1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194 
The only way is up
Page 24
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Professor Alan McKinnon, head of Heriot-Watt University's Logistics Research Centre, is best known to operators for blasting the government's plans for Lorry Road User Charging. But what is his
alternative? Jennifer Ball finds out.
professor Alan McKinnon begins the interview with a simple request: don't refer to him as a boffin. He's harking back to a CM headline that read 'Boffin blasts truck charging' (CM 25 March). McKinnon says he hates the dull, grey image it conjures up. But if not "boffin", how do you describe someone who has spent the past 25 years studying logistics and who was recently awarded the prestigious Sir Robert Lawrence Award by the Institute of Logistics and Transport for his outstanding contribution to the industry? It's a puzzle we're still struggling with.
McKinnon's academic career started when he gained a PhD from University College London for research into the "spatial organisation of physical distribution in the UK food industry", before taking up his first academic post at Leicester University in 1979. He later joined Heriot-Watt University where he was responsible for launching its Logistics Research Centre (LRC).
The centre is now at the forefront of logistics research, conducting projects for over 20 organisations including the European Commission and the UK government.
Transport KPI Initiative
It's usually at this point that words like "ivory" and "tower" are bandied about, but McKinnon stresses that he works in the real world: "Our research is pragmatic — while some is theoretical and targeted on academic journals, I do work closely with transport managers and companies.I think that !have a good understanding of their business.
"I have been in a truck many times, visited hundreds of warehouses and even taken a trip on a freight train."
One of the LRC's greatest achievements, he believes, was pioneering the development of the UK government's Transport KPI Initiative, which benchmarks the efficiency of fleets against a standard set of five Key Performance Indicators: vehicle fill , empty running, vehicle time utilisation. fuel efficiency and deviations from schedule.
Over the past seven years it has organised three 'synchronised audits of transport efficiency. The most recent survey, of the food industry,covered 3,600 vehicles. During the 48hour audit period, these vehicles travelled approximately 1.45 million kilometres and made just over 6,000 journeys.
Analysis of the data generated by this survey has provided a valuable insight into the efficiency of food distribution in the UK, enabling participating companies to benchmark their road freight operations.
The LRC also carried out research for the government on the implications of introducing 44-tonners — it is now quantifying the savings made since their introduction in 2001. McKinnon believes the savings were far greater than envisaged: "Using 44-tonne vehicles has saved the UK haulage industry costs of around £110m, and reduced vehicle kilometres by 134 million. Things haven't stabilised as people are still looking at the benefits of using larger vehicles and I believe that, by 2006, using 44-tonnes vehicles will be saving the UK haulage industry around 170 million vehicle kilometres a year."
However, McKinnon warns that, despite the Freight Transport Association's campaign for larger vehicles, he doesn't detect any interest from the government; in any case he's not convinced that this is the right way to go.
"It would be very unpopular with the public and, if it did get past parliament. it would make it harder for the government to meet its railfreight targets.
"It is questionable whether there would actually be huge benefits as, every time you increase the increase the lorry weight, the marginal benefits reduce — it depends on the density of the load. Some sectors, such as cement, oil, and the drinks industry would find benefits; but every time you increase the weight, a smaller proportion of the freight industry benefits."
Height over weight
McKinnon sees greater returns from increasing the height limit. He explains that because the density of road freight is declining due to the substitution of heavy materials such as metal for lighter materials like plastic,companies now need more space rather than more weight: "There is limited scope in widening or lengthening vehicles in the UK but you can go up.
"1 think that this trend will continue as there is no legal height limit in the UK, unlike in the rest of the European Union where there is a 4.2m limit.There is a greater clearance in the UK on tunnel and bridges because of the fact that we have double-decker buses, which I believe operators will take advantage of In 1997 when we looked at this there were only around 1,000 double-deck vehicles on the road, but today there must be six times that."
It's only now that we move on to the topic that has made McKinnon famous of late; his damning critique of the government's proposals for Lorry Road User Charging, which he concluded were over-complicated, costly for truck operators in the long-term and unlikely to reduce traffic congestion.
"I was originally supportive of its proposals," he says. "1 naively thought, let's employ the most sophisticated technology there is'. However, after looking at the government's consultation more closely I realised the UK's proposed system is even more complex than what the Germans have attempted — and remember their system fell over — so this set the alarm bells ringing."
McKinnon accepts that the main aim of LRUC is to tax foreign hauliers for using UK roads, but he points out that the cost of operating the system is likely to be several times greater than the revenue it raised.
As the government has acknowledged that it will be at least 2014 before a general system of road user charging can be introduced for cars and vans, the introduction of the LRUC seems premature.
McKinnon suggests that. in the meantime, a much simpler method of charging should be introduced, which would meet the main objectives of LRUC apart from congestion pricing: `levelling the playing field' with foreign hauliers; relating truck taxes to the distance travelled and decoupling the taxation of trucks from that of cars.
His alternative would rationalise taxation in the UK by replacing the three separate revenue streams that will exist under the LRUC regime (fuel duty, VED and road tolls) with one: fuel duty. This would be converted into a form of distance-based taxation by relating it to the annual distance travelled by trucks as recorded by their tachographs at the time of their annual tests. The distance each vehicle has travelled is recorded; the total the operator has to pay would depend on the type of the vehicle, its weight class, number of axles and emissions standard. The fuel duty paid would be rebated against the annual toll — just like the proposed LRUC.
Self-enforcing system
McKinnon believes that this system would discourage operators from under-reporting the distance the vehicle travelled, helping to make the system self-enforcing.
Foreign operators would have their mileages recorded when they enter and leave the country. During each visit, the tachograph would be checked and the mileage noted; the driver would sign a declaration to confirm this data. Rebates would then be available against fuel bought in this country.
"It would also give foreign hauliers an incentive to buy their fuel in Britain rather than in France," he adds. "This is similar to a system in Switzerland where 1200 trucks a day cross the border at 100 locations and it works effectively. If the Swiss can do it,is there any reason we can't?"
McKinnon says it would cost a fraction of operating the LRUC and it would use existing technology until common tolling standards are adopted across the EU.
But does the government see it as a credible alternative to LRUC? "Now that is a good question," he smiles. "The government is well into the procurement process, which it hopes will produce the technological answers it wants.
"There is a strong will to go ahead with its plans but there will be limited benefits derived from imposing congestion charging solely on freight vehicles, as trucks represent only around 14% of all traffic and are forecast to contribute only 4% of traffic growth between 2000 and 2010 (a truck is assumed to be equivalent to 2.5 cars).
"At the end of the day," he concludes, freight traffic is more a victim than a cause of traffic congestion." •