Freight Transport Modal Choice in North West England's Atlantic Gateway Alan Bury 2019
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
FREIGHT TRANSPORT MODAL CHOICE IN NORTH WEST ENGLAND’S ATLANTIC GATEWAY ALAN BURY A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Liverpool John Moores University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2019 Abstract Overuse of the road network has led to greater levels of congestion, elevated levels of road surface wear and tear and an increase in transport related air pollution. When taken in combination with the failure of attempts to balance modal split the road network’s continuing slide towards breaking point seems to be beyond question. However, circumstances have conspired to present one particular region of England with a tabula rasa for the development of new policies to influence the modal split of freight transportation. England’s economy is currently based around a London-centric model. The current move towards developing what has become known as a Northern Powerhouse is aimed at rebalancing the economy of the nation for the betterment of all of its citizens. The Atlantic Gateway is an integral part of these efforts. The devolution of powers and responsibilities from national government to regional authorities may provide an opportunity for positive change the likes of which has not be seen in the North of England since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Different regions are influenced by their own geographical and infrastructure constraints. Devolution ensures that decisions are made locally and are therefore more able to meet local needs. A greater understanding of what influences modal choice within the Atlantic Gateway allows local policy makers to make better informed decisions on how to accommodate the increasing levels of freight transportation on the existing local transport infrastructure. Two different multi-criteria decision making analysis tools are utilised in this study. The first model uses the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the weights of a range of criteria identified as influencing modal choice. The second model combines AHP with the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to allow the modes of transport under consideration to be ranked. This AHP-TOPSIS approach was adopted to address the limited data made available by the freight transportation industry in support of this research and the inadequacy of the data which is publicly available from mainstream sources. With billions of Pounds having been spent over many years to balance modal split it was disappointing to find that today, in the North West of England, road is still, by far, the preferred mode for transporting freight. The margin by which road leads the other modes within this geographical region shows the degree to which modal shift policy has so far failed. It also shows the amount of work needed to be done if modal shift is to be delivered in the future. i Acknowledgements The completion of this thesis represents the culmination of eight years of hard work. None of which would have been possible without the assistance of my supervisors and the funding that was provided by the European Union. It has been a long journey with more downs than ups along the way. Fortunately I have not had to make this journey alone. Over the years that have gone in to completing this work I have been fortunate to be accompanied by an extraordinary range of wonderful people. Each of these people has made the journey easier for their being involved. The first person that I would like to thank is a former academic, who wishes to remain anonymous, but without whom I would never have been able to make it through the last years of producing this thesis. With their help I harnessed my emotions, used them to focus my mind and fuel me through the toughest of days. Secondly, I would like to thank the ex-workers’ collective for helping me to see that the system is loaded against the open and honest efforts of those of us in the working class that are trying to better ourselves. Through their work I have come to see that it doesn’t have to be this way. We don’t have to grow accustomed to being treated as inferior and build our lives around the assumption that the more privileged members of society know best. Through education and improved connections, we can equip ourselves with the tools necessary to dismantle and then reconceive systems for the betterment of everyone. No set of acknowledgments would be complete without mentioning family, those people that are there through thick and thin. My wife and children have been essential in keeping me in touch with the real world during the long days and late nights that were worked to bring me to the end of this multi-year project. Thank you for not allowing me to lose heart during these tough times and thank you for not allowing me to forget what really matters. Finally, I would like to thank my parents. My mother and father have provided over thirty years of support in which they have helped me through a broad variety of challenges. I have absolutely no doubt that without their presence in the background I would never have started this work, let alone finshed it. ii Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ........................................................................................................... xiii List of Tables .............................................................................................................. xv Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ xvi Chapter One – Introduction 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Aim ...................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Research Objectives ........................................................................................... 2 1.4 Structure of Thesis ............................................................................................. 4 Chapter Two – Literature Review 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 8 2.2 Freight industry leadership ............................................................................... 9 2.3 Devolution ......................................................................................................... 10 2.3.1 The Northern Powerhouse ...................................................................... 10 2.3.2 European equivalents to the Northern Powerhouse ................................ 10 2.3.3 The Atlantic Gateway ............................................................................. 11 2.3.4 Transport within the Atlantic Gateway .................................................. 12 2.3.4.1 The Port of Liverpool ............................................................... 12 2.3.5 Post devolution decision making ............................................................ 12 2.3.6 Triple convergence ................................................................................. 13 2.3.7 Modal shift without triple convergence .................................................. 14 2.4 European Transport Policy ............................................................................. 14 iii 2.4.1 Trans-European Networks in Transport (TEN-T) .................................. 15 2.4.1.1 The priority project approach .................................................. 15 2.4.1.2 The corridor approach ............................................................. 16 2.4.2 Priority project twenty one: Motorways of the Sea (MoS) .................... 17 2.4.3 The Marco Polo programme ................................................................... 18 2.4.3.1 Funding projects ....................................................................... 19 2.4.3.2 The end of Marco Polo ............................................................. 19 2.5 Environmental Issues ....................................................................................... 20 2.5.1 Externalities ............................................................................................ 21 2.5.2 Internalising externalities ....................................................................... 21 2.5.2.1 Road user charging .................................................................. 23 2.5.2.2 Eurovignette ............................................................................. 23 2.6 The result of fourteen years of EU transport policy ..................................... 25 2.6.1 The flaw in EU modal shift policy ......................................................... 27 2.6.1.1 Road ......................................................................................... 29 2.6.1.2 Rail ........................................................................................... 31 2.6.1.3 Inland Waterways ..................................................................... 32 2.7 The tragedy of the roads .................................................................................. 34 2.7.1 No technical solution