IT'S THE
Page 46
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
More and more politicians, environmentalists and pressure groups are shouting about inter-modal transport. CM looks at the great road/rail debate.
111. 'Hauliers have nothing to fear ... the percentage of goods Gtravelling by road will not decrease'
• The road/rail de bate has been raging between political parties for years. But with increasing congestion and the threat of British Rail privatisation, it is bound to take centre stage.
Many politicians, environmentalists and pressure groups are calling for more freight to travel by rail, and surveys show that a significant percentage of the public also want lorries off the roads. Last year a Commercial Motor survey found that 83% of people want goods carried by other forms of transport.
ALLEGIANCE
Ironically these calls come as many major rail freight users are shifting their allegiance from BR to road transport. All national newspapers are now carried by road, and the magazine sector is following suit. Recently the Royal Mail attributed its 8% improvement in first class deliveries to its increased use of road from 40% to 70%.
This action by major freight movers is caused by increasing cost and time pressures, and even more freight looks certain to hit the roads with the expected demise of Speedlink.
The Rai!freight Users Group, which was formed in April 1990 and has support from major players including the likes of ICI and Bibby Distribution, claims that the closure of Speedlink will cause at least 300,000 extra lorry movements a year. Most of these movements will be in "environmentally sensitive areas," the group warns. For one firrn alone, the Taunton Cider Company, it will mean putting an extra 2,000 attic movements a year on to the streets of the village of Norton Fitzwarren. The proposed Speedlink closure has also been condemned by the Freight Transport Association and the Labour Party which slams it as "penny wise, pound foolish". Labour transport spokesman John Prescott, has continued to press for a more co-ordinated road/rail policy. He says that a Labour government would set up a network of freight terminals round the UK.
Labour's approach would also include the electrification of key freight routes upgrading to Continental gauge, and a published programme of rail investment to help long-term decision making by all major road transport companies.
Prescott stresses that hauliers should not be alarmed by these policies: "It is an ever increasing freight market, especially with 1992 and the opening of the Channel Tunnel looming. Hauliers have nothing to fear because even if more freight shifts on to rail, the percentage of goods travelling by road will not decrease," he says.
Labour's railfreight policy document states: "Roads will remain the principal source of transport for both goods and people, and new investment in railways will not solve the environmental problems associated with that. But it will help to alleviate some of the effects of traffic congestion."
Earlier this month the Government rebutted these claims, saying that it was "quite unrealistic" to expect a major national shift from road to rail because the convenience and flexibility of road transport was highly prized by the public. But it's not only left wing politicians who are calling for more goods to travel by rail.
Just two weeks ago, David Yeomans, Wincanton Group managing director and head of the CBI transport group, called for a shift from road to rail freight and attacked British Rail's sluggish approach: "We need to encourage more longdistance road freight to be moved by rail," he said. "The opening of the Channel Tunnel will radically alter the economics of rail freight, but we also need good facilities and a compatible rail gauge."
There is little doubt that more goods will have to be transported by rail in the future. Trailer firms are already investing heavily in designing intermodal bodies, and the EC is considering plans to give hauliers Vehicle Excise Duty rebates if they incorporate rail in their operations.
At the moment there is no pressure on hauliers to consider using combined operations. But industry pundits insist that hauliers should start seriously looking at the possibilities before the public, the Government, or the EC do it for them. LII by Tanya Cordrey POLICE VIEW OF PARKING • Your Insider column (CM 18-24 October) raised the issue of parking at places other than an authorised operating centre. While this was only the author's opinion, it did raise other matters of concern.
In recent years the available space for operating centres in the London area has diminished considerably. When new operating centres are found the residents in the locality strive to prevent, as they see it, a deterioration in their quality of life caused by heavy truck operations.
At the same time long-haul operators decry the closure of lorry parks and laybys which prevent their drivers from taking their breaks and rests free from the attentions of the public.
A few years ago I could direct a lorry driver to eight lorry parks in this area — now I can only think of one. The limited parking spaces available makes it essential that operators should strive to park their vehicles at their operating centres, freeing space for those who are far away from home.
However, leaving the problem to the police and highway authorities to take action is hardly satisfactory.
We would rather not prosecute drivers caught in a 'Catch 22' situation.
Parking at operating centres also allows operators to control the security of their vehicles. The local lorry park leaves them open to become victims of vandalism, and parking in the street further bolsters the public view that all lorry firms are run by 'cowboys'. We know it's not true, but they take a lot of convincing.
PJ Gaisford, Superintendent, Metropolitan Police, South-West Traffic Division, Hampton, Middx. SPREAD THE WORD ON POLLUTION • With regard to your facts covering the differences between artics and smaller vehicles (CM 11-17 October). I think that you have convinced most of the haulage industry, although it is something most of us already knew about. •
If this message was put to the general public through advertising on the sides or rear of vehicles, or on large advertising poster sites, the message would get across that attics do keep costs down.
As I am connected to the PSV industry I see the long tailbacks of traffic into cities in the mornings. Many of the cars only have one occupant. If all these people were put on a 78seater double-decker, i reckon it would equal approximately 2,000 metres of car space at 48km/h (30mph) or 430 metres in a traffic jam.
If a one-tonne van uses seven times more fuel to do
the same work as an artic, I suppose it must turn out seven times more pollution. If a 10litre engine exhausts 610m'3 every rev at 1,500rpm that would be more than 31,770ft' per hour, or 285,937ft3 per nine-hour working, day. If we convert ft.' into gallons, as most people can visualise the size of a onegallon can, this same 10-litre engine would be polluting at 1,787,106 gallons a day.
I would like to see a comparison done between a 38tonne artic and a large train. J Wilson, Mill Bank, Halifax.
Commercial Motor welcomes readers' letters, which can be phoned in on 081-661 3689 (24-hour service). Letters may be edited for length and do not necessarily represent the views of the editor.