LORRY BAN SHOOT OUT
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• On 31 January 1986 the controversial London Lorry Ban was brought into being as one of the last acts of the doomed Greater London Council.
The ban was designed to limit movements of trucks weighing more than 16.5 tonnes on London's streets at night and at weekends. Some road transport pundits predicted that it would die with the GLC, but 33 months on it is still in force.
In March this year Spalding Haulage became the first operator to be fined for breaking the ban: it was ordered to pay 2300 with a further 2300 costs.
Since then other hauliers have suffered a similar fate, but the ban's implementation has been far from smooth. In February, for example, The London Boroughs Transport Committee, which administers the ban, tried to introduce regulations forcing hauliers operating in London to fit engine and air brake hush kits to their vehicles.
To date these plans have been blocked, with the Freight Transport Association claiming that these laws would in themselves be illegal, and the Road Haulage Association and Leyland Daf warning that some of the fittings could be dangerous.
Now seven of the 32 London boroughs are threatening to pull out of the London Lorry Ban because, they claim, it is ineffective and costly. So is the ban to follow the GLC's history? Is it really such an unfair burden on hard-pressed transport operators? Do the police enforce the ban properly?
To clear the air we talked to Pete Broadbent, chairman of the LBTC, and Don Mchityre, Controller of Highways and Traffic at the FT A. Whether you see the ban as a bureaucratic botch-up or an environmental advance, their views make interesting reading.
Does the Lorry Ban do the job it is supposed to do?
DMc: No.
PB: It is about to. It has not been properly signposted till now, but we are rectifying that problem, and we can demonstrate some degree of success.
PB: Two things went wrong when the ban first started; the people who were signposting didn't do the job properly and the Department of Transport put in a trunking order under the Local Government Act of 1985, making a whole lot of roads exempt from the ban. We're rectifying that; all the signposting should be completed by February 1989.
Do the law enforcement agencies provide sufficient support?
DMc: The police provide the level of support consistent with their priorities, resources and perception of the ban's compliance with the law in terms of adequate traffic signing. Consequently the police feel unable to provide any substantial level of enforcement.
PB: The police say they have particular difficulties in providing support. We obviously want greater support from the police. When the signposting is completed I don't think they will have any real grounds for not playing ball.
Does the Ban make economic sense?
DMc: No — it is an economic disaster.
PB: Basically it is an environmental measure, and there has always been an argument about whether you can quantify environmental measures in monetary terms. We believe it provides good value for money.
What is the cost to ratepayers of operating the ban?
DMc: Millions of pounds so far. The LBTC capital and revenue budget for 1988/89 alone is 21.8 million.
PB: There are 22 boroughs out of 32 in London which support the scheme. It will cost 2811,000 in the next financial year, which is equivalent to 0.06p in the pound on the rates for each borough supporting the ban. If all the boroughs supported it the cost would be 0.038p in the pound.