Teeth drawn from freight polici
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
GLC about-face on road haulage
SOMEONE at the Greater London Council must have been reading the Government's Green Paper on transport policy.
For, after making loud anti-lorry noises over the past few years, the men at County Hall seem to have had a change of heart.
And, just as much of the consultation document came as a pleasant surprise to operators, so too must "Freight Policy for London," published by the GLC's Transport Committee last week.
That is not to say that the policy paper does not have teeth. It has several long and rather nasty ones, including plans to introduce permit systems for access, bans on through traffic and bigger and better local restrictions.
But these were effectively drawn by an item which came up on the agenda at the Transport Committee meeting (CM January 14) immediately after the freight policy blueprint was accepted.
A scheme for a night-time ban on lorries in Inner London, included in the policy paper, was abandoned.
The ban plan, which was scheduled to be brought in later this year, would have hit an estimated 1,400 trucks each night, and would have been enforced between 7 pm and 7 am on vehicles over 40 feet long, within an area bounded by the North and South Circular Roads.
If the scheme had been successful the GLC was committed to taking a long hard look at a 24-hour ban.
Now all this has been put on the scrap heap, and the other restrictive measures included in "Freight Policy for London" must also be in doubt for the same reasons. The GLC has been forced to accept that it cannot afford, or justify in pure cash terms, measures which would have had little environmental benefit.
Only 10 per cent of journeys at night by long lorries through Inner London would have been affected, and these would not have been removed from the capital altogether but simply switched to perimeter roads.
Some 14 local boroughs objected to the plan; the police weren't happy with _trying to enforce it; the Department of Transport wasn't happy if the police couldn't support the scheme, and the GLC found it would have had to spend £159,000 on the project at a time when, because of spending cuts, no new schemes are meant to be started.
Faced with these objections the Transport Committee did not have much choice when it came to making a decision on the ban plan.
But that decision takes on a far greater significance when viewed in conjunction with what now remains of "Freight Policy for London".
The Committee accepted the importance of road haulage when it agreed to the document. And it accepted too that it should try and do something to help the industry.
An about-face indeed for the GLC.
Key objectives as set out in the paper are: "The amelioration of the environmental impact of freight movement and the encouragement of more efficient freight operation and improved working conditions."
It accepts that the freight industry has grown and "now represents an important ele ment of the economy". The freight and warehousing industry accounts for 10 to 15 per cent of the total income of London and employs some 300,000 workers.
"It is therefore in London's interests to retain this activity wherever possible and to encourage its more remunerative aspects."
The document splits its policies into three broad areas, the first of which is improved vehicles and operating practices.
It wants to see quieter and more acceptable vehicles developed and introduced "as soon as possible and starting not later than 1980. These include improved heavy lorries and medium sized distribution vehicles, double-bottoms and electric trucks."
The Council could cooperate, says the paper, in any double-bottom experiments, and as far as possible ensure availability of suitable breakbulk points.
The second policy area is for a more structured provision for the freight industry, and measures to ensure maximum environmental benefit.
It is under this section that the proposed restrictions on lorry movement are included. The night ban has already been scrapped but there is also a plan to ban through traffic above 16 ton gvw inside the Outer Orbital route.
Delivery times also come • under the microscope, as does a permit plan for "very large vehicles" in a six square mile central area.
But the document says: "Proposals for banning all vehicles over 16 ton from London are considered impractical in that it would increase operators' costs by £100million a year with an adverse impact on London's competitiveness."
And given the enforcemer difficulties and the cash prok lems, there must be seriot doubts about all the propose restrictions.
Instead, the GLC is likely t use its land-use plannin; powers to affect and influenc the areas from which haulag companies operate. If that i the case, then the GLC woul have to provide facilities fa the operator and it is to thi that the third policy area i dedicated.
Secure lorry parks, says th report, and hostels for tom distance drivers are clearl desirable with the ultimat provision of up to 3,000 space in 10 or more locations.
Small hauliers' depot should be set up. These woul be used by operators with les than five vehicles each, an would be privately manage' on a commercial basis, sug gests the report.
There would be a range o central services and parkin; lots available on rental terms The Committee points ou that operators are unde increasing pressure fron licensing authorities and plan ning authorities to improv, their facilities.
On a larger scale the repor wants to see the setting up o freight complexes. "There could be a need for some 11 sites of 10 to 40 acres each it strategic locations."
Proposals have been public ly sought for the first comple) at Neasden, and other scheme: are now being followed up.
The report concludes: "Thi, total policy should reduc4 operating costs and substanti ally reduce the flows of ver3 large lorries on sensitive routes. It would also signifi cantly reduce the noise level! and reduce other problem! deriving from such vehicles."