FTA concern over Scottish LEZs

By Categories: NewsPublished On: Saturday 17 January 2015

news_cThe Freight Transport Association has expressed strong concern about what it calls “the unusually short timescales” proposed by the Scottish government for implementing low emission zones (LEZs) north of the border.

The association also acknowledged the potential appeal of LEZs “to campaigners and politicians as they sound dramatic,” but argued that “less exciting measures, such as traffic re-sequencing in key streets”, may in fact be better practical solutions.

FTA’s head of urban logistics policy, Christopher Snelling, said: “Air pollution in British cities has improved significantly in the last decades, partly thanks to the improvements in van and HGV technology that mean they now have a fraction of the emissions of the past.

“We are tightly regulated through the EU’s ‘Euro’ engine standards and these will continue to deliver the air quality improvements that are required of us, even if now further action is taken.”

He continued: “The biggest concern in these proposals is the potential timescale for implementation.  The [consultation] document correctly notes that ‘it is vital to the potential success of an LEZ that affected vehicle owners and operators are given sufficient notice to ensure compliance before the LEZ is established’.

“However, the document then states that the notice period should be a maximum of two years – compared to the total seven years’ notice that will have passed by the time London’s Euro 6 LEZ comes into force.  So far, nowhere else in Europe has implemented a Euro 6 LEZ, let alone at such short timescales.”

If a council were to announce the launch of an LEZ this year as per the document’s suggestion, FTA argued, it would begin in 2017 – meaning: “any lorry older than three years would be excluded, whilst for some van classes those more than one year old would be banned.”

Snelling added: “Two years’ notice might work if what is planned is a lower standard bus-only LEZ – as implemented successfully in Brighton recently.

“However if we are to avoid significant disruption to local economies in town and city centres, commercial vehicles operators, and we’d assume private motorists, need notice periods akin to those being given in London.”

FTA said it would lay out its views to the Scottish government and in its response to the consultation, which is open until 10 April and can be accessed here.

Late last year, FTA said it was ‘relieved’ by the findings of the Smith Commission, after it reported on its recommendations to the UK government for the further devolution of powers to Scotland.

FTA identified several issues covered in the Commission’s report which would potentially impact on the transport and logistics sector. In particular, it noted the recommendations that all aspects of fuel duty and excise duties will remain reserved, and that remaining powers to change speed limits and powers over all road traffic signs would be devolved to the Scottish parliament.

Chris MacRae, FTA’s head of policy for Scotland, said: “FTA welcomes the findings of the Smith Commission Report today. It is important that Scotland’s supply chains and routes to market are able to operate efficiently across borders, and within UK, Europe and globally.”

Following a consultation with its members, FTA submitted evidence to Lord Smith of Kelvin, chair of the Commission, highlighting what it said were: “five key objectives to maintaining safe, efficient and sustainable logistics throughout the UK.”

The five objectives were: free and open borders; fair competition for freight; quality and value-for-money services for motoring services agencies; a consistent, fair and effective approach from safety regulators/agencies; and high quality transport infrastructure networks.

FTA further advised the Commission that, when considering the further devolution of tax-raising and lawmaking powers, it should: “carefully consider the consequential impacts of its proposals on Scotland’s supply chains and logistics activities and aim to avoid the potential for new costs or market distortions to arise that would disrupt current economies of scale or borderless transport patterns.”