we're disappointed that a possible way of improving transport efficiency was rejected without even a trial." The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport has also criticised the government for not allowing a trial. Chief executive Steve Agg believes rejecting LHVs without physical trials is a wasted opportunity. "The fact that the Secretary of State has used the term 'Super Lorry' suggests a biased approach.
The sensible decision would have been to specify trials, which could have provided real data and tangible experience in order to reach an objective conclusion."
One of the big supporters of the LHV concept is Stan Robinson, owner of Stafford-based Stan Robinson Group, who wants to trial a 33.5-metre, 84-tonne road train. "I'm very disappointed, but not surprised," Robinson says. He is hoping to organise a meeting with his local MP to discuss the issue further, as well as arrange a demonstration of his concept for the Secretary of State. He says: "I don't agree with any of the government's arguments for rejecting the trial, and I feel the use of an LHV could be a possible answer to the fuel crisis."
Unsurprisingly, the rail freight lobby was pleased with the government's decision. EWS planning director Graham Smith says the decision firmly places rail freight as the key low-carbon, high-volume transportation mode of choice for British industry. This view is supported by Freight on Rail campaigner Philippa Edmunds who believes that road and rail modes can complement each other but trunk movements of large quantities of freight can be more sustainably and safely carried by rail rather than ever-larger lorries.
The Liberal Democrats also support the government decision, but Shadow Transport Secretary Norman Baker says: "Banning super lorries is not enough. The Government must now look at how we can shift more freight off road and onto rail." The Lib Dems suggest money raised from road user pricing on road freight could be used to build a high-speed rail network to help with the modal shift.
Reed Business Information Limited.©2009
