APPENDIX 46
Memorandum submitted by Rolandon Water
and Sea Freight Advisory Services
1. INTRODUCTION
Rolandon Water and Sea Freight Advisory Services
is a consultancy that discusses with potential users of water
freight how perceived problems can perhaps be overcome and then
aims to be the catalyst in providing and implementing solutions.
We are also specialists in obtaining grants for equipment and
other capital costs which help to keep traffic off the roads.
We are also in close contact with various barge operators, aggregate
companies and waste/recycling firms and other companies. We also
comment on draft planning documents and have provided an expert
witness at a public enquiry. We are associate members of the Parliamentary
Waterways Group and are members of various trade associations.
2. CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC
Construction of the Olympic buildings will require
an immense amount of materials. The main road in the area—the
A12/A102(M)—already carries heavy traffic as it is provides
access to/from Blackwall Tunnel. Rail capacity is limited and
is dominated by passenger traffic.
The Olympics area in East London is in a network
of canals and rivers. These have in the past been used for freight
carriage (especially the timber trade) but as industry has moved
away, barge use declined. The construction of the Olympic Park
provides an opportunity to use barge transport. This would mean
making use of an under-used transport mode that has much spare
capacity—something neither road nor rail can offer.
Water transport is generally accepted as being
well suited to move large amounts of bulk cargoes in a sustainable
way. The European Commission has reported that barges use one-sixth
of the energy used by lorries and half of that used by rail. Given
that the winning Olympic bid referred to the Games being carbon
neutral in terms of the construction of facilities, it is important
that sustainable and environmentally friendly transport modes
be used.
We recognise that most of the Committee's investigations
will be about how passengers will get to the Games. However, we
assume the question of how construction materials are to be taken
to the area is also within the Committee's remit.
3. AMOUNTS OF
MATERIALS LIKELY
TO BE
INVOLVED
Current estimates are that
(i) c 1 million cubic metres of excavated
spoil will need to be removed.
(ii) Between 3,000 and 6,000 tonnes of aggregate
each day will be needed, with possibly more at peak times. That
is equivalent to 150-300 lorries (20 tonne capacity). After allowing
for return journeys, that is 300-600 lorry trips a day. The annual
tonnage will be 780,000/1,560,000 tonnes (excluding weekends)—or
78,000/156,000 lorries journeys a day.
In addition, steel will be needed for the building
frames. Large preformed structures are likely to be moved to the
site.
Once built, there will be opportunities for
water freight. In particular, there will be waste and recyclates
to be removed from this very large site.
4. HOW WATER
TRANSPORT CAN
HELP
It is necessary to look at sources of supply/disposal
when considering transport modes. The following examples show
that barge transport is already used to take many of the bulk
materials the Olympics will generate.
Removal of excavated spoil by barge is a common
Thames traffic. Past examples are the excavation work needed when
the Limehouse Tunnel was built and when the Jubilee Tubeline Extension
was dug. It is expected that 2.5 million tonnes of spoil will
be removed by water from the Battersea Power Station development
site.
The Port of London Authority reports that 50
per cent of the aggregates already sold in London arrive by water.
Two major wharves in Greenwich are well suited to deliver aggregates
for the Olympics (as they did for Canary Wharf construction works).
Steel already comes by ship to a wharf in Barking
Creek. The onward movement by barge is straightforward.
As for large preformed structures (abnormally
sized loads), Government grants have already been used to provide
specialised craft for these loads, mainly for moving electricity
generating equipment. Subject to a new lock being built (see below),
this barge could be used.
Waste is a major traffic on the Thames and Members
of the Committee will be aware of the containerised waste residue
that goes past Parliament everyday.
In order to maximise on the benefits of water
transport, it is important that concrete mixing plants should
be located beside the waterways (as well as being accessible by
lorry) when the detailed site design is done. As work progresses
across the site, these may need to be moved. Provision should
also be made for wharves for use the construction period and afterwards
for waste etc.
5. WHICH WATERWAYS
WOULD BE
USED AND
WHAT IMPROVEMENTS
ARE NEEDED?
Bow Creek leads off the Thames to the Lee Navigation
and a group of rivers known as Bow Back Rivers. This is the area
where the Olympics site will be. Tides affect some of these waterways.
There are two options to be considered for barge use.
(i) With some minor improvements, 120 tonne
capacity barges can use the existing navigation (the Lee Navigation)
on the west side of the site (see diagram attached). They can
leave the Thames via the tidal Bow Creek, joining the non-tidal
Lee Navigation at Bow Lock; and/or
(ii) With the building of a new large lock
at the southern end of the fortunately named Prescott Channel
(see diagram), barges carrying 450-500 tonnes could deliver their
materials to the eastern side of the site. At present, this and
adjacent rivers virtually dry out at low tide. The barges would
come up the tidal Bow Creek and go beyond Bow Lock before passing
through the new lock (see diagram).
It will take time to plan and build a new lock
for the eastern route. We therefore recommend that in the meantime
smaller barges use the western route. Eventually both routes would
be open. We do not consider this to be duplication as there will
be a need for different barge services as the work progresses.
Removing spoil will take place in the initial phases and the western
route should be used. The next phase of foundation building will
use aggregates and these can again use the western route; one
of the large aggregate companies is already planning to use the
smaller barges. Further aggregates and steel will be needed as
work progresses and by then both routes could be available; steel
is better suited to the larger barges. Finally, the larger barges
can be used for waste/recyclates removal, another trade for which
larger barges are more suitable. We anticipate that there will
be more than one concrete batching plant across the site (serviced
by the western or eastern route) whilst at the final stage there
is likely to be only waste/recyclate assembly point.
Preliminary estimates have already been prepared
of the cost of providing a new lock showing a cost of £10
million-£13 million and a 20 months building period—assuming
no planning delays.
Building the new lock would also have visual
benefits as the existing unattractive muddy creek running through
the Olympic site would cease to be tidal and would become full
of water all the time.
6. FUNDING
Funding should be considered to be part of the
Olympic budget, especially in view of the 2012 legacy that will
be left. However, the project (new wharves, handling equipment,
barges and lock) will be eligible for freight facility grants
from the Department for Transport. The amount depends on a variety
of factors, including the environmental benefits of avoiding putting
this traffic on the roads. However, the process is complex and
slow and the Olympic Delivery Authority may prefer to press ahead
without grants.
7. LONDON OLYMPICS
BILL/PROCUREMENT
PROCESS
This Bill is at present in standing committee
in the Commons. It requires the Olympic Delivery Authority to
prepare a Transport Plan. Clause 4 empowers the ODA to make arrangements
for the construction of transport facilities. However, the Bill
does not appear to follow up the carbon neutral claims made in
the Olympic Bid as we cannot see any provision requiring the ODA
to encourage the use of water transport or to take account of
the environmental advantages of water transport.
Further, we have not been able to see any clause
about the placing of orders. It is Government policy to encourage
the use of water transport and this is echoed in the London Plan
and other planning guidance. In certain policy areas, the Government
requires that account be taken of policy when orders are placed.
We suggest that the procurement process should make it clear that
tenders incorporating the use of water will be favoured and that
there should be a presumption in favour of using barges. Of course,
not all goods can sensibly be supplied by water (eg certain internal
fittings) but these should be the exception to the general rule
and have to be justified.
We recommend that the Committee ask for the
Bill to be amended to take account of our points in this paragraph.
8. CONCLUSIONS
We ask the Committee to
(i) Recommend achieving a reduction in potential
road traffic through the use of water transport eg for outward
excavation spoil, inward aggregates, inward steel and outward
waste/recyclates.
(ii) Point out that barge operators are
skilled at and accustomed to carrying the bulk goods needed as
a result of the Olympic construction programme.
(iii) Recommend that the detailed site design
provides for concrete mixing plants to be located besides the
waterways (where they can also be accessed by lorries) and for
the provision of wharves to handle other commodities.
(iv) Recommend that the ODA/LDA initiate
the minor improvements needed to the Lee Navigation for 120 tonne
capacity barges (thereby facilitating barge movement in the immediate
future) and also that they investigate the building of the larger
lock for 450-500 tonnes capacity barges.
(v) Recommend amending the London Olympics
Bill to:
(a) Require the ODA to encourage and facilitate
the use of water transport; and
(b) Require the procurement process to show
a presumption in favour of suppliers using water transport and
that such tenders will be favoured over others.
26 October 2005
| 
