/Vood: the haulier's friend?
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ILE the industry's public resIse to the Wood Report on effects of bans on heavy lorin London is hostile and mbiguous, is it heresy to gest that large-scale lorry s will be welcomed by some le industry?
here is little sign of such a v in any of the public resses last week to the report, ch told the Greater London incil that a 16-ton ban within M25 could save operators m a year, writes ALAN .LAR.
he Freight Transport Assoion has been waiting in the gs through all the false starts the report's publication and le driving force behind LonNeeds Lorries, a coalition of Road Haulage Association, 'federation of British IndusLondon Chamber of Com:ce and Industry, Movement London, and the Society of or Manufacturers and Trad
he ETA's immediate resse suggests it hardly needs is, and could fight hard on its i. Wood is "a pathetic hotchth of surmise and conten" and "another time-wasting pter in the futile search for a -road building solution to don's traffic problems", its al statement said last week. kesmen both at the Wood ;s conference and on televi1 and radio have done their ost to discredit the report be the GLC has any idea of 3ing heavy lorries out of its [tory.
f the FTA's partners on LNL, SMMT has said any kind of
ban would be detrimental Dbs and industry and would .flerate the exodus of cornce from the capital, and the has told the GLC to shelve Dd and get on with helping don's industry to get moving in. Movement for London — r i t is h Road Federation onal group — is worried that rry ban could be followed by rictions on the use of cars.
RHA said it was "preiptuous and potentially danpus" to assume that a lorry would not cause a decline in don's economy, especially Wood asknowledged that e were difficulties in assemig totally comprehensive res for the report. It does not want the GLC to go ahead with any large-scale bans, but perhaps the main thrust of its opposition is its refusal to accept the report's assumption that operators could afford to buy the new vehicles needed to meet much lower weight limits in London.
That could be the key to a great chasm which might open up in LNL if the going gets really rough.
Trade and industry, as represented by the FTA, CBI, LCCI and the SMMT as an industry (but not as a representative of those selling vehicles), would have to foot the bill if Wood is wrong and transport costs do rocket with a lorry ban. Hauliers and vehicle sellers are expected to adapt to meet changes in the law, and while they would rather things stayed as they are, they may see opportunities where others have no choice but to see increased costs.
In other words, while the RHA quite properly will throw its weight behind the LNL argument, there will be some of its members who will entertain secret hopes that a ban will be implemented and that they will benefit. They probably share the FTA view that the cost savings claim is fatuous, but if they have a base in London they could be sitting on a .potential goldmine, carrying own-account and other hauliers' traffic with a fair chance of not only getting full loads, but also of being able to dictate the rates at which they carry them.
Much the same applies to transhipment centres, and companies with depot and land space suitable for the purpose — and which could have it approved by Licensing Authorities once the 1982 Transport Act changes take effect — will find it hard to resist the temptation to take advantage of others' misfortune.
But is this all academic, if the Government disbands the GLC before it can do anything to upset the ways of today's freight industry? If it was, it would be surprising if the FTA was putting so much into the LNL campaign. GLC transport committee chair Dave Wetzel says he would only be following Government policy if his administration banned heavy lorries from London, as Westminster is encouraging local authorities to keep lorries out of sensitive areas and Wetzel says all London is a sensitive area. The trouble, as the industry sees it, is that all Manchester, all Birmingham, or all Bristol could also be deemed sensitive if London gets away with it.
But lorry control schemes are Government policy, and attract more Transport Supplementary Grant than public transport subsidies, especially if they come in the wake of major road construction. The M25 is the Government's number one priority trunk road, and probably the last great civil engineering project Britain will see for a long time, and the GLC is resigned to having no ban in force until 1986, when the M25 is complete.
Now, that is the year that the GLC is scheduled to disappear, and it also is a year after the next GLC election which might bring the Conservatives back into control in London. But those moves might not mean a more sympathetic attitude towards heavy lorries in London.
The present Labour administration, in fact, held up the implementation of a ban in Enfield and Barnet, which had been approved by its predecessor, and there is little sign of any party political opposition to the area ban proposed for the GLC/Essex borders once that section of M25 is open. If area bans are approved, but Wood adds to growing evidence that their scope is limited, then something bigger will hardly be such a big jump. On top of that, the Government's reluctance to launch more massive road-building projects is most apparent in London. The British Road Federation wants £4bn spent on improving London's road network, but such a project would involve massive disruption to the fabric of the capital, would require virtually interminable public inquiries, and could face politicians with options many could find unpalatable.
There also is a simpler argument which favours a London lorry ban. It would be popular, and attempts to resist it would rebound on the Government. Wood's calculations show that milk prices would rise by 0.04p per litre with a 16-ton ban if the cost were borne by Londoners alone (the Milk Marketing Board does not charge regionally, though) and petrol, which is priced regionally, would cost an extra penny a gallon. Now, even if those figures are optimistic and the rise was three times Wood's forecasts, who is to say that the public would find the cost too high?
The industry fought hard to have the Windsor Cordon declared illegal, and lost the argument. That has set a precedent which may not be lost on the Government.
The ball, then, is in the industry's court, but London Needs Lorries will have to muster arguments on a level perhaps greater than that used to win the weights increase argument if it is to stop at least Wood's third option, a ban giving heavy vehicles access on trunk roads and the A406 North Circular.