Ask your MP to sign EDM 506 opposing trials of super trucks and support rail freight instead

Please can you ask your MP to lobby the Secretary of State for Transport Ruth Kelly  against super trucks (LHVs) and ask them to sign EDM 506 RAIL FREIGHT AND THE ENVIRONMENT, by Jim Dobbin which asks the Government to support steps to encourage modal shift from road to rail and therefore oppose the introduction of super trucks.

The Department for Transport is currently reviewing whether to allow trials of super trucks, known as LHVs, which range from 25.5 metres to 30 metres long with weights of 60 to 84 tonnes. This photo shows the most favoured option, the 25.5 metre truck prototype which has units which can be split and driven separately.

The arguments against LHVs are

1. LHVs will mean more lorries and more pollution as previous increases in lorry dimensions have lead to an increase in HGVs driving around less full, which is the absolute reverse of what was claimed would happen. Since the last increase in maximum weights, average vehicle occupancy has been going down and over a quarter of lorries are running around empty. (2005 empty running 27.4% whereas it was 26.4% in 2001)Heavier lorries use more fuel and so the lack of any efficiency improvements has meant more CO2 emissions as a result.  Sources: Transport Statistics Great Britain (TSGB): CSRGT 1995 and 2005

2. The claimed environmental benefits of LHVs rely on very high levels of load utilisation – in excess of that routinely achieved within the haulage sector.  Therefore at lower levels of utilisation the environmental performance of LHVs would be worse. German trials showed that utilisation of above 77% for LHVs was needed for fuel costs to breakeven. Source Umwelt Bundes Amt August  07   

3. LHVs will destroy rail freight which has a much better environmental record. Intermodal rail freight and significant bulk flows will be decimated forcing trainloads of freight back onto our roads.

4. Trying to restrict LHVs to dual-carriageways and motorways simply will not work.

5. LHVs have dangers of their own due to their size and lack of maneuverability.

6. Road haulage industry has a poor record in complying with existing road regulations.

 

Rail freight’s environmental credentials
Remember per tonne carried rail produces fives times less carbon emissions than the same tonne being moved on the roads. Energy efficiency is directly related to carbon dioxide emissions and rail is significantly more energy efficient than road. Rail freight is also up to fifteen times better than road in terms of other noxious emissions.
 

Longer heavier lorries will have minimal impact on road congestion whereas an average freight train which is designed for heavy and bulky cargoes, can remove 50 HGVs from our roads Source Network Rail 2007
 

Public Opinion
The public are opposed to these super trucks. Motorists already are fearful of the existing HGVs and would hate sharing the roads with LHVs. NOP poll August 2007 found that 75% of people opposed LHVs and 80% wanted more rail freight instead.
 

Lack of compliance by road haulage industry with existing road regulations
Many HGVs are not following existing road regulations ranging from exceeding speed, weight and driving hours limits thus putting the public at extra risk. For example on major non built up single carriage roads a staggering 76 per cent of articulated HGVs exceeded their 40 mph limit by 6mph on average, with 28 per cent exceeding the limit by more than 10 mph in 2005.Source Vehicle speeds GB 2006
 

LHVs will undermine rail freight viability
Such vehicles would decimate intermodal rail freight and detailed examination of rail’s bulk freight flows by EWS in May 2007 found that up to 40% of aggregates currently carried by rail could switch to road and almost 20% of metals traffic.
 

Road access for super trucks 
The promoters are claiming that these vehicles will be restricted to motorways, dual carriageways and major roads, but there is no mechanism available to keep them to this and the type of road has not been fully clarified. The reality is that these vehicles will need local access to distribution hubs which would not be on motorways/dual carriageways, but on roads which are totally unsuited to vehicles of this scale. We are concerned – as happened with a previous concession of 44 tonne vehicles to railheads only – that the restriction proposed will not in fact be enforced or enforceable.

Unlike other European countries, the UK allows all vehicles to operate on any road and at any time unless specifically prohibited from doing so. As a result, we will get these very large vehicles travelling down local roads that are wholly unsuitable for the purpose, with consequent intrusion, noise and road damage and safety implications. Where would drivers stop to take statutory breaks. 

 
Safety Implications of super trucks
DfT research showed that because of their size and weight, when they are involved in accidents the level of injury tends to be higher. The same research found that HGVs were twice as likely to be involved in fatal accidents as cars 1. There are concerns about braking distances, blind spots, manoeuvability especially on motorway roundabouts and reversing and overtaking. Even Bendy buses, which are 18 metres long, cause more than twice as many injuries as any other bus. Source Evening Standard June 7th 2007
 

HGVs are up to 160,000 times more damaging to road surfaces than the average car; some of the heaviest road repair costs are therefore almost exclusively attributable to the heaviest vehicles.  A 60 tonne lorry would be 4.7 times more damaging than a 44 tonne lorry on a suspension bridge. ProfessorRASmithImperialCollege

 
Philippa Edmunds Campaigner 020 8241 9982  Philippa@freightonrail.org.ukwww.freightonrail.org.uk

1. Focus on Freight December 2006 chart 5.2b Deaths/KSIs in accidents involving HGVs per million km travelled