The article quotes Duncan Coleman of vansunited.co.uk as saying “We’ve not only seen retailers and manufacturers reduce their new and used prices, but they’ve applied finance offers to LCVs that were once the preserve of the car market. Now is the perfect time to buy for those businesses wanting to secure a strong deal.”

I suppose if you’re set on buying a new van in the next year or so then now might be the time to do it, but I’d question whether this is really the perfect time to buy.

While the last six weeks or so have been encouragingly busy for many same day couriers there’s no certainty about the future at all. Whether we’re on the brink of a cataclysmic recession or not it’s clear that many companies aren’t in a position to last the next few months, never mind considering investment in new vehicles.

There are many bargains to be had at auctions at the moment, nearly new vans being auctioned of by liquidators and the hire fleets getting rid of the excess vehicles caused by the slowdown in the construction and transport industries, but the simple fact is that there are more vans available than there are buyers.

I think that the only silver lining, from the perspective of a van dealer, may be transport companies taking the opportunity to replace some of their less efficient vehicles with newer models with better fuel consumption. That’s likely to be bad news for Mercedes with their heavy, thirsty, new shape Sprinter, but good news for Peugeot/Citroen & Fiat with their incredibly efficient little Bipper/Nemo/Fiorino van and for Vauxhall, Renault & Nissan with the almost unbelievably frugal Vivaro/Primastar/Traffic range.

On the whole though I suspect it will be the likes of Norflex, TLS & Reflex that will be the real beneficiaries of the cheap vehicles available at the moment. With high mileage couriers keen to own the newest and most fuel-efficient vehicles, but either unwilling to commit to long leases or unable to arrange finance on good terms, the flexible long-term rental option should quite rightly be seen by many operators as the most appropriate form of vehicle acquisition over the next few years. It would be very brave, if not foolish, to tie up funds by purchasing vehicles, or to commit to a three or four year finance deal, in the current economic environment.

The story as a whole is quite interesting and just goes to show that high fuel prices and congestion can certainly help to focus minds on getting freight off the roads. It was this line that caught my interest though: “international courier firm DHL is looking to move urgent mail from central London to Heathrow by speedboat to avoid congestion in the capital.”

I’ve been unable to find out any more information on DHL’s proposed scheme, an email to their Press Office went unanswered, but it’s certainly an intriguing possibility. However, I looked into the feasibility of a scheme like this a few months ago and quickly discounted the idea as being of little value to the same day courier industry or to any other sector of the express delivery business.

While a speedboat would certainly avoid some road congestion, it’s never going to be able to deliver direct to Heathrow because Heathrow isn’t on the river. So a van, or bikes, would be needed at both ends to transfer the ‘urgent mail’ from the collection point(s) to the speedboat and then from the speedboat to the cargo centre at Heathrow. It’s not clear where the loading and off-loading points would be, but for “central London to Heathrow” I can only imagine somewhere off Lower Thames Street (EC3) and somewhere around the Brentford/Kew Bridge area at the ‘Heathrow’ end; that’s 10 miles by van or bike or 13 miles by water.

So on the face of it DHL might have hit upon a sound idea, a ‘speedboat’ must be able to travel 13 miles on the open water faster than a van, or even a motorbike, can travel 10 miles on congested London roads, mustn’t it?

Well perhaps, but the Thames above Wandsworth Bridge has a speed limit of 9.2mph and it’s 7 miles from Wandsworth Bridge to Kew Bridge – that’s a minimum of 45 minutes. In addition there are plans to introduce a 13.8mph speed limit for the rest of the journey, so that’s another 26 minutes minimum. So an absolute minimum of 71 minutes for the speedboat to get from central London to Kew Bridge plus the time taken to carry out the 2 transhipments from road to water and back again, while ensuring that relevant Aviation Security rules are adhered to, and however long it takes for the ‘urgent mail’ to be delivered and collected by van(s) or bike(s).

While this might be a bit of good publicity for DHL and the sight of a speedboat in full DHL livery passing the Houses of Parliament will certainly make a good publicity shot, I suspect that it will do nothing to reduce DHL’s delivery times from central London, nor will it do much to reduce congestion on London’s roads or reduce DHL’s carbon footprint.

It was also the Telegraph that broke the story last October that these plans had apparently been shelved, or “back burnered” as it was put. It’s now clear that far from being shelved the plans for tests into the viability of national road charging are now at an advanced stage, with trials set to start in January 2010.

Personally I see little problem with the concept of a national road-charging scheme, however it seems clear to me that these trials will be a multi-million pound waste of money with huge potential profits for consultancy firms but little, if any, chance of the plans actually reaching fruition. It seems entirely likely that there will be at least one change of government before any national road-charging scheme is introduced and I don’t believe that any party will have the political will to see this through.

It’s only necessary to look at what’s happening in Manchester at the moment to see that motorists and the business community will use any argument possible to promote their own self-interested views on having to pay for the congestion they cause.

The first argument the Government need to get past is that of the Civil Liberties camp. While the real-time tracking of vehicles seems to scare these people to death, they seem to happily ignore the fact that they can already be tracked by their mobile phone usage, by ANPR cameras, by CCTV and by their use of credit cards and banking facilities. Presumably, if the will was present, measures could be built into any road-charging system to avoid its use to actively track and report on motorists’ movements; although law-enforcement agencies already seem to be keen to make use of their ability to track people by the other means mentioned.

Motorists will no doubt scream that they are already paying too much for motoring costs, particularly fuel, and that they’re already paying a yearly flat-rate charge (VED or ‘Road Tax’) AND a charge that is effectively based on their fuel consumption and the miles travelled (excise duty on road fuel). The argument goes that the amount the government receive from motorists far exceeds the amount that they spend on road maintenance and new road-building.

The Telegraph here, are pushing the headline rate of £1.30 per mile; leading one contributor to comment: “On the specific topic of road pricing: at £1.30 per mile, the round trip to visit my elderly mother (motorway all the way) will cost me an ADDITIONAL £780. What kind of world are these people living in?”. The £1.30 per mile is of course the proposed rate for using the most congested roads in the country at absolute peak times. Given the apparent hardship (and moaning) caused by the average 3-4p/mile increase in fuel prices over the last few months I would say that it’s entirely unlikely that the Government would try and introduce an average charge per mile of anything approaching this claimed amount.

Of course I have no information at all about the proposed charges, other than what’s been suggested by Government sources and speculated in the press already. Based on what I’ve read, common sense and maybe a bit of wishful thinking, I could imagine that Vehicle Excise Duty (‘road tax’) could be abolished (there’s no need for yearly insurance checks now that the system’s automated) and that 15-20p/litre could be cut off fuel prices, putting our fuel prices on a par with the rest of Europe, and a corresponding amount, say 3p mile, charged as the base level charge for uncongested roads during off-peak hours. During peak times the most congested routes (think Hammersmith Road, the M25 at Heathrow or the main commuter route into any major city) would be charged at something approaching the top end of the scale. The extra charge above the base level would be a disincentive to using commuter routes at peak times, much like the proposed Manchester congestion charge.

As the decrease in car use due to the current high fuel prices has shown, car use isn’t entirely necessary in many situations – we only use them because they’re convenient and, at least before the higher fuel prices, cheap to use compared to the alternatives. We all know that traffic congestion is a problem in this country and most of us accept that we can’t cover every inch of space in the country with tarmac to solve the problem. Unfortunately many of us also take the attitude that other motorists are the ones causing the congestion and our own journeys are somehow more important.

The reality is that the motorway and major road network has been developed over the years to encourage the economic development of the country as a whole and specific regions in particular, primarily by allowing good access for freight traffic. That the improved road system has also encouraged extended ‘drive-to-work’ zones and the emergence of the long-distance commuter is to most of us an unwelcome side-effect.

There’s no absolute requirement for anybody to commute 70 miles each way by car at peak times. People only choose to do it because the opportunity’s available to them and the financial rewards gained from driving such a long distance make it worthwhile. Remove the opportunity, or make it financially unattractive, and people are quick to find alternative solutions. If the road network wasn’t there, or it became prohibitively expensive to use it at peak times then people could choose to work closer to home, or live closer to work, or commute by another means, or even work from home. Everyone must accept that the road network can never expand indefinitely to meet all the demands that will potentially be made of it.

The final group who will demand consideration is the road transport industry, who of course have their own set of priorities, foremost of which is to be allowed to compete with foreign hauliers on an equal basis, without being crippled by the higher fuel tax levied in the UK. I wonder if it could possibly be the demands of the road transport industry that have caused the Government to re-examine their options on road pricing.

If VED on commercial vehicles was abolished, or at least reduced to a reasonable level, and duty on fuel was cut so that it was on a par with other European countries then the UK transport industry would have the level playing field they’ve been demanding since the early nineties. It’s clear that UK based commercial vehicles could be charged using the same system that would apply to private vehicles, although in the case of commercial vehicles a flat-rate per mile charging scheme would make more sense, rather than the proposed congestion based system. The question would remain on how foreign lorries would be charged for using the UK road network.

In April 2002, in response to fuel price protests, the Government concluded that foreign operators should be charged for using the UK road system on the basis of the miles travelled on UK roads. This system was originally to have been introduced by early 2006 but the proposal was subsequently quietly dropped, without too much fanfare and, surprisingly, little if any action by the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association et al.

As far as I know there was never any firm reason given for the dropping of the Lorry Road User Charge scheme, but reading between the lines it seems to me that the sticking point may have been the problem of interoperability between the UK’s proposed system and systems proposed for other EU states. Germany has had just such system in operation since January 2005 without any worries about interoperability – manual toll payments are made if the vehicle isn’t fitted with the automatic charging equipment.

Could it be that the Government have resurrected their plans for national road charging in order to introduce per mile charging for foreign registered vehicles and placate the increasingly rebellious road haulage industry, while covering the overall cost of introducing these measures by including them in the costs for general road-charging? The timing of this apparent U-turn seems to point firmly towards this, but could it be that the Government have just ‘suggested’ to the road haulage industry that the upcoming trials are leading towards the road charging situation that the haulage industry wants, merely to keep the hauliers from any embarrassing protests until after the proposed trials have been concluded?

Due to their current unpopularity it seems clear that the current Government are likely to avoid calling a general election until the absolute latest opportunity; by 3rd June 2010 at the latest. Considering the political benefits to be gained from avoiding the hauliers’ ongoing fuel protests while handing over the political hot potato of road-charging to their successors it seems perhaps hardly surprising that the Government have adopted this new stance.

In 2002, after much lobbying and with the approval of the EU, the UK introduced a lower rate of duty for biodiesel. At the time the biodiesel production was limited to a few enthusiastic companies who mainly produced their biodiesel from waste vegetable oil (WVO), used cooking oil from Fish & Chip shops etc, and before the introduction of this welcome ‘subsidy’, were able to produce fuel at a price that was slightly higher than traditional diesel fuel.

The introduction of the reduced rate of duty sparked a lot more interest in the production of biodiesel, increasing the demand (and the cost) for WVO and pushing biodiesel producers towards the use of virgin vegetable oil (VVO), which is anyway easier to process.

Move forward to 2008 and suddenly biofuel production seems a lot less ‘green’ than it was. Higher oil prices have increased the viability of fuel production from VVO and farmland throughout the world is being turned over to the production of oil and ethanol producing crops, forcing food production onto previously uncultivated land and leading to deforestation, worldwide food shortages and ultimately increasing the levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

The UK Government had already announced that biodiesel will be taxed at the same rate as normal diesel from 2010 but it had been hoped in some quarters that this would be cancelled to underline their ‘green’ credentials.

However, the Renewable Fuels Agency (RFA), the UK Government agency set up to ensure that biofuels account for 5% of all fuels sold on UK forecourts by 2010, has now released a damning report on biofuels – calling for a significant slowdown in the introduction of biofuels.

The RFA’s Gallagher Review calls for controls to put into place to reduce the demand for biofuels until controls are put into place to ensure that the effects on world food supply and the inappropriate use of prime agricultural land, as well as land that is not currently used for agriculture, is minimised.

Quite where this leaves the UK’s thriving small-scale biodiesel production industry is unclear. With oil prices at their current levels the business is just about sustainable without the 20p/litre duty reduction. But the price reduction is the only thing that encourages most users to use biodiesel; its use is still seen as a bit risky by many transport operators and there’s always a worry of warranty issues in the case of engine failure.

If oil prices continue to rise then it’s expected that the cost of both WVO and VVO will rise at a similar rate, leaving biodiesel with, at best, a few pence price advantage over normal diesel.

Many operators that use biodiesel, particularly those using fuel derived from WVO, are committed to using biodiesel for ethical reasons, for public relations reasons, or just for that extra bit of ‘greenwash’. It could be that in two years time these will be the only major producers and users of biodiesel in the UK.

The effect on the same day courier industry has been largely mirrored, or possibly even magnified, in the transport industry in general.

The RHA and the hauliers are still, of course, bleating about haulage companies going out of business because of high fuel prices. The reality is that the only haulage companies who are suffering because of high fuel prices are those who didn’t have the foresight to tie their customers into contracts with provision for automatic fuel surcharges, or who haven’t had the resolve (or the finances) to insist on higher rates from customers who aren’t tied in to contracts with such provisions.

Sure, there’s less work for haulage companies (and couriers) because of the economic downturn but it’s not fuel prices that are the real problem. Until the recent sharp increase in oil prices the price of road fuel had actually risen at a slower rate than inflation over a period of many years, allowing hauliers to keep their customer rates artificially low.

Relying on continuing low oil prices to keep haulage rates low was always bound to leave the industry at the mercy of the international oil markets. We’re now at the very beginning of a sustained increase in oil prices driven by the spiralling demands for fuel, plastics and fertilizer in China, India and the other developing economies.

Hauliers point at foreign truckers with cheap diesel as the root of all their problems, but the higher fuel prices are actually shifting the balance in the UK hauliers’ favour in that respect. As the price of oil increases, the disparity in the favour of hauliers buying fuel in countries with lower tax on fuel actually decreases and using foreign hauliers becomes less attractive.

It’s not customers shifting to using foreign hauliers that’s been the recent problem – it’s UK hauliers willing to run at unsustainable rates to ‘win’ work from their competitors. Eventually any transport company adopting this business model will fall by the wayside – fuel costs are fuel costs, there’s no amount of innovative thinking that makes it much cheaper for A.N. Other Haulage to shift 24 tonnes across the country than any other transport company. Urgency, short notice and catch-loads might make the difference, but for bog-standard trailer-loads from A to B, costs are costs are costs. Your costs are the same as his costs are the same as my costs. Joe Bloggs might be able to do it cheaper until he goes bust next month and Polski Truckering Co-operative might always be there as a low quality (I’m part Polish so I can say that) alternative but British industry (what there is left) relies on Fred in Despatch being able to speak to Bill in Traffic or Load Planning and get the job sorted.

The UK’s transport industry isn’t being killed by high fuel prices but individual transport companies are committing suicide by charging rates that don’t reflect their actual costs. That works both ways as well – I’ve been as surprised by some of the unrealistic inflated prices we’ve heard about recently as I have by some of unrealistically high prices.

According to the Mirror the recent high fuel prices have been causing more motorists to cut back on servicing their cars and because of that more motorists have been stranded by breakdowns.

Apparently an AA spokesman warned: “More and more motorists are running their cars until the warning light comes on.

“Apart from the risk of breaking down on a busy road, it also causes longterm damage to the car.”

I don’t think that I’ve read this particular AA survey, I certainly can’t find it on their website, but I’d guess from the next paragraph of the Mirror report (“So far this year 532 more callouts a week have involved flat batteries – which can be caused by running on empty”) that the AA spokesman was talking about the low fuel warning light rather than any other warning light.

I can’t see any connection between cutting back on servicing and running out of fuel, or for that matter any connection between a flat battery and “running on empty”. I particularly disagree with what appears to be a claim by the AA that running your car with the low fuel warning light on can cause long-term damage to the car. I suspect that this is more a bad summary by the Mirror of an AA press release rather than an accurate report of inaccurate statements from the AA.

I’ve habitually run vehicles until the tank’s virtually empty for many years. I’ve had several vehicles that have done over 250,000 miles running like this without any problems and many other vehicles which reached 100,000+ before being off-hired, written off, sold etc, all without any long term damage to the engine or fuel system caused by “running on empty” before virtually every refuel.

The subject of motorists running out of fuel because of high fuel prices cropped up at work a couple of months ago. One of our freelance same day couriers – a van driver from London with loads of experience and with the same laid back attitude (does as much work as he feels like doing and he’s happy as long as his rent’s paid at the end of the month and he’s got enough left over for beer and fags) that used to be so common with bike couriers in the 80s and 90s. He’s so used to putting a tenner’s worth of fuel into his van every 80 miles or so that he didn’t bother to get his fuel gauge replaced when it broke a year ago. Of course fuel prices rose so quickly that he suddenly found out while he was on the way to an urgent collection that he’s now only getting 60 miles to his tenner.

A few days after this happened I mentioned it to someone outside the business while chatting about the impact of fuel prices on the courier industry. He wasn’t particularly aware that fuel prices had gone up at all – he doesn’t look at fuel prices, just puts £20 in his tank every Sunday at Tesco when he does the weekly shop and puts a full tank in (Tesco again) once or twice a month when he goes for a long drive at weekends or on holiday. He’d noticed over the last few weeks that his low fuel light had been coming on before he’s fuelled up on the Sunday, something that had never happened before. He’d actually had the main dealer look at the car TWICE investigating the high fuel consumption. Of course they couldn’t find anything wrong (although they kindly charged him £80 for replacing the air filter) because there wasn’t anything wrong – he was getting the same miles per gallon but less miles per pound.

This report from the AA seems to back up my view. It quotes Government figures estimating that car traffic during April, May and June 2008 was 2% down on the same period last year. The report goes on to say that 55% of AA members who answered a recent poll claimed to have cut down on car use because of high fuel prices.

The rest of the report highlights the fact that many AA members (whom we can assume have access to a motor vehicle) also use public transport on a regular basis. The regional split in public transport use is quite startling. Londoners, with congested roads, an extensive (and subsidised) public transport system and a congestion charge for car use in the central area, are almost twice as likely to leave the car at home and use public transport as residents of Wales.

Now that fuel prices have dropped slightly it will be interesting to see whether the decline in car use continues. I really hope it does and in fact I’d be more than happy to see fuel at £2/litre if it means significantly less traffic on the road.

To me the real problem is that the public transport infrastructure outside London just isn’t good enough to give many people a viable alternative to car use.