Memorandum from PD Ports Limited (FT 13)
BACKGROUND
PD Ports Limited (PDP) is the owner and major
operator of the UK's second largest port, Teesport in the North
East of England.
Teesport port handles freight only (ie no passenger
movements), but has a throughput of ca 54 million tonnes of cargo
and has approximately 6,000 ship movements per annum. PD Ports
has land holdings of over 2,000 acres. This land includes areas
adjacent to the River Tees and nearby coast line much of which
is recovered or brownfield land with significant prior industrial
use. 14 freight trains per day enter/leave Teesport carrying steel,
potash and intermodal containers
As the competent harbour authority PD Ports
also has considerable responsibility with regard to both the marine
and coastline environment around the port and river Tees.
PD Ports has other UK ports and UK logistics
related business interests in and around the Humber estuary, in
Yorkshire & Lincolnshire, at Felixstowe and Cowes, on the
Isle of Wight.
PD Ports is owned 100% by Babcock and Brown
Infrastructure an Australian based and ASX quoted company that
has significant other port business holdings in Australia and
Europe in Spain, Belgium and Italy.
PD Ports is pleased to have the opportunity
to input to the Committee's review of an integrated plan for freight.
The following points are made in direct response to the questions
posed in the announcement of the committees review:
Q1: Is the Department's investment in logistics
programmes—including the Sustainable Distribution Fund—good
value for money and meeting the objectives?
A1. There have been a series of apparent major
changes to both the size and nature of investments made by the
DfT over recent years such that it is very often most difficult
for private sector concerns to feel confident that would be projects
requiring possible external funding and investment will indeed
ever receive practical help.
— For example, there are the CRNS,
FFG and TIF (P) schemes, where the "tap" of available
funds over recent years seems to have varied considerably and
has only allowed short windows of opportunity to progress complex
applications for relatively small overall amounts.
— Examples of our experience of
this issue include:
A. PD Ports felt unable to progress any assistance
for help with the opening of a new private rail line costing over
£1.5 million in 2005-06.
B. PD Ports have seen only modest help for
EWS with CRNS monies for switching container traffic flows from
road to rail between Teesport and North West England (Manchester
Trafford Park).
Q2: International distribution patterns involving
air freight increase carbon dioxide by up to 30 times that of
sea transport—what more can be done to promote modal shift
from road and air freight to inland waterway, shipping and rail?
How can the Government encourage and incentivise further efficiency
improvements?
A2. As the Committee may be aware, as the
operator of a major regional port, PD Ports strongly believe that
where possible, regional ports should be used to alleviate pressure
on our busy road and rail network.
It is therefore a mistake to encourage and/or
subsidise rail freight per se. Rail should be used only when it
is better in terms of overall costs—both direct eg fuel
and indirect eg in lower overall carbon (CO2) emissions than other
alternatives.
One of the main reasons regional ports have
a role to play here, is that imported deep sea containers often
arrive at Felixstowe and Southampton, even though more than 50%
of them are destined for North of Birmingham. Therefore the use
of long distance rail to transport goods from Southern ports to
say Manchester, Leeds or central Scotland is actually far less
desirable in terms of both cost and pollution, than using the
sea to transport the containers—either through direct ship
calls or via feeder vessels—to northern ports such as Liverpool
or Teesport which are far closer to the final destination of such
traffic.
On this basis, one way to encourage further
efficiency improvements may be to actively support and promote
the concept of port centric logistics. That is import centre warehouses
located at UK ports around the country such that goods can be
imported (and exported) through a port near to the place of ultimate
consumption (or in the case of exports of origination). This will
utilise available brownfield land at ports, save unnecessary road
and or lorry miles within UK, reduce pollution and regenerate
areas of significant labour surplus capacity such as at and around
Teesport. The following case study provides an insight into how
this approach has worked at Teesport.
Q3: Air freight in the South-East is forecast
to grow from 2.2 million tonnes a year in 2003 to 14 million tonnes.
Has the Department adequately planned for the capacity and access
implications of this very significant growth? How will transport
networks need to adjust to serve the growing air freight market?
A3. PD Ports do not feel qualified to comment
on air freight.
Q4. Should the Department
have more responsibility for planning and delivering integrated
infrastructure which might promote "free movement of goods"?
How is this to be balanced with the Department's other commitments?
What should be the priorities for the Transport Innovation Fund
productivity stream?
A4. We support the proposals for joined up national
policy statements as set out in the recent Planning White Paper
and Eddington Report. If designed and administered correctly,
such an approach should adequately help identify and tackle pinch
points in the freight distribution network.
The TIF concept examines the cost/benefit of
possible projects such as grants to help rail gauge enhancement
based upon existing volumes and conventional solutions rather
than examining prospective future flows.
However, if we are seeking a long-term change
in the way UK infrastructure is used, we must recognise that a
different approach (eg the development of ports outside of the
South East, or road-pricing), needs to be considered.
On this basis, better use of ports outside of
the South East which would see imported goods landed closer to
their end destination point, could help relieve pressure on the
over-crowded infrastructure in the South, thereby reducing the
amount of upgrades needed to Southern road and rail infrastructure.
Q5. How successfully has the Government influenced
European negotiations regarding freight operations? How could
the Government help to ensure a level playing field between UK
and overseas freight companies?
A5. There does not appear to be a level playing
field across ports activities in the EU, because continental based
major ports can receive federal and regional Government aid towards
essential infrastructure. Thus, comparatively, the UK Government
does not seem to have represented UK port interests especially
well.
We believe continued dialogue between Government
and major players through trade associations such as UKMPG and
BPA, plus consultation with major private sector and trust ports,
will help better inform and brief officials before negotiating.
Q6. How effective are the Freight Quality
Partnerships in improving the local experience of freight and
deliveries? Are the restrictions on night-time deliveries still
appropriate? What impact would weakening the restrictions have
on quality of life and other factors?
A6. The freight quality partnerships experienced
by PD Ports, for example in the Tees Valley, have been satisfactory
at dealing with a number of local and tactical issues such as
truck stops, signage and provision, as well as agreeing and/or
highlighting/communicating preferred freight routes.
The opening of night time delivery windows for
commercial vehicles seems essential if we are to collectively
tackle ever increasing congestion especially at peak commuter
times. The use of night deliveries is an obvious and very successful
way of better utilizing existing road capacity 24/7.
Q7. How can the road safety record of haulage
vehicles be improved?
A7. Concerns about the adverse role of foreign
based hauliers and owner drivers operating within the UK has long
been raised. Foreign operators are subject to differential rates
of fuel and vehicle duty/taxes and operating practices and commercial
vehicle licensing regimes. Like many in our sector, we are keen
to see greater enforcement of safe working practices in this area.
See the Burns report for the FTA 2005-06 for more information.
CONCLUSION
PD Ports, and its daughter company PD Logistics,
concludes that the priority for a better integrated freight logistics
network should be to ensure that goods can be moved freely, reliably
and efficiently around the UK, whilst minimising the impact of
doing so by maximising the use of the UK's existing natural infrastructure,
such as by using the sea and our coastal ports. This will help
ensure that goods are landed as close to their ultimate destination
as possible. We therefore need to have incentives to ensure that
rail can be preferred over road for shorter inland legs, because
the current conventional wisdom means that rail is often only
viable over 150 miles.
October 2007
| 
