Into the den of the lorry bashers
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65
Page 66
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
While some may feel like aiming a full-tilt 40-tonner at Transport 2000's HQ, John Durant's been taking a cool look at its side of the story and finds some of its proposals worthy of serious consideration
THE NEWS EDITOR'S files bulge with cuttings of reports CM has given to those who argue against raising permitted gross vehicle weights in the UK. But we have never given their viewpoints such extensive coverage in a concentrated form before. Now I have read every word of the evidence given to the Armitage Inquiry by Transport 2000. Its submission, Weighing the Evidence, makes up an 80-page booklet. This sentence stands out: "From our point of view, and we suspect, from the number of people who suffer the intrusion of the juggernaut, the foremost priority ought-to be to reducethe number of heavy lorries. This is far more important to more people than a reduction in road transport costs ever could be."
There's their attitude — not just against heavier vehicles, but against 32-tonners — the term juggernaut being preferred to hgv, though in their evidence they complain of weasel words used by the road transport industry. From the road transport industry's point of view — and I'm sure many operators suspect it's also the belief of the many who suffer the intrusion of hgv, the foremost priority is to cope by means of by-passes and so on.
However, let's summarise the Transport 2000 position without further comment. While accepting that heavy lorries are wholeheartedly hated, it is sometimes argued that heavier lorries will not be any worse than existing maximum weight vehicles; this argument misses the point, says Transport 2000, The popular opposition to heavier lorries reflects a dislike of existing heavy lorries. Proposing a weight increase simply serves to focus that discontent.
Transport 2000's writers complain that increased lorry weights don't seem to be the outcome of any logical thought, but that minds have been strained to find arguments to support an increase in the maximum weight limit.
Why, they ask, has concern at hgv grown in the last ten years? In 1962 there were 15,000 lorries with an unladen weight of eight tons or over. By 1967 the number had increased to 35,000 and is growing. In 1978 there were 109,000 such vehicles, more than seven times as many as 16 years ago. Some 75,000 of these were capable of operating at 32 tons maximum gvw.
But to gauge the full impact, says Transport 2000, the proportion of goods vehicle work accounted for by the heaviest vehicles has to be gauged. In the five years 1973-1978 vehicle kilometres by 32-tonners increased by 63 per cent, and in '78 accounted for 26 per cent of the total heavy vehicle kilometres (that is vehicles over 31/2 tonnes gross weight). Virtually half of ton-mileage is now carried by these juggernauts.
The effects of heavy lorries — in terms of environment, amenity and safety; noise; vibration; and pollution — are more damaging and disruptive than both lighter lorries and other means of transport, it says.
Then the argument moves to safety. There are two main reasons why a 40-tonne lorry would be expected to create more havoc than a 32-ton lorry. First, because of its greater mass, the impact velocity of a 40-tonne vehicle will be higher than that of a 32-ton lorry, all other things being equal. And secondly, its momentum will be greater not only because of a higher impact velocity* for a 40tonne vehicle but also because of its larger mass.
Impact velocities tend to be higher. Unfortunately, published road accident statistics are somewhat crude; the heaviest class of lorry recorded separately is that over three tons unladen. But the data confirm the outline of the argument. The heavier the vehicle involved in an accident the greater the likelihood of a death or serious injury.
*The force needed to stop a vehicle is F = d(mv)/ dt, where a vehicle with mass m has a velocity of v, t is time. For objects larger than sub-atomic particles leg forty-ton lorries) this resolves to F = ma, where a is the acceleration.
In a plastic impact the rate of change in kinetic energy i§ KE = 7/211/11 (e —1)v12 +1/2M2f.W.--11v1, where v V2 are the velocities at mass centres M1, 442; e is the coefficient of restitution.
British Rail has estimated th the death rate per vehicle mile a ten-ton lorry is around thn times that of a 11/2 to three-tc vehicle: "the number of peop killed per road vehicle mile i creases faster than carryir -capacity with the larger vehic so there is real cause ft concern".
While an eight to ten-ton or had a death rate per vehicle mi 23 per cent greater than a six• eight-ton lorry, a lorry of ov ten ton had a death rate tw thirds more than an eighttote ton lorry (based on tlminimum estimates of dea• rates from these vehicles).
Transport 2000 says that whi goods vehicles have a low accident involvement rate thE other vehicles, this does n contradict the analysis made, Lower vehicle involvemei rates can be attributed to th superior skills of profession drivers, but such rates have litt bearing on road safety. Th concern is not how far a vehic travels before being involved an accident, but the number , deaths or dismembered bodie
The broad conclusion must t that any increase in gooc vehicle weights would increaf. the proportion of fatal ar serious accidents, If the numb' of accidents which thes vehicles are involved in remair constant then more people w be seriously injured or kille, The lorry lobby makes great pli• of the fact that heavier lorri( need not be larger. So carrying heavier load in a vehicle of same size would normally rai the centre of gravity. If volume not the constraint on capacit heavier lorries will be more kely to turn over, runs the cow ter-argument.
Road competition has cut ml rail's share of non-bulk commi dities. One effect has been restrict severely the scope th rail has to offset the decline in i traditional traffics (coal ar coke) by expanding the carryir of non-bulk commodities. Th has had a serious effect on n revenue, down 45 per cent in tf years (1966/77) in real terms The Freightliner Company hi een deprived of high-revenue affic largely through competion from 32-tanners, and had rown only through container arryings for ports — not riginally envisaged as its major )1e. The British Railways Board, lys Transport 2000, had argued le case for the heavy road ahicle to pay its fuel track costs nd contribute towards the envian m enta I and social costs used by it.
Britain, says Transport 2000, is ver-reliant on a single mode of ansport — road transport; in 377 it carried 83 per cent of eight tonnage, and 65 per cent I ton mileage. Dependence on 2-tanners is also now great — 3 and 32 per cent of these two ategories.
Britain's industry and ecoorny is in a shaky state. The md haulage strike demonsated this in the first two lonths of 1979. However, "dual Durcing" reduces vulnerability. ord, for instance, makes extenive use of rail for moving raw laterials, and so is far less vulerable to industrial disputes tithin either of its transport uppliers. British government olicy would do well to learn • om the example of Ford.
And Britain is in an unenviable osition of being most deendent on the least energy effiient method of freight transart. Further oil shortages and rice rises over the next few
This is the typical top-weight truck iat you can sea on Britain's roads )clay and here is the proposed op-weight truck of tomorrow rhich can carry 28 per cent more °ads. Can you spot the difwence?" asks Magnus Pyke, on this ffectiye SMMT exhibit at the 1980 'rotor Show.
years will make the UK more vulnerable than its international competitors.
When considering raising lorry weight, it is argued, it should be clear what the primary objections are.
Four questions need answers: • What are we trying to achieve?
• Would heavier lorries meet these goals?
• What other ways exist of achieving these aims?
• Is raising the maximum weight limit the best way of achieving these objectives?
The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Freight Transport Association, and the Road Haulage Association had made similar points, claiming: • Heavier lorries will cut costs • They will save fuel • Fewer are needed to carry the same amount of fuel.
There is a fair amount of weasel-wording in these claims, says Transport 2000. When the SMMT claims that heavier lorries are more efficient than Fighter trucks, this assertion is good only when the lorries are stuffed full of goods, and is false when they are empty. Underpin
ning the lorry lobby's case are the assumptions that the payload factor is constant and is independent of any change in total carrying capacity.
Transport 2000 says it is more efficient to run a 32-ton lorry fully laden than to run a 40tonne lorry which is only 80 per cent full. If the maximum weight limit was to be increased, then the average efficiency with which the increased capacity is used would decline.
Though the road lobby overstates its case, there could be some residual benefit if the fall in payload factors is not too large. But on average lorries are now using less of their carrying capacity than ten years ago (freight is getting lighter).
In a typical product, transport costs amount to three to ten per cent of the final cost. So even a ten per cent drop in transport costs could only change shop prices by around 0.3 to 1 per cent — or roughly two to three weeks inflation. Any change would be spread over a number of years and be offset by other changes, like an increse in operators' profit margins. The impact on shop prices would be negligible.
An increase in the maximum weight limit would allow 30ft or even 40ft fully laden containers on the roads, but most containers are nowhere near fully loaded. Unless a major increase in container size is contemplated, an increase in lorry weight would have only minimal significance.
And an increase in lorry weights would tend to divert containers from rail to road.
A significant influence on the pattern of industrial location is another factor if maximum weight is increased. Already, it is said, the combination of 32-ton lorries and the development of the trunk road network has led to remarkable changes in distribution patterns, many manufacturers developing networks with, say, six to ten depots.
The freight flows between factories and depots are coped with by the heaviest lorries — a major cause of increase in heavy lorry traffic. Each ton of road freight is now being moved half as far again as it was ten years ago.
When confronted with these issues, the lorry lobby is scarcely impressive, says Transport 2000. Addressing itself to the question "Will heavier lorries lead to more and more lorries?" the FTA asserts: "It is wrong to suggest that improving the efficiency of road goods transport will encourage the community to move more goods around more . .. Efficient transport is the backbone of our social and industrial policies ... nobody in the know would seriously suggest that improved efficiency in his area is not vital and enormously valuable to the community as a whole."
The effect of increasing length of haul on fuel consumption per ton has been fairly predictable and the tonnage carried per gallon of dery has fallen from 1.75 tons in 1967 to 1.09 tons by 1977 — a decrease of 38 per cent. So fuel consumption per ton increased by 61 per cent, a slightly faster rate of increase than that of length of haul.
Transport 2000 says that it is not surprising that the lobby's claims are supported by the Transport Road Research Laboratory. The computer had been programed with the assumption that pay load is constant but, says Transport 2000, it • has been demonstrated that this is untenable.
From the work of Gyenes it is possible to say that for a 44tonne lorry to be no less energy efficient than a 32.5-tonne lorry, the average load would have to rise from 11.8 tonnes to 14.45 tonnes. For a 38-tonne to be as energy efficient as a 32-ton lorry, the average payload would have to rise from 11.8 tonnes to 12.66 tonnes.
Fuel consumption is very sensitive to payloads. The evidence suggests that the growth in heavier lorries has caused the decreasing energy efficiency of road transport.
The attempts of the road haulage industry to improve productivity have largely been directed at making better use of drivers. This has been done chiefly by public investment in improved roads and raising the maximum permitted lorry weights. These developments have allowed an increase in the number of ton-miles of goods one driver can move in one day's work. Little, if any, improvement in productivity has been achieved from genuine internally initiated changes.
But while driver productivity has improved, vehicle productivity has worsened in recent years. Ironically, it is in this area that the road freight industry could itself do most to improve productivity. For instance, double
shifting of vehicles would of itself double ton-miles of output per vehicle.
The chief executive of the National Freight Corporation has estimated that after allowing higher driver mileage and overhead costs per vehicle, double-shifting would give a net saving in total costs of goods movement of 20 per cent. This compared with his own estimate of only nine per cent savings from heavier vehicles.
Of course, he immediately qualified the scope for savings by suggesting that the widespread introduction of doubleshifting of vehicles would be "flying in the face of what we understand to be the market's requirements".
No reference was made, however, to the fact that introducing still heavier lorries on any scale would be flying in the face of public opinion and the views of all communities which have to put up with the problems caused by heavy lorries.
In fact, as the Price Commission found, the major use of the heaviest class of vehicles is on trunking operation, where double-shifting, and weekend working as well, could most easily be introduced.
In spite of the potentially large benefits, the Price Commission found that "many hauliers attach a relatively low priority to securing greater utilisation of vehicles in this way" and urged hauliers to give much greater consideration to double-shifting and weekend working.
A reduction in the amount of empty running and better matching of loads to vehicles have already been suggested as ways of reducing the numbers of heavy vehicles on the roads. But there are also many other measures which could be included in an imaginative and determined policy to reduce the amount of heavy vehicle goods movement.
The question of vehicle taxation has been touched on elsewhere in this report. There is no doubt that the very heaviest vehicles, the 32-tonners covering large mileages, don't pay their full share of road track
costs. Thus 8 priority must be 1 ensure that these vehciles fully taxed, so that vehicl numbers are not artifically flated to take advantage of th current anomalies.
More fundamental than taxi tion changes is the need to mal. sure that other modes of tran: port play their full role in freigl movement. The road freigl lobby has always dismissed it transfer of freight from road 1 rail or water as unlikely to mai. a significant impact on roe movement.
This is justified by cornparir aggregate statistics of freigl movement by road and rail i show that even if tons carried rail were doubled, tons move by road would only be reduce by some 12 per cent. Such comparisiort is, of course, fall; cious since it includes local cc lection and delivery work, eve milk floats, on the roadside, an bulk movement of coal and orE on the rail side.
In neither case is there ar scope for transfer betwee modes.
What should be compared the area where there is dire competition between road, rE and water and therefore who; there is scope for transfer. Tf British Railways Board believf that there is an area of dire competition involving some 1 per cent of total freight toi miles, with road currently carr ing roughly ten per cent and rz five per cent.
The important point is that the ten per cent carried by row the vast proportion is carried i 32-ton vehicles. Most of it coi
continued overlec
Ists of trunking type movelents, on which 32-tonners are redominantly employed as own earlier. Of all road freight mvement, trunking is the area 'here rail is in the best position ) offer an alternative. This was )e original intention of the reightliner system, and reiains so today.
The reasons behind the inreased use of juggernauts, says ransport 2000, are complex. oad trunking is certainly one of le factors promoting their use. wo motives for buying heavier gries seem to be important. lexibility seems to be a prime onsideration for larger perators. And the desire to imrove labour productivity is also stimulus.
Labour is the largest and most asily identifiable of all perators' costs. Nevertheless, lthough economies of scale -lay be obvious, it is by no )eans certain that they can be 3alised.
Transport 200 supports its ase with graphs, tables and apendices. It gives "the lorry )bby" a good bashing, but is ot merely a destructive critic, nd makes seven recommendaons in conclusion. Here they re in full:
1 The taxation on the heaviest lass of vehicles should be inreased to cover not only the ientifiable track costs of these ehicles but also their social and nvironmental costs. It follows .1W there should be no question lat these vehicles should be cc:ss-subsidised" in terms of -a ;k costs by light goods ehicles but, on the contrary, ught to be paying an extra sum ver and above their share. This urn should be substantial.
1 As a matter of policy the Govrnment should encourage the trunking" of goods by rail 3ther than road. Partly this can e achieved by extending the rants made under the 1974 ailways Act. The simplest and most effective extension would be to make a 100pc grant for the connection to the main-line.
Provision should also be made for similar grants to be given to water connecting industries, associated with building and equipping new wharves, and so forth.
• A study should be commissioned to investigate what further measures should be taken to encourage trunking of freight by rail or water.
• Planning policies should seek to locate major freight operators close to rail or commercial water facilities. This should be a feature of both structure and local plans. We ask the Armitage Inquiry to recommend that use of rail or water facilities should be a condition of granting planning permission in the case of major freight generators.
Efforts should be made to match smaller freight generators more closely with their markets and encourage smaller freight generators especially in certain commodities.
• The Department of Transport should institute a study of productivity in the road haulage and own-account industries. The study should seek to determine the reasons for worsening productivity and be empowered to make recommendations to improve productivity. In particular the study should address itself to the cause of falling lorry payloads and investigate ways of reducing lorry numbers by increasing payloads.
• Damage to both roads and the environment is related to distance as well as lorry axle and gross weights. Therefore an increased proportion of goods vehicle taxation should be related to mileage, through an extra tax on derv. Heavy lorries should, of course, continue to pay their way.
• There is no proven case for increasing maximum gross vehicle weights or axle weights.