Crucial lorry an inquiry
Page 16
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
lETHER it continues to be lied the Inquiry into the Effects Bans on Heavy Lorries within ndon, or if, like other national d local committees of inquiry, ekes the name of its chairman
d becomes the Wood Inquiry, ndon's lorry inquiry will domite the thoughts of many .oughout the coming winter, ites ALAN MILLAR.
The fact that it covers London, the nation's capital, adds sta; to the hearing in a way that ?. antics of Avon County Councannot. It will be seen as a nd-setter for local authorities .oughout Britain, especially if ry bans continue to prove to an ostensibly cheap way of \ring electors' votes. And it II affect the way in which lorry erators throughout the nation erate, as there are few which r not collect or deliver metime in Greater London. I:1s inquiry chairman Derek )ocl stressed at last week's public hearing (see p4), the wiry is an independent one, lich will establish the likely acts of a series of different )es of ban, and it will be up to 3 Greater London Council to :e political decisions based on the inquiry's deliberations.
e GLC, no doubt worried out the likelihood of the Social mocrat/Liberal Alliance winng control of London roughs at next May's elecns, wants the inquiry to report Easter. It won't be happy if it ports late, or if its nine memrs divide into splinter groups th conflicting points of view. The remit for the inquiry is "to amine the social, economic d environmental effects of nning heavy lorries within a cular route on or near the ad ministrative boundary of Greater London, the examination to include: the banning of such lorries, from the area at all times; and the banning of such lorries from the area at night time and at weekends as an interim or permanent measure; and to examine the practicalities of enforcement of any such ban; and to report."
Mr Wood said last week that it had considered reporting in two stages, one report dealing with the suitability of short-term measures, the other with the longerterm aims, but this would have caused such complications as to make it impossible to do justice to the remit.
He said he imagined that a night-time ban might apply from apm to7am, but said that the inquiry was concerned much more with broader generalisations than with such specifics.
The inquiry will have to decide whether a heavy lorry is defined as being all heavy goods vehicles as defined by the Road Traffic Acts, or vehicles of 16 tons gross and above. But it will also have to look at the possibility of further division into 24 to 32-tonners and 16 to 24-tonners.
It will have to consider the relative advisibility of bans being continuous, night-time only, or weekend only, and it will have to weigh up the possible arguments in favour of granting access for specific heavy vehicles, such as lorries delivering newsprint to Fleet Street, and Mr Wood conceded that these exemptions could be when a Newspaper Publishers' Association spokesman said that a switch to an eight-tonne limit — presumably the most drastic solution short of compulsory minivans — would result in an increase in the number of newsreel lorries running into one medium circulation national newspaper shooting up from 20 to 80 a day, and all of them during the day. "I see no advantage in this," he said.
That, no doubt, is but a mere taste of what lies ahead for the
panel which will act as equal members, and not merely as advisers to Mr Wood. At the hear ings next year, they will listen to individuals' and organisations' point of view in public, and with the press present, but the public will not be permitted to participate.
In seeking response to the general question of a ban, the inquiry wants to know what effect a ban would have on road wear, damage to buildings and pavements, damage to un derground and other services, noise, fumes, visual amenity, traffic congestion, traffic accidents, and other aspects of community and personal life.
It wants to know the effects which eight, 16, or 24-tonne weight limits could have on the • haulage industry. Which haulage functions, it wonders, would not be carried out at all in London, and which would work better? It wants to know what alternative modes of transport exist, and is interested to learn of the likelihood of operators using an alternative mode or smaller vehicles.
information will be needed on the costs to hauliers, own-account operators, and customers of complying with any or all of
the ban options, and of the cot and savings to consumers, rel payers, and home owners ei occupiers. The inquiry al; wants to know what is the cc rect method of calculating the changes in costs, and Mr Woi said last week he accepted tt. some forms of lorry cost cafc lation were probably suspc and that they would be re-e) mined by the panel.
The GLC is worried that a lei ban, while an environmental E nus, might be a disaster in ei ployment terms, and the par will try to establish the effectE might have on the location existing businesses, the estf lishment of new ones, and employment in general. It al wants to look at the effect will a ban would have on tl counties surrounding Lon& which are tied socially and ec nomically to the capital, E are autonomous politically.
And on a purely practical lev it is keen to establish the fairt and most efficient means of c forcing lorry bans, and the likE costs, or at least the cornponer which go towards these. HO the evidence from the Metropic tan Police will play a key part establishing how a ban might applied. When the previol, Conservative, GLC administi tion approved plans for a ban the Enfield and Barnet areas, t police indicated that it would difficult to enforce, as limited sources were already being c voted to controlling illeg parking (CM March 21).
Submissions to the inqu should be sent to the secrete Inquiry into the Effects of Da on Heavy Lorries within Londc Room 598a, County Hall, Lt don, SE1 7P6, and should arri by December 31.