AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Will more mean less?

27th June 1981, Page 17
27th June 1981
Page 17
Page 17, 27th June 1981 — Will more mean less?
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Truck, Freight Train, Haulage

THE QUESTION of whether heavier lorries really will mean fewer lorries is the key to the future of the Armitage Report, Junior Transport Minister Kenneth Clarke said when summing up last week's House of Commons debate on the Report.

This was challenged by several MPs from both sides of the House, and Shadow Transport Minister Albert Booth described it as the "fundamental error" of the Report.

He said that in 1953, two years before the gross weight of lorries was raised to 24 tons, a greater ton-mileage of freight /vent by rail than by road, but by 1958 lorries were carrying 30 per ent more freight than trains. By 1963, the bias in favour of lorries lad risen to 130 per cent.

By 1968, four years after the mival of the 32.5-tonner, lorries fvere carrying three times as riuch freight as trains, and by 1979, five times. "If we go for mother massive increase in orry weights, one of the most nobable consequences will be yet another huge shift of freight from the railways to the roads," he warned.

He also pointed out that although Armitage proposes only a 0.5m increase in the length of tractive units, increased gross weights would make drawbar combinations more popular, and the number of significantly larger vehicles on British roads would increase as a result.

Tom Bradley (Social Democrat, Leicester East) told the Commons that, in his capacity of chairman of the transport committee, he had received information from an Australian transport economist which contradicted Armitage's "heavier means fewer" contention.

Professor David Starkie of Adelaide University told the committee that previous experience shows that the drop in mileage would be nearer three per cent than the eight per cent suggested by Armitage.

And even on Armitage's own calculations, Starkie said the savings in final consumer prices would amount only to 0.1 per cent, or the equivalent of three days' inflation at the current rate.

"In view of the apparently small advantages, and the doubts about the environmental impact of heavier lorries, particularly bridge structures, we must ask ourselves whether the introduction of heavier lorries is worthwhile," Mr Bradley added.

Chris Patten (Conservative, Bath) agreed with Mr Booth and Mr Bradley on this point, saying: believe that argument falls strictly in the 'Tell that to the Marines' category of expert assurance." He also took issue with a Freight Transport Association claim that there is "an indisputable link between freight movement, GNP, and prosperity", and said: "I do not take the point that what has stood between this country and an economic miracle in the past decade has been a paucity of heavy lorries, or that the less than onerous restrictions — far less onerous than in other countries — that we have placed on lorries have been a brake upon economic progress in this country."

Mr Clarke assured MPs that the Government has no view yet on the "heavier means fewer" argument, but warned against rejecting it out of hand.

"We may all come to the conclusion that Sir Arthur's advice is wrong, but it is well-researched," he said, and added: "It is based on research by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. It was not plucked out of the air, and it was not a product of the road haulage industry.

"The proposition is advanced that the overall number of lorries of 32.5 tonnes and over will be 10,000 fewer in this country if the lorries are allowed to be more fully loaded. If that is right, and we reject it, we shall have made a dreadful mistake," he said.


comments powered by Disqus