Government should say no to trials of longer heavier lorries

Freight on Rail briefing in advance of publication of TRL/Heriot Watt report by Department for Transport

27th February 2008

Photo of 25.5 metre LHV during German trials - Allianz pro Schiene/Kraufmann

The Government is reviewing whether to allow 60-tonne 25.5 metre lorries and the TRL/Heriot-Watt report it commissioned is due to be published by the end of this month (ref PQ 18 Feb Mrs Dunwoody to Mr Fitzpatrick). Freight on Rail has published this briefing sheet to explain why allowing such lorries would be a disaster for the economy, the environment and society.

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) see attached MTRU updated report Feb 2008 Heavier lorries and their impacts on economy and environment.

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. In 2006 in the UK HGVs over 33 tonnes were only 73% full. Source Umwelt Bundes Amt August 07 and UK CSRGT 2006

LHVs have dangers of their own due to their size and lack of maneuverability
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. Focus on Freight December 2006 chart 5.2b Deaths/KSIs in accidents involving HGVs per million km travelled

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

German Transport Ministers voted in Nov 2007 against LHVs after two year trials largely on safety grounds.

Stability of LHVs
We question the stability of these double trailer vehicles. The take up of draw bar vehicles in the UK has not been significant because of stability issues on motorways. In 2006, 532 HGVs overturned which is almost one and half HGVs per day. In the same period only 10 buses/coaches overturned. In 2006 144 HGVs jackknifed, of which articulated HGVs accounted for 125.

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.

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.

LHVs will undermine rail freight which has a much better environmental record than road
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.

LHVs would undermine container and bulk rail freight; Freighliner found that up to 66% of container traffic would be forced back onto the roads. 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 haulage industry has a poor record in complying 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

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

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. Professor R A Smith Imperial College

Unquantified as yet is the damage to underground structures (including gas and water mains, electricity and telecommunications caused by existing HGVs as well as the noise pollution that would be associated with even larger vehicles.

Philippa Edmunds Campaigner is available for comments on 020 8241 9982 mobile 07981 881410 email philippaedmunds@freightonrail.org.uk
 
Members are Direct Rail Services, EWS, Freightliner, ASLEF, RMT, TSSA, Unite- Amicus Section, Rail Freight Group and Campaign for Better Transport