Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council (IWAAC) (BW28a)
MEETING THE
ODA TARGET FOR
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT
OF MATERIALS
TO THE
OLYMPIC SITE
The Sub-Committee has asked the Council for
further information on
"barriers to progress in the Olympic
Delivery Authority (ODA) meeting its target for 50% of construction
materials to be transported to the Olympic site by sustainable
means"
1. As regards access by water, the first
barrier is now being removed. With funding from British Waterways
(BW), the Department for Transport, the ODA, the London Thames
Gateway Development Corporation and Transport for London, work
has started on an £18.9 million project in Prescott Channel
to construct twin water control gates and a tidal lock to provide
non-tidal access both for 350 tonne capacity barges to the Olympic
site and for leisure boats, water taxis, trip boats etc during
the Olympic period and thereafter. Construction is due to finish
in the summer of 2008.
2 The ODA's Sustainable Development Strategy
"aspires" to:
"at least 50% of materials, by weight, to
be transported to the Park by rail and water during construction"
(source: letter to the Council 29.01.07 from Alison Nimmo,
ODA Director of Design and Regeneration).
In our response to this letter, we welcomed
the 50% aspiration but commented
"However, while the Council understands
the constraints, our own calculations—based on projects
by BW—suggest that upwards of a million tonnes could be
transported by water. Assuming a substantial transport of materials
by rail, the 50% figure could be exceeded by a substantial margin
before we get close to the limits imposed by the infrastructure.
We very much hope that you will continue to press your contractors
to do the maximum possible to make the Games into a model of sustainable
construction."
(source: letter 1.2.07 from Council to Alison
Nimmo at the ODA).
On procurement, the ODA is:
"looking to encourage all our contractors
to meet, and where feasible, go beyond the targets and commitments
which we have made in the Sustainable Development Strategy. Clearly,
the delivery of the venues and facilities . . . . . . . . . on
time and budget is critical for all our contracting partners.
However, we have made a strong commitment to making this the most
sustainable Games ever and are working hard to meet this commitment.
As part of the draft Procurement Policy published in July 2006,
it was highlighted that sustainability would form an important
criterion in the award of all ODA contracts and we are following
this through with our procurement of all current and future partners"
(source: as above).
3. Barriers to maximising the use of the
Bow Back Rivers for waterborne freight during the Olympic construction
period are, in the Council's view:
(a) the fact that many construction contractors
are unfamiliar with the use of waterborne freight transport, so
do not have a good understanding of appropriate sources of materials
available for loading to craft or of the availability of commercial
water freight operators and their capacity to take on the necessary
contracts. This tends to lead to a preference for use of road
transport, which is seen as tried and tested and entailing a lower
level of business risk. Advice should be available from British
Waterways, from Sea and Water, from the Commercial Boat Operators
Association and from the Port of London Authority on waterway
carriers and suitable sources of supply. The Council would be
happy to provide contact details if asked,
(b) the fact that rail and water transport
are bracketed together as the sustainable options for freight
delivery. The stated intention of ODA, that at least 50% by weight
of the imported material should come by rail and water, could
be achieved with only a very small proportion coming by water.
Unless a target is set for water's share of the total, there is
a danger that contractors will operate a hierarchy based on their
knowledge of transport methods. Road will be favoured with first
position, rail will come next and, for the reasons given in paragraph
(a) above, water will not seriously considered. This will waste
the opportunity created by the new investment in the Prescott
Channel.
(c) the effectiveness with which the ODA
enforces its sustainability objectives and criteria in procuring
contracts. This is a question for the ODA.
(d) the pressure of time. The construction
deadlines are absolute. Freight access by road is by far the most
used and therefore familiar form of transport to contractors and
will inevitably become the default option if it is the only way
in which construction deadlines can be met. This, again, is a
matter for the ODA.
POTENTIAL FOR
AN INCREASE
IN FREIGHT
USE
The Sub-Committee asked the Council for further
information on the
"general potential for an increase in
freight use on the waterways network."
1. In brief, the inland freight waterway
network in England and Wales comprises:
(a) the principal inland freight waterways,
which are mostly managed by port authorities, including the Thames
tideway and branches, the Mersey/Manchester Ship Canal, the Humber
and the more seaward parts of the Rivers Trent and Yorkshire Ouse,
the Severn Estuary, the Dee Estuary, the tidal Nene to Wisbech
and some shorter tidal waterways, mainly in eastern England, on
the south coast and in the West Country. These can accommodate
vessels of in excess of 1350 tonnes payload;
(b) the main freight waterways managed by
British Waterways, which include the River Lee system, the more
inland parts of the Rivers Trent and Yorkshire Ouse, the Aire
& Calder Navigation to Leeds and Wakefield, the Sheffield
& South Yorkshire Navigation to Rotherham, the Gloucester
& Sharpness Canal/River Severn to Worcester and the River
Weaver. These generally accommodate vessels of between 350 tonnes
and 1,000 tonnes payload;
(c) a few waterways operated by other navigation
authorities, which have capacity for vessels carrying several
hundred tonnes, for example the Yare to Cantley (Broads Authority)
and parts of the River Great Ouse system (Environment Agency),
but no freight use at present;
(d) smaller waterways accommodating vessels
of not more that 100 tonnes payload which are mainly used for
recreational vessels. Such waterways comprise the majority of
the British Waterway network.
2. According to the latest Government statistics,
total traffic on the UK inland waterways network in 2005 amounted
to 48.7 million tonnes lifted and total freight movement of 1,600
million tonne-kilometres[9]
(source: DfT Transport Statistics Bulletin: Waterborne Freight
in the UK, 2005). This traffic comprises:
(a) traffic with its origin, route and destination
entirely within inland waters accounting for 3.4 million tonnes
lifted and 200 million tonne-kilometres of goods moved. After
remaining relatively stable from 1998 to 2002, after a period
of significant decline, internal traffics fell further through
2003 and 2004, a major part of this reduction being loss of coal
traffic to Ferrybridge Power Station (due to changed sourcing
of coal by the power station for reasons of sulphur content, not
any failure of waterway transport to deliver an appropriate level
of service). However, the 2005 statistics show a welcome response
to the positive developments detailed below, with an increase
from 2.6 million tonnes in 2004 to 3.4 million tonnes in 2005;
(b) traffic entering inland waterways from
sea in vessels from other UK ports. The statistics identify genuine
inland penetration of river-sea ships, excluding journeys which
are essentially seagoing traffic to and from major seaboard ports.
Thus traffic included in the inland waterway statistics is in
direct competition with land based modes, over the whole distance
in the case of journeys from other mainland UK coastal or inland
ports. Such `coastwise' traffic accounts for about twice as much
tonnage on inland waterways as purely internal traffics. This
traffic also saw a decline in 2003 and 2004 but the 2005 data
show a strong recovery;
(c) traffic entering inland waterways to
or from foreign coastal or inland ports or offshore operations
(eg oil rigs, sea dredging sites). Again the statistics exclude
essentially maritime operations, so traffic included in the inland
waterway statistics is in direct competition with land based transport
modes during its passage along the inland waterway. Some of these
foreign traffics are carried by waterway to and from ports well
inland in continental Europe, sometimes in a single ship movement
from, for example, Paris, Maastricht, Lie"ge or inland ports
on the Rhine, or via transhipment to or from barges from a wide
range of locations. Foreign traffics in seagoing vessels account
for over 60% of freight carried on UK inland waterways.
(d) Dry and liquid bulk cargoes remain important
on inland waterways, with volumes of both increasing after the
low point in 2003-04. However, the wider trend of greater
use of containers in transport is mirrored on the inland waterways,
with unitised (essentially containerised) cargo tonnages rising
rapidly and general cargo declining. Unitised cargo now accounts
for about a quarter of freight movements (both in terms of tonnage
and tonne-km) on UK inland waterways. Agricultural (grain), steel
and forestry products also feature significantly.
(e) Most of the traffic, both internal and
seagoing is carried on the UK's tidal inland waterways, of which
the Thames tideway system is by far the most important. Other
major areas of activity in England and Wales are the Humber based
waterways (including the non-tidal Aire & Calder system) and
the Mersey system, (including the non-tidal Manchester Ship Canal).
The only other non-tidal waterway with sufficient traffic to feature
in the statistics is the River Severn, where aggregate transport
has recently started after a period when no significant use was
made of the waterway for freight.
(f) In summary therefore, inland waterway
freight traffic in the UK appears to be increasing again after
a period of decline, demonstrating continuing demand for transport
of dry and liquid bulk cargoes (quarried materials, cement, grain,
oils etc) and a rapidly increasing demand for transport of containerised
goods. This is concentrated on the larger waterways in larger
vessels.
3. As an island nation with a long coastline,
the UK makes significant use of coastal shipping between UK ports
to satisfy its internal freight transport needs (this amounted
to 65.1 million tonnes lifted and 39,400 million tonne-km of goods
moved in 2005). In terms of goods moved, coastal shipping performs
about 15% of total freight transport undertaken in the UK, compared
with 64% by road and 9% by rail. Most heavy industries in the
UK are now situated on the coast to facilitate use of coastal
and foreign-going shipping.
Thus comparisons between waterborne transport
operations in the UK and those in more landlocked countries in
continental Europe with less access to coastal shipping must be
made with care. Nevertheless, some useful indications as to the
potential role of inland freight waterways in the UK can be drawn
from continental experience, for example:
(a) Lille is about the same distance by inland
waterway from Dunkerque as Leeds is from the Humber ports of Hull
and Immingham, with a similar number of locks along the route.
The waterway to Lille was enlarged in the 1960s to accommodate
vessels up to a maximum of 3,000 tonnes payload. The Port of Lille
is now France's third biggest inland port, handling over a million
tonnes annually of waterborne freight, including container traffic
amounting to 40,000 TEU[10]
per year. It is served by a regular container barge service from
Dunkerque in 1,500 tonne vessels taking 78 containers each. This
demonstrates that, given adequate infrastructure, transport of
containers by barge can be highly successful over short distances
such as would be relevant to the UK waterways;
(b) routes between northern France and Belgium
have been increased in gauge from Class II waterways (accommodating
vessels up to 650 tonne capacity—a similar size to those
which can reach Leeds and Rotherham) to Class IV (accommodating
1,350 tonne capacity barges) by a programme of gradual removal
of bottlenecks while maintaining use of the system, and traffic
is growing, including use by container barges. This demonstrates
that waterway enlargement can provide a viable and environmentally
friendly modern transport mode, provided the resultant waterway
is big enough. This is in contrast to the situation with the enlargement
of the waterway to Rotherham in the UK in the 1980s, which was
too small;
(c) in Paris, the advantages of reducing
freight traffic passing through the conurbation have been realised
by supplementing the main Port of Paris site at Gennevillliers,
downstream of the city, by another major site at Bonneuil sur
Marne, upstream of Paris. This has been very successful and is
expanding as a multimodal terminal handling containerised and
bulk traffics, with expansion of facilities approved this year.
Container traffic through the Port of Paris increased by 8% in
2006. A similar approach would be equally relevant in London,
with its large capacity waterway the Thames, if a suitable site
could be identified in west London and planning objections overcome;
(d) confidence in waterway transport is demonstrated
by the recent support given by the French Government to an uprated
waterway link between the Seine and the Lille area, expected to
cost about 3,500 million euros and currently moving through the
permitting and public inquiry process.
4. Various studies have been carried out
recently in the UK on the potential for use of UK inland waterways
for freight, including the following.
(a) A report was produced by AINA in 2001
(A Strategy for Freight on Britain's Inland Waterways).
This was wrongly titled in that it explicitly excluded consideration
of shipping opportunities associated with the estuarial waterways
and ship canals, where it accepts that the bulk of any increase
in traffic would occur. It covered waterways from the smaller
narrow canals accommodating boats of a maximum 25 tonnes capacity
to waterways such as the Aire & Calder Navigation, accommodating
700 tonne vessels. AINA concluded that there were no realistic
opportunities for making a significant impact on the national
freight transport picture by transfer of freight to smaller waterways,
with a maximum vessel capacity of less than 100 tonnes but that
these waterways had a potential role for niche markets on a local
basis.
(b) The Freight Study Group, set up by the
Government following publication of Waterways for Tomorrow,
produced a report in 2002 entitled Freight on Water: A new
perspective. This identified a "real demand for freight
on the inland waterways, mainly in the traditional high volume,
low value cargoes on the larger navigations" but identified
some factors inhibiting this, "such as the condition of the
infrastructure and vessels, the shortage of skippers and crew,
and the approach adopted to freight by some navigation authorities".
They recommended greater Government encouragement for freight
on inland waterways, that freight should be part of the remit
of navigation authorities, that waste authorities should look
to use of waterways and that the planning system should be more
positive towards use of waterways for freight. They also proposed
improvements to waterway infrastructure, better regulation of
vessel standards and crewing and identified the need for active
marketing of waterways for freight. This report led to the establishment
of Sea and Water, as a promotion centre for short-sea and inland
waterway freight transport.
(c) The West London Canal Network Study,
undertaken by Peter Brett Associates in 2005, for BW and Transport
for London, examined opportunities on the Grand Union an Regents
Canals (but not the Thames) in the west London area. They concluded
there was a shortage of suitable sites for significant freight
transfer along the canals, although there were many sites where
small scale simple loading/unloading operations could occur. They
identified opportunities for waterway transport of waste and recyclables
and of construction materials and concluded that the main opportunities
were on lock free lengths of canal.
(d) The Midlands Freight Quality Partnership
and BW are currently undertaking a study on freight opportunities
on smaller canals where there are long levels and few locks and
where there is a network of canals in an urban and industrial
area.
(e) BW have undertaken confidential studies
on Aire & Calder Navigation on the possibility of establishing
container traffics to Leeds and have acquired use of a wharf in
Leeds for this purpose.
(f) The Department for Transport has carried
out studies on the potential of inland waterways for transport
of abnormal indivisible loads (AIL) and supported construction
of a specialist vessel for this use. Several successful movements
of AIL for the electricity industry have been undertaken.
5. The Council's conclusions from these
studies and its own observations are that there are undoubtedly
opportunities for transfer of more freight to the waterways, although
significant tonnages can only be accommodated by the larger waterways
and transport will normally only be competitive with other modes
in vessels of 300 tonnes capacity or more. However, smaller vessels
may be viable where other modes experience significant constraints
(eg from sites with poor road access).
Traffic to and from sea in river-sea ships is
likely to remain an important component of UK inland waterway
freight.
It is clear that containerised traffic is continuing
to form an increasing part of the transport market and inland
waterways facilities must be developed to accommodate such traffic,
if inland waterways are to make a significantly increased contribution
to UK freight transport in the future.
There are niche opportunities, particularly
for waste and construction materials, on the smaller waterways,
particularly (but not exclusively) on lock free lengths, which
may have local significance.
6. The Council considers that there are
a number of very positive signs of an increasing awareness of
the potential for greater use of the waterways and this is assisted
by increasing environmental awareness and pressures. Recent encouraging
signs in UK include:
(a) Sea and Water has been created
and funded, although it is important that it maintains a role
as an active promotion centre;
(b) more guidance is now available, particularly
AINA's guidance on Planning for Freight on Inland Waterways,
but there is still an ongoing need for active dissemination of
the guidance and implementation of its recommendations by planners;
(c) wharves on the Thames in London have
been safeguarded;
(d) the steelworks at Rotherham are at last
being served by barges via a dedicated wharf;
(e) the canal to Rotherham is accommodating
a new oil traffic in 700 tonne vessels;
(f) a waterside energy from waste facility
has been approved at Belvedere; this will allow continued use
of Thames for transport of a significant proportion of London's
domestic waste;
(g) aggregates are being successfully transported
on the River Severn—the first freight on this waterway for
some years;
(h) a carrier has invested in new oil tanker
barges for use on the Aire & Calder Navigation in Yorkshire;
(i) a container feeder service has started
to operate to Manchester end of the Manchester Ship Canal, using
temporary facilities, and proposals for a new, multimodal terminal
(Port Salford) to accommodate such traffics are progressing well;
(j) small scale traffics have been established
and are being developed on the Grand Union and Regents Canals
in London, including aggregates from Denham, waste to Old Oak
and construction traffic to Kings Place;
(k) the new Prescott Lock on the Bow Back
Rivers has been approved (see earlier in this note);
(l) proposals for a new inland port at Weston
alongside the Manchester Ship Canal and the Weaver Navigation
are being promoted, with the support of the local authority.
7. While it is clear from experience elsewhere
and examples of successful waterway traffics in the UK that inland
waterways can provide viable and economically friendly freight
transport, a lack of active promotion, continuing absence of an
effective national freight transport policy and lack of funding
have led to a number of barriers, including:
(a) a lack of confidence by industry—who
do not think of water as a modern transport mode so often do not
even consider it as an option;
(b) planning difficulties—freight wharves
tend to be seen as a bad neighbour industry and establishing new
wharves in competition with other development pressures is often
very difficult;
(c) a lack of appropriate development of
waterway infrastructure, for example increasing headroom at bridges;
(d) a lack of promotion of waterway freight
by some waterway authorities and some carriers—in particular
the Council regrets BW's abandonment of its central freight promotion
function;
(e) craft availability—there is a perception
that availability of suitable craft is a constraint, although
vessels can be moved easily from other areas, including the continent,
and this is often less of a problem in reality than it is perceived
to be;
(f) a lack of trained crew in some areas,
due to a lack of training schemes and probable deterrence of new
entrants by the outmoded image and practices of some sections
of the barge industry.
8. The Council supports the increased use
of the inland waterways for freight transport but feels that the
realisation of their full potential will depend on the extent
to which barriers can be overcome by:
(a) better promotion—Sea and Water
could play a major role here;
(b) stronger support for waterborne freight
through planning policy;
(c) greater consideration of waterborne freight
transport in policy making at a regional level;
(d) better availability of grant aid for
infrastructure and craft—because there is no other mechanism
at present to pay for the environmental benefits of waterway transport;
(e) ongoing removal of bottlenecks on key
waterways (for example increasing headroom on the Aire and Calder
Navigation);
(f) continuing modernisation of the carrying
industry.
John Pomfret
Member of IWAAC
John Edmonds
Chair of IWAAC
April 2007
9 A tonne-kilometre is the movement of freight achieved
when one tonne of cargo is transported one kilometre. Thus, for
example, a journey of 10 kilometres by a barge carrying 500 tonnes
represents a moment of 5,000 tonne-kilometres. Back
10
TEU-twenty foot equivalent unit. Back
|
