Super Long Lorries

[jonesy]

It's not the total weight which is the most damaging factor (in terms of road surfaces), but the configuration. The six axle artic, which is the most common type in the UK (and the one I drive every night) is about the most damaging possible, especially with non - steering axles. ...

I thought it was the 5 axle 38 tonner that was the worst? It is weight per axle that makes the difference to road wear. I've seen a table somewhere showing axle weights and road wear, I'll look for it some time, but ought to be doing something else at the moment!

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I thought it was the 5 axle 38 tonner that was the worst? It is weight per axle that makes the difference to road wear. I've seen a table somewhere showing axle weights and road wear, I'll look for it some time, but ought to be doing something else at the moment!

Maybe it is ... the point that the standard artic (short tractor unit, long multi - axle trailer) is more damaging than a wagon and drag still stands, though. Weight limit on 5 axles is now 41 tonnes, by the way; even worse!

 

[StuartG]

Re bold bit. I've already dealt with this- again, that argument can be used against any any efficiency improvement, like improving mpg. It's called the rebound effect, it's a reason to ensure that fuel prices and road charges are maintained high enough to constrain demand, but isn't a reason to oppose efficiency improvements in the first place. Would you advocate a ban on high mpg engines because they reduce costs too much?

I take from your answer that they have not analysed the growth in road traffic as a result of lowering costs. Hence their conclusion that fatalities will fall is unfounded. Indeed the fact that longer vehicle creates more death is what should concern us.

To apply the report in London it would suggest bendy buses are more dangerous because they are longer than double-deckers. There is no benefit because they carry no more (or not a lot more) than double-deckers. Similary there is no benefit to society (and maybe a big disbenefit) if superlongs allow the distribution trade to move out cost from depots into transport.

The underlying strategy should be to reduce transport miles. That's one reason why we stopped building motorways (which are much more efficient in mpg than ordinary roads). But an mpg reduction that increases miles driven is not good. Any initiative which makes the only carbon free wheeled transport option less attractive/more dangerous is not good.

I'm truly shocked at the nieveity of that report. It looks like things don't change in the DfT.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

To apply the report in London it would suggest bendy buses are more dangerous because they are longer than double-deckers. There is no benefit because they carry no more (or not a lot more) than double-deckers. Similary there is no benefit to society (and maybe a big disbenefit) if superlongs allow the distribution trade to move out cost from depots into transport.

But that's the fundamental difference between bendy buses and these long lorries: the long lorries do carry more per journey and will reduce the number of journeys.

 

[dellzeqq]

To apply the report in London it would suggest bendy buses are more dangerous because they are longer than double-deckers. There is no benefit because they carry no more (or not a lot more) than double-deckers.

whatever it suggests, all the evidence points in the direction of bendy's being no more of a hazard than double deckers. And double deckers take up to 90 - bendys take 140

 

[jonesy]

I take from your answer that they have not analysed the growth in road traffic as a result of lowering costs [1]. Hence their conclusion that fatalities will fall is unfounded. Indeed the fact that longer vehicle creates more death is what should concern us.[2]

To apply the report in London it would suggest bendy buses are more dangerous because they are longer than double-deckers. There is no benefit because they carry no more (or not a lot more) than double-deckers. Similary there is no benefit to society (and maybe a big disbenefit) if superlongs allow the distribution trade to move out cost from depots into transport.

The underlying strategy should be to reduce transport miles. That's one reason why we stopped building motorways (which are much more efficient in mpg than ordinary roads). But an mpg reduction that increases miles driven is not good. Any initiative which makes the only carbon free wheeled transport option less attractive/more dangerous is not good. [3]

I'm truly shocked at the nieveity of that report. It looks like things don't change in the DfT[4]

[1] I take it from your answer that you still haven't grasped the point- we don't stop trying to improve efficiency just because of rebound effects! Otherwise we'd now stop promoting efficient lamp bulbs, insultating homes etc!

[2] you haven't substantiated this.

[3] see 1. Are you really saying we shouldn't improve energy efficiency?? I suggest you do some reading on the rebound effect if you are going to keep mis-applying it:
http://www.transportclimate.org/

[4] You'd earlier said you hadn't read it, now you accuse it of being naieve! Have you read it now? It is rather long to form such an opinion from so quick a read... and lest anyone forget, it was you who said it should be studied by RRL (TRL), I've directed you to a TRL report and now you don't like it because it doesnt' draw simplistic black and white conclusions to support your argument...

 

[bonj2]

These lorries would be fine, as all lorries would be, if they would just have a little bit of sense and confine them to major trunk roads.
If you listen to the traffic reports on radio 2 in the morning, you notice that ALL the traffic hotspots that are reported are a lorry's fault. Northallerton is snarled up because a lorry has jacknifed. The A31 is blocked because a lorry has left the carriageway. The north circular roundabout is at a standstill due to a broken down lorry. Congestion around biggleswade due to an accident with a car and a lorry. If they were confined to trunk roads we wouldn't have this problem. The problems they cause must cost the economy more than the entire lorry industry generates!

The lorries that we've got now are far too big to thrash their way along minor roads and roar through sleep villages, let alone super-big ones.
But trundling along a straight motorway, and it doesn't (usually) cause anybody too much grief, regardless of how long it is.

It isn't the length of the lorry that's the problem, it's the fact we let lorries on minor roads.

The solution to this is easy imho - only let lorries go on roads that are green or blue on google maps, and NO using the outside lane INCLUDING (read: especially) the A1
then they can be as long as they like.

 

[dellzeqq]

way of topic, Jonesy, but after haunting internet sites run by bus-spotters I've come up with this gem - an estimate of the cost of replacing bendys based on tender prices. http://www.boriswatch.co.uk/2009/01/05/bendy-bus-contract-costs-in-full/

Route Bendy Premium (£pa)
507 £214,713.00
521 £351,103.00
38 £2,784,000.00
18 £1,895,489.36
149 £1,599,319.15
73 £2,547,063.83
25 £2,547,063.83
12 £1,836,255.32
207 £1,599,319.15
29 £1,717,787.23
436 £1,540,085.11
453 £1,362,382.98
Total: £19,994,581.96

looks like Johnson's little phobia is going to cost us (sorry, me, because I don't think you live in London...) about £20million a year. And this doesn't take account of the congestion costs. Drat and double drat the man!

 

[jonesy]

Interesting...no doubt Ben and Stuart will be able to come up with £20million per year in reduced accident costs?

 

[StuartG]

Bit of a contradiction in the above. First Rhythm Thief - please re-read what I have repeated about the connection between cost and companies switching to more transport.

Simon - so if longer lorries are more dangerous than shorter ones - why do buses not follow the same rule? Do you really find riding past two bendy buses in a row not more intimidating than 3 double-deckers? Re capacity - I think you will find the number of seats around the same. The fact that you can crush in more standing customers (and collect less revenue) at rush hours does mean bendies occupy more road area across the day then satisfying the same demand with double-deckers which are both run at frequencies that usually does not require standing. Given that you are a South Londoner you might want to compare the 40 & 176 which have a long overlap.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Bit of a contradiction in the above. First Rhythm Thief - please re-read what I have repeated about the connection between cost and companies switching to more transport.

As far as I'm aware, I've responded to what you've written with an argument as to why it's wrong. Do let me know if I'm misrepresenting you, but your argument is that these long lorries will lead to more freight on the roads; mine is that this isn't nrecessarily the case because a lot of freight fills a trailer in volumetric terms long before it gets close to the weight limit. Therefore, one lorry towing two trailers will take as much of this freight as two lorries towing one trailer each. That's one journey as opposed to two.

 

[StuartG]

Interesting...no doubt Ben and Stuart will be able to come up with £20million per year in reduced accident costs?

Nope - they are a mistake we should live with. I truly resent the extra scrappage costs Boris is placing on taxpayers and the cuts in new public transport Boris has done solely to make a political point.

Except the hire bikes. Hopefully even Boris can get something right?

 

[StuartG]

[2] you haven't substantiated this.

Nope: YOU did. From your link "As for safety risks, in the case of large LHVs, these would likely increase per vehicle km"

 

[jonesy]

Nope: YOU did. From your link "As for safety risks, in the case of large LHVs, these would likely increase per vehicle km"

... which isn't the same as total accidents, which is what you referred to.

 

[StuartG]

... which isn't the same as total accidents. Just like the bendy buses...

Quite. It depends on the actual increased risk and if there is any corresponding reduction in the number of vehicles run. In the case of bendies there is a reduction at peak on the corresponding number of double-deckers but about the same out of peak. The TRL report doesn't address the effect of lowering costs of high volume/low weight transport costs.

You say "I've directed you to a TRL report and now you don't like it because it doesnt' draw simplistic black and white conclusions to support your argument..."

That is outrageous when I was only pointing out it doesn't support yours and why. You also wrongly assume I support the scappage of bendies and more. All I am asking is to try and get some good objective evidence on this topic. You are making assumptions about beliefs I do not have and even said I do not have.