ICI/S4/15/3/A INFRASTRUCTURE and CAPITAL INVESTMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA 3Rd Meeting, 2015 (Session 4) Wednesday 4 February 2015

ICI/S4/15/3/A

INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAPITAL INVESTMENT COMMITTEE

AGENDA

3rd Meeting, 2015 (Session 4)

Wednesday 4 February 2015

The Committee will meet at 10.00 am in the Adam Smith Room (CR5).

1. Inquiry into freight transport in Scotland: The Committee will take evidence from—

David Whitehead, Director, British Ports Association;

Chris MacRae, Head of Policy - Scotland, Freight Transport Association;

David Spaven, Scottish Representative, Rail Freight Group;

Martin Reid, Director - Scotland and Northern Ireland, Road Haulage Association.

Steve Farrell Clerk to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee Room T3.40 The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh Tel: 0131 348 5211 Email: [email protected] ICI/S4/15/3/A

The papers for this meeting are as follows—

Agenda Item 1

Freight Inquiry Cover Note ICI/S4/15/3/1

PRIVATE PAPER ICI/S4/15/3/2 (P)

ICI/S4/15/3/1

Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee

3rd Meeting, 2015 (Session 4), Wednesday 4 February 2015

Inquiry into freight transport in Scotland

Introduction 1. Issues related to freight have emerged in a number of areas of the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee’s work and it is therefore holding an inquiry into freight transport in Scotland relevant to its remit.

2. In undertaking its inquiry, the Committee is looking to identify and understand some of the challenges facing the freight transport industry in Scotland. This includes domestic and international links as well as the interconnectivity of rail, road, air and sea freight services and to identify key areas for development, improvement and change. Current work

Written evidence 3. The Committee issued a targeted call for views on 27 November 2014. 28 written submissions have since been received, and a list of responding organisations is listed at ANNEX A. Evidence sessions 4. On 4th February 2015, the Committee will take oral evidence from representatives of British Ports Association, Freight Transport Association, Rail Freight Group and Road Haulage Association. This will be followed by a number of evidence sessions where the Committee will hear from interested groups from across the freight sector, as well as representatives from appropriate public bodies.

Visits 5. Between February and March, the Committee will undertake several fact- finding visits. The first visit will be on 16th February to Port of Grangemouth, operated by Forth Ports, and the Malcolm Group. This visit will be made in conjunction with the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, which is also undertaking a separate but related Inquiry on internationalising Scottish businesses.

Kara Wiltshire Committee Assistant January 2015

ICI/S4/15/3/1

ANNEX A

Written evidence received

 British Ports Association (162KB pdf)  Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (238KB pdf)  Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (214KB pdf)  Citizens Advice Scotland (224KB pdf)  Co-operative (104KB pdf)  Cycling Scotland (184KB pdf)  Derek Halden Consultancy (125KB pdf)  Dumfries and Galloway Council and the South West of Scotland Transport Partnership (84KB pdf)  Falkirk Council (246KB pdf)  Forth Ports Limited (224KB pdf)  Freight Transport Association (167KB pdf)  Friends of the Far North Line (75KB pdf)  Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership (236KB pdf)  Joint Regional Transport Partnership Chairs Forum (207KB pdf)  Network Rail (161KB pdf)  North Ayrshire Council (152KB pdf)  North East of Scotland Transport Partnership (277KB pdf)  Rail Freight Group (301KB pdf)  Road Haulage Association (151KB pdf)  Samskip (139KB pdf)  Scotch Whisky Association (167KB pdf)  Scottish Council for Development and Industry (266KB pdf)  South Lanarkshire Council (138KB pdf)  Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (163KB pdf)  Tim Lowry (84KB pdf)  Timber Transport Forum (262KB pdf)  WH Malcolm (216KB pdf)

BRITISH PORTS ASSOCIATION – SCOTTISH PORTS COMMITTEE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION

Summary of main points:

 The quality of the transport network is critical for efficient freight movement and business growth.  Support for the network should be backed up by clearer funding commitments.  New arrangements are needed whereby information about port connectivity needs can be regularly fed into the planning process.

Background:

This response is made on behalf of the Scottish Ports Committee which represents the overwhelming majority of ports in Scotland. The Scottish ports sector handled 72m tonnes of freight traffic in 2013, representing 15% of the UK total. Although the total tonnage for Scotland has shown a decline since the early 2000s, this is mainly attributable to reductions in oil and oil related traffic. Very significantly, there has been a corresponding rise in other traffic, particularly unitised (containers and ro-ro) traffic. This has shown a 50% growth since 2001. It is unitised traffic which relies on efficient hinterland connections, both road and rail. As a whole, therefore, the sector is placing greater demands on the Scottish national transport network and this demand is likely to grow in line with economic growth.

The ports sector in Scotland and throughout the UK is financially and strategically independent of government. Investment decisions are based on market need and changes in demand, for example the need to support the growth of the offshore renewables industry.

There are two highly significant areas of public policy on which ports depend. The first is the efficiency of the planning system and the treatment of Harbour Revision Orders, and the second is government spending on connecting road and rail infrastructure. The latter area is subject to sometimes competing demands, for example between passenger and freight based projects, and especially budget constraints. A potential dilemma is that the greater the ease with which freight can be transported on land within Scotland, the growth of coastal shipping could be compromised. Similarly, improving links with the rest of the UK and addressing some of the issues of Scotland’s peripherality from the largest markets could, potentially, increase the flow of Scottish goods through other UK ports. Ports throughout the UK compete strongly with each other and no opportunities are lost to attract new business.

Scottish Government statements on transport, so far as they go, recognise its importance, but tend to be light on more rigorous commitments to funding, and tend not to recognise the overall competitive position of Scotland and the UK compared with other EU member states. The DfT’s “Action for Roads” published in July 2013 stated that “While the British strategic road network was not too different from its EU competitors twenty years ago, it now falls a long way short. Since 1990, the length

1 of new motorway built in France is greater than the whole of the UK network”. This is in spite of the fact that “one of the UK’s greatest strengths is its compactness”.

The government’s “Programme for Scotland 2014-1015” published in November 2014 fully acknowledges the role that transport plays “in both connecting communities and increasing sustainable economic growth”. It also details a number of necessary motorway improvements and the stimulus these will provide to the local and regional economies. We welcomed the third National Planning Framework published in June 2014 which includes a number of port related projects. These include the Grangemouth investment zone, described as a nationally significant site for industry and freight, additional freight capacity on the Forth to accommodate North Sea shipping routes, and the expansion of Aberdeen Harbour, a “nationally important facility” which not only supports the oil and gas sector, but “makes a significant contribution to the wider economy of the North East”.

The statement issued by the Scottish government in its pre-referendum document, “Scotland, the Future” also recognises the importance of transport links, particularly given Scotland’s geographical position and the challenges of peripherality, both within Scotland and in relation to the rest of the UK. It also confirmed the Scottish Government’s long term objective of dualling the road network between all Scottish cities by 2030. It also referred to opportunities (admittedly in an independent Scotland, but the principles remain) to integrate the transport network fully with other infrastructure networks, for example, an alignment of transport policy with energy policy.

Turning to the individual questions, our response is as follows:

1. Can you identify the main infrastructure and policy obstacles to the free flow of freight in Scotland, whether carried by rail, road, air or sea.

In terms of obstacles, the central and fundamental issue is funding of infrastructure. As already noted, there is no lack of support for improving infrastructure, but delivery is sometimes slow and it can be the case that passenger priorities dominate freight. Although the two sometimes go together, support for high speed rail could tie up capital which might be used across a broader range of projects. It is often the case for ports that although the main highway network is good, the links to it are poor, or traffic becomes gridlocked in towns and cities.

Although the overwhelming majority of freight arrives and leaves ports by road, rail can still play a significant role and the lack of good rail connections outside the central belt is a constraint on freight traffic movement. More attention needs to be given to rail freight alongside the need to expand passenger capacity.

Important freight flows also take place between the mainland and the islands and ferry terminal infrastructure needs to be included when national needs are under consideration. The freight element in the ferry network can also be marginalised by passenger needs, who at least have the option to fly whereas freight is almost solely reliant on ferries. Ferry traffic is of course largely domestic, but the Lerwick- Aberdeen route is an example of a link in an international trade route with considerable volumes of seafood heading to the Continent.

In 2013 the Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) produced its report, “The State of the Nation Scotland: Transport” which drew attention to not only the need for investment in new infrastructure, but also the need to make provision for road maintenance, particularly bearing in mind extreme weather events. This is another factor which especially impacts on local roads rather than the main network. The report identified a significant backlog of repair work, the cost of which was estimated at £1.5bn. Maintenance should be a further priority for funding and as the report also points out, the capital required for both this and for further development of the network “may require innovative thinking to bring in funding from beyond the public purse to speed up delivery”. An associated issue is the lack of certainty in funding and what the ICE report described as “the dangers of stop/start investment patterns”.

An important consideration will be the cost benefit ratios for investment. One of the conclusions of the Eddington Report commissioned by the DfT in 2006 is, we believe, still very relevant in that it identified strong cost benefit ratios for investment in access to ports which they assessed as between 3-15 and which translate into equivalent GDP benefits.

2. How can Scotland’s rail, road, air and sea freight routes to the rest of the UK, to Europe and worldwide be improved?

The points we have made in answering Q1 largely cover our response here. There is good port capacity in Scotland with some significant expansion already consented. Ports are able to respond quickly to market demands. We are not looking to change ports policy which already allows high sensitivity to the market, but bearing this in mind and the points we have made in Q1, we would suggest that one of the results of this inquiry could be a move towards a much better shared understanding of port needs in relation to the transport network. This could be tackled in a number of ways, for example, setting up a new specialist freight group to liaise between ports and Transport Scotland on specific infrastructure needs. Whatever emerges, the ultimate aim should be to achieve a better and continually updated understanding of port connectivity requirements which can feed through into decision making.

Port projects have been recognised in the NPFs and are represented in NPF3, which we very much welcome. It is important that NPFs recognise the need not only for new port facilities where appropriate, but also the need to enhance existing facilities bearing in mind the generally good capacity that the sector provides. Equally important is that once a development is identified, the need to accommodate existing and increased traffic flows on the public network should be recognised. There has to be a joined up approach.

3. How can the Scottish Government structure its freight grant schemes to support the switch of freight to more sustainable modes of transport?

This is an area where it would be helpful to have more in depth discussion with the Scottish Government. For example, a long standing issue is the level of support provided to rail whereas no such support is provided to coastal shipping. Another area is the possibility of support for freight operators in addition to the capital necessary to develop a facility. Although we welcome freight grant schemes, the

3 take up is generally low and this does raise the question of whether the funds earmarked for this could be better used elsewhere, for example, in funding other transport schemes.

4. Are there any European Union initiatives which could provide further opportunities for Scottish freight transport?

The main EU initiative which could provide further opportunities for Scottish freight network is the Trans European Network (TEN-T ) programme. We are actively engaged with the UK and Scottish Governments on exploring the opportunities presented by TEN-T which relate mainly to rail infrastructure schemes. The bulk of the funding is likely to go to eastern EU countries, but there are some possibilities and we will continue to work to ensure these are fully explored. The main opportunities will probably arise for Forth Ports and Clydeport which are recognised as Core ports within the EU transport network. There are then a number of ports recognised on the Comprehensive TEN-T network which may benefit financially but the opportunities are much reduced in comparison. The disparity between what is on offer for Core and Comprehensive ports is an area that requires attention.

5. How can the freight industry make a contribution to greenhouse gas emissions reduction?

Efficient transport networks will automatically contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions with less congestion and more efficient road use. Coastal shipping is already proven to be a low carbon method of moving high volumes of freight.

6. Which policy changes, or infrastructure improvements, are required to increase the flow of goods through Scotland’s major sea ports?

The main changes needed are those already outlined, namely improvements in the overall transport network which will improve trade flow and encourage business growth. These create the best opportunities for increasing the flow of goods handled by Scotland’s ports. This will require significant and stable funding policies.

To provide the Committee with a better understanding of necessary port related infrastructure schemes, we have provided an indicative list submitted by members.

We hope these comments are of help and we are always happy to supply further background to the Committee.

David Whitehead OBE Director 16 January 2015

List of Suggested Infrastructure Improvements at Scottish Ports

ABERDEEN

Problem: Main access to port is constrained by busy roads. Increased vessel sizes associated with existing and new traffic flows requires longer and deeper berths. Capacity constraints resulting in increased costs and risks for established oil and gas.

Desired Works: Freight priority lanes in roads. Construction of additional berthing capacity at Nigg Bay.

Steps Taken: The port authority has been involved with the RTP and its predecessor, along with the Freight Quality Partnership and Local Planning Authority to discuss these infrastructure needs. Feasibility study of Nigg Bay development progressing with project named in National Planning Framework 3.

FORTH

Port of Grangemouth

Problem: Ongoing lack of investment in main arterial route connections of M8 motorway and further enhancement to M9 motorway junctions. Consideration to be given to appropriate flood defences for the upper Forth to protect the Port and Grangemouth.

Desired Works: Upgrade of the A801 Avon Gorge to provide an improved HGV connection between the M8 and M9 motorways. Flood defences to be installed at appropriate parts on the upper Forth and Grangemouth, including the Grange Burn and River Carron.

Steps to take: Both Falkirk and West Lothian Councils have completed all design and technical evaluations of the A801 upgrade, including the necessary land purchases. Flood defence options for the Grangemouth area are currently being developed by Falkirk Council in conjunction with a number of partners.

Port of Leith

Problem: Congested and inefficient road connections to the Port.

Desired Works: Improved road connections via the East to the Port.

Steps to take: Limited, with some initial masterplanning undertaken in preparation for NRIP.

MONTROSE

Problem: Failure to improve road access to the port is restricting development of the potential of the port.

Desired Works: Improved road links to the port to and from the A90 Aberdeen / Dundee and the A92 Montrose / Dundee.

Steps Taken: The port has continuing dialogue with Angus Council, Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Government.

OBAN

Problem: Access to the port involves negotiating the very congested town centre. On approaching the terminal, all traffic is obliged to cross a 19th century railway bridge. In the event of this bridge being considered inadequate for heavy traffic, there is no other access to the port. Having gained access to the terminal, in the summer months at least, it is not unusual for vehicles arriving early for a sailing to be told to go away and come back later, as the place is choked with traffic. There is no HGV parking in Oban, and this often results in trucks orbiting the town’s one way system, with obvious consequences.

Desired Works: The best solution would be a new port in a different location in the area, arranged in a different way, and which would also give the ships a better opportunity to land and leave than that afforded by the present facility, which is most unsuitable, and long term, a barrier to trade.

SCRABSTER

Problem: Poor road access to the port via the A9, particularly Berriedale Braes. The steep gradient and hairpin bend at the Braes is a very challenging road alignment, especially for HGVs and other long vehicles.

Desired Works: Removal of hairpin bend and improve road alignment. These works would improve journey times and road safety by removing the need for vehicles to slow down or stop to negotiate the bend.

Steps Taken: Following inception and design workshops and public consultation, draft road orders for the Berriedale upgrade were

published in December 2014 but there is no current commitment to undertake the works.

ULLAPOOL

Problem: Poor access via the A835.

Desired Works: Widening of the A835.

Steps Taken: N/A

All North West Coast Ports OBAN, MALLAIG, FORT WILLIAM, TOBERMORY, CRAIGNURE, UIG, PORTREE and on to INVERNESS and others

Problem: All North West Ports depend on the A82 with the A82 branching to Oban, to Mallaig A830 and the A87 to Portree and Uig. In many parts; the structure, the width, the alignment of this the only west coast artery / major trunk road are still in the 19 century.

Desired Works: Improve all sections of the A82 below modern twin track trunk road standards before 2020 Passenger and Freight numbers and volume from these ports should justify EU TEN-T funding for the A82

FREIGHT TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION

WRITTEN SUBMISSION

i. The Freight Transport Association (FTA) is one of Britain’s largest trade associations, and uniquely provides a voice for the whole of the UK’s logistics sector. Its role, on behalf of over 14,000 members, is to enhance the safety, efficiency and sustainability of freight movement across the supply chain, regardless of transport mode. FTA members operate over 200,000 goods vehicles - almost half the UK fleet - and some one million liveried vans. In addition, they consign over 90 per cent of the freight moved by rail and over 70 per cent of sea and air freight. FTA works with its members to influence transport policy and decisions taken at local, national and European level to ensure they recognise the needs of industry’s supply chains.

Introduction ii. FTA welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to this inquiry with its remit: “To identify and understand some of the challenges facing the freight transport industry in Scotland, including domestic and international links as well as the interconnectivity of rail, road air and sea freight services and to identify key areas for development, improvement and change. iii. We are therefore structuring our evidence around the six key thematic question areas in the Committee’s call for evidence and lay these out below.

1. Can you identify the main infrastructure and policy obstacles to the free flow of freight in Scotland, whether carried by rail, road, air or sea? iv. Scotland’s economy faces the challenge of geographical peripherality and it is therefore vital that its freight transport and logistics links are organised and structured to prevent this geographical peripherality becoming and economic peripherality. Scotland is a net exporter (unlike the UK measured as a whole) mainly due to its food and whisky exports to global markets, yet this statement masks imbalances in individual trades. Such imbalance brings issues with positioning sufficient empty ISO freight containers into Scotland for these export trades while at the same time curtain-sided road and rail equipment that brings in Scotland’s food and retail supplies from the English West Midlands distribution centres often returns empty south bound. This is articulated in the 2012 Report for FTA including by Professor Alan McKinnon and this is attached to our submission. v. Scotland’s routes to and from European and Global markets are predominantly via the south of England haven ports, mainly Southampton, Felixstowe and now London Gateway. These operate as part of an English Midlands-centric UK distribution model utilising road and rail transport. London Gateway is seeking to develop a more port-centric basis for its distribution. Trade with the Americas centres on Port of Liverpool and the North Sea trades on Teesport as well as Immingham and the east coast ports of England. The large ships that dominate global trade lanes will not call at European ports further north than the north of

continental Europe / South of England, therefore Scotland’s connectivity with these markets has to be via good quality road, rail and coastal feeder shipping services to connect with these ports / inland distribution centres. Scotland’s use of air freight is concentrated on road fed hub use of English air freight hub airports. Therefore the current deliberations over expanded airport capacity in the South East of England are as relevant to Scottish business as English as it is the ability to hub freight at that location and connect with the European and Global air trade lanes.

vi. An important dimension not to overlook is the “last mile” connections between key freight termini (such as central belt rail freight intermodal interchanges or feeder ports) and the national trunk road network. In the parallel situation in England, FTA has welcomed the Roads Investment Strategy approach with the new Strategic Highways Company Highways England” whereby central Government may fund and develop local non trunk road developments to connect strategic freight terminals to the national trunk road network. Such an approach could be equally beneficial in Scotland.

2. How can Scotland’s rail, road, air and sea freight routes to the rest of the UK, to Europe and worldwide be improved? vii. Scotland needs policies and infrastructure investment that recognises the challenges set out above and that supports Scottish business using these supply chains. Specifically this means delivering rail freight infrastructure investment (for example Highland Main Line capacity and capability works, East Coast Main Line capability works) via the Scottish Freight Fund and road freight infrastructure improvements (such as the A9 and A96 dualling). But it also means ensuring cross border linkage with the Strategic Rail Freight Fund schemes in and Road Investment Strategy Schemes in England, covering areas such as the East Coast Main Line and A1. (FTA’s full list of such schemes is attached in our earlier Comprehensive Spending Review document) Scottish policy support for increased hub airport capacity in the South East of England is important as is policy support for feeder coastal shipping services (see xi below). viii. Specific threats to this include recent policy by the Office of Rail Regulation to increase freight Track Access Charges and also proposals that would introduce geographically differentiated freight Track Access Charges that would see rail freight in Scotland penalised by higher charges reflective of the cost of infrastructure maintenance related to the topography of the territory. ix. The differentiation of HGV speed limits in Scotland by 10mph less compared with England and Wales when their limits are raised on single and dual carriageway roads will add further to the risk of peripheralising Scotland and we would urge that the connectivity benefits of aligning those limits with England be explored.

x. The operation of HS2 once constructed also threatens Scottish supply chains as passengers trains will run on to / from HS2 up the existing West Coast Main Line to / from Scotland. Indicative timetabling work by HS2 Ltd has shown that this will restrict both current and potential future growth freight on this corridor. It is for

reasons including this that FTA has petitioned on the HS2 Bill (copy of our submission is attached).

3. How can the Scottish Government structure its freight grant schemes to support the switch of freight to more sustainable modes of transport?

xi. It is regrettable that the Freight Facilities (Capital) Grant has been removed in England but commendable that it has been retained in Scotland. FTA lobbied successfully to have this grant reinstated in Scotland after it was previously threatened with withdrawal. Together with the Mode Shift Revenue Support Grant it these make a valuable contribution to modal shift and carbon reduction and FTA would commend Scottish support to UK Government in seeking to renew and develop the State Aid permissions from the European Union that allows such regimes. xii. In respect of the above an anomaly that affects water freight (coastal) traffic (in England as well as Scotland) is the inability to have a parallel regime to that for rail, the water regime being much more restrictive. Overcoming this could benefit modal choice and environmental benefit not just for use of coastal sea freight between Scotland and England in respect of traffic to and from southern haven ports but to nearer destinations not currently competitive with rail or road. FTA would urge Scottish support for UK lobbying and policy review of the Water Freight Grants regime to facilitate this.

4. Are there any European Union initiatives which could provide further opportunities for Scottish freight transport? xiii. The EU TEN-T multi modal corridor approach is useful. Seperately, the European Rail Freight Corridor initiative is useful to aiding cross EU border freight traffic, though the management of its reservation of paths for international freight on the West Coast Main Line north of London needs careful attention so as not to constrain e.g. Anglo – Scottish only traffic on the network.

5. How can the freight industry make a contribution to greenhouse gas emissions reductions? xiv. FTA runs the Logistics Carbon Reduction Scheme (LCRS). The Logistics Carbon Reduction Scheme is a voluntary industry-led approach to reducing carbon emissions from road freight by recording and reporting reductions in CO² emissions. The scheme is free to join and open to all commercial vehicle operators. Currently this is focussed on the road freight sector but with potential to be expanded to other modes of transport. The LCRS allows the UK logistics sector to publicly report, for the first time its contribution towards national carbon reduction targets. LCRS was launched in late 2009, Read the LCRS fourth annual report. In April 2011, the Department for Transport endorsed the LCRS as a key way for industry to record, report and reduce carbon emissions from freight. In May 2013, Government published its Freight Carbon Review. Evidence from the LCRS has directly resulted in Government continuing to support a voluntary approach to carbon reduction. The LCRS can also help

operators in scope of the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme to compile the data required for audit.

xv. FTA’s Mode Shift Centre http://www.modeshiftcentre.org.uk/ helps logistics shippers make informed choices about modal shift to rail or water freight with a range of support services including Customer Guides to using Rail Freight and Water Freight. xvi. In respect of assisting freight modal shift to rail FTA is developing a customer focussed rail freight agenda. FTA has worked with the UK’s major retailers within FTA membership to give greater visibility to their current use of rail freight. Our “On Track” publication provided a series of illuminating case studies showing the extent to which retailers were using rail freight, including the CO2 savings associated with this. This work has now been taken a step further. xvii. The same retailers have provided FTA with data giving details of their flows over 200 miles, providing the opportunities for load matching and even greater potential to use rail freight. At the same time, the UK’s leading retailers have identified 12 key areas where shippers believe progress is needed if rail freight is to fully realise its potential. We are calling this the “Agenda for More Freight on Rail”. These 12 areas identified for improvement have been broken down into four key themes:

 costs and competiveness  service availability and flexibility  network access  international services xviii. The Agenda for More Rail Freight has now been endorsed by FTA’s British Shippers’ Council, which includes a much wider range of shippers from other sectors of the economy who are eager to move more freight by rail if the conditions are right.

xix. In its recent Freight Market Study and Delivery Plan, Network Rail states that it needs to cater for an additional 30 per cent increase in freight by 2019. That’s a tall order, and if this is to be achieved Britain’s leading retailers and shippers, upon whom that growth depends, have highlighted where major changes and improvements in the delivery and performance of rail freight services in Britain is needed if the growth projections forecast by the Freight Market Study are to be realised.

6. Which policy changes, or infrastructure improvements, are required to increase the flow of goods through Scotland’s major sea ports?

xx. As discussed above, it is important to recognise that Scotland’s routes to and from European and Global markets are predominantly via the south of England haven ports, mainly Southampton, Felixstowe and now London Gateway. These operate as part of an English Midlands-centric UK distribution model utilising road and rail transport. London Gateway is seeking to develop a more port-centric basis for its distribution.

Trade with the Americas centres on Port of Liverpool and the North Sea trades on Teesport as well as Immingham and the east coast ports of England. The large ships that dominate global trade lanes will not call at European ports further north than the north of continental Europe / South of England, therefore Scotland’s connectivity with these markets has to be via good quality road, rail and coastal feeder shipping services to connect with these ports / inland distribution centres. Investment in “last mile” infrastructure that connects Scotland’s inland rail and coastal feeder shipping ports is therefore vital too.

xxi. Also as stated in (x) above it is regrettable that the Freight Facilities (Capital) Grant has been removed in England but commendable that it has been retained in Scotland. FTA lobbied successfully to have this grant reinstated in Scotland after it was previously threatened with withdrawal. Together with the Mode Shift Revenue Support Grant it these make a valuable contribution to modal shift and carbon reduction and FTA would commend Scottish support to UK Government in seeking to renew and develop the State Aid permissions from the European Union that allows such regimes. xxii. In respect of (xx) an anomaly explained in (xi) above that affects water freight (coastal) traffic (in England as well as Scotland) is the inability to have a parallel regime to that for rail, the water regime being much more restrictive. Overcoming this could benefit modal choice and environmental benefit not just for use of coastal sea freight between Scotland and England in respect of traffic to and from southern haven ports but to nearer destinations not currently competitive with rail or road. FTA would urge Scottish support for UK lobbying and policy review of the Water Freight Grants regime to facilitate this.

Conclusions xxiii. Scotland’s supply chains service its economy in UK, European and Global markets. It is important to recognise the ways in which they do this and the challenges to this articulated above along with potential policy support and solutions also laid out above.

Annex A Scottish Logistics Report

Report prepared for the Freight Transport Association by Professor Alan McKinnon (Kühne Logistics University, Hamburg and Heriot-Watt University) and Dr Maja Piecyk (Heriot-Watt University)

Summary

This report reviews published data on many different aspects of logistical operations in Scotland. Most of the data relate to freight transport, though, for the first time, it has also been possible to examine the recent development of distribution centres in Scotland.

The introductory section examines attempts in other parts of the world to assess the macro-economic importance of logistics and its impact on business performance. These indicate that expenditure on logistics represents around 7-10% of GDP and show a link between logistics capability and trading performance at a national level. The report recommends that similar analyses be done for Scotland.

The review of Scottish freight transport trends over the past decade highlights several notable developments:

 significant decoupling of economic growth and freight tonne-km trends, suggesting that the freight transport intensity of the Scottish economy is diminishing.  Scotland’s freight modal split changed only marginally despite government efforts to promote the use of rail and waterborne services  lorries’ share of Scotland’s road traffic remained fairly stable at 6%, while van traffic increased its share from 12% to 14%.  number of road freight operators registered in Scotland dropped by a fifth, though the haulage industry remains highly fragmented with the average fleet comprising only 4.5 lorries.  sharp increase in the amounts of containerised traffic passing through Scottish ports, partly as a consequence of the boom in Scotch whisky exports.  substantial growth of roll-on roll-off traffic using Scottish ports, mainly on the Northern Irish routes. The volumes of ro-ro traffic on the Rosyth-Zeebrugge have fallen well below their peak and are below the levels required for long term viability.  airfreight tonnage handled by Scottish airports has dropped sharply, mainly as a result of the off-shoring of the electronics industry.  composition and geographical distribution of Scotland’s airfreight has radically altered with the proportion of mail rising from 35% to 57% and Edinburgh capturing a larger share of the remaining airfreight traffic than Prestwick and Glasgow combined.  there remain serious imbalances in freight traffic flows to and from Scotland across all transport modes. This undoubtedly inhibits the development of direct freight services to and from the country.

 Scotland attracted only around 3% of the new UK floorspace in distribution centres of over 10,000 sq metres between 1995 and 2011. The recent decision by Amazon to locate its largest European DC in Scotland suggests that the country could do more to exploit its locational advantages as a base for distribution operations.  CO2 emissions from freight movements originating in Scotland remained fairly stable until 2009 when the recession reduced the level of freight transport activity and cut emissions by around 14%.  steep reductions in the involvement of HGVs and vans in road accidents and in the number of related casualties.

Although, relative to many other countries, Scotland is quite well endowed with freight data, there is still room for improvement. Without detailed and accurate freight data, it is very hard to forecast the future demand for logistics services and freight- related infrastructure. It is also difficult to analyse the structure of supply chains starting and / or ending in Scotland, their changing logistical requirements and their vulnerability to potential disruptions.

15 January 2015

RAIL FREIGHT GROUP

WRITTEN SUBMISSION

A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Rail Freight Group (RFG) – which represents users and suppliers of rail freight throughout Britain – welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the ICI Committee Inquiry into freight transport in Scotland. RFG has previously engaged with the Committee as part of the National Planning Framework 3 (NPF3) process, in which both parties expressed concern about the NPF3 treatment of rail freight. We offer some general comments on the role of rail freight (Section B), followed by consideration of key themes suggested by the Committee insofar as these relate to rail freight (Section C).

Rail freight provides a reliable and resilient mode of transport, with a strong role in the bulk and intermodal (container) markets serving Scotland. Rail inherently cannot be as ubiquitous as road haulage, but for big-volume and/or long-haul flows it can offer significant commercial, economic, energy, environmental and safety advantages.

Rail’s ability to compete for traffic depends on a number of factors, including the availability of suitable route and terminal infrastructure (partly determined by government investment) and whether the terms of competition with other modes are fair, with regard to a variety of relevant government policies. It has been a longstanding objective of Scottish Government policy to encourage freight modal shift from road to more sustainable modes, including rail, and this aim is shared at the European, UK, regional and local levels of government.

1. Main infrastructure and policy obstacles to the free flow of rail freight in Scotland

While road hauliers benefit from the ubiquity of dual-lane trunk roads, there are significant infrastructure capacity pinch points on the rail network, notably insufficient long overtaking loops on key double-track routes, and inadequate quantum and length of crossing loops on largely single-track routes such as Perth-Inverness and Aberdeen-Inverness.

By contrast to the widespread provision of generous structure height clearances for trucks on the Scottish trunk road network, the rail system is a patchwork of varying capability to handle the modern generation of containers. Key routes with ‘loading gauge’ pinch points include Coatbridge / Mossend / Grangemouth to Aberdeen and Inverness.

As noted above, government policies are critical in determining rail freight’s ability to compete for traffic against road and sea transport. RFG highlights examples of the absence of a level playing field with competing modes, including failure of planning policies.

2. How Scotland’s rail freight routes to the rest of the UK, to Europe and worldwide can be improved

Key improvements required are:

 providing sufficient long loops (of up to 775m length) to allow 125 mph passenger trains to overtake 75mph freight trains on the East Coast and West Coast Main Lines  a simple redesign of the layout – to include the replacement of 1960s’ vintage road-rail transfer cranes – at Coatbridge Freightliner Terminal, Scotland’s multi-user rail terminal serving as both ‘inland port’ and domestic hub for cross-border traffic  possible government pump-priming of a direct Scotland to mainland Europe container train.

3. How the Scottish Government can structure its freight grant schemes to support the switch of freight to more sustainable modes of transport

The Scottish Government needs to consider how it can restructure and more widely promote its Freight Facilities Grant and Mode Shift Revenue Support schemes – which are based on the environmental benefits of mode switch from road to rail – to reflect the trading realities of the current business environment and logistics supply chain trends.

In England, the Department of Business, Innovation & Skills administers the ‘Regional Growth Fund’, which has supported three rail freight terminal developments, on the basis of the economic benefits which these would generate. Scotland needs to keep up with such changes elsewhere if we are to remain competitive.

Grant aid could also assist the development of innovative methods for handling rail freight, not least on peripheral routes, using potential lower-cost solutions such as the ‘Non-Intrusive Crossover’ and the light-weight ‘Freight Multiple Unit’ or ‘TruckTrain’.

RFG is concerned that the €200k grant aid award to DFDS / Forth Ports in respect of the Rosyth-Zeebrugge freight ferry – a direct competitor for rail freight – appears to have been made on the basis of a different (and less exacting) set of rules for sea compared to rail.

4. EU initiatives which could provide further opportunities for Scottish rail freight

It is suggested that the scope for EU assistance for rail freight projects be pursued more vigorously – in terms of both (a) route infrastructure capacity and capability, and (b) terminal capacity and capability. Scottish Government should also review the scope for a greater advocacy role to encourage businesses to consider rail.

5. How the freight industry can contribute to greenhouse gas emissions reduction

Research has demonstrated clearly that, for equivalent transits, rail offers very substantial greenhouse gas advantages over road – typically one third of that generated by trucks.

6. Policy changes, or infrastructure improvements, required to increase the flow of goods through Scotland’s major rail freight hubs

While acknowledging the crucial role of ports, RFG also wishes to see similar importance attached to the role of Scotland’s major rail freight hubs at Coatbridge, Grangemouth and Mossend – which together generate an equivalent volume of container traffic to Scotland’s largest container port at Grangemouth. Key enhancements required are:  redesign and upgrade of facilities at Coatbridge Freightliner Terminal  extension and upgrading of capacity at Mossend EuroCentral Terminal  planning permission for the Mossend International Railfreight Park  improved ‘loading gauge’ clearance to the Grangemouth railheads  enhanced freight capacity on the East Coast Main Line.

B. THE ROLE OF RAIL FREIGHT

Rail freight provides a reliable and resilient mode of transport, with a strong role in the following markets serving Scotland:

 domestic bulk – such as coal, oil, cement, industrial minerals and waste  domestic intermodal (containers) – notably supermarket supplies  Deep Sea intermodal (containers) – export and import traffic to and from Britain’s five main Deep Sea ports

It also has untapped potential (of which, more later) to serve European intermodal markets – including export and import traffic through the Channel Tunnel.

Rail’s overall share of the freight transport market is between 7% and 10% (depending on the unit of measurement), but as high as 35% at key Deep Sea ports and up to 90% at coal-fired power stations, for example.

Rail freight’s technical characteristics – steel wheel on steel rail, a guided track and a segregated and signalled right of way – allow low ‘line-haul’ costs for long hauls and/or big volumes. A single bulk train can haul a payload of up to 1,500 tonnes, while a container train can convey 72 Twenty Foot Equivalent Units – generally less than a ship, but the equivalent of around 50 HGVs. Rail is much faster and more reliable than shipping and is not vulnerable to sea weather conditions, nor to growing congestion at major continental ports such as Rotterdam.

Rail inherently cannot be as ubiquitous as road haulage, but for big-volume and/or long-haul flows it can offer significant commercial, economic, energy, environmental and safety advantages – and being land-based, can generally penetrate much closer to final destinations than shipping, thereby reducing damaging road miles.

Rail freight’s ability to compete for traffic on specific Scottish and Anglo-Scottish corridors depends on a number of factors:

 the underlying economics of specific flows (in particular in terms of volume and/or haul length) in relation to rail’s low line-haul costs but high fixed costs  the quality of service offered by rail, in particular its reliability  the availability of suitable route infrastructure (partly determined by government investment)  the availability of suitable terminal infrastructure (partly determined by government investment)  whether the terms of competition with other modes are fair, with regard to government policies on strategic planning, regulatory intervention, taxation, infrastructure investment, grant aid, etc.

Rail freight plays an important part in helping to realise four of the five high-level objectives set out in Scotland’s National Transport Strategy (2006), namely: promote economic growth; protect our environment and improve health; improve safety; and improve integration. It also contributes to the Scottish Government’s core aim of sustainable economic growth and to four of the five Strategic Objectives set out by the Scottish Government – namely Wealthier and Fairer, Healthier, Safer, and Stronger and Greener.

It has been a longstanding objective of Scottish Government policy to encourage freight modal shift from road to more sustainable modes, including rail, and this objective is shared at the European, UK, regional and local levels of government.

C. KEY INQUIRY THEMES

1. Main infrastructure and policy obstacles to the free flow of rail freight in Scotland

Infrastructure: The key elements of rail route infrastructure relate to (a) capacity – including the ability to accommodate the longest and most cost-effective (up to 775m long) trains, and (b) capability – in particular ‘loading gauge’ of sufficient height and width for the modern generation of tall containers through tunnels and overbridges.

While road hauliers benefit from the ubiquity of dual-lane trunk roads, there are significant capacity pinch points on the rail network, notably;

 insufficient long overtaking loops (of up to 775m length) to allow 125 mph passenger trains to overtake 75mph freight trains on the East Coast and West Coast Main Lines  insufficient long overtaking loops – and remaining single-track sections at Perth and Montrose/Usan – on the Coatbridge/Grangemouth/Mossend- Aberdeen trunk route  inadequate quantum and length of crossing loops on the largely single-track Perth-Inverness railway (to allow trains travelling in opposite directions to pass each other), restricting freight trains to just 20 containers instead of the 28 containers which could otherwise be hauled – and the competitive

disadvantage from single-track operation will increase enormously should the A9 be fully dualled in line with Scottish Government plans  inadequate quantum and length of crossing loops on the single-track Aberdeen-Inverness railway – a competitive disadvantage which will increase enormously should the A96 be fully dualled in line with Scottish Government plans  inadequate length of crossing loops, and speed-restricted structures, on the single-track West Highland Line from Glasgow to Fort William.

By contrast to the widespread provision of generous structure height clearances for trucks on the Scottish trunk road network, the rail system – as illustrated by the Network Rail map in the Appendix on Page 10 – is a patchwork of varying capability to handle the modern generation of containers. While low-deck wagons can allow taller containers to be accommodated on otherwise constrained routes, this limits flexibility compared to infrastructure solutions such as lowering track and raising bridges – and in any event Scottish Government has not shown interest in funding low-deck wagons as a partial solution to this problem. Excluding works currently in progress, key routes with loading gauge pinch points include:

 the trunk route from Coatbridge / Mossend to Grangemouth  the trunk route from Coatbridge / Mossend / Grangemouth to Aberdeen  the trunk route from Coatbridge / Mossend / Grangemouth to Inverness  the Aberdeen-Inverness line, in particular between Elgin and Inverness.

Electrification of rail routes to Aberdeen and Inverness would increase the potential for rail freight to capture more traffic through the competitive benefits of faster transits, heavier payloads and better utilisation of locomotives and wagons.

Policy: As noted above, government policies are critical in determining rail freight’s ability to compete for traffic against road and sea transport. RFG wishes to highlight five key examples to illustrate the absence of a level playing field with competing modes.

We have long been concerned over the unequal treatment of rail and road on the Perth-Inverness corridor, symbolised by the planned £3bn expenditure on full dualling of the A9 but a maximum of just £600m earmarked for the still predominantly single-track Highland Main Line. The road and rail investment appraisal processes are being undertaken entirely separately, without consideration of how a balanced package of road and rail developments might best meet public policy objectives, as well as securing best value for money. Equally, there has been no analysis of the extent to which road improvements will lead to modal shift of freight from rail to road – the opposite of Government policy. A lengthy correspondence between RFG and Transport Scotland (including the Freedom of Information process and an appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner) failed to produce any evidence that Transport Scotland had undertaken any ‘cross-modal’ analysis of the costs and benefits of a road/rail package, for example based on dualling only the busier sections of the A9 – from Aviemore to Inverness and Blair Atholl to Perth – while substantially extending double track on the railway and electrifying the route throughout.

The Perth-Inverness corridor provides another example of a lack of a level playing field. The Scottish Government’s decision to increase the A9 HGV speed limit to 50mph on single-carriageway sections took no account of the extent to which this could put rail freight at a competitive disadvantage – and no explanation was given as to why this decision was taken after the A9 Safety Group’s research concluded that retaining the 40 mph lorry speed limit was “the safest option”.

RFG engaged with the ICI Committee in early 2014 with regard to the NPF3 process and its imbalanced treatment of rail and sea freight – a criticism endorsed by the Committee in its submission to Government. The final NPF3 endorsed three sea freight National Developments (one of which is clearly speculative) but none for rail freight, despite RFG’s proposed National Development scoring as highly (against mandatory and optional criteria) as two of the sea freight developments – a decision which we described as “illogical, inconsistent and unfair treatment of two competing modes of transport.” Our conclusion from this highly unsatisfactory episode is that sea freight interests must have begun strongly lobbying the Scottish Government at a very early stage of the process, positioning its commercial interests as being in line with public policy objectives. Rail freight has not engaged in heavy political lobbying, since this has been felt to be inappropriate where policy making is intended to be based on the rational analysis of evidence.

Local planning policies can also have a major impact on rail freight prospects. Dundee is one of the largest cities in Britain with no rail freight facilities, and indeed there are none anywhere on Tayside. Ideally, rail would be reconnected to Dundee docks, providing a tri-modal (rail, sea and road) facility, which could assist the city to attract oil platform decommissioning work. But in any event there is an alternative low-cost start-up rail location available at nearby Dundee West sidings – which unfortunately has not found favour to date with city planners, in our view mistakenly, due to concerns about noise, traffic and visual impacts. Road haulage has unconstrained access to Dundee, but rail freight cannot get established without either substantial investment at the docks or a more rail-friendly approach in local planning policy.

Rail’s economics are optimised where at least one end of the through transit has direct rail connection, and this underscores the importance of strategic protection for rail-connectable sites. Consideration of rail access must be undertaken at a sufficiently early stage of industrial site development planning, since past experience shows that trying to retro-fit rail facilities when these have not been ‘passively’ planned within the overall development footprint can be expensive or indeed impossible – as rail access is more constrained, eg in terms of curvature, than is the case with road haulage. The recent granting of planning consent by Highland Council for a major expansion of the Dalcross Norboard plant – without any requirement for passive provision for future rail access – is a case in point.

2. How Scotland’s rail freight routes to the rest of the UK, to Europe and worldwide can be improved

Scotland’s key rail freight routes to the rest of the UK, to Europe and worldwide, are the East Coast and West Coast Main Lines. As noted above, there are insufficient long loops (of up to 775m length) to allow 125 mph passenger trains to overtake

75mph freight trains on the East Coast and West Coast Main Lines – and this reduces the number of timetabled ‘paths’ available for freight traffic.

With regard to ‘worldwide’ (Deep Sea) traffic, while rail already has a very significant market share of export/import traffic from and to Scotland, its capacity is constrained by the current layout and limited capability of the road-rail transfer cranes at Coatbridge Freightliner Terminal, Scotland’s multi-user rail terminal serving as both ‘inland port’ and domestic hub for cross-border traffic. These cranes date from the 1960s and 1970s – and their potential replacement by modern equipment has to date been constrained by (a) tight margins in the highly competitive intermodal business and the difficulty of securing long-term customer contracts in the current climate, and (b) the rules governing the Scottish Government’s Freight Facilities Grant scheme (see 3 below).

When the Channel Tunnel was opened in 1994, there were high hopes for the development of through intermodal (container) rail services from the new Mossend EuroCentral terminal to mainland European destinations, but these were frustrated by a bureaucratic marketing structure and excessive charges for freight use of the Tunnel. Recently, EuroTunnel has substantially reduced transit charges for freight trains through the Tunnel, and the increased cost of shipping from Scotland as a result of the introduction of the EU Sulphur Emissions Control Area (SECA) on the North Sea and English Channel from 1st January 2015 is also prompting renewed interest in the rail alternative. However, while a through container train from Scotland to key destinations such as Paris (a 700-mile haul) is likely to be a straightforward commercial proposition in the medium and long term, the early period of a possible direct European service might need pump-priming from the public sector. Unfortunately, the Scottish Government’s ‘Mode Shift Revenue Support’ (MSRS) grant scheme is based on retrospective payment of grant, leaving either the rail operator or a logistics ‘aggregator’ company to take all the risk up-front. In contrast, the Scottish Government’s recent €200k revenue subsidy award to DFDS / Forth Ports in respect of the Rosyth-Zeebrugge freight ferry was made up-front as opposed to retrospectively (see Section 3 below).

Rail access to mainland Europe can be developed through a number of routes, not just the Channel Tunnel – for example by train services to key container ports on Tees-side and Humberside. Route capacity on the East Coast Main Line (see above and (vi) below) is therefore a key factor in enhancing transport for Scottish exports, as well as domestic trade.

3. How the Scottish Government can structure its freight grant schemes to support the switch of freight to more sustainable modes of transport

It was noted above that competitive circumstances and the rules of the Freight Facilities Grant (FFG) scheme have constrained the modernisation of facilities at Coatbridge Freightliner Terminal, Scotland’s inland port and cross-border domestic hub. And yet with minimal redesign and upgrade with 21st century equipment, this terminal could double its capacity and efficiency, cut costs for existing customers, improve Scottish exporters’ access to markets, and reduce emissions.

Unfortunately, after the economic down-turn, manufacturers / processors have been reluctant to commit their traffic to long (eg 5-year) rail contracts – but the Scottish Government requires a commitment to rail for this kind of period before awarding FFG. For a typical intermodal (container handling) rail terminal, a variety of individual company flows have to be aggregated to create the critical mass to justify (a) capital expenditure on rail facilities, and (b) the operating cost of running a complete train (typically 20+ containers) – and securing parallel commitments from a number of players can be difficult in this economic climate.

The Scottish Government needs to consider how it can restructure and more widely promote its FFG scheme – which is based on the environmental benefits of mode switch from road to rail – to reflect the trading realities of the current manufacturing / processing business environment and logistics supply chain trends.

In England, the Department of Business, Innovation & Skills administers the ‘Regional Growth Fund’, which has supported three rail freight terminal developments, on the basis of the economic benefits which these would generate. Scotland is being left behind England in the development of rail freight interchange facilities, and we need to keep up with changes elsewhere if we are to remain competitive.

Grant aid could also assist the development of innovative methods for handling rail freight, not least on ‘peripheral’ routes where (a) justifying expensive infrastructure, and (b) aggregating large trainload volumes, can be difficult. The Non- Intrusive Crossover System (NICS) – which was first developed in Scotland 10 years ago – provides a novel lower-cost means of connecting an existing main line track and a planned freight siding. NICS has been successfully used for engineering ‘blockades’ on the Tyne & Wear Metro and elsewhere – and could be particularly useful in the timber transport sector – but has still to secure Network Rail approval.

The innovative light-weight Freight Multiple Unit (FMU) concept could hold the key to improving the economics of rail freight for shorter hauls and/or lower train payloads than would normally be commercially viable. A largely successful timber trial was undertaken in Wales in 2005, but the FMU project faltered thereafter. However, technology has moved on in the last 10 years, and a ‘TruckTrain’ variant is now being conceptually developed. With Scotland’s peripheral rail routes through forests now encountering capacity problems (eg on the Far North Line) or capability problems (eg speed restrictions on conventional locomotives over weaker structures on the West Highland Line) – the time is ripe to look at a rail freight mover which is both faster and lighter, and to consider potential Scottish market applications.

It was noted above that the Scottish Government’s MSRS grant scheme may not provide the supportive framework required for the early development of direct intermodal train services from Scotland to mainland Europe – this is another area where the Scottish Government needs to consider how grant scheme rules can be modified to better support sustainable logistics, helping to secure the very substantial economic and environmental benefits which a rail freight resurgence would bring to Scotland. There may be parallels / precedent in the successful bus grant scheme which has enabled new services to be developed and supported until the volume has grown sufficiently to cover operational costs.

RFG is concerned that the recent award of €200k grant aid to DFDS / Forth Ports in respect of the Rosyth-Zeebrugge freight ferry – a direct competitor for rail freight – appears to have been made on the basis of a different (and less exacting) set of rules for sea compared to rail. A Freedom of Information response from Transport Scotland to RFG on 24th December 2014:

 confirmed that the €200k award has been made up-front (as opposed to retrospectively, as in the case of rail MSRS and FFG awards)  could not confirm that cost-benefit analysis – such as the quantification of economic and environmental benefits – has been undertaken to justify this public expenditure  could not confirm that there has been an assessment of the extent to which rail alternatives could mitigate economic and environmental impacts, and potentially provide better value for money for the taxpayer.

4. EU initiatives which could provide further opportunities for Scottish rail freight

It is striking the extent to which EU funding initiatives have been able to assist research and other initiatives with regard to sea freight – a key example being projects pursued by the SEStran Regional Transport Partnership – but relatively few rail projects have benefitted, one notable exception being the Lifting the Spirit trial whisky train from Elgin to Grangemouth led by HITRANS.

Ironically, much of the Scottish trunk rail network is designated part of the TEN-T (Trans European Network – Transport) network, but in practical terms this has facilitated very few rail infrastructure enhancement projects in Scotland.

5. How the freight industry can contribute to greenhouse gas emissions reduction

Research has demonstrated clearly that, for equivalent transits, rail offers very substantial greenhouse gas advantages over road haulage – typically one third of that generated by trucks. Modal shift from road to rail is therefore a key means by which the freight industry can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 6. Policy changes, or infrastructure improvements, required to increase the flow of goods through Scotland’s major rail freight hubs

The Committee’s ‘Call for Views’ has a concluding suggested question, ‘Which policy changes, or infrastructure improvements, are required to increase the flow of goods through Scotland’s major sea ports?’ While acknowledging the crucial role of ports, the Rail Freight Group also wishes to see similar importance attached to the role of Scotland’s major rail freight hubs at Coatbridge, Grangemouth and Mossend – which together generate an equivalent volume of container traffic to Scotland’s largest

9 container port at Grangemouth. Key enhancements required to enhance the capabilities of these rail hubs are:

 upgrading of facilities at Coatbridge Freightliner Terminal, and potential new road access direct from the M73  extension of rail siding lengths and upgrading of road-rail transfer facilities at Mossend EuroCentral Terminal  planning permission for the Mossend International Railfreight Park, incorporating 775m train length capacity  improved ‘loading gauge’ clearance over the route from Mossend and Coatbridge to the Grangemouth railheads  enhanced freight capacity on the East Coast Main Line to enable this key route to act as a robust alternative to the West Coast Main Line for long-haul transits to the south of England and the Channel Tunnel, as well as providing important inter-regional connectivity between, for example, west central Scotland and Tees-side / Humberside.

Rail Freight Group would be happy to meet with the Committee to discuss these and related issues.

David Spaven / RFG / 15 January 2015

[Appendix: Network Rail ‘loading gauge map’ of Scotland – see next page]

APPENDIX: Network Rail ‘loading gauge’ map of Scotland

The loading gauge categories range from ‘W6’ (effectively barred for any container traffic) through ‘W7’, ‘W8’ (cleared for carrying 8’6” high containers on standard wagons), and ‘W9’, to ‘W10’ (cleared for carrying 9’6” high maritime containers on standard wagons).

ROAD HAULAGE ASSOCIATION

WRITTEN SUBMISSION

Thank you for inviting the Road Haulage Association to submit views on Freight Transport Infrastructure and Capital Investments. We will confine our response mainly to road freight matters at this stage but would be glad to contribute comments on other freight transport modes if you ask us to do so.

The Road Haulage Association is a substantial trade association representing road haulage and logistics companies throughout the United Kingdom. Our members range from small hauliers with one lorry to the largest road freight logistics operators with hundreds of vehicles. We also have interest in multi-modal operations, in particular, sea and rail transport. In addition to our representational role we provide advisory and operational services including training, educational, legal, and compliance auditing. The Road Haulage Association has an office in Edinburgh with staff serving members in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Policy challenges: In terms of challenges, we wish to mention firstly an item not related to infrastructure but on a policy issue regarding efficiency of road freight movements within Scotland. The matter relates to speed limits for lorries which are being increased throughout England and Wales but in Scotland will only apply to sections of the A9 trunk road on a trial basis. In summary it will mean that Scotland will be at a disadvantage in terms of freight delivery times and efficiencies compared to point to point journey distances undertaken within England and Wales.

Road Infrastructure: Turning to Road Infrastructure developments, we look forward to the benefits of dual carriageway completion on the A9 between Perth and Inverness both in terms of road safety and transport efficiency. At the time of writing the weather is taking its toll on traffic movements on this route. We have suggested that some sort of permanent facilities to allow safe parking of vehicles drivers and passengers ‘off the A9 road’ be considered to help cope with emergency situations caused by weather or other events in the remote areas. Such parking facilities would also help our drivers to park and take rest and break requirements in compliance with legislation. Another road we are looking forward to completion of improvements is the A82 which is an important route in terms of both local, holiday and freight traffic movements in the West of Scotland. We do however still have concerns about the robustness of the A83 trunk road which continues to suffer from landslips and other difficulties relating to safe passage for large vehicles.

We would also like to say that other main routes in our opinion need to be upgraded whenever possible to meet current and future traffic demands including for example: The A1 route on the Scottish East Coast needs to be fully upgraded to dual carriageway standards. This road is a main route to the ports in England and is therefore very important in terms of export traffic. We understand that the section of the road between Newcastle and Morpeth in England will be upgraded but there are no plans to continue this modernisation to the rest of the singled Scottish section. There is also concern that the routes to and from the Cairnryan port especially the A77 and A75 (an official ‘Euro Route’) which link Ireland and Scotland are 1

inadequate and outdated to cope with current traffic and freight volumes. Also, a mention of the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen has to be made in terms of the need for upgrading to meet current and future transport requirements. Our last comment on roads relates to the condition of the existing road infrastructure. The condition of motorway, trunk and other roads continue to deteriorate at what seems to be an alarming rate affecting route safety and reliability.

Freight Grant Schemes Rail and Waterway: Road Freight operators are keen to utilise other modes of transport when it makes sense to do so in terms of efficiency and the environment. Most of the large road freight logistics companies now utilise the railway network from ‘terminal to terminal’ whenever practicable to transport goods destined for the domestic and export markets. In Scotland inland waterway is rarely used as an alternative transport mode. It would seem therefore that road/rail facilities should receive the greater share of any grant aid.

The Environment and Emissions Reduction: The road freight sector has invested significant amounts of money to specify and utilise lorries that meet European emission levels. Todays’ latest commercial vehicles therefore have state of the art engineering applied to reduce pollution levels. The sector is also considering and experimenting with alternative fuels and other low emission vehicle options including hybrid versions. The Road Haulage Association in Scotland meets regularly with the SEPA/STEP body, the Scottish Urban Air Quality Group, and some City Councils to discuss environmental matters. We also back the ‘Ecostars’ programme which encourages vehicle operators to reduce fuel consumption. The Association also offers Economic Driver Training courses to encourage fuel savings and consequent reductions in pollution. Also mentioned previously in this document our sector will use the rail mode if suitable. The same applies to the use of ferries such as on the Rosyth to Zeebrugge route. This reduces the number of long distance journeys by road thus lowering lorry exhaust emission output.

Finally, the Committee Members may wish to read the contents of our recent submission to Lord Smith on Scottish Devolution matters. We would also like to offer our help and support for any follow up discussion resulting from this matter and would welcome any future dialogue with the Committee.

16th January 2015 V1.