More than one train in eight is running late because of track and signal failures, rail regulators. That was the report in the Daily Telegraph. This is important for the haulage for several of reason. The first is that it shows that despite billions of pounds being invested and soaring fares, there has been little improvement in the service. Indeed overcrowded looks likely to increase. This is bad news for road haulage. The best policy from our perspective is that people should go by train and freight should go by road. Experts such as Professor Alan McKinnon of Heriott-Watt University have calculated the options and this is the best. But if trains are so awful, then even more people will travel by car, causing more congestion for our trucks. Currently we are getting the worst of both all works. Huge amounts are being spend on rail but not getting very far while hardly any serious money is being spent on roads where it is most needed. The majority of people travel by car but the majority of money is spent on rail. This sounds like the real cause of congestion.

With Manchester and other cities thinking about introducing a congestion charge, it is worth asking whether there is any evidence to show that it works.
A clue is given by a report on the effect of the London Congestion Charge, introduced in 2003 (see page 21).
According to the latest report published by Transport for London, the number of vehicles entering the central London congestion zone reduced by 16% between 2002 and 2004.
That sounds good but most of the reduction came in the first year. In 2003, traffic fell by 14% compared to 2002. But the next year there was no change, in 2005 there was a 2% fall and last year there was no change.
Still a 16% reduction in traffic is impressive, even if it came at considerable cost. And even a 0% fall is quite good considering that traffic generally is increasing. So maybe it does work.
Incidentally the number of lorries and vans entering the central London zone have both fallen by 13% comparing 2006 with 2002.

Today's prize for patronising codswallop is headed to Weybridge, and the RHA's trophy case.

In its press release titled Fuel Duty: Now it's Time for Real Action, the Association asserts that:

"Earlier this week protesters certainly captured the media's attention for what is an absolutely just cause, but handing yet another letter to No. 10 does not move us any further forward," said RHA Chief Executive Roger King.  "To have an impact we need to get directly involved with a parliamentary process that will confront government face to face so that they have to answer publicly as to what they propose to do.  Fortunately this amendment promises to do just that".

The RHA will be putting in motion what is intended to be one of the biggest parliamentary lobby's of recent times.  "Once we have the date on which the Scottish National Party amendment is to be debated we will advise members accordingly and urge them to attend to lobby their MP's.  In addition to the amendment we will also be campaigning for the October 2ppl fuel duty increase to be abandoned," concluded Mr King.

I'm intrigued by the notion that direct involvement is necessary now, not least because the RHA claims to do have been doing just this anyway. To the website we go, and to this claim:

"The RHA continually negotiates on behalf of Members. Not just in the high profile discussions that go on with the government over the national issues, but every day of the week, every week of the year with everyone from local planning committees and regional transport groups to the European Commission.

Their discussions take in everything from Fuel and VED rates to the Working Time Directive and changes in EC regulations on the transport of goods. There is no administrative or legislative area that concerns the industry that is not carefully scrutinised and actively pursued on behalf of Members."

Which implies some degree of active as opposed to passive involvement to me. And much good has it achieved.

The simple, stark fact remains that the RHA got this wrong, and it should be thus called to account. That it now seeks to climb on board a protest organized by others, and appears to be claiming leadership of the same is both duplicitous and disingenuous.

Yesterday, we heard news that a US Senator is to bring a bill before the Senate that will raise GVW on Federal Highways after diesel reaches an agreed trigger point; $3.50 per gallon. That is real action; the work of the fuel protestors over the last few weeks has been real action. The words of the RHA are mere platitudinous drivel.