Memorandum submitted by the Commercial
Boat Operators Association (BW 42)
1. WHO WE
ARE AND
WHAT WE
DO
1.1 The Commercial Boat Operators Association
(CBOA) is a trade association representing firms which carry cargo
and provide engineering services on Britain's inland waterways.
We have 175 members, including associates.
1.2 Department for Transport statistics
showed that 48.7 million metric tonnes were carried on the waterways
in 2005 including the inland part of major estuaries. Only about
1.75 million tonnes were carried on the waterways operated by
British Waterways.
1.3 Cargoes carried include aggregates,
fuel oil, rice, steel industry materials and products, residual
domestic waste, abnormal indivisible loads (such as power station
generators) and bagged domestic coal.
1.4 Many operators' craft can carry 500
tonnes or more—taking the equivalent of 25 20-tonne capacity
lorries off the road.
1.5 Water transport can play an important
role in reducing lorry traffic. If is far more environmentally
friendly:
— Emits 80% less CO2 per tonne kilometre
than road haulage.
— Is a far better user of energy resources.
1.6 Road congestion is an increasing problem
for industry, regardless of pollution aspects. In congested urban
areas in the conurbations and elsewhere, water transport can help
to relieve congestion.
2. OUR RELATIONSHIP
WITH BRITISH
WATERWAYS (BW)
2.1 Whilst in general we have a good and
harmonious relationship with BW, especially with members of its
Freight Department, we have certain issues with the organisation.
Recently BW published on its website what would appear to amount
to a policy declaration in which they made certain assertions
about the freight traffic over BW's waterways, to which CBOA takes
exception. In particular we challenge the assertion that freight
costs BW £1 million a year and doesn't pay. To this we would
make the following comments:
(a) How is this figure arrived at? It seems
very high in view of the fact that the waterways concerned are
used by other, leisure, traffic. If the cost of employing lockkeepers
is included in this figure is this allocated directly to freight
costs? If so, then it is unfair to blame freight for subsidising
other users.
(b) Why should BW expect freight to pay for
itself? None of its other navigation based activities do so (pleasure
boating, fishing, towpath usage etc), and it is accepted that
the leisure use of the canal system is a worthy reason for maintaining
it as a navigable system. The rail freight track doesn't pay for
itself, nor do the roads. It is this fact that underlies the proposal
for road pricing.
(c) BW maintains that it has to dredge for
a new traffic without knowing how long the traffic will last and
that the dredging is the same for one barge as for 20. (They
contrast that with a property investment with known income). Our
reply to this is that if the traffic has a Freight Facilities
Grant (FFG) attached, then that gives some security that the traffic
will last; in any case BW has a statutory duty to keep to the
standards laid down in the Transport Act, 1968.
2.2 So far as the smaller waterways are
concerned, our members' main activities here are concerned with
the retail of solid and liquid fuels. These activities are perennial
ones, but are particularly vital during the winter months, which
are a period nowadays used by BW for maintenance stoppages. While
CBOA acknowledges the need for these stoppages, and also acknowledges
that much has been done in recent years to secure alternative
routes avoiding them, it has to be said that much is still unsatisfactory.
Increasingly customers are persons who live aboard their craft
all the year round. As house prices increase and as more people
take early retirement, so the numbers of what have come to be
called "liveaboards" increase. These all require servicing
with fuels and other retail commodities. Furthermore it can be
shown that if the smaller waterways are maintained in a state
fit for these smaller loaded craft to pass, they are equally fit
for the larger leisure and residential craft that are rapidly
becoming the norm. Thus the argument that freight transport puts
an unreasonable burden on BW on the smaller waterways is not valid.
If BW is to accept the larger leisure craft it makes little or
no difference to the maintenance standards required to accept
loaded freight vessels. It has long been accepted that on most
canals the passage of deep drafted freight boats helps keep the
channel clear and reduces the need for dredging on any waterway.
2.3 Another area where CBOA finds itself
at odds with BW is the continued pressure upon wharves and waterside
sites for redevelopment. We appreciate that the redevelopment
of much waterside land has helped provide funds for BW's core
work, but we take issue over whether these activities have been
allowed to flourish at the expense of freight activities. The
part that the waterway system might play in relieving road congestion
is seemingly never taken into account when such developments are
authorised. A case in point is the redevelopment of the Brent
Meadow site in West London. This could have made a superb modern
inland terminal for waterborne freight, with direct access to
the motorway and rail networks as well as tidal water, but it
has instead been developed as a residential area right under the
flight path for Heathrow.
2.4 CBOA feels that the planning process
could play a significant role in facilitating the development
of waterborne freight carriage. Documents such as "Planning
for freight on inland waterways "highlight the fact that
there is much guidance issued by the Government which if applied
would assist in the development of waterborne freight carriage.
One of the reasons why this guidance has not resulted in a significant
increase in tonnage carried is that British Waterways are more
often than not the only body consulted by local and regional bodies
when they are drafting regional and local strategies. And as freight
is not high up their agenda opportunities are being lost. An example
of this is the redevelopment of Diglis Basin on the Severn the
planning authority spoke to no-one regarding the impact of the
redevelopment of the last remaining freight wharf in Worcester.
This was due to the fact that the applicant for the planning permission
to redevelop the site was British Waterways itself.
2.5 CBOA feels that there is also considerable
scope for improving BW's relationships with other navigation authorities,
notably the Environment Agency (EA). EA's toll structure has seriously
inhibited our members from developing retail activities as described
in 2.2 above on the Upper Thames. Yet the Upper Thames forms a
link between three BW navigations (the Grand Union, Kennet &
Avon and Oxford Canals) and two independent navigations (the River
Wey and the Basingstoke Canal) and two more potential restored
navigations (the Wilts & Berks and Thames & Severn Canals).
Whilst we do not claim that large scale freight will be attracted
to any of these navigations, we are concerned that business opportunities
are denied to our members through what essentially amounts to
red tape. Should development of a Grand Union to Fens link take
shape we would make the same comments regarding the potential
for either localised freight or retail operations. A single licence
for freight operations rather than the payment of mileage tolls
would seem to be an obvious step forward.
2.6 We are not satisfied that the complete
responsibility for BW, certainly for any transport function, should
rest with DEFRA. Rather we feel it would be more appropriate were
the promotion and investment in new freight facilities should
sit with the DfT. The commercial waterway network is a transport
system and should be managed and funded accordingly. We would
hope that the Government would consider a committee of enquiry
to specifically look at who within government should be responsible
for British waterways. It is clear to us that unless the DfT take
a more proactive role freight will never be any higher on the
priority list for British Waterways.
2.7 The DfT have been instrumental in supporting
the Sea and Water (S&W) Agency; supplying about 66% of the
Agency's income; this is welcome, but it must be borne in mind
that S&W do not get into the physical business of getting
freight onto water and need to be expanded. It may be argued that
the carriers should promote water transport themselves, as does
the Rail Freight companies, but CBOA would reply that the water
freight industry is very largely comprised of small operators,
often one-man businesses, and it does not have the resources of
larger freight operators. This is a result of historical factors
that it is not possible to go into here. CBOA itself is perforce
a voluntary association. It has in the past canvassed traffics,
but is not essentially a freight agency. BW is in the unique position
of being able to assist in such promotion. This was of course
the case both before and after nationalisation, when such operators
as the Grand Union Canal Carrying Company and its nationalised
successors vigorously sought and promoted freight traffic.
2.8 There are other agencies involved in
water freight promotion. Yorkshire Forward has incorporated the
Yorkshire waterways into its transport policies and is currently
funding research into the cost of bringing container barges to
Leeds; it is also listing wharves in its area. CBOA contends that
such Agencies should be encouraged to work closely with BW at
all levels in order to promote freight usage.
2.9 CBOA is not convinced that BW has done
enough to attract new freight to the waterways. Currently the
Freight Department is in danger of being disbanded, and hitherto
it has been treated very much as a poor relation. We are aware
that BW has appointed "freight champions" at regional
level, but this we contend is a mere palliative. The getting and
maintaining of freight contracts is a somewhat specialised and
time-consuming process. The "Freight Champions" are
merely given this requirement as an addition to their other responsibilities,
and (so far as we are aware) have little or no experience of or
expertise in freight transport, so it is not surprising that in
the main the results have been negligible. We are aware of individuals
within BW who have the undoubted ability to do this job, and who
have delivered some freight contracts, but they have not been
given the backing, nor the resources to do more than scratch the
surface. The fact that there are no Board members with logistics
expertise we believe highlights the fact that freight carriage
is not a high priority. There is expertise in other areas of British
Waterways activities but not freight. Why is that?
2.10 There is currently an undoubted opportunity
in East London for the development of freight contracts in connection
with the 2012 Olympics. Given the right sort of encouragement
this could have an invigorating effect on freight prospects elsewhere.
CBOA is believes that short haul freight is viable in certain
circumstances in many urban areas, especially those where there
are long stretches of lock-free water. Such conditions exist in
West London, in the Birmingham/Wolverhampton corridor, the Manchester/Wigan/Runcorn
area of Merseyside/North West and between Coventry, Nuneaton and
Atherstone in North Warwickshire.
3. CONCLUSION
In conclusion CBOA feels that this is not the
place wherein to expatiate upon the advantages of inland waterway
freight transport. This has been done already and by the Government
in several publications It does however feel that in spite of
earlier promises by the current administration to increase the
volume of freight traffic on the inland waterways, not nearly
enough has been done, either by Government or British Waterways.
The Commercial Boat Operators Association
January 2007
| 
