|
Planning in London feature article, October 2003
Life after LIFE:The search for London's freight interchanges
After years of seemingly endless decline, rail is moving the goods again, if not quite delivering them. Whilst rail has continued to perform an invaluable role over the years in hauling millions of tonnes of bulk cargo to and from London, such as aggregates and landfill waste, it has until recently enjoyed less success in movement of the types of non-bulk commodities typically found on the high street and in the supermarket.
Yet times are changing, and as road congestion in and around London eats into journey times by road, so those charged with moving freight face an increasing struggle to get the goods delivered, on time, every time. Rail has had its fare share of cares and woes of late, but against the backdrop of an increasingly fragile road network, with little or no sign of a dramatic return to the "Roads Programme" of previous decades, distribution is turning once more to the train.
Manufacturers such as Jaguar now look to rail to handle the bulk of outbound movements of luxury motor cars. Retailers such as Safeway and Asda are now using rail to move goods both into distribution centres and out to far-flung stores. And despite the doom-laden press speculation, the Royal Mail now looks unlikely to abandon its own rail network, which handles up to a quarter of mail traffic - perhaps reflecting that prospective competitors such as Business Post and Securicor are themselves looking at the rail option.
However, before anyone gets ideas out of their station (sic), rail is not a universal panacea to the capital's transport problems for freight, and never will be. Road will continue to haul the majority of freight, not least due to its ability to reach the shops and the doorsteps in a way the rail network could never hope to. But whilst rail will, at best, double its current 12% share of traffic moved nationwide, it will nevertheless be of critical importance in certain sectors to keep goods flowing from manufacturers and deepsea ports to distribution centres and stores. And although a doubling of rail freight traffic may have little or no visible impact on the national road network as a whole, it will have a significant role to play in reducing the level of lorry traffic on key routes linking manufacturers to retailers.
The problem with rail, as with most parts of the nation's infrastructure, is capacity. The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) and Network Rail are working with TfL and others to increase the number and size of freight trains which can run on and around London's rail network. The other vital component of this capacity will be a small number of strategically-placed interchanges, where freight can be transferred between trains, lorries and ships. That is not to say that London is devoid of interchanges at present, particularly for bulk traffic and at ports such as Purfleet and Tilbury, but there is general agreement that more interchange capacity is needed for the non-bulk sector, such as fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG). The SRA has noted in its freight strategy that:
"to support development of rail in the general freight market, a small number of large new interchanges will be required with both intermodal capacity and rail connected warehousing. To be efficient these must be large enough to accommodate longer trains with modern wagons, rapid means of cargo transfer, handling and storage. They may also provide activities such as warehousing, stockholding or processing, all of which may be regarded as adding value to the process of modal transfer. Road access must be good and the operation compatible with neighbouring land uses."
The challenge for delivering new interchanges for London is finding sites which meet the above criteria, not least those "compatible with neighbouring land uses". To be viable, rail freight needs trainload volumes, upwards of 300 tonnes per train, which may be beyond the means of an individual manufacturer, distributor or retailer. Continental Europe has long recognised the need to create "freight villages", where groups of end users and transport operators can between them provide enough freight to operate several trains per day to and from interchanges in neighbouring regions, countries and principal European ports of entry. These sites are big - upwards of 200 hectares (500 acres) - and sited at the intersections of key road and rail routes, with storage and light industry located around a road/rail interchange. These are then linked to each other and to smaller satellite terminals by long-distance train services, with road haulage limited to local distribution in the hinterland.
The SRA and TfL have gone so far as to name prospective sites, including:
The flagship development was to have been at Colnbrook, with Argent's proposals for the London International Freight Exchange (LIFE), a 200 hectare (500 acre) development near Heathrow Airport, bounded by the M4, M25, and A4. Development of 224,000 m2 (2.4 million ft2) of rail-linked warehousing was envisaged, together with an intermodal road/rail terminal capable of handling 150,000 containers and swap bodies per year. Given the site's Green Belt location, extensive landscaping was envisaged over approximately two-thirds of the site, to improve the existing environment. Which would not be difficult, given that the site has been extensively extracted for gravels and backfilled with industrial waste, and is surrounded by motorways, industrial activity, and the small matter of Heathrow Airport nearby.
Yet despite support from industry and a seemingly favourable strategic planning framework from PPG13 and the SRA, the Inspector at the planning inquiry into the proposals was not convinced that the national and regional benefits of rail freight outweighed the local loss of Green Belt land, and rejected the planning application. The contrast between the treatment of LIFE and Terminal 5 could not be greater - as Transport 2000 commented at the time:
"This rejection is bad news for rail freight and hypocritical from a Government that only last year approved Heathrow's fifth terminal right next door. If schemes like this are to be rejected, we will never see the renaissance of rail freight and reduced road congestion that the Government says it wants".
The LIFE decision relieved Argent of £10m in abortive costs, and unnerved prospective developers of similar sites around London and in other parts of the country. So much so that a group of developers have since joined together, to achieve a more constructive dialogue with Government and avoid the LIFE fiasco occurring again. The Railfreight Interchange Investment Group (RIIG), led by developers BAA Lynton, Burford Group, Helios Properties, Prologis Developments and Shell, is currently doing the rounds with key officials and advisers in DfT, ODPM and the SRA. Chairman Mike Hughes from Helios is pleased with the initial feedback, not least the recent announcement from the SRA that it was now seeking to engage with ODPM and DfT to review the planning framework for such developments in the light of the LIFE decision. Mr Hughes said:
"We welcome the SRA's announcement, but this commitment must now be converted into real support for railfreight interchanges on the ground - over £2 billion of investment in rail, the removal of millions of lorry trips from our crowded roads, and regeneration of the regions, now depends more than ever on Government honouring its commitments to sustainable distribution."
In parallel to RIIG's discussions with Government, the developers concerned are progressing various schemes for new freight villages in and around London, including:
Closer into London, sites such as Cricklewood (Pillar / Hammerson) and Dagenham / Ripple Lane are also under consideration for redevelopment as rail freight interchanges, the latter at the base of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
Whilst the forecast rail freight market may be sufficiently large to fill the above developments, their fate ultimately rests with the planning system. As with LIFE, no matter how much strategic policy support exists for rail freight growth, and with it the implied support for development necessary to achieve this growth and the level of environmental benefits which could be created by this growth, this will all count for nothing if local issues again predominate and the inspectors remain unconvinced about the merits of rail freight. If UK plc believes that rail freight growth is ultimately a "good thing", there must be constructive debate about where and how sites for the new interchanges will be provided - and soon.
|
 |
