London ban threat could kill 40-tonner
Page 3
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A PRE-EMPTIVE strike against the heavier lorry has been launched by the Greater London Council. Its transport committee has voted to keep these lorries out of the capital until the Wood Inquiry has reported back. ALAN MILLAR reports.
The committee voted last Neek to keep lorries over 32.5 :onnes out of London, but it will ;till need to have the decision .atified by the full council before Rich a ban can be enforced.
Transport committee chairTian Dave Wetzel said: "If the 3overnment does allow these ntimidating monstrosities igainst the clear wishes of Lonloners, then we shall use all our oowers to prevent them entering he streets of London and shakng the capital to bits."
This represents a further ibstacle in the path of Transport iecretary David Howell's White 'aper proposals to increase the Koss weight limit for lorries to 14, 38 and 40 tonnes, and could Try conceivably win support imong Conservatives at the GLC vho share this view. But there is some doubt about whether the GLC has the power to impose such a ban, especially on trunk roads in London, and it would certainly need Mr Howell's approval for any ban other than that on vehicles over 7.5 or 16.5 tonnes. His attitude to such a threat from the left-wing GLC transport committee will be far from sympathetic.
The reaction of the industry was equally unsympathetic. A Road Haulage Association spokesman said he was not surprised that the GLC is continuing its "attack on the haulage industry", and pledged the RHA to use every means at its disposal to "demonstrate the folly of this decision".
Freight Transport Association planning and traffic services controller Richard Turner described the proposed ban as "completely irrational", as heavier vehicles would, in fact, cause less damage, and there would be fewer of them in any case. "The GLC could deny London the benefit of heavier lorries," he said.
He said the FTA would do its utmost to fight such a move, as it could effectively kill off the chances of heavier vehicles being accepted throughout Britain. A ban in London would disrupt too many distribution patterns for heavier vehicles to be worthwhile, and would probably be followed by similar bans on other metropolitan areas.
"It really would be a tragedy for us eventually to persuade Parliament that the heavier lorry is a good buy after 12 years of uncertainty, and then to be denied these benefits," Mr Turner added.
The position in other metropolitan counties could be interesting. Merseyside takes a fairly pro-lorry stance in its endeavours to attract industry, but the Association of Metropolitan Authorities is opposed to Mr Howell's plans, and is still lobbying MPs as the countdown to a final Government decision comes closer.
Its transport committee chairman, Jack Graham from Tyne and Wear, has said that counties will consider the possibility of "no go" areas for "super juggernauts" as the GLC has dubbed Mr Howell's proposed vehicles, and a spokesman told CM that it would be "a tragedy" if the Government opts for the heavier lorry before it explores the full implications.
Mr Howell's announcement is now expected any day, and the obstacle of the municipal elections last week no longer hangs over him. Only the shortage of Parliamentary time during the Falklands crisis is holding him up, and he has joined Confederation of British Industry director general Sir Terence Beckett in telling CBI members of the allround benefits to be gained from an increase in weights.