AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

GLC freight conference

25th April 1975, Page 17
25th April 1975
Page 17
Page 18
Page 17, 25th April 1975 — GLC freight conference
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

No simple answers to London's problem

Report by John Darker

THE PAST YEAR'S work of the London Freight Conference was unveiled last week before a large and representative audience with the sponsoring body, the Greater London Council, as hosts. The London Freight Conference, which includes representatives of the freight industry, GLC and other planning authorities, and interested parties, seeks to improve the efficiency of freight transport operations and to reduce their environmental impact.

The presentations made by London freight traffic planners and by leading spokesmen for the transport operators — principally road transport — concerned served to underline the fact that there are no simple, or cheap, solutions. Indeed, Mr John Morris, southeast regional controller of the Freight Transport Association, argued that the lack of a modern road system could make London totally unattractive as a commercial and industrial centre by the :urn of the century.

:onservation control

Mr Jim Daly, chairman, ..ondon Freight Conference, and vice-chairman of the GLC transport committee, said road transport should be seen as an industry in itself within the London conurbation. There had to be plans to re-locate its operation in centres and upon modal interchange points. Land usage had to be re-allocated to lorry parks and warehousing to avoid the nuisance of lorries parking and starting up in residential areas.

Freight functions

Mr Martin Foulkes, head of GLC Freight Unit, said freight had not interested planning authorities until recently nor had there been an overall policy for London. Road freight, by virtue of its flexibility and fragmentation, had been able to use the residual margin of land and road capacity without making major demands on its own account. Even now, freight, including warehousing, took less than three per cent of our land and goods traffic was only about a fifth of all vehicle flows and a tenth of the peak.

Mr Foulkes said hire and reward hauliers accounted for 17 per cent of all goods vehicles in London hut they operated larger vehicles and carried half the tonnage. Both the professional and ownaccount sectors of haulage were relatively fragmented with each sector having over 1,800 depots.

The over 16 tons gvw vehicles comprised only oneeighth of all goods vehicles but they carried half the tonnage. Their trips were split 30 per cent to industry, 20 per cent to shops, 20 per cent to warehouses and depots, eight per cent to homes and 22 per cent to other uses. Smaller vehicles were more important for homes and less important for warehousing. Overall, they represent 90 per cent of the trips and a very large part of transport costs.

Mr lain Roxburgh (GLC) described how the proposed lorry routeing network was designed to be of some 400 miles. A very coarse network of 200 miles would have been feasible only for over 24-ton (or over 40ft) lorries. A finer network of 600 miles would allow vehicles over three tons unladen weight to be controlled, but this solution would not have constrained the main problem—the increasing number of large vehicles. (Already over 80 per cent of their route mileage is on about 600 miles of road). Also, the 600-mile network would include a far higher percentage of roads with traffic and environmental problems.

The decision to make the proposed network 430 miles long involved routeing for vehicles of over 16 tons gvw or 11 metres long. The industry urged that designated vehicles should be of three or more axles, adding slightly to the number of vehicles but easing recognition. At present, said Mr Roxburgh, 68 per cent of vehicle miles of over-16-ton vehicles were on the 430-mile proposed network. After designation, and assuming total compliance this would rise to 80 per cent.

On the question of advisory or mandatory routes, there were major legal and staffing problems in enforcement and in view of the likely degree of voluntary compliance it was felt that it would be ill-advised to recommend a mandatory system for the present. Suggestions for signing included the use of repeater signs or possibly marking the arrows or direction signs in red. The signing methods would have to be compatible with the adjacent counties and the DoE routes.

In a talk on bans in the London area Mr B. B. Hasell (GLC) said the eventual result of bans was not necessarily an improvement in environmental or cost terms.

Parking bans

On parking bans at night in residential areas, a third of London boroughs had now introduced schemes and others were preparing to do so. Existing schemes had not been introduced until there was sufficient public off-street parking space — often car parks used for night parking of lorries.

Dr Mark Wigan (GLC), in a paper on consolidation, said seven per cent of London's tonnage was delivered by small (four-tyred) lorries and vans, and this represented half of all deliveries made in London. Only one million tons out of 250m tons a year moved in London was delivered in lots of less than lcwt. This figure rose to 61/2m tons a year if deliveries up to 5cwt were considered, and only four per cent of all these deliveries were made by over-16-ton vehicles.

Mr Gordon Hands (RHA) welcomed the opportunity given to the Association to meet working groups of the London Freight conference.

The abandonment of Ringways 1 and 2 was much regretted by the RHA, said Mr Hands. No alternative could be satisfactory. He urged that any lorry signing system had to be reduced to simple coherence, and as for penal licence fees of e30 a day to bring in vehicles this would lead to more smaller vehicles on roads or higher haulage rates. Both would hit the housewife.

Mr A. T. Hughes, assistant secretary of United Road Transport Union, said all the proposals he had heard would put up costs. Ideas ventilated at the conference had been conceived many years ago but not implemented because of impracticability or their effect on costs.

Mr John Wells, former chairman of the RHA, speak ing personally, said GLC researches proved London was dependent on the lorry.

On transhipment depots, Mr Wells wanted to destroy the mystique of the break-bulk depot. Transhipment cost at least £1.50 per ton and he saw no economic case for peripheral depots.

Mrs Irene Coates (Conservation Society) said hauliers put their own costs before community costs. She was not disposed to believe that road freight haulage was now akin to 'a dying flower." She thought London, having rejected motorways, should decide that the lorry was not respectable and could not be made so. Mr Peter Land (National Freight Corporation) said transport must be seen as related to customer demand. Specialist services were now called for and today it was a question of balancing customer needs with the price they were prepared to pay. What was now needed were decisions in politics. Who would pay the price of better transport systems ?

Vital lorries

If lorries could not go to Acacia Avenue, who paid ? Should the goods distributor pay, or the haulier, or the community ? "If the transport industry picks up the tab," said Mr Land, "it will pass it back to its customers—plus 10 per cent," A final speaker was Mr Neil Carmichael, Under-Secretary, DoE. He noted the joint interest of the GLC and the Government in lorry routeing and other related subjects and said the Consultation Paper on Lorry Routes issued by Mr. Fred Mulley last July had aroused much interest. The response to the 9,000 circulars was now being analysed. Lorries were vital to our way of life.

"Perhaps we should have most sympathy for the driver who spends such a lot of his time on the front line of the conflict while simply trying to do his job," said Mr Carmichael.


comments powered by Disqus