A number of locals have been supporting the petition in Painswick to stop the HGVs going through the town. I've already sent off a page of signatures and given out other forms for folks to complete, but one key issue has been raised several times...Photos: Megatruck that the Government threatens to unleash on our roads and below lorry in Stroud
Aren't we just shifting the problem? The petition originally didn't include concerns of neighbours - new wording was added "In order that the problems of the A46 are not merely shifted, the A4173 (Stroud Road, Edge) and B4070 (Slad Road) must also become subject to weight restrictions." However one person summarised concerns: "but are you not in danger of just increasing the road miles of freight transport when we are supposed to be reducing it?"
Indeed to me the focus would probably have been better on reducing HGV altogether - see below various proposals that sadly have still largely not been adopted. Many HGVs use routes to cut through, however without figures I could not say if this was the case in Painswick. Nevertheless it is true if HGV use longer routes that will mean more emissions as I doubt it will (at the moment) lead to a rethink and make them use alternatives - however if many roads ban HGV it may lead to the rethink needed? I am not sure! What is needed is a strong message to Government that communities are fed up with HGV....It is essential to cut HGV and slow traffic on the roads identified (and many more) as those are two reasons identified by research that discourages pedestrians and cycling - so cutting HGV could cut emissions if more stop using the car. I have read of research showing this from a group of Dutch towns - clearly any plan would need to ensure the trouble is not just shifted someplace else..
Worse still is that there are now plans for even larger trucks which Greens are fighting in EU - see more below...
Lightening the Load: Green HGV traffic reduction action plan
Britain lags way behind Europe in terms of HGV traffic reduction. Each 40 tonne truck causes tens of thousands of pounds more damage than the average car and is often half full or empty - yet the Government has allowed HGV traffic to increase by 38% over the last 10 years. The Green party produced a report a couple of years ago that demonstrates how a few Green local authority measures - like those implemented in European cities - can bring Real Progress in HGV traffic reduction. Green local authority measures in Kassel, Germany, for example led to a 70% reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled. If UK local authorities followed suit - and implemented the Green HGV traffic reduction plan - we could see this kind of progress in our cities.
The plan includes:
* Setting up loading and redistribution centres outside cities - and send fuel efficient vehicles into city centres to deliver the goods instead
* Promoting partnerships and "chains" between companies to cut down on unnecessary trips
* Provide "Best practice" manuals to companies, so that they can maximise loads and minimise journey times
See report here.
The Threat of mega trucks
An opportunity for the European Parliament to make clear its opposition to the use of 60-tonne 'monster' trucks was lost last year when MEPs voted to adopt rules under which the lorries could, in future, be allowed to operate. Considering a report on improving freight logistics across the EU, MEPs in Strasbourg failed to reject provisions which stated that 60-tonne trucks could be allowed to cross EU borders only with the agreement of the country
concerned - and where roads and other infrastructure allow. But the Greens had argued the proposed clause should be scrapped, as it opens the way for future relaxation of the maximum size rules, which currently limit trans-European fright trucks' weight to 40 tonnes.
At the time Caroline Lucas, Green MEP for South-East England, said: "While it's important that the EU establishes minimum standards of efficiency and sustainability for Europe's logistics, there can be no role for monster trucks thundering up and down our roads, guzzling fuel, damaging infrastructure as they do so. We felt the clause about 60-tonne trucks opened the door to their use on Europe's roads in future - and therefore demanded it be voted upon separately. I am somewhat surprised and deeply disappointed my colleagues in other parties wanted to support the introduction of these monster trucks in their regions: it marks a real missed opportunity to make a statement about the role of the EU in shifting freight off the roads - and onto our railways."
The group 'Freight on Rail', perhaps unsurprisingly with a name like that, also believes that these longer and heavier lorries (LHVs) are totally unsuited to our roads on a number of safety and environmental grounds and should therefore be rejected on the following grounds. See more here.
• LHVs will mean more lorry-miles not fewer because demand will be stimulated if transport becomes cheaper at point of use
• Seriously damage rail freight, a low carbon option, resulting in major modal shift from rail to road leading to more road congestion and carbon emissions as lorries replace trains - Freight trains emit five times less carbon dioxide per tonne mile than road haulage
• LHVs have safety dangers due to their size and lack of manoeuvrability
• The claimed environmental benefits rely on very high levels of load utilisation – in excess of that routinely achieved within the haulage sector. At lower levels of utilisation the environmental performance is worse
• Restricting LHVs to dual-carriageways and motorways simply will not work as there is no mechanism to keep them to this. The reality is that these vehicles will need local access to distribution hubs
• The poor record of compliance with existing road regulations needs to be factored into any decision on increasing the existing weight and lengths of HGVs
• A national Opinion Poll (NOP) survey in August 2007 shows that 75% of the general public is opposed to the introduction of ‘super trucks – known as LHVs – onto UK Roads. The survey further revealed that 80% of the general public favoured the Government encouraging more freight to go by rail instead of by road
At a time when the Government claims to be committed to reducing carbon emissions it seems perverse for them to now be considering allowing trials of these travelling warehouses which will cause such problems and are so unwanted. Already many HGVs are not following existing road regulations, ranging from exceeding speed, weight and drivers' hours limits, thus putting the public at extra risk.
The fast route to reducing transport’s carbon footprint is surely to increase rail freight - what about longer heavier trains instead?
3 comments:
Just got this comment sent to me:
The road haulage lobby is again calling for larger lorries on the argument
that they are more efficient on fuel, and can therefore "save" emissions.
But this can only be so if the resulting economiic saving from the saved
fuel is entirely taken by the government in extra fuel duty or road tax.
This would result in the same amount of haulage, at the same cost to
customers, but using less fuel. If the hauliers retain the cost saving,
they pass this on to customers in cheaper rates so promoting more overall
use. To date, the government has always allowed this, resulting in so much
higher haulage use that fuel use has increased. The same effect applies
with any technological improvement in energy efficiency, and always needs
to be considered.
While the latest news is that the Govt are rejecting "super lorries" they are actually contemplating yet a further increase in size, as the final para of statement hints --
The report does show, however, that there could be worthwhile benefits from permitting a modest increase in the length of current articulated vehicles. The Department will consider these further in the context of its ongoing strategic work on freight, on which I expect to publish a summary of progress this summer.
What rubbish you lot talk about lorries you aint a clue how we (im a haulier)have to put up with from demanding clients and the public for there goods.I own a 40 Tonne lorry and use £1.800 a week in fuel,with companys paying me £1.25pence a mile to haul there goods,Most of my deliveries are 3 to 10 drops a day in towns and the country in my 40 tonne artic so theres no chance a train will do any shop,farm,factory,house,hospital,etc delivery and its the train companys fault we went from 38 tonne to 44 tonne because the containers we swap from rail to lorry went to heavy ,I wait for hours to load from the trains with my lorry and there must be 30 lorries also waiting in line to load at 44Tonnes for onward deilver to farms ,if you was not 44Tonne you get no load And we would only be paid the same 38 or 44 Tonne,Rates are about £1.15pence to £1.41pence a mile for a 44tonne lorry.Please spend a day with a haulier or driver and understand haulage before making stupid comments! or like our old haulier grandads were bring back the horse and cart and wait longer for your goods and have massive horse draw wagons thundering past your homes !. Plus ban cars there prob !
Post a Comment