Waterways Freight

Why has the UK ignored inland freight waterways?

Is Britain unique, or is it the same everywhere?

Following Fashion

There is an historic legacy in the UK and elsewhere of investment in existing transport modes drying up once a new one comes along. The rapid decline of the canals in the UK in the 19th century reflected the movement of financial investment to the growing railway system.  During the 20th century, the UK rail network has contracted progressively with the development of road transport.

The same trends have occurred everywhere in Europe but some other countries have taken a more strategic approach than the UK. As long ago as 1876 the national waterway strategy was developed in France, providing for standard vessels of 350 tonnes cargo capacity. From 1899, Germany adopted a standard vessel size of 1000 tonnes capacity.

Most UK inland waterway traffic at this time was being moved in vessels carrying less than 150 tonnes and, in contrast with the rest of Europe, Britain's freight waterways have continued to suffer from a lack of strategic planning and investment and remained at a capacity below accepted European standards for modern barges and river-sea ships.

Lack of a Standardised Approach

Strategic transport policies elsewhere have been assisted by a coherent approach to the inland waterway track itself, with adoption of a series of standard vessel sizes throughout the EC and a single national navigation conservancy body in most countries. In the UK at present, freight waterways are controlled by a mixture of organisations: private companies, Government bodies, local authorities, port companies and port authorities.

The recent moves in the UK towards smaller unitary local authorities, with a decline in the importance of County Councils and Structure Plans, continue to lead to even less strategic freight transport planning at regional level. Parochial planning policies and financial pressures are leading to loss of essential facilities, such as wharf sites, which increases further the difficulty of transferring freight from road to water.

Lack of a Coherent Policy

The uncoordinated privatisation of many parts of the UK transport industry has contributed to the lack of a coherent freight transport policy. In the rest of Europe, where companies have been established to provide or manage transport infrastructure, this has been as part of a strategic plan.

The commercial climate over recent years has favoured considerations of short-term gain over long-term planning, mitigating against waterways where most assets have long lives.

Because of the difficulties of incorporating environmental costs into the market economy, choice of transport mode usually does not take full account of environmental issues.

The UK has also been slow in making the most of opportunities provided by the support of the EU for the development of intermodal freight traffic.

Germany, for example, has limited use of heavy road vehicles at weekends, leading to a transfer of unitised freight to waterway. No such initiatives involving transfer to water transport have been put in place in the UK. The UK still has no national transport policy for freight and the roads lobby dominates government transport thinking. This all leads to more lorry traffic and more roads, while waterways decline in market share.

What Traffic Can go by Water?

It is true that loading and unloading waterway vessels for some cargoes is time consuming and expensive. although modern techniques and the move to containerisation are changing this. Nor would anyone suggest that waterways have a widespread role in local distribution. However, water transport is ideal for bulk, non- perishable cargoes and unitised loads. Examples include:

 - Unitised cargoes (containers and swap bodies)
 - Steel and other metal
 - Forest products
 - Heavy-lift and out-of-gauge project cargoes
 - Bulk cargoes, e.g.:
                  Grain
                  Aggregates
                  Coal
                  Petroleum products (to distribution depots & large users)
                  Chemicals (to depots and large users)
                  Waste
                  Cement

Traffics using inland waterways may be inland, coastal (domestic), one-port (eg to offshore installations or for sea dredged aggregates), international or a combination of these categories.

What are some of the advantages of water transport?

Waterways are Multifunctional

Well designed waterway track may be multifunctional, providing opportunities for landscape enhancement, wildlife conservation, recreation, pedestrian access, land drainage, flood protection, water transfer, and hydropower generation, some of which may contribute towards offsetting or sharing the costs involved.

Water Transport Means Less CO2

The greater fuel economy of waterborne freight transport means scarce resources are conserved and pollution is reduced. In the EU, transport accounts for about a quarter of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, about 40% of volatile organic carbons (VOC) emissions Road and up to 90% of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions in some countries.  Road transport alone contributes 45% of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx). Wider use of waterbome freight transport would contribute to reducing air pollution. For example, CO2 emissions can be reduced by at least 75% compared with road transport.

Water Transport Means Less Noise

About 65% of the European population is now exposed to average noise levels exceeding 55dB(A) and the greatest single contribution to this is road traffic - dominated by tyre/road noise (OECD & world Heath Organisation data). Waterway transport emits negligible noise by comparison.

Waterways Use Less Land

In terms of land-take in relation to carrying capacity, waterways are more efficient than rail or road (CEC. 1992).

Waterways Are More Cost-effective

Costs of providing infrastructure and vehicles are broadly similar between transport modes. Using large modem vessels, waterways can be more economical in terms of crew costs, with significantly lower environmental costs. Further details of costs are given later.

Mode                           CO2(g/tonne-km)
 
Road                      207-280 
Rail                             39-48 
Inland Waterway      40-66 
Air                      1160-2150
 
  CO2 emission estimates for freight transport (g/tonne-km) (source Eurpoean Commission (CEC), DG XI

What Should Be Done?

Many major industries in Britain generating bulk transport needs are now sited on the coast and already enjoy direct access to inland waterways in other European countries by use of modem river/sea ships. However, nationally there is still a huge amount moving inland, mostly by road. Some of this could go by water if parts of the UK freight waterway system were upgraded, thus reducing road traffic and its attendant problems.  Other European countries accept the principle of long-term transport planning - why not the UK? Our freight waterways should be developed as an extension of the freight waterway system of continental Europe. At the same time, changes are urgently needed in policy and organisation of freight transport and the development of new water transport technologies in the UK.

IWA Believes That...

1. Central Government should:

Establish a unit within the Department of Transport with overall responsibility for development of waterborne freight;
Adopt policies to fulfil the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recommendations for a 5% increase in freight transport by water, building on the Government's 1994 Roads to Water initiative;
Work with the European Union to develop a consistent policy across all European countries for environmental appraisal of waterway projects; 
Work to develop a common policy of charging for access to track that is equitable across road, rail and water modes;
Wake up to the European dimension - in terms of participation in international projects (eg TENs) and adoption of standard waterway dimensions for barge traffic and river-sea ships;
Work towards a common system in the UK for management of navigation on freight waterways, which is separate from the ownership and management of ports;
Improve the grants system for waterway infrastructure, craft and access; 
Develop an environmentally acceptable coordinated freight transport policy;
Adopt a common system for appraisal of proposed transport schemes that takes account of environmental and social costs and benefits. 

2. Strategic Development Planning bodies should be established to:

Protect strategic waterside sites for future waterway infrastructure development;
Develop Regional policies of planning provision for inland ports (eg allocations in Local Plans);
Set up regional working groups on freight transport;
Persuade local planning authorities to encourage, not constrain water freight transport, e.g. in relation to mineral extractions;
Ensure that other projects are designed to accommodate future freight waterway developments (eg provision of adequate air draught at road bridges);
Promote the use of Life Cycle Assessment and the Best
Practicable Environmental Option approach for appraisal of transport infrastructure developments, linked to the sustainable development policies beingdeveloped under Local Agenda 21 arising from the Rio Convention. 

3.Research and development should be promoted in freight transport systems and technology to:

Develop new methods for including environmental and social costs in the appraisal of transport schemes;
Develop new vessel designs and combined transport systems;
Reduce potential nuisance from wharf operations;
Introduce protocols for comprehensive environmental assessment of all freight transport projects, including identification of positive environmental benefits;
Promote collection of adequate data for decision-making;
" Establish training programmes for inland waterway freight operations personnel.

4. A national programme for water freight development should be adopted involving:

Encouragement of the fullest possible use of the waterways we have already. Government support for use of freight waterways and promotion of increased awareness in the business community;
Implementation of a rolling programme of development of waterway infrastructure.

5. The environment must be protected.

Use of waterways for freight transport provides significant environmental advantages compared with rail and road and usuallyprovides an enhanced environment but, as we have seen, there may also be adverse effects, particularly during construction. However, all major development projects will require an Engineering Feasibility Study and must be subjected to Environmental Assessment, which is a well developed procedure. 'Environmental effects' are interpreted very widely in the regulations and the assessment must consider effects of the scheme on human beings, flora and fauna, air, water and soil, climate, cultural heritage, material assets and interactions between any of these. Beneficial and harmful effects must be evaluated and mitigation measures proposed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts. Meanwhile, costs and economic development opportunities along the route will be identified. In this way, the environment will be protected and improved so that, as far as possible:

6. Damage to canals and navigation works retained for their heritage value will be avoided;

Potential conservation, recreation, landscape, water management and hydropower benefits will be maximised
adequate environmental mitigation measures will be applied.
Environmental Assessment is already required for all major freight waterway development projects for craft over 1350 tonnes. ISO propose also that effects on freight waterways and navigation should always be considered as a specific issue in the
Environmental Assessment of other waterside development projects, including wide consultation with users and other interested parties - this is not always the case at present.

How Much Would it Cost?

In some cases existing waterway capacity is grossly underused and traffic could be increased greatly at minimal cost by minor improvements such as dredging. Under the present administrative system, this is not addressed as a matter of routine, as it would be for a road or railway. On some waterways, modest investment is required in improved or new wharves and inland port facilities to allow intermodal transfer.  It would also cost very little to implement organisational changes within Government departments and the planning system and to take steps to raise awareness in the business community. These steps alone could go some way to meeting the Royal Commission targets for increases in water freight use in the UK.

Mode                          £ per Km
 
Road                          £1.2 - 11m
 
Inland Waterway       £2.5 - 16m
 
Typical capital costs per km - source: ISG & DoT/Highways        Agency 1995
 
Capital costs of new waterways and roads vary widely depending on Typical capital costs per km terrain and land-use but are of a similar order of magnitude.

Annual costs of vehicles per unit of carrying capacity are also similar, taking account of the longer life of waterway vessels, compared with the smaller capacity and shorter life of heavy goods vehicles used for road transport.

Crew costs for each unit of transport depend on the relative capacities and speeds of the vehicle used. For water transport to compete with road in this respect, vessels must typically have cargo capacities exceeding 1000 tonnes, compared with a maximum lorry payload of about 25 tonnes.  Energy use (and therefore cost) is lower for water transport than for any other freight transport mode except pipeline.

Mode       kj/tonne-km
 
Road        2890
 
Rail             677
 
Water         423

Pipeline     168

Air           15839 

Energy use for freight transport - source: RCEP, 1994
 
Investment in new transport infrastructure should be assessed using common criteria, taking account of all costs and benefits. Waterway investment is long term and benefits may not be assessed correctly using short-term methods of financial appraisal and cost benefit analysis.  Similarly, operational expenditure needs to be compared on an equitable basis, taking account of environmental and social costs and benefits (pollution, disturbance, loss of biodiversity, visual impacts, accident victim care, policing and so on). These are more difficult to assess but methods are currently being developed. Estimates in Germany of total external environmental costs of the different freight transport modes arrive at the conclusion that water transport has much lower environmental costs than competing modes.

Mode       DM/100 t-km
 
Road                    4.27
 
Rail                       0.95
 
Water                    0.23
 
External costs of freight transport - source: PLANCO, 1995 [Top] [Top]