HGVs on Britain’s roads pay less than 40 per cent of the costs they impose on society

The government needs to reduce the costs resulting from lorry activities.

HGV

The government needs to reduce the costs resulting from lorry activities

New research commissioned by Campaign for Better Transport has set out why the road haulage industry comes up so far short of meeting its costs and what government should do about it.

Many of our local roads are in a very poor state. Some estimates put the backlog of repairs at £12bn. This backlog hits the economy, causing accidents and congestion.

With the heaviest HGVs estimated to be 150,000 times harder on roads than the a typical car, it is lorries that are the cause of much of this damage.

Public health is another important area. HGVs are five times more likely than cars to be involved in fatal accidents on local roads, making them a blot on an otherwise vastly improved road safety picture. Legally binding carbon budgets mean emissions from lorries matter more than ever.

Government modeling of the impact of lorries has not kept track with changing practice in the haulage sector. HGVs now impose high external costs which are not recovered through taxation. The values put on carbon emissions, pollution and road traffic accidents involving lorries are simply out of date and underplay the latest understanding.

In addition, new values need to be added to the models. ‘Predict and provide’ road building projects planned to accommodate traffic growth including road haulage are having significant landscape and conservation impacts.

Growing awareness of the health impacts of air pollution from transport have shone the spotlight on poor lorry engine efficiency, something not helped by possible delays in the introduction of better cab design after industry lobbying at European level. Links between traffic emissions, air quality and wider public health have already resulted in lower running speeds being introduced through the government’s Smarter Motorways projects, with the likelihood of more to come.

The government needs urgently to reduce the costs resulting from lorry activities. This means having models that more accurately reflect the impacts of the road haulage sector, increase efficiency and lower the 30 per cent of lorries that currently drive round entry. It also means provide an indirect stimulus to other freight options including rail freight.

Without a level playing field across freight modes, the lack of which is exposed by this research,  it remains difficult for rail volumes to expand as it has to compete directly with road on price. The government must recognise that until it removes the subsidy for road and charges HGVs for the considerable costs imposed on society, it should compensate rail freight to the same level.

This can be done by reducing access charges onto the railway (a cost road does not pay) and by continuing the rail freight grants. As with roads, government should also update the values it uses to take full account of the carbon, safety and congestion benefits of shifting traffic off the roads.

By far the biggest barrier to the growth of rail freight remains the shortage of terminals in the right locations to tranship goods between road and rail. Many potential sites for such infrastructure already have private sector backing subject to planning consents.

In order to get this planning permission, existing spatial planning policy needs strengthening – something currently being appraised in National Networks National Policy Statement Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Policy.

Government needs to take action to ensure lorries pay their way and rail freight is adequately supported. The alternative is for us all to continue paying for potholes, accidents, congestion and pollution created by our subsidised HGVs.

Andrew Allen works for the Campaign for Better Transport

7 Responses to “HGVs on Britain’s roads pay less than 40 per cent of the costs they impose on society”

  1. itdoesntaddup

    “Report prepared for Freight on Rail” It helps to admit who your sponsors are.

  2. Leon Wolfeson

    “By far the biggest barrier to the growth of rail freight”

    …Is passenger trains.

  3. LB

    The state pays 20% for the state pension compared to what people could have got by investment.

    So its all hunky dory. The state screws people, so people have to try and screw others to make ends meet.

    So its back to the new taxes solve everything. From the Queen’s itch to STDs to general economic malaise. Slap another tax on.

  4. LB

    Correct. Yet another example of the Left being bought for cold hard cash to the detriment of the public.

    Here we have yet another set of cronies demanding that some poor bugger in Cornwall with no real transport infrastructure has to fork over huge sums so MPs can get home 5 minutes early. Probably to beat up their wife as we now discover from a recent case.

  5. rat man

    So an article yesterday about the cost of food, today an article about freight being too expensive, why, increasing the cost of freight couldn’t *possibly* have any side effect to the cost of goods.

    HO HO HO.

  6. Guest

    Ah, magically “the left” are bought because of an opinion peace.

    And of course you then link the left with your violence.

  7. Guest

    Yes, of course you want to tax the poor, as you blame the state for your screwing, and your demand to have funding for your fourth mansion. As you claim negative cash pays 500% more, in another display of spammy nonsense.

Leave a Reply