1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
CAP TAt
Page 44
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
While a great deal of attention is focused on the impact of the London congestion charge, now seems a particularly good time to cast a wary eye over the merits, drawbacks and relevance of that other great venture designed to reduce the impact of traffic in London, says Steve McQueen.
The Greater London (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1985 set the parameters for The London Nighttime and Weekend Lorry Control Scheme. It was introduced in 1986 and is still jointly supported by all 33 London boroughs, although the Mayor has ordered a review of the scheme. More generally known as the London Lorry Ban (LLB), it was conceived in an attempt to reduce the number of 'unnecessary journeys by trucks in London at night and at weekends.
It would mean fewer journeys, less noise and less pollution—or so the argu ment goes. Unlike the £5 daily congestion charge ticket, permits issued for the LLB scheme are free. More than 56.000 lorries display them in an average year and those vehicles that do are allowed to make deliveries in the greater London area during the enforcement periods (see below). A limited number of inward arterial routes define the major points of entry and departure. Any deviation from these scheduled routes can attract a maximum fine of £1,000 for each offence. As a result, direct routes between drops inside the area are impossible.
Supporters of the LLB, which is administered by the Association of Local Government on behalf of the Transport Committee for London, say that the scheme was not conceived to prohibit the entry of lorries to the capital at night, more to confine the majority of the necessary journeys to predetermined roads, away from major residential areas.
Operators and their representative bodies have often attacked the scheme on a number of fronts. Lex Transfleet describes the LLB as an "antiquated permit scheme", and warns that certain boroughs are already pressing for the additional inclusion of "Low Emission Zones". Managed services director Andy Eccles, says: "London is now a 24-hour, sevendays a week city yet the infrastructure available for servicing this modem economy is limited to a 14-hour five-and-a-half day week."
Delivery points
The Freight Transport Association argues that the timetable of the LLB in particular makes it more of an early evening onwards ban. It also condemns enforcement of the scheme as "inflexible" and "impractical".
Most agree that the LLB is a charge in everything but name. 'We've always seen the LLB as a congestion charge anyway, because we probably travel an extra 100,000km per annum in order to comply with it," says Mark klwin, supply chain operations director of Safeway.
All opponents seem concerned about the additional traffic management conflicts created by the implementation of the congestion charge alongside this and London's existing traffic management initiatives. "If you combine the influence of the LLB with the congestion charge and the red routes, it's fair to say that some delivery points in central London are virtually inaccessible," says Martin Wood, primary operations manager at Sainsbury's.
In its latest critique Delivering In London, the FTA points out how the overlap of the different schemes means th"at time is actually running out for delivery vehicles.
And then, of course, there are the roadworks.
In the past, operators that could do so switched over to night-time deliveries. Supermarkets have been particularly hard hit by the LLB because they prefer to make deliveries when the shelves are most in need of restocking—after the stores have closed and before they open for business. The terms of the LLB add significantly to their running costs.
"If you are delivering to a store in London and want to go to another, the vehicle has to come back out on the same inward route, around the M25 and then back into London. That actually exposes a greater number of people to more pollution," says Aylwin.
Safeway runs a fleet of around 800 tractor units nationally, to more than 480 stores every week. About 50 are in the London and Home Counties area. A dedicated fleet of 40 CNG-fuelled vehicles, based at Welwyn Garden City and Aylesford. were commissioned for nighttime delivery purposes in London to satisfy the company's service in the community objectives.
"We understand why the LLB is there.
but our angle is that because we use environmentally-friendly. ONG vehicles at night—which are also exempt from the congestion charge, by the way--we feel there should now be some relaxation of the LLB in the same way as alternativefuel vehicles are exempt from the daily charge."
Sainsbury's has about 850 vehicles operating nationally, with around 200-300 vehicles serving London and the SouthEast. They are diesel-powered trucks with a specification that takes account of the need to run quietly al night. Wood says the company has no option but to continue with night-time deliveries, but says there will be times when the fleet is exposed to congestion charges.
Forecasts expect these to amount to around £100,000 in additional costs. And that's on top of the additional fuel and running costs experienced as a result of compliance with the LLB. For operators. the cost of delivering at night is more time and mileage on the roads, and more fuel consumed. The ETA estimates a conservative cost to the transport industry of £30m. Meanwhile, the additional mileage affects more residents over a wider area, while more emissions are produced in total.
Drastic review
Sue Moody, ETA's regional director for London, points out that the availability of the M25 means very few drivers consider using central London as a rat-run these days—or nights. As such, the LLB is outdated and needs a radical and drastic review.
"With the introduction of the congestion charge, the time of the rush hour has changed. A rethink should consider which routes covered by the LLB should now be opened up."
If the new congestion charge means that people pay an extra charge to travel around central London more freely during the day, it could see some night-time delivery operators switch back to daytime drops. The £5 daily charge may be seen as cheap if the system works.
Daytime delivery specialists, such as Doug Boulton of Essex-based Roebuck Transport, say they will be happy to Pay up if it means getting the vehicles back a couple of hours earlier than usual. At the end of the first day, he said: "It's only halfterm. Let's see what happens over the next couple of weeks."
Michael Nuttall, contract hire director for Lex Transfleet. estimates that the true costs are far greater than £5 a day. He says it could cost some larger companies delivering in London every day more than £1,000 per driver shift per annum (calculations based on 250 working days).
Nestle Watercoolers is one of Lex Transfleet's clients and it forecasts paying out between e10,000 and 112,000 by the end of 2003. Kevin Matthews, the national operations manager, says: "If congestion charging does reduce traffic congestion, stop our drivers from getting parking tickets and improve on th working day, then I'm all for it. Howeve doubt that it will, and my main concerr that it's going to cost us money and save us any time at all, as the roads s rounding the zone will be congested se vehicles being parked up by car drew who will then switch to public transpor For operators committed to nig time deliveries, it's the LLB that rema the problem. However, over Sainsbury's, Wood sees some hope. talking to the Mayor's office, thi appears to be a more constructive vi being taken of the LLB. Although London Mayor does not have jurisdict over the scheme, we understand he working with the London boroughs E other bodies to review its application."
ALG says a review of the LLB is be considered, not in the light of the cong tion charge, but whether the road r work covered by the ban requi amendment. That could fall some \i short of what's required, says Moc "Let's not talk about little routes he and bits of road there. Let's talk about whole strategic overview of the LLB."