The UK Government's plan for telematics-based lorry road-user charging has only been postponed, not abandoned, but the audience at a daf-sponsored presentation by Professor Alan Mckinnon of Heriot-Watt university were given some powerful reasons why it should be

Now that the UK Government has postponed its far-reaching plans to introduce lorry road-user charging (from 2006 until at least 2008), it is intriguing to reflect on the reasons. Was it persuaded by the cries of protest from analysts close to the industry, or simply overwhelmed by reports from its own staff, who could see clearly that an implementation date just two years away represented an impossible goal?

Whatever the truth of the matter, a paper presented at March's CV Show by Professor Alan McKinnon of the logistics research centre at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, makes pretty sobering reading for supporters who believe the new date is still achievable.

One of the prime reasons advanced for introducing such a scheme is to apply taxation on foreign-registered lorries on a fairer basis than now. However, Alan McKinnon argued that to achieve equity, they would have to be charged around 15p for every kilometre travelled in the UK, assuming they bought their fuel outside the country.

 

"This would raise an extra £130 million annually for the UK Exchequer," he said, "yet the system of lorry charging which the Government is planning to introduce in 2008 would probably cost several times this amount to operate." He added: "We are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut."

Turning to the technological challenge of the proposed system, he commented: "This will involve the integration of a range of telematics and communication technologies including satellite tracking, cellular telephony, microwave systems and digital tachographs."

He compared the proposed British system to the now-deferreed German Toll Collect system. "In Germany only vehicles with a gross weight of 12 tonnes or more travelling on autobahns are to be tolled, and the level of toll will be fixed. In the UK, all vehicles over 3.5 tonnes are to be charged for their use of all roads at a rate which is likely to be varied by road type and time of day."

He reckoned UK costs would mirror those experienced Germany, amounting to 20 per cent of revenues, or £600 million in total - plus the cost of the proposed fuel tax rebate scheme, which could raise it to £700 million or more - "five times as much as the extra revenue from foreign hauliers."

McKinnon went on to point out that the proposal was for an on-board unit or "OBU" to be installed in all vehicles travelling more than 12,000 km on UK roads each year. Yet the majority of the foreign trucks entering the UK travelled less than 12,000 km a year, he said.

This meant they would be covered by a separate "occasional user scheme" which would require them to hire a "low-use OBU". In other words, they would be exempted from some of the very demands due to be introduced for British-based operators with the supposed objective of helping them to compete more fairly.

McKinnon pointed out that progressive reductions in vehicle excise duty and increases in fuel tax meant that a de facto distance-based charging system already applied in Britain. He thought that if a more formal system were essential, a simple tachograph-based system would work.

"What is being planned, however, goes well beyond distance-based taxation," he warned. It was a scheme to regulate the time and place where trucks travelled, and to try to reap social and environmental benefits.

However, he methodically undermined most arguments in support of these goals. Empty running had already fallen from 34 to 26.5 per cent over the past 30 years, he said, and opportunities for further reductions were strictly limited. Vehicles were also getting "cleaner" and more fuel-efficient.

Discounting these arguments left a reduction in congestion as the other possible "win" from lorry road-user charging, McKinnon said. Yet here again, he saw very limited prospects for benefit. He pointed out that lorry traffic represented only 6 per cent all road traffic, ("or 13 per cent if, like highway engineers, you give a lorry a 'passenger car unit' rating of 2.5)".

According to Government traffic forecasts, he said, even at the 2.5 PCU weighting, lorries would only account for 3 per cent of the growth of traffic on Britain's roads between 2000 and 2010. "Seen in this light, freight traffic appears more a victim of traffic congestion than its cause."

Alan McKinnon shared concerns previously expressed Derek Beevor of Road Tech Computer Systems about the feasibility of rescheduling journeys to take advantage of tolls that were reduced in off-peak periods. Few operators could calculate the best way to exploit the benefits and still work within driving and working time constraints, he thought.

"Given the high standing costs of vehicles and drivers and the new constraints soon to be imposed on drivers' working-time," he said, "peak-time tolls would have to be set at punitive rates to make this worthwhile."

McKinnon concluded by questioning the view that the scheme would encourage positive use of telematics systems. Integration concerns abounded, he said. "There is also a danger that if, like the German tolling system, the LRUC scheme proves to be a fiasco, it may actually deter wider adoption of telematics. But then what happened in Germany could never happen here".