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 
At this time of year it is customary to look
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
forward and ask what the future holds. Well I'm no exception: for the road haulage industry, at least, 2002 promises to be an intriguing if not a momentous one. First up, fuel. 1 do not accept that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will increase duty in the next Budget, although the recent report emanating from Lord Birt, (previously of that supremely well organised institution, the BBC), on the UK's transport mayhem claiming motorists should pay more taxes, presumably means the haulier isn't coughing up enough either. But I pray for the Chancellor's November Autumn Statement when he promised that a new system of taxes for road haulage would not increase the present take. So expect petrol duty to fall in to line with diesel duty. Well, it's a straw to clutch at...
Meanwhile the RHA is readying its submission on alternative tax options. If we really can arrive at a long-term solution that will deliver a road price per kilometre for all, including our Continental friends, and a reduction in fuel duty to compensate all, geared to ensure the overall tax burden does not increase, then 2002 really will go down in history as the most momentous since denationalisation. Perhaps ever.
Lord Birt also states in his report that our roads are the worst in Europe, our railways are in a mess and we have no high-speed rail links. Presumably the Prime Minister is wholly unaware of such glaring problems, travelling as he does in a police-escorted, chauffeur-driven car.
da
But for us lesser mortals the state of our roads is an everyday reality. Every time a politician holds forth about transport, we hea of the need for billions of pounds more investment in rail. We cann be confident that all this money will be found without plundering th, funds allocated to roads in the government's 10-year Transport Plan—even though ministers deny this will be the case. Of course when they can no longer deny it, the government's spin doctors wi have their excuses ready to hand: schemes not yet ready, corridc studies need revising and so on.
Meanwhile, roads money will be diverted to keep the RMT in the manner to which it is now becoming re-accustomed. We nee to be ever vigilant, for as the Son of Railtrack emerges so too wil the begging bowls.
All right, as Transport Minister John Spellar reminds us constantly, the 10 Year Transport Plan has only been going eight months, so we should give it a chance. He will then remind us of all the notable achievements in road investment already chalked up. Fine, and well done, but none of this is a guarantee of future investment. Putting up motorway signs to warn of congestion ahea is no substitute for tackling the congestion. We shall continue to press for a roads programme designed to keep the UK moving.
Next week the government launches its appeal against the recent judgement forbidding it to extract 12,000 per illegal immigrant from those hauliers caught with stowaways on board. N one can defend the racketeers, but surely natural justice should give anyone accused the opportunity to defend themselves. The appeal judges would get the year off to a good start if they upheld the right of common justice and obliged the government to sit dowt and make sense of it all.
Making sense of UK speed limits is what a House of Commons Select Committee is now trying to do. Does a 40mph maximum make sense on a single-carriageway road these days? Especially those that are reasonably well engineered and increasingly festooned with speed cameras. At 40mph, a truck is an obstacle to be negotiated by frustrated motorists or, worse still, other commercial vehicles not so restricted. Does an increase to 50mph represent an enormous safety hazard, or just plain common sense So what are the chances that 50mph will be recommended by the Committee? Well don't hold your breath, butte help Members of Parliament make up their minds and experience for themselves the handling and dynamics of a modern truck, the RHA has invited them for a test drive. If they accept, it will be quite a start to the year for them.