Longer HGVs would be bad for UK PLC

Philippa Edmunds argues that detailed scrutiny of the Government’s proposal to increase lorry trailers by up to almost 7 feet reveals that the research has fundamental safety, economic and environmental flaws and will not meet its own stated objectives to reduce road congestion and pollution.

In safety terms, while admitting that the longer trailer will be individually more dangerous than existing trailers and have increased tail swings and susceptibility to crosswinds, the research significantly underestimates the impact the longer trailer will have on other road users.  It does not examine how longer trailers would significantly increase the length of the driver’s blind spot and double the rail swing to more than 2 metres in left and right hand turns in urban environments which is very dangerous for all other road users because it would not be obvious how the back of the lorry could swing out into other traffic or pedestrians.

The case for longer lorries relies on the same questionable presumption used each time to justify lorry dimension increases, that there would be fewer bigger trucks on the roads.  However, in practice since the last increases in dimensions there is no direct evidence of larger or heavier lorries leading to improvements in average payloads or a reduction in empty running with one in four HGVs driving around empty[1].  A reduction in empty running would have a far greater impact on congestion and emissions than increasing lorry dimensions.  Germany, which initially started with a vignette lorry road user charging system and then moved to a distance based one in 2005, has reduced empty running by 20% to below 20% over the past decade.
The current argument for this length increase is that some loads are volume constrained (42% according to DfT figures) but that is because weight limits were increased from 40 to 44 tonnes in 2001.  The DfT research[2] also shows almost half of cargos are neither weight or volume limited (i.e. only partially loaded).  If you increase the volume you will hit new weight limits, so you have a see-saw between length and weight increases as it is difficult to optimise for both weight and volume.  The question remains why would the road haulage industry fill larger lorries if they cannot fill the smaller ones.  Why also is the FTA already calling for a weight increase if the justification for longer trailers is supposed to be that goods cube out?
The longer lorry would become the default vehicle; small and medium sized hauliers[3], many of whom do not want the longer trailers but are reluctant to show opposition publicly, will suffer from premature loss of capital investment values, will find it even harder to compete with the big operators and fear that customers would force them to lower their prices.

Where also is the analysis of the additional infrastructure costs to local authorities of redesigning junctions and replacing damaged street furniture which will have to be borne by the tax payer?  In urban areas, these longer lorries could get stuck halfway through a manoeuvre, have trouble negotiating ramps and be too big for many loading bays.

Longer trailers will be slower to negotiate road junctions, and had the DfT research applied its own sensitivity test to assess the requirement for road space and thus impact on congestion, 90% of the congestion benefits would have been removed from the preferred 2.05 metre options.

Longer trailers would undermine low carbon, energy-efficient long distance rail, particularly the emerging supermarket (domestic intermodal) rail traffic, the sector with the highest growth potential of up to 12 times in a 25 year period[4].  Even the DfT figures states that the 2 metre trailer would reduce rail freight growth by a factor of 4 down from 732% to 262% by 2025.  This is because the relative costs of road and rail will be adversely affected by the new units, and rail will face a cost disadvantage; savings of up to 15% are predicted by some in the road haulage industry.  All this is likely to result in a downward spiral for rail freight in this sector as critical mass is lost.
Were the correct economic assumptions (price elasticities) applied, previously agreed by the EU Peer Group, with proper consideration given to congestion implications, longer trailers would be shown to cause additional carbon dioxide emissions, more road freight tonne miles, more road congestion and more road accidents, the reverse of what is being claimed would happen.

References
1. DfT figures CSRGT MTRU report, P8 Figure 1C.
2. Table 5: Summary of LST Take Up Input Assumptions for each Scenario.  Source: Impact Assessment of Longer Semi-Trailers, DfT 20/12/2010.
3. Lorry fleets of 10 or less vehicles make up almost half lorry fleet in the UK.  Source: Vehicle and Operator Services Agency.
4. Network Rail, The Value of Rail Freight, July 2010.  Domestic intermodal growth highest forecast 1200% in tonne km between 2006/07 and 2031.

Note: Freight on Rail members are DB Schenker, Freightliner, ASLEF, RMT, TSSA, UNITE, Rail Freight Group and Campaign for Better Transport

Philippa Edmunds is the Freight on Rail Manager.  For further information, contact Philippa via e-mail: philippa@freightonrail.org.uk or visit: www.freightonrail.org.uk

Published: 06/07/2011