DaSTS Study 3 - Access to the Port of Liverpool: Stage 1 Report 4NW

Transcription

1 DaSTS Study 3 - Access to the Port of Liverpool: Stage 1 Report 4NW May 2010

2 QM Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Remarks DRAFT Final Draft Date 31 / 3 / 10 21/5/10 Prepared by Signature E Hughes J Marsh E Hughes J Marsh Checked by J Marsh J Marsh Signature Authorised by M Batheram M Batheram Signature Project number File reference Stage 1 Report.doc WSP Development and Transportation The Victoria The Quays Salford Manchester M50 3SP Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) WSP UK Limited Registered Address WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK Reg No England WSP Group plc Offices worldwide

3 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 Introduction 21 2 Background and Policy 24 3 Current Port Traffic - Baseline Situation 36 4 Existing Transport Network and Port Access Issues 42 5 Socio-Economic Baseline 78 6 Forecast Port Traffic Growth Summary and Conclusions 133 Appendices Appendix A Specific DfT DaSTS Challenges the Study Needs to Address Appendix B Working Paper 1 Appendix C Current Train Paths Appendix D Bus Service Information Appendix E Thornton Switch Island Appendix F Traffic Flow Diagrams Appendix G Accident Assessment Appendix H SATURN Model Outputs Summary Figures Error! No table of contents entries found. Error! No table of contents entries found. Figures 4.4 AM Peak Hour Traffic Flows (2008) 4.5 PM Peak Hour Traffic Flows (2008) 4.6 Inter Peak Hour Traffic Flows (2008) 4.12 Home Locations of Port of Liverpool Employees 4.14 Destinations of HGV Trips from Seaforth Dock Gate 4.15 North West Region Destinations of HGV Trips from Seaforth Dock Gate 4.16 Destinations of Non-HGV Trips from Seaforth Dock Gate 4.24 Personal Injury Accident Data: All 4.25 Personal Injury Accident Data: HGVs

4

5 Executive Summary 4NW has appointed WSP, MDS Transmodal and ekosgen to undertake the Access to the Port of Liverpool DaSTS study. Stage 1 of the study forecasts the likely growth of the port and the implications of that growth. The subsequent stages of the study will identify the future access arrangements for the Port of Liverpool that will seek to facilitate and support the growth. A key aim of the study is therefore to recommend a package of realistic surface access options for the Port, which is one of the UK s busiest international gateways. This Stage 1 report outlines the forecast port growth scenarios and the likely consequences of that growth from a transport, socio-economic and environmental perspective. This section of the report summarises the key findings of Stage 1 of the study and the case for investment in transport infrastructure that serves the Port of Liverpool. This summary is structured in a response to six key questions that the study has sought to answer. 1. WHAT IS THE PORT S CURRENT CATCHMENT AREA AND HOW IS THIS FORECAST TO CHANGE OVER TIME? The Port of Liverpool as a whole, including Liverpool Docks, is unique in the North of England in that it serves a national hinterland for unitload traffics in both the Irish Sea RoRo market and the deep sea container market. 70% of container traffic through Liverpool Docks is distributed to Northern Britain (the three northern English regions and Scotland), 23% is for Central Britain (Wales, the East and West Midlands and the East of England) and 6% for Southern Britain (Greater London, the South East and the South West). In the case of Irish Sea RoRo truck and trailer traffic, about 28% of Liverpool s accompanied RoRo traffic is distributed to and from Southern Britain and 43% is distributed to and from Central Britain. FIGURE 1 Port of Liverpool: LoLo hinterland by region Source: MDS Transmodal East Midlands East of England Greater London North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Yorks&Humb Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 1

6 FIGURE 2 Port of Liverpool: Accomp. RoRo hinterland by region Source: MDS Transmodal East Midlands East of England Greater London North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Yorks&Humb FIGURE 3 Port of Liverpool: Unaccomp. RoRo hinterland, by region Source: MDS Transmodal East Midlands East of England Greater London North East North West Scotland South East South West Wales West Midlands Yorks&Humb Figures 1 to 3 show the hinterland of the Port of Liverpool as a whole by GB region for the three main types of unitload traffic - containers, accompanied RoRo and unaccompanied RoRo. The data included in these charts has been produced from MDS Transmodal s GB Freight Model (GBFM), which is used by the DfT as the freight module in its National Transport Model. Although Liverpool Docks serves a national hinterland for North American container traffic, the North West is by far the most significant inland origin/destination region for container traffic as a whole, and reflects the increasing importance of Liverpool Docks as a feeder port serving the North West region, receiving calls from feeder ships to/from Le Havre, Southampton and Rotterdam. These feeder services link the North West with deep sea forelands other than North America, such as the Far East. 2 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

7 For bulk and semi-bulk traffic, the existing hinterland of Liverpool Docks is focused on the North West of England, but also extends for some traffic to the Midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber; this is because bulk and semi-bulk commodities generally have a lower value per tonne and are therefore transported to ports that are reasonably close to inland origins and destinations to minimise inland distribution costs. In terms of overall goods traffic to and from the port, whilst encompassing areas across the UK, the catchment of the Port of Liverpool is regionally focussed. Roadside interview surveys have shown that 22% of HGV trips leaving the port are bound for destinations within Merseyside, and a further 35% for other destinations within the northwest of England. Within Merseyside, there are three key areas that vehicles have been found to be destined for: 3MG Multimodal at Ditton: 3MG is linked by road and rail to other ports such as Felixstowe and Southampton and is therefore another key freight hub in the Merseyside region; Knowsley Industrial Park; Liverpool City Centre. Of the 57% destined for the North West region, reaching beyond Merseyside a pattern of destinations along the M62 corridor through Warrington to Greater Manchester can be seen, with a clear cluster in western Greater Manchester at Trafford Park, a large industrial area which is a key attractor and generator of HGV trips. 43% of trips are destined for areas outside of the North West region and tend to be bound for the conurbations within the Midlands (17%) and Yorkshire and the Humber (11%). HGV trips beyond these areas are limited, comprising 10% to the rest of the England, three percent to Scotland and only two percent to Wales. The average distance travelled by the surveyed HGVs has been calculated to be approximately 100 kilometres It is also noted that a high proportion of car trips from the port (67%) is associated with local destinations within Merseyside, indicating that the Port s employment base is generally local and demonstrating the important role that the port plays in the local economy. THE FUTURE PORT HINTERLAND In the future there is likely to be little change in Liverpool Docks hinterland for noncontainerised traffic; Liverpool Docks will continue to have a national hinterland for Irish Sea RoRo traffic and a super-regional role for bulks and semi-bulks. However, the development of the Post-Panamax deep sea container terminal at Liverpool is predicated on attracting direct calls from the largest deep sea container ships that are deployed on routes between the Far East and North West Europe. As these ships only make a single call in Great Britain all the containers that are unloaded and loaded will be distributed throughout the UK i.e. a national distribution. This means that the average length of haul inland by road or rail to and from Liverpool Docks will increase, which favours the economics of rail freight. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 3

8 In summary, overall the port currently serves a regional market which is highlighted by surveys identifying that the average distance travelled by HGVs to/from the port is approximately 100 km. The plans to introduce a Post Panamax berth are expected to generate a more national distribution for the port. A national hinterland will ensure that rail freight is a more effective mode of transport for the distribution of port traffic. 2. HOW DIVERSIFIED IS THE PORT COMPARED TO OTHER MAJOR PORTS IN THE COUNTRY? The Port of Liverpool (including Birkenhead Docks, Tranmere Oil Terminal and the Bromborough riverside berth as well as Liverpool Docks) is ranked 7th in the UK in terms of total tonnage with total traffic of 32.2 million tonnes in 2008 (see Figure 4), just behind the Forth and Milford Haven, whose traffic is dominated by oil-related traffic. FIGURE 4 Top 10 UK ports by traffic volume: balance between port area of loading & unloading, 2008 Source: DfT Maritime Statistics 100% 80% 60% 40% Deep sea Short sea Domestic 20% 0% Liverpool Grimsby & Immingham London Tees & Hartlepool Southampton Forth Milford Haven Felixstowe Dover Sullom Voe Figure 5 shows that with its central location and deep water the Port of Liverpool has a good balance between deep sea traffic (27%), short sea traffic (48%) and coastal traffic (25%), serving a wide variety of overseas markets and handling a variety of commodity types. Along with the other deep water ports that are reasonably close to the major GB conurbations (i.e. London, Grimsby/Immingham and Southampton) Liverpool has a diverse but balanced portfolio of commodity types, which should assist the port to maintain its traffic volumes in the future despite the current economic conditions. This implies that the Port of Liverpool and, in particular, Liverpool Docks where the vast majority of the traffic is handled, has a diversified commodity portfolio that provides a strong and stable environment for investment. 4 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

9 FIGURE 5 Top 10 UK ports: balance of commodity types, 2008 Source: DfT Maritime Statistics 100% 80% Unaccomp RoRo Accomp RoRo Containers 60% Gen. Cargo Steel 40% Forestry prods. Other dry bulk 20% Agric. Prods. Ores Coal 0% Liverpool Grimsby & Immingham London Tees & Hartlepool Southampton Forth Milford Haven Felixstowe Dover Sullom Voe Other liquid bulk Oil prods. Crude oil Liquefied gas 3. WHAT ARE THE KEY TRENDS IN TRAFFIC GROWTH AND HOW ARE THESE RELATED TO THE PORT S TOTAL CATCHMENT? All Road Traffic Figure 6 shows all-vehicle traffic levels (relative to a 1993 base), for all years since 1993 at a national, regional and local level. FIGURE 6 Local, national and regional traffic growth since 1993 Traffic volumes relative to 1993 base Great Britain North West Merseyside Sources: DfT Traffic Statistics 2008 (Merseyside and North West data) and DfT Travel Trends 2009 (national data) Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 5

10 Figure 6 shows that traffic has grown substantially on a regional, local and national basis in the last years. There has been 20% growth in traffic in Great Britain, the North West and Merseyside since The North West data closely parallels the national trends. However, traffic growth in Merseyside lagged behind the regional and national trends between 1993 and 1999, and has since caught up some of the difference. Since 1999, Merseyside has actually experienced greater traffic growth than the region and nation as a whole. Long-term trends in UK Domestic freight transport Figure 7 shows the long term trends in volume and modal split for domestic freight in Great Britain over the last 50 years. FIGURE 7 Total goods moved and modal split for domestic freight transport in Great Britain: Goods moved (billion tonne km) Pipeline Water Rail Road Water 23% Pipeline 0% Water 20% Pipeline 4% Road 44% Rail 33% Rail 9% Road 67% Source: DfT Transport Statistics Great Britain 2009 (DfT, 2009) 6 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

11 Figure 7 demonstrates the considerable changes which have occurred in the last 50 years regarding how the UK s domestic freight is moved. Overall, around 2.6 times as much freight is moved in the UK in 2008 as it was in However, most of this growth has been accommodated by road, with around 4 times as much freight being moved by road now than 50 years ago. Road s market share for freight has increased from 44% to 67% in that period. Rail freight has actually declined in overall volume, and been very much reduced in terms of market share, during the last half century: only 57% of the quantity of rail freight moved in 1958 was carried in 2008, representing only 9% of the domestic market, compared with 33% in However, rail freight has enjoyed a significant renaissance in the last 15 years, from its historic low in the mid-1990s, when less than 6% of domestic freight went by rail (this is further illustrated in figure 8). Waterborne freight transport has increased in line with the wider trends, having increased by a factor of 2.4 from FIGURE 8 Volume of domestic rail freight moved, and overall market share, since 1995, relative to a 1995 base % Annual rail freigt tonne-kilometres, relative to 1995 base % 8.0% 7.5% 7.0% 6.5% 6.0% 5.5% 5.0% Rail freight share of domestic market Volume carried Market share Source: DfT Transport Statistics Great Britain 2009 (DfT, 2009) Figure 8 emphasises the significant increase that has been seen in rail freight volumes in the UK in the last 15 years represented a historic low for volumes of rail freight: only 13 billion tonne-kilometres were carried, representing less than 6% of the market. However, since then there has been a sustained increase in both absolute volumes of rail freight, and its overall market share. In 2008, 21 billion tonne-kilometres of domestic rail freight were moved, representing a 62% increase on 1995 volumes, and a market share of 8.6%. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 7

12 HGV Traffic: recent local, regional and national trends Figure 9 shows recent trends in freight transport by road locally, regionally and nationally, relative to a 1997 base level. The graph is based on figures given in tonnekilometres for each area. FIGURE 9 Local, Regional and National trends in Road Freight Transport, relative to a 1997 base. Volume of road-based freight relative to 1997 base North West Merseyside Great Britain Source: Department for Transport Regional Transport Statistics Note that figures for 2004 onwards are not fully comparable with those for 2003 and earlier years. Figure 9 shows that, whilst the national trend has seen a gradual increase in tonnekilometres of road freight moved since 1997 (a trend which accelerated significantly in 2006 and 2007), the North West and particularly Merseyside figures are much more variable from year to year. Summary The Port of Liverpool operates in an environment of long term historic increases in road traffic, both locally, regionally and nationally. However, in recent years policy has been significantly altered by the sustainability agenda, leading to a slowing of the growth in road-borne freight movements, and a significant national growth in the amount of freight moved by rail (a 62% increase since 1995). Given the constraints and sensitivities associated with the local highway network, and the increasing importance of the sustainability agenda, it will be important for the future expansion of the port that more sustainable modes of freight transport are used. Some spare capacity rail capacity already exists to facilitate this. In terms of waterborne transport, the significant proposals that exist at Port Salford and Port Warrington also offer opportunities to facilitate shift to this mode of transport. 8 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

13 4. WHAT IS THE TRANSPORT (ROAD AND RAIL) IMPACT OF THE PORT GROWTH AND OTHER ASSUMED GROWTH SCENARIO? Current Issues The Port of Liverpool has a significant impact on the surrounding local and regional local transport network. The majority of goods arriving and departing the port by ship have onward inland journeys by road (and a small proportion currently by rail). There a four main access points to the Port of Liverpool from the Road network: Seaforth Dock Gate; Strand Road Dock Gate; The Seatruck Dock Gate; Huskisson Dock Gate. The first of the above accesses represents the most significant of the four in terms of volumes of traffic, carrying 86% of the daily average of 4,120 HGV vehicles which currently access the port. This is due both to the current focus of port activity at the northern end of the port, and to this gate s advantageous position with respect to the strategic road network, having direct access to both north-south (A565) and east-west (A5036) trunk roads. The A5036 forms the key access corridor to the Seaforth Dock Gate from the motorway network at Switch Island (junction 7 of the M57 and also the starting point for the M58. The A5036 therefore forms the most important corridor of immediate access to the port, carrying approximately 70% of the Port s overall external road traffic generation. The 5km length of the A5036 from the Seaforth Dock Gate to Switch Island is predominantly a 40mph dual carriageway with localised widening at junctions. Notwithstanding its status as an important part of the national strategic road network, there are large lengths of residential frontage on this stretch of road. The A5036 performs a variety of functions, most notably: It serves local communities; The route supports regeneration. The aim of the Atlantic Gateway initiative is to promote economic regeneration at the port and at key development sites situated adjacent to the main transport corridors in the area, which is primarily the A5036 Dunnings Bridge Road; It facilitates trips to and from the City Centre; and It is part of a strategic network providing national routes to the Port of Liverpool. As the route is attempting to satisfy a number of roles this study has sought to understand the different pressures and how they will change in the future. Traffic volumes along the A5036 are very significant, with two-way peak hour flows ranging from around 4750 vehicles close to the Switch Island motorway junction to around 2,700 vehicles on the Church Road section (nearer the Port). A high proportion of traffic on the A5036 is HGVs, particularly in the interpeak period, when counts of between 16% and 24% HGVs have been recorded (AM peak 8%-17%, PM peak 4%- 8%. HGV percentages are generally higher closer to the port. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 9

14 Congestion on the local road network is predominantly an issue during the morning and evening peak hours. Journey time surveys carried out in September 2009 indicated that typical journey times and delays along the full length of the A5036 increase significantly in peak periods. This is particularly the case in the eastbound direction in relation to the PM peak, when journey times increased by an average of approximately 60% from 8 minutes to 13 minutes. A SATURN model exists of a key area of the surrounding highway network. The model is primarily focused on the south Sefton area of Merseyside The SATURN model developed has a fully validated base year scenario for the year Interrogation of the 2009 SATURN model identifies that the A5036 corridor operates within capacity during the PM and inter peak periods. However, during the AM Peak the A5036 is identified to operate close to capacity with volume:capacity ratios over 90% at the following key locations: Westbound between the M57/M58 Junction and Copy Lane (V:C 95%); and Westbound between Hawthorn Street and Orrell Road (V:C 96%). Volume:capacity ratios between 90% and 100% represent variable operation (i.e. congestion building up and there are increases in vehicular delay); and V:C s over 100% represent overloaded conditions (i.e. congested conditions) In 2009 the only other location in the study area identified to operate over capacity is the A508 between Southport Road and the A59. The volume:capacity ratios exceed 90% in a westbound direction during the AM peak and both eastbound and westbound directions during the PM peak. The key congestion and bottleneck points on the surrounding network are: Switch Island; A5036 / A5207 Copy Lane; A5036 / Park Lane; A5036 / A5090 Hawthorne Road; A5058 / A5038 Southport Road; A5058 / A580 East Lancs; A5058/A5058 the Rocket junction; and M62 westbound approach to the Rocket Junction The existing road safety record has been analysed and compared to typical expected accident rates at the key junctions in the study area. This has identified the Bridge Road Roundabout and the Switch Island Roundabout as having poor accident records, with higher than expected accident rates for the volume of traffic using them. Further analysis is required to determine the reason for these accidents and whether there are any common causal factors. However, it is considered that the additional traffic generated by the Port is likely to increase accident rates at these junctions and on the key routes to and from the port. 10 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

15 The Port is directly connected to the rail network, but currently no containers leave or arrive at the Port by rail. However, the distribution of incoming coal to a number of coal fired power stations, and the distribution of steel scrap to the Port by rail, means that, overall in winter 2009/10, the Port had a 30% market share for inland distribution by rail for imports, and 8% for exports. Notwithstanding this, significant capacity for rail expansion exists within current infrastructure provision, with only 11 of a potential 40 daily train paths to the Port being used as of winter 2009/10. Waterborne transport also has significant potential to remove traffic from the road network around the Port of Liverpool, and indeed the wider regional and national road networks. In particular, of significance to the regional transport network in the North West of England is the Manchester Ship Canal. This can accommodate large seagoing vessels, and already handles inland shipping between the Port of Liverpool and the existing container terminal at Irlam. Three current Peel proposals significantly enhance the possibilities waterborne freight capability on the Ship Canal: The proposal to develop a tri-modal freight distribution park at Barton on the Ship Canal (Port Salford), which has now received planning permission; A further tri-modal distribution park proposal at Acton Grange on the Manchester Ship Canal (Port Warrington) which has also been granted planning permission; A Resource Recovery Park at Ince in Cheshire, which would incorporate a berth on the Ship Canal (Port Ince). At the time of writing, a planning application for this has recently been submitted If all these facilities are developed, there is the potential for a barge service between Liverpool Docks and Port Salford via Port Ince and Port Warrington. The Forecast Port Growth Scenarios A detailed forecasting exercise has been undertaken for each major commodity type that passes through the port of Liverpool. The methodology is based on trend analysis using a variety of data sources. It has assessed key economic drivers, included competitor analysis and has incorporated the application of the GB Freight Model. An important part of the study has included consultation with key stakeholders and this has also been a key element in the forecasting task. There have been three elements to the port forecasting task. Firstly, looking at growth of existing port commodities passing through the port; secondly identifying new port traffics and thirdly traffic generated by new port facilities and services. Based on the forecasting task two port growth scenarios are presented in this report: Scenario 1 - The growth of existing port commodities passing through the port; and Scenario 2 - The growth of existing port commodities plus new port traffics and facilities The Scenario 2 new port traffics and facilities generating additional trips include: Port-centric distribution on a site of 50 hectares An Atlantic Arc RoRo service; Inbound waste material by road for onward shipment by barge to the Ince Resource and Recovery Park on the Manchester Ship Canal. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 11

16 Table 1 summarises the forecast daily HGV trips for both port growth scenarios. TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF FORECAST TWO-WAY ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY HGV MOVEMENTS Forecast HGV Traffic Forecast Increase in HGV Traffic from 2008 figures % increase in HGV Traffic from 2008 figures Scenario 1 4,120 4,974 5, ,760 21% 43% Scenario 2 4,120 5,938 6,844 1,818 2,724 44% 66% In addition to trips generated by existing and new traffic sources a growing port will also create new employment. It has been estimated that there are around 3,000 people employed in the port area and with the Langton RoRo, Post Panamax and other potential port facilities creating a more vibrant port the number of employees is expected to increase significantly. The Langton RoRo and Post Panamax developments are forecast to generate 300 direct jobs with a further 300 employees being employed at the port itself if port centric development proposals are brought forward. The HGV and employment trip analysis has been combined and is summarised in Table 2 in the form of PCUs generated by the two port growth scenarios for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. For scenario 1 it is forecast that there will be an additional 640 PCU trips generated in the AM peak hour by If scenario 2 is derived this will generate an additional 1130 PCU trips generated in the AM peak hour by The PM peak hour figures are slightly lower with 513 and 867 PCU trips generated by 2030 for Scenario 1 and 2, respectively. TABLE 2: FORECAST INCREASES IN PEAK HOUR PORT TRAFFIC (IN PCUS) Scenario 1 Scenario to to to to 2030 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Potential Impact of Other Developments in the Area There are a number of other developments in the area around the Port which could have significant implications for the local transport network. In particular the following committed developments: Tesco Superstore, A5090 Hawthorne Road; Atlantic Park development, A5036 Dunnings Bridge Road; Deep Berth (Post Panamax) development, Port of Liverpool; Proposed Sainsbury s extension, Crosby; and Proposed Prison, Maghull. The above developments have been incorporated in the 2027 SATURN modelling of the surrounding area of the Port. 12 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

17 In addition to the aforementioned development proposals there are plans to regenerate a 60 hectare area of historic dockland to the south of the Port of Liverpool, known as the Liverpool Waters scheme. Proposals are likely to include two million sqm of offices, hotels residential and other supporting services. A planning application for Liverpool Waters is due to be submitted in Summary of Potential Transport Impacts of Growth Road In addition to the 2009 SATURN model there is a 2027 forecast model. The 2027 forecast model scenario is close to the future time horizon of this DaSTS study, which is the year The 2027 future year modelling highlights that the A5036 will experience greater levels of congestion and longer journey times than those currently experienced. A number of links are identified as having V:C ratios close to or above 100%. Interrogation of the SATURN model identifies that in 2027 the A5036 is predicted to operate with congested conditions at the following locations: AM Peak Eastbound between Hawthorne Road and Bridge Road Roundabout (V:C 95%); Westbound between Hawthorn Road and Orrell Road (V:C 98%); and Westbound between the M57/M58 Junction and Copy Lane (V:C 97%). Inter Peak Westbound between Hawthorn Street and Orrell Road (V:C 92%). PM Peak Eastbound between Hawthorne Road and Bridge Road Roundabout (V:C 101%); Westbound between Hawthorn Road and Orrell Road (V:C 95%); Eastbound between Park Road and Heysham Road (V:C 90%); and Eastbound and Westbound between the M57/M58 Junction and Copy Lane (V:C 97% and 92%). On other parts of the network in 2027, the A508 between Southport Road and the A59 is predicted to operate over capacity in both directions, during all peak periods. In addition, A5057 Primrose Road between Marsh Lane and Strand Road is predicted to operate over capacity during the AM peak in a southbound direction Journey time data has also been taken from the model. Data from the model forecasts that journey times from Switch Island to the Seaforth Roundabout will increase by approximately 15%. It is therefore concluded that the 2027 future year modelling highlights that the A5036, in particular, will experience greater levels of congestion and longer journey times than those currently experienced. The assumptions in relation to the port growth scenario in the 2027 Saturn modelling have been reviewed. A comparison of the two forecasts highlights that the 2027 SATURN modelling is applying modest port growth when compared to the two scenarios generated in this study. The 2027 SATURN modelling therefore assumes some port growth but is not providing a full analysis of the potential capacity of the port. For example in the AM peak hour scenario 1 and scenario 2 are forecast to generate 401 and 891 additional PCUs, respectively, when compared to the 2027 Model Matrices Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 13

18 assumptions. Furthermore, scenario 2 forecasts approximately three times more traffic generated than that assumed in the 2027 SATURN modelling. Table 3, below summarises the additional trips forecast as part of this study that are forecast to use the A5036 corridor by direction, in the AM peak hour. These trips will increase congestion in the AM peak hour along the route in particular at the congestion hotspots highlighted above. TABLE 3: ADDITIONAL PCUS ON A5036 IN THE AM PEAK HOUR Westbound Eastbound Scenario Scenario For the two growth scenarios, the percentage increases in PCUs in the AM peak hour on the key congested links are summarised below in Table 4. The figures in this table provide further emphasis of the increased pressure on the transport network forecast through this study. TABLE 4: PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN PCUS AT THE KEY CONGESTION POINTS ON THE A5036 IN THE AM PEAK HOUR Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Eastbound between Hawthorne Road and Bridge Road Roundabout 14% 22% Westbound between Hawthorn Road and Orrell Road 11% 19% Westbound between the M57/M58 Junction and Copy Lane 5% 9% Rail A key aspect of facilitating the growth of the Port, whilst minimising both its local and wider environmental impacts, will be the further development of sustainable inland distribution, particularly by rail and inland waterways. There is a consensus of policy support for this approach. The greatest potential for use of sustainable distribution to and from the Port of Liverpool is likely to be the use of rail freight services for the inland distribution of containers. As discussed above, rail freight has seen a significant increase in its share of the UK domestic freight market since 1995, but this has not generally been reflected in the distribution patterns at Liverpool. Significant un-used train path capacity currently exists to the Port, particularly since the re-opening of the Olive Mount Chord in This new facility negated the need for trains to reverse in the Waterloo/Tuebrook sidings and enables longer trains to be used, reduces transit times and increases line capacity. However, it is currently used only by coal and scrap metal services since no container services currently serve the Port, and it is further noted that coal traffic is likely to decline in the long term as a function of the UK s gradual move away from coal-fired power generation. This could release further rail capacity to the Port. 14 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

19 A particularly important opportunity for developing use of available rail freight capacity from the Port will be ensuring the connection of the Post-Panamax berths to the rail network, thus maximising opportunities for sustainable distribution from the new berths. Once the Post-Panamax berths are developed and Liverpool secures calls from Post- Panamax vessels that only make a single call in Great Britain, there is the potential (particularly considering escalating road haulage costs and the relatively low variable costs associated with rail freight) for 22% of containers being distributed inland by rail in 2020 and 24% by This would equate to approximately ten trains in each direction per day. The local infrastructure exists in the rail network to deliver this level of mode shift, although it would be dependent good rail connectivity to the Post-Panamax berths, and on the long-term development of a network of rail freight distribution parks throughout England and Scotland (supported by currently national government policy) to provide rail-connected origins and destinations for freight. In addition, a further opportunity for promotion of increased rail traffic from the Port is the re-connection of the Canada Dock Area to the rail network. Waterways In relation to inland waterways opportunities, the development of the Port Salford and Port Warrington proposals would create the infrastructure environment for significant growth in waterways container traffic from the Port of Liverpool. Currently, a container service operates three times a week between the Port of Liverpool and Irlam Container Terminal. This has recently doubled in capacity (to 320 TEU (twenty-foot equivalent unit) per journey) through the use of a second barge on each service. It is estimated that the potential would exist for further capacity increases on this service, potentially with the establishment of a daily frequency for container distribution between the Port of Liverpool and Warrington, Irlam and Salford along the Manchester Ship Canal. It is noted that this increase in traffic on the Ship Canal would have some impact on traffic movements in the Warrington area, due to the increased need for the operation of a number of swing/lift bridges over the Ship Canal. The above analysis highlights that congestion on the surrounding highway network, in particular the A5036 corridor, by 2030 will be significant without transport infrastructure investment. The solution will need a balanced package of interventions including investment in rail and highway schemes to reduce congestion and create a safe network along with public transport, cycling and walking measures to encourage modal shift. 5. HOW HAS THE PORT CONTRIBUTED TO THE ECONOMY IN MERSEYSIDE, ESPECIALLY THE AREAS OF DEPRIVATION? Historically, the economy of Liverpool was centred around the city's port and manufacturing base, although today these sectors contribute a much smaller proportion of employment within the city. Nevertheless, the Port remains an important source of employment and a key wealth generator for Merseyside and the North West, and as identified in Section 2 of the Executive Summary, the Port of Liverpool ranks 7th in the UK (in terms of total tonnage handled) with total traffic of 32.2 million tonnes in 2008, just behind the Forth and Milford Haven (whose traffic is predominantly oil-related). Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 15

20 The Port of Liverpool makes a significant direct contribution to the Merseyside economy. It is estimated that there are approximately 3,000 people 1 employed within about 200 organisations located immediately within the Port Complex. Fisher Associates estimated that GVA per employee is 34,600 for maritime related activities, compared to about 26,000 for Merseyside in general. This would imply that the economic contribution of the Port in terms of employment is potentially in the order of 103.8m. Going beyond the direct contribution that the Port makes to the Merseyside economy in terms of GVA generated from employment, a recent study undertaken by Roger Tym & Partners (with MDS Trans-modal) for The Mersey Partnership (2009) estimated that the existing strong array of ports, airport and associated freight infrastructure within the Liverpool City Region contributes over 34,000 jobs and 1.1billion of GVA per annum to the City Region economy. Independently validating these figures would add value to the later stages of the Study. The Tym Study also suggests that maritime jobs require workers with a diverse range of skills, as employment opportunities exist across the various occupation groups (from managerial and senior professional, to process and plant workers). The Tym Study suggests that just under half of all jobs within the maritime sector are in the lower skilled employment categories of process, plant and machine operatives and elementary occupations. The next largest occupation category is managers and senior officials, which accounts for close to a fifth of all jobs. Linking the employment opportunities in the Port to the skills profile of the workforce shows that in the Liverpool City Region, approximately 55% of residents are qualified to NVQ level 2 equivalent to 5 GCSE s A-C level - slightly above the regional and national average of 49% and 45% respectively. Conversely 22% of residents have an NVQ level 4/5 at least one degree which is less than the regional and national averages of 25% and 28% respectively. The available evidence indicates that around half of the maritime sector jobs require limited skills and training, with most opportunities being accessible by all sections of the local workforce. This ties in with the travel pattern analysis set out in earlier sections of this Summary, which show that a high proportion of car trips from the port (67%) are associated with local destinations within Merseyside, indicating the Port s localised employment base and demonstrating the important role that the port plays in the local economy. Occupations requiring higher level skills will also be accessible to many within the local workforces, although these occupations may also draw in workers from a broader geographical area. Increasing the accessibility of the Port to freight will help to create a more vibrant Port which will also create new employment opportunities. Ensuring that people living within the deprived areas of both Sefton and Liverpool are able to access this new employment will assist in tackling the high levels of deprivation and worklessness that are evident throughout Liverpool and Sefton. Even so, whilst the employment opportunities within the Port (existing and future) may be accessible to many workers within Liverpool and Sefton, it should also be recognised that there is a need to concentrate efforts on making residents who are currently workless ready for work through the provision of training and employment programmes which will maximise the local benefits within deprived communities. 1 A figure of 3,500 employees is quoted within the Sefton UDP (2006) whilst the Liverpool Daily Post of 20 th May 2010 provides an estimate of 3,000 employees. 16 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

21 In summary, there are a number of direct, indirect and induced economic benefits which will result from improving the access to the Port of Liverpool. These include the direct benefits that will be felt by companies located within the Port, their various supply chains and employees, the indirect benefits to the economies of Liverpool and Sefton from additional expenditure by these companies and the induced benefits that will be realised from the expenditure of their employees. It should be noted that the precise scale of uplift that will be realised from improving access to the Port will largely be dependent on the nature of the intervention that is implemented. However, the potential direct, indirect and induced economic benefits resulting from improved accessibility to the Port of Liverpool are significant. Investment in infrastructure to improve access to the Port of Liverpool offers the potential to enable additional tonnage of freight to be transported, create new employment and to generate significant levels of additional GVA for Merseyside. 6. HOW WILL THE PORT S GROWTH CONTRIBUTE TO UK ENVIRONMENTAL GAINS? This study has produced estimates for the weighted average consumption of fuel (and therefore CO2 emissions) for the distribution of containers between various deep sea container ports and a typical national distribution of containers. The mean distance to/from each port has been calculated, along with the associated lorry kilometres. For each port, the analysis includes the use of rail so that, as Southampton and Felixstowe are more distant from the centre of Great Britain, greater use of rail freight services is likely to and from these ports. The analysis, which also includes road collection and delivery between regional intermodal rail terminals and final origins and destinations, suggests that a container distributed to or from Liverpool would, on average, consume 52 litres of diesel and result in the emission of 137kg of CO2, while the corresponding figures for ports in the Greater South East are as follows: Felixstowe/Bathside Bay: 61 litres/160 kg CO2; Southampton: 62 litres/162 kg CO2; Tilbury/London Gateway: 56 litres/146 kg CO2; The transfer of container traffic from the Greater South East ports to Liverpool Docks following the development of the Post-Panamax deep sea container terminal should therefore provide some environmental benefits in terms of reduced carbon dioxide emissions for the UK as a whole. In addition, the further development of unaccompanied RoRo traffic through Liverpool Docks, involving a switch of traffic away from Irish Sea RoRo ports such as Holyhead and Stranraer/Cairnryan, would, on average, have the effect of reducing HGV kilometres and CO2 emissions by providing a more direct sea crossing, but short road haul, between the major centres of demand and consumption in both GB and Ireland. Taking into account the future growth of the Port of Liverpool, the carbon generating implications of potential future mode shift forecasts for the overland transhipment of goods has also been analysed to further highlight potential CO2 savings. This is based on data contained within DEFRA s 2009 Guidelines to Defra / DECC s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 17

22 In the 2030 scenario, the mode shift to rail represents a 20% carbon saving when compared with the 2008 mode shift. Therefore, it is forecast that whilst the total quantum of carbon emitted by the Port of Liverpool increases with its forecast growth, the carbon generated per container reduces significantly by 18.32% between 2008 and 2020 and by 20.06% between 2008 and CONCLUSION The port of Liverpool primarily serves a regional hinterland but does provide a national function for some commodities passing through the port. The plan to introduce a deep sea Post Panamax berth is expected to generate a more national distribution for the port, in particular for container distribution a key forecast growth sector for the port. A national hinterland will ensure that rail freight is a more effective mode of transport for the distribution of port traffics. The port has a diverse but balanced portfolio of commodity types. This should ensure the port maintains its traffic volumes in the future despite the current economic conditions. The port therefore has a diversified commodity portfolio that provides a strong and stable environment for investment. The Port of Liverpool operates in an environment of long term historic increases in road traffic, both locally, regionally and nationally. However, in recent years policy has been significantly altered by the sustainability agenda, leading to a slowing of the growth in particular for road-borne freight movements, and a significant national growth in the amount of freight moved by rail (a 62% increase since 1995). Given the constraints and sensitivities associated with the local highway network, and the increasing importance of the sustainability agenda, it is likely to be important that future expansion of the port is accompanied by modal shift to more sustainable modes of freight transport. The transportation of goods to and from the port by rail is currently at a low and therefore there is significant potential for modal shift from road to rail freight. Furthermore there is spare capacity on the rail network to facilitate this. In terms of waterborne transport, the significant proposals that exist at Port Salford and Port Warrington also offer opportunities to facilitate shift to this mode of transport. The A5036 forms the key access corridor to the Seaforth Dock Gate from the motorway network at Switch Island (junction 7 of the M57 and also the starting point for the M58. The A5036 therefore forms the most important corridor of immediate access to the port, carrying approximately 70% of the Port s overall external road traffic generation. The 5km length of the A5036 from the Seaforth Dock Gate to Switch Island is predominantly a 40mph dual carriageway with localised widening at junctions. Notwithstanding its status as an important part of the national strategic road network, there are large lengths where housing has frontage on this stretch of road where the road passes through residential areas. The high volumes of traffic also create a severance between communities as well as significantly reducing the quality of the environment. A detailed exercise has been undertaken as part of this study to forecast the growth of the port up to the year The forecasts include some modal shift to rail and waterways transportation but despite this transfer there is forecast to be significant increases in traffic on the highway network. Currently there is commonly congestion on the surrounding highway network to the port, in particular on the A5036. Interrogation of a SATURN traffic model for a future year of 2027, albeit with significantly lower port growth traffic tested in the future year model scenario, highlights that the A5036 will 18 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

23 experience greater levels of congestion and longer journey times than those currently experienced. A number of links are identified as having V:C ratios close to or above 100%. Mindful that the estimated traffic generated by the port in the 2027 model is significantly lower than both growth scenarios generated through this study it is concluded that traffic conditions on the main approach route to the port (the A5036 corridor) and on the surrounding network will be significantly worse than that predicted in the 2027 modelling with higher levels of congestion will be experienced. The analysis highlights that by 2030 congestion on the surrounding highway network, in particular the A5036 corridor, will be significant without the introduction of new transport infrastructure that will serve the port. The solution will need to be a balanced package of interventions including investment in rail and highway schemes to reduce congestion and create a safe network along with public transport, cycling and walking measures to encourage modal shift. The Port remains an important source of employment and a key wealth generator, with the Port of Liverpool ranking 7th in the UK (in terms of total tonnage handled) with total traffic of 32.2 million tonnes in The Port of Liverpool therefore makes a significant contribution to the Merseyside economy. It is estimated that there are approximately 3,000 people employed within about 200 organisations located immediately within the port complex. Estimated GVA per employee is 34,600 for maritime related activities which would imply that the economic contribution of the Port in terms of employment is potentially in the order of 103.8m. Going beyond the contribution that the Port makes to the economy in terms of GVA generated from employment, a recent study undertaken by Roger Tym & Partners (with MDS Trans-modal) for The Mersey Partnership (2009) estimated that the existing strong array of ports, airport and associated freight infrastructure within the Liverpool City Region contributes over 34,000 jobs and 1.1billion of GVA per annum to the City Region economy. Increasing the accessibility of the Port will seek to ensure that people living within the deprived areas of both Sefton and Liverpool, and enabling residents from these communities to access this employment will help to tackle the high levels of deprivation and worklessness that are evident in Liverpool and Sefton. The potential direct, indirect and induced economic benefits resulting from improved accessibility to the Port of Liverpool are significant. Investment in infrastructure to improve access to the Port of Liverpool offers the potential to transport additional tonnage of freight, create new employment and potentially generate significant levels of additional GVA for Merseyside. The port of Liverpool is also geographically well positioned to reduce the environmental impact of freight distribution. A comparison with other ports suggests that a container distributed to or from Liverpool would, on average consume less diesel and result in lower emissions of CO2, when compared to corresponding figures for ports in the Greater South East. In conclusion, investment in transport infrastructure to serve the port of Liverpool will ensure that the port is able to grow and therefore deliver economic benefits to Merseyside, the North West and the UK. Investing in the port could also deliver environmental gains in terms of reduced carbon dioxide emissions for the UK as a whole. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 19

24 20 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

25 1 Introduction 1.1 BACKGROUND NW has appointed WSP, MDS Transmodal and Ekosgen, to undertake a study of future access arrangements to the Port of Liverpool. Stage 1 of the study forecasts the likely growth of the port and the implications of that growth from a transport, socio-economic and environmental perspective. The subsequent stages of the study will identify the future access arrangements for the Port of Liverpool that will seek to facilitate and support the growth. A key aim of the study is therefore to recommend a package of realistic surface access options for the Port, which is one of the UK s busiest international gateways. Figure 1.1 below shows the port and key features of the area The identification of this study, as a priority for the North West in the DaSTS phase one report, follows on from recommendations set out in the Eddington Transport Study (2006) which identified the need to improve access to the nation s key international gateways. It is important that the study is delivered in a way which contributes to the overall North West strategic response to the DaSTS challenges. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS RELATED STUDIES In 2002/2003 Faber Maunsell undertook The Port of Liverpool Strategic Transport Access study this was undertaken on behalf of Sefton Council, Liverpool City Council and the Highways Agency. The main conclusions drawn from the study were: Better management and improvements to the existing road & rail routes can assist access and efficiency of the network in the short to medium term (0-10 years). However, there was expected to be no improvement, and in some instances deterioration in the environment, safety, severance and amenity on the main road corridors, in particular on the A5036, Dunnings Bridge Road. To improve accessibility, promote regeneration and to improve the environment requires investment in major new highway infrastructure. A road on a route through the Rimrose Valley was concluded to be the preferred solution. The study did recognise that this would have amenity, severance and environmental impacts on the Country Park, as a valuable local open space and further investigation into mitigation measures was suggested Following completion of this study the Highways Agency commissioned further work looking at the highway options for the Rimrose Valley and Dunnings Bridge Road, the business case and a costing assessment to define the funding requirements In January 2006, the North West allocated 45m of funding to a proposal for improved road access to the Port in its Regional Funding Advice (RFA) to the Government. The following year the estimated scheme costs increased to 65m The scheme was subject to further assessment and application of a new cost forecasting methodology. As a result of this review and in response to the Nichols Review, (applied for the Highways Agency in 2007). The current estimated value for the Access to the Port of Liverpool Improvement scheme now ranges from 131m to 201m, assuming a start of works in 2015/16. The central estimate is 166m. The North West retained the scheme in its RFA2 advice submitted to the Government at the end of February However, the region identified the need to investigate whether there are cheaper and more innovative solutions to improving road access into the port. In addition, the investigations should identify whether more sustainable alternatives will Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 21

26 address the identified transport challenges in the short, medium and longer term. This study, adopting the DaSTS, approach aims to conclude these investigations. FIGURE 1.1: PORT OF LIVERPOOL AREA 22 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

27 CURRENT WSP LED STUDY This document presents the findings of two Working Papers prepared in Stage 1 (Baseline and Option Development) of this DaSTS study along with the task of generating and sifting likely interventions to improve access to the port. Working Paper 1 outlines port traffic forecasts for relevant Port of Liverpool facilities, broken down by major port facility and broad commodity type with up to the 2020 and 2030 time horizons. The forecasts are supported by an extensive evidence base, with all key assumptions clearly stated. A summary of Working Paper 1 is outlined in Section 3. Working Paper 2 outlines the existing access arrangements of the multi-modal infrastructure network and facilities that serves the Port of Liverpool and the current issues and challenges faced. A summary of Working Paper 2 is presented in Section 4. Section 5 outlines socio-economic analysis that informs the port growth scenarios. Based on the analysis presented as a summary in Sections 3 and 4 the Forecast Port Traffic Growth is summarised in Section 6. A review of relevant policy has also been undertaken to inform this study. The policy summary is set out in Section 2. CONSULTATION The team has adopted a comprehensive approach to stakeholder consultation, both in order to ensure that the study can benefit from the best possible local and industry knowledge base, and to ensure early awareness of, and buy-in to, the study and its outcomes from those who will ultimately matter most in terms of the delivery of the study s recommendations. The team has therefore held the following consultation meetings: Merseytravel meeting 21/10/09 Highways Agency meeting 3/11/09 Meeting with Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council 12/11/09 Meeting with Liverpool City Council 20/11/09 A workshop for port users was convened through Mersey Maritime and attended by approximately 15 representatives of the port community 10/12/09 Network Rail Meeting 10/12/09 Peel Ports Meeting 14/12/09 Meeting with Freightliner Intermodal 10/2/10 Peel Ports meeting 15/03/10 The team also sought meetings with a number of key bulk shippers from the Port, and ultimately met with both Seatruck and EMR 10/03/10. Project Advisory Group Meetings 12/1/10 and 21/4/ The input of all the above organisations has been of great value to the study, and the consultant team is grateful to each of them for giving their time to the study. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 23

28 2 Background and Policy 2.1 POLICY REVIEW This section reviews the relevant national, regional and local transportation and spatial policy context and is structured into these areas below. Specific reference is made to port and rail related policy. NATIONAL, POLICY Developing a Sustainable Transport System DaSTS The Department for Transport outlined the Government s proposed approach to long-term transport planning in the publication Towards a Sustainable Transport System, which was published in 2007, in response to the Eddington Study and the Stern Review. Delivering a Sustainable Transport System (DaSTS) indicates how this is to be taken forward in a way that tackles both immediate problems and longer term challenges for the transport system, that are likely to be critical for our prosperity and way of life Clear goals have been set which take full account of transport s wider impact on climate change, health, quality of life and the natural environment. The five goals that the Government wants the transport system to meet, as set out in DaSTS, are: To support national economic competitiveness and growth, by delivering reliable and efficient transport networks; To reduce transport s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, with the desired outcome of tackling climate change; To contribute to better safety security and health and longer life-expectancy by reducing the risk of death, injury or illness arising from transport and by promoting travel modes that are beneficial to health; To promote greater equality of opportunity for all citizens, with the desired outcome of achieving a fairer society; and To improve quality of life for transport users and non-transport users, and to promote a healthy natural environment The biggest challenge is how the threat of climate change can be successfully addressed, while at the same time continuing to successfully promote economic growth. For domestic transport, this will inevitably mean maximising the contribution from improving the carbon efficiency of all modes of transport, encouraging behavioural change, and supporting the provision of lower emission transport. It is also recognised that non-transport factors can have a significant impact on the what, where and how of transport demand. Land use planning can play a major role, particularly in the longer term through encouragement of sus dev that reduces the demand for vehicular travel and therefore overall emissions, while at the same time facilitating economic growth In addition to the five goals DaSTS also identifies a series of specific challenges relating to them. Appendix A outlines the full list of challenges, with those that have most relevance to the Port of Liverpool Study being highlighted. 24 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

29 2.1.6 The investment framework up until the year 2014 is well defined and is designed to tackle issues such as congestion and climate change and to provide the infrastructure needed to support future prosperity. Government recognises, however, that beyond 2014 there is the need for further work to generate appropriate options for investment. A series of national and regional studies are therefore being commissioned by a combination of regional bodies and Government to help to inform this longer term investment framework. The Access to the Port of Liverpool Study is one of the studies being taken forward by 4NW and regional partners in North West England. Its objective is to consider future access options to the Port in the context of the transport planning objectives defined by DaSTS. In particular the study aims to identify the transport interventions that will allow the port, which is important to the local, regional and national economies, to grow in ways that minimise overall transport related emissions and impact on the wider local environment. The options that will be brought forward will therefore be assessed in the context of the defined DaSTS goals and challenges. National Port Policy Ports Policy Review Interim Report The Ports Policy Review Interim Report, published in July 2007, set out DfT ports policy apart from policy on inland connections and therefore focuses on general conclusions about the future direction of ports policy for England and Wales Forecasts produced for the DfT in and published in the Ports Policy Review Interim Report suggested that long-term growth in LoLo freight traffic (in tonnes) to and from GB is likely to be 3.5% per annum up to Furthermore the DfT stated in the Interim Report that, in the absence of new development or large efficiency improvements over the coming decade, constraints would be in: Deep sea container terminals in the Greater South East, closest to the major shipping routes; Feeder capacity (both berths and short sea shipping services) around the country for movements via hub ports and elsewhere; and Roll-on roll-off terminal capacity in the South East, serving short-sea routes to the Continent (paragraph 8) The DfT did not therefore specifically state in this document that it believed there would be a shortfall in deep sea container port capacity outside the Greater South East, although it has granted all the relevant permissions to allow Liverpool to develop its riverside post-panamax berths. Similarly, the DfT focused on the likely need for additional RoRo capacity only in the South East, rather than elsewhere in the country; this may reflect the fact that it had already granted the relevant permissions for the Langton riverside RoRo berth at Liverpool Docks The ports policy set out in the Interim Report is not determinative i.e. there is no intention to dictate to the ports industry where and how it should invest in new port infrastructure; it will be left to the private sector to make investment decisions, within the planning regime. However, the DfT wants to ensure that the ports industry develops to take full account of both the adverse impacts and the benefits of further development at local and regional levels. The report states, a market oriented approach remains appropriate there would in general be no additional benefit from a locally or regionally determinative ports policy. We also Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 25

30 conclude that only in exceptional circumstances will the Government regard local regeneration as a justification for direct subsidy to a port. (para.13) Therefore, within an overall policy of sustainable development, the DfT regards market forces as being the major factor in deciding where additional port capacity is likely to be required. Draft Ports National Planning Statement (NPS) The draft Ports NPS (published by the DfT in November 2009) sets out the Government s conclusions on the need for new port infrastructure, considering the current place of ports in the national economy, the available evidence on future demand, and the options for meeting future needs. The document, once finalised after the consultation period, will be a key planning document for the future development of infrastructure at major ports, including infrastructure for port access, as the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) must, as a general rule, decide an application for ports infrastructure in accordance with this NPS Overall ports policy, as set out in the Ports NPS, follows the policies outlined in the Interim Ports Policy document. However, in paragraph , the Ports NPS emphasizes that, the Government wishes to see port development wherever possible: supporting sustainable transport by offering more efficient transport links with lower environmental disbenefits; providing a basis for trans-modal shifts from road transport to shipping and rail, which are generally more sustainable; supporting sustainable development by providing additional capacity for the development of renewable energy; and supporting economic and social cohesion The Ports NPS explains that port development must follow the principles of sustainable development: These underlying policies are intended to support the fundamental aim of improving economic, social and environmental welfare through sustainable development. They recognise the essential contribution to national well-being that international and domestic trade makes. Economic growth is supported by trade but must be aligned with environmental protection and improvement wherever possible (paragraph ) As in the Interim Ports Policy document, the DfT defines the need for ports infrastructure at a strategic level, based on port traffic demand forecasts produced in i.e. prior to the economic recession Paragraph states that All previous evidence suggests that, over time and notwithstanding temporary economic downturns, increased trade in goods and, to a lesser extent in commodities, can be expected as a direct consequence of the Government s policies to support sustainable economic growth and to achieve rising prosperity. With 95% of all goods in and out of the UK moving by sea and very limited alternatives, the majority of this increase will need to move through ports around the coast of the United Kingdom. 26 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

31 Paragraph states that, Forecasts of demand for port capacity in the period up to 2030 by MDS Transmodal (MDST) were published on behalf of the Department for Transport in 2006 and updated in The central GB-wide forecasts suggested increases by 2030 over a 2005 base of: 182% in containers, from 7m to 20m teu (excluding transhipment), 101% in ro-ro traffic, from 85m to 170m tonnes 4% in non-unitised traffic, from 411m to 429m tonnes. Since then, the recession has led to a severe downturn in demand, especially for unitized cargo. The full extent of this recession effect on trade through ports cannot yet be fully quantified. However, the Government s view is that the long-term effect will be to delay by a number of years but not ultimately reduce the eventual levels of demand for port capacity predicted in these forecasts. (paragraph ) The Ports NPS reiterates the policy set in the Interim Ports Policy that the DfT will not adopt a deterministic approach to port development, which would dictate where port development should occur. The DfT continues to regard the market as being the best mechanism for determining where development should take place, with developers bringing forward applications for port developments where it considers them to be commercially viable In conclusion, the Draft Ports NPS continues to regard the market as being the best way to determine where and what type of port infrastructure is required in the future. Demand forecasts up to 2030 have been accepted by the DfT as providing a strategic view of potential demand. The DfT believes that the economic recession will not halt traffic growth, but may delay growth by a few years. The Draft Ports NPS broadly supports the development of new port infrastructure at Liverpool Docks, within the context of the principles of sustainable development. National Port Master Plan Guidance The DfT published a consultation document on Port Master Plans in Summer 2008, which suggests that, although the development of master plans is likely to be voluntary, any major port that wants to expand its facilities in a way that that has external impacts beyond the port estate will find it much easier to receive the relevant permissions if a master plan has been developed Government s consultation document on the introduction of port master plans recommends therefore that ports should undertake the development of port master plans, particularly those handling more than 1m tonnes per annum and expecting to bring forwards one or more substantial development proposal in the next years According to the draft guidance, port master plans should: Clarify the port s own strategic planning for the medium to long term; Assist regional and local planning bodies, and transport network providers, in preparing and revising their own development strategies; Inform port users, employees and local communities as to how they can expect to see the port develop over the coming years. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 27

32 The Port of Liverpool would be regarded as a major port in the context of this draft guidance as it handles more than one million tonnes of cargo; Peel Ports has undertaken to develop a Mersey Ports Master Plan, encompassing Liverpool Docks and all the other port facilities on the Mersey and on the Manchester Ship Canal In preparing long-term master plans for ports, and specifically to demonstrate the need for expansion or investment, Peel will need to produce port-specific forecasts for the principal traffics, drawing on national port forecasts set out in the Ports NPS. The master plan should reconcile with, or justify deviation from, the national forecasts for the principal traffics by explaining the extent to which it is driven by: Any disagreement with the national forecasts; The port s own commercial view of its prospects and opportunities; Sub-traffic (sectoral composition of trade) issues Peel Ports are developing a master plan for the Port of Liverpool. This master plan is to be rolled out during 2010 in parallel with the Port Access Study. National Rail Policy Freight Route Utilisation Study The Freight Utilisation Study (Freight RUS) was published in March It presents a view of the freight growth and alterations in existing traffic flows that could reasonably be expected to occur on the network by 2015 and presents a strategy to address the key issues that arise in accommodating these changes Total rail freight was forecast to grow by about 30% in terms of freight tonnes lifted between 2005 and 2014/15 and the greatest growth was expected to come from intermodal traffic between deep sea container ports and regional rail terminals One of the key issues relevant to the North West discussed in the Freight RUS was gauge clearance to W10 for rail-borne deep sea container traffic, which allows standard high cube containers (increasingly used by the shipping lines) on the most common existing intermodal rail wagons to be accommodated on a route without striking structures such as tunnels, bridges and station platforms. The document recommended a proactive strategy for development of priority core and diversionary/capacity generating routes to W10 gauge to accommodate 9ft 6in containers on standard wagons to and from the leading deep sea container ports The Freight RUS recognized that the Port of Liverpool was developing further container handling capacity (the post-panamax container terminal) and that the solution to handling further rail growth from the port involves building the Olive Mount Chord and providing access to the WCML at W10 gauge via Earlestown and Runcorn. The appraisal results for the building of Olive Mount Chord and W10 gauge clearance to the Port of Liverpool produced a positive business case and the Freight RUS recommended that it should proceed. The Freight RUS therefore included the reinstatement of Olive Mount Chord and W10 gauge enhancement between the Port of Liverpool and the West Coast Mainline (WCML) via Earlestown and Runcorn. 28 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

33 Productivity TIF funding has been made available to fund gauge enhancement work from the Olive Mount Chord to the West Coast Main Line, although the work has not as yet been carried out; funding for the reopening of the Olive Mount Cord itself was secured from the Northern Way, Network Rail, ERDF, Merseytravel and the Merseyside Transport Authorities sources and the chord has been operational since December Delivering a Sustainable Railway In July 2007 the Department for Transport published the Delivering a Sustainable Railway White Paper, which included the Government s objectives for rail freight. This document confirmed the Government s support for rail freight growth and the measures necessary to achieve it. The White Paper described a broad expectation on the part of Government that Network Rail would facilitate a doubling of rail passenger and freight traffic by rail by 2030 (i.e. create the requisite capacity to allow for this growth). In the short term, this included creating a Strategic Freight Network (SFN). This measure is designed to give rail freight operators, customers and terminal developers a more stable environment for planning for increased use of rail. Strategic Rail Freight Network: The Longer Term Vision The SFN (as set out in a document published in September 2009) is designed to provide a framework for targeting investment and network management better to meet freight needs and to resolve conflicts with passenger services on a mixed-use railway This should involve: Optimising the pattern of freight trunk routing (on routes such as the WCML) to minimise conflicts with passenger services; Developing diversionary routes for freight; Upgrading the freight trunk routes to eliminate conflicts and pinch points at particular locations; Up-grading capacity on freight trunk routes, such as additional train paths for freight and loading gauge up-grade. The document states that the SFN will continue to evolve over time, which means that new schemes may be added and some existing schemes could be removed The 200 million of funding between and has been allocated mainly to gauge clearance and capacity up-grade schemes between deep sea container ports and freight trunk routes (WCML and ECML). 1.7 million of TIF Productivity funding was made available for rail access improvements between the WCML and the Port of Liverpool, which has been allocated to W10 gauge clearance works Map 1 in Appendix 1 of the SFN document shows the proposed SFN, with both the Bootle Branch Line and the Chat Moss Main Line to the WCML cleared to W10 along with all the routes that provide access to the Greater South East deep sea container ports and the route from Garston to the WCML. Map 3 shows main flows of intermodal traffic in 2030 as only being to and from Greater South East deep sea container ports. Map 2 shows forecast coal flows in 2030 and suggests that there will be flows from Liverpool Docks to Fiddlers Ferry (competing with coal sourced from Hunterston in Ayrshire) and to Ratcliffe-on-Soar (in competition with rail flows from Immingham, Hunterson and Bristol). Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 29

34 In the longer term, beyond , the SFN document proposes the following key principles (that are particularly relevant to this study) for the future development of the freight network, which should be therefore be taken into account in the development of any measures for the Port of Liverpool: Longer intermodal trains (775m plus locomotive) to make the maximise the utilisation lf existing paths; this is described as an early priority, which should be regarded as the design standard for new freight terminal developments and enhancement of existing terminals W12 should become the standard loading gauge for all strategic container routes because this gauge can accommodate 45ft pallet-wide short sea containers (that can compete in terms of capacity with standard semi-trailers used by road hauliers) as well as high cube deep sea containers; SFN capacity may be increased by the development of any new railway lines built in GB, which is likely to be a reference to the possible development of HST2 between London and the North and which would free up capacity for freight on the WCML The development of Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges (or rail freight distribution parks) will be supported by the National Networks NPS and the Ports NPS and Freight Facilities Grants may be available for rail terminal works to allow 775m long trains to access terminals and to accept electric traction The DfT is expecting the rail freight industry to develop tighter, sector-specific, use-it-or-lose-it (UIOLI) criteria to optimise the use of existing freight paths and to facilitate competition; this may, in the longer term, mean that unused train paths that have been assigned to a particular operator but are not being used become available to other operators. At present the unused Freightliner intermodal and coal train paths to and from the Port of Liverpool cannot be used by other operators Due to the capacity restrictions on the WCML to the south of Northampton, Network Rail is carrying out a freight routeing study (called the Routes to the North study, RTN) that should recommend the preferred routes for freight between London/SE and the Midlands and the North, taking into account rail freight forecasts up to We understand that the preferred option is likely to involve making greater use of the Midland Main Line (MML) for freight services. Rail Freight Terminals: FTA Policy In December 2009 the Freight Transport Association (FTA) produced a policy document that provides support for the expansion of rail freight terminal capacity in and around major conurbations in England, including the North West The documents states that, The UK needs more rail freight terminal capacity if we are to get as much freight off the roads as possible. Rail Freight Terminals are the stations of the freight railway: a network of them that meets both existing demand and forecast growth is essential. FTA urges support for the development of more terminal capacity in locations driven by the market that make best logistical sense. 30 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

35 This FTA policy document sets out where most existing terminals and schemes with planning permission are located. It suggests that additional rail freight terminal capacity will be required in Lancashire: links to ports/onward distribution hubs and serve Liverpool and Manchester conurbations. Other areas where additional capacity will be required in England, according to the FTA, are Yorkshire, the West Midlands, the East Midlands, Greater London, the South East and the South West. Regional Policy Regional Strategy The draft Regional Strategy sets out an integrated approach to land use and transport planning. As far as transport and other infrastructure requirements are concerned the focus would be on public transport and park and ride in the core area, including the mid Mersey area. In line with the principles in the Eddington Report, this would focus transport investment in areas with higher economic potential, severe congestion and high aggregate accessibility. In a time of restricted resources this will inevitably reduce resources for investment elsewhere, including rural road building. Further growth in the capacity of the region s major international gateways the Port of Liverpool and Liverpool and Manchester Airports may need to be supported by improved surface access and interchange arrangements. North West Regional Economic Strategy The Regional Economic Strategy (RES) in the North West, published in 2006 and led by the NWDA, provides a 20-year rolling plan for economic development in the region, and provides an update to the 2003 RES, acknowledging changing priorities and resources Ports are considered within a transformational action within the RES, as a Key Growth Asset, to be fully utilised. The potential of regional ports in contributing to GVA is therefore recognised within the strategy. In particular, the Port of Liverpool is regarded as a key regional strength and one of the key gateways for national and international trade. The strategy s main objective of relevance to ports is to develop the infrastructure required for sustainable economic growth including necessary transport provision. The RES regards the growth of traffic through ports in North West England as providing the potential to reduce reliance on congested southern ports. North West Regional Spatial Strategy The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), published in 2008, establishes a vision for a region that by 2021 has acted to deliver sustainable development, leading to a higher quality of life for all, and reduced social, economic and environmental disparities Within the strategy, Ports and Waterways policy stimulates the wider context of economic activity generated by ports in the region, supporting the development of landside surface access plans to facilitate the movement of freight and passenger traffic, and encouraging the transfer of freight from land to water transport. Utilisation of existing infrastructure is promoted, as is the development of good road, rail and inland waterway connections. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 31

36 Local Policy Merseyside LTP The priorities for the Local Transport Plan were set by the goal to provide an integrated transport network that helps Merseyside grow and be a better place to live. The Merseyside authorities aim to do this by: making sure everybody has equal access to jobs and opportunities managing transport demand and avoiding congestion so it is easy for people to move around; making sure transport doesn t damage people s health; protecting the environment by reducing traffic emissions, and noise pollution; making best use of our existing resources; and only building new facilities when it is clear that they meet our objectives In addition to the above the LTP oulines the need to support the Port of Liverpool by improving access to this important gateway in Merseyside. Sefton Unitary Development Plan, Written Statement, The UDP contains a number of entries relating directly to the port and movement of freight. In particular there is an emphasis on rail and support for future development at the port: Policy EDT9 states Development generating large movements of freight should wherever practicable be served by a direct rail link ; and The docks have high-capacity rail freight facilities and enjoy good access to the strategic highway network. This gives them unique locational advantages on which future development should capitalise. Sefton Community Strategy: A Vision for Sefton, Most of Liverpool Docks are within the southwest area of Sefton. Emphasis in the document is on the importance of the docks as a current and future employer. The document also highlights the potential negative impacts of high volumes of port activity that are currently dependent on limited infrastructure The document suggests work is required to reduce the negative impact of further freight traffic between the motorway network and the Liverpool Docks, which could hinder the further development of the Port. Furthermore the document identifies the need to strengthen and improve transport links especially to Liverpool Docks. Liverpool Unitary Development Plan, 2003, and Saved Policies, The Liverpool UDP supports both the continuing revival in the fortunes of the Port of Liverpool, provided that concerns in respect of heritage and environmental protection, nature conservation and surface transportation/traffic impact, can be satisfactorily resolved. Policy E3 of the UDP states The City Council will support the continued growth and development of both the Port of Liverpool and Garston Port 32 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

37 Liverpool Superport The Mersey Partnership In June 2008 the Mersey Partnership set out it s vision for the Liverpool Superport to be, to bring together and integrate the strengths of the Ports, Airports and Freight Community to create a SuperPort for freight and passenger operations within the Liverpool City Region that will become a key driver of its economy. It will create the most effective and cost efficient environment for freight cargo logistics and passenger transit in the UK. Figure 2.1 outlines the existing and planned facilities that could form the areas Superport capabilities. FIGURE 2.1 EXISTING AND PLANNED FACILITIES FORMING Superport Capabilities Transport infrastructure was highlighted as a key element that would assist in realising the Superport vision and the document specifically highlighted the following schemes that would improve access to the area: Re-instatement of the Halton Curve to enhance accessibility from North Wales into Merseyside that would particularly increase the catchment for Liverpool John Lennon Airport. Construction of the Mersey Gateway Crossing. Bidston Moss Viaduct Road Maintenance Scheme. Re-instatement of the Canada Dock Branch Line to enhance rail freight accessibility to the North Docks. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 33

38 Provision of the A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Improvement to increase capacity to the M57 and M58. Redevelopment of dockland areas adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal similar to the Seine-Nord Europe Canal project. This link, part of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T), connecting the Seine and Oise rivers to the waterways of Northern Europe, will promote multi-modal logistics activities along its 105 km length and promote the transfer of significant volumes of goods off the roads onto barges while also enhancing the environment and promoting tourism. PORT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS For the Port of Liverpool two Harbour Revision Orders have approval, namely: the Langton River Berth (Dec 2002); and the Seaforth River (Post-Panamax container) terminal (May 2007) The DfT s favourable planning decision on the application to develop a new post-panamax container terminal outside the lock gates at Seaforth was published in March 2007, prior to a significant up-date of UK ports policy In the DfT s decision letter on the Seaforth river terminal harbour revision order (March 2007) the Secretary of State for Transport agreed with the Inspector that there is a demonstrable need for the scheme (para.21). Furthermore, the Secretary of State was, satisfied with the Applicant s assessment that no other alternative is more suitable for meeting the identified need or is less detrimental to the environment and agreed that, the proposals would enable the port to expand to meet changes in shipping trade and that this would contribute to additional job opportunities, and confer benefits to the local and regional economies (paragraphs 22-23). The Secretary of State accepted that the scheme is compatible with national, regional and local planning and transport policies (paragraph 24) The Secretary of State therefore accepted the recommendations of the Inspector that all the relevant permissions should be provided for the post-panamax container berths at Liverpool The harbour revision orders are the equivalent of planning permissions with each order being in force for 10 years. The orders have the Highway Agency s agreement and conditions in relation to travel plans and freight vehicle numbers are in place. The Post Panamax proposals are forecast to double container capacity at the port. As a result it is estimated that 1,450 two way HGV movements per day, assuming no modal shift, will be generated by the container terminal. This traffic is expected to use the Seaforth (80%) and Strand Road (20%) gates to the port. As a result just over 900 HGVs per day in each direction are forecast to be added to the A5036 / Dunnings Bridge Road, assuming no modal shift. Further details of these proposals are presented in Working Paper Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

39 Liverpool Waters To the south of the working docks of the Port of Liverpool, Peel Holdings are developing proposals for the Liverpool Waters scheme. The vision is to regenerate this 60 hectare historic dockland area, which stretches from Bramley Moore Dock to the north to Princes Dock in the south on the edge of the City Centre, to create a high quality, mixed use waterfront quarter. Proposals are likely to include two million sqm of offices, hotels residential and other supporting services. A planning application for Liverpool Waters is due to be submitted in March Other Strategic Regional sites are outlined in Sections 5 and 6. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 35

40 3 Current Port Traffic - Baseline Situation 3.1 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING PORT TRAFFIC An overview of the existing port traffic passing through the port of Liverpool is firstly presented below. Following this initial overview this section presents some of the detail that supports this initial summary The main function of Liverpool Docks in 2008 was: In the bulk markets as a location for the import, storage and processing of bulk cargoes prior to inland distribution. The major import cargoes were cereals, AFS (Animal Feed) and coal. The major high value imported non-unitised cargoes were paper products and steel. The port also acted as a storage point for non-maritime cargoes that were received at the port by rail. For maritime import cargoes, rail had a 30% market share for inland distribution due to the distribution of steam coal to inland power stations by rail; Small volumes of steel scrap were imported from GB coastal locations by sea, stored and then re-exported in larger vessels with no impact on the inland road and rail networks. Liverpool Docks major bulk export trade was scrap metal. The scrap metal was received at the port by rail and sea but mainly by road. For export cargoes by sea, rail had an 8% market share for inland distribution, due to the distribution of some steel scrap to the port by rail. Liverpool Docks handled 414,000 containers in 2008 and the modal split for container distribution was 2% by rail, with 14% transhipment and 84% by road. Liverpool Docks also handled an estimated 219,000 RoRo freight units in 2008, 72% of which were unaccompanied trailers A summary of the traffics handled across the quays at Liverpool Docks in 2008 is provided in Table 3.1. TABLE 3.1: SUMMARY OF MARITIME TRAFFIC VIA LIVERPOOL DOCKS, 2008 Inwards Outwards Traffic Inland by: Inland by: Traffic Road Rail Transhipment Road Rail Transhipment Containers 203,000 84% 1% 15% 211,000 83% 2% 15% (units) Roll-on Roll-off 115, % , % - - freight (units) Passenger cars 5, % - - 6, % - - (cars) Bulk tonnes % 35% % 8% 5% (million tonnes) Source: Estimates by MDS Transmodal 36 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

41 3.2 INTRODUCTION The following section provides analysis of the port traffics within the scope of the study, setting out traffic volumes and mode of appearance (dry bulk, Load On Load Off etc., which defines how the cargoes are handled at the port). The analysis has been completed using statistical analysis, supplemented by discussions with Peel Ports, other port stakeholders and MDSTs knowledge of the Port of Liverpool s traffics. In this section when referring to traffic the term is used to explain the unitised and nonunitised commodities passing through the Port of Liverpool. The following section presents the port traffic data under the headings of non-unitised and unitised commodities For statistical purposes, Liverpool Docks form only part of the Port of Liverpool, which also includes traffic passing through Tranmere and Birkenhead. For this reason the volume of port traffics passing through Liverpool Docks were estimated based on the consultants market knowledge, any available industry statistics and discussions with Peel Ports The second part of the section outlines the forecast growth in different port commodities. Further details of the forecasting exercise is included in Appendix B of this document. For the purposes of forecasting port traffic volumes the base year is 2008 and the forecasting time horizon is 2030, with an interim forecast year of At the end of this section there a summary of the economics of inland distribution is provided. 3.3 NON-UNITISED TRAFFIC Estimates of the volume of inwards non-unitised port traffics through Liverpool Docks in 2008 are shown in Table 3.2 and Figure 3.1. FIGURE 3.1: SUMMARY OF INBOUND NON-UNITISED PORT TRAFFIC, LIQUID BULK Oil products LIQUID BULK Other liquid bulk products DRY BULK Coal DRY BULK Agricultural products DRY BULK Other dry bulk SEMI-BULK Forestry products SEMI-BULK Iron & steel Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 37

42 Mode of appearance LIQUID BULK MSD broad commodity Oil products Other liquid bulk products TABLE 3.2: LIVERPOOL DOCKS - INBOUND NON-UNITISED PORT TRAFFIC, 2008 Commodity Refined petroleum products Tonnes (million) Port area of handling Mode of transport for inland distribution 0.1 Huskisson Dock Not distributed inland Assumed port gate for road Volume inland by road - - Molasses 0.2 Gladstone Dock 100% road Seaforth 0.2 Edible oils 0.1 Brocklebank Dock 100% road Strand 0.1 Road DRY BULK Coal Power 1.8 Gladstone 100% rail - - station coal Agricultural products Seaforth 1.5 SEMI-BULK TOTAL INBOUND Other dry bulk Grain 1.5 Seaforth 99% road, 1% coastal/short sea to Ireland. Animal feedstuffs 1.0 Seaforth 98% road, 2% coastal/short sea to Ireland Seaforth 1.0 Aggregates 0.3 Seaforth 100% road Seaforth 0.3 Scrap metal 0.4 Alexandra/Canada Stored at port, prior to export - - Paper 0.2 Gladstone/Seaforth 100% road Seaforth 0.2 Forestry products Iron & steel Steel 0.5 (plus 0.1 by rail) 6.1 (plus 0.1 by rail) Gladstone/Seaforth 100% road Seaforth 0.6 Source: MDS Transmodal, based on DfT Maritime Statistics The major inbound liquid bulk traffic flows in 2008 were: An estimated 0.1 million tonnes of refined petroleum products were imported and stored in tanks at Huskisson Dock, before being loaded to vessels for bunkers. There is therefore no impact from this traffic on inland networks. An estimated 0.2 million tonnes of molasses were imported, processed and stored in tanks at Gladstone Dock and then distributed in inland by road. An estimated 0.1 million tonnes of edible oils were imported, processed and stored at Brocklebank Dock and then distributed inland by road Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

43 MSD broad commodity Commodity The major inbound dry bulk flows were: About 1.8 million tonnes of steam coal were imported through Gladstone Dock and stored before being distributed inland by rail to inland power stations. An estimated 1.5 million tonnes of cereals were imported into the grain silos at Seaforth and then distributed inland by road, apart from a small volume of cereals that was transhipped by sea to Ireland. About 1.0 million tonnes of animal feedstuffs/biomass were imported via Seaforth, stored in the grain silos at Seaforth and then distributed inland by road, apart from a small volume of AFS that was transhipped by sea to Ireland. About 0.3 million tonnes of aggregates were imported through Seaforth and stored prior to inland distribution by road. An estimated 0.4 million tonnes of steel scrap was imported via Alexandra Dock, mainly from Scotland, for re-export by sea (no impact on the inland road network) The major inbound semi-bulk flows in 2008 were: An estimated 0.2 million tonnes of forestry products (mainly paper rolls) were imported via Seaforth/Gladstone Docks and then stored prior to inland distribution by road. A small volume of forestry products are received at the port by rail, stored and then distributed inland by road. About 0.5 million tonnes of steel was imported via Seaforth/Gladstone Docks and stored prior to inland distribution by road. An estimated 0.1 million tonnes of steel is also received at the port by rail, stored and then distributed inland by road Estimates of the volume of outwards non-unitised port traffics through Liverpool Docks in 2008 are shown in Table 3.3. TABLE 3.3: LIVERPOOL DOCKS - OVERVIEW OF OUTBOUND NON- UNITISED PORT TRAFFIC, 2008 Tonnes (million) Port area of handling Mode of transport for inland distribution Port gate for road Port gate volumes (M tonnes) Ores Scrap 0.1 Canada Dock 100% road Strand 0.1 metal? Other dry bulk Scrap metal 2.7 Seaforth / Gladstone 87% road, 8% rail & Seaforth & 2.7 /Alexandra / Canada 5% coastwise/short sea Strand Road Total outbound Source: MDS Transmodal, based on DfT Maritime Statistics The major outbound dry bulk flows in 2008 were: 0.1 million tonnes of ores were exported from Liverpool Docks in 2008; we have assumed the cargo was steel scrap and the inland mode of transport was road. An estimated 2.8 million tonnes of scrap metal was exported via Seaforth, Gladstone, Alexandra and Canada Docks, with 87% of the scrap arriving at the port by road prior to storage and export and 13% arriving by sea or by rail. There is a discrepancy between the volumes reported by one of the operators and those reported in DfT Maritime Statistics, with the operator volumes being some 33% higher. We have Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 39

44 used the operator data, effectively assuming that the DfT data understates the scrap metal volumes through Liverpool Docks in UNITISED TRAFFIC Estimates of the volume of inwards unitised port traffics through Liverpool Docks in 2008 are shown in Table 3.4. TABLE 3.4: LIVERPOOL DOCKS - INWARDS UNITISED PORT TRAFFIC, 2008 MSD broad commodity Units ( 000) Port area of handling Mode of transport for inland distribution Containers 203 Seaforth 84% road, 15% transhipment, 1% rail RoRo accompanied trucks (P&O Ferries) RoRo unaccompanied trailers (P&O Ferries & Seatruck) Assumed port gate for road Seaforth 32 Gladstone 100% road Seaforth 79 Gladstone & Brocklebank 100% road Seaforth & Seatruck Import/export vehicles 4 Seaforth 100% road Seaforth Passenger cars (P&O 5 Gladstone 100% road Seaforth Ferries) Source: MDS Transmodal, based on Maritime Statistics & industry sources Some 203,000 import containers were handled at Royal Seaforth Container Terminal in 2008 and 84% of the containers were distributed inland by road. About 15% were transhipped at Seaforth (i.e. 15,000 containers arrived on one container shipping service and then left on another) and 1% of import containers were distributed inland by rail ,000 inbound accompanied trucks and 79,000 unaccompanied trailers were handled at the P&O Ferries and Seatruck RoRo terminals in Liverpool Docks in 2008; all were distributed inland by road. In addition, the P&O Ferries terminal handled 5,000 inbound passenger cars About 4,000 import vehicles were handled through Liverpool Docks in Estimates of the volume of outwards unitised port traffics through Liverpool Docks in 2008 are shown in Table Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

45 TABLE 3.5: LIVERPOOL DOCKS - OUTBOUND UNITISED PORT TRAFFIC, 2008 (THOUSAND UNITS) MSD broad commodity Units ( 000) Port area of handling Mode of transport for inland distribution Assumed port gate for road Containers 211 Seaforth 83% road, 15% Seaforth transhipment, 2% rail RoRo 29 Gladstone 100% road Seaforth accompanied trucks (P&O Ferries) RoRo unaccompanied 80 Gladstone & Brocklebank 100% road Seaforth & Seatruck trailers (P&O Ferries & Seatruck) Import/export 4 Seaforth 100% road Seaforth vehicles Passenger cars 6 Gladstone 100% road Seaforth Source: MDS Transmodal, based on Maritime Statistics & industry sources Some 211,000 export containers were handled at Royal Seaforth Container Terminal in 2008 and 83% of the containers were distributed inland by road. About 14% were transhipped at Seaforth (i.e. about 15,000 containers arrived on one container service and then left on another). 2% of export containers were delivered to the port by rail ,000 inbound accompanied trucks and 80,000 unaccompanied trailers were handled at the P&O Ferries and Seatruck terminals in Liverpool Docks in 2008; all were distributed inland by road. In addition, the P&O Ferries terminal handled 6,000 inbound passenger cars About 4,000 export vehicles were handled through Liverpool Docks in This section has presented the current (2008) port traffic scenario. The port traffic commodity forecasts are outlined in section 6. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 41

46 4 Existing Transport Network and Port Access Issues 4.1 ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS This section summarises the existing access arrangements and transport network which serve the port of Liverpool. 4.2 HIGHWAY ACCESS There are four key access points to the Port of Liverpool: Seaforth Dock Gate Strand Road Dock Gate The Seatruck Dock Gate Huskisson Dock Gate In addition, to the above main access points, Regent Road has a number of access points to other operations on the port such as Cargil, United Utilities, and Birse. Figure 4.1 below shows the location of the access points. FIGURE 4.1 PORT OF LIVERPOOL ACCESS POINTS SEAFORTH DOCK STRAND ROAD SEATRUCK HUSKISSON The location of the access points in relation to the motorway network are shown in Figure Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

47 FIGURE 4.2 ACCESS POINTS IN RELATION TO MOTORWAY NETWORK SEAFORTH DOCK GATE The Seaforth Dock Gate is located at the northern end of the Port and provides direct access to the A565 (Crosby Road) which runs north to south parallel to the eastern boundary of the Port. The Seaforth Dock Gate also connects with the A5036 (Princess Way / Church Road / Dunnings Bridge Road) which runs west to east and provides a direct link to the M57 and M58 motorways at the Switch Island junction. STRAND ROAD DOCK GATE The Strand Road Dock gate provides access to the external highway network for the central area of the Port of Liverpool and links directly with the A565 (Primrose Road) and the A5057 (Merton Road) which runs west to east and joins with the A5058 (Queens Drive), Liverpool s key orbital route, and the A580 (East Lancs Road). SEATRUCK DOCK GATE The Seatruck Dock Gate provides access only to the Seatruck port facility. Access to the dock gate is from a mini-roundabout at the northern end of Regent Road. HUSKISSON DOCK GATE The Huskisson Dock Gate access point is also on Regent Road approximately one kilometre south of the junction with Millers Bridge Both the Seatruck and Huskisson Dock Gate are primarily accessed via the Miller s Bridge junction with Derby Road. The Miller s Bridge junction is located approximately 800 metres south of the Strand Road Dock Gate and connects directly with the A565 (Derby Road) and the A5058 Balliol Road. This Road links to the Queens Drive and East Lancs Road. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 43

48 APPROACH ROUTES The key approach routes to the port are summarised below and on Figure 4.3. Traffic flows for the AM, PM and inter-peak hours, have been obtained for the approach routes to the port and are illustrated on Figures 4.4 to 4.6, at the end of this document. Further analysis of the traffic data and travel patterns in the surrounding area is presented in Section 4. FIGURE 4.3 APPROACH ROUTES TO THE PORT A5036 Princess Way/ Church Road/ Dunnings Bridge Road to the M57 / M The A5036 is approximately 5 kilometres in length from the Seaforth Dock Gate to the Switch Island junction. From the Seaforth Dock Gate to Switch Island the road is predominantly a 40mph dual carriageway with localised widening at the junctions. This is with the exception of the A5036 between the Copy Lane junction and Switch Island which widens to three lanes in each direction. The A5036 forms part of the National Strategic Trunk Road network From the Seaforth Dock Gate to the A5038 Netherton Way junction the key land use bounding either side of the road is residential. From the Netherton Way junction east towards the Switch Island junction the land use on the south side of the road becomes industrial in character, with a number of industrial/ warehousing units present along the route. In this section on the northern side of Dunnings Bridge Road the land uses are mainly leisure based including Bootle Golf Club, the Park Hotel, Fitness First and the Switch Island Leisure Park There are a number of key junctions along the route which include: B5421 Crescent Road/ Sandy Road A567 Bridge Road roundabout A5090 Hawthorne Road 44 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

49 A5038 Netherton Way Park Lane A5207 Copy Lane Switch Island The A5036 performs a variety of functions, most notably: It serves local communities; The route supports regeneration. The aim of the Atlantic Gateway initiative is to promote economic regeneration at the port and at key development sites situated adjacent to the main transport corridors in the area, which is primarily the A5036 Dunnings Bridge Road; It facilitates trips to and from the City Centre; and It is part of a strategic network providing national routes to the Port of Liverpool As the route is attempting to satisfy a number of roles this study has sought to understand the different pressures and how they will change in the future Traffic counts, undertaken on the Church Road section of the A5036 just south of its junction with Springfield Avenue, show total traffic flows during the AM peak period of 1540 vehicles in the westbound direction and 1143 in the eastbound direction. These flows are comprised of 11% and 17% HGVs respectively. During the PM peak hour traffic flows demonstrate a reversal of this trend, with increased from travelling in the eastbound direction (eastbound: 1529 vehicles, westbound: 1255 vehicles). The proportion of traffic comprised of HGVs decreases during the PM peak period to 4% in the westbound direction and 8% in the westbound direction. Traffic at this point during the inter peak period is approximately equal in either direction with 964 vehicles travelling westbound compared to 898 travelling eastbound. HGV percentages are markedly greater at this time than during the AM and PM peak periods, with 22% of westbound traffic and 24% of eastbound traffic being comprised of HGVs Traffic flows have also been obtained from a survey undertaken on the Dunnings Bridge Road approach to the Switch Island junction. AM peak hour data shows total traffic flows of 2146 in the northbound direction and 2652 in the southbound direction. HGVs percentages of 11% in the northbound direction and 8% in the southbound direction have been calculated. Traffic flows at this point do not show tidal characteristics, with similar traffic flows occurring during the PM peak hour of 2414 vehicles in the northbound direction and 2288 vehicles in the southbound direction. HGV percentages during the PM hour are lower than the during the AM peak at 6% northbound 5% southbound. Traffic flows during the interpeak period are approximately equal in either direction (1426 vehicles northbound, 1563 vehicles southbound). HGV percentages are much greater than during the peak periods, at 19% northbound and 16% southbound, demonstrating that HGV flows in this area display greater constancy throughout the day than general traffic flows. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 45

50 In September 2009 journey time surveys were undertaken on the A5036. Average inter peak journey times along the full length of the A5036 in each direction are approximately eight minutes. The survey shows that during the peak periods they increase, most notably in the PM peak hour in an eastbound direction where the journey times increase to an average of approximately 13 minutes. The journey time surveys highlight that the section of the A5036 that suffers from peak period congestion is from the Park Lane junction to Switch Island, in particular in an eastbound direction. A5058 Miller s Bridge/ Balliol Road/ Breeze Hill/ Queens Drive to the M The A5058 Queens Drive is approximately 9 kilometres in length from the Miller s Bridge to the Rocket Junction and the start of the M62. The route is predominantly a 40mph dual carriageway with localised widening on some sections and at key junctions. Industrial units dominate the land use on either side of the Miller s Bridge section of the A5058, interspersed with short intermittent section of residential frontages. A section of parkland, South Park, fronts the south side of route between its junction with Stanley Road and Hawthorne Road. From here the land use along the route becomes increasingly residential in character and continues to be so up to the Rocket Junction There are a number of key junctions that vehicles accessing the Port of Liverpool must traverse, including: A565 Derby Road A567 Stanley Road A5090 Hawthorne Road A5038 Southport Road A59 County Road A580 Walton Lane / Walton Hall Avenue A580 Townsend Avenue A5049 Muirhead Avenue A57 Prescot Road A5080 Bowring Park Road Available counts for the A5058 Queens Drive, undertaken south of the junction with East Prescot Road show total traffic flows during the AM peak hour of 2140 vehicles in the northbound direction 1121 vehicles in the southbound direction. The percentage of HGVs in the north and southbound directions at this time amount to 7% and 9%, respectively. There is much greater parity between north and southbound total traffic flows during the PM peak period with 1562 travelling northbound and 1234 travelling southbound. Similar HGVs percentages occur during the PM peak with 7% in the northbound direction and 8% in the southbound direction. Traffic flows during the interpeak period do not show a marked decrease from peak period traffic flows, with survey data showing 1509 vehicles travelling northbound and 1125 travelling southbound. HGV percentages during the interpeak period, of 7% northbound and 9% southbound, are closely similar to those occurring during the AM and PM peak periods. The traffic survey data therefore indicates a constancy of both general traffic and HGV traffic flows throughout the day at this point. 46 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

51 A580 East Lancs Road The A580 East Lancs Road connects with the A5058 Queens Drive and is approximately 5 kilometres in length between this junction and the M57 Junction 4. The route is predominantly a 40mph three lane carriageway road with localised widening at the junctions. From its junction with the A5058 Queen s Drive residential frontages bound the south side of the Walton Hall Avenue section of the A580, with Walton Hall Park located on the north side of the road. The main land use continues to be residential up to the Lower House Lane junction from where a small section of leisure usage gives way to industrial / warehousing units on the approach to the M57 junction Key junctions along this section of the East Lancs Road include: Stopgate Lane/ B5187 Parthenon Drive A580 Townsend Avenue Lower House Lane A5028 Moorgate Road Data from traffic surveys undertaken at the East Lancs Road junction with the B5183 Stopgate Lane/ Parthenon Drive show 2201 vehicles travelling in the westbound direction and 1445 in the east bound direction. HGV percentages in the west and east bound directions differ greatly during the AM peak hour, with 6 percent travelling in the westbound direction towards the port and 12% travelling in the eastbound direction. Traffic flows during the PM peak hour are similar in the west and eastbound directions, at 1490 and 1651 vehicles respectively. HGVs percentages are much lower at this point during the PM peak hour than during the AM peak hour, at 2% in each direction. Traffic flows during the interpeak period show a slight decrease from the PM peak with 1161 vehicles travelling westbound and 1136 travelling southbound. Conversely to this, HGV flows show a marked increase during this time when compared with PM peak flows, amounting the 11% of total traffic in the westbound direction and 13% of general traffic in the southbound direction. A565 Primrose Road / Derby Road to Liverpool City Centre The A565 Primrose Road / Derby Road runs north / south immediately to the east of the Port of Liverpool. The road is approximately 5 kilometres between the Seaforth Dock Gate and its junction with the A5054 Boundary Street. The predominant land use along this section of the A565 is industrial/ warehousing, with only short sections of residential frontages on the eastern side of the road between the Church Gardens and Miller s Bridge junctions Key junctions along this stretch of the A565 include: A566 Knowsley Road A5098 Marsh Lane A5058 Miller s Bridge A5056 Bankhall Street Sandhills Lane Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 47

52 Traffic surveys have been undertaken on the A565 Primrose Road immediately north of its junction with Strand Road. Total traffic flows in the southbound direction of 2619 vehicles, heading towards Liverpool city centre, are more than double those in the northbound direction, at 1119 vehicles. HGV percentages, however, are far greater at this time in the northbound direction at 8% compared to 2% in the southbound direction. Traffic flows at this point can be seen to be highly tidal in nature with more than twice the number of vehicles travelling northbound (2710 vehicles) to those travelling southbound (1216 vehicles) during the PM peak period. HGV percentages again show a reverse of this during the PM peak, with southbound traffic being comprised of 5% HGVs compared to 2% in the northbound direction. Traffic flows during the interpeak period show much greater parity than during the peak periods, with 1039 travelling northbound and 1085 travelling southbound. HGV percentages also reflect this trend with 8% in the northbound direction and 9% in the southbound direction. CONGESTION The above section highlights that traffic flows in the surrounding area are, as expected, higher in the main morning and evening travel periods than during the intervening periods. Congestion is also predominantly an issue during the peak periods with all the key routes highlighted above experiencing higher volumes of traffic and therefore more delay along the routes. The key congestion and bottleneck points on the main approach routes to the port are listed below and shown on Figure 4.7: Switch Island A5036 / A5207 Copy Lane A5036 / Park Lane A5036 / A5090 Hawthorne Road A5058 / A5038 Southport Road A5058 / A580 East Lancs The Rocket junction M62 westbound approach to the Rocket Junction A SATURN model exists of a key area of the surrounding highway network to the Port of Liverpool. The model is primarily focused on the south Sefton area of Merseyside, which includes Crosby, Litherland, Netherton, Maghull and Thornton. To the south the model includes Liverpool and Bootle, while to the north the coverage extends as far as Southport. Key routes represented in the model include the M57, M58, A5036, A59 and A The SATURN model developed has a fully validated base year scenario for the year Volume:capacity (V:C) ratios have been gathered from the Saturn Model. A V:C under 90% represents stable and acceptable operating conditions; values between 90% and 100% represent variable operation (i.e. congestion building up and there are increases in vehicular delay); and V:C s over 100% represent overloaded conditions (i.e. congested conditions). Interrogation of the 2009 SATURN model identifies that the A5036 corridor operates within capacity during the PM and inter peak periods. However, during the AM Peak the A5036 is identified to operate close to capacity with volume:capacity ratios over 95% at the following key locations: Westbound between the M57/M58 Junction and Copy Lane (V:C 95%); and 48 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

53 Westbound between Hawthorn Street and Orrell Road (V:C 96%) In 2009 the only other location in the study area identified to operate over capacity is the A508 between Southport Road and the A59. The volume:capacity ratios exceed 90% in a westbound direction during the AM peak and both eastbound and westbound directions during the PM peak Outputs from the 2009 SATURN model are included in Appendix H. FIGURE 4.7: KEY CONGESTION POINTS Key Congestion Point In addition, to the surrounding area the Port Access points can also become congested at peak times. This increased movement of HGVs through the port gates can sometimes impact on the surrounding highway network. Contingency plans are enacted if the Seaforth Gate to the port is congested. Vehicles are then routed into the port via the Strand Road port gate. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 49

54 PLANNED HIGHWAY INTERVENTIONS The main highway proposal in the area is the Thornton to Switch Island Link, see plan in Appendix E. In September 2008 the Thornton to Switch Island Link was given programme entry status as a Department for Transport s (DfT) major transport scheme. The scheme is a new single carriageway road connecting the A565 Southport Road at Thornton with the M57/M58 motorway junction at Switch Island. The road will improve access to the north of the Borough of Sefton from the motorway network, especially Formby and Southport and provide a local by-pass of the communities of Netherton and Thornton. In addition to the objective of relieving traffic congestion on Green Lane, Lydiate Lane, the Northern Perimeter and at the Copy Lane junction on Dunnings Bridge Road, environmental improvements, especially in terms of noise and air quality for local communities along Green Lane, Lydiate Lane and the Northern Perimeter Road are also expected A planning application for the scheme is planned to be submitted in April 2010 and it is anticipated work on the scheme will start in early The modelling for the original business case submission highlighted that traffic flows on the section of Dunnings Bridge Road from the Copy Lane junction to Switch Island are likely to go up with the introduction of the Thornton to Switch Island link. A likely conclusion for this is as a result of the new road releasing some capacity on the route and vehicles reassigning to use the A In the Merseyside area the other key highway scheme is the Mersey Gateway Project. The scheme is a major project to build a new toll bridge over the Mersey between the towns of Runcorn and Widnes. The new bridge will cross the river around 1.5 kilometres to the east of the existing Silver Jubilee Bridge linking the Central Expressway in Runcorn with the Eastern Bypass and Speke Road in Widnes. Key objectives of the new bridge are to reduce traffic on the existing Silver Jubilee Bridge, assist in delivering regeneration in Halton, Merseyside and the north west and provide a major strategic new transport route linking the Liverpool city-region, north Cheshire and the north west to the rest of the country. The scheme will improve access to the Port of Liverpool for sub-regional HGV trips and the regions to the south of Merseyside. 4.3 RAIL FREIGHT TRANSPORT The Liverpool Docks have the following rail-connected facilities: Intermodal rail freight terminal (Seaforth Dock): 3 x 400 metre lines under an overhead gantry crane with a 450m run round loop on the approach. Containers are lifted onto trailers for conveyance to the container stacking area at the Royal Seaforth Container Terminal. In 2009 no container traffic was being handled at the terminal, with long distance containers being transported by road by Freightliner to their terminal at Garston. Coal (E.ON, Gladstone Dock): A loading bunker on a 450m line with a run-round loop of similar length. Coal trains are 435m long, containing 23 wagons and carrying about 1,600 tonnes of coal. In 2009 there are about 20 coal trains in and out of Liverpool Docks each week, transporting coal to Fiddlers Ferry, Ratcliffe-on-Soar and Ironbridge Power Stations. There are about 90 paths for coal trains included in the railway timetable and so there is significant additional capacity for additional coal trains if demand increases in the future. 50 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

55 Steel (Gladstone Dock): The Steel Terminal in Gladstone Dock (beyond the coalloading facilities) is rail-connected and receives wagonload volumes of product. There is likely to be additional capacity to receive more steel by rail. Paper (between Gladstone and Alexandra Docks): Wagon load volumes of paper products are received by Stanton Grove on a loading loop off the single track that leads to the intermodal freight terminal in Seaforth Docks. There is likely to be additional capacity to receive more paper by rail. Steel scrap (EMR, Alexandra Dock): Three sidings up to 350m in length, connected off a run-round loop (partly shared with the coal trains) capable of accommodating a 440m train. Historic data suggests a 365m train carrying 540 tonnes of scrap in 18 wagons is the norm In 2009 there are no rail capacity issues within the Docks themselves, in that all demand for rail services can be accommodated by the existing rail facilities. Indeed, there is significant available rail capacity with the intermodal terminal not in use and only about 40 of the available 90 coal train paths being used Section 3 outlines in more detail the commodities that are currently being transported by rail. RAIL APPROACH TO LIVERPOOL DOCKS The sub regional rail network is shown on Figure 4.8. The rail approach to Liverpool docks is an eight-kilometre two-track dedicated freight line (Bootle Branch) that passes through a series of tunnels before becoming single track only as it enters the port. The loading gauge for intermodal rail freight services is W9, the speed limit is 20 mph and the line is operational 24hrs Until recently, trains had to reverse in Waterloo/Tuebrook Sidings before joining/after leaving the Chat Moss Mainline. This restricted the train length to 500m (not a constraint given the current length of trains to and from Liverpool Docks, but it could become a constraint in the future) and the reversing increased transit times and reduced line capacity The opening of the Mount Olive Chord (single track for 0.5 miles) now provides a direct connection to the Chat Moss Mainline, removing the length restriction and making journeys easier. The Olive Mount Chord became operational in December Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 51

56 FIGURE 4.8 RAIL NETWORK WCML Port Freight only branch Olive Mount Chord WCML Chat Moss Mainline Fiddler s Ferry Power Station Mainline access to Liverpool Docks is via the Chat Moss Mainline that runs between Liverpool and Manchester. At Earlestown there is a southbound connection to the West Coast Mainline (WCML) and at Newton-le-Willows there is a northbound connection to the same. The line speed on the Chat Moss Mainline is 75 mph, the loading gauge is W9 and a four-minute headway is required between trains. Network Rail has announced its intention to electrify the line Railway working time tables are constructed on an incremental basis to permit a range of different services to share the same routes and network, taking into account different train speeds and performance and calling patterns. Minimum intervals between trains are determined by signalling arrangements and are documented as rules of the plan Freight paths are allocated to traction supplies (and sometimes the owners of cargo) on the basis of need. They tend to be retained after that need disappears until a new user seeks a path that may conflict with an existing path. In those circumstances, the incumbant user will lose the path if it has not been used in the previous 16 weeks. Network Rail have the right to flex the working timetable to improve utilisation and in the longer run, timetables can be entirely reconstructed; the Office of Rail Regulation overseeing the process to protect user rights. 52 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

57 A high-level analysis of the passenger timetable for Winter 2010 suggests there is little opportunity for additional freight trains to use the line during the off-peak day period ( ), but detailed analysis of movements would probably result in some extra paths being found. As a working assumption, we take it that an extra path per hour across the day can be found (say 20 trains extra per day) Appendix C shows the freight services for which capacity is allocated in the Winter 2010 timetable. This sets out the train paths between the port and the inland origin or destination that have been agreed between the shipper/rail freight operator and Network Rail and so are guaranteed. This does not mean that the paths are actually used in practice, but shows the amount of capacity that already exists The analysis suggests there are 14 paths in to the Port and 13 paths out for coal trains each day (the imbalance appears to be to allow some flexibility on the timing of inbound trains). We understand that only about 6-7 train loads were required each day in late There are three intermodal train paths for Freightliner that are included in the timetable, but they were not being used in The analysis shows there are five paths in and four out for steel scrap trains each day (again, allowing for some flexibility on the timing of inbound trains). We understand that only two train loads per day are actually required in late There are also reserved train paths for a steel train and a paper train each day to and from DB Schenker s yard at Warrington In total there are 24 inbound paths and 22 outbound paths each day that are already available for rail freight distribution to and from Liverpool docks, of which (at most) 11 are being use in each direction in Winter This means that the rail freight capacity of Liverpool Docks is at least 22/24 train paths in each direction each day and capacity utilization is about 50%. In the short to medium term, unused paths are not available for use by other rail freight operators because they are effectively reserved on a use it or lose it principle. In the long run they will be available if unused for a continuous period of 16 weeks Overall, therefore, given some time-table flexing, there appears to be capacity from Liverpool Docks for up to 40 trains per 24 hours, only around 11 are currently being used. Capacity is now probably defined by the single track Olive Mount chord, which will probably be limited to 2 trains per hour per direction if trains are to be integrated into the busy Chat Moss line towards Manchester. Given that there is commitment to a W10 loading gauge and the Olive Mount curve is in place, there is probably little else required to be done to the railway network beyond the docks if rail freight potential is to be fulfilled. WIDER NETWORK ISSUES No detailed assessment of capacity on the wider network has been carried out, but the core route is the WCML, which is regarded as having adequate capacity for additional rail freight services to the north of Newton-le-Willows and south of Crewe as far as Northampton. To the south of Northampton capacity is more limited and consideration is being given for additional paths for rail freight to be available in the future on the MML. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 53

58 PLANNED RAIL NETWORK ENHANCEMENTS The Northern Hub rail study recently reported the findings of that work will be incorporated into this study The following planned rail network enhancements, relevant to rail access to Liverpool Docks, are planned: W10 loading gauge enhancement: Network Rail has funding in place to increase the loading gauge from the WCML to Liverpool Docks via the Chat Moss Mainline to W10. Electrification on the Chat Moss: The Government is committed to electrifying the Chat Moss route between Liverpool Lime Street and Manchester Victoria, to increase the speed on the route from 75mph to 90mph and reduce the journey time between the two cities to 30 minutes. The work will be carried out in two phases by As there were no container trains operating to and from Liverpool Docks in 2009, Network Rail is planning to carry out the electrification and loading gauge enhancement works simultaneously to minimise costs and disruption. CANADA DOCK RECONNECTION Historically Canada Dock was well-served by railway lines. The dock railway that now runs from Seaforth as far as Millers Bridge used to continue further south to the end of the dock system. There were also two other railways from the interior that reached the quayside in the area of Canada Dock. To reconnect Canada Dock to the rail network, the scheme currently being proposed has involved reconnecting one of those routes but it also possible that, given the on-going master planning exercise by Peel Ports, the cheapest option in the long-term may lie in examining an extension of the existing dock railway southwards to Canada Dock The current proposal is to re-connect Canada Dock inland to the Bootle Branch at Kirkdale, so that the Norton terminal can receive inbound trains of steel scrap. The main focus of activity by Peel Ports and the public sector so far has been on assembling the land along the route where a line used to pass. However, the volume of traffic available may not be sufficient to make a public sector business case, given the costs involved, and the likely value of wider public benefits in terms of environmental benefits or employment creation. The junction with the Bootle Branch has been removed and, according to Network Rail, a re-connection would cost 3-4 million. The tunnel would have to be re-opened and resealed Towards the southern end of Liverpool Docks, the current dock railway runs alongside Regents Road before turning inland across the road. Shortly south of this point the dock fence crosses the road, opening it up to public access and restricting the dock estate to the quayside of the road. There is a narrow gap alongside the road within the dock estate (i.e. behind the fence) that could possibly provide space for a rail connection to Canada Dock, but this would involve cutting across several dock users entrances and operational land before reaching the Norton metal recycling terminal. The space would appear to be particularly tight along the end of Brocklebank Branch Dock and immediately south thereof passing the edible oil refinery. 2 Britain s Transport Infrastructure Rail Electrification (DfT, July 2009) 54 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

59 If, in the long term, the land between Regents Road and Derby Road was taken into the port estate, there may be potential to continue the existing port railway beyond Millers Bridge to Canada Dock. This would also facilitate rail access to distribution centres included in a master plan for the port on the land between Regents Road and Derby Road. OTHER SCHEMES The Halton Curve provides a link between the Liverpool branch of the West Coast Mainline to the North Cheshire Line at Runcorn. It can currently only be used in one direction and as a result is poorly utilised. The improvement works would provide direct services from Liverpool to Chester and North Wales and improve access to the Mersey Multi Modal Gateway at Ditton, Widnes and John Lennon Airport Previous studies and recent consultation has highlighted barriers to the carriage of freight by rail. Section 3 set out the emerging economics of sustainable freight transport The disused Waterloo Tunnels have in the past been highlighted as unused infrastructure that could be enhanced to provide access to the port area. In 2000 proposals were developed for a tolled highway connection that utilised the Waterloo Tunnels. 4.4 WATERWAYS Four different kinds of waterborne freight are relevant to this study: Barge services between Liverpool Docks and facilities along the Manchester Ship Canal. Coastal shipping services between Liverpool Docks and the rest of Great Britain; these are services carrying containers or other freight between the port and other GB regions where there are suitable port facilities and major population/industrial centres to ensure there is a critical mass of traffic. Short sea shipping services between Liverpool Docks and the rest of Europe; these are services carrying units (excluding any services carrying deep sea traffic) or other freight between the port and other European countries where there are suitable port facilities and major population/industrial centres to ensure there is a critical mass of traffic. Deep sea container feeder services; these are services carrying deep sea containers between Liverpool and major deep sea container hubs in North West Europe, such as Antwerp and Le Havre. FACILITIES AT LIVERPOOL DOCKS Container barges and short sea/feeder container vessels can be accommodated at the Coastal Container Line berth, adjacent to the deep sea container berths at Royal Seaforth Container Terminal as well as the deep sea berths themselves. There are unlikely to be any restrictions to the size of barge or short sea container vessel that could be accommodated in the future, give that the key constraint is the size of Gladstone Lock that provides access from the Docks to the sea. Table 4.1 below summarises the Gladstone Lock vessel restrictions. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 55

60 TABLE 4.1: GLADSTONE LOCK MAXIMUM VESSEL RESTRICTIONS Max. length overall 292 metres Max. beam 36 metres Max draft 12.8 metres There is an existing container barge service between Seaforth and Irlam Container Terminal on the MSC that uses a tug to push a barge that can carry about 160 TEU. There is also a barge berth incorporated into the grain terminal in Gladstone Dock, although its use is now infrequent Almost all the berths within Liverpool Docks can accommodate short sea vessels and there is unlikely to be any shortage of port capacity for this kind of vessel. BARGES ON THE MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL The Manchester Ship Canal can accommodate large seagoing vessels, even if it cannot take the panamax ships that can berth at Seaforth Docks. The existing Irlam Container Terminal can accommodate vessels up to 160 metres in length, 19 metres beam and about 7 metres draft3 more than adequate to handle barge services from Liverpool Docks Peel Holding s scheme to develop a tri-modal freight distribution park at Barton on the Ship Canal (Port Salford) has now received planning permission and will incorporate two container berths for short sea/coastal container ships. These will therefore be more than adequate to accommodate barges. Peel Ports have also recently been granted planning consent for the development of a tri-modal distribution park at Acton Grange on the Manchester Ship Canal (Port Warrington); this too would be able to accommodate barges. Finally, Peel Holdings has submitted a planning application for a Resource Recovery Park at Ince in Cheshire, which would incorporate a berth on the Ship Canal (Port Ince) If all these facilities are provided with planning permission and developed, there is the potential for a barge service between Liverpool Docks and Port Salford via Port Ince and Port Warrington. It is noted that any increase in use of the Ship Canal would potentially have traffic implications in the Warrington area In practice, barge services will probably only be viable for waterside development (at least at existing road haulage market rates). The barge service is therefore most likely to be limited in its potential to the scrap and grain market, waste contracts and further port centric distribution developments at sites such as Port Salford and Port Warrington (see Chapter 5). COASTAL AND SHORT SEA SHIPPING Liverpool Docks already has well-established scheduled coastal and short sea unit load shipping links with the Clyde, Belfast and Dublin and with Iberia and the Mediterranean. There is unlikely to be a shortage of port capacity to handle these services either in Liverpool Docks or at partner ports Potential natural partner ports for the coastwise distribution of containers include Clydeport (also owned by Peel Ports), Southampton and (if rail capacity to the London area is limited) Tilbury. All these ports have deep water container berths and are located close to major population/industrial centres. 3 MDS Transmodal GB Port Infrastructure Database 56 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

61 Potential natural partner ports for the short sea distribution of containers and other unitised freight are mainly along the Atlantic Arc (i.e. the western British Isles, Western France, Iberia and North Africa). The Port of Liverpool has been involved in a project to develop a new short sea shipping service between the port and Leixoes in northern Portugal via Rosslare/Dublin in Ireland and Brest in Western France. The objective of the project was to develop a commercially sustainable service that would remove a proportion of the traffic on the roads between Portugal and GB and it is hoped that the service will start later in 2010 or OTHER MODES This section outlines the accessibility of the site by the sustainable modes of transport; walk, cycle, bus and rail. WALKING Pedestrians are generally well provided for in the area surrounding the port. However, the large quantum of traffic carried, the high percentage of HGVs and both perceived and real security issues limit their potential. In particular, the busy arterial roads connecting the port with the wider area are not conducive to an attractive pedestrian environment Objectives for the Highways Agency s Route Management Strategy for the M57/ M58/ A5036 include the improvement of safety and security of all road users including pedestrian crossing facilities A further limiting factor to walking as an access mode to the port is the large extent of the port estate. This can result in long walk times from the access points to some areas of the port which will discourage walking. CYCLING The nature of the road network presents barriers to cyclists, as it does pedestrians. Indeed, a section of Regent Road running adjacent to the Huskisson Dock and Canada Dock is marked on Liverpool City Council s cycle map as a busy junction/ danger point. There are a number of cycle routes in the vicinity of the port which connect to the A565, including Regional Route 81. Regional Route 81, a mainly off road route which runs from Liverpool City Centre, through Everton and Walton through to Sefton and along the coast to Southport and further north to Preston. The route runs to the east of the Port along the Leeds and Liverpool Canal and to the north along the Sefton coastline, connecting with the A565 at its junction with Cambridge Road approximately 400 metres north of the Seaforth Dock Road access. Cycle routes within the vicinity of the Port are shown in Figure 4.9. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 57

62 FIGURE 4.9 CYCLE ROUTES IN THE VICINITY OF THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL BUS SERVICES The Port of Liverpool is well served by bus based public transport, with a number of services (see Appendix D) connecting the Port to a wide variety of locations. As can be seen in Figure 4.10 below, the majority of services run along the A565. There are several services that run directly into the Port in the morning peak period, including service numbers 800, 835, 838 and 839. The 48 service, which runs at half hourly intervals from Liverpool city centre to Hillside, via Bootle, Crosby, Ince, Formby and Ainsdale, stops on Regent Road adjacent to the central dock area but does not enter the port itself In terms of access to the rail network, Seaforth and Litherland station, which is loated approximately 1kilometre from the Seaforth Dock Gate, can be accessed north of the dock gate via services 53, 53a, 53b and N53. Access to the station south of the Seaforth Dock Gate is provided by the 144 and 145 services which run along the A565 up to its junction with Marsh Lane. The 144 and 145 services also provide a link to Bootle New Strand Station which is located approximately 1 km from the Strand Road access There are no bus services running from the Port of Liverpool area directly to Liverpool Lime Street Station, however, a number run from the Queen s Square bus station which is located approximately 200 metres from Liverpool Lime Street. 58 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

63 FIGURE 4.10 BUS SERVICES IN THE VICINITY OF THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL 47, 48, 48a, 50b, 62, 62b, 162, X2, X BUS SERVICE NUMBER 47, 48, 48a, 50b, 62, 62b, 162, X2, X53 800, 838, , 103, 144, 145, 161, 800, 835, 835, a a a RAIL - PASSENGER TRANSPORT In terms of access to the Port of Liverpool by employees and visitors, a number of rail stations are considered to be readily accessible: Seaforth and Litherland approximately 1 km from Seaforth Dock Gate Bootle New Strand - approximately 1 km from the Strand Road Dock Gate Bootle Oriel Road approximately 900 metres from the Millers Bridge Dock Gate Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 59

64 These stations are all located on the Merseyrail Northern line which runs from Southport through to Hunts Cross. Table 4.2 shows the frequency of services to Liverpool Central and Liverpool Moorfields Station, from which a connection to Liverpool Lime Street can be made. Liverpool Lime Street is located on the Merseyrail City Line which is comprised of the Liverpool to Wigan line (which continues on to Preston and Blackpool North via the West Coast Mainline) and the two branches of the Liverpool to Manchester line. TABLE 4.2 FREQUENCY OF RAIL SERVICES Frequency of Services to Liverpool Central and Liverpool Moorfields (trains per hour) From Seaforth and Litherland, Bootle New Strand and Bootle Oriel Road Monday to Saturday Daytime Monday to Saturday Evening 4 4 Sunday 2 (increasing to 4 during the summertime) It is therefore considered that rail connection for employees and visitors are good given the level of services to stations with an acceptable walking distance. However, the pedestrian environment in the vicinity of the Port could present a barrier to travel via walk and rail, as shown previously, bus services do provide connections to Seaforth and Litherland and Bootle New Strand stations An issue for travel via public transport for employees in the port area is shift patterns of workers at the port result in variable working patterns which are also affected by tides/ship arrival times. Travel by public transport is therefore a little inflexible for many workers at the port. 4.6 EXISTING TRAVEL PATTERNS CENSUS DATA ANALYSIS In order to gain an initial impression of the importance of the different modes, the daytime population travel to work modal split has been obtained from the 2001 Census using the Census Output Areas shown in Figure 4.11 below as a proxy area for the Port of Liverpool. 60 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

65 FIGURE PORT OF LIVERPOOL CENSUS OUTPUT AREAS Table 4.3 below shows the daytime population travel to work modal split for the Port of Liverpool area, Sefton and the North West region. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 61

66 TABLE 4.3: DAYTIME POPULATION MODAL SPLIT Daytime Population Modal Split Mode Port of Liverpool Area Sefton North West Train 4% 3% 3% Bus, minibus or coach 9% 10% 9% Taxi or minicab 1% 2% 1% Driving a car or van 70% 60% 64% Passenger in a car or van 7% 8% 8% Motorcycle, scooter or moped 2% 1% 1% Bicycle 3% 4% 2% On foot 3% 12% 11% Other 1% 0% 1% Total 100% 100% 100% As can be seen in Table 4.3 the modal share held by those driving a car or van is greater for the Port of Liverpool than for both Sefton and the North West region as a whole. Another notable feature of the dataset is the much lower proportion of people walking to work when compared with both the Sefton and North West averages. With regards travel by public transport, a greater percentage of port workers travel by train to work than the Sefton average, however, bus travel to the Port is slightly below the Sefton average. The information contained within this section may go some way to explain these differences Census data showing the home locations of the daytime population of the Port of Liverpool area allows the approximate origins of port employees to be ascertained. The data is summarised on Figure 4.12 (at the end of this document) and in Table 4.2 below. Data shows that the overwhelming majority of employee origins (97%) are clustered in the north west of England, in particular Merseyside (85%). Within Merseyside there is a clear focus of employee origins in the vicinity of the port with the Sefton and Liverpool district of the county of Merseyside being home 34% and 30% of employees respectively. Other notable employee origins include Greater Manchester (3%), Lancashire (6% when the Unitary Authority of Blackpool is included). TABLE 4.4: PORT OF LIVERPOOL EMPLOYEE HOME LOCATION (2001 CENSUS) Government Office Region Number of Employees Percentage of Employees East Midlands % East of England % North East % North West % South East % South West % West Midlands % Yorkshire and The Humber % Wales % Total % 62 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

67 TRAFFIC DATA ANALYSIS Road Side Interviews (RSIs) were undertaken at a number of sites in September 2009 to support the planning and assessment of the Thornton to Switch Island Link Road. Two of these sites are useful in this context as they enable us to gain an understanding of the travel patterns of vehicles visiting the Port of Liverpool. Interviews were undertaken. The location of the surveys is shown in Figure 4.13 below. Details of the interview locations are as follows: Seaforth Dock Gate: Outbound vehicles from the port were surveyed on Thursday 10th September, 2009 A5036 Dunnings Bridge Road: Soutbound (in the direction of the Port) vehicles were surveyed on Wednesday 9th September FIGURE 4.13 ROAD SIDE INTERVIEW SURVEY LOCATION At the Seaforth Dock access 506 vehicles were interviewed (404 HGVs, 102 non HGVs) with 879 completed at the A5036 Dunnings Bridge Road (59 HGVs, 820 non HGVs) A two way classified link count was also undertaken at the survey location between the hours of This report will provide analysis and summarise key findings and trends from both the origin and destination RSI data and the link count data. ORIGIN AND DESTINATION DATA - SEAFORTH DOCK HGV Trips An initial analysis of origin data relating to HGV trips has indicated that there is some variability in the definition of journey origins among respondents, therefore analysis will focus on destination data in order to ensure robust conclusions. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 63

68 The postcodes of HGVs departing from the Seaforth Dock terminal are shown in Figure 4.14 and show that whilst there is a wide geographical spread of destinations, a clear clustering around the north west of England is apparent. Destination clusters can also be seen in the following areas outside of the northwest region: Stoke on Trent Birmingham Leeds A clear pattern of destinations being location along the UK s motorway network is also clearly apparent Table 4.5 below provides a comparison of the destinations of vehicles exiting the Port of Liverpool via the Seaforth Dock Gate. TABLE 4.5 DESTINATIONS OF VEHICLES EGRESSING THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL VIA THE SEAFORTH DOCK GATE Cars Number of % Vehicles Vehicles HGVs Number of % Vehicles Vehicles Destination Merseyside 68 67% 87 22% Rest of North West 26 25% % East and West Midlands 4 4% 68 17% Yorkshire and Humber 2 2% 45 11% Rest of England 2 2% 41 10% Wales 0 0% 8 2% Scotland 0 0% 11 3% Table 4.5 clearly demonstrates the much greater spatial concentration of car trips from the port in Merseyside, with 67% of car trips destined for this area compared to 22% of HGV trips. HGV trips display a much wider geographical spread across England, with particular clusters in the Midlands and Yorkshire and Humber regions. Trip destinations are focused within the bounds of England, with no car trips and only 5% of HGV trips destined for Scotland and Wales A more detailed display of HGV destinations in the north west region can be seen in Figure 4.15, which shows HGV destinations per 2001 Census Ward. It can be seen that destinations for HGVs are Merseyside centric, with the highest number of HGV trips being destined for the following wards: Riverside, Ward Halton 17 responses. The 3MG Multimodal, at Ditton is located in the area which is most likely to explain the number of HGV trips that are destined for it. 3MG is linked by road and rail to other ports such as Felixstowe and Southampton and is therefore another key freight hub in the Merseyside region. Northwood Ward, Knowsley 14 responses. The Knowsley Industrial Park in located in the ward and is a likely generator of HGV trips. Vauxhall Ward, Liverpool 11 responses. This ward encompasses Liverpool city centre and therefore shows that goods from the Port of Liverpool are being transported to businesses within central Liverpool. 64 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

69 A pattern of destinations along the M62 corridor through Warrington to Manchester can be seen, with a clear cluster in western Greater Manchester. In particular, five HGVs stated that their destination was in Trafford Park, large industrial area and is a key attractor and generator of HGV trips in the region. The average distance travelled by the surveyed HGVs has been calculated to be kilometres. Non-HGV Trips The destinations of non-hgvs exiting the Seaforth Dock Gate show a very different spatial distribution to that of HGV trips, as Figure 4.16 shows. Minimal trips are destined for beyond the north west region and a far more distinct clustering within the Merseyside area of the north west can be seen. A key explanatory factor for this differing distribution is that non-hgv vehicles exiting the Port will be comprised, to a large extent, of employees of the port who are likely to live in relatively close proximity. The Victoria Ward in Sefton, a residential area approximately 2 kilometres from the Port, received the highest number of responses (7). ORIGIN AND DESTINATION DATA -A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD HGV Trips The destinations of HGVs surveyed at the A5036 Dunnings Bridge Road can be seen to fall within this local area to a much greater extent to those surveyed at the Seaforth Dock Gate. In particular, a pattern of destinations along the A5036 as well as in the Port of Liverpool and in Liverpool City Centre can be seen. Of the 59 HGVs surveyed whose destination it was possible to map, 14 (24%) stated that their destination was within the Liverpool Dock area which highlights the A5036 role as a key distributor of dock HGV traffic. Non-HGV Trips As expected a heavy clustering of destinations is evident in the Liverpool and Sefton area. However, of the 850 non-hgvs surveyed whose destination it was possible to map, 3 (0.4%) stated that their destination was within the Liverpool Dock area. 4.7 ROUTING OF HGV TRIPS A key element of the port forecasting work is to understand the routing of vehicles, in particular HGVs, to and from the port. The transport modelling task in Stage two of the study will assign HGVs to the approach routes to the port Guided by the RSI data presented above and further informed by traffic counts obtained at key junctions, traffic from the Port has been distributed onto the key links in the local highway network. Table 4.6 outlines the routing of these HGVs. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 65

70 TABLE DISTRIBUTION OF HGV TRAFFIC ON TO ACCESS ROUTES Route 2 Way % HGVs Crosby Road South (north of A5036 Princess Way) 1% A5036 Dunnings Bridge Road 61% A565 Derby Road (from A5056 junction to Strand Road junction) 34% A565 Derby Road (from Strand Road junction to A5058 Millers Bridge Junction) 36% A5058 Miller's Bridge/ Balliol Road/ Breeze Hill/ Queens Drive (from A565 Derby Road junction to A580 Walton Lane junction) 33% A5058 Queens Drive (from A580 Walton Lane junction) 16% A580 East Lancs Road 16% A565 Derby Road South of A5058 Junction 6% As can be seen in Table 4.6 the majority of HGV traffic uses the A5036 (Dunnings Bridge Road) to access the port, which is comprised of traffic from the key routes such as the M6, M62, M57 and M58. The A565 Derby Road, in particular between the A5036 and A5058 (Millers Bridge) junction carries as much approximately one third of Port traffic, being comprised of traffic from each of the Ports four access points.. Equal numbers of HGVs (16%) use the A5058 Queens Drive and A580 East Lancs Road to access the M LINK COUNTS As previously stated, 12 hour classified two way link counts were undertaken at both the Seaforth Dock Gate and the A5036 Dunnings Bridge Road between the hours of 0700 and The results of these surveys for each of the two locations are summarised below. SEAFORTH DOCK GATE Total Traffic As can be seen in Table 4.7 below approximately equal numbers of HGVs non HGVs access the Port of Liverpool across the hour period. TABLE SEAFORTH DOCK GATE TOTAL TRAFFIC FLOWS Direction HGV Non HGV Total Traffic HGV Percentage Outbound % Inbound % PEAK HOURS The peak hours of the traffic flows are shown in Tables 4.8 below. TABLE 4.8 SEAFORTH DOCK GATE LINK COUNT PEAK HOURS Outbound Inbound 2-Way Peak Hour (time commencing) Number of Vehicles Peak Hour (time commencing) Number of Vehicles Peak Hour (time commencing) HGV 14: : : Non HGV 16: : : Total Vehicles 16: : : Number of Vehicles 66 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

71 4.8.4 As can be seen in Table 4.8 above the peak hours for non HGVs occur during the AM peak period in the inbound direction and during the PM peak period in the outbound direction, which is likely to reflect employees of the Port travelling to and from work. Peak hours for HGV accessing and egressing the Port occur in the afternoon during the inter peak period, indicating that freight traffic to and from the dock avoids the peak periods of general traffic. The peak hours of total traffic are the same as those of non-hgv traffic. FIGURE 4.17 SEAFORD DOCK GATE LINK COUNTS: OUTBOUND DIRECTION 120 Number of Vehicles TOTAL HGV TOTAL NON HGV TOTAL 0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time FIGURE 4.18 SEAFORTH DOCK GATE LINK COUNTS: INBOUND DIRECTION Number of Vehicles TOTAL HGV TOTAL NON HGV TOTAL 0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time Figures 4.17 and 4.18 show the change in vehicle flows at the Seaforth Dock Gate count throughout the day and clearly display the tidal nature of non HGV traffic, with the highest levels of inbound flows occurring during the AM peak and outbound during the PM peak. HGV flows remain much more steady through out the day. A slight increase in both inbound and outbound flows is apparent during the inter peak period. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 67

72 Percentage HGVs HGV percentages for the 12 hour period have been calculated and are shown in Figure 4.19 below. FIGURE 4.19 SEAFORTH DOCK GATE PERCENTAGE HGV TRAFFIC 100% 90% Percentage HGVs 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time Outbound Inbound 2 Way Whilst HGV levels throughout the day remain fairly constant, HGV percentages vary as an increase in inbound general traffic occurs during the AM peak and outbound general traffic occurs during the PM peak. A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD Total Traffic Traffic levels in both direction for both HGV and non HGV traffic are approximately equal across the 12 hour period, as can be seen in Table 4.9 below, which is to be expected given the tidal nature of traffic flows which are apparent in the data. Whilst the total number of HGVs is slightly higher at this location than at the Seaforth Dock Gate, given the far greater amount of non HGV traffic, HGV percentages at this location are much lower. TABLE 4.9 A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD TOTAL TRAFFIC FLOWS Direction HGV Non HGV Total Traffic HGV Percentage Southbound % Northbound % Peak Hours Table 4.10 shows that peak hours for total traffic and non-hgv traffic occur in the southbound direction during the AM peak and the northbound direction during the PM peak. Since this count was undertaken outwith the Port boundary, it does not only comprise of Port Traffic. This, therefore, is likely to include the journeys to work of employees of other areas including Liverpool city centre. With the exception of the northbound direction, all occur during the inter peak period. HGV flows are generally higher in the inter peak period, however, in the northbound, direction the single busiest period was in the AM peak period, at 9 AM. 68 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

73 TABLE 4.10 A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD LINK COUNT PEAK HOURS Southbound Northbound 2-Way Peak Hour (time commencing) Number of Vehicles Peak Hour (time commencing) Number of Vehicles Peak Hour (time commencing) Number of Vehicles HGV 10:00 and 13: : : Non HGV 07: :15 and 16: : Total Vehicles 07: :15 and 16: : Traffic flows across the period in the southbound and northbound direction at the A5036 Dunnings Bridge Road are shown in Figures 4.20 and 4.21 below and show clear increases in traffic during the peak periods. Flows can be seen to be tidal in nature, with increased flows in the southbound direction during the AM peak and in the northbound direction during the PM peak. HGV flows remain more constant throughout the day, increasing slightly during the interpeak period. FIGURE 4.20 A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD LINK COUNTS: SOUTHBOUND DIRECTION 600 Number of Vehicles Total HGV TOTAL NON HGV TOTAL 0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 69

74 FIGURE 4.21 A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD LINK COUNTS: 600 Number of Vehicles Total HGV TOTAL NON HGV TOTAL 0 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time Northbound Direction Percentage HGVs HGV percentages for the 12 hour period have been calculated and are shown in Figures 4.22 below. FIGURE 4.22 A5036 PERCENTAGE HGV TRAFFIC 20% 18% Percentage HGVs 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 Time Southbound Northbound 2 Way HGV percentages in both the north and southbound directions follow the same trajectory, increasing during the inter peak period due to lesser levels of general traffic and higher levels of HGV traffic. JOURNEY TIME DATA DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD In September 2009 journey time surveys were undertaken on the A5036. Table 4.11, below summarises the journey time data. 70 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

75 TABLE 4.11: JOURNEY TIME DATA SUMMARY AM Peak Period (7:30 9:30) Inter Peak Period (11:00 15:00) PM Peak Period (16:30 18:30) Journey Time Direction Northbound Southbound Min 7 mins 31 secs 7 mins 34 secs Max 15 mins 15 secs 11 mins 53 secs Ave 10 mins 19 secs 9 mins 55 secs Min 7 mins 35 secs 7 mins 11 secs Max 9 mins 46 secs 8 mins 28 secs Ave 8 mins 34 secs 8 mins 00 secs Min 9 mins 44 secs 7 mins 55 secs Max 17 mins 40 secs 11 mins 55 secs Ave 13 mins 05 secs 8 mins 59 secs Average inter peak journey times along the full length of the A5036 in each direction are approximately eight minutes. This is equivalent to an average speed of just over 20mph for the A5036 route. There is a notable variation in journey times from a minimum of approximately 7 mins 30 secs to over 15 minutes. A 15 minute journey time is equivalent to an average speed of approximately 12 mph. The survey show that during the peak periods they increase, most notably in the PM peak hour in an eastbound direction where the journey times increase to an average of approximately 13 minutes The journey time surveys highlight that the section of the A5036 that suffers from peak period congestion is from the Park Lane junction to Switch Island, in particular in an eastbound direction. Journey times on this section were observed to be almost three times that observed in the inter peak. 4.9 SAFETY Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data from the most recent 3 year period (as of February 2010) has been obtained from Sefton Borough Council. The study area for which the data has been obtained is shown in Figure 4.23 below and covers the key routes from the Strategic Road Network to the Port of Liverpool accesses. ALL ACCIDENTS A total of 238 accidents occurred within the study area, with the vast majority being slight in severity. A total of 31 accidents occurred within the study area involved HGVs. This figure amounts to 13% of the accidents which is not disproportionate to the percentage of HGV traffic in the area and therefore does not indicate that a significant quantum of HGV accidents occur. Table 4.12 summarises the data. TABLE 4.12 PIA DATA SUMMARY Number of Accidents Severity All HGV Pedestrian Cyclist Slight Serious Fatal Total Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 71

76 FIGURE 4.23 PIA STUDY AREA The location of the accidents is illustrated in Figure The number of accidents occurring within the vicinity of Port of Liverpool access junctions can be seen in Table 4.13 which shows that no serious or fatal accidents occurred during the 3 year period. One accident involved a pedestrian at the Seaforth Dock Gate and one of the accidents at the Strand Road access involved a cyclist. TABLE 4.13 PORT OF LIVERPOOL ACCESS ACCIDENTS Number of Accidents Severity Seaforth Dock Gate Strand Road Millers Bridge Slight Serious Fatal Total KEY JUNCTIONS An assessment of the expected accident rates for the key junctions in the study area has been undertaken using the methodology recommended in Volume 13, Chapter 5 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) This analysis is presented in Appendix G and summarised in Table 4.14 below:- 72 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

77 TABLE 4.14 PORT OF LIVERPOOL ACCESS ACCIDENTS Location Actual Accident Frequency (3 Year Period) Switch Island 34 A5036 Northern Perimeter Road / Copy Lane Junction Expected Accident Frequency (3 Year Period) 26 / 9 Dependant on Methodology (see Appendix G) Road Safety Issue Yes No A5036 / Boundary Road / Netherton Way Junction A5036 / Heysham Road Junction A5036 Hawthorne Road Junction A5036 / A57 Bridge Road Junction A565 Crosby Road / A5036 Princessway Junction No No No Yes 1 6 No The above Table highlights the Bridge Road and Switch Island Roundabouts as having poor accident records, with higher than expected accident rates for the form of junctions and volume of traffic using them. HGV ACCIDENTS A total of 31 accidents (13%) involving HGVs occurred within the study area. Of these accidents, 27 were classed as slight and four as serious. No fatal accidents involved an HGV within the study area. Table 4.15 summarises the accidents involving HGVs. TABLE 4.15 ACCIDENTS INVOLVING AN HGV Severity Number of Accidents Total Pedestrian Cyclist Slight Serious Fatal Total The location of accidents involving an HGV is illustrated in Figure There are a number of junctions at which more than two accidents occurred, all of which are located along the A5036 Princess Way/ Church Road/ Dunnings Bridge Road, as shown in Table Particularly notable is the A506 Dunnings Bridge Road/ Boundary Road/ Netherton Way junction, where 5 accidents in the last 3 years have involved an HGV; albeit each being slight in severity. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 73

78 TABLE HGV ACCIDENT CLUSTERS Severity Switch Island A5036/ Northern Perimeter Road/ Copy Lane A5036/ Boundary Road/ Netherton Way A5036/ Heysham Road Slight Serious Fatal Total A5036/ A567 Bridge Road There is minimal evidence of accidents involving HGVs in the vicinity of the Port access junctions, with one slight accident occurring at each of the three junctions in the last 3 years There is no evidence to indicate HGV involvement in pedestrian and cyclist accidents in the vicinity of the port. Two accidents involved an HGV and a pedestrian, the location of both of which is at the A5036 Dunnings Bridge Road / A5027 Northern Perimeter Road/ Copy Lane junction, situated 500 metres south west of the Switch Island junction. One accident involved an HGV and a cyclist at the A5036 Dunnings Bridge Road / Sandiways Avenue junction In summary, accident data from the last 3 years obtained for the key access routes to the Port of Liverpool does not suggest that there are road safety problems arising from the HGV trips generated by the Port of Liverpool. The percentage of HGV accidents is not disproportionate to the percentage of HGV traffic in the area and there is no evidence to indicate accident clusters at the Port s access junctions. Furthermore, HGVs were involved in only two accidents involving pedestrians, both of which occurred approximately five kilometres east of the Port ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES It will be important that the eventual strategy for port access is developed in accord with the key twin DaSTS objectives of supporting economic growth while working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thereby having the desired outcome of tackling climate change. This section outlines the issues in relation to air quality and also presents a calculation of port related carbon emissions. Noise and vibration are also environmental issues for the route however there is no available data that can be reported on these issues that is specific to the area and highway routes that are being investigated. AIR QUALITY Sefton Council s Air Pollution Team work under the Delivering Cleaner Air Beacon Council scheme. As part of its fulfilment of the Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) process (as set out in Part IV of the Environment Act 1995) the council, in 2009, produced and Updating and Screening Assessment. The LAQM process places an obligation on all Local Authorities to regularly review and assess air quality in their areas and to determine whether or not the air quality objectives are likely to be achieved. Where exceedences are likely Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) are to be declared along with an Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) which sets out the measures it intends to put in place in order to achieve the objectives. 74 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

79 The report identifies the main sources of air pollution in Sefton as being from road traffic vehicle emissions and the industrial processes within the Port of Liverpool. The high numbers of HGVs travelling to and from the Port are noted as contributing to elevated levels of particulate matter particles of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the vicinity of the Port. The report concludes that roads with over 20% of HGVs to be a high proportion that could be contributing to poor air quality. Whilst a survey in 2009 found the percentage of HGVs on a stretch of the A5058 Miller s Bridge exceeded this figure (20.4%), since the AADT was less than the 2,500 peak hour flow specified in government guidance, the section did not meet the criteria that would warrant further action to be taken. However, this stretch of the A5058 is within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), of which there are 3 in Sefton: An AQMA for PM10 based around the location of Waterloo Primary School, Crosby Road North in Waterloo along a section of the A565. An AQMA for nitrogen dioxide based around the location of the junction of the A5036 Princess Way with the A565 Crosby Road South in Seaforth. An AQMA for PM10 and nitrogen dioxide based around the location of the junction of the A5058 Millers Bridge with the A565 Derby Road in Bootle The A5036 Princess Way/ A565 Crosby Road junction and A5058 Millers Bridge/ A565 Derby Road junction AQMA s are of greatest pertinence to this study. Real time are pollution data available from electronic monitoring stations at these sites and at the time of the product of this report both PM10 and NO2 levels fell within the low category of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) pollution banding (indicating that health effects are unlikely to be noticed, even by people who know they are sensitive to air pollutants ). Comparisons of current and previous year data are available at these sites and is summarised in Table 4.17 below. TABLE 4.17: MILLER S BRIDGE AND PRINCESS DOCK AIR QUALITY MONITORING STATION DATA Millers Bridge Pollutant/Unit Nitric Oxide/ppb Nitrogen Dioxide/ppb Oxides of Nitrogen/ppb PM10 Particles BAM/µg/m³ Latest Month Same Month Last Year Difference between latest month and same month last year Last Month Year to Date Year to Date Last Year Difference between year to date this year and year to data last year Annual Average Last Year Difference between last month and annual average last year N/A 25.4 N/A N/A 14.5 N/A Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 75

80 Princess Way, Seaforth Pollutant/Unit Nitric Oxide/ppb Nitrogen Dioxide/ppb Oxides of Nitrogen/ppb PM10 Particles BAM/µg/m³ Latest Month Same Month Last Year Difference between latest month and same month last year Last Month Year to Date Year to Date Last Year Difference between year to date this year and year to data last year Annual Average Last Year Difference between last month and annual average last year The data contained within Table 4.17 indicates that, with the exception of PM10, pollution levels in the vicinity of the sites are falling when data from the latest complete month this year is compared with the same period last year. When data for the slightly longer period of this year to data is compared with the year to date last year, the same falling trend among all particulates can be seen. However, when comparing the data from January this year with last year s annual average, data for each emission at both sites show an increase. As stated previously, real time pollution levels at the sites fall within DEFRA s low banding. CARBON EMISSIONS In order to calculate the existing annual carbon emissions generated by the Port of Liverpool HGV traffic, DEFRA s 2009 Guidelines to Defra / DECC s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting have been employed. The report provides grams of CO2 equivalent for emissions per tonne kilometre, summarised in Table 4.18, for both rail and HGV transport: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Methane (CH4) Nitrous Oxide (N2O) TABLE 4.18 ROAD AND RAIL CARBON EQUIVALENT EMISSIONS PER TONNE KILOMETRE gco2 equivalent per tonne km CO2 CH4 N2O Total rail road Analysis has been undertaken which indicates the mode split for the transhipment of containers arriving at the port and can be seen in Table Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

81 TABLE 4.19 CONTAINER TRANSHIPMENT MODE Year Mode Share Road Rail Not Transported Inland % 1% 15% % 22% 15% % 24% 15% This mode shift has been applied to the total number of estimated containers arriving at the port which are shown in Table TABLE 4.20 TOTAL NUMBER OF CONTAINERS ARRIVING AT THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL Year Number of Containers Road Rail Not inland Total ,400 4,100 61, , , , , , , , , , The total weight of goods these containers represent has been calculated assuming each container weighs tonnes which is taken from DEFRA s 2009 Guidelines to Defra / DECC s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting. This value includes the weight of the vehicle/container as well as the weight of the actual freight load. These values have been converted to tonne kilometres by applying the average distance travelled by HGVs surveyed in the Road Side Interviews undertaken at the Seaforth Dock gate, which was found to be approximately 103 kilometres. This makes the assumption that there is no differential between average distance travelled by goods by road and rail from the port. The total quantum of CO2 equivalent generated by Port of Liverpool overland transhipment of containers can be seen in Table TABLE 4.21 TONNES OF CO2 EQUIVALENT GENERATED BY PORT OF LIVERPOOL OVERLAND CONTAINER TRANSHIPMENT Tonnes of CO2 Equivalent Percentage Reduction Year Road Rail Total Per Container from % % As can be seen in Table 4.21, whilst the total quantum of CO2 emissions generated is shown to increase in 2020 and 2030, given the mode shift to rail it can be seen that the CO2 equivalent emissions per container transported decreases. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 77

82 5 Socio-Economic Baseline 5.1 INTRODUCTION The DaSTS programme presents a new opportunity to develop transport programmes that best support sustainable local and sub-regional economic and social development, whilst reflecting wider environmental issues, and also taking account of the need to reduce carbon emissions and reduce congestion on the road and rail networks. The DaSTS Port of Liverpool study is set in the context of social and economic issues related to the following: Current passenger and freight travel patterns and conditions in Liverpool and Sefton and an examination of those journeys which are most important to support economic activity. Areas where future economic and population growth are predicted, recognising where improved access to the Port will be most beneficial to future economic performance. The scale and impact of lost economic productivity caused by congestion or poor access on both national and regional strategic links. The analysis will be based on existing data, and will be used to identify appropriate interventions for addressing this. The impacts of forecast levels of economic activity (including the growth of key industries), the development of additional capacity within the Port, and population growth within Liverpool and Sefton and the wider region. The forecasts are useful in understanding possible future scenarios and how they might impact on movements to and from the Port of Liverpool The socio economic analysis provides a context in which the proposed transport interventions can result in wider benefits, helping to promote equality of opportunity, improved safety, better health and a better quality of life for local populations This chapter explores in some detail the range of social and economic conditions, forecasts and issues that are faced within Liverpool and Sefton, setting out the key social and economic conditions, trends, forecasts and issues. In doing so, the chapter covers the following themes: Economy Employment Skills Population and Demographics Deprivation Land Use Under each theme, a summary of the baseline evidence is provided, and the key issues which will need to be considered in detail through the course of the study have been highlighted. These issues will inform the preparation of future options for intervention, and the testing of alternatives. 78 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

83 5.2 STUDY AREA The core focus of this study is upon issues as they relate to access and connectivity between the Port of Liverpool, Liverpool, Sefton and the wider national road and rail networks. These are not considered in isolation, but recognise that the Port of Liverpool study links into the DaSTS 2 North West Connectivity Study, with potential impacts from development of the Port being felt at the Liverpool City Region, regional and national levels The focus of the study is specifically on the Port of Liverpool and its immediate environs. Issues concerning the broader Merseyside area and surrounding local authorities are out-with the scope of the study remit, as are those issues which are not considered to have an impact beyond the immediate local level The remainder of the chapter concentrates on providing an analysis of the key socio-economic factors within the two Local Authorities in which the Port of Liverpool is located, setting this against the context of the North West region and England where it is relevant. To ensure that the Study integrates with the other DaSTS Studies that are being taken forward, we have tracked data from 1998 to 2008, using more recently available date where it is available Unlike the majority of the other DaSTS Studies that are being taken forward, the focus of this particular piece of work is much more localised with the benefits of intervention (e.g. employment uplift and economic growth) primarily being contained within the Liverpool and Sefton economies. 5.3 ECONOMY EVIDENCE BASE With a GVA of billion (2008), the North West is the largest regional economy outside of London and the South East. This equates to almost 10% of the UK total. Whilst no data robustly captures the actual level or type of employment within the Port complex itself, estimates provided by Peel Ports suggest that 200 companies are based within the Port complex, supporting approximately 1,200 jobs with an indicative GVA per employee of 34,600; it should be acknowledged that these figures are estimates and in the confines of this study it has not been possible for it to be independently verified. Other estimates prepared by Roger Tym and Partners 4 suggest that the various components of Liverpool Superport (which encompasses the ports, freight facilities and the airport located within the six local authorities in the Liverpool City Region, plus the port facilities at the mouth of the Manchester Ship Canal) support approximately 34,000 jobs and contribute approximately 1.1bn (1%) to the Regional economy 5. 4 The Mersey Partnership: Liverpool Superport Economic Trends Study, MDS Transmodal and Roger Tym & Partners, (2009) 5 It should be noted that this estimate includes employment and GVA from the strong array of existing port, airport and freight infrastructure within Merseyside; it is not simply a figure for the Port of Liverpool Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 79

84 GVA by Region 2008 Source: ONS (bn) N.Ireland North East Wales East Midlands Yorks & The Humber West Midlands South West Scotland E. of England North West South East London Economic performance within the North West varies considerably. The latest available sub-regional data (2007) shows that Merseyside contributes a significant amount to the regional economy - generating around 16.4% of the Region s total GVA. Liverpool generated 42.6% of the total Merseyside GVA, whilst Sefton generated 17.3% The remainder of the North West s total GVA is generated by Greater Manchester (40%), Lancashire (19%), Cheshire (18%), and Cumbria (6%). Notably, the GVA of Merseyside was less than that of both Cheshire and Lancashire in Regional, Sub-regional and Local GVA (2007) Source: ONS Statistical Bulletin: Regional, Sub-regional and Local GVA North West Merseyside Liverpool Sefton 80 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

85 5.3.4 The importance of the maritime sector to the Merseyside economy was previously assessed by Fisher Associates (2007) 6 as having contributed 710m in direct gross value added (GVA) in 2004/5 and 203m in indirect and induced GVA to the local economy. The Fisher Report identified that it is likely that the maritime sector accounts for between 5% and 5.5% of the total GVA in Merseyside, making it of similar importance to the construction sector. Gross value added per employee is estimated to be 34,600 for maritime-related activities compared to about 26,000 for Merseyside in general, meaning that the maritime sector in Merseyside also offers relatively high value added jobs The economies of both Liverpool and Sefton have both grown over time, although to different extents. The GVA growth over the decade is set out in Table 5.1. TABLE 5.1 PERCENTAGE GVA GROWTH % Value at 2007 ( bn) Sefton 64.3% 3.3bn Liverpool 74.6% 8.1bn East Merseyside 73.9% 4.1bn Merseyside 64.3% 19.1bn Liverpool and East Merseyside 7 experienced stronger growth in GVA than Sefton and the Merseyside average. Whilst the GVA of Sefton has increased between , it has done so at a considerably lower rate than Liverpool. If the effects of inflation are stripped out of the figures, the level of absolute economic growth in Sefton has been extremely low A range of factors might influence the more modest growth rates that have been experienced in parts of Liverpool and Sefton. These include the geographic impacts of: a declining production / manufacturing sector; relatively low levels of entrepreneurialism; under-representation of high growth / high value sectors (business services etc. particularly in Sefton); high levels of worklessness; de-population or very low levels of population growth With the Port of Liverpool being largely located in Sefton, improving the access to the Port may help to raise the GVA of Sefton in future years, bringing its performance more in line with that of Liverpool and East Merseyside, and helping to support the future growth of the Liverpool City Region economy. 6 The Maritime Sector on Merseyside Economic Impact Study, Fisher Associates (January 2007) 7 East Merseyside includes Knowsley and St Helens Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 81

86 GVA per Capita in Sefton and Liverpool (2007) (Source: ONS Regional Accounts. Statistical Bulletin, Regional, Sub-regional and Local GVA) London UK Liverpool North West Merseyside Sefton The picture regarding GVA per capita (rather than GVA per employee) highlights the strength of the Liverpool economy which exceeded the Regional figure of 16,234 per capita. Even so, the gap between Liverpool and Sefton and the most productive parts of the UK (London GVA 34,786 per capita and UK average 20,520) remains. Despite progress being made to close the gap, the economic disparity between the North and the South continues to grow wider. Improving the access and connectivity of the Port of Liverpool may help to attract additional investment in the transport and logistics sector, in turn supporting a number of higher skilled jobs in Liverpool and Sefton, influencing the Port of Liverpool s supply chain and helping to close the economic gap by raising GVA per capita in the two local authorities Using a longer timeframe to assess the economic trends that have played out in Liverpool and Sefton relative to its near neighbours provides a greater degree of insight. For example, using data that tracks back to the late 1980s to the present date enables us to see the full economic cycle from the impacts of the early 1990s recession, through the subsequent growth years, to the recent economic collapse and into the early stages of recovery In this analysis, it is clear that Liverpool has not grown to its full potential over the past 10 years remaining relatively static on most of the major economic measures, however even this performance can be regarded as positive, being much better than that of previous years. Future growth scenarios show that in the long term, Liverpool will experience a slow rate of growth, which might be influenced and supported by improving the access to the Port as a key component of Superport and one of the principal drivers of the MAA and City Region Growth Plan. SUMMARY The North West is the largest regional economy outside of London and the South East with a value of 120.7bn (2008). Merseyside contributes a substantial amount to the regional economy, generating 19.7bn or 16.4% of the Region s total (2008). Of this, Liverpool generated 8.4bn (42.6%) whilst Sefton generated 3.4bn (17.3%). 82 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

87 Estimates suggest that the maritime sector in Merseyside contributes 710m in direct GVA (2005 figures), potentially accounting for between 5% and 5.5% of the total GVA in Merseyside. The economic value of employment within the maritime sector is also relatively high, with estimates suggesting that GVA per maritime employee is 34,600 higher than the Merseyside general average of 26,000. Time trend analysis shows that the economy of Liverpool has grown more strongly than that of Sefton, although both have faced economic challenges, and neither have grown to their full potential. Improving the access to the Port may help to raise the GVA generated by Sefton in future years, bringing the economic performance more in line with that of Liverpool and East Merseyside, and helping to support the long term growth of the Liverpool City Region economy. 5.4 EMPLOYMENT EVIDENCE BASE The available evidence shows that 10.6% of the North West s jobs are located within the two local authorities of Liverpool and Sefton - almost 318,000 in total. Liverpool has the greatest number of jobs out of the two authorities, with 226,989 jobs across all sectors, whilst Sefton has 90,610 jobs (ABI 2008) This represents an increase of around 22,000 jobs over the decade (an increase of 6.9%). Whilst employment in Liverpool grew over the decade by 24,872, this growth is tempered by the decline in overall employment in Sefton (which decreased by 2,904 over the same period In summary: Employment growth was particularly strong in Liverpool (25,000 jobs or 12.4%) over the 10 years ; Employment in Sefton decreased over the course of the same decade, (2,904 jobs lost or -3.1%); The following chart illustrates the change in employment in both Liverpool and Sefton as indexed relative to the position in 1998, clearly showing the two very different employment trajectories. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 83

88 Employment Change Source: Annual Business Inquiry Index (1998 = 100) Liverpool Sefton Since 1998, employment in Liverpool risen by over 12%, following a broad upward trend. The experience of Sefton is markedly different. Following a period of relatively strong growth between 1998 and 2002, employment in Sefton declined markedly, with employment dropping sharply year on year from 2005 onwards. By 2008, employment levels in Sefton were approximately 3% lower than they were in As the major economy within the context of this study, Liverpool demonstrates the following characteristics: 226,989 jobs in Liverpool, a high proportion of which are in the Public Sector which accounts for 33.2% of the total. Banking, Finance and Insurance account for a further 21% of the total employment in Liverpool. Distribution, Hotels and Restaurants supports 46,598 jobs (20.5%) of the total employment within Liverpool The make up of employment in Sefton is also dominated by public sector employment. Sefton s economy demonstrates the following characteristics: 90,610 jobs are located in Sefton, with a significant proportion being in the Public Sector which accounts for 39.5% of all employment. Distribution, Hotels and Restaurants account for a further 25% The full breakdown of employment by industry (using the Broad Industrial Classifications) in both Liverpool and Sefton is set out in the following chart. 84 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

89 Employment by Industry Source: Annual Business Enquiry Percentage (%) Public admin Banking, finance education & health & insurance Distribution, hotels & restaurants Transport & comms Liverpool Sefton Manufacturing Other services Construction Energy and water An area for concern looking forward is the relatively high dependency in both economies upon public sector employment. As identified in the preceding section, the largest single contributor to GVA in Sefton was the public administration, education and health sector which accounted for 39.5% of the total employment; in Liverpool, this same sector accounted for 33.2% of all employment An over reliance upon the public sector at a time when sharp spending cuts are forecast is a cause for concern, particularly in these places which are already demonstrating slow rates of economic growth Transport and transport related employment supports a significant number of jobs within the Sefton and Liverpool Local Authority areas. Latest available figures (see the Roger Tym and Partners report referenced previously) indicate that approximately 34,000 people are employed in transport or transport related occupations, ranging from water transport related occupations to cargo handling and wider distribution occupations within the existing sites in Liverpool and Sefton. The transport and transport related sector is an important source of employment at the local level Examining employment in further detail using 4 digit SIC Codes instead of the Broad Industrial Classifications shows that 24,876 people within Liverpool and 8,522 people in Sefton work in transport or transport related occupations in the broadest sense (ABI 2008), giving a total transport related employment base of nearly 34,000 people. Given that the Port of Liverpool largely lies within Sefton, this might be considered to be a surprisingly low figure, however it ignores the fact that the majority of transport supporting and auxiliary companies e.g. companies involved in freight forwarding, insurance and such like, are likely to be based in Liverpool City Centre A more integrated port facility with improved access may help to attract new transport and related employers to the area, supporting jobs growth and helping to improve the resilience of the sub-regional economy, particularly if expenditure in the public sector reduces in line with expectations The breakdown of employment within both Liverpool and Sefton at the 4 digit SIC Code level is illustrated in the following chart. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 85

90 Employment: Transport & Distribution Sub Sectors Source: Annual Business Inquiry Liverpool Sefton Transport via Railways 0.0 Activities of Other Transport Agencies Taxi operation Freight Transport by Road Sea & Coastal Water Transport Post & Courier Passenger Land Transport Cargo, Storage & Warehousing Supporting & Aux Transport Land Transport Number As the larger settlement, it is not surprising that Liverpool has the greater share of transport related employment. Where Sefton has the upper hand however is in the number of people employed in freight transit by road occupations, perhaps reflecting the better road linkages that Sefton has to the motorway network via the A5036 to the M57 and M58 motorways The sectors most likely to benefit from improved access to the Port of Liverpool in terms of employment uplift are transport via railways, freight transport by road, sea and coastal water transport, and cargo, storage and warehousing The overarching economic trends affecting key sectors within Liverpool and Sefton are outlined below in relation to: Public Administration, Education and Health; Distribution, Hotels and Retailing; Transport and Communications; Energy & Water; Manufacturing; Construction; Banking, Finance & Insurance; and Other Services Employment in public administration, education and health increased significantly within Liverpool over the course of the decade, remaining relatively stable at approximately 90,000 employees between 2005 and In Sefton, employment in the public sector accounts for the greatest amount of employment, but overall, employment in the sector has declined since peaking in The changes are set out in the table below. 86 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

91 Employment Over Time: All Broad Industrial Categories Source: Annual Business Inquiry 240, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Liverpool Public Sector Transport & Communications Manufacturing Banking, Finance & Insurance Sefton Distribution, hotels & restaurants Energy & Water Construction Other Services Employment within the Port of Liverpool and its associated industries does not readily fit within just one broad industrial category. Most of the employment will be in the transport and communications category, but there will be some employment captured within the distribution, hotels and restaurants category, with additional employment also being in the supporting maritime financial and insurance services category. These sectors may experience an uplift in the levels of employment if accessibility and connectivity to the Port complex were to be improved Employment in the transport and communications sector in Sefton decreased by 10% (a loss of 397 jobs), whilst in Liverpool it grew by 1% (an increase of 134 jobs. This means that in total, employment in the transport and communications sector decreased in the two local authorities by 263 jobs Employment in the distribution, hotels and retailing sector in Sefton declined by over 22% (-6,585 jobs lost) over the same time period. Liverpool fared slightly better, with a small increase in people employed within this sector (an increase of 553 / 1.2%). Overall employment within Liverpool and Sefton in this sector declined by 6,032 jobs. Intervening to improve the access to the Port of Liverpool may generate additional employment within the distribution sector in both Sefton and Liverpool Overall employment within the public sector increased by 26% in Liverpool over the decade, a rise of 18,468 people, whilst in Sefton it increased by 11%, a rise of 3,513 people. The combined total employment within this sector in the two local authorities within the two local authorities increased by 21,981 over the decade Employment levels in energy and water sector are very small within both Liverpool and Sefton. In Liverpool, employment in the sector declined by 5.4% (albeit with a loss of only 27 jobs), whilst in Sefton the sector has grown considerably, rising 293% (but creating only 85 jobs). Employment in this sector has fluctuated considerably in Sefton over the course of the decade, peaking in 2000 with 248 jobs before declining to the current level of employment. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 87

92 Employment in the manufacturing sector has fallen sharply in both local authority areas. In Liverpool, employment fell by over 40% (with a loss of 7,954 jobs) between 1998 and In Sefton, the pattern was broadly similar, with a loss of 32% of all manufacturing employment (a decline of 2,610 jobs) Employment in the construction sector has grown in Liverpool over the decade by 34% (1,938 jobs), with levels peaking in 2008 at 7,534 jobs. In Sefton, overall employment in the sector increased by 22% (738 jobs) with the peak being in Employment in banking, finance and insurance increased significantly in Liverpool, rising 44.1% and creating 14,784 jobs between 1998 and In Sefton, the upward trend was less pronounced although still significant, with a 10.6% increase and the creation of 1,304 jobs over the decade Employment in other services fell by 21% in Liverpool (losing 3,004 jobs), but rose in Sefton by 24% creating 1,048 jobs As noted previously, overall employment in both Liverpool and Sefton increased, with the increase being driven largely by increased employment in the public sector (which accounts for 39.2% of the total employment in the two local authorities), and in the banking, finance and insurance sector (which accounts for 19.4% of all employment within the two local authorities), with growth being supported by steady growth in the construction sector. It should be noted that the gains made in each of these sectors will have been tempered by the effects of the recession Should access to the Port of Liverpool be improved, it is likely that there will be gains in employment within the transport and communications, distribution and banking financial and insurance service industries in both Liverpool and Sefton. Infrastructure improvements that better connect the Port to the local area and to the wider national network has the potential to encourage certain types of firms to locate in the City Region. Such firms include those in the freight supply chain, such as freight forwarding, cargo and warehousing companies, logistics companies, as well as those in back office operations, such as shipping agencies, insurance and maritime law. SUMMARY Together Liverpool and Sefton support 318,000 jobs, representing over 10% of the North West s total employment, with most of this employment located in Liverpool. Employment in Liverpool grew by 24,872 between 1998 and 2008, but employment levels in Sefton fell by 2,904 over the same period, with employment levels in 2008 being 3% lower than they were in A high proportion of employment in both economies is found within the Public Sector, which supports 113,421 jobs in total. The financial services and insurance sector is the second largest employer in Liverpool, supporting nearly 48,000 jobs, some of which will be linked to the maritime economy. Our analysis suggests that over 33,000 people within Liverpool and Sefton are employed within transport or transport related industries, representing a significant proportion of the total employment within two authorities. A better integrated port with improved access to the road and rail networks may help to attract new transport and related employers to the area, building on the 88 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

93 established cluster of transport and associated employers in Liverpool and supporting jobs growth and helping to improve the resilience of the sub-regional economy. 5.5 ECONOMIC CHALLENGES The sectoral breakdown of employment outlined in the preceding section poses a number of challenges to the economies of Liverpool and Sefton. These are outlined below: Most of the jobs that have been created in both Liverpool and Sefton have been in the public sector, and public sector employment accounts for the largest proportion of employment in both Liverpool and Sefton. At the same time there has been a decline in the number of private sector jobs in many parts of the North West, and this is also true within Liverpool and Sefton. Employment growth generally has been poor in lower performing parts of the region, and total employment has fallen in Sefton by nearly 3,000 jobs. Improving access to the Port of Liverpool can play a role in helping to reverse this trend in both Liverpool and Sefton, through attracting maritime related companies into the Port complex and into the two local authority areas. The published literature relating travel patterns to types of employment and wage levels indicates that people on lower wages tend not to travel any great distance to access work. The DaSTS 5 Regional Accessibility and Deprivation study identifies that The type of employment (and associated wage expectations) will reflect an individual s stated maximum journey time and their consideration of appropriate travel cost. Across all the study areas, office workers were prepared to travel further than unskilled workers. This implies that both types of worker have reached logical conclusions based on economic rationale based on their value of time 8. With the largest proportion of employment in Sefton being lost from those sectors which include many lower skilled workers, the importance of being able to access local employment opportunities increases. The Roger Tym research (2009) identified that the existing Port facilities support a wide range of employment at all skill levels. Figures show that in the Liverpool City Region, approximately 55% of residents are qualified to NVQ level 2 equivalent to 5 GCSE s A-C level - slightly above the regional and national average of 49% and 45% respectively. Conversely 22% of residents have an NVQ level 4/5 at least one degree which is less than the regional and national averages of 25% and 28% respectively. Improving the access to the Port of Liverpool may help to create additional employment opportunities in companies locating there in response to the anticipated greater flow of goods that the Port would be able to handle. The skills that are possessed by residents within the Liverpool City Region broadly implies that residents of the Liverpool City Region are well qualified to fill many of the new jobs created, although there may be some in-commuting required. The high reliance on the public sector for job opportunities is a concern, particularly in areas such as Merseyside where over 40% of all jobs area in the public sector. 8 Delivering a Sustainable Transport System (DaSTS) Study 5: Regional Accessibility & Regeneration Stage 1, JMP and Regeneris, (2010) pp 30 Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 89

94 With an emergency budget due to be delivered within 50 days of the newly elected Conservative-Liberal coalition government being formed9, and with the likelihood of the public purse being constrained for the foreseeable future, an over-reliance on public sector employment may hold back future economic growth in these areas. That said, private sector employment has grown within certain key sectors, such as financial and business services, but employment within sectors which were traditionally strong in both Liverpool and Sefton such as transport and distribution has been declining. Improved access to the Port may help to reverse this trend, although the scale of uplift that is realises is dependent on which of the potential interventions is taken forward. This throws up further challenges. In many instances, those employees who have lost their jobs within the manufacturing, and distribution and transport sectors possess a skill set which does not match the requirements of the opportunities that are emerging in the growing knowledge based sectors. With the changing employment dynamics that have been evidenced in the preceding section of the chapter, there is then a question of how to make the best use of the physical assets within Liverpool and Sefton, including the Port of Liverpool to underpin future economic and employment growth within Liverpool and Sefton, the Liverpool City Region and help to drive Regional productivity levels. SUMMARY The over-reliance of the economies of Sefton and Liverpool and the public sector is a concern, especially when levels of public expenditure face a series of sharp cuts. Whilst overall levels of private sector employment have declined, there has been a recent uplift in certain key sectors, notably within the financial and professional services sector, especially in Liverpool. The loss of employment in traditional sectors (such as manufacturing, distribution and transport) together with the increase in professional types of employment pose a challenge to the skills capacity of the local workforce. Making the best use of the physical assets within Liverpool and Sefton, and in particular improving the access to the Port of Liverpool can bring twofold benefits. Firstly it can help to generate additional employment in the transport and distribution sector, with more workers being required to handle the increased freight capacity that such interventions would generate. Secondly it can help to catalyse transport related companies i.e. freight forwarding agencies, insurance companies etc to locate in the area, benefiting from the existing clustering effects that are already evident in Liverpool. 5.6 ECONOMIC FORECASTS Forecasts produced by the North West Regional Intelligence Unit project employment across the region for a 25 year period (from 2005 to 2030). Using the forecasts supplied by the NWRIU, total employment within the North West Region is anticipated to be 3.36m, by 2015; 3.39m by 2020 and 3.55m by These forecasts represent year on year annual growth of 0.1% in the period , rising to 0.4% year on year annually growth in the period The new Government was formed on 10 th May Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

95 Forecast Employment Change Source: NWRIU Index (2010 = 100) Merseyside Northwest Over the course of the 20 years until 2030, after a brief dip in employment (forecast to hit Merseyside in 2012), the employment trajectory in Merseyside broadly mirrors that for the North West, rising steadily until 2020, and accelerating between 2020 and The forecast increases in employment are reflected in anticipated increases in GVA, which at the regional level is anticipated to rise from 105,647.9m in 2010 to 116,511.8m by 2015 and 161,729.4m by These forecasts are based on the best information that was available at the time of their compilation however a number of risks remain: It appears that the major world economies have emerged from recession, but it remains to be seen whether this is the first step on a sustained recovery or a false dawn. There is still the possibility that global production networks have yet to fully restructure in response. Recovery may be slower than expected. Without sufficient underlying growth to feed shareholder growth expectations, companies might be forced to compete for market share, cut costs (potentially affecting employment rates), or both. The state of the public finances will require severe cuts in public sector spending and investment in the medium-term. The scale of cuts that will be implemented is uncertain, as is the scope of the public sector restructuring in response These risks have all been reflected in the forecast, however use of the figures presented in the forecasts should be treated with a degree of caution. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 91

96 Forecast GVA Change Source: NWRIU Index (2010 = 100) Merseyside Northwest The forecast increase in GVA at the Merseyside level maps almost exactly onto the overall regional forecasts for the next 20 years The forecasts prepared by the NWRIU anticipate employment in the region to grow by 0.3% per annum over the next 20 years; this is behind the UK forecast growth rate of 0.4% p.a. Whilst the forecast for the region shows annual growth over all years, the forecast for Liverpool shows no growth in employment until 2015, but thereafter predicts similar levels of growth to that forecast in Greater Manchester between It should be noted that the forecasts that are presented here are those which have been agreed and adopted by the NWRIU, and differ to those that are modelled in the TEMPRO Model that underpins all DfT Transport Modelling. Whilst the figures in the TEMPRO model are based on ABI data (2006) they do not take particular account of local growth conditions or wider market imperfections. We have therefore opted to use the figures that are recognised at the Regional level, and which have been used to inform the preparation of the Regional Strategy THE IMPORTANCE OF PORT RELATED GROWTH TO THE MERSEYSIDE ECONOMY The strongest growth sectors in future years are likely to be public services and associated service sectors, including banking, finance and insurance. Here, the Port of Liverpool can play an increasing role. 92 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

97 Should access to the Port, and its connections to the wider road and rail transport network be improved, it is likely that additional employment will be created, both directly within the Port Complex, and indirectly in the form of employment within the office based service sector, including employment in freight forwarding, logistics services agents and of course, the insurance industry. Clustering already takes place in the Liverpool City Region where, because of a strong tradition as a mercantile maritime city, companies in the four key maritime sub-sectors of shipping/ports, maritime services, marine engineering and distribution/logistics are co-located and/or their activity is interdependent. This, in turn, has encouraged inward investment of major maritime companies, including shipping lines, which now have their HQ or UK HQ based in Liverpool. Improved access may help to support additional agglomeration and clustering in the maritime sector, creating additional employment and generating additional GVA Improving the access to the Port has the potential to encourage certain types of firms to locate in the City Region. Such firms include those in the freight supply chain, such as freight forwarding, cargo and warehousing companies, logistics companies, as well as those in back office operations, such as shipping agencies, insurance and maritime law. There is then potential for the Port of Liverpool as part of the broader Superport concept to bring clustering benefits to the City Region. These benefits include an increase in the number of businesses that would be developed in or attracted to the area by the development of the Post-Panamax terminal, such as handlers, contractors and businesses in the supply chain Anecdotal evidence provided by Peel Ports suggests that there are approximately 200 companies located within the Port Complex, employing around 1,600 people, with an average GVA per capita of 34,600 generating approximately 55.36m in GVA. Estimates provide by Roger Tym & Partners suggest that the development of the Post-Panamax terminal will generate around 3,000 additional jobs which the improved access to the Port will help to support. At this stage, these figures are however just estimates, and should not be taken out of context Validating the figures will require primary research to establish the number of companies that are located within the Port complex, the number of people that are employed within them and gaining an understanding of their turnover and sales to provide a robust estimate of the GVA that the Port currently generates. Once this is known, the level of uplift that would be realised from delivering improved access to the Port can be tested against the various options for intervention that will be developed in later stages of the Study. SUMMARY Total employment in the North West is anticipated to increase to 3.55m by 2030, with the employment trajectory of Merseyside being forecast to broadly mirror that of the region. Employment levels in Merseyside are forecast to rise steadily until 2020, and accelerate thereafter. Total GVA in the North West is also forecast to rise by 56m in the period from 2010 to Once again, the forecast increases in Merseyside map almost exactly onto the regional forecasts for the next 20 years. However, despite the positive growth that is forecast, levels of growth remain behind that which is forecast for the UK. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 93

98 Improving access to the Port of Liverpool offers the potential to address this growth deficit, enabling additional tonnage of freight movements, creating new employment and potentially generating significant levels of additional GVA for Merseyside. 5.7 SKILLS EVIDENCE BASE As the region s economy grows and evolves, the demand for people possessing higher level skills and qualifications (the equivalent of A Level, first degrees and above) to work in highly skilled occupations is increasing, whilst demand for occupations that require few or no skills is falling Although the region is raising the skills levels within its workforce and attainment amongst young people is improving, current rates of skills progression within the workforce are insufficient to meet business needs. This is a key constraint on business growth in the region and will ultimately hold back productivity levels Based on projections prepared by Working Futures for labour demand by qualification level, the future requirements for the North West economy are summarised in Table 5.2. TABLE 5.2 SKILLS REQUIREMENTS 2007 Skills Skills 66% of the North West workforce were qualified to Level 2 46% of the North West workforce were qualified to Level 3 25% of the North West workforce were qualified to Level 4+ 85% of the North West workforce will need to be qualified to at least Level 2 63% of the North West workforce will need to be qualified to Level 3 35% of the North West workforce will be required to be qualified to Level The increases in the proportion of the workforce that will need to be qualified to these levels is considerable, and without concerted effort to ensure that the workforce within Liverpool and Sefton are able to acquire these skills, there is a danger that the productivity gap between the north and the south will increase. It is expected that the majority of demand for these skill sets will arise from replacement demand, as people retire, move away from the area or move into new jobs, creating opportunities for others to fill Relating this to the direct employment within the Ports Complex, i.e. those companies involved in logistics and shipping, it is anticipated that the overall logistics sector workforce in the region will increase by 6,000 workers between 2007 and 2017, with a significant proportion of these being located within the ports and airports of the North West. In addition replacement demand is expected to be around 91,000. In total the Logistics Sector Skills Council estimates that the sector will therefore need to fill 96,000 positions, and ensure that the people filling these jobs have the necessary skills and qualifications. 10 Level 2 Skills include: GCSEs grades A*-C; BTEC First Diplomas and Certificates; OCR Nationals; Level 3 Skills include: A levels; Advanced Extension Awards; GCE in applied subjects; International Baccalaureate; Level 4 Skills include: NVQs at level 4; BTEC Professional Diplomas 94 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

99 5.7.6 The Logistics Sector Skills Council (Skills for Logistics) identifies that across the English logistics sector, applicants not possessing the necessary skills is the most commonly citied reason for vacancies being hard to fill. Research undertaken by the SSC in January 2009 shows that at the national (England) level, the Logistics Sector has a low proportion of its workforce qualified to an NVQ level 4 equivalent qualification (17% of the total) whilst nearly half (46%) or 668,800 individuals in the sector do not have a Level 2 qualification; 13% of those in the sector have no qualifications, while a further 12% hold other qualifications. This demonstrates that there is a large potential within the sector to raise qualification levels, which in turn will help achieve the Governments ambition of World Class Skills targets The SSC research also identifies the skills requirements of the Logistics industry as a whole, with the research findings suggesting that: 28% of the logistics sector workforce require higher level (3 and 4) skills; 63% of the sector workforce requires Intermediate Level (2 and 3) skills; 100% of the sector workforce require basic and employability level (1 and 2) skills The SSC expects that over the next 7 years, managerial positions within the logistics industry will increase significantly (by 32,500 jobs) whilst positions within the lesser skilled trade occupations and transport and machine operative positions will decline (by 28,100 jobs). This means that the skills requirements of the industry are rising The second most common reasons is that there are a lack of people who are interested in a logistics job. Skills that have been identified as being hard to find from those who are interested in a logistics job include technical, practical or job specific skills, customer handling skills and oral communication skills The Sector Skills Council Skills for Logistics found that within the North West, nearly one in eight employers believed that they employed staff who were not fully proficient (i.e. who had skills gaps). Skills gaps are the result of a number of factors, the main one being that the staff member lacked experience or had been recently recruited to the role. A significant proportion of logistics employers also believed that staff lacked motivation and were unable to keep up with changes within the industry The ageing population in the two local authorities will also present a challenge to employers, with a workforce demographic in which a significant proportion are nearing retirement. The challenge that this poses relates to the knowledge and expertise that is embedded within the employees retiring from the sector. Ensuring that this is replaced through appropriately qualified people is important for the future of the sector. In addition those industries which have traditionally recruited school leavers and other young people are declining. The age profile of the logistics sector is slightly older than the regional workforce as a whole, with the sector employing a lower proportion of 16 to 24 year olds (9% compared to 15%) and 25 to 34 year olds (18% and 21%). This highlights the sector s concerns that not enough young people are entering the sector, and that logistics as a career is not an obvious choice to young people. The sector is perceived to have a poor image with a lack of career progression Skills for Logistics (2005). Sector Skills Agreement (SSA). Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 95

100 THE SKILLS OF THE RESIDENT POPULATION Table 5.3 shows Sefton has a higher proportion of people qualified a level 2 and above than either Liverpool or the North West, with over 27% of the working age population (equivalent to 43,800 people) possessing level 4+ skills. The proportion of the Liverpool population possessing level 4+ skills is lower than the regional average, equating to 60,900 people. The proportion of Liverpool s population qualified to all levels is also lower than the regional average, however in both Liverpool and Sefton, the proportion of the working age population with no qualifications is higher than the regional average, at 19.5% (54,400) and 16.4% (26,200) respectively. TABLE 5.3 SKILLS POSSESSED BY THE WORKING AGE POPULATION (2008) NVQ4+ NVQ3+ NVQ2 NVQ1+ Other None Area % % % % % % Sefton Liverpool North West Source: Annual Population Survey; NOMIS The Roger Tym & Partners Study (2009) 12 suggests that maritime jobs require workers with a diverse range of skills, as employment opportunities are across the various occupation groups (from managerial and senior professional, to process and plant workers). The Tym Study suggests that just under half of all jobs within the maritime sector are in the low skilled categories of process, plant and machine operatives and elementary occupations. The next largest occupation category is managers and senior officials, which accounts for close to a fifth of all jobs. In the Sefton, over 63% of the working age population are qualified to NVQ level 2 equivalent to 5 GCSE s A-C level - slightly above the regional average of 64.2%, whilst in Liverpool, 61.3% of the working age population are qualified to this level slightly below the regional average. Conversely 27.5% of Sefton s working age population and 21.9% of Liverpool s working age population have an NVQ level 4/5 at least one degree putting Sefton slightly above and Liverpool slightly below the regional average (25.6%) The literature indicates that around half of the maritime sector jobs require limited skills and training, with most opportunities being accessible by all sections of the local workforce. Occupations requiring higher level skills will also be accessible to many within the local workforces, although these occupations may also draw in workers from a broader geographical area. 12 The Mersey Partnership: Liverpool Superport Economic Trends Study Final Report by MDS Transmodal Limited & Roger Tym & Partners (August 2009) 96 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

101 Increasing the accessibility of the Port, and ensuring that people living within the deprived areas of Sefton and Liverpool are able to access this employment will help to tackle the high levels of deprivation and worklessness that are evident throughout Liverpool and Sefton. Even so, whilst employment may be accessible to many workers within Liverpool and Sefton, it should be recognised that there is a need to concentrate efforts on making residents ready for work through the provision of training and employment programmes which will maximise the local benefits within deprived communities The need for people possessing higher level skills affects all industries within Liverpool and Sefton, not just those which are in the logistics sector. With the growth in banking, finance and insurance services, and associated service sector employment growing in Liverpool in particular over recent years, ensuring that there is a supply of people possessing higher level skills is vital to both Liverpool and Sefton achieving the forecast levels of growth. These higher level jobs have typically been concentrated in the urban area of Liverpool, and ensuring that the people possessing higher level skills are able to access those jobs that require them is important in the long term. SUMMARY Although the skills possessed by the North West s workforce are rising, the current rates of skills progression do not meet the needs of business, constraining business growth and holding back productivity. Whilst the population of Sefton is relatively well qualified (with proportionally more people qualified at levels 1-4 than the regional average), Liverpool has a relatively poorly qualified population (with proportionally fewer people qualified at levels 1-4). Improving access to the Port of Liverpool is expected to create additional employment. The Sector Skills Council for Logistics anticipate that due to replacement demand and growth within the sector, 96,000 positions will need to be filled by people possessing appropriate levels of qualifications. Of these, the SSC expects that managerial positions will increase significantly, whilst positions within the lesser skilled trade occupations is expected to decline. This means that overall the skills requirements of the transport and logistics industry are rising. However, research by Roger Tym & Partners (2009) suggests that employers in the maritime sector require workers with a diverse range of skills, with employment opportunities across a range of occupation groups. The Tym study suggests that nearly half of all jobs within the maritime sector are in the lower skilled categories of process, plant and machinery operatives, with a further 20% of the total employment being managerial. The skills profile of Liverpool and Sefton indicates that many of the maritime related employment opportunities would be accessible to all sections of the local workforce, with those occupations requiring higher level skills also being available to many from within the local workforces although these occupations may also draw in workers from elsewhere. Increasing the accessibility of the Port of Liverpool will further enable that people living within the deprived areas of Sefton and Liverpool are able to access existing and new employment opportunities that are created. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 97

102 Despite this, there remains a need to concentrate efforts on making residents within the deprived communities ready for work through the provision of appropriate training and employment programmes which will maximize local benefits within deprived areas. 5.8 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS EVIDENCE BASE Between 1998 and 2008, the UK s population grew by 5.3% - an overall increase of 2.6 million people. Over the same period the North West s population grew by just 1.2% (83,500 people), rising from 6,792,200 to 6,875, By 2008 the population of Liverpool was 434,900 and the population of Sefton was 275,100; these figures represent a decrease in population on figures from Population Change Source: Mid Year Population Estimate Liverpool Sefton Merseyside North West Index (1998 = 100) The population change within the Port of Liverpool study area is set out in the chart above. The indexed chart allows the relative growth experiences of places at a variety of scales to be compared directly, and shows the change in population in Sefton, Liverpool relative to that of Merseyside and the North West Whilst overall the population of the region increased, the rate of growth within the DaSTS Port of Liverpool study area decreased. The overall population of Liverpool declined between 1998 and 2008, falling by 4.0% (from 453,200 in 1998 to 434,900, a loss of 18,300 people). Whilst the decline was significant, it marked a reduction in a long term trend of population decline. The population of Sefton also declined over the same period, falling by 2.75% (from 282,900 in 1998 to 275,100, a loss of 7,800 people. In total, Sefton and Liverpool together lost over 26,000 people from their populations in the course of ten years. It is interesting to note that changes in the working age population (a key driver of demand for peak hour travel) do not directly correlate with these overall population trends. 98 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

103 5.8.5 Whilst the overall population of Liverpool declined, the working age population increased, a phenomenon likely to be explained in part due to the high proportion of apartments constructed in the city, which tend to attract a greater proportion of residents of working age than more traditional housing types. Whilst the working age population of Liverpool increased, that of Sefton declined by 1.1%, a rate only slightly below that of the overall population loss. POPULATION FORECASTS WITHIN LIVERPOOL AND SEFTON The Office of National Statistics (ONS) produces population forecasts that are based on historical data for the period Over this 25 year period, the population of England is forecast to increase by 15.5%, whilst the population of the North West is forecast to increase by 10.2%. Again, there are considerable fluctuations in the forecast growth rate for individual authorities across the study area The long term trend of population decline which has characterised Liverpool is forecast to be reversed, with a modest population growth of 2.7% being forecast At the sub-regional level, the lowest forecast population growth is in Merseyside, which is predicted to grow by just 1.2% over the period This is in stark contrast to the level of growth that is predicted elsewhere in the North West (the population of Lancashire is forecast to grow by 14.0%, Greater Manchester s by 12.8% and Cheshire (including Cheshire East and Cheshire West & Chester) by 11.6%. These levels of growth are above that which is forecast for the North West as a whole, which is predicted to experience population growth of 10.3% over the same period The chart below shows that the population of Merseyside as a whole will rise (although it must be remembered that proportionally, the level of growth is very small. The population of Liverpool is predicted to decline until 2022, when there will be a degree of recovery and very low levels of growth from 2030 and beyond. In Sefton however, the forecasts show a slow but steady population decline over the next 20 years. Forecast Population Change Source: ONS Index (2010 = 100) Sefton Liverpool Merseyside North West Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 99

104 The DfT Population forecasts that underpin the WebTAG / TEMPRO Model differ slightly from those which have been agreed by the NWRIU which are presented in the above chart. Whilst the figures are only slightly different, it is important to note that the DfT require that any modelling of future transport impacts uses the WebTAG / TEMPRO forecasts. SUMMARY The population of Liverpool and Sefton declined between , a trend that goes against the broader regional trend which experienced an overall population growth. In total, Sefton and Liverpool lost over 26,000 people from their populations over the course of ten years. Despite the overall population declining, Liverpool s working age population increased over the same period, contributing to the demand for peak hour travel. Population forecasts indicate that the long term trend of population decline in Liverpool is set to reverse, with modest growth being forecast up to Overall the population of Merseyside is forecast to rise, although the level of growth is very small. The changing size of the population may place additional pressures on the existing road and rail infrastructure which this study should be mindful of. 5.9 DEPRIVATION EVIDENCE BASE Despite an extended period of economic growth and recent increases in population, levels of deprivation across all indicators and across the urban core of Liverpool and Sefton remain amongst the highest in the Country. The Indices of Multiple Deprivation show that 48,498 (18%) of the population in Sefton, and 240,057 (55%) of the population of Liverpool live within the worst 10% most deprived wards nationally. In comparison, 20% of the North West population (i.e. 1,394,997 people) live within the 10% worst deprived wards, whereas nationally (UK) just 8.1% of the population live within the 10% worst deprived wards. The following map illustrates the levels of deprivation in each of the Lower Super Output Areas that are in the study area. 100 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

105 5.9.2 The full scale of deprivation within Liverpool and Sefton is captured in the fact that the number of residents living in the most deprived wards (the worst 10% nationally) within the two local authorities exceeds the equivalent figure for the South East and East of England combined Levels of deprivation are strongly focused within the urban core of the Liverpool City Region, and Sefton also has a high number of people living within the worst 10% LSOAs nationally. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 101

106 5.9.4 The map above clearly illustrates the level of deprivation within the two local authorities in the study. Over 50% of Liverpool s population - 240,057 out of 435,500 people living in the City live within the top 10% most deprived areas of the country. Within Sefton, the number and proportion of the population is lower, with 48,498 out of 276,200, i.e. 18% of the population living in the worst 10% LSOAs nationally. To a degree, the level of economic and employment deprivation in Sefton and Liverpool can be linked to the stagnation of world trade in the 1970s, which together with global labour markets moving away from heavy labour intensive industries in the developed world and Liverpool s location on the western seaboard making the port unsuitable to capitalise on trade with Europe led to a restructuring of the Port during the late 1980s which has had a profound and lasting impact A separate DaSTS study is being undertaken to explore the relationship between accessibility and deprivation 13. The DaSTS 5: Regional Accessibility and Regeneration Study examines the link between regional accessibility and regeneration explores the extent to which transport and access issues contribute to disadvantage and deprivation, and seeks to understand whether the extent to which accessibility improvement might contribute to tackling deprivation. The evidence base for the DaSTS 5 study references a regional study undertaken by MVA Consultancy in 2006 which specifically examined the links between access to individual places and the Indices of Multiple Deprivation The research found that there is no strong or obvious connection between accessibility, car ownership, deprivation or unemployment. Indeed, many of the LSOAs that were examined in the study were found to have relatively good levels of accessibility, with acceptable levels of public transport provision and no over-reliance on the private car. Yet despite this, it should be noted that the study did highlight that there are secondary social exclusion effects which could be reduced by providing improved accessibility, notably through improved public transport. SUMMARY Despite recent economic growth in Liverpool and Sefton, levels of deprivation remain particularly high in Liverpool, and Sefton also suffers from considerable deprivation in a number of its wards. Tackling the incidences of deprivation within the two local authority areas will require a much broader suite of interventions than simply those related to transport and connectivity, however improved accessibility to the Port of Liverpool may help to reduce levels of worklessness and as a result, help to reduce the levels of deprivation that are experienced in Liverpool and Sefton LAND-USE STRATEGIC REGIONAL SITES The Strategic Regional Sites are seen by the NWDA as a priority to secure inward investment and meet the needs of the Regional Economic Strategy. From an original shortlist of 11 Strategic Regional Sites (2000), the number of Strategic Regional Sites has since risen to 36 (2010), confirming their importance to the realisation of the region s overall economic strategy. 13 The DaSTS 5 Regional Accessibility and Regeneration Study is being led by JMP and Regeneris 102 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

107 The overriding purpose of the Strategic Regional Sites is to give a clear sense of the strategic priorities to all public and private sector partners, it should be noted however, that whilst a site may be designated as a Strategic Regional Site this does not automatically secure Agency funding The sites are intended to: secure the effective implementation of the Regional Economic Strategy; have priority, where necessary, for implementation in terms of all Agency resources and in Agency support in bids for other resources; be supported by the Agency through all aspects of the planning NWDA s objectives in identifying the Strategic Regional Sites is to provide a portfolio of attractive opportunities for future inward investment across the region, that can support the development of knowledge based industry within areas of identified regeneration need. The sites build on the region s existing clusters of knowledge based activity and also support sustainable freight distribution to support economic growth and restructuring across the region. A draft purpose for each strategic regional site has been developed A review of the Strategic Regional Sites was undertaken in 2009 by the NWDA which resulted in the designation of a revised list of 36 Regional Strategic Sites. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 103

108 The Strategic Sites are regarded as being key nodes in the economic development of the Region, and have the potential to have a significant impact on the regional competitiveness. There are 11 strategic regional sites in Merseyside, and 8 are located within the cluster which is found around the Port of Liverpool. These include: 104 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

109 Site / Location Draft Purpose of Each Site Birkenhead Docks, Wirral Birkenhead Docks presents the opportunity to: Promote a mix of uses including housing, knowledge based and port-related development in a highly accessible and exceptional quality waterside environment; Provide for significant inward investment opportunities; Restructure areas adjacent to the dock estate; Assist in facilitating the economic restructuring of parts of the inner area surrounding Merseyside s regional centre; and Bring back into use derelict and under used land. 2. Dunningsbridge, Sefton (Port of Liverpool Economic Corridor) The Dunningsbridge site (Port of Liverpool Economic Corridor) provides the opportunity to: Provide nationally significant freight handling and logistics facilities associated with the Port of Liverpool to assist the regeneration of South Sefton/North Liverpool; and Accommodate related manufacturing and process industries. 3. Estuary, Liverpool Estuary presents the opportunity to create a high quality sub regional business park on a prominent site within south Liverpool in an area of regeneration need. The site will: Accommodate new development in knowledge based industries, with particular emphasis on the life sciences (biotechnology and pharmaceuticals) building on a track record of attracting inward investment; Provide space for growing indigenous companies who wish to expand in a quality environment as well as inward investment; and Capitalise on the proximity of Liverpool Airport and the good access to the road and rail communications network. 4. Liverpool North Docks Liverpool North Docks is intended to create a nationally outstanding urban environment which secures a diverse range of economic activity within a mixed use framework including housing, offices, inward investment, port related and process industries. The development will: Support rather than compete with Liverpool City Centre; Strengthen public transport linkages with the city centre and North Liverpool; Assist in facilitating the economic restructuring of 14 The North West Development Agency is currently in discussions with local authorities and other relevant partners regarding the ultimate purpose to which each Strategic Site is put, and consequently, the uses that are outlined in the table are likely to change. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 105

110 parts of the inner area surrounding Merseyside s regional centre; Secure the restoration of the built heritage; and Bring back into use derelict and under used land. 5. Liverpool Pall Mall Pall Mall is intended to create a thriving extension to Liverpool s office quarter which will strengthen, underpin and benefit from the wider revival of the regional centre. The development will: Take advantage of high quality rail and road access; and Accommodate nationally significant inward investment in the office sector (public and private). 6. Liverpool Science Park (Edge Lane) 7. Liverpool University Edge (Liverpool Knowledge Quarter) Liverpool Science Park (Edge Lane) provides the opportunity for additional job growth by completing the final phase of the existing technology park development. The site will: Provide grow on space for indigenous high tech companies in an area of regeneration need. Liverpool University Edge will become a new regional focus for knowledge related jobs and people. It will have a supportive relationship with the growth and development of the two Universities, the School of Tropical Medicine and the teaching hospital. The strategic regional site will: Transform the quality of the urban environment and improve its pedestrian connectivity to Lime Street Station; Foster the growth of university and NHS teaching hospital research functions; Stimulate the growth of university/business linkages; Attract high level research in both the private sector and government; and Be supported by skills and innovation programmes. 8. Parkside, St Helens Parkside is intended to create a modern inter- modal (rail and road) exchange, logistics and strategic rail freight facility. The strategic regional site will: Accommodate strategic distribution development (rail related) in response to regional policy imperatives, need and demand; and Accommodate businesses that will utilise the railway for the transportation of freight Improved accessibility to the Port of Liverpool has the potential to make a significant contribution to the future economic success of five of the sites identified within the list set out above. These are Birkenhead Docks (Wirral), Dunningsbridge (Sefton), Estuary (Liverpool), North Docks (Liverpool) and Parkside (St. Helens). 106 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

111 Considering the infrastructural and connectivity issues associated with these sites early in the planning process rather than improving the infrastructure to these sites on an ad hoc basis enables future transport policy and strategy to ensure that these sites are recognised in planned transport interventions and supported to ensure that their economic potential can be realised. SUMMARY The Strategic Regional Sites within the Merseyside context are regarded as being key nodes in the economic development of the Region and have the potential to have a significant impact on regional competitiveness. Improving the accessibility to the Port of Liverpool has the potential to make a significant contribution to the future economic success of five of the sites that are identified by NWDA, including Birkenhead Docks, the Liverpool Estuary, Liverpool North Docks and Parkside in St. Helens. Considering the infrastructural and connectivity issues of these sites at an early stage, and potentially integrating them in the options analysis for improving the accessibility of the Port of Liverpool will ensure that the maximum level of benefit is secured for the region POTENTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM IMPROVING ACCESS TO THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL This study seeks to capture the range of economic and social benefits that might result from improving access to the Port of Liverpool, in terms of employment generated and GVA realised The precise scale of uplift that will be realised is largely dependent on the nature of the intervention that is adopted, however this section of the report aims to provide an indication of the level of employment and GVA currently generated by the Port and to set out a rationale by which the scale of uplift realised from transport interventions to improve access might be calculated A number of direct, indirect and induced economic benefits will result from improving the access to the Port of Liverpool. These include the direct benefits that will be felt by companies located within the Port and their various supply chains, the indirect benefits to the economies of Liverpool and Sefton from additional expenditure by these companies and the induced benefits that will be realised from the expenditure of their employees. DIRECT IMPACT This is the initial impact that improved accessibility will have on companies that are directly involved in the maritime sector in Merseyside. For these companies, the Port underpins the operation of their business simply put, if the port ceased to operate, then their businesses would be directly affected to some degree. Improving access to the Port may help to facilitate additional freight movements through the Port, potentially creating additional employment opportunities within the Port Complex itself. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 107

112 Improved access may also result in reduced travel times across a range of modes. Should road access to the Port be improved, congestion levels may reduce, lowering journey times and increasing journey reliability and the economic competitiveness of road haulage companies. Similarly improving the capacity of the rail network into the Port complex will potentially reduce the travel time and improve the resilience of the network The Port of Liverpool makes a significant direct contribution to the Merseyside economy. It is estimated that there are approximately 3,000 people 15 employed within about 200 organisations located immediately within the Port Complex. Fisher Associates estimated that GVA per employee is 34,600 for maritime related activities, compared to about 26,000 for Merseyside in general. This would imply that the economic contribution of the Port in terms of employment is potentially in the order of 103.8m In order to validate this figure it would be necessary to either undertake primary research with companies located within the Port of Liverpool, or to agree a means of apportionment with the Project Steering Group, using figures that were included in the Fisher Report (2007) produced for Mersey Maritime and which were updated as part of the Roger Tym & Partners study that examined Superport. These reports focussed on a much broader geography and infrastructure than that which has been identified for this study, and disaggregating the figures may prove to be problematic as a result The Superport Report (Roger Tym & Partners 2009) produced estimates for the amount of employment and associated value uplift that might be realised from discrete elements of the Superport concept. It has been estimated that there are around 3,000 people employed in the port area and with the Langton RoRo and Post Panamax the number of new direct jobs created would be: Langton RoRo = 100 direct employees Post Panamax = 200 direct employees Applying the Fisher Associates estimate that GVA per employee is 34,600 for maritime related activities the creation of these additional jobs will generate 10.4m in additional GVA To fully capture the scale of the current direct economic impacts generated by the Port of Liverpool, it would also be necessary to capture the employment, turnover and value added within the broader maritime related sector in both Liverpool and Sefton, obtaining data from for example freight forwarding agents and insurance brokers This would provide a robust baseline position from which to calculate the potential level of economic uplift that various transport interventions might realise. It would be useful for this primary research to be undertaken as part of the subsequent stages of the study to support the detailed analysis of particular options for intervention. 15 A figure of 3,500 employees is quoted within the Sefton UDP (2006) whilst the Liverpool Daily Post of 20 th May 2010 provides an estimate of 3,000 employees. 108 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

113 INDIRECT IMPACT Businesses involved in the maritime sector in turn inject money into the economy through spending on goods and services, and this generates an indirect economic impact. Multipliers are used to estimate the size of this indirect impact. The size of the multiplier and the impact on the local economy however, depend on the extent to which these goods and services are sourced locally, i.e. the strength of the supply chain linkages and the state of the local economy Strong supply chain linkages in the local area mean less leakage through companies sourcing their inputs from elsewhere. The size of the local economy is also important, as the larger the geographical area, the lower the leakages are likely to be. Thus the impact on the economy of the North West or northern England would be higher than the impact on the economy of Merseyside Merseyside already benefits considerably from an established maritime cluster (including maritime insurance, freight forwarding agencies etc.). Data from the Annual business Inquiry (ABI 2008) indicates that approximately 15,000 people in Merseyside are employed in activities that service the transport industry, although it is not possible at this stage to comment on the level of GVA that this generates The benefits of clustering are well known, with companies choosing to cluster in order to benefit from labour market pooling, specialised supplier networks, established relationships and the sharing of knowledge Given the strong clustering already evident in Merseyside and in Liverpool in particular, especially in terms of the maritime service sector we would expect that companies based within the Port would draw on a relatively localised supply chain in terms of the goods and services procured. Depending on the nature of the intervention that is taken forward, we would expect the multiplier to be relatively moderate. We would envisage refining the true scale of multiplier in later stages of the study as the options for intervention are finalised The Superport Report (Roger Tym & Partners 2009) produced estimates for the amount of direct, indirect and induced employment and associated value uplift that might be realised from discrete elements of the Superport concept. Table 5.4 summarises the Port of Liverpool elements TABLE 5.4 SUMMARY IMPACTS ON JOBS AND GVA Facility Estimated Employment Estimated GVA Post Panamax 3, m Container Terminal Langton RoRo 144 5m TOTAL 3, m 16 The Mersey Partnership: Liverpool Superport Economic Trends Study, MDS Transmodal Limited & Roger Tym & Partners (Date: August 2009) Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 109

114 Using the figures presented in the table above would suggest that improving access to the Port of Liverpool would contribute to the creation of 3,144 additional jobs and 105m in additional GVA, although it is important to recognise that improving access is only part of what will be required to create this level of employment. These figures would not include the employment created in the rail, road or canal haulage companies that would stand to benefit from improved access to the Port, and there is scope for the benefits realised to increase above this level Going beyond the direct contribution of the Port of Liverpool the Roger Tym study for The Mersey Partnership (2009) estimated that the existing strong array of ports, airport and associated freight infrastructure within the Liverpool City Region contributes over 34,000 jobs and 1.1billion of GVA per annum to the City Region economy. INDUCED IMPACT The induced impact relates to the additional economic activity generated as a result of employees in the maritime sector spending their earnings, as they too buy goods and services. Again there will be leakages from the local economy as not all employees will live locally and not all their expenditure will be made to local companies In order to assess the economic benefits that might result from improving access to the Port it is necessary to understand the value of freight and passengers currently flowing through the Port, the level and type of employment that is currently based there and the turnover of these companies As noted previously, approximately 3,000 people are employed directly within the Port Complex, with Fisher Associates (2007) estimating that GVA per worker in the maritime sector is 34,600, generating approximately 103.8m in GVA from the Port Complex In total, Fisher Associates (2007) estimated that the maritime sector as a whole contributed 710m in direct gross value added (GVA) in 2004/5 and 203m in indirect and induced GVA to the local economy. The Fisher Report identifies that it is likely that the maritime sector accounts for about 5% to 5.5% of GVA in Merseyside, making it of similar importance to the construction sector The Fisher Report also identified that the area has many positive benefits that help to retain businesses in Merseyside. These include the availability of staff, expertise and services; the proximity to ships and customers; and the transport infrastructure. Problems faced however include costs and increasing road traffic congestion. Improving the accessibility to the Port will help to reduce the levels of congestion, improving journey times, reducing costs, and assisting with increased levels of productivity. 110 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

115 Improving access to the Port may result in increased flows and movements of both freight and passengers, with an associated uplift in the local economy. Ultimately the degree of economic benefit that will result from improved Port access will depend on the type of intervention that is taken forward, together with the associated reduction that is achieved in the levels of congestion within the network. The transport interventions that are taken forward may result in reduced journey times, reduced delays and an increased level of resilience in the network, all of which will have an economic benefit. It must be stressed however that valuing goods vehicle travel time savings is not straightforward and varies with circumstance. Research by Fowkes et.al (2006) 17 states that: The current U.K. Department for Transport (DfT) method (DfT, 2005) of valuing goods vehicle travel time savings is to take two parts: firstly changes in vehicle operating costs; secondly savings in drivers wages. While it might be supposed that the first would show a vehicle cost saving as travel times fell, the exact working of the DfT method places a lot of weight on inefficient fuel use as speeds increase, so that vehicle operating cost savings could well be negative. Adding these two parts therefore gives a value somewhere around the driver s wage rate. As a ball-park figure in 2006 prices, a value of to 12.50/hour might be expected As part of the initial stages of the Study, an early list of potential intervention options has been developed. Later stages of the Study will refine and develop these into a shortlist of options that are both economically viable, and which will deliver the greatest degree of benefit to Liverpool, Sefton and beyond. Until this shortlist of options has been identified, it is not realistic or prudent to attempt to set out the economic benefits that might result from improving the Port access With the preferred option for intervention yet to be identified, the best available indicator of the scale of economic impact that might result from improved access is provided by the Roger Tym & Partners / MDS Transmodal study for The Mersey Partnership. This identifies that the development of Superport of which the Port of Liverpool would be a part could have a transformational impact on the local economy, resulting in up to 28,000 jobs for the North West region and an additional GVA of 0.9bn per annum. This would largely be the result of additional freight traffic handled by facilities in the Liverpool City Region The scope for improving access to the Port and the benefits that this could realise, largely stem from the proximity of the Port to a major population and manufacturing centre(s), its central location for national distribution by road and rail and the availability of deep sea container services, linking Britain to the rest of the world and through the RoRo ferry service, to Ireland Roger Tym & Partners estimate that due to its central location for the major UK markets, Liverpool offers the most competitive location of any of the GB deep sea container ports, based on inland road and rail costs alone and a national distribution of traffic. When shipping costs are also taken into account, the Tym Report also found that Liverpool has the potential to be the most competitive location on a door-to-door basis for future services that call into only one GB port en route between the Mediterranean and North America; improving access to the Port will only strengthen this position. 17 Results From the UK Department for Transport s 2006 M6 Toll Research Project Freight Study Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 111

116 It is clear then that improving the access to the Port either by road, rail or both could result in considerable economic benefits at the local level and beyond. This will need to be quantified and measured against potential cost as part of the subsequent stages of this study. SUMMARY The potential direct, indirect and induced economic benefits resulting from improved accessibility to the Port of Liverpool are significant. From a base position of approximately 200 companies employing 3,000 people within the Port of Liverpool complex, interventions to create Post-Panamax capability at the Port container terminal and enabling rail connected distribution at Parkside could create an additional 13,702 jobs and realise 460m in additional GVA. Capturing the true extent of interventions to improve connectivity and access to the Port of Liverpool will require further primary research to establish the number of companies within the Port Complex and capture the nature of employment within them. Primary research would also be required to understand the true extent of the transport support industries and the economic benefit embedded within them. Desk based research indicates that approximately 15,000 people are employed in activities that service the transport industry, although further work would be required to validate the amount of GVA that this generates. Assuming the estimate of GVA per maritime worker proposed by Fisher Associates to be correct, this level of employment would generate 519m GVA in the local economy. The true amount of uplift that will be achieved from improving accessibility to the Port of Liverpool is dependent on the nature of the intervention that is taken forward; this will be assessed in subsequent stages of the Study KEY ISSUES ARISING FROM THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS The review of current socio-economic conditions and forecast economic and employment indicators has provided a comprehensive overview of factors influencing the two local authority areas of Liverpool and Sefton. The review has identified the key economic dynamics that make-up the economy of Liverpool and Sefton, and set out the forecast future growth projections. These demonstrate that in the longer term, employment and GVA will grow, and that there will be a considerable role to be played by the Port of Liverpool in supporting economic growth In setting out the forecasts for the two local authorities, we have chosen to use those developed by the North West Regional Intelligence Unit (NWRIU), and which have been used to influence the development of the Regional Strategy We recognise that DfT s WebTAG / TEMPRO forecasts will be used in assessing the implications of the preferred set of interventions taken forward in later stages of this study, however the analysis that is outlined here should be used to test and check the conclusions, and to provide a deeper understanding of the economic dynamics that affect Liverpool and Sefton, the Liverpool City Region and the North West. 112 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

117 The key conclusions to be drawn from the review of the socio-economic evidence base relate to the continuing importance of Liverpool as the focus of economic growth within Merseyside, and the important contributions made by the Port to the economies of both Liverpool and Sefton. The importance of the Port extends to the subregional and regional level, with employment effects from the maritime and associated sectors also being felt in St Helens, Runcorn, Knowsley and Halton, and via the Manchester Ship Canal, as far inland a Warrington and Manchester. The importance of the Port as a generator of wealth and a driver of growth will increase as a result of improved accessibility. Improving access to the Port will enable more gross tonnage of freight to be handled, will result in more people being employed and will drive up gross value added per worker. The analysis has shown that depending on the intervention that is implemented, the scale of the uplift could be very significant The analysis highlights the scale of sectoral change which has occurred across the area, and the increased focus which the shift from manufacturing towards knowledge based and service sectors has had in driving growth in the core of Liverpool in particular. In addition, the analysis has highlighted the challenges that this shift has posed, in terms of being able to meet the skills needs of these knowledge based industries, and facilitating the flow of labour into the major urban areas so that the employment opportunities can be accessed. Improving access to the Port can help to attract maritime support services, including insurance and freight agents activities into the Liverpool, Sefton and Merseyside area, helping to bolster the sector The relationship between the Port and the wider North West Region is a specific issue which needs to be explored and tested as the study evolves. In particular, potential improvements to the connectivity between the Port and the wider regional and national road and rail network may play an important role in helping to address the effects of economic decline and the relatively weak growth forecasts in Sefton and Liverpool, helping to realize growth and drive up productivity Improving access to the Port may help to raise the GVA generated by Sefton in future years, bringing the economic performance more in line with that of Liverpool and East Merseyside, and helping to support the long term growth of the Liverpool City Region economy A better integrated port with improved access to the road and rail networks may help to attract new transport and related employers to the area, building on the established cluster of transport and associated employers in Liverpool and supporting jobs growth and helping to improve the resilience of the sub-regional economy Making the best use of the physical assets within Liverpool and Sefton, and in particular improving the access to the Port of Liverpool can bring twofold benefits. Firstly it can help to generate additional employment in the transport and distribution sector, with more workers being required to handle the increased freight capacity that such interventions would generate. Secondly it can help to catalyse transport related companies i.e. freight forwarding agencies, insurance companies etc to locate in the area, benefiting from the existing clustering effects that are already evident in Liverpool Improving access to the Port of Liverpool offers the potential to address this growth deficit, enabling additional tonnage of freight movements, creating new employment and potentially generating significant levels of additional GVA for Merseyside. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 113

118 Improving access to the Port of Liverpool is expected to create additional employment. The Sector Skills Council for Logistics anticipate that due to replacement demand and growth within the sector, 96,000 positions will need to be filled by people possessing appropriate levels of qualifications Improving the accessibility to the Port of Liverpool has the potential to make a significant contribution to the future economic success of five of the sites that are identified by NWDA, including Birkenhead Docks, the Liverpool Estuary, Liverpool North Docks and Parkside in St. Helens Capturing the true extent of interventions to improve connectivity and access to the Port of Liverpool will require further primary research to establish the number of companies within the Port Complex and capture the nature of employment within them. Primary research would also be required to understand the true extent of the transport support industries and the economic benefit embedded within them The true amount of uplift that will be achieved from improving accessibility to the Port of Liverpool is dependent on the nature of the intervention that is taken forward; this will be assessed in subsequent stages of the Study. 114 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

119 6 Forecast Port Traffic Growth 6.1 INTRODUCTION A detailed forecasting exercise has been undertaken for each major commodity type that passes through the port of Liverpool. The methodology is based on trend analysis using a variety of data sources. It has assessed key economic drivers, included competitor analysis and has incorporated the application of the GB Freight Model. As summarised in Section 1, an important part of the study has included consultation with key stakeholders and this has also been a key element in the forecasting task. The forecast were discussed and developed with Peel Ports and with some of the shippers and operators at the port There have been three elements to the port forecasting task. Firstly, looking at growth of existing port commodities passing through the port; secondly identifying new port traffics and thirdly traffic generated by new port facilities and services. Based on the forecasting task two port growth scenarios are also presented in this section, namely: Scenario 1 - The growth of existing port commodities passing through the port; and Scenario 2 - The growth of existing port commodities plus new port traffics and facilities This section presents a summary of the analysis of Port Traffic Forecasts, which are presented in the following two sections: Commodities changes in the volume of commodities passing through the port; and Movements estimating and assigning the associated trips to the transport network 6.2 COMMODITIES This section below provides analysis of the prospects for each traffic type, concluding with forecasts up to Appendix B of this document presents a more detailed assessment of port traffic forecasting. The methodology applied follows that used to develop national port traffic forecasts in for Great Britain as whole, while taking account of recent economic events. Table 6.1 presents the central forecasts of existing port commodities passing through the port. Figures 6.1 and 6.2 present the Unitised and Bulk forecasts. TABLE 6.1: CENTRAL FORECASTS FOR LIVERPOOL DOCKS TO 2020 AND 2030 (MILLION UNITS/TONNES) Broad Traffic Category Broad Commodity CAGR Unitised Containers % RoRo freight units % RoRo passenger cars % Cruise passenger cars Dry bulk Coal % Agricultural products % Other dry bulks: scrap metal % Other dry bulks: aggregates & construction materials Liquid bulk Other liquid bulks % Other Steel % Forestry products % General cargo Source: MDS Transmodal Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 115

120 FIGURE 6.1: UNITISED FREIGHT FORECASTS TO Million Units Containers Year RoRo freight units FIGURE 6.2: BULK FREIGHT FORECASTS TO General cargo Forestry products 7 Steel Million Tonnes Other liquid bulks Other dry bulks: aggregates & construction materials Other dry bulks: scrap metal 0 Agricultural products Year Coal Most growth in traffic is forecast to be in containers and RoRo freight units, relatively slower growth is forecast for most non-unitised traffics apart from coal; this latter traffic is forecast to decline significantly based on UK Government projections for the use of coal for the generation of electricity up to As well as these existing traffics, future scenarios for new traffic development could lead to an additional activity at the port. 116 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

121 POTENTIAL NEW TRAFFICS Port-centric Warehousing Almost all ports have some warehousing so that customers who load and unload cargo or process cargo can store these cargoes or processed products in a safe and secure environment prior to onward transport; the warehousing is based in the port estate because it is the most cost-effective location to avoid double-handling of the cargo. Examples include the storage of bulk cargoes at Liverpool Docks, such as grain in silos at the port prior to transport to mills and edible oils in tank storage prior to processing The expression port-centric warehousing is now gaining acceptance as a way of describing distribution buildings on the port estate that do not, of necessity, have to be located in a port but are so located because of the advantages provided over inland sites. Operators choose to locate their distribution sites at a port because sufficient land is available, some of their traffic is going to or coming from locations that are served by the port s shipping services and because deep water ports often have high quality road and rail links. The objective of the customer in selecting a distribution site is to minimise supply chain costs, taking into account the cost of land, labour and transport; typical customers would be major retailers who want a site for an NDC or an RDC To secure this kind of business, the Port of Liverpool needs to be able to offer plots that are large enough to accommodate large distribution centres (up to 100k square metres), provide a good supply of suitably qualified labour in the local area, high quality access to the core motorway network and by rail to the WCML as well as good access to the Irish market and to world markets for containerised cargoes Teesport (with its significant amount of otherwise vacant land) has developed import centres for both ASDA and Tesco, with more (apparently) to follow. The distribution facilities that are planned for the London Gateway port facility on the Thames are another example of port-based distribution centres There are already some relatively small-scale customers at the Port that choose to store freight in warehouses on the port. For example, paper rolls are received by rail at a port-based terminal and stored prior to distribution inland. However, portcentric distribution would be a relatively new market for Liverpool Docks. In the future, potential customers are most likely to be the major supermarket chains or other major retailers that require distribution centres for a number of functions: National Distribution Centres/Import Centres: act as inventory holding points for imported and nationally sourced goods, before re-distribution to Regional Distribution Centres. Dwell times can be about one month. NDCs have traditionally been located in the Midlands and South East as this minimised the total cost of transport chains from suppliers through to retail outlets. However, the increasing propensity of the UK to import manufactured goods has shifted the centre of gravity towards the deep sea ports for some types of goods such as electronics, clothing and white goods. Regional Distribution Centres: re-distribute inward supplies of goods to other stages in the supply chain, normally a retail outlet but also increasingly direct to homes. They have a regional hinterland. Their primary role is to consolidate and re-distribute goods in short periods of time, rather than acting as inventory holding locations. Consequently dwell times are much shorter at RDCs (average 12 days for non- Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 117

122 ambient goods) than at NDCs. Goods are generally received in homogenous loads from NDCs then split into smaller consignments for re-distribution in mixed loads of commodities to retail outlets, sometimes within 24 hours (a process called 'cross docking'). A facility in Liverpool Docks would have the advantage of being able to serve both the North West and Ireland from a single facility Large distribution centres have generally been located close to the trunk road network to reduce the costs of distribution and to reduce environmental impacts on residential areas. With greater planning and policy emphasis on sustainable distribution since the 1990s there has been a shift of emphasis towards the development of rail freight distribution parks (such as 3MG in Widnes) that have good road access but can also receive and despatch freight by rail. Port-centric distribution combines the concept of a rail freight distribution park with the added benefit of access to deep sea and short sea maritime services In order to develop this opportunity more land is likely to be required in the port estate and it is most likely to be attractive to potential occupiers if the post-panamax deep sea container berths planned for Liverpool are developed. The required land could only be found adjacent to Seaforth Dock or Canada Dock (between Derby Road and Regent Road) The size of the port-centric distribution site within Liverpool Docks will be important for two main reasons: Plots need to be large enough to accommodate the large scale distribution centres that are required by the market, together with a number of other support activities; Scale contributes towards the viability of rail freight services to and from Liverpool Docks, by providing critical mass of traffic for intermodal rail freight services to individual regions in the port s hinterland. The traffic can be handled at the existing (perhaps extended) intermodal rail freight terminal in Seaforth Dock Assuming that a site of some 50 hectares can be assembled within the existing, or an extended, port estate, about 200,000 square metres of distribution floor space could be developed. Such a site would be able to accommodate between two and four warehouses of between 50,000 and 100,000 square metres, a scale that is increasingly being demanded in the logistics market The first part of the tables below shows generally accepted relationships between site size and floor space, and between floor space, warehouse throughput and road and rail modal splits (for modern high bay type warehousing). Assumptions Pallets per sq m 1.0 Tonnes per pallet 0.8 Annual stock turns 20 Inbound by rail 50% Outbound by rail 25% Floor space % of footprint 40% Pallets per unit load 22 Units per train 30 Operating days pa Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

123 It will follow that a site of 50 hectares is likely to generate some 180,000 loads through the warehouses built per annum. Throughput Hectares 50 DC - sq m 200,000 Pallet capacity 200,000 Pallet throughput pa 4,000,000 Unit loads inbound pa 180,000 Unit loads outbound pa 180,000 Unit loads inbound sea 90,000 Unit loads inbound road 67,500 Unit loads outbound road 135,000 Unit loads inbound rail 22,500 Unit loads outbound rail 45,000 Full trains inward per day 3 Full trains outward per day The development of port-centric distribution, assuming a site of 50 hectares can be assembled within the estate for a mixed NDC and RDC development could generate an additional 135,000 HGV movements (in and out) and require capacity to handle 6 trains in each direction per day. While the warehousing generates additional HGV traffic on the local road network, it provides critical mass for the development of additional rail freight services and for deep sea container and Irish sea RoRo services and generates significant employment opportunities. BARGES AND PORT CENTRIC DEVELOPMENT The proposed barge service along the Ship Canal should also be seen as a port centric opportunity. Let us assume that developments at Port Warrington and Port Salford add a further 200,000m2 of distribution warehousing to overall stock, and that 25% of cargo inbound to these sites is imported and carried forward by barge. On the basis of the above table, this would divert a further 45,000 units per annum from road (to warehouses built in the region but not waterside) to barge; the equivalent of around 150 containers inbound per day or a total of 300 equivalent HGV movements per day. ATLANTIC ARC RORO SERVICE There is the potential for the development of new short sea shipping services using RoRo technology along the so-called Atlantic Arc between the British Isles, Western France and the Iberia Peninsula. Liverpool, with its central location for inland distribution to the whole of Great Britain and its existing RoRo facilities, would probably be the ideal British port. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 119

124 The service would carry both unaccompanied trailers and containers and would lead to the diversion of road freight traffic that would otherwise pass through Portugal and Spain, across the Pyrenees, travel the full length of France to the Channel ports and through southern England. However, much of the traffic would be new traffic for Liverpool Docks and would be distributed inland by road. We estimate that the service could generate about 30-40,000 units per annum based on twice a week service frequency using 2,500 lane metre RoRo vessels. WASTE MOVEMENTS BY BARGE FROM LIVERPOOL DOCKS TO INCE RECOVERY PARK According to Appendix 14.1 of Peel Holdings planning application for the Ince Resource Recovery Park on the Manchester Ship Canal in North Cheshire, significant volumes of waste materials (e.g. 140,000 tonnes of household waste per annum) will be distributed from Liverpool Docks or Garston to Ince by means of a daily barge service; rail could also be an option This waste material will be sourced from the Merseyside area and is likely to be delivered to Liverpool and Garston docks by road In summary, the following new traffic generating activities are assumed: 135,000 HGV movements (in and out) and 6 trains in each direction per day generated by the development of port-centric distribution on a site of 50 hectares; 1 or 2 barge loads (total 150 containers or 250 TEU) to port centric distribution developments along the Canal, diverting 300 potential HGV movements ex Seaforth from the road) 30-40,000 freight RoRo units per annum on Atlantic Arc RoRo services; Inbound waste material by road for onward shipment by barge to the Ince Resource and Recovery Park on the Manchester Ship Canal (volume determined by public sector contracting with waste to energy operator. MODAL SHIFT FORECASTS A modal split forecast for container traffic was produced for 2020 and 2030 using the GB Freight Model, based on the following assumptions: The post-panamax deep sea container berth is developed and Peel Ports is successful in attracting direct calls by post-panamax vessels making a single call in GB by 2020; Rail freight distribution parks are developed in the English regions and in Scotland to provide rail-connected origins and destinations for freight The modelling carried out suggests that Liverpool Docks could achieve a modal share for containers by rail of 22% in 2020 and 24% in This would equate to some 10 trains in each direction per day. There are currently no containers leaving the Port by rail. 120 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

125 In practice, traffic will not travel by rail or barge unless it is converted to containers. However, modelling suggests that the increasing road haulage costs implicit in the WEBTAG scenario up to 2030 will lead to a switch of RoRo freight from driver accompanied on shorter crossings to longer unaccompanied routes in the Irish Sea ferry market as a whole; the split in 2008 is estimated to be about 50:50, but in 2030 the modelled split would be 52:48 in favour of unaccompanied trailers. Further conversion of unaccompanied to double stacked containers would lead to some switch from road to rail Coal imports through Liverpool Docks are very unlikely to be distributed inland by road, given the relative economics of the two modes for this type of bulk shipment The modelling indicates that there would be some limited modal shift from road to rail for the inland distribution of bulk scrap metal and steel, and of grain and scrap to barge It should be noted that this assessment of modal shift does not take into account interventions that would enhance access to the Port of Liverpool by rail, water or other modes In total, we can summarise mode shift opportunities as follows: Based on forecasts of existing freight New freight generators Rail 12* outbound trains per day 6 port centric outbound trains per day Barge 1-2 barge loads of grain and 1-2 barge loads per day Scrap * 10 deep-sea train loads plus 2 train loads of Irish Sea containers if ro-ro operators switch to double-stack carriage of containers INLAND DISTRIBUTION There is an array of policy support for the further development of sustainable distribution for the inland distribution of cargo between ports and inland origins and destinations and the Draft Ports NPS states that the Government wishes to see port development wherever possible: supporting sustainable transport by offering more efficient transport links with lower environmental disbenefits; providing a basis for trans-modal shifts from road transport to shipping and rail, which are generally more sustainable Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 121

126 However, despite policy support and some limited grant funding for sustainable distribution services, the relative transport economics of sustainable distribution compared to road freight distribution is the major determinant of modal split for inland distribution between Liverpool Docks and its hinterland. Another key factor is the availability of origins and destinations that are connected to the rail and waterborne freight networks (e.g. the Port Salford development, which will be rail and waterconnected) facilitated by the planning system which only allows large distribution parks to be developed on green belt when they are accessible by rail and/or water Road freight transport is highly cost effective, because it is intensely competitive due to the industry s low barriers to entry. Nevertheless fuel and labour costs have been increasing and this has, allied to the development of more railconnected distribution parks and increasing volumes of traffic through Greater SE ports, helped the intermodal sector of the rail freight industry to grow its traffic in the last few years. In addition, rail freight is often cheaper than road and the economic recession is encouraging shippers and logistics providers to seek more cost-effective solutions The key characteristic of the economics of sustainable distribution, whether the trunk haul is provided by rail, inland waterway or short sea, is that it involves high fixed costs compared to road transport because the capital assets required are so much more expensive than for road transport before a single unit load is transported a single kilometre. However, road haulage has much higher variable costs per kilometre in conditions where rail or waterborne services are able to generate sufficient critical mass of traffic to generate economies of scale. This, in turn, means that sustainable distribution services tend to be more competitive compared to road freight transport over longer distances. The break even distance is affected to a very great extent by whether final collection or distribution is required by road between rail/port terminals at either end of the transport chain; Liverpool Docks has the advantage that it is already connected to the rail and waterborne freight networks and so no road distribution is required at one end of the transport chain. Where a rail service is linking the port to an inland terminal with on-site distribution centres, sustainable distribution services can be cost-effective compared to road over distances of only 100km or less Shippers and logistics providers are increasingly considering rail freight services as an alternative to road haulage to reduce costs trading off a slower transit time against lower costs. Intermodal rail freight has grown nationally by 38% in terms of tonne kilometres since 2004, although volumes through the Port of Liverpool itself have declined The greatest potential for use of sustainable distribution to and from Liverpool Docks is likely to be greater use of rail freight services for the inland distribution of containers, once the post-panamax berth is developed and Liverpool secures calls from post-panamax vessels that only make a single call in Great Britain and so are serving a national market. This development, plus a network of inland rail terminals with on-site distribution centres and increasing road haulage costs could lead to 22% of containers to be distributed inland by rail in 2020 and 24% by In addition, a daily barge service would distribute containers between Liverpool Docks and berths along the Manchester Ship Canal RoRo traffic (in trailers) is likely to remain on the road (unless converted to containers), but coal traffic will remain rail-borne. There should be potential for transporting a greater proportion of steel scrap by rail as Liverpool has a national hinterland for this traffic type. 122 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

127 6.3 HGV MOVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH PORT TRAFFIC This section outlines the calculation of port traffic volumes for the two scenarios outlined in paragraph The methodology adopted and a summary of the results is presented below. METHODOLOGY For each traffic type, the amount that is distributed inland by rail and waterborne transport was subtracted from the total traffic shown in Maritime Statistics to reach estimates the volumes distributed inland by road from Liverpool Docks in For each port traffic type by direction that was handled in 2008, the traffic volumes in tonnes were translated into HGV volumes by assuming a payload in terms of tonnes per HGV. For LoLo we assumed the payload was one unit per HGV, while various payloads were assumed for non-unitised traffics; for example, for imported grain we assumed that the trucks carrying the cargo out of the port would, on average, have a payload of 16 tonnes per HGV Assumptions were then made about the proportion of HGVs for each port traffic that would secure backloads within the port estate. This is important because it has a major impact on the number of HGVs seeking access to and egress from the port. For example, we assumed that HGVs distributing grain would not secure any backloads, so that, for each 26 tonnes of grain distributed inland, there would be two HGV movements one to arrive empty at the port and one to leave the port laden with grain. For Lolo traffic, however, we assumed that 75% of the hauliers would secure backloads of containers from within the port so that the trucks arrive with one container and leave with another The HGV movements by traffic type were then allocated to one of the four port access gates, based on the locations of the relevant port terminals handling the cargo; for example, LoLo traffic was allocated to Seaforth Gate because the Container Terminal is located in Seaforth Dock. Some of the scrap metal volumes were allocated to Huskisson Gate because one of the scrap metal terminals is in Canada Dock to the south of the port estate Total annual HGV movements by traffic type by gate were translated into average daily HGV movements by dividing the annual total for 2008 by 350 days Forecasts of HGV movements to 2020 and 2030 by traffic type were produced by applying the forecast growth rates to the 2008 volumes i.e. assuming that payloads and backloads rates remain unchanged up to An element of modal shift is included within the 2020 and 2030 forecast HGV data, as summarised in Section 3. RESULTS Tables 6.2 and 6.3 below set out the results of the analysis of existing traffics for 2008, with forecasts to 2020 and 2030, for HGVs and passenger cars. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 123

128 TABLE 6.2: ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY HGV MOVEMENTS FOR EXISTING TRAFFICS BY PORT GATE IN 2008, WITH FORECASTS TO 2020 & 2030 (AVERAGE DAILY HGV MOVEMENTS) Traffic type Port Gate LoLo 1,246 1,531 1,958 Seaforth RoRo freight Accomp Seaforth Unaccomp Seaforth Seatruck Trade cars Seaforth Liquid bulk Molasses Seaforth Edible oils Huskisson Dry bulk Grain Seaforth AFS Seaforth Aggregates Seaforth Other Seaforth Scrap steel Huskisson Strand Road Seaforth Waste from scrap metal processing Seaforth Semi-bulk Forestry products Seaforth Steel Seaforth General cargo Seaforth Total by gate Seaforth 3,524 4,190 4,970 Strand Seatruck Huskisson Grand Total 4,120 4,967 5,864 Source: MDS Transmodal, based on DfT Maritime Statistics & industry sources TABLE 6.3: ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY PASSENGER CAR MOVEMENTS FOR EXISTING TRAFFICS BY PORT GATE IN 2008, WITH FORECASTS TO 2020 & 2030 (AVERAGE DAILY PASSENGER CAR MOVEMENTS) Traffic type Port Gate RoRo passengers Seaforth Cruise passengers Seaforth Total Source: MDS Transmodal, based on DfT Maritime Statistics & industry sources Table 6.4 provides estimates of potential additional HGV movements from the opportunities for new traffics highlighted in the WP1 Working Paper. The key assumptions in this analysis are that: 50% of the port-centric distribution traffic would access the port via the Seaforth Gate, 25% via the Strand Road Gate and 25% via the Huskisson Dock Gate; The Atlantic Arc RoRo traffic would be handled in the Gladstone/Langton Dock area of the port and so HGVs would access the port via Seaforth Gate; The household waste would be handled in the southern docks and so HGVs would access the docks via Huskisson Gate. 124 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

129 TABLE 6.4: ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY HGV MOVEMENTS FOR POTENTIAL NEW TRAFFICS IN 2020 & 2030 (AVERAGE DAILY HGV MOVEMENTS) Traffic type Port Gate Port-centric distribution %Seaforth, 25%Strand Road & 25% Huskisson Atlantic Arc RoRo Seaforth Household waste Huskisson Total Source: MDS Transmodal INCREASED EMPLOYMENT AT THE PORT In addition to trips generated by existing and new traffic sources a growing port will also create new employment. It has been estimated that there are around 3,000 people employed in the port area and with the Langton RoRo, Post Panamax and other potential port facilities creating a more vibrant port the number of employees is expected to increase significantly, as follows: Langton RoRo = 100 direct employees Post Panamax = 200 direct employees Port Centric Developments = 300 direct employees Source: The Mersey Partnership: Liverpool Superport Economic Trends Study, MDS Transmodal Limited & Roger Tym & Partners (Date: August 2009) The employment trip generation for the two growth scenarios is summarised in Table 6.5 below: TABLE 6.5: EMPLOYMENT TRIP GENERATION Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Number of Employees Number Travelling by Car % Travelling to Work in Peak Hour PORT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Tables 6.6 and 6.7 below summarise the trip generation for the two port growth scenarios, namely: Scenario 1 - The growth of existing port commodities passing through the port; and Scenario 2 - The growth of existing port commodities plus new port traffics and facilities The above data is summarised by dock gate that the traffic will use to access the Port of Liverpool forecast data has been validated based on observed traffic count data collected, summarised in Section 4. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 125

130 TABLE 6.6: SCENARIO 1 - SUMMARY OF TWO-WAY ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY HGV MOVEMENTS Forecast Increase in HGV Traffic from 2008 figures % increase in HGV Traffic from 2008 figures Forecast HGV Traffic Seaforth 3,524 4,190 4, ,446 19% 41% Strand % 23% Seatruck % 113% Huskisson % 22% Total 4,120 4,974 5, ,760 21% 43% TABLE 6.7: SCENARIO 2 - SUMMARY OF TWO-WAY ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY HGV MOVEMENTS Forecast Increase in HGV Traffic from 2008 figures % increase in HGV Traffic from 2008 figures Forecast HGV Traffic Seaforth 3,524 4,719 5,499 1,195 1,975 34% 56% Strand % 181% Seatruck % 113% Huskisson % 111% Total 4,120 5,938 6,844 1,818 2,724 44% 66% In addition to the increases in HGV trips there will be increased car trips associated with the port, primarily as a result of increased employment. Table 6.8 below summarises the peak hour HGV and car trips and converts these to Passenger Car Units (PCUs), generated by each port gate. TABLE 6.8: PEAK HOUR PORT TRAFFIC GENERATION Scenario 1: AM Peak Traffic HGVs Cars PCUs DOCK GATE SEAFORTH STRAND SEATRUCK HUSKISSON TOTAL Scenario 1: PM Peak Traffic HGVs Cars PCUs DOCK GATE SEAFORTH STRAND SEATRUCK HUSKISSON TOTAL Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

131 Scenario 2: AM Peak Traffic HGVs Cars PCUs DOCK GATE SEAFORTH STRAND SEATRUCK HUSKISSON TOTAL Scenario 2: PM Peak Traffic HGVs Cars PCUs DOCK GATE SEAFORTH STRAND SEATRUCK HUSKISSON TOTAL Tables 6.9 and 6.10 summarise the forecast increases in PCUs generated by the two port growth scenarios for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. For scenario 1 it is forecast that there will be an additional 640 PCU trips generated in the AM peak hour by If scenario 2 is derived this will generate an additional 1130 PCU trips generated in the AM peak hour by The PM peak hour figures are slightly lower with 513 and 867 PCU trips generated by 2030 for Scenario 1 and 2, respectively. TABLE 6.9: FORECAST INCREASES IN PCUS BY DOCK GATE AM PEAK HOUR Scenario 1 Scenario 2 DOCK GATE 2008 to to to to 2030 SEAFORTH STRAND SEATRUCK HUSKISSON TOTAL TABLE 6.10: FORECAST INCREASES IN PCUS BY DOCK GATE PM PEAK HOUR Scenario 1 Scenario 2 DOCK GATE 2008 to to to to 2030 SEAFORTH STRAND SEATRUCK HUSKISSON TOTAL Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 127

132 TRIP ASSIGNMENT HGV trips have been assigned to the network guided by RSI data and further informed by turning proportions calculated from available traffic flows (refer to Table 4.4). Trip assignment has been adjusted to account for the differing rates of growth in HGV traffic generated at each of the Port accesses with a different distribution for each of the future years being calculated. Table 6.11 shows the distribution of Port HGVs across each of its access points for 2008, 2020 and TABLE 6.11: PORT TRAFFIC ACCESS DISTRIBUTION Access Percentage of HGVs Point SEAFORTH 86% 79% 80% STRAND 3% 6% 5% SEATRUCK 5% 5% 6% HUSKISSON 7% 10% 8% PORT HGV TRAFFIC INCREASES By applying the forecast increase in HGV trips to the assumed HGV routing it can be seen that the biggest increase in flows occurs on the A5036, amounting to an increase in two-way daily HGV flows of 968 in 2020 and 1524 in In 2020 the growth in Port Traffic amounts to an additional three HGVs per minute in the AM peak hour and two during the PM peak hour. In 2030 these figures increase to six per minute during the AM peak hour and three per minute during the PM peak hour The impact on the A565 Derby Road between the Strand Road and Millers Bridge junction, which represents a key route for traffic generated by each of the port accesses, there an increase in daily two-way HGV flows from 2008 to 2020 of 717 vehicles. This equates to an increase of two and one vehicles per minute in the AM and PM peak hour respectively. Between 2008 and 2030 the daily HGV flows increase along this link by 1023 vehicles, representing three additional HGVs per minute during the AM peak hour and two additional vehicles per minute during the PM peak hour The A5058 Millers Bridge represents another key link to the motorway network for Port traffic. Between 2008 and 2020 a two way daily increase in HGV traffic of 705 vehicles is projected. Between 2008 and 2030 a daily two-way increase of 992 vehicles is experienced. In terms of increases in HGVs per minute during peak hours, from 2008 and 2020 these values are calculated to be two per minute during the AM peak hour and one per minute during the PM peak hour. From 2008 to 2030 this increases to three per minute during the AM peak hour and two per minute during the PM peak hour Traffic flow diagrams can be found in Appendix F. 6.4 TRAFFIC IMPACT Section 4.2 summarised data from an existing SATURN traffic model of the surrounding highway network to the Port of Liverpool. The model has been applied in recent months to test the proposals for the Thornton to Switch Island link road. A future year model has been developed for the year 2027, with two scenarios namely a Do- Minimum and a Do-Something option which includes the new road. 128 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

133 6.4.2 TEMPRO growth factors have been applied to generate the likely traffic on the highway network in the future year. TEMPRO is a database that provides projections of growth over time for use in local and regional transport modelling. In addition to the background growth the future year scenarios incorporate committed development schemes. The following committed developments within the study area are included in the future year model matrices: Tesco Superstore, A5090 Hawthorne Road; Atlantic Park development, A5036 Dunnings Bridge Road; Deep Berth (Post Panamax) development, Port of Liverpool; Proposed Sainsbury s extension, Crosby; and Proposed Prison, Maghull The total number of development trips incorporated into the future year matrices by time period are shown in Table TABLE 6.12: FUTURE YEAR DEVELOPMENT TRIPS (PCUS) Development AM Peak Inter Peak PM Peak Origin Destination Origin Destination Origin Destination Tesco Atlantic Park Deep Berth Sainsbury s Maghull Prison Source: Atkins Thornton to Switch Island Link Model Forecasting Report The 2027 forecast model scenario is helpful to this study because it is close to the future time horizon of this DaSTS study, which is the year Outputs from the SATURN model are included in Appendix H. The 2027 future year modelling highlights that the surrounding highway network including the A5036 will experience greater levels of congestion and longer journey times than those currently experienced. A number of links are identified as having V:C ratios close to or above 100%. Interrogation of the Do- Minimum SATURN model identifies that in 2027 with the additional traffic growth the A5036 is predicted to operate with congested conditions at the following locations: AM Peak Eastbound between Hawthorne Road and Bridge Road Roundabout (V:C 95%); Westbound between Hawthorn Road and Orrell Road (V:C 98%); and Westbound between the M57/M58 Junction and Copy Lane (V:C 97%). Inter Peak Westbound between Hawthorn Street and Orrell Road (V:C 92%). PM Peak Eastbound between Hawthorne Road and Bridge Road Roundabout (V:C 101%); Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 129

134 Westbound between Hawthorn Road and Orrell Road (V:C 95%); Eastbound between Park Road and Heysham Road (V:C 90%); and Eastbound and Westbound between the M57/M58 Junction and Copy Lane (V:C 97% and 92%). On other parts of the network in 2027, the A508 between Southport Road and the A59 is predicted to operate over capacity in both directions, during all peak periods. In addition, A5057 Primrose Road between Marsh Lane and Strand Road is predicted to operate over capacity during the AM peak in a southbound direction Interrogation of the Do-Something SATURN model identifies that in 2027 with the additional traffic growth that the introduction of the link does not appear to have a material impact on the majority the links that are already operating over capacity for the do minimum scenario. The A5036 is predicted to operate with congested conditions at the following locations: AM Peak Eastbound between Hawthorne Road and Bridge Road Roundabout (V:C 96%); Westbound between Hawthorn Road and Orrell Road (V:C 97%); and Westbound between the M57/M58 Junction and Copy Lane (V:C 100%). Inter Peak Westbound between Hawthorn Street and Orrell Road (V:C 92%). PM Peak Eastbound between Hawthorne Road and Bridge Road Roundabout (V:C 101%); Westbound between Hawthorn Road and Orrell Road (V:C 92%); Eastbound between Park Road and Heysham Road (V:C 101%); and Westbound between the M57/M58 Junction and Copy Lane (V:C 94%) The main link that is forecast to see an improvement and is now operating within capacity is the A5036 eastbound between M57/M58 Junction and Copy Lane in the PM peak. TABLE 6.13: A5036 MODEL JOURNEY TIME DATA (IN SECONDS) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour From To DM 2027 DS DM 2027 DS Switch Island Seaforth Port Gate Seaforth Port Gate Switch Island Note: DM = Do-Minimum and DS = Do-Something scenarios 130 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

135 6.4.7 Journey time data has also been extracted from the model for the different scenarios. Table 6.13 summarises the journey time data. The data shows that in the AM peak hour journey times are forecast to increase from on average approximately 12 minutes in 2009 to nearly 15 minutes for both 2027 scenarios, between Switch Island and Seaforth Port Gate. The route from Seaforth Dock Gate to Switch Island is forecast to only slightly increase in the 2027 do-something scenario Table 6.14 summarises the percentage increases in journey times along the A5036. Data from the model forecasts that journey times from Switch Island to the Seaforth Roundabout will increase by approximately 15%, when comparing the 2009 and 2027 scenarios. TABLE 6.14: PERCENTAGE INCREASES IN JOURNEY TIMES AM PM From To DM DS DM DS Switch Island Seaforth Port Gate 13% 17% 16% 15% Seaforth Port Gate Switch Island 17% 5% 18% 5% It is therefore concluded that the 2027 future year modelling highlights that the A5036, in particular, will experience greater levels of congestion and longer journey times than those currently experienced The assumptions in relation to the port growth scenario in the 2027 Saturn modelling have been reviewed. A comparison of the two forecasts highlights that the 2027 SATURN modelling is applying modest port growth when compared to the two scenarios generated in this study. The 2027 SATURN modelling therefore assumes some port growth but is not providing a full analysis of the potential capacity of the port. For example in the AM peak hour scenario 1 and scenario 2 are forecast to generate 401 and 891 additional PCUs, respectively, when compared to the 2027 Model Matrices assumptions. Furthermore, scenario 2 forecasts approximately three times more traffic generated than that assumed in the 2027 SATURN modelling Table 6.15, below summarises the additional trips forecast as part of this study that are forecast to use the A5036 corridor by direction, in the AM peak hour. These trips will increase congestion in the AM peak hour along the route in particular at the congestion hotspots highlighted above. TABLE 6.15: ADDITIONAL PCUS ON A5036 IN THE AM PEAK HOUR Westbound Eastbound Scenario Scenario For the two growth scenarios, the percentage increases in PCUs in the AM peak hour on the key congested links are summarised below in Table The figures in this table provide further emphasis of the increased pressure on the transport network forecast through this study. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 131

136 TABLE 6.16: PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN PCUS AT THE KEY CONGESTION POINTS ON THE A5036 IN THE AM PEAK HOUR Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Eastbound between Hawthorne Road and Bridge Road Roundabout 14% 22% Westbound between Hawthorn Road and Orrell Road 11% 19% Westbound between the M57/M58 Junction and Copy Lane 5% 9% 6.5 SAFETY IMPACT As detailed in the section above, the Port of Liverpool will result in a significant increase in the volume of traffic using these junctions, which is likely to result in an increase in accident rates To quantify this, an assessment of the likely increase in accidents and associated costs has been undertaken using the methodology recommended in Volume 13, Chapter 5 of the DMRB. This assessment is included in Appendix G and summarised in Table 6.17 below:- TABLE 6.17 EXPECTED INCREASE IN ACCIDENT RATES AND ASSOCIATED COST Location Estimated Increase in Accidents (Per Year) Estimated Cost of Accidents (Per Year) Switch Island * * A5036 Northern Perimeter Road / Copy Lane Junction , A5036 / Boundary Road / Netherton Way Junction A5036 / Heysham Road Junction A5036 Hawthorne Road Junction A5036 / A57 Bridge Road Roundabout Junction , , , , A565 Crosby Road / A5036 Princessway Junction , * Due to non-standard layout of junction it is not possible to calculate an estimated increase in accidents rates The assessment presented in Appendix G has been undertaken using the forecast port traffic from Scenario 2. Table 6.17 highlights the high accident rate at the Bridge Road roundabout junction. 132 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

137 7 Summary and Conclusions 7.1 SUMMARY The policy framework supports initiatives that encourage more sustainable travel and achieve a greater proportion of trips by modes other than road transport. The Government s DaSTS agenda confirms this, with the key aim to encourage lower carbon and sustainable travel options, while at the same time supporting economic growth The transport network that currently serves the port of Liverpool is summarised in this paper. The key conclusions for the transport network are outlined below. HIGHWAY NETWORK At the outset of the study a key issue for the study was to assess and understand the Area of Pressure (shown on Figure 8.1) that the transport network is subject to in the Sefton / Liverpool area. Through the study it has become clear that this currently primarily relates to the highway network. The road network, and especially the A5036, performs a range of different functions, in particular: It is a local network serving local communities; The highways are important to supporting regeneration. The aim of the Atlantic Gateway initiative is to promote economic regeneration at the port and at key development sites situated adjacent to the main transport corridors in the area, which is primarily the A5036 Dunnings Bridge Road. The roads facilitate trips to and from the City Centre; and They are part of a strategic network providing national routes to the Port of Liverpool As the highways are trying to satisfy a number of roles this study is aiming to understand the different pressures and how they will change in the future. FIGURE 8.1: AREA OF PRESSURE Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 133

138 7.1.5 The key access points to the port area are: Seaforth Dock Gate Strand Road Dock Gate Seatruck Dock Gate Huskisson Dock Gate Seaforth Dock Gate is the main access point to the port estate. This port access is open 2h ours a day, seven days a week and attracts over three quarters of port related traffic surveys show that for a 12 hour period on an average working day there are approximately 5,000 vehicles passing through the port gate in both directions, of which half of these vehicles are HGVs All key approach routes to the Port of Liverpool experience peak period congestion. A5036 / Dunnings Bridge Road is the main approach route to the northern docks area. Surveys show that approximately a quarter of HGVs joining the A5036 at Switch Island have a destination in the Port of Liverpool The journey time for this route highlights the increase in peak period journey times compared to the inter peak period. This is particularly the case at the north eastern end of the route in the section between the Park Lane junction and Switch Island. Consultation with stakeholders identified that journey times on the A5036 are slow throughout the day but in particular at peak travel times. However, if an incident occurs on the road, and due to the road being predominantly two lanes in each direction, significant delays can arise Construction of a new highway link between Thornton and Switch Island is proposed to start in Transport modelling in support of the planning application is ongoing, however initial modelling undertaken in 2008 concluded that the new link was likely to release some capacity on the A The proportion of HGVs on A5036, Queens Drive and the A580 are higher in the inter peak period than during the peak travel times. This indicates a continuous high flow of HGVs throughout the working day. The highest proportions of HGVs were observed on the A5036 in particular in the inter peak period. Traffic counts, undertaken on the Church Road section of the A5036 just south of its junction with Springfield Avenue, show that almost one in four vehicles are HGVs The origins and destinations of port related trips have been analysed. 57% of HGVs surveyed passing through the Seaforth Dock Gate have a destination in the North West, of which 22% are bound for destinations in Merseyside. The average distance travelled by HGVs passing through the Seaforth Dock Gate was observed to be 103 kilometres. 134 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

139 RAIL FREIGHT Up to the end of 2009 DfT/Network Rail has treated access to the Port of Liverpool for intermodal rail freight services on an equal footing with access to the other deep sea container ports in the Greater South East, even if the amount of pubic funding made available has been more limited. The port has also been included on the Strategic Freight Network. Funding has been found to reinstate the Olive Mount Chord and provide W10 loading gauge clearance between the port and the WCML. The timing of the loss of the Freightliner services to and from the port was therefore unfortunate, given these schemes were based on growth in rail container volumes through the port The need for additional intermodal rail services is predicated mainly on increasing container traffic volumes in the future, with a national rather than regional inland distribution. A significant delay to the development of the post-panamax berths at Seaforth will further damage the case for equal treatment of Liverpool with the Greater South East deep sea container ports in the future development of the SFN. The loading gauge enhancement has already been put back because no intermodal services are operating and the economies that can be achieved through carrying out the work in parallel with electrification of the Chat Moss route There are currently no capacity constraints on the rail lines in the vicinity of the port given that the facilities are under-utilised. In total there are 24 inbound paths and 22 outbound paths each day that are already available for rail freight distribution to and from Liverpool docks, of which (at most) 11 are being use in each direction in Winter This means that the rail freight capacity of Liverpool Docks is at least 22/24 train paths in each direction each day and capacity utilisation is about 50%. However, the unused paths are not available for use by other rail freight services because they are effectively reserved. It may be difficult to find additional train paths for freight trains on the Chat Moss route, but we believe that some detailed analysis in Phase 2 of the study (examination of detailed options) will lead to some additional paths being found. WATERWAY AND COASTAL/SHORT SEA SHIPPING Liverpool Docks already has well-established scheduled coastal and short sea unit load shipping links with the Clyde, Belfast and Dublin and with Iberia and the Mediterranean. Currently, almost all the berths within Liverpool Docks can accommodate short sea vessels and there is unlikely to be any shortage of port capacity for this kind of vessel There is an existing container barge service between Seaforth and Irlam Container Terminal on the Manchester Ship Canal that uses a tug to push a barge that can carry about 160 TEU. If all the planned facilities at the port and in the surrounding area are developed, there is greater potential for a barge service between Liverpool Docks and Port Salford via Port Ince and Port Warrington. 7.2 CURRENT DEMAND An overview of the existing port traffic passing through the port of Liverpool is presented in Section 3 and summarised below. The main function of Liverpool Docks in 2008 was: in the bulk markets was as a location for the import, storage and processing of bulk cargoes prior to inland distribution; about 60% of Liverpool Docks. The major import cargoes were cereals, AFS and coal. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 135

140 The major high value imported non-unitised cargoes were paper products and steel, with The port also acted as a storage point for non-maritime cargoes that were received at the port by rail. For maritime import cargoes, rail had a 30% market share for inland distribution due to the distribution of steam coal to inland power stations by rail; small volumes of steel scrap were imported from GB coastal locations by sea, stored and then re-exported in larger vessels with no impact on the inland road and rail networks. Liverpool Docks major bulk export trade was scrap metal. The scrap metal was received at the port by rail and sea but mainly by road. For export cargoes by sea, rail had an 8% market share for inland distribution, due to the distribution of some steel scrap to the port by rail. Liverpool Docks handled 414,000 containers in 2008 and the modal split for container distribution was 2% by rail, with 14% transhipment and 84% by road. Liverpool Docks also handled an estimated 219,000 RoRo freight units in 2008, 72% of which were unaccompanied trailers A summary of the traffics handled across the quays at Liverpool Docks in 2008 is provided in Table 7.1. TABLE 7.1: SUMMARY OF MARITIME TRAFFIC VIA LIVERPOOL DOCKS, 2008 Inwards Outwards Traffic Inland by road Traffic Inland by road Containers 203,000 units 84% 211,000 units 83% Roll-on Roll-off 115,000 units 100% 113,000 units 100% freight units Passenger cars 5,000 cars 100% 6,000 cars 100% Bulk tonnes 6.1 million 65% 2.8 million 87% tonnes tonnes Source: Estimates by MDS Transmodal 7.3 FORECAST PORT TRAFFIC DEMAND An exercise has been undertaken to forecast the changes in traffic passing through the port of Liverpool. A summary of central forecasts for Liverpool Docks to 2020 and 2030 is presented in Table 7.2 below. 136 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

141 TABLE 7.2: SUMMARY OF CENTRAL FORECASTS FOR LIVERPOOL DOCKS TO 2020 AND 2030 Million units/tonnes Broad traffic category Broad commodity CAGR Unitised Containers % RoRo freight units % RoRo passenger cars % Cruise passenger cars Dry bulk Coal % Agricultural products % Other dry bulks: scrap metal % Other dry bulks: aggregates & construction materials Liquid bulk Other liquid bulks % Other Steel % Forestry products % General cargo Source: MDS Transmodal Most growth in traffic is forecast to be in containers and RoRo freight units, relatively slower growth is forecast for most non-unitised traffics apart from coal; this latter traffic is forecast to decline significantly based on UK Government projections for the use of coal for the generation of electricity up to As well as these existing traffics, future scenarios for new traffic development could lead to an additional: 270,000 HGV movements (in and out) and 12 trains in each direction per day generated by the development of port-centric distribution on a site of 50 hectares; 30-40,000 freight RoRo units per annum on Atlantic Arc RoRo services; Inbound waste material by road for onward shipment by barge to the Ince Resource and Recovery Park on the Manchester Ship Canal. FORECAST PORT HGV TRAFFIC An exercise was undertaken to convert the 2020 and 2030 forecasts of future port commodities passing through the port. Table 7.3 below summarises the HGV movements by dock gate. TABLE 7.3: SUMMARY OF TWO-WAY ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY HGV MOVEMENTS FOR 2008, 2020 & 2030 Forecast Increase in HGV Traffic from 2008 figures % increase in HGV Traffic from 2008 figures Forecast HGV Traffic Seaforth 3,524 4,719 5,499 1,195 1,975 34% 56% Strand % 181% Seatruck % 113% Huskisson % 111% Total 4,120 5,938 6,844 1,818 2,724 44% 66% Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report 137

142 7.3.5 By applying the forecast increase in HGV trips to the assumed HGV routing it can be seen that the biggest increase in flows occurs on the A5036, amounting to an increase in two-way daily HGV flows of 968 in 2020 and 1524 in In 2030 the growth in Port Traffic amounts to an additional six HGVs per minute in the AM peak hour and three during the PM peak hour on the A SATURN modelling of the 2027 future year scenario has been undertaken as part of a study into the Thornton to Switch Island link road. Analysing the results of the SATURN modelling highlights that in the 2027 the A5036, in particular, is forecast to experience greater levels of congestion. Journey times for vehicles travelling along the A5036 are also forecast to be longer than those currently experienced The assumptions in relation to the port growth scenario in the 2027 Saturn modelling were reviewed. A comparison of the two forecasts highlights that the 2027 SATURN modelling is applying modest port growth when compared to the two scenarios generated in this study. The 2027 SATURN modelling therefore assumes some port growth but is not providing a full analysis of the potential capacity of the port. For example in the AM peak hour scenario 1 and scenario 2 are forecast to generate 401 and 891 additional PCUs, respectively, when compared to the 2027 Model Matrices assumptions. Furthermore, scenario 2 forecasts approximately three times more traffic generated than that assumed in the 2027 SATURN modelling. These trips will increase congestion in the surrounding area of the port and in particular at the congestion hotspots highlighted on the A In conclusion the traffic impact analysis highlights that congestion on the surrounding highway network, in particular the A5036 corridor, by 2030 will be significant without transport infrastructure investment. The solution will need a balanced package of interventions including investment in rail and highway schemes to reduce congestion and create a safe network along with public transport, cycling and walking measures to encourage modal shift. 7.4 NEXT STEPS The next phase of the study is to review the option assessment exercise and develop preferred packages of measures which will be agreed with the PMG for further and more detailed assessment. At the end of Stage 2 the study will seek to recommend a package of interventions that we believe represents the optimum solution to the challenge of planning sustainably for the expanded port. 138 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

143 Appendices, Figures & Tables

144 Appendix A Specific DfT DaSTS Challenges the Study Needs to Address Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report

145 Specific DfT DaSTS challenges the study needs to address (highlighted in bold text) Cross-network (national policy) 1. Deliver quantified net reductions in greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the Climate Change Act 2008 and EU targets. 2. Ensure a competitive transport industry by simplifying and improving regulation to benefit transport users and providers and maximising the value for money from transport spending. 3. Enhance social inclusion by enabling disadvantaged people to connect with employment opportunities, key services, social networks and goods through improving accessibility, availability, affordability and acceptability. 4. Reduce the risk of death or injury due to transport accidents. 5. Reduce social and economic costs of transport to public health, including air quality impacts in line with the UK s European obligations. 6. Improve the health of individuals by encouraging and enabling more physically active travel. 7. Reduce the vulnerability of transport networks to terrorist attack. 8. Manage transport-related noise in a way that is consistent with the emerging national noise strategy and other wider Government goals. 9. Minimise the impacts of transport on the natural environment, heritage and landscape and seek solutions that deliver long-term environmental benefits. 10. Improve the experience of end-to-end journeys for transport users. 11. Sustain and improve transport s contribution to the quality of people s lives by enabling them to enjoy access to a range of goods, services, people and places. Cities and regional networks 1. Deliver quantified net reductions in greenhouse gas emissions within cities and regional networks, taking account of cross-network policy measures. 2. Reduce lost productive time including by maintaining or improving the reliability and predictability of journey times on key local routes for business, commuting and freight. 3. Improve the connectivity and access to labour markets of key business centres. 4. Deliver the transport improvements required to support the sustainable provision of housing, and in particular the PSA target of increasing supply to 240,000 net additional dwellings per annum by Ensure local transport networks are resistant and adaptable to shocks and impacts such as economic shocks, adverse weather, accidents, terrorist attacks and impacts of climate change. 6. Enhance social inclusion and the regeneration of deprived or remote areas by enabling disadvantaged people to connect with employment opportunities, key local services, social networks and goods through improving accessibility, availability, affordability and acceptability. 7. Contribute to the reduction in the gap between economic growth rates for different English regions. 8. Reduce the risk of death or injury due to transport accidents. 9. Improve the health of individuals by encouraging and enabling more physically active travel. 10. Reduce social and economic costs of transport to public health, including air quality impacts in line with the UK s European obligations. 11. Reduce the vulnerability of city and regional transport networks to terrorist attack. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report

146 12. Reduce crime, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour on city and regional transport networks. 13. Reduce the number of people and dwellings exposed to high levels of noise from road and rail networks consistent with implementation of Actions Plans prepared under the Environmental Noise Directive. 14. Minimise the impacts of transport on the natural environment, heritage and landscape and seek solutions that deliver long-term environmental benefits. 15. Support urban and rural communities by improving the integration of transport into streetscapes and enabling better neighbourhoods and better access to the natural environment. 16. Improve the journey experience of transport users of urban, regional and local networks, including at the interfaces with national networks and international networks. National networks 1. Deliver quantified net reductions in greenhouse gas emissions on national networks taking account of cross-network policy measures. 2. Reduce lost productive time on national transport networks, including by maintaining or improving the reliability and predictability of journey times on key local routes for business and freight. 3. Ensure national transport networks are resistant and adaptable to shocks and impacts such as economic shocks, adverse weather, accidents, terrorist attacks and impacts of climate change. 4. Enhance social inclusion by ensuring national networks are accessible and acceptable for disadvantaged people. 5. Contribute to the reduction in the gap between economic growth rates for different English regions. 6. Reduce the risk of death or injury due to transport accidents. 7. Reduce social and economic costs of transport to public health, including air quality impacts in line with the UK s European obligations. 8. Reduce the vulnerability of transport networks to terrorist attack. 9. Reduce the number of people and dwellings exposed to high levels of noise from road and rail networks consistent with implementation of Actions Plans prepared under the Environmental Noise Directive. 10. Minimise the impacts of transport on the natural environment, heritage and landscape and seek solutions that deliver long-term environmental benefits. 11. Improve the journey experience of transport users of national networks including at the interfaces with local networks and international networks. International networks 1. Ensure forecast growth in international aviation emissions is matched by equivalent transport reductions or offset by reductions in other sectors. 2. Increase the carbon efficiency of international shipping. Forecast growth to be offset by reductions in other sectors. 3. Reduce lost productive time on international networks by maintaining or improving efficiency, predictability and reliability of international end-toend journeys. 4. Ensure passengers and freight have access to globally competitive levels of international connectivity. 5. Ensure international networks are resistant and adaptable to shocks and impacts such as economic shocks, adverse weather, accidents, terrorist attacks and impacts of climate change. 6. Improve accessibility for persons of reduced mobility on international networks. Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

147 7. Contribute to the reduction in the gap between economic growth rates for different English regions. 8. Reduce the risk of death or injury due to transport accidents. 9. Reduce social and economic costs of transport to public health, including air quality impacts in line with the UK s European obligations. 10. Work internationally and nationally to reduce the vulnerability of international networks to terrorist attack. 11. Limit and, where possible, reduce the number of people in the UK affected by aircraft noise. 12. Minimise the impacts of transport on the natural environment, heritage and landscape and seek solutions that deliver long-term environmental benefits. 13. Improve the experience of end-to-end journeys for international transport users. Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report

148 Appendix B Working Paper 1 Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report

149 LIVERPOOL PORT ACCESS STUDY Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts FINAL REPORT Date: March 2010 Ref: WP1 Final Report

150 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION OVERVIEW OF PORT TRAFFICS PORTS POLICY PORT TRAFFIC FORECASTS ECONOMICS OF INLAND DISTRIBUTION COPYRIGHT The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of MDS Transmodal

151 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chapter 1 Introduction The key objectives of Working Paper 1 are to: Develop forecasts for future growth in port traffic through Liverpool Docks up to 2030; Define the potential for modal shift of port-related traffic to and from Liverpool Docks from road to more sustainable modes of transport (rail and waterborne transport). For the purposes of forecasting both traffic volumes and modal split the base year is 2008 and the forecasting time horizon is 2030, with an interim forecast for This draft report has been produced by MDS Transmodal, with input from Ekosgen on the significance of Liverpool Docks for the regional economy in section 3.5. The results included in this Report have been validated with Peel Ports and some shippers of bulk cargoes through Liverpool Docks. Chapter 2 Overview of port traffics For statistical purposes, Liverpool Docks form only part of the Port of Liverpool, which also includes traffic passing through Tranmere and Birkenhead. For this reason the volume of port traffics passing through Liverpool Docks were estimated based on the consultants market knowledge, any available industry statistics and discussions with Peel Ports. We estimate that in 2008 Liverpool Docks handled the following traffics across the quays: Inwards Outwards Traffic Inland by road Traffic Inland by road Containers 203,000 units 84% 211,000 units 83% Roll-on Roll-off 115,000 units 100% 113,000 units 100% freight units Passenger cars 5,000 cars 100% 6,000 cars 100% Bulk tonnes 6.1 million tonnes 65% 2.8 million tonnes 87% Source: Estimates by MDS Transmodal The main function of Liverpool Docks in 2008 in the bulk markets was as a location for the import (mainly in large ships), storage and (where appropriate) processing of bulk cargoes prior to inland distribution; about 60% of Liverpool Docks non-unitised cargoes handled across the quay in 2008 were imports. The major import cargoes were cereals, AFS and coal. The major high value imported non-unitised cargoes were paper products and steel, with the port also acting as a storage point for non-maritime cargoes that were received at the port by rail. For maritime import cargoes, rail had a 30% market share for inland distribution due to the distribution of steam coal to inland power stations by rail; small volumes of steel scrap were imported from GB coastal locations by sea, stored and then re-exported in larger vessels with no impact on the inland road and rail networks. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

152 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 2 Liverpool Docks major bulk export trade was scrap metal, transported in deep sea vessels. The scrap metal was received at the port by rail and sea but mainly by road. For export cargoes by sea, rail had an 8% market share for inland distribution, due to the distribution of some steel scrap to the port by rail. Liverpool Docks handled all of the Port of Liverpool s container traffic in 2008 and a significant proportion of its RoRo traffic. The Docks handled 414,000 containers in 2008 and the modal split for container distribution was 2% by rail, 14% transhipment and 84% by road. Liverpool Docks also handled an estimated 219,000 RoRo freight units in 2008, 72% of which were unaccompanied trailers. Chapter 3 Ports policy The DfT s ports policy maintains the status quo in that Government does not intend to indicate where and how much additional port capacity is required. These decisions will be left to the mainly private sector port operators and the planning system. The Government believes that the diverse ownership of ports in the UK serves the country well and does not need to change. The Draft Ports NPS places a strong emphasis on planning, with the potential for fast-tracking some port developments where they are regarded as being strategic in nature, and (wherever possible) on greater use of sustainable distribution for inland distribution. In relation to the Port of Liverpool itself, there is broad support for the further development of the port within the context of sustainable development at a national, regional and sub-regional level. Chapter 4 Port traffic forecasts This chapter provides analysis of the prospects for each traffic type, concluding with forecasts up to For the unitised market sectors, the methodology is based on trend analysis (while taking account of the economic recession), while for the bulk sectors it is based on establishing the key economic drivers for the individual trades. This methodology follows that used to develop national port traffic forecasts in for Great Britain as whole, while taking account of recent events. Summary of Central Forecasts for Liverpool Docks to 2020 and 2030 Million units/tonnes Broad traffic category Broad commodity CAGR Unitised Containers % RoRo freight units % RoRo passenger cars % Cruise passenger cars Dry bulk Coal % Agricultural products % Other dry bulks: scrap metal % Other dry bulks: aggregates & construction materials Liquid bulk Other liquid bulks % Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

153 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 3 Other Steel % Forestry products % General cargo Source: MDS Transmodal Most growth in traffic is forecast to be in containers and RoRo freight units, relatively slower growth is forecast for most non-unitised traffics apart from coal; this latter traffic is forecast to decline significantly based on UK Government projections for the use of coal for the generation of electricity up to As well as these existing traffics, future scenarios for new traffic development could lead to an additional: 270,000 HGV movements (in and out) and 12 trains in each direction per day generated by the development of port-centric distribution on a site of 50 hectares; 30-40,000 freight RoRo units per annum on Atlantic Arc RoRo services; Inbound waste material by road for onward shipment by barge to the Ince Resource and Recovery Park on the Manchester Ship Canal. Chapter 5 Economics of inland distribution There is an array of policy support for the further development of sustainable distribution for the inland distribution of cargo between ports and inland origins and destinations and the Draft Ports NPS states that the Government wishes to see port development wherever possible by: supporting sustainable transport by offering more efficient transport links with lower environmental disbenefits; providing a basis for trans-modal shifts from road transport to shipping and rail, which are generally more sustainable However, despite policy support and some limited grant funding for sustainable distribution services, the relative transport economics of sustainable distribution compared to road freight distribution is the major determinant of modal split for inland distribution between Liverpool Docks and its hinterland. Another key factor is the availability of origins and destinations that are connected to the rail and waterborne freight networks (e.g. the Port Salford development, which will be rail and water-connected) facilitated by the planning system which only allows large distribution parks to be developed on green belt when they are accessible by rail and/or water. Road freight transport is highly cost effective because it is internally competitive due to the industry s low barriers to entry. Nevertheless fuel and labour costs have been increasing and this has, allied to the development of more rail-connected distribution parks and increasing volumes of traffic through Greater SE ports, has helped the intermodal sector of the rail freight industry to grow its traffic in the last few years. In addition, rail freight is often cheaper than road and the economic recession is encouraging shippers and logistics providers to seek more cost-effective solutions. The key characteristic of the economics of sustainable distribution, whether the trunk haul is provided by rail, inland waterway or short sea, is that it has high fixed costs compared to road transport because the capital assets required are so much more expensive than for road transport before a single unit load is transported a single kilometre. However, road haulage has higher variable Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

154 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 4 costs per kilometre when rail or waterborne services are able to generate sufficient critical mass of traffic to generate economies of scale. This, in turn, means that sustainable distribution services tend to be more competitive compared to road freight transport over longer distances. The break even distance is affected to a very great extent by whether final collection or distribution is required by road between rail/port terminals at either end of the transport chain; Liverpool Docks has the advantage that it is already connected to the rail and waterborne freight networks and so no road distribution is required at, at least, one end of the transport chain. Where a rail service is linking the port to an inland terminal with on-site distribution centres, sustainable distribution services can be cost-effective compared to road over distances of only 100km or less. Shippers and logistics providers are increasingly considering rail freight services as an alternative to road haulage to reduce costs trading off a slower transit time against lower costs. Intermodal rail freight has grown by 38% in terms of tonne kilometres since 2004, even if volumes through the Port of Liverpool have declined. The greatest potential for use of sustainable distribution to and from Liverpool Docks is likely to lie with rail freight services for the inland distribution of containers, once the post-panamax berth berths are developed and Liverpool secures calls from post-panamax vessels that only make a single call in Great Britain and so are serving a national market. This development, plus a network of inland rail terminals with on-site distribution centres and increasing road haulage costs could lead to 22% of containers to be distributed inland by rail in 2020 and 24% by In addition, a daily barge service would distribute containers between Liverpool Docks and berths along the Manchester Ship Canal. RoRo traffic (in trailers) is likely to remain on the road, but coal traffic will remain rail-borne. There is potential for some ro-ro ferry traffic to be carried on the same ships in containers and therefore be suitable for onward carriage by rail. There should be potential for transporting a greater proportion of steel scrap by rail as Liverpool has a national hinterland for this traffic type. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

155 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 5 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Objective of Working Paper 1 The key objectives of Working Paper 1 are to: Develop forecasts for future growth in port traffic through Liverpool Docks up to 2030; Define the potential for modal shift of port-related traffic to and from Liverpool Docks from road to more sustainable modes of transport (rail and waterborne transport). The analysis contained in WP1 will provide a key input to the Stage 1 report. This draft report has been produced by MDS Transmodal, with input from Ekosgen on the significance of Liverpool Docks for the regional economy in section Scope of Working Paper 1 The geographic scope of the study for the purposes of consideration of options is defined in the Brief as covering the wider highway network north of Liverpool City Centre and Edge Lane, and includes all routes and entrance points to the port in North Liverpool and Sefton. The analysis of port traffic forecasts and consideration of the potential for modal shift from road to more sustainable modes of freight transport included in this Working Paper takes into account a wider geographic area, given the international nature of the shipping markets and the Port of Liverpool s national, super-regional and regional hinterland for different kinds of port traffic. In terms of mode of transport, this Working Paper includes consideration of demand side issues affecting the potential for greater use of rail freight, inland waterways (particularly the Manchester Ship Canal) and greater use of coastal shipping for inland distribution. The time horizon for forecasting is 2030, to be consistent with the port traffic forecasts set out in the DfT s Ports National Policy Statement that was published in November Forecasts are also required for the interim year of The base year for the study is 2008, as the DfT s 2008 Maritime Statistics were published in October 2009 and provide port traffic data by broad commodity for the Port of Liverpool. 1.3 Outline methodology and structure Chapter 2 Overview of Port Traffics provides analysis of the port traffics within the scope of the study, setting out traffic volumes and mode of appearance (which determines how the port traffics are handled and distributed inland). The analysis has been completed using statistical analysis, supplemented by discussions with Peel Ports and some key shippers and operators in the Docks, supplemented by the consultants knowledge of the Port of Liverpool s traffics. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

156 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 6 Chapter 3 Ports Policy describes existing ports policy and its potential impact on growth of traffic through the port up to Chapter 4 Port Market Sectors & Traffic Forecasts provides analysis for each major traffic that passes through Liverpool Docks using a variety of data sources and competitor analysis. The analysis seeks to describe the key economic drivers for each traffic type, establish the major factors affecting future traffic growth and set out a Central Forecast and High and Low Scenarios for each major traffic type. Chapter 5 Economics of Inland Distribution provides an explanation of the economics of rail freight, inland waterways and coastal shipping in relation to Liverpool Docks, given its location, its existing facilities and connections, the inland origins and destination of traffic and the economics of sustainable distribution. It includes a summary of relevant policy. This chapter also includes modal split forecasts for traffic, based on an unconstrained forecast (i.e. not taking into account supplyside constraints, such as a lack of rail network capacity or rail connections to individual port terminals). 1.4 Validation of results The results included in this Final Report have been discussed with Peel Ports and some shippers of bulk cargoes and other operators at Liverpool Docks. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

157 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 7 2 OVERVIEW OF PORT TRAFFICS 2.1 Introduction This chapter provides analysis of the port traffics within the scope of the study, setting out traffic volumes and mode of appearance (dry bulk, Load On Load off etc., which defines how the cargoes are handled at the port). The analysis has been completed using statistical analysis, supplemented by discussions with Peel Ports and the consultants knowledge of the Port of Liverpool s traffics. For statistical purposes, Liverpool Docks form only part of the Port of Liverpool, which also includes traffic passing through Tranmere and Birkenhead. For this reason the volume of port traffics passing through Liverpool Docks were estimated based on the consultants market knowledge, any available industry statistics and discussions with Peel Ports. 2.2 Non-unitised traffic Estimates of the volume of inwards non-unitised port traffics through Liverpool Docks in 2008 are shown in Table 2.1. Table 2.1: Liverpool Docks - inbound non-unitised port traffic, 2008 Mode of appearance MSD broad commodity Commodity Tonnes (million) Port area of handling Mode of transport for inland distribution Assumed port gate for road LIQUID BULK Oil products Refined 0.1 Huskisson Dock Not - - petroleum products distributed inland Other liquid Molasses 0.2 Gladstone Dock 100% road Seaforth 0.2 bulk products Edible oils 0.1 Brocklebank Dock 100% road Strand 0.1 Road DRY BULK Coal Power 1.8 Gladstone 100% rail - - station coal Agricultural Grain 1.5 Seaforth 99% road, 1% Seaforth 1.5 products coastal/short sea to Ireland. Animal 1.0 Seaforth 98% road, 2% Seaforth 1.0 feedstuffs coastal/short sea to Ireland Other dry bulk Aggregates 0.3 Seaforth 100% road Seaforth 0.3 Scrap metal 0.4 Alexandra/Canada Stored at port, - - prior to export SEMI-BULK Forestry Paper 0.2 Gladstone/Seaforth 100% road Seaforth 0.2 products Iron & steel Steel 0.5 (plus Gladstone/Seaforth 100% road Seaforth by rail) TOTAL 6.1 (plus 3.9 INBOUND 0.1 by rail) Source: MDS Transmodal, based on DfT Maritime Statistics Volume inland by road Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

158 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 8 The major inbound liquid bulk traffic flows in 2008 were: An estimated 0.1 million tonnes of refined petroleum products were imported and stored in tanks at Huskisson Dock, before being loaded to vessels for bunkers. There is therefore no impact from this traffic on inland networks. An estimated 0.2 million tonnes of molasses were imported, processed and stored in tanks at Gladstone Dock and then distributed in inland by road. An estimated 0.1 million tonnes of edible oils were imported, processed and stored at Brocklebank Dock and then distributed inland by road. The major inbound dry bulk flows were: About 1.8 million tonnes of steam coal were imported through Gladstone Dock and stored before being distributed inland by rail to inland power stations. An estimated 1.5 million tonnes of cereals were imported into the grain silos at Seaforth and then distributed inland by road, apart from a small volume of cereals that was transhipped by sea to Ireland. About 1.0 million tonnes of animal feedstuffs/biomass were imported via Seaforth, stored in the grain silos at Seaforth and then distributed inland by road, apart from a small volume of AFS that was transhipped by sea to Ireland. About 0.3 million tonnes of aggregates were imported through Seaforth and stored prior to inland distribution by road. An estimated 0.4 million tonnes of steel scrap was imported via Alexandra Dock, mainly from Scotland, for re-export by sea (no impact on the inland road network). The major inbound semi-bulk flows in 2008 were: An estimated 0.2 million tonnes of forestry products (mainly paper rolls) were imported via Seaforth/Gladstone Docks and then stored prior to inland distribution by road. A small volume of forestry products are received at the port by rail, stored and then distributed inland by road. About 0.5 million tonnes of steel was imported via Seaforth/Gladstone Docks and stored prior to inland distribution by road. An estimated 0.1 million tonnes of steel is also received at the port by rail, stored and then distributed inland by road. Estimates of the volume of outwards non-unitised port traffics through Liverpool Docks in 2008 are shown in Table 2.2. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

159 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 9 Table 2.2: Liverpool Docks - overview of outbound non-unitised port traffic, 2008 MSD broad commodity Ores Other bulk dry Total outbound Commodity Tonnes (million) Port area of handling Mode of transport for inland distribution Port gate for road Scrap metal? 0.1 Canada Dock 100% road Strand 0.1 Scrap metal 2.7 Seaforth/Gladstone/Alexandra/Canada 87% road, 8% Seaforth 2.7 rail & 5% & coastwise/short Strand sea Road Source: MDS Transmodal, based on DfT Maritime Statistics Port gate volumes (M tonnes) The major outbound dry bulk flows in 2008 were: 0.1 million tonnes of ores were exported from Liverpool Docks in 2008; we have assumed the cargo was steel scrap and the inland mode of transport was road. An estimated 2.8 million tonnes of scrap metal was exported via Seaforth, Gladstone, Alexandra and Canada Docks, with 87% of the scrap arriving at the port by road prior to storage and export and 13% arriving by sea or by rail. There is a discrepancy between the volumes reported by one of the operators and those reported in DfT Maritime Statistics, with the operator volumes being some 33% higher. We have used the operator data, effectively assuming that the DfT data understates the scrap metal volumes through Liverpool Docks in Unitised traffic Estimates of the volume of inwards unitised port traffics through Liverpool Docks in 2008 are shown in Table 2.3. Table 2.3: Liverpool Docks - inwards unitised port traffic, 2008 MSD broad commodity Units ( 000) Port area of handling Mode of transport for inland distribution Assumed port gate for road Seaforth Containers 203 Seaforth 84% road, 15% transhipment, 1% rail RoRo accompanied trucks (P&O 32 Gladstone 100% road Seaforth Ferries) RoRo unaccompanied trailers (P&O 79 Gladstone & 100% road Seaforth & Ferries & Seatruck) Brocklebank Seatruck Import/export vehicles 4 Seaforth 100% road Seaforth Passenger cars (P&O Ferries) 5 Gladstone 100% road Seaforth Source: MDS Transmodal, based on Maritime Statistics & industry sources Some 203,000 import containers were handled at Royal Seaforth Container Terminal in 2008 and 84% of the containers were distributed inland by road. About 15% were transhipped at Seaforth (i.e. 15,000 containers arrived on one container shipping service and then left on another) and 1% of import containers were distributed inland by rail. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

160 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 10 32,000 inbound accompanied trucks and 79,000 unaccompanied trailers were handled at the P&O Ferries and Seatruck RoRo terminals in Liverpool Docks in 2008; all were distributed inland by road. In addition, the P&O Ferries terminal handled 5,000 inbound passenger cars. About 4,000 import vehicles were handled through Liverpool Docks in Estimates of the volume of outwards unitised port traffics through Liverpool Docks in 2008 are shown in Table 2.4. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

161 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 11 Table 2.4: Liverpool Docks - outbound unitised port traffic, 2008 Thousand units MSD broad commodity Units ( 000) Port area of handling Mode of transport for inland distribution Assumed port gate for road Seaforth Containers 211 Seaforth 83% road, 14% transhipment, 2% rail RoRo accompanied 29 Gladstone 100% road Seaforth trucks (P&O Ferries) RoRo unaccompanied 80 Gladstone & 100% road Seaforth & Seatruck trailers (P&O Ferries & Brocklebank Seatruck) Import/export vehicles 4 Seaforth 100% road Seaforth Passenger cars 6 Gladstone 100% road Seaforth Source: MDS Transmodal, based on Maritime Statistics & industry sources Some 211,000 export containers were handled at Royal Seaforth Container Terminal in 2008 and 83% of the containers were distributed inland by road. About 14% were transhipped at Seaforth (i.e. about 15,000 containers arrived on one container service and then left on another). 2% of export containers were delivered to the port by rail. 29,000 inbound accompanied trucks and 80,000 unaccompanied trailers were handled at the P&O Ferries and Seatruck terminals in Liverpool Docks in 2008; all were distributed inland by road. In addition, the P&O Ferries terminal handled 6,000 inbound passenger cars. About 4,000 export vehicles were handled through Liverpool Docks in Conclusion The main function of Liverpool Docks in 2008 in the bulk markets was as a location for the import (mainly in large ships), storage and (where appropriate) processing of bulk cargoes prior to inland distribution; about 60% of Liverpool Docks non-unitised cargoes handled across the quay in 2008 were imports. The major import cargoes were cereals, AFS and coal. The major high value imported non-unitised cargoes were paper products and steel, with the port also acting as a storage point for non-maritime cargoes that were received at the port by rail. For maritime import cargoes, rail had a 30% market share for inland distribution due to the distribution of steam coal to inland power stations by rail; small volumes of steel scrap were imported from GB coastal locations by sea, stored and then re-exported in larger vessels with no impact on the inland road and rail networks. Liverpool Docks major bulk export trade was scrap metal, transported in deep sea vessels. The scrap metal was received at the port by rail and sea but mainly by road. For export cargoes by sea, rail had an 8% market share for inland distribution, due to the distribution of some steel scrap to the port by rail. Liverpool Docks handled all of the Port of Liverpool s container traffic in 2008 and a significant proportion of its RoRo traffic. The Docks handled 414,000 containers in 2008 and the modal split for container distribution was 2% by rail, 14% transhipment and 84% by road. Liverpool Docks also handled an estimated 219,000 RoRo freight units in 2008, 72% of which were unaccompanied trailers. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

162 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 12 A summary of the traffics handled across the quays at Liverpool Docks in 2008 is provided in Table 2.5. Table 2.5: Summary of maritime traffic via Liverpool Docks, 2008 Inwards Outwards Traffic Inland by road Traffic Inland by road Containers 203,000 units 84% 211,000 units 83% Roll-on Roll-off 115,000 units 100% 113,000 units 100% freight units Passenger cars 5,000 cars 100% 6,000 cars 100% Bulk tonnes 6.1 million tonnes 65% 2.8 million tonnes 87% Source: Estimates by MDS Transmodal Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

163 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 13 3 PORTS POLICY 3.1 Introduction This chapter provides a summary of key ports policy documents at a European, UK and regional level and analyses how these policies might affect the future development of traffic through Liverpool Docks. A summary of policy relating to sustainable distribution is included in Chapter European ports policy Public funding of ports and its state aid implications has traditionally been the major issue for European ports policy and the European Commission has been tolerant of public sector funding of ports infrastructure, arguing that existing state aid rules are sufficient i.e. there is no need for specific rules for the ports sector. Many Member States on the continental mainland regard port infrastructure as a public good, while port infrastructure in Great Britain has mainly been funded by the ports themselves. However, in 2007 the Commission published a Communication on a European Ports Policy, which recognised that there may not be a level playing field between ports because of differences between the Member States in how they choose to fund their ports and the extent to which the ports compete with each other across national boundaries. The Communication stated that the Commission would adopt guidelines on state aid in ports in 2008, but so far these guidelines have not been published. Given the Port of Liverpool s location on the west coast of GB, it is less likely to be affected by any changes in the state aid rules for ports than the deep sea container ports in the Greater South East, which compete for transhipment traffic with major continental deep sea container ports such as Rotterdam and Antwerp. 3.3 Background to UK ports policy The Future of Transport White Paper The last statement of official transport policy by the UK Government was in July 2004 in The Future of Transport White Paper, which set out that the free movement of goods and people between the UK and the rest of the world as being a key goal of Government policy: We want to contribute to regional and national prosperity by facilitating the free movement of people and goods in and out of the country by air or sea. This will mean maximising the benefits of growth in aviation and shipping while responding to the challenges that this presents. Our starting point is to make best use of our existing airports and ports capacity. Where new capacity is needed we will aim to minimise the effects on the communities around our major airports and ports and on the environment (paragraph 7.8). Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

164 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 14 The Eddington Report Sir Rod Eddington was jointly commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Transport in 2005 to examine the long-term links between transport and the UK s economic productivity, growth and stability, within the context of the Government s broader commitment to sustainable development. The results of the study were published in Given the importance of international gateways for the economic performance of the country and their increasing congestion and unreliability, Sir Rod Eddington recommended maintaining or improving the performance of the UK s key international gateways, specifically deep sea and feeder container ports and RoRo ports that support a high level of business. Paragraph of the Eddington Report states, Adding deep sea container port capacity in line with projected demands could reduce international delivery costs by up to 140 million per annum up to 2030, with additional feeder costs also likely to deliver significant benefits. Expanding roll-on roll-off capacity, particularly in the South East, would also offer economic benefits. Eddington was particularly positive about the potential economic benefits of removing bottlenecks on surface access routes to ports. Delivering a Sustainable Transport System (DaSTS) In November 2008 Government published the report Delivering a Sustainable Transport System (DaSTS). This restates Government s five broad goals for transport policy: Maximising the competitiveness and productivity of the economy: Policy should focus on improving predictable end-to-end journey times for both passengers and freight and Eddington suggested this could be achieved by making the best use of existing networks, ensuring that transport pricing is set at the right level, by targeted new infrastructure investment for all types of infrastructure. Addressing climate change by establishing a price for carbon, developing and using carbon technologies and removing barriers that prevent people from making informed decisions about their use of carbon. Protecting people s safety, security and health Improving quality of life Promoting greater equality of opportunity. The DfT has avoided prioritising these goals, but greater emphasis is placed on maximising the competitiveness and productivity of the economy and addressing climate change. The DfT identified a number of transport infrastructure components in DaSTS that are critical to the functioning of the system as a whole and to the economic success of the nation. These are: The ten ports (including Liverpool) and seven airports (which together make up the key international gateways) through which most people and goods enter and leave England; The ten biggest conurbations in England (including the Liverpool City Region), and Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

165 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 15 The 14 national transport corridors that connect them and other areas with strong economic growth and inward investment with each other and with the principal freight distribution centres. Where Government s proposed approach involves development of national transport infrastructure, it intends that the Infrastructure Planning Commission will take key planning decisions, supported by the production of National Planning Statements (NPS) for the relevant sectors. The Ports NPS was published in November 2009 and is considered in section 3.4 below. 3.4 UK ports policy Decision letter for Seaforth River Terminal The DfT s favourable planning decision on the application to develop a new post-panamax container terminal outside the lock gates at Seaforth was published in March 2007, prior to a significant up-date of UK ports policy. In the DfT s decision letter on the Seaforth river terminal harbour revision order (March 2007) the Secretary of State for Transport agreed with the Inspector that there is a demonstrable need for the scheme (para.21). Furthermore, the Secretary of State was, satisfied with the Applicant s assessment that no other alternative is more suitable for meeting the identified need or is less detrimental to the environment and agreed that, the proposals would enable the port to expand to meet changes in shipping trade and that this would contribute to additional job opportunities, and confer benefits to the local and regional economies (paragraphs 22-23). The Secretary of State accepted that the scheme is compatible with national, regional and local planning and transport policies (paragraph 24). The Secretary of State therefore accepted the recommendations of the Inspector that all the relevant permissions should be provided for the post-panamax container berths at Liverpool. Ports Policy Review Interim Report The Ports Policy Review Interim Report, published in July 2007, set out DfT ports policy apart from policy on inland connections and therefore focuses on general conclusions about the future direction of ports policy for England and Wales. Forecasts produced for the DfT in and published in the Ports Policy Review Interim Report suggested that long-term growth in LoLo freight traffic (in tonnes) to and from GB is likely to be 3.5% per annum up to Furthermore the DfT stated in the Interim Report that, in the absence of new development or large efficiency improvements over the coming decade, constraints would be in: Deep sea container terminals in the Greater South East, closest to the major shipping routes; Feeder capacity (both berths and short sea shipping services) around the country for movements via hub ports and elsewhere; and Roll-on roll-off terminal capacity in the South East, serving short-sea routes to the Continent (paragraph 8). Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

166 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 16 The DfT did not therefore specifically state in this document that it believed there would be a shortfall in deep sea container port capacity outside the Greater South East, although it has granted all the relevant permissions to allow Liverpool to develop its riverside post-panamax berths. Similarly, the DfT focused on the likely need for additional RoRo capacity only in the South East, rather than elsewhere in the country; this may reflect the fact that it had already granted the relevant permissions for the Langton riverside RoRo berth at Liverpool Docks. The ports policy set out in the Interim Report is not determinative i.e. there is no intention to dictate to the ports industry where and how it should invest in new port infrastructure; it will be left to the private sector to make investment decisions, within the planning regime. However, the DfT wants to ensure that the ports industry develops to take full account of both the adverse impacts and the benefits of further development at local and regional levels. The report states, a market oriented approach remains appropriate there would in general be no additional benefit from a locally or regionally determinative ports policy. We also conclude that only in exceptional circumstances will the Government regard local regeneration as a justification for direct subsidy to a port. (para.13) Therefore, within an overall policy of sustainable development, the DfT regards market forces as being the major factor in deciding where additional port capacity is likely to be required. Draft Ports NPS The draft Ports NPS (published by the DfT in November 2009) sets out the Government s conclusions on the need for new port infrastructure, considering the current place of ports in the national economy, the available evidence on future demand, and the options for meeting future needs. The document, once finalised after the consultation period, will be a key planning document for the future development of infrastructure at major ports, including infrastructure for port access, as the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) must, as a general rule, decide an application for ports infrastructure in accordance with this NPS. Overall ports policy, as set out in the Ports NPS, follows the policies outlined in the Interim Ports Policy document. However, in paragraph , the Ports NPS emphasizes that, the Government wishes to see port development wherever possible: supporting sustainable transport by offering more efficient transport links with lower environmental disbenefits; providing a basis for trans-modal shifts from road transport to shipping and rail, which are generally more sustainable; supporting sustainable development by providing additional capacity for the development of renewable energy; and supporting economic and social cohesion. The Ports NPS explains that port development must follow the principles of sustainable development: Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

167 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 17 These underlying policies are intended to support the fundamental aim of improving economic, social and environmental welfare through sustainable development. They recognise the essential contribution to national well-being that international and domestic trade makes. Economic growth is supported by trade but must be aligned with environmental protection and improvement wherever possible (paragraph ). As in the Interim Ports Policy document, the DfT defines the need for ports infrastructure at a strategic level, based on port traffic demand forecasts produced in i.e. prior to the economic recession. Paragraph states that All previous evidence suggests that, over time and notwithstanding temporary economic downturns, increased trade in goods and, to a lesser extent in commodities, can be expected as a direct consequence of the Government s policies to support sustainable economic growth and to achieve rising prosperity. With 95% of all goods in and out of the UK moving by sea and very limited alternatives, the majority of this increase will need to move through ports around the coast of the United Kingdom. Paragraph states that, Forecasts of demand for port capacity in the period up to 2030 by MDS Transmodal (MDST) were published on behalf of the Department for Transport in 2006 and updated in The central GB-wide forecasts suggested increases by 2030 over a 2005 base of: 182% in containers, from 7m to 20m teu (excluding transhipment), 101% in ro-ro traffic, from 85m to 170m tonnes 4% in non-unitised traffic, from 411m to 429m tonnes. Since then, the recession has led to a severe downturn in demand, especially for unitized cargo. The full extent of this recession effect on trade through ports cannot yet be fully quantified. However, the Government s view is that the long-term effect will be to delay by a number of years but not ultimately reduce the eventual levels of demand for port capacity predicted in these forecasts. (paragraph ). The Ports NPS reiterates the policy set in the Interim Ports Policy that the DfT will not adopt a deterministic approach to port development, which would dictate where port development should occur. The DfT continues to regard the market as being the best mechanism for determining where development should take place, with developers bringing forward applications for port developments where it considers them to be commercially viable. In conclusion, the Draft Ports NPS continues to regard the market as being the best way to determine where and what type of port infrastructure is required in the future. Demand forecasts up to 2030 have been accepted by the DfT as providing a strategic view of potential demand. The DfT believes that the economic recession will not halt traffic growth, but may delay growth by a few years. The Draft Ports NPS broadly supports the development of new port infrastructure at Liverpool Docks, within the context of the principles of sustainable development. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

168 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 18 Port Master Plan Guidance The DfT published a consultation document on Port Master Plans in Summer 2008, which suggests that, although the development of master plans is likely to be voluntary, any major port that wants to expand its facilities in a way that that has external impacts beyond the port estate will find it much easier to receive the relevant permissions if a master plan has been developed. Government s consultation document on the introduction of port master plans recommends therefore that ports should undertake the development of port master plans, particularly those handling more than 1m tonnes per annum and expecting to bring forwards one or more substantial development proposal in the next years. According to the draft guidance, port master plans should: Clarify the port s own strategic planning for the medium to long term; Assist regional and local planning bodies, and transport network providers, in preparing and revising their own development strategies; Inform port users, employees and local communities as to how they can expect to see the port develop over the coming years. The Port of Liverpool would be regarded as a major port in the context of this draft guidance as it handles more than one million tonnes of cargo; Peel Ports has undertaken to develop a Mersey Ports Master Plan, encompassing Liverpool Docks and all the other port facilities on the Mersey and on the Manchester Ship Canal. In preparing long-term master plans for ports, and specifically to demonstrate the need for expansion or investment, Peel will need to produce port-specific forecasts for the principal traffics, drawing on national port forecasts set out in the Ports NPS. The master plan should reconcile with, or justify deviation from, the national forecasts for the principal traffics by explaining the extent to which it is driven by: Any disagreement with the national forecasts; The port s own commercial view of its prospects and opportunities; Sub-traffic (sectoral composition of trade) issues. 3.5 Regional Policy Regional economic context The North West s primary economic challenge is to narrow the GVA gap with the UK average 8% or 2,900 per employee in 2007, the latest year for which data is available. Within the North West, Merseyside s GVA per employee of 30,000 is the second lowest of the five sub-regions, albeit it grew significantly in the early part of this decade. Whilst North West productivity has grown, the rate of growth has not kept pace latterly with the better performing regions, so the gap with the UK average has widened. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

169 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 19 Looking forward, the consensus amongst economic forecasters is that levels of investment, innovation and enterprise alongside improvements in the labour force will combine to grow productivity (once the recession has worked through) in the North West in the medium term but not at a level to narrow the gap. These projections highlight the importance of creating the conditions for key sectors to invest, improve their competitiveness and expand their employment. The effects of the recession are not yet fully known, and much will depend in the short term on whether the modest growth predicted from 2010 can be built upon and sustained. Even when growth returns, Merseyside will continue to face significant challenges in narrowing the GVA gap with the regional and national average, due to a number of factors including its underlying economic structure but also the likely reduction in the overall public sector investment which has played such an important role in the area s renaissance in recent times. This reinforces the importance of exploiting its key assets and areas of competitive advantage. The Port of Liverpool is a key economic driver for the Liverpool City Region and the wider North West. This is reflected in its identification as a Transformational Action in the current Regional Economic Strategy as well as a key action in the Merseyside City Region Development Plan. It already is a core part of the maritime sector, which collectively accounts for more than 5% of the City Region s economic output. With an average GVA per employee of 34,600, growing the Port will potentially deliver a disproportionately positive contribution to the GVA targets for the Liverpool City Region and the North West as a whole. Looking forward, the overall vision is to develop the Mersey Ports into the international sea gateway to the North of England. Whilst its primary influence is on the Merseyside economy, the indirect and induced effects of economic activity accrue across a wide geographical area. The 80m investment in increased container capacity and other interventions will strengthen the Port s role as a key economic driver and one of the region s strongest economic assets. For this reason, the Port of Liverpool is highlighted as key action in the emerging Atlantic Gateway socio-economic master plan that seeks to promote a limited number of interventions to achieve accelerated growth and agglomeration effects across the Manchester and Liverpool City regions. Improved access is critical to maximising these economic benefits for Merseyside and to the Port s role in supporting improved regional economic performance. This role is recognised in the wider SuperPort concept, which envisages the integration of freight handling activity within a global gateway. The initial estimates highlight the SuperPort s potential to help transform the competitiveness of the City Region, creating 28,000 additional jobs and almost 1bn of GVA. Atlantic Gateway Government and the region s leaders have identified a clear opportunity for a second sustainable growth pole in England, which by 2030 will have delivered 250,000 new jobs and 400,000 new homes in the Manchester/Liverpool area. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

170 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 20 The vision for this opportunity, called the Atlantic Gateway, is as follows: Atlantic Gateway will be a low carbon, sustainable, economic growth zone of international importance, driven by two of Europe's leading city regions, and second only to London within a UK context. The Gateway comprises the combined area of the Manchester and Liverpool City Regions, including Warrington and northern parts of East and West Cheshire. It accounts for over half of the North West s population and GVA and has considerable growth potential, supported by world-class infrastructure and connectivity. Lying only 30 miles apart, the two principal economic drivers of growth within the Gateway will be: Manchester regional centre (including areas of Central Salford and Trafford) and Liverpool city centre. Both Manchester and Liverpool City Regions have established clear, ambitious plans for economic growth. These plans reflect the relationship between both cites and a wider shared economic geography. Atlantic Gateway sets out a framework for collaboration, policy development, investment and economic growth, which will complement, support and accelerate the development strategies for both City Regions. It provides a case for what needs to be done to enable the two cities and other regional centres such as Warrington and Chester to make a compelling and innovative case for a step change in national investment and sustainable improvement in economic performance of the area. The Atlantic Gateway concept is currently under development. Propositions for investment are being tested against a number of criteria include: Delivering additional economic performance benefit for the area on top of the existing plans and proposals. Consistency with City Regional Strategies and the emerging RS2010. Contributing to the sustainable, less carbon intensive, economic growth of the whole of the North West including addressing climate change and improving self-sufficiency. Four key areas have been identified where is a strong rationale for action at the Gateway level. Theme 2 is Creating a Globally Connected Gateway, a key element of which comprises early development of freight infrastructure. Priorities include: The development and championing of SuperPort and Port Salford (plus potential complementary freight facilities at key locations along the Ship Canal). Rail freight logistics facilities, along with investments in the rail network, which will support greater capacity and usage of the rail freight network e.g. resolving capacity issues at the Manchester Hub. It is proposed that Atlantic Gateway should support the early development of these strategic facilities, along with enabling infrastructure and investments which will be required to release their potential. The implementation of the recommendations from the Access to the Port of Liverpool study will be a key focus in taking forward the Atlantic Gateway concept. Governance and delivery Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

171 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 21 arrangements for Atlantic Gateway are currently being considered and a sub-group may be established to oversee the delivery of the Globally Connected Gateway theme. North West Regional Economic Strategy The Regional Economic Strategy (RES) in the North West, published in 2006 and led by the NWDA, provides a 20-year rolling plan for economic development in the region, and provides an update to the 2003 RES, acknowledging changing priorities and resources. Ports are considered within a transformational action within the RES, as a Key Growth Asset, to be fully utilised; therefore the potential of regional ports in contributing to GVA is recognised within the strategy. In particular, the Port of Liverpool is regarded as a key regional strength and one of the key gateways for national and international trade. The strategy s main objective of relevance to ports is to develop the infrastructure required for sustainable economic growth including necessary transport and provision. The RES regards the growth of traffic through ports in North West England as providing the potential to reduce reliance on congested southern ports. North West Regional Spatial Strategy The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), published in 2008, establishes a vision for a region that by 2021 has acted to deliver sustainable development, leading to a higher quality of life for all, and reduced social, economic and environmental disparities. Within the strategy, Ports and Waterways policy stimulates the wider context of economic activity generated by ports in the region, supporting the development of land-side surface access plans to facilitate the movement of freight and passenger traffic, and encouraging the transfer of freight from land to water transport. Utilisation of existing infrastructure is promoted, as is the development of good road, rail and inland waterway connections. North West Ports Economic Trends and Land Use Study The Northwest Regional Development Agency (NWDA) commissioned Regeneris Consulting and MDS Transmodal to carry out a study of the economic trends and land use requirements of ports in North West England. The overall aim of the study was to provide the NWDA and the other key regional partners with an accurate assessment of the key economic trends affecting North West ports and how this translates into port land requirements. It was designed to provide an evidence base for the development of future regional policy and strategy. The study concluded that, given forecast trade growth up to 2030, the North West is likely to require additional port capacity to accommodate LoLo and RoRo traffic; some additional port capacity might also be required by 2030 for dry bulk traffics, but the bulk trades are affected to a high degree by future Government energy policy, which makes the demand forecasts more uncertain. On the Port of Liverpool the study concluded that the port s LoLo traffic should return to growth relatively soon and the port can expand its capacity within the deepwater docks, with some modest Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

172 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 22 capital expenditure, by moving some existing customers to elsewhere in the port area. However, Liverpool is likely to be the west coast port in the best position to develop post-panamax berths in that it is well-located to serve the whole of the UK market from a central point, with good road and rail links to all GB regions and through its feeder links to Ireland. The study concluded that in the RoRo freight market Liverpool is in a strong competitive position, with its location, deep water and good road links providing the port with natural competitive advantages, particularly if the port is able to develop the Langton River berth on the back of an agreement with a customer. The market has declined in , but in the medium- to long-term, growth should return to the Irish Sea RoRo market. Given current market and policy trends, Liverpool s future roles are likely to be as: A major deep sea gateway port for the region and Great Britain, handing the full range of deep sea traffics; The only west coast deep sea container port, able to accommodate post-panamax vessels handling both direct calls by deep sea vessels, transhipment traffic to Ireland and traffic fed from other UK and Continental deep sea container ports; The major Irish Sea RoRo port in the North West region, following the development of a riverside terminal; A major sustainable distribution hub (waterborne, rail and road freight transport), serving a national hinterland, with associated warehousing. The port has a shortage of land within the port estate and in the medium to long-term, land availability is likely to be a key constraint to the port s development. Liverpool SuperPort Endorsed as a step change in the future competitiveness of the Liverpool City Region, the SuperPort concept has been stimulated by the economic success of other cities that host logistics clusters. The SuperPort consists of a cluster of freight and international passenger facilities in the Liverpool City Region, including Liverpool Docks. The vision for the Liverpool SuperPort is, To bring together and integrate the strengths of the Ports, Airports and Freight Community to create a SuperPort for freight and passenger operations within the Liverpool City Region that will become a key driver of its economy. It will create the most effective and cost efficient environment for freight cargo logistics and passenger transit in the UK. The focus of the Liverpool SuperPort has been therefore on the potential for high quality port, airport and intermodal freight facilities within the Liverpool City Region to develop synergies to make the City Region the most competitive logistics and passenger transport cluster in the UK. An evidence base for the SuperPort concept was developed by MDST and Roger Tym and Partners in early 2009 and the Liverpool Post-Panamax Container Terminal, port-centric distribution at the Port of Liverpool and enhanced access to the Port of Liverpool were all included as pipeline projects for future development. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

173 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page Port rate revaluation Business rates in the port sector appear to have been anomalous until 2005 in that the rates were often paid by the port landlord rather than by the tenant who is the immediate commercial beneficiary from the rateable land. The Government decided to harmonise the valuation of port land for business rate purposes with other economic sectors and the general business rates revaluation from 1 April 2005 provided an opportunity to change the system. The port landlords have received rebates for rates already paid since 2005 and their tenants have received bills in 2008 back-dated to The potential impact on individual businesses in Liverpool Docks will vary considerably depending on their individual financial position. It appears possible that some businesses may indeed fail as a direct result of the revaluation of port rates, but it is unlikely that this will have any long-term impact on the amount of traffic passing through the Liverpool Docks. If one business fails, its competitors in the port are likely to benefit. If a business chooses to relocate outside the port, then this suggests its business is not reliant on the existence of the port and such a switch of economic activity does not necessarily imply that there would be a reduction in economic activity or employment. The only exceptions to this pattern are: Where an importer might choose to warehouse goods at a Continental port rather than a UK port, which may reduce the amount of added value work conducted in the UK (such as new car preparation prior to delivery); this is unlikely to be the case for Liverpool, given its distance from the continental mainland. It is also possible that less cargo is stored in Liverpool Docks if an implicit subsidy to onport warehousing has been lost through the change in the rating system. 3.7 Conclusion In many respects the DfT s ports policy maintains the status quo in that Government does not intend to indicate where and how much additional port capacity is required. These decisions will be left to the mainly private sector port operators and the planning system. In addition, the Government believes that the diverse ownership of ports in the UK serves the country well and does not need to change. The Ports NPS places a strong emphasis on planning, with the potential for fast-tracking some port developments where they are regarded as being strategic in nature, and (wherever possible) on greater use of sustainable distribution for inland distribution. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

174 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 24 4 PORT TRAFFIC FORECASTS 4.1 Introduction This chapter provides analysis of the prospects for each traffic type, concluding with forecasts up to For the unitised market sectors, the methodology is based on trend analysis (while taking account of the economic recession), while for the bulk sectors it is based on establishing the key economic drivers for the individual trades. This methodology follows that used to develop the DfT port traffic forecasts in for Great Britain as whole, while taking account of recent events. The traffic forecasts were discussed with Peel Ports and with some shippers and operators at Liverpool Docks. 4.2 Containers Definition of traffic Containers are handled at the Royal Seaforth Container Terminal (RSCT) at the extreme north end of the Liverpool dock system. The RSCT, which is owned and operated by Peel Ports, can accommodate panamax deep sea container ships and any kind of short sea and feeder container vessel. The Port s customers are the container shipping lines, which pay for the berthing of the vessels and the loading and unloading and storage of the containers. To handle these types of call, the Port provides sufficient depth of water alongside the quay to accommodate the ships (up to panamax), specialised container cranes to load and unload the containers, a container storage area and a fleet of specialised vehicles (called straddle carriers) to transport the containers between the quay and the container storage area and between the storage area and road and rail vehicles for inland distribution; the port also provides a parking area for trucks that deliver and collect containers and there is also an intermodal rail freight terminal adjacent to the terminal for the transfer of containers to rail for inland distribution. RSCT is one of three panamax container port terminals on the west coast, along with Bristol and Greenock (the latter also owned by Peel Ports). Key customers In late 2009 the Port had calls from the following shipping lines by type of service: Direct deep sea services that carry containers to and from other continents: three services making five calls per week (ACL, Hapag Lloyd/OOCL and Independent); Deep sea feeder services that carry containers in small feeder ships to and from deep sea markets via deep sea container hubs such as Le Havre and Southampton: two services making two calls per week, (MSC and CGM CMA to and from Antwerp and Le Havre respectively); Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

175 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 25 Short sea services that carry containers to and from European and Near East markets: six services linking the North West of England to Iberia, Ireland and the Near East operated by Coastal (owned by Peel Ports), MacAndrews and Gracechurch. A full list of all the container services is provided in Table 4.1 below. Table 4.1: Container services calling at the Port of Liverpool in December 2009 Type Service Av. Annual Carrier/Service Route frequency Ships TEU Deployment* ACL EUR/SCAND/ECNA Deep sea ,200 HAPAG- LLOYD/MSC/OOCL - SLCS 1 EUR/CAN Deep sea ,960 INDEPENDENT EUR/USEC Deep sea ,470 CMA-CGM - FAS-UK WEST COAST 1 FR/IRISH SEA Deep sea feeder ,852 COASTAL - 1 IRISH SEA Short sea ,560 COASTAL - 2 IRISH SEA Short sea ,872 MACANDREWS - PORT EUR/PORT Short sea ,550 MACANDREWS - SP 1 EIRE/ENG/SP Short sea ,000 MACANDREWS - SP 2 ENG/SP Short sea ,000 MSC - LIVERPOOL FEEDER BELG/ENG Deep sea feeder ,200 GRACECHURCH EUR/NE Short sea ,770 TOTAL ,434 * TEU deployed one way Source: MDS Transmodal Containership Databank, December 2009 The three direct deep sea services are all transatlantic services between NW Europe and the East Coast of North America, which has been Liverpool s traditional market as a deep sea container port. The vessels operating on these services make a single call in GB en route to and from the NW European continent and for these services the containers are likely to be distributed throughout the British Isles. Much of the growth in container traffic in recent years has come from deep sea feeder services between deep sea container ports such as Antwerp and Le Havre and Liverpool. These containers are being distributed to a super-regional hinterland the North of England and the Midlands rather than to a national hinterland. Short sea services are between Liverpool and the rest of the Atlantic Arc and, in particular, Ireland. Coastal Container Line is owned by Peel Ports and has its own dedicated berth adjacent to the deep sea berths in Seaforth Dock. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

176 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 26 Historic traffic volumes and competition Table 4.2 below provides an analysis of total GB container traffic in units since Table 4.2: GB Container ports traffic Thousand units % CAGR Major South East Ports: Felixstowe 1,715 1,585 1,711 2,063 1, % Southampton , % Thamesport % London % Sub-total 3,205 3, ,973 3, % Other Ports: Liverpool % Forth % Hull % Goole % Greenock % Tees % Bristol % Immingham & Grimsby % Other % Total 4,162 4,184 4,632 5,174 5, % Source: DfT Maritime Statistics; MDS Transmodal analysis The recession has had the impact of reducing containerised imports and exports, as consumer demand and manufacturing output has fallen, and overall container port volumes fell by 2.0% in 2008; while the ports in the Greater South East lost 1.6% of their volumes overall in 2008, Liverpool s container volumes fell by 1.0% over the same period. However, the relative success of Thamesport in 2008 led to the Medway port securing the No.4 spot from Liverpool in the ranking of GB container ports. Growth between 2002 and 2008 through the Port of Liverpool was 5.0% on average, while growth for GB container ports as a whole in this period was 3.3%. The higher rate of growth is due to the growth of feeder services between Liverpool and continental deep sea container ports, allied to a lack of deep sea port capacity in the Greater South East. The port s market share has grown from 7.4% in 2002 to 8.2% in Key economic drivers The GB container market is driven by the health of the economy in general and consumer behaviour (for imports) and manufacturing behaviour (for exports) in particular. Important within this context is the fact that Liverpool is close to manufacturers located in North West England and the Midlands that generate export cargoes and located close to major population centres for import cargoes, which attracts lines to make calls in the port. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

177 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 27 As well as offering shipping lines cargoes, Liverpool is well-located for the North Atlantic trades in terms of minimising shipping costs and is centrally located in GB for inland distribution to all the major population centres. It is less well-located for Far East trades because the shipping lines almost always call in GB en route between Gibraltar and the North West continental ports in Germany and Benelux; this means that the deep sea container ports in the Greater South East minimize maritime diversion costs for the shipping lines. Peel Ports has received the relevant permissions for a Riverside Container Terminal outside the lock gates at Seaforth, which would allow the port to accommodate post-panamax vessels. The development of this new facility would, in part, be defensive in that east coast North American ports have been dredged to accommodate 14.5m draft vessels over wide tidal windows and so can accommodate post-panamax vessels that cannot be accommodated at present at Liverpool. However it would also provide new opportunities for the Port of Liverpool as it provides the opportunity for the world s largest ships to trade between the Far East and the East Coast of North America via the Mediterranean and NW Europe; the Panama Canal will be widened by 2014 and this will facilitate the use of post-panamax vessels on round the world services. As deep sea container shipping lines continue to make only a single call in GB and the British market may need to be served to fill the ships across the Atlantic on these round the world services, a west coast port is welllocated to accommodate these calls on a reasonably direct route between Gibraltar and New York. Furthermore, Liverpool provides the most central location of any GB port for inland distribution by road and rail, thereby minimising inland distribution costs and is likely to be more cost-effective for a large shipping line than other west coast port. Competition Table 4.2 above shows that in 2008 the Port of Liverpool handled some 8.2% of GB port traffic in terms of units and was the fifth largest container port after Felixstowe, Southampton, London (Tilbury) and Thamesport. The four largest deep sea container ports, which collectively handled 77.1% of all GB containers, are all deepwater ports located close to the largest concentration of population in the UK (i.e. London and the South East), with locations that minimize the maritime diversion distance between Gibraltar and Rotterdam/Antwerp. They also enjoy good connections to the rest of GB by road and rail. The major deep sea container port development projects are therefore in the Greater South East: Felixstowe South (an extension to the existing port at Felixstowe) is already under development; Bathside Bay is located at Harwich and has received the required permissions; London Gateway is a new container port and port-centric distribution park on the Thames, which has received the required permissions and some initial dredging work is being carried out; Southampton has proposals to expand its container port facilities within its existing footprint. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

178 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 28 Table 4.3: Deep-sea container port capacity in the Greater South East in 2009, including permissions for expansion Deep sea port/terminal Existing quay length (metres) Existing capacity Future quay length (metres) (MTEU) Felixstowe 2, ,793 Southampton 1,357 (+ 250m feeder berth) 1.9 1,607 Thamesport Tilbury Container Services London Gateway - - 2,300 Bathside Bay (Harwich) - - 1,400 Felixstowe South Total 5, ,250 Source: MDS Transmodal In addition, the Port of Bristol Company has submitted a planning application for the development of its Deep Sea Container Terminal project, which would provide two post-panamax berths outside the lock gates at Avonmouth. There are no objectors and so it appears likely that the development will receive the relevant permissions. The combination of trade growth and the tightness of capacity in the Greater South East has led to increased feedering of containers from Continental deep sea container ports such as Rotterdam, Antwerp and Le Havre to regional container ports in northern Britain, including Liverpool. This is because a container feedering strategy to serve northern Britain is generally cheaper than distributing containers by rail from Greater South East ports, but leads to a longer transit time. Small container feeder vessels can be accommodated in the future at Port Salford on the Manchester Ship Canal. Liverpool is the major deep sea container port outside the Greater South East in terms of container volumes. Elsewhere on west coast only Bristol has any deep sea container services and that port has also made an application to develop a new riverside deep sea container terminal which (if built) would be the closest substitute to the Port of Liverpool in this market. Inland distribution Liverpool has an on-site intermodal rail freight terminal and also operates a barge service between Seaforth and Irlam on the Manchester Ship Canal. The modal split for containers for 2008 is set out in Table 4.4 below. Table 4.4: Modal split for containers, 2008 Import/inwards Export/outwards Road 84% 83% Maritime feeder 15% 14% Rail 1% 2% Total units 203k 211k Source: MDS Transmodal Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

179 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 29 Liverpool s central location in GB means that it provides a competitive location for the distribution of containers to the whole of the country for a shipping line making a single call in GB which means that the shipping line would be distributing containers to and from Liverpool to a national hinterland. However, this also reduces the potential for the development of sustainable distribution services from the port to some extent compared to ports such as Felixstowe and Southampton because the economics of rail and waterborne services generally require longer distances to be viable. In addition, many of the deep sea containers distributed via the Liverpool at the moment ports are feeder boxes that are only being distributed mainly to the North West region. Based on inland road and rail costs alone (i.e. not taking into account shipping costs) and based on a national distribution of containers, we have estimated that for the inland distribution of deep sea containers Liverpool provides the most competitive location of any of the GB deep sea container ports because of its central location for the major GB markets. Table 4.5: Average inland distribution cost per container for a national hinterland distribution Port Cost/container Liverpool 264 Bristol 285 Felixstowe 302 Tilbury/London Gateway 283 Southampton 292 Source: MDS Transmodal The analysis suggests that, on average, inland distribution of deep sea containers to and from Liverpool Docks is some 7% cheaper per unit compared to the next most competitive port for deep sea container distribution (existing and potential future ports on the Thames). In Autumn 2009 there are no rail freight services for containers operating to and from the port because the only intermodal rail freight operator that served the port, Freightliner, has chosen for commercial reasons to transport containers between the port and its own terminal at Garston, rather than load and unload at the Port. SWOT analysis Strengths Located in major container cargo generating region (manufacturing for exports, major population centres for imports) Good location for minimising shipping costs for deep sea lines serving east coast N American market Good terminal facilities, including an intermodal rail freight terminal Well-located to serve whole of GB in terms of inland haulage, with availability of rail and waterborne transport for inland distribution Well-located for feeders to serve Ireland and GB Weaknesses Requires significant diversion for deep sea vessels on existing Far East-Europe routes Insufficient depth of water to accommodate latest generation of deep sea container ships Locked port, with beam restriction preventing post-panamax vessels entering dock Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

180 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 30 on same voyage Well-located for LoLo trade to Ireland, with no access restrictions for short sea and coastal vessels Has consent to build post-panamax berths and expand the footprint of the container terminal Opportunities Development of two post-panamax berths outside lock gates at Seaforth to accommodate latest generation of deep sea ships, with rail access Development of additional LoLo capacity within existing footprint of port to cater for organic growth in existing traffic Trade growth in the medium to long term, leading to organic growth in existing traffic Possible failure of GB ports in Greater South East to significantly increase capacity, leading to requirement for capacity elsewhere in GB. Threats Increases in deep sea container port capacity in SE England, allied to rail freight services to railconnected distribution parks in NW England. Development of post-panamax container terminal at Bristol Dredging of North American ports to handle post panamax ships and increase in size of Panama Canal means that the new size of vessel transiting the Panama Canal will no longer be able to be accommodated through Gladstone Lock. Forecasts to 2030 The key issues in relation to the forecasts for container traffic for the Port of Liverpool up to 2030 are: The extent to which GB container traffic growth will return to the historic trend following the end of the economic recession. The extent to which deep sea capacity will be expanded in the Greater South East and at Bristol up to Whether deep sea shipping lines will adopt innovative strategies to serve GB (making only a single call at a west coast port en route between Gibraltar and east coast North America), given the dredging of North American ports and the planned deepening of the Suez Canal. MDST s forecasts for government in 2005, updated in 2007, suggested a national container growth rate of 3.6% per annum from 2005 to MDS Transmodal has produced forecasts for Liverpool Docks for this study that take account of the current global recession and consequent downturn in container throughputs being experienced by most container ports in the UK to varying degrees. Table 4.6 provides the Central Forecast and the High and Low Scenarios for containerised traffic to 2020 and Table 4.6: Forecast container traffic for Liverpool Docks to 2030 Thousand units Growth CAGR Central Forecast % +4.0% High Scenario , % +4.8% Low Scenario % +2.9% Source: MDS Transmodal Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

181 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 31 The Central Forecast has been produced by growing the GB container market using the MDST World Cargo Database, which is a harmonised database of country-to-country trade flows by volume, value and TEU for the whole world and contains 3,000 different commodity classifications. Forecasts are based on trend-based relationships for all these country-country-commodity relations for a time series since 1996, which is up-dated on a quarterly basis. The WCD includes an algorithm that gives greater weight to recent trends, thereby taking account of the economic downturn in The potential market share for Liverpool Docks was assumed to increase by 50% up to 2020 (from 8.2% in 2008 to 12.3% in 2020) and then to remain stable up to This assumes that the post-panamax berth is developed by Peel Ports and the increased depth of water, changing ship liner strategies and its geographic position Liverpool Docks would be able to secure some additional market share up to 2020 and The forecast is for 4.0% average annual growth over the period The High Scenario assumes that traffic volumes are 20% higher than the Central Forecast in 2020 and This could be due to Liverpool winning additional market share from the deep sea container ports in the Greater South East than is assumed in the Central Scenario. The forecast is for 4.8% average annual growth over the period and implies a 14.7% market share in both 2020 and The Low Scenario assumes that volumes at all points are 20% lower than the Central Forecast. This could be due to Liverpool losing market share to the deep sea container ports in the Greater South East perhaps because Peel Ports does not develop the post-panamax berths and so has insufficient capacity. The forecast is for 2.9% average annual growth over the period , which implies a slight increase of market share to 9.8% in 2020 and Roll on Roll off (RoRo) Freight Definition of traffic The two RoRo terminals in Liverpool Docks are owned by Peel Ports but leased to the RoRo shipping operators. The terminals have access to deepwater inside the lockgates and the services operate to a fixed schedule. The terminals provide parking for HGVs and access to the ferries via a special ramp between the quay and the ship. Peel Ports has received all the required permissions to develop a RoRo terminal outside the lockgates at Langton Dock. The two Roll-on Roll-off (RoRo) terminals in Liverpool Docks are: Seatruck Ferries at Brocklebank Dock, with its own port access onto Miller s Bridge P&O Ferries at Gladstone Dock, which mainly uses the Seaforth Gate. The RoRo services provided by the two operators (P&O Ferries and Seatruck) mainly handle freight, of the following types: Accompanied trucks, where the driver and cab unit travel with the trailer carrying the goods; Unaccompanied trailers, where only the trailer is transported on the ship. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

182 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 32 P&O Ferries also handles passengers travelling in their cars. Key customers Liverpool Docks direct customers are therefore P&O Ferries and Seatruck, which operate the services shown in Table 4.7. The two operators compete for business from road hauliers and logistics providers transporting freight between GB and Ireland. Table 4.7: RoRo services at Liverpool Docks, 2010 Operator Type of service Route Service frequency Number of ships P&O Ferries Multipurpose* Freight only Liverpool Dublin Liverpool Dublin Twice daily 6 days/week 2 1 Seatruck Ferries Freight only Liverpool Dublin 12 sailings/week 2 Source: MDST Containership & Ferry Databank * Carry freight and passengers travelling in private cars As well as the RoRo facilities in Liverpool Docks, there are two further RoRo terminals in the Port of Liverpool: The Twelve Quays Roro terminal in Birkenhead; this facility has two riverside berths and is used by Norfolkline to provide freight and passenger RoRo services to Dublin and Belfast; The Isle of Man Steam Packet Company s has a RoRo terminal at Pier Head and provides a service to the Isle of Man for passengers and their cars. Both of these facilities are outside the scope of the study, although the Norfolkline services from Twelve Quays compete directly with the RoRo services provided by P&O Ferries and Seatruck from Liverpool Docks. Historic traffic volumes and competition Table 4.8 shows that the Irish Sea RoRo market grew by 20% during the period , although the market shrank by 5% in 2008 as the Irish and UK economies entered a deep economic recession. The Port of Liverpool as a whole had 31% of the whole market, with 43% of the unaccompanied trailer market because it provides the shortest road haul between Dublin and the M62 Corridor/Midlands. Liverpool s main competitor is Holyhead, which has 32% of the accompanied market because it provides the fastest route between Dublin and the M62 Corridor/Midlands. Table 4.8: Irish Sea RoRo traffic, Growth Market share ACCOMPANIED Liverpool % 21% Heysham % 3% Cairnryan % 18% Stranraer % 11% Fleetwood % 5% Holyhead % 32% Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

183 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page Growth Market share 2008 Fishguard % 4% Pembroke Dock % 6% Sub-total accomp % 100% UNACCOMPANIED Liverpool % 40% Heysham % 24% Cairnryan % 9% Stranraer % 3% Fleetwood % 11% Holyhead % 7% Fishguard % 2% Pembroke Dock % 5% Sub-total unaccomp % 100% TOTAL Liverpool % 31% Heysham % 14% Cairnryan % 13% Stranraer % 7% Fleetwood % 8% Holyhead % 19% Fishguard % 3% Pembroke Dock % 5% TOTAL 1,395 1,479 1,518 1,586 1,712 1,765 1, % 100% Source: DfT Maritime Statistics Key economic drivers The key drivers for RoRo traffic through Liverpool are: The performance of the Irish economy, which was booming up to 2007 but has experienced a severe recession in 2008 and The strength of the Irish economy is the main factor affecting the trends in the market as a whole, particularly as British supermarket chains have been expanding in Ireland but distributing goods to the island from GB. The ability to berth larger vessels on the Mersey (and at Holyhead), which allows the operators to generate economies of scale while increasing capacity to meet demand. The availability of riverside berths that provide lock-free access to the Mersey and faster quay-to-quay transit times; the success of Liverpool in capturing a greater share of the accompanied RoRo market has been due in part to the availability of the riverside RoRo facility at Twelve Quays in Birkenhead and the Langton Riverside RoRo terminal is likely to have a similar impact. Increasing fuel and driver costs, which should lead to greater use of unaccompanied RoRo services on longer sea crossings to minimise road haulage distances. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

184 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 34 Inland distribution RoRo traffic is distributed inland only by road. This is because accompanied RoRo traffic is generally fast-moving and accompanied trucks cannot be accommodated on railways wagons within the loading gauge of the GB network to create so-called rolling motorways. While unaccompanied RoRo traffic is slower moving, it is not always transported over the distances that are required to justify rail freight services and the loading gauge required (called W14 by Network Rail) is only available in GB on HS1. There may be potential for the development of container traffic carried double stacked between GB and Ireland on the RoRo services to and from Liverpool Docks. Inland distribution could then be by rail as well as by road within the W10 loading gauge that is planned between the Docks and the West Coast Main Line. SWOT analysis Strengths Depth of water at both RoRo terminals is sufficient to accommodate all Irish Sea ferries; RoRo services provide direct links between major UK and Irish markets; Excellent hinterland road connections in GB. Opportunities Increasing road haulage costs which should increase market share for longer sea crossings (minimising road hauls) and lead to modal switch to unaccompanied routes in the medium to long term Recovery of growth in the Irish Sea freight market, following economic recovery in Ireland Port-centric distribution, providing opportunities for supermarkets to distribute to Ireland by ferry from the port estate Development of container traffic on RoRo services Development of Langton riverside RoRo terminal Ship size constraints at Fleetwood and Heysham. Lack of capacity at Twelve Quays Weaknesses Gladstone Dock is locked, increasing crossing times to Dublin compared to the facilities at Twelve Quays in Birkenhead. Threats Strong competition for freight volumes from Holyhead, which has increased freight capacity (but less strong in unaccompanied market) Strong competition from Twelve Quays if the terminal could be expanded Lack of capacity in long-term if Langton Riverside RoRo berth is not developed Forecasts to 2030 The key issues in relation to the forecasts for container traffic for the Port of Liverpool up to 2030 are: The extent to which Irish Sea RoRo traffic growth will return to the historic trend following the end of the economic recession in Ireland and the UK. The extent to which road haulage costs (principally labour costs and fuel costs) will increase in the future, which should favour the longer maritime legs and unaccompanied RoRo routes between Liverpool Docks and Dublin. Whether Peel Ports develops the Langton riverside RoRo terminal. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

185 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 35 For the purposes of this study MDS Transmodal has produced forecasts (based on trends in trade) for Liverpool Docks that take account of the current global recession and consequent downturn in RoRo port traffic that has been experienced by the whole market in We have also produced a scenario using the GB Freight Model to test the likely impact of an increase in road haulage costs up to 2030, based on assumptions included the DfT s WEBTAG. Table 4.9 provides the Central Forecast and the High and Low Scenarios for RoRo freight traffic to 2020 and Table 4.9: Forecast RoRo freight traffic for Liverpool Docks to 2030 Thousand units Growth CAGR Central Forecast % +3.5% High Scenario % +4.4% Low Scenario % +2.5% Source: MDS Transmodal The Central Forecast has been produced by growing the Irish Sea RoRo market forecasts developed using the MDST World Cargo Database, which is a harmonised database of country-to-country trade flows by volume, value and units for the whole world and contains 3,000 different commodity classifications. Forecasts are based on trend-based relationships for all these country-countrycommodity relations for a time series since 1996, which is up-dated on a quarterly basis. The WCD includes an algorithm that gives greater weight to recent trends, thereby taking account of the economic downturn in The potential market share for Liverpool Docks was analysed using the GB Freight Model, which is a freight demand model for domestic and international freight that is used by the DfT as its freight module within the National Transport Model; this modelling suggested that, due to its geographic position and increasing road haulage costs, Liverpool Docks would increase its market share by 50% up to 2020 and by 61% up to The High Scenario assumes that volumes at all points are 20% higher than the Central Forecast and this scenario is based on the assumption that Liverpool is even more successful in winning market share from other Irish Sea RoRo ports such as Fleetwood and Holyhead than is implied in the Central Forecast due to its ability to accommodate larger RoRo vessels than Fleetwood and road haulage costs increasing at an even faster rate than is implied in WEBTAG. The Low Scenario assumes that volumes at all points are 20% lower than the Central Forecast. This could be due to a combination of continuing poor performance of the Irish economy and a lack of terminal capacity at Liverpool Docks, allied to expansion of capacity at Twelve Quays. 4.4 RoRo Passengers Definition of traffic The Irish Sea ferry services between Liverpool Docks and Ireland are focused mainly on handling freight traffic, but P&O Ferries offers a twice-daily multi-purpose ferry service offered by P&O Ferries from Gladstone Dock to Dublin. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

186 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 36 RoRo passenger traffic in the context of Liverpool Docks is the transport of people travelling mainly in private cars but also in buses/coaches as part of a door-to-door journey between Great Britain and Ireland. The only RoRo passenger service at Liverpool Docks is the twice-daily multi-purpose ferry service offered by P&O Ferries from Gladstone Dock to Dublin. Historic traffic volumes and competition The following chart shows trends in the GB-Ireland passenger market between 2002 and 2008 and shows how the market as a whole is dominated by air services with close to 80% of all passengers; RoRo services through Liverpool are included in the Central Corridor. The GB-Ireland passenger market was increasingly mature up to 2007 and had seen only slow growth since The market then declined by about 7% in as the deep recession in the ROI and in the UK has reduced the propensity to travel. GB-Ireland Passenger Market Source: MDS Transmodal, based on PSA/CAA data 25,000 Thousand passengers 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 Ferry - Southern Corridor Ferry - Central Corridor Ferry - Northern Corridor Air - GB-ROI Air - GB-Northern Ireland Table 4.10 provides an estimate of the size of the GB-Ireland passenger for the period The figures for Liverpool include both traffic via the Twelve Quays terminal in Birkenhead and the services to the Isle of Man from Pier Head. Overall, the RoRo passenger market has fallen by about 20% during the period, while Liverpool has managed to increase its volumes probably mainly at the expense of Holyhead. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

187 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 37 Table 4.10: Irish Sea RoRo passenger car market Change Market share 2008 Liverpool (incl. IOM) % 12% Troon Cairnryan % 12% Stranraer % 19% Holyhead % 36% Fishguard % 12% Pembroke Dock % 9% Swansea Total 1,551 1,518 1,509 1,317 1,324 1,419 1,240-20% 100% Source: DfT Maritime Statistics Key economic drivers The key drivers for RoRo passenger traffic through Liverpool Docks are: The performance of the UK and Irish economies, which affects levels of disposable income and the propensity to travel for leisure purposes. The exchange rate between sterling and the euro has an impact on the major flow of passengers (GB residents to Ireland) because it affects the cost of holidays in Ireland. The strength of competition from low cost airlines, based on low fares and perceived door-todoor transit time. The strength of competition from Holyhead and the Loch Ryan ports of Stranraer and Cairnryan, which offer shorter and faster crossings between GB and Ireland. Twelve Quays also offers faster transit times from riverside berths at Birkenhead. Availability of the Langton riverside RoRo berth that would provide lock-free access to the Mersey and faster quay-to-quay transit times for passenger traffic. SWOT analysis Strengths Depth of water at both RoRo terminals is sufficient to accommodate all Irish Sea ferries; RoRo services provide direct links between major UK and Irish markets; Excellent hinterland road connections in GB. Opportunities Economic recovery in Ireland and the UK, increasing the propensity to travel. Development of Langton riverside RoRo terminal, which would provide a faster quay-to-quay transit time. Lack of capacity at Twelve Quays. A stronger against the, which would Weaknesses Gladstone Dock is locked, increasing crossing times to Dublin compared to the facilities at Twelve Quays in Birkenhead. Longer maritime distance and slower transit time. Threats Very strong competition from low cost airlines for travel between Ireland and GB. Strong competition for passenger traffic from Holyhead, which provides the shortest and fastest crossings of the Irish Sea. Strength of euro against sterling. Strong competition from Twelve Quays if the Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

188 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 38 encourage British tourists to travel to Ireland. terminal could be expanded. Forecasts to 2030 We have developed a projection for the P&O Ferries service for the whole of 2009, based on the assumption that the trends in passenger numbers in the first ten months of 2009 continue to the end of the year. Using 2009 as a base we have then developed an econometric forecast for passenger car volumes in 2010, based on multiple regression of passenger volumes against changes in British and ROI GDP and changes in the exchange rate between the euro and sterling (see Table 4.11). The forecasts for 2010 are therefore based on the assumption that there is a relationship between changes in passenger volumes and changes in levels of economic prosperity (GDP) and the relative value of the two currencies. The OECD does not publish long run macro-economic forecasts and so we have used assumed that the historic average growth rate for the P&O Ferries service applies between 2010 and Table 4.11: Assumptions for macro-economic indicators in 2009 & 2010 Forecast change in ROI GDP Forecast change in UK GDP Forecast exchange rate ( / ) % -4.3% 1.14/ % -1.5% 1.16/ Source: OECD The forecast suggests that P&O Ferries passenger car traffic will grow by 1.3% on average up to 2030, from 11,900 cars in 2008 to some 15,800 cars in 2030 (Table 4.12). Table 4.12: Forecast RoRo passenger cars for Liverpool Docks to 2030 Thousand units 2008 Actual 2009 Projection 2010 Forecast 2020 Forecast 2030 Forecast Growth CAGR Forecast passenger 11,900 14,600 14,700 15,300 15, % +1.3% cars Source: MDS Transmodal 4.5 Coal Description/definition of traffic Liverpool Bulk Terminal, operated by the power generator E.ON, handles power station coal for Fiddlers Ferry, Ironbridge and Ratcliffe-on-Soar power stations. The terminal in Gladstone Dock, with 12.7 metres of water, can handle up to panamax vessels. The coal comes mainly from Russia but imports from Indonesia, South Africa and Colombia have also been handled. The terminal can handle up to about 5 million tonnes per annum, but in 2008 it handled only 1.8 million tonnes. Given the bulk nature of the commodity and the rail-connected facilities at both Gladstone Dock and the power stations, the transport chain between Liverpool Docks and the power stations is only likely to be competitive by rail even over the relatively short distance from Liverpool Docks to Fiddlers Ferry in Widnes. The coal is very unlikely to be transported on the road network in the future, but Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

189 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 39 traffic forecasts are required in this study in order to provide a view on the likely requirement for train paths for coal trains to and from the port up to In addition, about 10% of the feedstock for Fiddlers Ferry power station is biomass that is imported through Liverpool Docks and transported by road. We understand it is transported by road rather than rail because it is received at a part of the power station that is not rail-connected. Key customers Customers for coal through Liverpool are E.ON for its Ironbridge and Ratcliffe-on-Soar power stations and the Scottish and Southern owned Fiddlers Ferry power station at Widnes on the north bank of the Mersey. Fiddlers Ferry and Ratcliffe-on-Soar have been fitted with FGD equipment which will prolong the life of the power stations beyond the 1 January 2016 limit following an EU Directive to limit the sulphur emissions from coal fired power stations. However, Ironbridge must close at the end of 2015 and is restricted to operating for a total of 20,000 hours between 1 January 2008 and 31 December Table 4.13: Coal traffic volumes through the Port of Liverpool, Foreign 1,952 1,568 2,157 2,537 2,878 2,995 2,984 3,440 3,359 1,989 1,775 Domestic Total 2,007 1,568 2,157 2,549 2,892 3,017 2,984 3,440 3,359 1,989 1,775 Source: DfT Maritime Statistics Table 4.13 shows traffic volumes handled through Liverpool Docks in the period Volumes have fluctuated over the period, but since a peak in when the terminal appears to have been operating at close to capacity, volumes have declined. Key economic drivers Coal through Liverpool depends on E.ON finding it competitive to supply its own power stations and the neighbouring power station at Fiddlers Ferry with coal, based on panamax size ships coming into Liverpool s Gladstone Dock and inland distribution by rail. The main economic drivers for coal imports are: The total demand for electricity in the UK. Energy policy and its impact on the price of electricity generated by coal compared to the price of electricity generated by other means (gas, renewables and nuclear); this is particularly relevant given UK Government policy is to reduce reliance on carbon intensive fuels such as coal to meet international commitments on carbon dioxide emission reductions. The commercial viability of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which would avoid the emission of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power stations. The potential for co-firing biomass with coal; biomass is a renewable source of energy but can only amount 10% of the total fuel requirement for coal-fired power stations can come from this source; Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

190 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 40 The commercial viability and price of electricity generated from gas, nuclear and renewables. The domestic supply of coal at a competitive price compared to imported coal; Regulation of coal-fired power stations to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions, so that only stations fitted with flue gas desulpherisation equipment will be able operate after The future of Fiddlers Ferry power station, which is the main powers station that is served by the E.ON facility in Liverpool Docks. Competition Competition to handle deep sea-sourced power station coal comes from a variety of ports on the west and east coasts. The ability to compete in this market depends on the vessel size that can be accommodated and the inland distance by rail to coal-fired power stations and steel plants. Table 4.14: Coal volumes handled through major UK ports, 2008 Port Volumes Market share Grimsby & Immingham 15,120 30% Clyde 7,048 14% Bristol 5,175 10% Tees & Hartlepool 4,207 8% Tyne 2,997 6% Medway 2,851 6% Hull 2,208 4% Port Talbot 2,162 4% London 1,916 4% Liverpool 1,775 4% Forth 1,097 2% Other 3,959 8% All major UK ports 50, % Source: DfT Maritime Statistics, 2008 Immingham on the Humber is the largest coal handling port by volume, given its deep water (14.7 metre draft), the availability of base-load demand to feed the Scunthorpe steel plant, its rail connections and its proximity to power stations in Yorkshire and the Midlands (Table 4.14). Hunterston (part of Clydeport) can handle the largest vessels (26 metre draft, up to 350,000 dwt vessels) but is hampered by its remoteness from the large English power stations. Following the closure of the Corus plant on Teesside in 2009, Redcar Ore Terminal will be available to handle postpanamax steam coal shipments (15.9 metre draft). On the west coast, Bristol can also handle the same size of vessels as Liverpool and is likely to be competitive by rail in Liverpool s hinterland in the Midlands. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

191 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 41 SWOT analysis Strengths Fiddlers Ferry power station is located close to the port Modern terminal run by power generator Within enclosed dock system so efficient and rapid discharge of vessel Rail connected, which is essential to serve coal-fired power stations Large volumes of animal feedstuffs imported through Liverpool, which provides economies of scale for the import of biomass for co-firing Opportunities Long-term future for electricity generation at Fiddlers Ferry power station Increase current volumes of coal handled by serving other power stations Government energy policy fails to incentivise the development of non-coal generation of electricity CCS is commercially viable for Fiddlers Ferry and other power stations served by Liverpool Weaknesses Handles only up to panamax vessels Ironbridge power station will be closing by the end of December 2015 and can only operate for a total of 20,000 hours between and Threats Reduced demand for electricity in the future due to increasing energy efficiency Competitive generation of electricity from nuclear power stations, gas and renewables Competition from English ports serving the Midlands power stations such as Immingham, Bristol, Redcar and Tyne. E.ON no longer finds it profitable to run the terminal Forecasts to 2030 The future potential for coal imports at a GB level should, in theory, be very closely related to forecast electricity demand and Government policy towards climate change and reducing carbon emissions. The coal forecasts produced for Liverpool Docks are therefore based on projections developed by the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) for the Low Carbon Transition Plan, published in July This document focused on explaining how the Government intends to meet a legal obligation to reduce carbon emissions by 34% by 2020 and by at least 80% by The port traffic forecast is based on the Central Price, Central Policy and Central Growth Scenario produced by the DECC for the proportion of electricity generated from different sources up to 2022 (see Table 4.15). Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

192 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 42 Table 4.15: Electricity generation by source 2008 & Coal (without CCS) 32% 21% Coal (with CCS) - 2% Oil 1% - Gas 44% 19% Nuclear 13% 14% Renewables 6% 38% Imports 3% 4% Storage 1% 1% Total demand (Twh) Source: DECC Electricity Generation Projections, 2009 Central Price, Central Policy, Central Growth Scenario Under this central projection, total demand for electricity falls by 14%. Assuming there are no efficiencies in the operation of coal-fired powers stations (leading to reduced volumes of coal to generate the same amount of electricity and there is no change in stocks), then the volume of coal required would fall by 38% between 2008 and 2022 due to a switch of generating capacity away from coal and gas to renewables. Furthermore, Government projections of the requirement for coal imports indicate that the percentage of steam coal that will be imported up to 2022 will fall from 71% of requirements in 2008 to only 39% in Table 4.16: Forecast coal traffic for Liverpool Docks to 2030 Thousand units Growth CAGR Central Forecast 1, % -4.8% High Scenario 1, % -3.3% Low Scenario 1, % -5.7% Source: MDS Transmodal The Central Forecast has been produced based on the DECC s Central Price, Central Policy, Central Growth Scenario up to 2022, with no change assumed between 2022 and This leads to an average annual decline in coal imports of 4.8% up to The High Scenario has been produced based on the DECC s Baseline, which assumes that no new policy measures are introduced and existing trends continue. This may not be regarded as a valid scenario by the DECC because it assumes no change, but probably represents the most positive scenario for coal volumes through Liverpool Docks unless the port can secure significant volumes of additional traffic from competitor ports. This leads to an average annual decline in coal imports of 3.3% up to The Low Scenario has been produced assuming that 20% lower volumes are achieved than in the Central Forecast, due to the loss of market share to competitor ports. This leads to an average annual decline in coal imports of 5.7% up to Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

193 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 43 A view has been expressed by an industry consultee that coal-fired power stations, such as Fiddlers Ferry, have a long-term future because it may be difficult for Government targets for carbon dioxide emissions to be achieved through lower demand for electricity and a switch to renewable sources of electricity. 4.6 Agricultural products: cereals and animal feedstuffs/biomass Description/definition of traffic The DfT Maritime Statistics commodity classification agricultural products includes several different types of traffic passing through Liverpool Docks, including grain, animal feedstuffs and biomass as feedstock for Fiddlers Ferry Power Station. Grain through Liverpool Docks comprises imports of wheat for milling and maize for processing in on-site and regional mills. Though not strictly a grain, soya beans are imported through the Royal Seaforth Grain Terminal for the adjacent crushing plant and refinery. Royal Seaforth Grain Terminal has a total silo capacity of 168,000 tonnes with direct conveyor belt feeds into customer s on-site mills, as well as facilities for transhipping grain to smaller coastal vessels and barges for onward movement to mills further inland in Manchester (via the Ship Canal) or round the coast. Animal feedstuffs (AFS) are imports of a range of different commodities from grains and palm kernels to olive residues. It is increasingly not clear whether some of these commodities are destined for the animal feed compounders and blenders or for co-firing at Fiddlers Ferry power station. The cargoes are imported in bulk carriers and discharged by grab or suction/screw equipment and stored in a flatstore. The traffic types reflect the strength of the food processing and manufacturing industries in the North West and the importance of cattle rearing (rather than arable farming) in the super-regional hinterland of the port. By comparison, ports on the GB east and south coasts tend to exporters of grain and importers of fertilisers because of their arable agricultural hinterland. Key customers Liverpool benefits from having customers for grain imports with dockside plants that bring their raw materials in through the grain terminal then feed by conveyor directly into the processing plant. These are customers are: Cargill, which is the largest user of the Grain Terminal importing soya beans for its crushing plant and oil refinery located in the port estate; Dacsa imports maize for processing at the dockside corn mill, which produces maize grits and semolina for cereal manufacturers and other food processors; ADM Millers UK has the third on-site mill and produces wheat mainly for bread makers and bakers; Millford Grain is one of the significant grain traders importing through the port on behalf of its end user customers. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

194 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 44 Key customers for AFS imports are: Arkady Feed UK brings in significant volumes of animals feedstuffs, some of which commodities (biomass) are co-fired with coal in the nearby power station. Cargill is the other significant animal feed importer into Liverpool. Historic traffic volumes Table 4.17 below shows that traffic volumes of agricultural products have tended to fluctuate, but there is an overall upward trend. Liverpool plays an important role at a national level, handling between 16% and 21% of all bulk agricultural port traffics during the period Table 4.17: Agricultural products via the Port of Liverpool, Thousand tonnes Port of Liverpool 2,361 2,378 2,325 2,295 2,462 2,698 2,482 UK major ports 13,061 14,752 12,925 13,608 13,095 12,746 13,978 Liverpool share % Source: DfT Maritime Statistics Table 4.18 shows that some 1.0 million tonnes of AFS was imported from non-eu countries, mainly from the Americas and South East Asia. Table 4.18: Imports of AFS through the Port of Liverpool, Thousand tonnes Market Share 2008 ARGENTINA % INDONESIA % BRAZIL % USA % URUGUAY % MALAYSIA % PERU % CHINA % CANADA % SOUTH KOREA % OTHER , , % Source: HM Revenue & Customs; analysis by MDS Transmodal Given that AFS is generally imported through Liverpool from non-eu countries, the volume of grain handled through Liverpool was in the region of 1.4 million tonnes in Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

195 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 45 Key economic drivers The economic drivers for grain and soya through Liverpool are the population s consumption of the food products manufactured from products made at the dockside plants. Its success is directly related to the food manufacturers ability to maintain and grow their own market shares in markets such as breakfast cereals and breads. The global price of grain will have an important effect, which in turn is driven by the annual harvests of the grain producers and the growth in demand from emerging economies. The main economic drivers for the volume of AFS are the global price of commodities, the demand from the livestock industry and more recently the demand for biomass from power generators. There are suggestions that the future for livestock rearing in the UK is somewhat less certain because of the issue of genetically modified cereals in animal feeds. The EU is believed likely to harden its policy and restrict their use. The livestock industry fears that cheaper meat will be imported from countries not bound by the same restrictions and that this would thereby damage the livestock industry and lead ultimately to less requirement for importing animal feeds. Apart from the demand for biomass for co-firing, the imports of agricultural products through Liverpool are related either directly or indirectly to the consumption of food by regional and national populations. Competition Liverpool was ranked as the most important port for the handling of agricultural products in 2008, according to DfT Maritime Statistics (Table 4.19). Table 4.19: Agricultural products by UK major port, 2008 Port 2008 Market share Liverpool 2,482 18% London 2,313 17% Grimsby and Immingham 1,736 12% Belfast 1,387 10% Ipswich 894 6% Rivers Hull and Humber 819 6% Bristol 810 6% Southampton 762 5% Hull 428 3% Boston 343 2% All above ports 11,974 86% Other major ports 2,004 14% All major UK ports 13, % Source: DfT Maritime Statistics; analysis by MDS Transmodal The east coast ports, such as Grimsby and Immingham, Ipswich, the wharves on the Rivers Hull and Humber, Hull and Boston are mainly export ports for the GB harvest and import ports for fertilisers and so are not in direct competition with Liverpool. There is, nevertheless, competition between the Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

196 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 46 major ports for storage of grains where commodity traders are buying and selling rather than as the raw materials for plants located within the port. Grain is handled at other ports around the UK, which, like Liverpool, have dockside or nearby milling or other processing facilities. AFS is a cargo that is handled at a large range of ports because it can be stored in a flatstore or port shed and often does not require special facilities such as silos. It is also relatively straightforward to handle the cargo as it does not require specialised equipment. However, due to the cost of inland distribution by road, the hinterland of even the deep sea ports are largely regional, with Liverpool serving the North West and the West Midlands and Avonmouth, for example, serving mainly the South West. Immingham s prominence (ranked number 3 in Table 4.20) may partly be due to its role in handing fuel for coal-fired power stations. Table 4.20: Non-EU imports of animal feedstuffs, 2008 Thousand tonnes Port Thousand tonnes Market share LIVERPOOL 1,021 29% BELFAST % IMMINGHAM % AVONMOUTH % SOUTHAMPTON 288 8% LONDON 217 6% HULL 160 5% OTHER PORTS 259 7% TOTAL 3, % Source: HM Revenue & Customs; analysis by MDS Transmodal Inland distribution Much of the grain into Royal Seaforth Grain Terminal is bound for the adjacent plants and, as far as we are aware, the processed products are distributed inland by road. Any grain for third parties moves by road or, in the case of the Rank Hovis mill in Manchester, by barge. Small seagoing vessels also ship some grain coastwise. AFS is transported by road to regional compounders and processors or farm cooperative organisations. Biomass is currently transported by road from the port to Fiddlers Ferry; in theory rail should be an option given the bulk nature of the commodity but only if rail reception facilities for the biomass are constructed at the power station. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

197 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 47 SWOT analysis Strengths Large capacity grain silo, with rapid handling capability and direct conveyor connection from terminal to adjacent processors On-site cereal processing activities and food manufacturing in the immediate hinterland of the port Ability to accommodate panamax vessels which are the largest presently used by grain and AFS traders West Coast location: much of the imported grain and AFS is sourced in the Americas Recent investment in large scale AFS storage facilities with direct conveyor from the berth Strong companies with large UK market shares as customers Opportunities Potential expansion of existing customers activities Weaknesses Cereal imports dependent to great extent on continuation of dockside processing, which is capacity constrained Ship size limited to panamax Threats Potential competition from other ports with more space that can build large scale dedicated storage facilities Competition from other ports Increasing vessel sizes beyond panamax Livestock numbers decrease dramatically as a response to EU policy towards genetically modified animal feedstuffs Forecasts to 2030 The forecasts assume that about 1.4 million tonnes of cereals and 1.0 million tonnes of AFS were handled through Liverpool Docks in Of the AFS, we have assumed that about 0.2 million tonnes of the AFS was biomass for co-firing at Fiddlers Ferry power station, which represents about 10% of the total fuel requirement. The Central Forecast assumes that the volume of cereals and AFS (not biomass) will increase in line with projections by the Office for National Statistics up to 2030 for the total UK population shown in Table Volumes of biomass for co-firing at power stations imported through the port are assumed to vary in line with total volumes of coal imported through Liverpool Docks. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

198 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 48 Table 4.21: Projections for the UK s population Year UK Population (millions) Source: ONS, national population projections (October 2009) Table 4.22: Forecast agricultural products traffic for Liverpool Docks to 2030 Thousand units Growth CAGR Central Forecast 2,445 2,539 2,650 +8% +0.4% High Scenario 2,445 3,047 3, % +1.2% Low Scenario 2,445 2,031 2,120-13% -0.6% Source: MDS Transmodal The Central Forecast results in an average annual increase in total agricultural products imports of 0.48% up to The High Scenario has been produced based on the assumption that Liverpool Docks is able to attract additional market share from other ports and leads to an average annual increase in traffic of 1.2% up to The Low Scenario has been produced assuming that 20% lower volumes are achieved than in the Central Forecast, due to the loss of market share to competitor ports. This leads to an average annual decline in agricultural products traffic of 0.6% per annum up to Other dry bulks: steel scrap Description/definition of traffic Scrap metal (included in the other dry bulk category within maritime statistics) handled in Liverpool Docks consists of recycled metals, mainly ferrous but also non-ferrous, in small pieces and compressed blocks or bales that is processed by a fragmentiser and then baled. It is sourced from around the North West region and the West Midlands, and further afield (Scotland, Wales and parts of the South West), from waste consumer goods such as cars and white goods, as well as construction and demolition waste. Non-metallic waste material that cannot be exported is distributed inland to landfill or waste recycling facilities. One of the two operators at Liverpool Docks has plans to build a thermal plant on the dock estate that will chemically decompose this waste to produce a gas that can be burnt to generate power. This will significantly reduce the volume of non-metallic waste that would be transported inland from the port in the future. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

199 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 49 Key customers The main operators of scrap terminals in Liverpool Docks are S Norton & Co and European Metals Recycling (EMR). EMR is the largest metal recycling company in the UK, handling over 6 million tonnes of scrap annually, with sites all over the country and exporting terminals at Ayr, Cardiff, Glasgow, Great Yarmouth, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Newhaven, Sharpness, Shoreham, Southampton, Sunderland and Tyne; within Liverpool Docks the company has three storage facilities at Seaforth, Gladstone and Alexandra Docks. S. Norton is a major UK metals recovery company with a number of sites around Liverpool and Manchester. Both companies have invested significantly in their Liverpool sites. Historic traffic volumes There are no public domain port statistics giving the volumes of scrap handled at each port. Apart from anecdotal evidence from publicity material, the most useful source of information is trade statistics. Table 4.23 shows Liverpool s non-eu ferrous scrap exports over the past three years. Trade statistics suggest that in 2008 exports of ferrous scrap from Liverpool to non-eu countries represented a little under half of total UK metal exports, which demonstrates the importance of Liverpool in this trade at a national level. Table 4.23: Ferrous scrap exports from the Port of Liverpool to non-eu markets, Million tonnes Ferrous scrap Source: HM Revenue & Customs Key economic drivers Steel scrap is used to feed electric arc furnaces that are used to produce steel. The key driver of volumes of scrap through Liverpool is therefore the global demand for steel, which in turn drives the price of scrap. There is only enough domestic demand for around one-third of the scrap produced in the UK, which is why it is exported in large quantities to feed electric arc steel furnaces, especially to the Far East. Another key factor is the availability of scrap metal arisings in the UK. Competition Scrap has always traditionally been handled close to its point of origin because of the cost of inland transport, but when export markets in the Indian subcontinent and Asia opened up there was a need to consolidate very large volumes of scrap and export in large deep sea vessels. The large ports with deep water such as Liverpool therefore had a competitive advantage over smaller rivals with less depth of water. Table 4.24 shows the share of non EU (i.e. deep sea) exports of ferrous scrap by port as an indicator of Liverpool s significance in this market. The volume through Felixstowe will be containerised as a backload for all the otherwise empty import containers returning to the Far East. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

200 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 50 Table 4.24: Market shares of ferrous steel scrap exports to non-eu countries, 2008 Bristol 8% Felixstowe 21% Liverpool 7% Newport 7% Southampton 6% Tyne 5% Total above 86% Source: HM Revenue & Customs, analysis by MDS Transmodal Since trade statistics tell us that exports of ferrous scrap to EU countries is a slightly higher volume than the total exported to non EU countries, it is clear that the list of ports exporting scrap is quite a bit longer than the table above might suggest because the ship sizes are likely to be smaller in the UK- Continent trades and so smaller ports on the east and south coasts will be involved in the trade. Inland distribution About 87% of the steel scrap is transported from around the North West region and the West Midlands to Liverpool Docks by road. Some 8% is transported to the port by rail and a further 5% is transported coastwise from Scotland. The EMR facility in Alexandra Dock is rail-connected, but there is no connection to the rail network for the Norton facility in Canada Dock. SWOT analysis Strengths Very strong companies as customers who have made significant capital investments in facilities and equipment in Liverpool Docks Deep water for exports to deep sea markets Large urban population within natural hinterland Regeneration leading to construction and demolition activity in the North West Rail served (EMR only), which extends natural hinterland Opportunities Expand recycling operations by extending hinterland through use of rail and coastwise shipping Rapid recovery in global steel market, with demand increasing at pre-recession rates Rail link to Canada Dock to assist Nortons in extending the facilities Weaknesses Limited space for expansion of activities with larger capacity equipment No rail connection for Norton in Alexandra Docks Threats Slow recovery from recession in global steel-making Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

201 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 51 natural hinterland Reduction of outbound waste material through development of thermal power facility in Liverpool Docks Forecasts to 2030 The main issue for forecasts of steel scrap exports from Liverpool is the price of scrap, which is determined by the demand for steel making. Short-term global forecasts produced by the World Steel Association in October 2009 suggest that world steel output is gradually recovering from recession, driven principally by rapidly increasing demand in China and resilient demand in India. This follows very significant falls in demand in demand in the EU and North America in Table 4.25: Short-range forecasts for world apparent steel use, Million tonnes of apparent steel use Actual 2009 Projected 2010 Forecast Projected Change 2008/09 Forecast Change 2009/10 World 1,121 1,202 1,207 1,104 1, % +9.2% BRIC % +5.9% Non-BRIC % +13.6% Source: World Steel Association The World Steel Association takes the view that world steel demand will increase by 9.2% in 2010 in terms of apparent steel use (i.e. in terms of the amount of steel delivered to the market, not taking into account changes in stocks) but after a very severe slump in Until the financial crisis in and the rapid decline is steel demand in 2009, the World Steel Association published medium-term forecasts of apparent steel use steel of 4.9% growth per annum between 2006 and 2010 and 4.2% growth per annum between 2010 and Our Central Forecast for scrap steel exports through Liverpool Docks is based on the following assumptions: The volumes handled through Liverpool Docks are related to the world demand for steel (rather than supply-side factors such as the availability of steel scrap in the UK); Traffic volumes in 2009 are 8.6% lower than in 2008 and there is a 9.2% increase in volumes in 2010 (source: World Steel Association Short-Range Forecasts, October 2009); Between 2010 and 2015 traffic volumes increase by 4.2% per annum (source: World Steel Association Medium-Term Forecast, October 2006); Between 2015 and 2030 traffic volumes are stable. The forecasts for scrap metal exports through Liverpool Docks up to 2030 are shown in Table 4.26 below. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

202 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 52 Table 4.26: Forecast steel scrap exports for Liverpool Docks, Million tonnes Change CAGR Central Forecast % +0.9% High Scenario % +1.8% Low Scenario % -0.1% Source: MDS Transmodal The Central Forecast is for an average annual increase of steel scrap exports of 0.9% per annum up to The High Scenario has been produced based on the assumption that traffic volumes are 20% higher than the Central Forecast, due to faster growth in steel demand than forecast by the World Steel Association and Liverpool securing greater market share from competitor ports. This leads to an average annual increase of steel scrap exports of 1.8% per annum up to The Low Scenario has been produced assuming that 20% lower volumes are achieved than in the Central Forecast, due to slower growth in long-term demand than that forecast by the World Steel Association and the loss of market share to competitor ports. This leads to an average annual decline in steel scrap exports of 0.1% up to Steel Definition of traffic Steel traffic handled at Liverpool Docks is very varied in its consignment sizes, grades and physical characteristics. It can range from plate, long beams and hollow sections to coils of steel wire and also varies as to whether it requires undercover storage. Steel traffic is imported through Liverpool Docks on conventional vessels, mainly from the Far East and Turkey. Key customers The main handlers and stockholders of steel in Liverpool Docks are Denholm Handling, Thomas Nichols Brown and Dobro Distribution (UK) Ltd. These companies act as import and then store different grades and types of steel prior to delivery to end users in the North West and the Midlands. Historic traffic volumes Maritime Statistics show that traffic volumes through the port have grown very significantly since 2004, although there is likely to have been a fall off in traffic in 2009 due to the economic recession and its impact on the construction industry. In 2008 about 0.5 million tonnes of imports were handled through Liverpool Docks, with the remaining tonnage handled through Birkenhead. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

203 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 53 Table 4.27: Steel traffic volumes through the Port of Liverpool, Thousand tonnes Foreign Domestic Total Source: DfT Maritime Statistics; analysis by MDS Transmodal The growth in traffic since 2004 is likely to be due to the increasing penetration of the UK steel market by Far East producers, allied to the ability of Liverpool to handle panamax vessels and its specialist handling and storage facilities; in addition, Liverpool is well-located for distribution to the M62 Corridor and the Midlands. Key economic drivers The key drivers of demand for steel products generally are the construction, offshore, automotive and manufacturing industries. The global recession has seen a strong downturn particularly in construction and automotive which has forced rationalisation among all the global steel producers. The prospects for increasing steel volumes are therefore linked to the prospects for the GB construction and manufacturing industries (including the GB car industry). Liverpool will be well placed to take advantage of substitution of domestic and NW Europeansourced steel with steel from lower cost producers in the Far East. The rationalisation of the NW European steel industry resulted in the closure of the Corus steel plant on Teesside. Competition There is strong competition from other ports to handle steel imports, where (as in Newport, for example) there is no local producer rolling steel from imported steel slab. The wharves of the River Trent and Immingham have the advantage that they can also handle exports of steel from Scunthorpe as backloads for the vessels carrying imports. Table 4.28: Steel traffic volumes through major GB ports, 2002 & 2008 Thousand tonnes Change River Trent % Liverpool ,950% Newport 1, % Grimsby & Immingham % Goole % Cardiff % Boston % London % Medway % Hull % Forth % Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

204 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 54 Bristol % Tyne % Aberdeen % Tees & Hartlepool % Poole % Swansea % Total 6,217 5,367-14% Source: DfT Maritime Statistics; analysis by MDS Transmodal Liverpool has benefited significantly from the switch of global steel production towards the Far East because it can handle deep sea vessels and is centrally-located for inland distribution. Inland distribution Imported steel via Liverpool Docks is distributed inland by road, mainly to the North of England and to the Midlands. Given the availability of specialist facilities terminal facilities for loading steel to rail in the port and the availability pf specialist rail terminals for handling steel n the West Midlands, there should be some potential for the distribution of steel by rail. Some 150,000 tonnes of steel was distributed to the port by rail from South Wales in 2008 for export in containers across the Atlantic, which demonstrates the potential of rail in this market. SWOT analysis Strengths Expertise in steel handling Availability of good quality covered storage Panamax depth of water for deep sea steel imports and exports Rail connection Close to Vauxhall car plant Close to population centres, with construction projects in the pipeline Central location for distribution to national hinterland Opportunities Recovery from economic recession, leading to an increase in construction activity and automotive production Shift of world s steel production to cheaper Far east manufacturers Attract greater market share based on availability of deep water and rail connection Weaknesses No local steel producer West coast location for short sea trade with the Near Continent Threats Continuing recession in global steel industry Continuing recession in GB construction industry Closure of Vauxhall car plat in the medium to long term Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

205 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 55 Forecasts to 2030 Our Central Forecast for steel imports through Liverpool Docks is based on the following assumptions: The volumes handled through Liverpool Docks are related to the UK demand for steel; Traffic volumes in 2009 are 38% lower than in 2008 (due to poor overall demand and rapid de-stocking) and there is a 25% increase in volumes in 2010 (source: World Steel Association Short-Range Forecasts, October 2009); Between 2010 and 2015 traffic volumes increase by 4.2% per annum (source: World Steel Association Medium-Term Forecast, October 2006), which assume s that UK demand increases in line with worldwide demand for steel; Between 2015 and 2030 traffic volumes are stable; With its deepwater facilities and increasing sourcing of steel from the Far East and the Indian Sub-Continent, Liverpool Docks secures some limited additional market share up to 2020 and then market share remains stable up to The forecasts for steel imports through Liverpool Docks up to 2030 are shown in Table 4.29 below. Table 4.29: Forecast steel imports for Liverpool Docks, Million tonnes Change CAGR Central Forecast % +0.6% High Scenario % +0.9% Low Scenario % -0.2% Source: MDS Transmodal The Central Forecast is for an increase in market share from 10.2% in 2008 to 10.5% in 2020, while the overall volume of GB steel imports falls by 0.2% per annum up to The High Scenario has been produced based on the assumption that traffic volumes are 20% higher than the Central Forecast, due to faster growth in UK steel demand than in the Central Forecast and Liverpool securing greater market share from competitor ports. This leads to an average annual increase of steel scrap exports of 0.9% per annum up to The Low Scenario has been produced assuming that 20% lower volumes are achieved than in the Central Forecast, due to slower growth in long-term demand and the loss of market share to competitor ports. This leads to an average annual decline in steel imports of 0.2% up to Other liquid bulks Description/definition of traffic The other liquid bulk category of traffic passing through Liverpool Docks mainly consists of edible oils and beverages and chemicals. The edible oils and beverages are stored and processed at the port Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

206 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 56 before being distributed inland as raw materials for the food industry. The chemicals are for storage within the Docks. About 0.35 million tonnes of other liquid bulks were imported via Liverpool Docks in 2008, mainly edible oils and molasses. Some of this traffic (about 50,000 tonnes) was then re-exported, probably to Ireland. Key customers The Liverpool Docks system has two main areas of bulk liquid tankage that stores liquid bulk cargoes in this category. These storage facilities are at Gladstone and Huskisson Docks and the key customers are Tate & Lyle and Westway. Tate & Lyle has two sites within or adjacent to Liverpool Docks: at Gladstone Dock the terminal handles both food grade liquids and industrial products, i.e. edible oils and chemicals. The complex amounts to 97,290 m3 of storage tanks adjacent to deep water berths able to accommodate vessels of a draft of 12.4m. Tate & Lyle s other storage complex is at Regent Road, not far from Huskisson Dock, where edible oils are stored with a total storage capacity of 20,590m3 Westway Terminals also operate two sites in Liverpool Docks at Liverpool Sandhills, just south of the Tate & Lyle complex and adjacent to Gladstone Dock and Liverpool Regent Road. These two sites offer a combined storage capacity of 46,260m3 able to accommodate chemicals, molasses, edible oils and lubricating oils. Historic traffic volumes Table 4.30 shows the trend in other liquid bulk traffic volumes through the Port of Liverpool (i.e. including Birkenhead) between 2002 and Table 4.30: Port of Liverpool, other liquid bulk traffic, Change Foreign % Domestic % Total % Source: DfT Maritime Statistics Traffic volumes have been relatively stable during the period , probably due to the relationship between the commodities being imported and the food industry in the North West of England. Key economic drivers The bulk liquid storage market is highly competitive but there are high barriers to entry due to the cost of building new tanks to comply with increasingly strict safety regulation as well as Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

207 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 57 environmental concerns. The companies storing and processing the liquids on the port estate have made significant investments, based on being able to import feedstock through Liverpool Docks, but ultimately the success of this sector depends on its customers continuing to be viable. The requirement for bulk liquid storage follows therefore from the need for raw materials for a variety of industry sectors, but particularly for food manufacturers. Liverpool Docks location close to the North West food manufacturing cluster and major population centres should mean that it remains an attractive location for the storage and processing of these traffics. In addition these commodities tend to be transported by sea in tankers that are unlikely to reach panamax size and size of vessel will not therefore become a constraint for the foreseeable future. Competition The competition for bulk liquid storage tends to be between the major estuarial ports and Liverpool Docks customers tend to have storage facilities in other ports. Tate & Lyle has tank storage in Birkenhead and in Hull. Westway Terminals has storage tanks at Avonmouth, Hull and Grangemouth. There are also other bulk liquid storage companies such as NuStar, which has storage at Eastham and Runcorn on the Manchester Ship Canal, Grangemouth, Clydebank and Grays on the Thames in Essex. Other big operators are Simon Storage with tanks in Immingham and Teesside and Vopak with tanks on the Thames and at Ipswich and Teesside. Table 4.31: Other liquid bulk traffic through major UK ports, 2008 Thousand tonnes Liverpool 676 London 834 Grimsby & Immingham 1,572 Southampton 644 Forth 175 Manchester 1,585 Tees 3,649 Bristol 271 All above 9,406 All Major Ports 12,770 Source: DfT Maritime Statistics At a national level, most other liquid bulk traffics are chemicals and these traffics are closely related to the oil refining industry; for this reason significant volumes of other liquid bulk traffics are handled on estuaries where refineries are located such as the Humber, Thames, Solent, Forth and the Tees. While the Manchester Ship Canal s traffics are focused on supplying the chemical industry, Liverpool s traffics mainly provide raw materials for the North West s food industry. Inland distribution Most of the traffics are stored and processed in Liverpool Docks and are then distributed inland by road, mainly to the North West. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

208 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 58 SWOT analysis Strengths Weaknesses Deepwater berths Limited likelihood of new industrial Proximity to industry and population plant requiring bulk liquid input Good road access Established customer base, which store and process the bulk liquids on, or immediately adjacent to the port estate Opportunities Threats Imports of biofuels Competition from Birkenhead and Manchester Ship Canal Forecasts to 2030 The forecasts assume that about 0.35 million tonnes of other bulk liquids were handled through Liverpool Docks in 2008, of which some 50,000 were re-exported to Ireland by sea leaving some 0.3 million tonnes to be distributed inland by road. The Central Forecast assumes that the volume of other liquid bulk traffics distributed inland will increase in line with projections by the Office for National Statistics up to 2030 for the total UK population shown (see Table 4.32). This therefore assumes that the majority of the liquid bulk traffics are imported as raw materials for the food processing or manufacturing industries. Table 4.32: Forecast other liquid bulk traffic for Liverpool Docks to 2030 Thousand units Growth CAGR Central Forecast % +0.6% High Scenario % +1.5% Low Scenario % -0.4% Source: MDS Transmodal The Central Forecast results in an average annual increase in other liquid bulk traffic of 0.6% per annum up to The High Scenario has been produced based on the assumption that Liverpool Docks is able to attract additional market share from other ports and leads to an average annual increase in traffic of 1.5% up to The Low Scenario has been produced assuming that 20% lower volumes are achieved than in the Central Forecast, due to the loss of market share to competitor ports. This leads to an average annual decline in liquid bulk traffic of 0.4% per annum up to Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

209 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page Other dry bulks: aggregates and other construction materials Description/definition of traffic About 0.65 million tonnes of other dry bulks, mainly aggregates and other construction materials, were handled through Liverpool Docks in 2008 and then stored at the port before distribution inland by road. Aggregates moving through Liverpool Docks consist of sea-dredged sand and gravel won from Liverpool Bay and the River Mersey, and hard aggregates from Glensanda in Western Scotland for construction and roadstone. Key customers Mersey Sand Suppliers (a joint venture between Cemex and Tarmac) dredge and process marine aggregates, selling them into the local building sector. Yeoman Backhouse brings in hard aggregates from Glensanda granite quarry and process with recycled aggregates, again selling principally to the construction industry. Mersey Asphalt are part of the same group and make coated roadstone adjacent to Yeoman Backhouse at Seaforth Dock. Historic traffic volumes Sand, gravel and other aggregates are not separately identifiable in the Department for Transport maritime statistics because they are included within other dry bulks, and given that they are sourced domestically, trade statistics cannot provide any tonnage information. Crown Estates Landings Statistics provide the following information on marine dredged aggregates landed at the Port of Liverpool (including Birkenhead), which forms part of the aggregates being handled through Liverpool Docks (Table 4.33 below). Table 4.33: Marine dredged aggregates landed at the Port of Liverpool, Marine dredged aggregate landings Overall, we estimate that about 650k tonnes of aggregates and other construction materials were inbound through Liverpool Docks in Key economic drivers Marine dredged aggregates are used in the building sector and are low value bulk commodities that cannot bear significant inland distribution costs. For this reason the main economic driver is the extent of construction activity in the Liverpool City Region. Hard aggregates are used more in road construction, but are also not distributed significant distances inland; the main economic driver is therefore the level of construction activity and road infrastructure projects in the North West region. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

210 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 60 Competition Most ports handle some form of aggregates to varying degrees of volume and sophistication of equipment and terminal facilities. However, aggregates are a low value commodity that do not travel great distances and the aggregate companies tend to establish a local territory or hinterland within which they can compete taking into account the cost of transport to end users. Liverpool s customers will primarily be in competition with each other and with other operators in the River Mersey. Inland distribution Aggregates are distributed only relatively short distances inland and only by road. SWOT analysis Strengths Proximity to marine dredging grounds Economic distance from large coastal quarries Ability to handle large vessels used for the transport of hard rock from Glensanda Significant urban area in immediate hinterland, with major construction and regeneration projects Opportunities Expansion of activities related to continuing regeneration developments Weaknesses Volumes governed by cycles in the construction sector Lack of port land area for any significant expansion Threats Lower level of public and private sector construction and infrastructure development due to economic recession Forecasts to 2030 We have been unable to find independent forecasts for the construction industry in the North West of England and so for our Central Forecast we have assumed that demand for these traffics through Liverpool Docks remains stable up to High and Low Scenarios assume that traffic volumes are 20% above and 20% below the central forecast respectively. Table 4.34: Aggregates and constructions materials traffic forecasts for Liverpool Docks to 2030 Thousand units Growth CAGR Central Forecast High Scenario % +0.8% Low Scenario % -1.0% Source: MDS Transmodal Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

211 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page Forestry products Definition of traffic Forestry products handled at Liverpool Docks are mainly paper rolls, which are imported and stored at specialist terminal facilities prior to delivery to printing presses in the North West; some paper is also received by rail at the port and then stored and distributed inland by road or transported on the RoRo services to Ireland. As well as paper, there is a limited volume of packaged timber imported through Liverpool Docks. In total we estimate that some 0.2 million tonnes of forestry products were handled across the quay at Liverpool Docks in In addition some 50,000 tones of paper products were received at the port by rail. In total therefore some 250,000 tonnes of forestry products were distributed from the port into its hinterland. Key customers The main handlers and stockholders of paper at Liverpool Docks are Stanton Grove with their deep water berth at Seaforth Docks with adjacent 28,000 square metre forest products terminal. The paper is then delivered to printing presses by road in the North West. Historic traffic volumes Table 4.35 provides forestry product traffic volumes through the Port of Liverpool for the period Table 4.35: Forestry products traffic volumes through the Port of Liverpool, Thousand tonnes Foreign imports Domestic - inbound Foreign exports Domestic - outbound Total Source: DfT Maritime Statistics; analysis by MDS Transmodal The Port of Liverpool has seen its forestry products traffic decline by 44% since the peak in 2004, which is most likely to be due to increased competition for handling paper, most of which is sourced from Scandinavia rather than North America. Key economic drivers The key drivers of demand for paper rolls is the newspaper industry in the North West, but they printing presses are able to source their paper from east and south coast ports that are better located to receive shipments by sea from Scandinavia and the Baltic and then distribute the paper by rail and Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

212 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 62 road to the North West. The demand for packaged timber is mainly from the construction industry and so is closely related to the level of activity in the construction industry in the North West. Competition There is strong competition from other ports to handle paper imports and east coast ports are better located to receive shipments from Scandinavia and the Baltic. Table 4.36: Forestry product imports through selected GB ports*, 2002 & 2008 Thousand tonnes Change Liverpool % River Trent % Rivers Hull & Humber % Newport % Grimsby & Immingham % Felixstowe Goole % Boston % London 1,939 1,030-47% Medway 1,750 1,234-36% Hull % Forth % Ipswich % Bristol % Tyne % Aberdeen % Clyde % Dundee % Shoreham % Total 9,295 5,211-44% * Ports handling over 100k tonnes in 2002 Source: DfT Maritime Statistics; analysis by MDS Transmodal The market as a whole has declined significantly between 2002 and 2008 and the decline in imports through Liverpool has declined roughly in line with the market. The decline is likely to be due to the recession affecting, in particular, imports in packaged timber but also paper products. Inland distribution Imported forestry products via Liverpool Docks are distributed inland by road, mainly to the North West. Some 50,000 tonnes of paper was distributed to the port by rail in 2008 for storage at the port and then distribution to printing presses. In addition, the products may have switched to intermodal transport i.e. transported in a container or trailer on a container or RoRo service. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

213 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 63 SWOT analysis Strengths Expertise in paper handling and availability of good quality covered storage Close to North West printing presses Opportunities Forest products traffic is relatively undeveloped at the port, given a market share of about 4% compared to the population of the NW (about 10% of the total UK population) Attract more non-maritime traffic by rail for storage at the port Recovery of construction industry, leading to greater demand for packaged timber Weaknesses West coast location for short sea trade with Scandinavia and the Baltic Relatively small printing industry in North West compared to London/SE Threats Continuing recession in construction industry Reduction in demand for newsprint Forecasts to 2030 We have been unable to find independent forecasts for the forest products and construction industry and so for our Central Forecast we have assumed that total demand for these traffics through UK ports remains stable up to 2030, but we have assumed in the Central Forecast that Liverpool Docks gradually increases its market share from 4.6% in 2008 to 5.8% in 2020 (25% higher) due to the relatively undeveloped nature of the traffic through Liverpool given that the North West s population represents 10% of the total UK population. High and Low Scenarios assume that traffic volumes are 20% above and 20% below the Central Forecast respectively. Table 4.37: Forecast forestry products traffic for Liverpool Docks to 2030 Thousand units Growth CAGR Central Forecast % +0.8% High Scenario % +1.7% Low Scenario % 0.2% Source: MDS Transmodal 4.12 Cruise Definition of traffic Liverpool Docks has a specialist cruise terminal in Langton Dock to receive turnaround calls; these are cruise ship calls where passengers begin and end their cruises. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

214 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 64 To handle these types of call, the Port provides sufficient depth of water alongside the quay to accommodate the ships, baggage handling facilities, facilities for passenger reception and customs/immigration and space for parking. The Langton Cruise Terminal is the only west coast port facility that handles turnaround cruise calls and provides a convenient location to start and end cruises for passengers who live in the North of England. Key customers In 2009 the Port had calls booked by two cruise lines: Fred Olsen Lines had 18 calls booked, offering cruises mainly to the Canary Islands and West Africa on the Black Prince; the calls were from January to mid-september. Saga had seven calls booked on the Saga Rose and the Spirit of Adventure; the calls were in June, July and August only. In 2010 Fred Olsen is marketing 10 cruises from Liverpool 1 on the Boudicca, but Saga does not appear to be marketing cruises from the port. Each cruise ship accommodates about 600 passengers and so at each port call (apart from the first and last of each season) there is an exchange of 1,200 passengers. This equates to about 24,000 passengers passing through the port in Historic traffic volumes Table 4.38 provides an analysis of turnaround cruise passengers between 2003 and This shows that the market for the cruise lines has grown on average by 15.5% per annum during the period. Table 4.38: Cruise Passengers at UK cruise ports, Growth CAGR Mediterranean % 17.5% Atlantic Islands % 9.7% Norway % 18.8% Baltic % 14.2% Other % 15.3% Total % 15.5% Source: PSA UK & Ireland Cruise Market 2008 This growth in passengers has led to an increase in the number of calls at UK ports by cruise ships, although the rate of growth for calls is unlikely to have been as fast because cruise ships have, on average, been increasing in size. 1 Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

215 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 65 Key economic drivers The UK cruise market is driven by increasing disposable income, particularly among more mature cruise passengers, and the industry s success in attracting younger passengers to the cruise experience. Liverpool s position in the market is based on providing turnaround facilities for the cruise lines that can attract passengers that live in the North of England and do not want to travel to the Greater South East to start their cruise. Competition The Liverpool Cruise Terminal at Pier Head has been successful in attracting way-calls from cruise vessels that are providing cruise itineraries around the British Isles, usually including Ireland and Scotland as well as the North West. Way-calls are where cruise vessels berth at a port for a day so that passengers can disembark to visit on-shore attractions. As the turnaround and way-call markets are quite distinct, the two Liverpool cruise facilities do not compete directly with each other. Public funding was provided to the Pier Head facility on the understanding that it would only be used to receive way calls from cruise ships; in addition it does not have the space and facilities required for turnaround calls. However, there has been some political pressure within the Liverpool City Region to allow the facility to receive such calls. In addition, Peel Holdings has indicated that it might develop a new berth within its Liverpool Waters development scheme. Table 4.39 provides an analysis of turnaround cruise passenger traffic at UK ports in 2007 and Table 4.39: Passengers of all nationalities starting/ending cruises at UK ports, 2007 Thousand passengers (both directions) Port Growth Southampton % Dover % Harwich % Other (including the Langton Cruise Terminal) % Total 1,064 1, % Source: MDS Transmodal analysis, based on DfT Maritime Statistics, 2007 The major UK cruise turnaround ports of Southampton, Dover and Harwich are deepwater ports located close to the largest concentration of population in the UK (i.e. London and the South East), with good road access to the major hub airports and direct maritime access to the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and the Baltic. In 2008 these ports handled collectively 92% of all turnaround passengers. In Northern Britain competition from turnaround ports for cruises to the Canary Islands and West Africa and the Western Mediterranean is limited. Newcastle and Rosyth have also attracted turnaround calls from cruise ships, but for cruises to Norway and the Baltic. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

216 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 66 Inland distribution Cruise passengers access the Port prior to embarkation and leave the port on disembarkation either in their cars (parking is available at the port) or by coach or taxi if they travel by train to Lime Street. There were 21 cruise ship visits in 2009, each with about 600 passengers and (assuming each car or taxi carries two people) this equates to at most 12,000 car trips in and out of the Seaforth Dock Gate each year. In total this is a relatively small number of road trips, although the movements will be concentrated into a few hours on a few days each year. The passengers are most likely to live in the North of England, as Liverpool provides a convenient location to start and end a cruise and has good road and rail links to the rest of the North. SWOT analysis Strengths Deepwater facilities, with sufficient space for the required landside facilities Good access by road and rail (via Lime Street) to the rest of Northern England Good maritime access to the Atlantic and the Bay of Biscay for cruises to the Canary Islands, West Africa and the Western Mediterranean. Opportunities Continuing organic growth of the UK cruise market Limited competition in the North of England Weaknesses Relatively unattractive location for cruise passengers Threats Competition from the major South East cruise ports for cruises into the Atlantic and towards the Mediterranean: Southampton, Dover and Portsmouth. Possible cruise market maturity? Forecasts to 2030 The key issues in relation to the forecasts for cruise passengers for the Port of Liverpool up to 2030 are: The extent to which the UK cruise market will continue to expand at the rapid growth rates of the last few years or whether the market will begin to mature. Whether the Langton Cruise Terminal will remain an attractive location for cruise lines, given the commercial port activities in Liverpool Docks and the competition from port facilities in the South East. Whether other existing or potential future cruise facilities on the Mersey will make the facility in Langton Dock redundant. There is a degree of uncertainty about the future of the Langton Cruise Terminal and therefore our Central Forecast is for no growth in traffic up to This implies about 24,000 cruise passengers passing through the port, making about 12,000 car journeys. However, it is also possible that there will be no traffic, with cruise traffic being handled elsewhere on the Mersey. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

217 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page Other existing traffics The oil products handled at Liverpool Docks are predominantly fuel oils for bunkering and transport, provided by Henty Oil. The company provides a bunkering service for vessels visiting the Mersey. In 2008 the volumes handled were about 100,000 tonnes. As the oil products are received by coastal tanker from oil refineries and then transferred to the vessels by barges there is no impact on the road network outside the port gates. For this reason, traffic forecasts have not been completed for this traffic type. About 0.1 million tonnes of ores were exported via Liverpool Docks in It is not clear what these volumes relate to and we have assumed they are exports of scrap metal and this volume of traffic has therefore been included in scrap steel traffic in section 4.6 above. About 10,000 tonnes of general cargo was exported through Liverpool Docks in This traffic has been regarded as de minimis and we have assumed that this traffic will remain stable up to Potential new traffics Port-centric warehousing Almost all ports have some warehousing so that customers who load and unload cargo or process cargo can store these cargoes or processed products in a safe and secure environment prior to onward transport; the warehousing is based in the port estate because it is the most cost-effective location to avoid double-handling of the cargo. Examples include the storage of bulk cargoes at Liverpool Docks, such as grain in silos at the port prior to transport to mills and edible oils in tank storage prior to processing. However, port-centric warehousing is where a port has secured customers for distribution buildings on the port estate that do not, of necessity, have to be in a port but choose to locate there because of the advantages it provides over inland sites. They choose to locate their distribution sites at a port because sufficient land is available, some of their traffic is going to or coming from locations that are served by the port s shipping services and because deep water ports often have high quality road and rail links. The objective of the customer for distribution sites is to minimise their supply chain costs, taking into account the cost of land, labour and transport; typical customers would be major retailers who want a site for an NDC or an RDC. To secure this kind of business, the Port of Liverpool needs to be able to offer plots that are large enough to accommodate large distribution centres (up to 100k square metres), provide a good supply of suitably qualified labour in the local area, high quality access to the core motorway network and by rail to the WCML as well as good access to the Irish market and to world markets for containerised cargoes. Teesport (with its significant amount of land) has developed two import centres for ASDA and Tesco. The distribution facilities that are planned for the London Gateway port facility on the Thames are another example of port-based distribution centres. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

218 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 68 There are already some relatively small-scale customers at the port that choose to store freight in warehouses on the port. For example, paper rolls are received by rail at a port-based terminal and stored prior to distribution inland. However, port-centric distribution would be a relatively new market for Liverpool Docks. In the future, potential customers are most likely to be the major supermarket chains or other major retailers that require distribution centres for a number of functions: National Distribution Centres/Import Centres: act as inventory holding points for imported and nationally sourced goods, before re-distribution to Regional Distribution Centres. Dwell times can be about one month. NDCs have traditionally been located in the Midlands and South East as this minimised the total cost of transport chains from suppliers through to retail outlets. However, the increasing propensity of the UK to import manufactured goods has shifted the centre of gravity towards the deep sea ports for some types of goods such as electronics, clothing and white goods. Regional Distribution Centres: re-distribute inward supplies of goods to other stages in the supply chain, normally a retail outlet but also increasingly direct to homes. They have a regional hinterland. Their primary role is to consolidate and re-distribute goods in short periods of time, rather than acting as inventory holding locations. Consequently dwell times are much shorter at RDCs (average 12 days for non-ambient goods) than at NDCs. Goods are generally received in homogenous loads from NDCs then split into smaller consignments for re-distribution in mixed loads of commodities to retail outlets, sometimes within 24 hours (a process called 'cross docking'). A facility in Liverpool Docks would have the advantage of being able to serve both the North West and Ireland from a single facility. Large distribution centres have generally been located close to the trunk road network to reduce the costs of distribution and to reduce environmental impacts on residential areas. With greater planning and policy emphasis on sustainable distribution since the 1990s there has been a shift of emphasis towards the development of rail freight distribution parks (such as 3MG in Widnes) that have good road access but can also receive and despatch freight by rail. The concept of port-centric distribution combines the concept of a rail freight distribution park with the added benefit of access to deep sea and short sea maritime access. In order to develop this opportunity more land is likely to be required in the port estate and it is most likely to be attractive to potential occupiers if the post-panamax deep sea container berths are developed. The required land could only be found adjacent to Seaforth Dock or Canada Dock (between Derby Road and Regent Road). The size of the port-centric distribution site within Liverpool Docks will be important for two main reasons: Sites need to be big enough to accommodate the large scale distribution centres that are required by the market, together with a number of other support activities; It contributes towards the viability of rail freight services to and from Liverpool Docks, by providing critical mass of traffic for intermodal rail freight services to individual regions in the port s hinterland. The traffic can be handled at the existing (perhaps extended) intermodal rail freight terminal in Seaforth Dock. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

219 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 69 Assuming that a site of some 50 hectares can be assembled within the existing, or an extended, port estate, about 200,000 square metres of distribution floor space could be developed. Such a site would be able to accommodate between two and four warehouses of between 50,000 and 100,000 square metres, which are increasingly being demanded in the logistics market. The first part of the Table 4.39 below shows generally accepted figures in terms of the relationships that exist between site size and floor space, and between floor space, warehouse throughput and road and rail modal splits (for modern high bay type warehousing). These relationships form the basis upon which the calculations in the lower part of Table 4.40 completed, which demonstrate the relationship between site size, the volume of HGV and rail traffic. Table 4.40: Modal split for port-centric distribution site at Liverpool Docks Assumptions Pallets per sq m 1.0 Tonnes per pallet 0.8 Annual stock turns 20 Inbound by rail 50% Outbound by rail 25% Floor space % of footprint 40% Pallets per unit load 22 Units per train 30 Operating days pa 250 Throughput Hectares 50 DC - sq m 200,000 Pallet capacity 200,000 Pallet throughput pa 4,000,000 Unit loads inbound pa 180,000 Unit loads outbound pa 180,000 Unit loads inbound road 90,000 Unit loads outbound road 135,000 Unit loads inbound rail 90,000 Unit loads outbound rail 45,000 Full trains inward per day 12 Full trains outward per day 6 Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

220 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 70 The development of port-centric distribution, assuming a site of 50 hectares can be assembled within the estate for a mixed NDC and RDC development could generate an additional 270,000 HGV movements (in and out) and require capacity to handle 12 trains in each direction per day. While the warehousing generates additional HGV traffic on the local road network, it provides critical mass for the development of additional rail freight services and for deep sea container and Irish sea RoRo services and generates significant employment opportunities. Atlantic Arc RoRo service There is the potential for the development of new short sea shipping services using RoRo technology along the so-called Atlantic Arc between the British Isles, Western France and the Iberia Peninsula. Liverpool, with its central location for inland distribution to the whole of Great Britain and its existing RoRo facilities, would probably be the ideal British port. The service would carry both unaccompanied trailers and containers and would lead to the diversion of road freight traffic that would otherwise pass through Portugal and Spain, across the Pyrenees, travel the full length of France to the Channel ports and through southern England. However, much of the traffic would be new traffic for Liverpool Docks and would be distributed inland by road. We estimate that the service could generate about 30-40,000 units per annum based on twice a week service frequency using 2,000 lane metre RoRo vessels. Waste movements by barge from Liverpool Docks to Ince Recovery Park According to Appendix 14.1 of Peel Holdings planning application for the Ince Resource Recovery Park on the Manchester Ship Canal in North Cheshire, significant volumes of waste materials (e.g. 140,000 tonnes of household waste per annum) will be distributed from Liverpool Docks or Garston to Ince by means of a daily barge service; rail could also be an option This waste material will be sourced from the Merseyside area and is likely to be delivered to Liverpool and Garston docks by road Summary of Central Forecasts Table 4.41 summarises the Central Forecasts to 2020 and 2030 for traffic that is distributed inland to and from Liverpool Docks. Table 4.41: Summary of Central Forecasts for Liverpool Docks to 2020 and 2030 Million units/tonnes Broad traffic Broad commodity CAGR category 30 Unitised Containers % RoRo freight units % RoRo passenger cars % Cruise passenger cars Dry bulk Coal % Agricultural products % Other dry bulks: scrap metal % Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

221 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 71 Other dry bulks: aggregates & construction materials Liquid bulk Other liquid bulks % Other Steel % Forestry products % General cargo Source: MDS Transmodal Most growth in traffic is forecast to be in containers and RoRo freight units, relatively slower growth is forecast for most non-unitised traffics apart from coal; this latter traffic is forecast to decline significantly based on UK Government projections for the use of coal for the generation of electricity up to As well as these existing traffics, future scenarios for new traffic development could lead to an additional: 270,000 HGV movements (in and out) and 12 trains in each direction per day generated by the development of port-centric distribution on a site of 50 hectares; 30-40,000 freight units per annum on Atlantic Arc RoRo services; Inbound waste material by road for onward shipment by barge to the Ince Resource and Recovery Park on the Manchester Ship Canal. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

222 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 72 5 ECONOMICS OF INLAND DISTRIBUTION 5.1 Introduction This chapter provides an explanation of the economics of road haulage, rail freight and waterborne transport in relation to Liverpool Docks, given its location, its existing facilities and connections, the inland origins and destination of traffic and the economics of sustainable distribution. Quantified examples are provided, focusing on the inland distribution of containers as the main potential growth market for Liverpool Docks; however, bulk freight movements are also considered. A summary of policy in relation to inland distribution to and from ports is provided. The chapter concludes with a forecast of the potential modal share for the different port traffics in 2020 and 2030, assuming there are no capacity constrictions e.g. lack of train paths into and out of the port. 5.2 Sustainable distribution policy The Stern Review & DaSTS In October 2006, Sir Nicholas Stern published his review of the Economics of Climate Change in which he set out the severity of the economic risks of inaction in the face of climate change and estimated the cost of mitigation at around 1% of GDP; Stern regarded this as a small outlay relative to the costs and risks of climate change that will be avoided in the long-term. The Stern Review identified the three key elements of an appropriate mitigation policy response as: pricing carbon through trading, tax or regulation; encouraging research, development, demonstration and deployment to bring forward a range of low carbon technologies; and measures to encourage long-term behavioural change and overcome barriers, particularly on energy efficiency. Stern, along with Eddington, provides the basis for policy set out in the Ports NPS, which states that the Government wishes to see port development wherever possible: supporting sustainable transport by offering more efficient transport links with lower environmental disbenefits; providing a basis for trans-modal shifts from road transport to shipping and rail, which are generally more sustainable Road Pricing Road pricing is a policy that could be implemented in the long-term so all road users (both private cars and goods vehicles) would be required to pay for the net external costs that they impose on society. That is, road users would be charged for the environmental pollution and congestion they cause to the extent to which these costs are not covered by existing forms of taxation such as fuel duty and road tax. The objective of a road pricing policy would be to use the pricing mechanism to change behaviour, thereby reducing the negative impacts of road transport on the environment, society and the economy. Road users could change their behaviour in response to price signals by changing the Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

223 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 73 route they take to avoid more congested (and more expensive) roads, by travelling at different times of the day or choosing not to travel at all. As the road haulage industry is highly competitive and cost-driven, a permanent increase in the variable cost of road haulage per kilometre in the UK would be likely to have some impact on the choice of port and mode. Such a policy, if applied consistently as part of a national scheme involving all road users and all roads and assuming no capacity constraints and competitive shipping and rail freight industries, is likely to have the following impacts on traffic through Liverpool Docks: Encouraging container and bulk traffic already passing through the docks to switch from road to more sustainable modes waterborne freight along the Manchester Ship Canal, coastal shipping to regional ports around the west and south coasts of Great Britain and, in particular, rail freight to many regions of Great Britain; Attracting higher volumes of RoRo (mainly unaccompanied) traffic to services operated between Liverpool Docks and Ireland because Liverpool provides the most direct link between the major origins and destinations of freight in Ireland and the M62 Corridor/Midlands. Assisting the development of long distance RoRo (short sea shipping) services between Liverpool and the rest of the Atlantic Arc (Iberia, western France and Ireland) due to the increased costs of variable road haulage costs of driving through GB and France. The current position of the UK government on the introduction of road pricing is that urban congestion charging is the priority, rather than full-scale road pricing at a national level. There is therefore no immediate policy to introduce road pricing at a national level, although the Government has sought industrial partners to develop the required technology for such a scheme. While the implementation of a national scheme of road pricing including private cars is politically difficult, there remains the potential for its introduction for freight vehicles in the long-term. Subsidy for sustainable distribution As road haulage is not, without a system of road pricing, paying for its full net external costs the Government provides capital and grant funding to some sustainable distribution services and related facilities where applicants can demonstrate that the environmental benefits justify grant and there is a financial need for the grant i.e. the sustainable distribution service is more expensive than road haulage for the relevant traffic flow. This funding, which is provided through the DfT s Sustainable Distribution Fund, is limited. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

224 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page Road haulage economics As sustainable distribution services are generally competing with road haulage services, the economics of road freight are considered first. According to economic theory, the road freight transport market provides an example of near perfect competition: There are a large number of buyers and sellers operating in the market; There is a high degree of market knowledge (e.g. road haulage costs are well-understood in the market); There are few barriers to entry, particularly in terms of capital investment and regulation. In this environment, road haulage operators have to be highly efficient and cost-effective in order to remain profitable in a highly competitive market. The road haulage industry is therefore internally highly competitive. The vast majority of road freight lifted and moved is carried in heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), which are defined by the DfT as vehicles over 3.5 tonnes gross laden weight (i.e. weight of vehicle plus its load). Although there are a variety of types and sizes of HGV, the main type of HGV used for road haulage to and from ports is the combination of a tractor and 13.6-metre trailer, which have a 44 tonne gross vehicle weight (i.e. the maximum weight of the vehicle and the cargo is 44 tonnes). In general terms, road haulage has low fixed costs per hour, but high variable costs per kilometre compared to rail or waterborne transport. This is because road haulage has a much lower capital investment cost requirement compared to rail and waterborne transport but is less fuel efficient per kilometre. This, in turn, means that in cost terms road haulage is generally more cost effective over shorter distances than rail and waterborne transport. Quantified examples are provided in section 5.5, based on generic freight transport cost models (late 2009/early 2010 costs). 5.4 Sustainable distribution Rail freight can be categorised by mode of appearance (which refers to the way cargoes are presented for handling at rail terminals) into bulk and non-bulk rail freight. Bulk rail freight is where freight is carried in railway wagons designed specifically for carrying particular types of freight in bulk (e.g. coal from Liverpool Docks) and requires special facilities to transfer the freight between rail and storage facilities. For this reason bulk rail freight services usually carry large volumes of freight on a regular basis between privately owned railway sidings. The best examples at Liverpool Docks are the coal train movements between the E.ON terminal at Liverpool Docks to Fiddlers Ferry Power Station and the scrap steel trains from inland terminals to EMR s facility at Huskisson Dock. Non-bulk rail freight is where freight is carried in units (usually a container) on an intermodal rail freight service between intermodal rail terminals or in railway box cars (or vans ) between specialist terminal facilities. Non-bulk rail freight services are usually carrying general freight, rather Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

225 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 75 than large volumes of a single commodity, and are more likely to be competing with long distance road haulage. Intermodal freight transport is defined as the transport of freight in a door-to-door movement without the freight being unloaded from the unit. Examples of box car traffic at Liverpool are the flows of paper rolls into the port by rail, while an example of intermodal rail freight services are provided by the Freightliner trains carrying deep sea containers that used to operate until 2009 between inland terminals and the intermodal terminal in Seaforth Dock. Apart from the transport of all types of freight between GB and Northern Ireland, coastal shipping is particularly important for the distribution of petroleum products between refineries and port-based regional storage facilities (e.g. the distribution of bunker fuel to Liverpool Docks), for the distribution of aggregates (e.g. from Glensanda in Western Scotland to Liverpool Docks) and, increasingly, for the coastwise distribution of deep sea containers between GB deep sea container ports and other parts of GB such as Scotland. The controllers of the freight (either shippers, receivers or logistics companies) are prepared to use sustainable distribution services where they are convinced that they can provide the required (or an acceptable) quality of service in terms of: Door-to-door transit time, taking into account that sustainable distribution services often need to provide a scheduled service with a lower degree of flexibility than can be provided by a road haulage service; Reliability of service (on-time delivery); Maintaining the condition of the freight during transport (e.g. temperature-controlled). If these three key service quality parameters can be met, then the controllers of the freight will compare the cost of sustainable distribution to all-road transport. The price or freight rate that can be offered by the provider of the sustainable distribution service to the customer is affected by market forces, but cannot in the long-term be less than the cost of providing the service which is, in turn, determined by the inherent economics of the sustainable distribution services. For this reason the rest of this chapter focuses on explaining the economics of sustainable distribution services in terms of its costs compared to direct road haulage. 5.5 The economics of sustainable distribution versus road haulage As explained above in section 5.4, the relative economics of the different modes in providing door-todoor transport chains is a key factor in determining the extent to which sustainable distribution services can secure market share at the expense of all-road transport for the inland distribution of freight to and from Liverpool Docks. The key characteristic of the economics of sustainable distribution, whether the trunk haul is provided by rail, inland waterway or short sea, is that it has high fixed costs compared to road transport because the capital assets required are so much greater than for road transport before a single unit load is transported a single kilometre. While a road goods vehicle combination of a tractor and trailer might cost in the region of 90,000, a diesel locomotive plus 20 intermodal wagons has a Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

226 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 76 capital cost of about 2.7 million and a new freight RoRo vessel could cost in the region of 40 million. This difference in capital costs has two significant impacts for sustainable distribution services: Sustainable distribution services require a critical mass of traffic, preferably balanced in both directions, to provide economies of scale. While a road haulier only has to find a load for a single trailer at any one time, rail and waterborne transport operators have to find (say) 20 units of freight for a scheduled intermodal rail freight service and (say) 100 units of freight for a scheduled waterborne freight service. The utilisation of these expensive assets has to be maximised in order to keep the costs per unit transported as low as possible. However, the variable costs per unit carried per kilometre are lower for sustainable distribution services than for road freight transport, mainly because rail, inland waterway and coastal shipping are more fuel-efficient than road transport. While an HGV can transport a trailer about 2.5 km using a litre of fuel, a diesel railway locomotive transports 25 units about 0.28 km using the same amount of fuel; this implies that rail transport is some 2.75 times more fuel-efficient than road haulage. The final key aspect of the economics of sustainable distribution is that services do not usually operate door-to-door and so requires road collection and/or delivery to and from terminals; this adds a very significant fixed cost to sustainable distribution transport chains. The use of sustainable distribution to and from Liverpool Docks is assisted therefore by the fact that the Docks are connected to the rail network and barges can gain access to the Mersey/Manchester Ship Canal. There are examples of intermodal rail transport chains that are operating directly between origins and destinations, so that little or no road collection and delivery is required and this means they are economically viable over very short distances; there is an intermodal rail freight service operated on behalf of a logistics provider between a rail-connected distribution site at Elderslie near Glasgow to the container terminal at the port of Grangemouth over a distance of just 65 kilometres. Rail freight and waterborne freight services to and from Liverpool Docks are therefore more likely to be economically viable in the future where the inland origin/destination is rail-connected or adjacent to a port or berth. Worked example 1: road versus rail for the distribution of a container between Seaforth and Daventry Seaforth-Daventry by road (225 km) Our generic cost model for container haulage (single articulated HGV, single trip) is based on the following: Fixed cost per hour 25 Variable cost per kilometre 0.39 Load/discharge time (one-way) 3 hours Repositioning time for backload 0.5 hours and 25 kilometres Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

227 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 77 Therefore a single trip from Seaforth to Daventry in the East Midlands has an estimated cost of: Fixed costs: 225 km journey time: 3.75 hr Load/discharge time: 3 hrs Repositioning: 0.5 hr Total fixed costs 7.25 hr x Variable costs: Total variable costs: 225km x Total one-way cost 269 Therefore a single trip from Liverpool to Daventry has an estimated cost of about 270. It would generate 230 kg of carbon dioxide and consume about 90 litres of diesel. Seaforth-Daventry by intermodal rail (road distribution required from Daventry rail terminal to final destination) Seaforth Daventry Fixed traction cost: 1,125 Variable traction costs 402 Wagon costs: 318 Track access: 405 Total train costs 2,250 Train costs per unit (30 units/train) 75 Terminal cost per unit: Delivery road cost per unit: 150 Overhead per unit: 8 Total cost per unit 223 Therefore a single trip from Liverpool Docks to Daventry by intermodal rail, with onward road distribution to a distribution centre somewhere in the East or West Midlands, has an estimated cost of about 220. It would generate about 50kg of carbon dioxide and consume about 18 litres of diesel. This is about 20% lower than the estimated cost by road, but the transit time would be longer and the rail freight economics are based on their being sufficient critical mass of traffic for the service to secure the required economies of scale. If the final destination for the containers was a distribution centre on the same site as the intermodal terminal, then the road distribution cost would be negligible and the cost by rail would be very significantly less than by road. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

228 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 78 Worked example 2: road versus coastal shipping for the distribution of a container between Seaforth and Glasgow Road haulage: Seaforth-Glasgow (400 km) Fixed costs: 425km journey time: 7.08 hr Load/discharge time: 3 hrs Repositioning: 0.5 hr Total fixed costs hr x Variable costs: Total variable costs: 425km x Total one-way cost 431 Therefore a single trip from Liverpool Docks to Glasgow has an estimated cost of about 430. It would generate 157 kg of carbon dioxide and consume about 420 litres of diesel. Coastal shipping: Seaforth-Glasgow Our generic cost model for feeder container services is based on the following assumptions: Ship size 500 TEU Ship speed 12 knots Charter cost per day 6000 (typical, currently lower) Fuel consumption 20 tonnes per 24 hrs Fuel cost 200 per tonne Port costs 2000 per visit Stevedoring/unit hub port) 20 Stevedoring/unit (feeder port) 60 Ship turnaround 12 hrs Load factor 70% Collection & distribution cost 150 per container The unit cost for a feeder container from Seaforth Docks to delivered Glasgow, via Greenock can be calculated as follows: Distance 201 nm Sailing time 17 hours Round trips per week 3 Capacity per sailing 300 units Units per week 6 x 300 units x 70% = 1260 units Fixed ship costs: Charter costs 7 x ,000 Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

229 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 79 Bunker costs (17 hrs x 6)/24 x 20 x ,000 Port visits per week 6 x ,000 Total fixed ship costs 71,000 Ship costs per unit ( 71,000/1260 units) 56 Variable cost per unit: Net stevedoring ( ) 80 Road distribution 150 Total one way cost 286 per unit Therefore a single trip from Liverpool Docks to Glasgow by coastal shipping has an estimated cost of about 290. This is significantly lower than the estimated cost by road, but the transit time would be roughly double that by road and the coastal shipping economics are based on there being sufficient critical mass of traffic for the service to secure significant economies of scale. Worked example 3: road versus rail for the distribution of coal between Gladstone Dock and Fiddlers Ferry Power Station Gladstone Dock-Fiddlers Ferry by road (60 km round trip) Our generic cost model for bulk road haulage using a tipper truck (round trip) is based on the following: Fixed cost per hour 25 Variable cost per kilometre 0.39 Load/discharge time 1 hour Payload 25 tonnes Therefore a round trip from Gladstone to Fiddlers Ferry power station has an estimated cost of: Fixed costs: 60 km journey 50km/hr: 1.2 hr Load/discharge time: 1 hr Total fixed costs 2.2 hr x Variable costs: Total variable costs: 60km x Total one-way cost 78 Road transport cost per tonne 3.12 Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

230 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 80 Therefore the cost per tonne of transporting a tonne of coal from Gladstone Dock to Fiddlers Ferry power station is about 3.10 per tonne. The HGV movement would generate 60 kg of carbon dioxide and consume about 24 litres of diesel. Gladstone Dock-Fiddlers Ferry by rail (1400 tonnes per train) Fixed traction cost: 900 Variable traction costs 108 Wagon costs: 346 Track access: 280 Total train costs 1,634 Cost per tonne 1.17 Therefore a single trip from Gladstone Docks to Fiddlers Ferry by rail has an estimated cost of about 1.17 per unit. Each tonne delivered requires 0.1 litres of diesel and generates a negligible amount of carbon dioxide. As both ends of the door-to-door movement are rail-connected and large volumes of coal are being moved (1400 tonnes per train) the cost of bulk rail freight is much lower than the cost for road transport. 5.6 Modal shift forecasts A modal split forecast for container traffic was produced for 2020 and 2030 using the GB Freight Model, based on the following assumptions: The post-panamax deep sea container berth is developed and Peel Ports is successful in attracting direct calls by post-panamax vessels making a single call in GB by 2020; Rail freight distribution parks are developed in the English regions and in Scotland to provide rail-connected origins and destinations for freight. The modelling carried out suggests that Liverpool Docks could achieve a modal split for rail of 22% in 2020 and 24% in This would equate to some 10 trains in each direction per day. RoRo freight units are not expected to switch to rail up 2030 due to the fast-moving nature of accompanied RoRo freight and the shorter distances over which unaccompanied trailers are distributed to and from Liverpool, but the modelling suggests that the increasing road haulage costs implicit in the WEBTAG scenario up to 2030 leads to a switch of RoRo freight from driver accompanied to unaccompanied routes in the Irish Sea ferry market as a whole; the split in 2008 is estimated to be about 50:50, but in 2030 the modelled split would be 52:48 in favour of unaccompanied trailers. Coal imports through Liverpool Docks are very unlikely to be distributed inland by road, given the relative economics of the two modes for this type of bulk shipment. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

231 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 81 The modelling indicates that there would be some limited modal shift from road to rail for the inland distribution of bulk scrap metal and steel. 5.7 Conclusion There is an array of policy support for the further development of sustainable distribution for the inland distribution of cargo between ports and inland origins and destinations and the Draft Ports NPS states that the Government wishes to see port development wherever possible: supporting sustainable transport by offering more efficient transport links with lower environmental disbenefits; providing a basis for trans-modal shifts from road transport to shipping and rail, which are generally more sustainable However, despite policy support and some limited grant funding for sustainable distribution services, the relative transport economics of sustainable distribution compared to road freight distribution is the major determinant of modal split for inland distribution between Liverpool Docks and its hinterland. Another key factor is the availability of origins and destinations that are connected to the rail and waterborne freight networks (e.g. the Port Salford development, which will be rail and water-connected) facilitated by the planning system which only allows large distribution parks to be developed on green belt when they are accessible by rail and/or water. Road freight transport is highly cost effective because it is internally competitive due to the industry s low barriers to entry. Nevertheless fuel and labour costs have been increasing and this has, allied to the development of more rail-connected distribution parks and increasing volumes of traffic through Greater SE ports, has helped the intermodal sector of the rail freight industry to grow its traffic in the last few years. In addition, rail freight is often cheaper than road and the economic recession is encouraging shippers and logistics providers to seek more cost-effective solutions. The key characteristic of the economics of sustainable distribution, whether the trunk haul is provided by rail, inland waterway or short sea, is that it has high fixed costs compared to road transport because the capital assets required are so much more expensive than for road transport before a single unit load is transported a single kilometre. However, road haulage has higher variable costs per kilometre when rail or waterborne services are able to generate sufficient critical mass of traffic to generate economies of scale. This, in turn, means that sustainable distribution services tend to be more competitive compared to road freight transport over longer distances. The break even distance is affected to a very great extent by whether final collection or distribution is required by road between rail/port terminals at either end of the transport chain; Liverpool Docks has the advantage that it is already connected to the rail and waterborne freight networks and so no road distribution is required at, at least, one end of the transport chain. Where a rail service is linking the port to an inland terminal with on-site distribution centres, sustainable distribution services can be cost-effective compared to road over distances of only 100km or less. Shippers and logistics providers are, for example, increasingly considering rail freight services as an alternative to road haulage to reduce costs trading off a slower transit time against lower costs. Table 5.1 shows how intermodal rail freight has grown since 2004, not just through ports but also in Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

232 Working Paper 1: Port Traffic Demand & Forecasts Final Report Page 82 carrying domestic freight at inland rail freight terminals. The data shows that intermodal rail freight in GB has grown by 38% in terms of tonne kilometres since 2004, even if volumes through the Port of Liverpool have declined. Table 5.1: Indices of growth in intermodal rail freight, GB port containers Intermodal rail tkm Rail terminal tonnes Source: MDS Transmodal The greatest potential for use of sustainable distribution to and from Liverpool Docks is likely to be greater use of rail freight services for the inland distribution of containers, once the post-panamax berth berths are developed and Liverpool secures calls from post-panamax vessels that only make a single call in Great Britain and so are serving a national market. This development, plus a network of inland rail terminals with on-site distribution centres and increasing road haulage costs could lead to 22% of containers to be distributed inland by rail in 2020 and 24% by In addition, a daily barge service would distribute containers between Liverpool Docks and berths along the Manchester Ship Canal. RoRo traffic (in trailers) is likely to remain on the road, but coal traffic will remain rail-borne. There should be potential for transporting a greater proportion of steel scrap by rail as Liverpool has a national hinterland for this traffic type. Printed on 26/03/10 15:20 Our Ref: _wp1 final report

233 Appendix C Current Train Paths Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report

234 Current train rail paths to and from Port of Liverpool, May-December 2009 Commodity Inbound Service Arrival On Site Departure Outbound Service Coal FIDDLERS FERRY POWER STN (05:10) - LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL 07:43 01:52 09:35 LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL (09:35) - FIDDLERS FERRY POWER STN FIDDLERS FERRY POWER STN (06:50) - LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL 09:57 02:22 12:19 LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL (12:19) - FIDDLERS FERRY POWER STN FIDDLERS FERRY POWER STN (10:23) - LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL 12:44 02:11 14:55 LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL (14:55) - FIDDLERS FERRY POWER STN FIDDLERS FERRY POWER STN (12:10) - LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL 15:17 01:39 16:56 LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL (16:56) - FIDDLERS FERRY POWER STN FIDDLERS FERRY POWER STN (14:58) - LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL 17:51 02:15 20:06 LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL (20:06) - FIDDLERS FERRY POWER STN FIDDLERS FERRY POWER STN (17:10) - LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL 19:53 01:26 21:19 LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL (21:19) - FIDDLERS FERRY POWER STN FIDDLERS FERRY POWER STN (19:42) - LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL 22:35 01:51 00:26 LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL (00:26) - FIDDLERS FERRY POWER STN FIDDLERS FERRY POWER STN (21:30) - LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL 00:22 01:25 01:47 LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL (01:47) - FIDDLERS FERRY POWER STN WALTON OLD JN YARD (00:16) - LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL 01:17 02:19 03:36 LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL (03:36) - IRONBRIDGE POWER STATION WALTON OLD JN YARD (01:10) - LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL 02:19 02:29 04:48 LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL (04:48) - IRONBRIDGE POWER STATION WALTON OLD JN YARD (10:32) - LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL 12:17 WALTON OLD JN YARD (20:36) - LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL 21:46 01:32 23:18 LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL (23:18) - IRONBRIDGE POWER STATION WALTON OLD JN.M.S.C.SDGS (03:34) - LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL 04:41 01:30 06:11 LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL (06:11) - FIDLERS FERRY POWER STN WALTON OLD JN.M.S.C.SDGS (04:37) - LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL 05:39 02:09 07:48 LIVERPOOL BULK TERMINAL (07:48) - FIDLERS FERRY POWER STN Scrap Metal ARPLEY SIDINGS (18:56) - LIVERPOOL EURO METAL(MDHC) 20:32 04:48 01:20 LIVERPOOL EURO METAL(MDHC) (01:20) - HEALEY MILLS S.S. ARPLEY SIDINGS (21:31) - LIVERPOOL EURO METAL(MDHC) 00:08 HEALEY MILLS S.S. (00:22) - LIVERPOOL EURO METAL(MDHC) 03:01 02:51 05:52 LIVERPOOL EURO METAL(MDHC) (05:52) - ARPLEY SIDINGS MOSSEND DOWN YARD (19:16) - LIVERPOOL EURO METAL(MDHC) 04:11 16:44 20:55 LIVERPOOL EURO METAL(MDHC) (20:55) - MOSSEND SHUNT & MARSHALLNG SWINDON COCKLEBURY (20:50) - LIVERPOOL EURO METAL(MDHC) 04:06 19:28 23:34 LIVERPOOL EURO METAL(MDHC) (23:34) - SWINDON COCKLEBURY Paper ARPLEY SIDINGS (05:29) - STANTON GROVE 06:34 02:28 09:02 STANTON GROVE (09:02) - ARPLEY SIDINGS Steel ARPLEY SIDINGS (12:43) - LIVERPOOL GLADSTONE DOCK 13:59 03:59 17:58 LIVERPOOL GLADSTONE DOCK (17:58) - ARPLEY SIDINGS Containers CREWE BAS HALL S.S.M. (05:16) - SEAFORTH C.T.(FLINER) 07:22 00:48 08:10 SEAFORTH C.T.(FLINER) (08:10) - CREWE BAS HALL S.S.N. CREWE BAS HALL S.S.N. (11:26) - SEAFORTH C.T.(FLINER) 13:43 00:54 14:37 SEAFORTH C.T.(FLINER) (14:37) - CREWE BAS HALL S.S.M. GARSTON F.L.T. (16:17) - SEAFORTH C.T.(FLINER) 17:18 01:40 18:58 SEAFORTH C.T.(FLINER) (18:58) - CREWE BAS HALL S.S.M. Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

235 Appendix D Bus Service Information Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report

236 Average Service Headway (mins) Monday-Saturday Saturday Service Route Operator Peak Day Evening Day Evening Sunday 47 City Centre - Bootle - Crosby - Ince Blundell - Formby - Ainsdale - Birkdale - Southport - Crossens - Riverside Caravan Park Arriva /60 48/ 48A City Centre - Bootle - Crosby - Ince - Formby - Ainsdale - Hillside Southport Arriva 30 (48A) 30 (48A) - 30 (48) B Bootle - Seaforth - Waterloo - Brownmoor Lane Crosby Arriva City Centre - Stanley Road - Bootle - Seaforth - Waterloo - Crosby Netherton Stagecoach , 53A, 53B, / , 62B, , City Centre - Stanley Road - Bootle - Seaforth - Waterloo - Crosby - Thornton (53) - Netherton (53A) (53B to Farriers Way) Aigburth Vale - Dingle - Ullet Road - Wavertree - Old Swan - West Derby - Broadway - Black Bull - Orrell Park Bootle Penny Lane - Old Swan - Green Lane - Lower Lane - Walton Hospital - Bootle - Waterloo Crosby Walton - Everton - Breck Road - City Centre - Vauxhall - Sandhills - City Centre - Everton Walton Aigburth Vale - Dingle Mount - Albert Dock - City Centre - Derby Road - Seafroth - Waterloo Fazakerley Hospital - Black Bull - Netherton Crosby Aintree Station - Black Bull - Bootle Cemetary Bootle Arriva/ contracted service operated on behalf of Merseytravel Arriva/ contracted service operated on behalf of Merseytravel Arriva (162) (162) 30 Contracted service operated on behalf of Merseytravel contracted service operated on behalf of Merseytravel Avon Buses / contracted service operated on behalf of Merseytravel contracted service operated on behalf of Merseytravel extending to Trinity Road Bootle - Derby Road - Liverpool (Circular Service) contracted service operated on behalf of Merseytravel (no evening service) 144, 145 Bootle - Seaforth - Litherland (Pendle Drive/ Bowland Drive) Cumfybus , 158 (opposite direction) Bootle - Seaforth Litherland - Netherton - Bridle Road Bootle Speke Garston Aighburth Vale - Dingle - Pier Head - Liverpool Freeport Northwood - Fazakerley - Black Bull - Kirkdale Merseyrail Station - Sandhills Lane - Liverpool Freeport Hunts Cross Hotel - Halewood - Netherley - Belle Vale Centre - Childwall Fiveways - Wavertree Clocktower - Queen Sqaure Bus Station - Pier Head - Liverpool Freeport Longview - Page Moss - Everton Valley - Liverpool Freeport Contracted service operated on behalf of Merseytravel Stagecoach / contracted service operated on behalf of Merseytravel Acetravel / contracted service operated on behalf of Merseytravel Cumfybus / contracted service operated on behalf of Merseytravel Stagecoach / contracted service operated on behalf of Merseytravel AM peak journey 1 AM peak journey 1 AM peak journey 1 AM peak journey N53 (nighbus) City Centre - Bootle - Seaforth - Crosby Arriva - - X2 City Centre - Bootle Crosby - Formby - Ainsdale - Birkdale - Southport - Crossens Preston Stagecoach (Sat Night/ Sun AM) 60 (early evening service only) - 30 (early evening service only) 60 (early evening service only) 60 (early evening service only) Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

237 Appendix E Thornton Switch Island Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report

238 Pond ai n Pond Thornton Pond ai Dr n Pond ai Dr n D Pond Pond Dr ain n Dr ain Thornton Garden of Rest Dr ain Pond Playing Fields Lunt De f Lunt Lunt Farm Ha rri so n's Br oo k Lunt House Farm Weir Pond Dr ain Dr ain Dr ain rain in Dr ain Vent Vent Vent Sefton (c) Crown Copyright. All rights reserved Sefton Council Licence No , 2007 Thornton to Switch Island Link - Business Case Submission - November 2007 Figure Thornton to Switch Island Link - Proposed Route Alignment Dr 9.4m 9.1m St n's le He Vent Outfall Sefton Meadows Gu tte r Pond ain Dr ain Dr Do ve r's Br oo k Sefton Meadows CS Sefton Meadows STPU Magdalen House 30 Trinity Road Bootle, L20 3NJ Date: 15/11/2007 Drawn By: ML ra D File: G:\D_TRANSP\S_STPU\07 Northern Corridor\Thornton Switch Island Link - Business Case\MapInfo\TSIL location map ac Tr k Def

239 Appendix F Traffic Flow Diagrams Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report

240 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100329_Projected Port Traffic Flows.xls]2008_2030 Port HGV Increase_F5 NB SB AM PM Hr WB EB AM PM Hr NB SB NB SB NB SB AM AM 0 3 AM PM PM 0 2 PM Hr Hr Hr NB SB AM PM WB EB 24 Hr WB EB AM NB SB AM PM Hr A565 A5036 STRAND ROAD A5058 WB EB AM PM NB SB 24 Hr AM PM Hr A565 A59 AM PM PM Hr Hr A580 A5058 M57 NB SB AM PM Hr TITLE 2008 Assigned Port of Liverpool HGV Traffic FIGURE No: F1

241 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100329_Projected Port Traffic Flows.xls]2008_2030 Port HGV Increase_F5 WB EB AM PM Hr WB EB AM PM Hr WB EB NB SB WB EB AM AM 0 4 AM PM PM 0 3 PM Hr Hr Hr NB SB AM PM WB EB 24 Hr WB EB AM NB SB AM PM Hr A565 A5036 STRAND ROAD A5058 WB EB AM PM NB SB 24 Hr AM PM Hr A565 A59 AM PM PM Hr Hr A580 A5058 M57 NB SB AM PM Hr TITLE 2020 Assigned Port of Liverpool Forecast HGV Traffic FIGURE No: F2

242 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100329_Projected Port Traffic Flows.xls]2008_2030 Port HGV Increase_F5 NB SB AM PM Hr WB EB AM PM Hr NB SB NB SB NB SB AM AM 0 5 AM PM PM 0 4 PM Hr Hr Hr NB SB AM PM WB EB A Hr WB EB AM NB SB AM PM Hr A5036 STRAND ROAD A5058 WB EB AM PM NB SB 24 Hr AM PM Hr A565 A59 AM PM PM Hr Hr A580 A5058 M57 NB SB AM PM Hr TITLE 2030 Assigned Port of Liverpool Forecast HGV Traffic FIGURE No: F3

243 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100329_Projected Port Traffic Flows.xls]2008_2030 Port HGV Increase_F5 WB EB AM PM Hr WB EB AM PM Hr NB SB NB SB WB EB AM AM 0 1 AM PM PM 0 1 PM Hr Hr Hr NB SB AM PM WB EB 24 Hr WB EB AM NB SB AM PM Hr A565 A5036 STRAND ROAD A5058 WB EB AM PM NB SB 24 Hr AM 9 12 PM Hr A565 A59 AM PM PM Hr Hr A580 A5058 M57 NB SB AM PM Hr TITLE Increase in Port Liverpool Forecast HGV Traffic FIGURE No: F4

244 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100329_Projected Port Traffic Flows.xls]2008_2030 Port HGV Increase_F5 WB EB AM PM Hr WB EB AM PM Hr NB SB NB SB WB EB AM AM 0 2 AM PM PM 0 1 PM Hr Hr Hr NB SB AM PM WB EB A Hr WB EB AM NB SB AM PM Hr A5036 STRAND ROAD A5058 WB EB AM PM NB SB 24 Hr AM PM Hr A565 A59 AM PM PM Hr Hr A580 A5058 M57 NB SB AM PM Hr TITLE Increase in Port Liverpool Forecast HGV Traffic FIGURE No: F5

245 Appendix G Accident Assessment Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report

246 The Victoria The Quays, Salford, Manchester M50 3SP Appendix G ACCESS TO THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL COBA ACCIDENT ANALYSIS A565 CROSBY ROAD / A5036 PRINCESSWAY JUNCTION EXISTING ACCIDENT RECORD PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT DATA HAS BEEN OBTAINED AT THE A565 CROSBY ROAD / A5036 JUNCTION FOR THE MOST RECENTLY AVAILABLE 3 YEAR PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY FOR THE THREE YEAR PERIOD, THERE HAVE BEEN A TOTAL OF ONE PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT AT THIS JUNCTION. ASSESSMENT OF EXPECTED ACCIDENT FREQUENCY - EXISTING SITUATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A HIGHER THAN EXPECTED ACCIDENT RATE AT THIS JUNCTION, AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXPECTED ACCIDENT RATE HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN USING THE METHODOLOGY RECOMMENDED IN VOLUME 13, CHAPTER 5 OF THE DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES (DMRB). THE METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS ARE SUMMARISED BELOW:- THE ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS AT A JUNCTION IS CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS:- ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS A = a * (f)^(b) a AND b ARE FACTORS STATED IN THE COBA MANUAL. THESE FACTORS VARY BETWEEN JUNCTION TYPES AND HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY REFERENCE TO ACCIDENTS AND FLOWS AT EXISTING JUNCTIONS. THE JUNCTION TYPES, CALCULATION METHOD AND FACTORS ARE SHOWN IN TABLE 5/1 OF THE DMRB VOL 13 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 5 THE VALUATION OF ACCIDENTS AT JUNCTIONS (A COPY OF THIS TABLE IS ATTACHED TO THIS NOTE). f IS A FUNCTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW. THE METHOD OF CALCULATION VARIES BETWEEN THE CALCULATION METHOD. FOR THE CROSS PRODUCT METHOD f EQUALS THE MAJOR ROAD INFLOW MULTIPLIED BY THE MINOR ROAD INFLOW. SOURCE OF METHOD : DMRB VOL 13 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 5 THE VALUATION OF ACCIDENTS AT JUNCTIONS. JUNCTION TYPE ROUNDABOUT NUMBER OF ARMS 4 HIGHEST LINK TYPE D (DUAL LANE) FORMULA TYPE CROSS PRODUCT JUNCTION TYPE 56 SPEED LIMIT BUILT UP (UP TO 40MPH) THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING VALUES ARE DERIVED FROM TABLE 5/1 OF THE COBA MANUAL a = b = THE ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) EXPERIENCED AT THE ABOVE JUNCTION CAN BE ESTIMATED USING THE TRAFFIC FLOWS FROM THE SATURN MODEL AND APPLYING A FACTOR OBTAINED FROM A RANGE OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COUNT (ATC) IN THE VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA. THE FACTOR TO CONVERT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FLOWS TO AADT IS 5.74 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC INFLOWS:- THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED MAJOR ROAD TRAFFIC INFLOWS AT THIS JUNCTION. ARM AM PEAK PM PEAK (PCU) (PCU) A5036 PRINCESSWAY PORT ACCESS THE TOTAL MAJOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 3413 THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED MINOR ROAD TRAFFIC INFLOWS AT THIS JUNCTION. ARM AM PEAK PM PEAK (PCU) (PCU) A564 CROSBY ROAD NORTH A564 CROSBY ROAD SOUTH THE TOTAL MINOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 1844 USING THE PREVIOUSLY CALCULATED AADT FACTOR IT CAN BE ESTIMATED THAT THE AADT INFLOWS ARE AS FOLLOWS:- AADT INFLOW IS AS FOLLOWS:- MAJOR ARM MINOR ARM INFLOWS ARE MEASURED IN THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES MAJOR ROAD = 14023/1000 = 20 MINOR ARM = 10585/1000 = 11 CROSS PRODUCT f = MAJOR ROAD INFLOW * MINOR ROAD INFLOW = 207 THEREFORE, USING THE CALCULATION METHOD DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS (A) IS AS FOLLOWS = a * (f)^(b) = 0.022*207^0.850 = 2.05 EXPECTED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS IN 3 YEARS = A*3 = 6 ASSESSMENT OF INCREASE IN ACCIDENT FREQUENCY DUE TO ADDITIONAL PORT TRAFFIC

247 The Victoria The Quays, Salford, Manchester M50 3SP Appendix G ACCESS TO THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL COBA ACCIDENT ANALYSIS A565 CROSBY ROAD / A5036 PRINCESSWAY JUNCTION THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL AADT INFLOWS GENERATED BY THE PORT IN 2030 IN SCENARIO 2:- MAJOR ARM A5036 PRINCESSWAY 679 PORT ACCESS 482 THE TOTAL MAJOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 1161 MINOR ARM A564 CROSBY ROAD NORTH 0 A564 CROSBY ROAD SOUTH 358 THE TOTAL MINOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 358 INFLOWS ARE MEASURED IN THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES 9THE FOLLOWING IS THE SUM OF EXISTING INFLOWS PLUS ADDITIONAL INFLOWS GENERATED BY PORT TRAFFIC. MAJOR ROAD = 21 MINOR ARM = 10.9 CROSS PRODUCT f = MAJOR ROAD INFLOW * MINOR ROAD INFLOW = THEREFORE, USING THE CALCULATION METHOD DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS (A) IS AS FOLLOWS = a * (f)^(b) = 0.022*227.1^0.850 = 2.21 ADDITIONAL EXPECTED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS PER YEAR DUE TO INCREASE IN PORT TRAFFIC = 0.16 ESTIMATED COST PER ACCIDENT FOR JUNCTION TYPE = 54, ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL ACCIDENT COSTS PER YEAR = 8,909.83

248 The Victoria The Quays, Salford, Manchester M50 3SP Appendix G ACCESS TO THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL COBA ACCIDENT ANALYSIS BRIDGE ROAD ROUNDABOUT EXISTING ACCIDENT RECORD PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT DATA HAS BEEN OBTAINED AT THE BRIDGE ROAD ROUNDABOUT FOR THE MOST RECENTLY AVAILABLE 3 YEAR PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY FOR THE THREE YEAR PERIOD, THERE HAVE BEEN A TOTAL OF TWENTY ONE PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT AT THIS JUNCTION. ASSESSMENT OF EXPECTED ACCIDENT FREQUENCY - EXISTING SITUATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A HIGHER THAN EXPECTED ACCIDENT RATE AT THIS JUNCTION, AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXPECTED ACCIDENT RATE HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN USING THE METHODOLOGY RECOMMENDED IN VOLUME 13, CHAPTER 5 OF THE DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES (DMRB). THE METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS ARE SUMMARISED BELOW:- THE ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS AT A JUNCTION IS CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS:- ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS A = a * (f)^(b) a AND b ARE FACTORS STATED IN THE COBA MANUAL. THESE FACTORS VARY BETWEEN JUNCTION TYPES AND HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY REFERENCE TO ACCIDENTS AND FLOWS AT EXISTING JUNCTIONS. THE JUNCTION TYPES, CALCULATION METHOD AND FACTORS ARE SHOWN IN TABLE 5/1 OF THE DMRB VOL 13 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 5 THE VALUATION OF ACCIDENTS AT JUNCTIONS (A COPY OF THIS TABLE IS ATTACHED TO THIS NOTE). f IS A FUNCTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW. THE METHOD OF CALCULATION VARIES BETWEEN THE CALCULATION METHOD. FOR THE CROSS PRODUCT METHOD f EQUALS THE MAJOR ROAD INFLOW MULTIPLIED BY THE MINOR ROAD INFLOW. SOURCE OF METHOD : DMRB VOL 13 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 5 THE VALUATION OF ACCIDENTS AT JUNCTIONS. JUNCTION TYPE ROUNDABOUT NUMBER OF ARMS 5 HIGHEST LINK TYPE D (DUAL LANE) FORMULA TYPE INFLOW JUNCTION TYPE 58 SPEED LIMIT BUILT UP (UP TO 40MPH) THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING VALUES ARE DERIVED FROM TABLE 5/1 OF THE COBA MANUAL a = b = THE ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) EXPERIENCED AT THE ABOVE JUNCTION CAN BE ESTIMATED USING THE TRAFFIC FLOWS FROM THE SATURN MODEL AND APPLYING A FACTOR OBTAINED FROM A RANGE OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COUNT (ATC) IN THE VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA. THE FACTOR TO CONVERT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FLOWS TO AADT IS 5.74 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC INFLOWS:- THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED MAJOR ROAD TRAFFIC INFLOWS AT THIS JUNCTION. ARM AM PEAK PM PEAK (PCU) (PCU) A5036 CHURCH STREET (WEST) A5036 CHURCH STREET (EAST) THE TOTAL MAJOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 5792 THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED MINOR ROAD TRAFFIC INFLOWS AT THIS JUNCTION. ARM AM PEAK PM PEAK (PCU) (PCU) ASH ROAD BRIDGE ROAD SEAFORTH ROAD THE TOTAL MINOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 1125 USING THE PREVIOUSLY CALCULATED AADT FACTOR IT CAN BE ESTIMATED THAT THE AADT INFLOWS ARE AS FOLLOWS:- AADT INFLOW IS AS FOLLOWS:- MAJOR ARM MINOR ARM 6458 INFLOWS ARE MEASURED IN THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES MAJOR ROAD = 33246/1000 = 33 MINOR ARM = 6458/1000 = 6 INFLOW PRODUCT f = MAJOR ROAD INFLOW + MINOR ROAD INFLOW = 40 THEREFORE, USING THE CALCULATION METHOD DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS (A) IS AS FOLLOWS = a * (f)^(b) = 0.014*40^1.530 = 3.91 EXPECTED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS IN 3 YEARS = A*3 = 12

249 The Victoria The Quays, Salford, Manchester M50 3SP Appendix G ACCESS TO THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL COBA ACCIDENT ANALYSIS BRIDGE ROAD ROUNDABOUT ASSESSMENT OF INCREASE IN ACCIDENT FREQUENCY DUE TO ADDITIONAL PORT TRAFFIC THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL AADT INFLOWS GENERATED BY THE PORT IN 2030 IN SCENARIO 2:- MAJOR ARM A5036 CHURCH STREET (WEST) 840 A5036 CHURCH STREET (EAST) 679 THE TOTAL MAJOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 1519 MINOR ARM ASH ROAD 0 BRIDGE ROAD 0 SEAFORTH ROAD 0 THE TOTAL MINOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 0 INFLOWS ARE MEASURED IN THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES 9THE FOLLOWING IS THE SUM OF EXISTING INFLOWS PLUS ADDITIONAL INFLOWS GENERATED BY PORT TRAFFIC. MAJOR ROAD = 35 MINOR ARM = 6.5 INFLOW PRODUCT f = MAJOR ROAD INFLOW + MINOR ROAD INFLOW = 41.2 THEREFORE, USING THE CALCULATION METHOD DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS (A) IS AS FOLLOWS = a * (f)^(b) = 0.022* ^0.850 = 4.14 ADDITIONAL EXPECTED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS PER YEAR DUE TO INCREASE IN PORT TRAFFIC = 0.23 ESTIMATED COST PER ACCIDENT FOR JUNCTION TYPE = 54, ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL ACCIDENT COSTS PER YEAR = 12,525.38

250 The Victoria The Quays, Salford, Manchester M50 3SP Appendix G ACCESS TO THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL COBA ACCIDENT ANALYSIS A5036 CHURCH ROAD / HAWTHORNE ROAD JUNCTION EXISTING ACCIDENT RECORD PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT DATA HAS BEEN OBTAINED AT THE A5036 CHURCH ROAD / HAWTHORNE ROAD JUNCTION FOR THE MOST RECENTLY AVAILABLE 3 YEAR PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY FOR THE THREE YEAR PERIOD, THERE HAVE BEEN A TOTAL OF TWELVE PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT AT THIS JUNCTION. ASSESSMENT OF EXPECTED ACCIDENT FREQUENCY - EXISTING SITUATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A HIGHER THAN EXPECTED ACCIDENT RATE AT THIS JUNCTION, AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXPECTED ACCIDENT RATE HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN USING THE METHODOLOGY RECOMMENDED IN VOLUME 13, CHAPTER 5 OF THE DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES (DMRB). THE METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS ARE SUMMARISED BELOW:- THE ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS AT A JUNCTION IS CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS:- ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS A = a * (f)^(b) a AND b ARE FACTORS STATED IN THE COBA MANUAL. THESE FACTORS VARY BETWEEN JUNCTION TYPES AND HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY REFERENCE TO ACCIDENTS AND FLOWS AT EXISTING JUNCTIONS. THE JUNCTION TYPES, CALCULATION METHOD AND FACTORS ARE SHOWN IN TABLE 5/1 OF THE DMRB VOL 13 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 5 THE VALUATION OF ACCIDENTS AT JUNCTIONS (A COPY OF THIS TABLE IS ATTACHED TO THIS NOTE). f IS A FUNCTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW. THE METHOD OF CALCULATION VARIES BETWEEN THE CALCULATION METHOD. FOR THE CROSS PRODUCT METHOD f EQUALS THE MAJOR ROAD INFLOW MULTIPLIED BY THE MINOR ROAD INFLOW. SOURCE OF METHOD : DMRB VOL 13 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 5 THE VALUATION OF ACCIDENTS AT JUNCTIONS. JUNCTION TYPE TRAFFIC SIGNALS NUMBER OF ARMS 4 HIGHEST LINK TYPE D (DUAL LANE) FORMULA TYPE CROSS PRODUCT JUNCTION TYPE 44 SPEED LIMIT BUILT UP (UP TO 40MPH) THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING VALUES ARE DERIVED FROM TABLE 5/1 OF THE COBA MANUAL a = b = THE ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) EXPERIENCED AT THE ABOVE JUNCTION CAN BE ESTIMATED USING THE TRAFFIC FLOWS FROM THE SATURN MODEL AND APPLYING A FACTOR OBTAINED FROM A RANGE OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COUNT (ATC) IN THE VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA. THE FACTOR TO CONVERT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FLOWS TO AADT IS 5.74 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC INFLOWS:- THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED MAJOR ROAD TRAFFIC INFLOWS AT THIS JUNCTION. ARM AM PEAK PM PEAK (PCU) (PCU) A5036 CHURCH ROAD EAST A5036 CHURCH ROAD WEST THE TOTAL MAJOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 6077 THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED MINOR ROAD TRAFFIC INFLOWS AT THIS JUNCTION. ARM AM PEAK PM PEAK (PCU) (PCU) HAWTHORNE ROAD NORTH HAWTHORNE ROAD SOUTH THE TOTAL MINOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 2577 USING THE PREVIOUSLY CALCULATED AADT FACTOR IT CAN BE ESTIMATED THAT THE AADT INFLOWS ARE AS FOLLOWS:- AADT INFLOW IS AS FOLLOWS:- MAJOR ARM MINOR ARM INFLOWS ARE MEASURED IN THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES MAJOR ROAD = 34882/1000 = 35 MINOR ARM = 14792/1000 = 15 CROSS PRODUCT f = MAJOR ROAD INFLOW * MINOR ROAD INFLOW = 516 THEREFORE, USING THE CALCULATION METHOD DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS (A) IS AS FOLLOWS = a * (f)^(b) = 0.291*519^0.510 = 7.04 EXPECTED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS IN 3 YEARS = A*3 = 21

251 The Victoria The Quays, Salford, Manchester M50 3SP Appendix G ACCESS TO THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL COBA ACCIDENT ANALYSIS A5036 CHURCH ROAD / HAWTHORNE ROAD JUNCTION ASSESSMENT OF INCREASE IN ACCIDENT FREQUENCY DUE TO ADDITIONAL PORT TRAFFIC THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL AADT INFLOWS GENERATED BY THE PORT IN 2030 IN SCENARIO 2:- MAJOR ARM A5036 CHURCH ROAD EAST 679 A5036 CHURCH ROAD WEST 840 THE TOTAL MAJOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 1519 MINOR ARM HAWTHORNE ROAD NORTH 0 HAWTHORNE ROAD SOUTH 0 THE TOTAL MINOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 0 INFLOWS ARE MEASURED IN THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES 9THE FOLLOWING IS THE SUM OF EXISTING INFLOWS PLUS ADDITIONAL INFLOWS GENERATED BY PORT TRAFFIC. MAJOR ROAD = 36 MINOR ARM = 14.8 CROSS PRODUCT f = MAJOR ROAD INFLOW * MINOR ROAD INFLOW = THEREFORE, USING THE CALCULATION METHOD DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS (A) IS AS FOLLOWS = a * (f)^(b) = 0.022* ^0.850 = 7.19 ADDITIONAL EXPECTED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS PER YEAR DUE TO INCREASE IN PORT TRAFFIC = 0.15 ESTIMATED COST PER ACCIDENT FOR JUNCTION TYPE = 64, ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL ACCIDENT COSTS PER YEAR = 9,998.52

252 The Victoria The Quays, Salford, Manchester M50 3SP Appendix G ACCESS TO THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL COBA ACCIDENT ANALYSIS A5036 CHURCH ROAD / NETHERTON WAY ROAD JUNCTION EXISTING ACCIDENT RECORD PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT DATA HAS BEEN OBTAINED AT THE A5036 CHURCH ROAD / NETHERTON WAY JUNCTION FOR THE MOST RECENTLY AVAILABLE 3 YEAR PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY FOR THE THREE YEAR PERIOD, THERE HAVE BEEN A TOTAL OF FIFTEEN PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT AT THIS JUNCTION. ASSESSMENT OF EXPECTED ACCIDENT FREQUENCY - EXISTING SITUATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A HIGHER THAN EXPECTED ACCIDENT RATE AT THIS JUNCTION, AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXPECTED ACCIDENT RATE HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN USING THE METHODOLOGY RECOMMENDED IN VOLUME 13, CHAPTER 5 OF THE DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES (DMRB). THE METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS ARE SUMMARISED BELOW:- THE ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS AT A JUNCTION IS CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS:- ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS A = a * (f)^(b) a AND b ARE FACTORS STATED IN THE COBA MANUAL. THESE FACTORS VARY BETWEEN JUNCTION TYPES AND HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY REFERENCE TO ACCIDENTS AND FLOWS AT EXISTING JUNCTIONS. THE JUNCTION TYPES, CALCULATION METHOD AND FACTORS ARE SHOWN IN TABLE 5/1 OF THE DMRB VOL 13 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 5 THE VALUATION OF ACCIDENTS AT JUNCTIONS (A COPY OF THIS TABLE IS ATTACHED TO THIS NOTE). f IS A FUNCTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW. THE METHOD OF CALCULATION VARIES BETWEEN THE CALCULATION METHOD. FOR THE CROSS PRODUCT METHOD f EQUALS THE MAJOR ROAD INFLOW MULTIPLIED BY THE MINOR ROAD INFLOW. SOURCE OF METHOD : DMRB VOL 13 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 5 THE VALUATION OF ACCIDENTS AT JUNCTIONS. JUNCTION TYPE TRAFFIC SIGNALS NUMBER OF ARMS 4 HIGHEST LINK TYPE D (DUAL LANE) FORMULA TYPE CROSS PRODUCT JUNCTION TYPE 44 SPEED LIMIT BUILT UP (UP TO 40MPH) THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING VALUES ARE DERIVED FROM TABLE 5/1 OF THE COBA MANUAL a = b = THE ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) EXPERIENCED AT THE ABOVE JUNCTION CAN BE ESTIMATED USING THE TRAFFIC FLOWS FROM THE SATURN MODEL AND APPLYING A FACTOR OBTAINED FROM A RANGE OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COUNT (ATC) IN THE VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA. THE FACTOR TO CONVERT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FLOWS TO AADT IS 5.74 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC INFLOWS:- THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED MAJOR ROAD TRAFFIC INFLOWS AT THIS JUNCTION. ARM AM PEAK PM PEAK (PCU) (PCU) A5036 CHURCH ROAD EAST A5036 CHURCH ROAD WEST THE TOTAL MAJOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 6480 THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED MINOR ROAD TRAFFIC INFLOWS AT THIS JUNCTION. ARM AM PEAK PM PEAK (PCU) (PCU) NETHERTON WAY NORTH NETHERTON WAY SOUTH THE TOTAL MINOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 3924 USING THE PREVIOUSLY CALCULATED AADT FACTOR IT CAN BE ESTIMATED THAT THE AADT INFLOWS ARE AS FOLLOWS:- AADT INFLOW IS AS FOLLOWS:- MAJOR ARM MINOR ARM INFLOWS ARE MEASURED IN THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES MAJOR ROAD = 37195/1000 = 37 MINOR ARM = 22524/1000 = 23 CROSS PRODUCT f = MAJOR ROAD INFLOW * MINOR ROAD INFLOW = 838 THEREFORE, USING THE CALCULATION METHOD DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS (A) IS AS FOLLOWS = a * (f)^(b) = 0.291*838^0.510 = 9.01 EXPECTED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS IN 3 YEARS = A*3 = 27

253 The Victoria The Quays, Salford, Manchester M50 3SP Appendix G ACCESS TO THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL COBA ACCIDENT ANALYSIS A5036 CHURCH ROAD / NETHERTON WAY ROAD JUNCTION ASSESSMENT OF INCREASE IN ACCIDENT FREQUENCY DUE TO ADDITIONAL PORT TRAFFIC THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL AADT INFLOWS GENERATED BY THE PORT IN 2030 IN SCENARIO 2:- MAJOR ARM A5036 CHURCH ROAD EAST 679 A5036 CHURCH ROAD WEST 840 THE TOTAL MAJOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 1519 MINOR ARM NETHERTON WAY NORTH 0 NETHERTON WAY SOUTH 0 THE TOTAL MINOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 0 INFLOWS ARE MEASURED IN THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES 9THE FOLLOWING IS THE SUM OF EXISTING INFLOWS PLUS ADDITIONAL INFLOWS GENERATED BY PORT TRAFFIC. MAJOR ROAD = 39 MINOR ARM = 22.5 CROSS PRODUCT f = MAJOR ROAD INFLOW * MINOR ROAD INFLOW = THEREFORE, USING THE CALCULATION METHOD DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS (A) IS AS FOLLOWS = a * (f)^(b) = 0.022*872.0^0.850 = 9.20 ADDITIONAL EXPECTED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS PER YEAR DUE TO INCREASE IN PORT TRAFFIC = 0.19 ESTIMATED COST PER ACCIDENT FOR JUNCTION TYPE = 64, ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL ACCIDENT COSTS PER YEAR = 12,013.91

254 The Victoria The Quays, Salford, Manchester M50 3SP Appendix G ACCESS TO THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL COBA ACCIDENT ANALYSIS A5036 CHURCH ROAD / HEYSHAM ROAD JUNCTION EXISTING ACCIDENT RECORD PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT DATA HAS BEEN OBTAINED AT THE A5036 CHURCH ROAD / HEYSHAM JUNCTION FOR THE MOST RECENTLY AVAILABLE 3 YEAR PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY FOR THE THREE YEAR PERIOD, THERE HAVE BEEN A TOTAL OF THIRTEEN PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT AT THIS JUNCTION. ASSESSMENT OF EXPECTED ACCIDENT FREQUENCY - EXISTING SITUATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A HIGHER THAN EXPECTED ACCIDENT RATE AT THIS JUNCTION, AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXPECTED ACCIDENT RATE HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN USING THE METHODOLOGY RECOMMENDED IN VOLUME 13, CHAPTER 5 OF THE DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES (DMRB). THE METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS ARE SUMMARISED BELOW:- THE ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS AT A JUNCTION IS CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS:- ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS A = a * (f)^(b) a AND b ARE FACTORS STATED IN THE COBA MANUAL. THESE FACTORS VARY BETWEEN JUNCTION TYPES AND HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY REFERENCE TO ACCIDENTS AND FLOWS AT EXISTING JUNCTIONS. THE JUNCTION TYPES, CALCULATION METHOD AND FACTORS ARE SHOWN IN TABLE 5/1 OF THE DMRB VOL 13 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 5 THE VALUATION OF ACCIDENTS AT JUNCTIONS (A COPY OF THIS TABLE IS ATTACHED TO THIS NOTE). f IS A FUNCTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW. THE METHOD OF CALCULATION VARIES BETWEEN THE CALCULATION METHOD. FOR THE CROSS PRODUCT METHOD f EQUALS THE MAJOR ROAD INFLOW MULTIPLIED BY THE MINOR ROAD INFLOW. SOURCE OF METHOD : DMRB VOL 13 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 5 THE VALUATION OF ACCIDENTS AT JUNCTIONS. JUNCTION TYPE TRAFFIC SIGNALS NUMBER OF ARMS 4 HIGHEST LINK TYPE D (DUAL LANE) FORMULA TYPE CROSS PRODUCT JUNCTION TYPE 44 SPEED LIMIT BUILT UP (UP TO 40MPH) THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING VALUES ARE DERIVED FROM TABLE 5/1 OF THE COBA MANUAL a = b = THE ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) EXPERIENCED AT THE ABOVE JUNCTION CAN BE ESTIMATED USING THE TRAFFIC FLOWS FROM THE SATURN MODEL AND APPLYING A FACTOR OBTAINED FROM A RANGE OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COUNT (ATC) IN THE VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA. THE FACTOR TO CONVERT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FLOWS TO AADT IS 5.74 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC INFLOWS:- THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED MAJOR ROAD TRAFFIC INFLOWS AT THIS JUNCTION. ARM AM PEAK PM PEAK (PCU) (PCU) A5036 CHURCH ROAD EAST A5036 CHURCH ROAD WEST THE TOTAL MAJOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 8290 THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED MINOR ROAD TRAFFIC INFLOWS AT THIS JUNCTION. ARM AM PEAK PM PEAK (PCU) (PCU) HEYSHAM ROAD NORTH HEYSHAM ROAD SOUTH THE TOTAL MINOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 1174 USING THE PREVIOUSLY CALCULATED AADT FACTOR IT CAN BE ESTIMATED THAT THE AADT INFLOWS ARE AS FOLLOWS:- AADT INFLOW IS AS FOLLOWS:- MAJOR ARM MINOR ARM 6739 INFLOWS ARE MEASURED IN THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES MAJOR ROAD = 47585/1000 = 48 MINOR ARM = 6739/1000 = 7 CROSS PRODUCT f = MAJOR ROAD INFLOW * MINOR ROAD INFLOW = 321 THEREFORE, USING THE CALCULATION METHOD DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS (A) IS AS FOLLOWS = a * (f)^(b) = 0.291*321^0.510 = 5.52 EXPECTED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS IN 3 YEARS = A*3 = 17 ASSESSMENT OF INCREASE IN ACCIDENT FREQUENCY DUE TO ADDITIONAL PORT TRAFFIC

255 The Victoria The Quays, Salford, Manchester M50 3SP Appendix G ACCESS TO THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL COBA ACCIDENT ANALYSIS A5036 CHURCH ROAD / HEYSHAM ROAD JUNCTION THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL AADT INFLOWS GENERATED BY THE PORT IN 2030 IN SCENARIO 2:- MAJOR ARM A5036 CHURCH ROAD EAST 679 A5036 CHURCH ROAD WEST 840 THE TOTAL MAJOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 1519 MINOR ARM HEYSHAM ROAD NORTH 0 HEYSHAM ROAD SOUTH 0 THE TOTAL MINOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 0 INFLOWS ARE MEASURED IN THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES 9THE FOLLOWING IS THE SUM OF EXISTING INFLOWS PLUS ADDITIONAL INFLOWS GENERATED BY PORT TRAFFIC. MAJOR ROAD = 49 MINOR ARM = 6.7 CROSS PRODUCT f = MAJOR ROAD INFLOW * MINOR ROAD INFLOW = THEREFORE, USING THE CALCULATION METHOD DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS (A) IS AS FOLLOWS = a * (f)^(b) = 0.022*330.9^0.850 = 5.61 ADDITIONAL EXPECTED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS PER YEAR DUE TO INCREASE IN PORT TRAFFIC = 0.09 ESTIMATED COST PER ACCIDENT FOR JUNCTION TYPE = 64, ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL ACCIDENT COSTS PER YEAR = 5,766.56

256 The Victoria The Quays, Salford, Manchester M50 3SP Appendix G ACCESS TO THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL COBA ACCIDENT ANALYSIS A5036 CHURCH ROAD / COPY LANE JUNCTION EXISTING ACCIDENT RECORD PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT DATA HAS BEEN OBTAINED AT THE A5036 CHURCH ROAD / COPY LANE JUNCTION FOR THE MOST RECENTLY AVAILABLE 3 YEAR PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY FOR THE THREE YEAR PERIOD, THERE HAVE BEEN A TOTAL OF THIRTEEN PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT AT THIS JUNCTION. ASSESSMENT OF EXPECTED ACCIDENT FREQUENCY - EXISTING SITUATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE IS A HIGHER THAN EXPECTED ACCIDENT RATE AT THIS JUNCTION, AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXPECTED ACCIDENT RATE HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN USING THE METHODOLOGY RECOMMENDED IN VOLUME 13, CHAPTER 5 OF THE DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES (DMRB). THE METHODOLOGY AND CALCULATIONS ARE SUMMARISED BELOW:- THE ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS AT A JUNCTION IS CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS:- ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS A = a * (f)^(b) a AND b ARE FACTORS STATED IN THE COBA MANUAL. THESE FACTORS VARY BETWEEN JUNCTION TYPES AND HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY REFERENCE TO ACCIDENTS AND FLOWS AT EXISTING JUNCTIONS. THE JUNCTION TYPES, CALCULATION METHOD AND FACTORS ARE SHOWN IN TABLE 5/1 OF THE DMRB VOL 13 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 5 THE VALUATION OF ACCIDENTS AT JUNCTIONS (A COPY OF THIS TABLE IS ATTACHED TO THIS NOTE). f IS A FUNCTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW. THE METHOD OF CALCULATION VARIES BETWEEN THE CALCULATION METHOD. FOR THE CROSS PRODUCT METHOD f EQUALS THE MAJOR ROAD INFLOW MULTIPLIED BY THE MINOR ROAD INFLOW. SOURCE OF METHOD : DMRB VOL 13 SECTION 1 CHAPTER 5 THE VALUATION OF ACCIDENTS AT JUNCTIONS. JUNCTION TYPE TRAFFIC SIGNALS NUMBER OF ARMS 4 HIGHEST LINK TYPE D (DUAL LANE) FORMULA TYPE CROSS PRODUCT JUNCTION TYPE 44 SPEED LIMIT BUILT UP (UP TO 40MPH) THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING VALUES ARE DERIVED FROM TABLE 5/1 OF THE COBA MANUAL a = b = THE ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) EXPERIENCED AT THE ABOVE JUNCTION CAN BE ESTIMATED USING THE TRAFFIC FLOWS FROM THE SATURN MODEL AND APPLYING A FACTOR OBTAINED FROM A RANGE OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC COUNT (ATC) IN THE VICINITY OF THE STUDY AREA. THE FACTOR TO CONVERT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC FLOWS TO AADT IS 5.74 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC INFLOWS:- THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED MAJOR ROAD TRAFFIC INFLOWS AT THIS JUNCTION. ARM AM PEAK PM PEAK (PCU) (PCU) A5036 CHURCH ROAD EAST A5036 CHURCH ROAD WEST THE TOTAL MAJOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 8670 THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED MINOR ROAD TRAFFIC INFLOWS AT THIS JUNCTION. ARM AM PEAK PM PEAK (PCU) (PCU) COPY LANE NORTH COPY LANE SOUTH THE TOTAL MINOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 3007 USING THE PREVIOUSLY CALCULATED AADT FACTOR IT CAN BE ESTIMATED THAT THE AADT INFLOWS ARE AS FOLLOWS:- AADT INFLOW IS AS FOLLOWS:- MAJOR ARM MINOR ARM INFLOWS ARE MEASURED IN THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES MAJOR ROAD = 49766/1000 = 50 MINOR ARM = 17260/1000 = 17 CROSS PRODUCT f = MAJOR ROAD INFLOW * MINOR ROAD INFLOW = 859 THEREFORE, USING THE CALCULATION METHOD DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS (A) IS AS FOLLOWS = a * (f)^(b) = 0.291*859^0.510 = 9.12 EXPECTED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS IN 3 YEARS = A*3 = 27 ASSESSMENT OF INCREASE IN ACCIDENT FREQUENCY DUE TO ADDITIONAL PORT TRAFFIC

257 The Victoria The Quays, Salford, Manchester M50 3SP Appendix G ACCESS TO THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL COBA ACCIDENT ANALYSIS A5036 CHURCH ROAD / COPY LANE JUNCTION THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL AADT INFLOWS GENERATED BY THE PORT IN 2030 IN SCENARIO 2:- MAJOR ARM A5036 CHURCH ROAD EAST 679 A5036 CHURCH ROAD WEST 840 THE TOTAL MAJOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 1519 MINOR ARM COPY LANE NORTH 0 COPY LANE SOUTH 0 THE TOTAL MINOR ARM PEAK HOUR INFLOW IS THEREFORE 0 INFLOWS ARE MEASURED IN THOUSANDS OF VEHICLES 9THE FOLLOWING IS THE SUM OF EXISTING INFLOWS PLUS ADDITIONAL INFLOWS GENERATED BY PORT TRAFFIC. MAJOR ROAD = 51 MINOR ARM = 17.3 CROSS PRODUCT f = MAJOR ROAD INFLOW * MINOR ROAD INFLOW = THEREFORE, USING THE CALCULATION METHOD DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE EXPECTED ANNUAL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS (A) IS AS FOLLOWS = a * (f)^(b) = 0.022*885.2^0.850 = 9.27 ADDITIONAL EXPECTED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS PER YEAR DUE TO INCREASE IN PORT TRAFFIC = 0.14 ESTIMATED COST PER ACCIDENT FOR JUNCTION TYPE = 64, ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL ACCIDENT COSTS PER YEAR = 9,116.80

258 The Victoria The Quays, Salford, Manchester M50 3SP Appendix G ACCESS TO THE PORT OF LIVERPOOL COBA ACCIDENT ANALYSIS SWITCH ISLAND ROUNDABOUT EXISTING ACCIDENT RECORD PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT DATA HAS BEEN OBTAINED AT THE SWITCH ISLAND ROUNDABOUT FOR THE MOST RECENTLY AVAILABLE 3 YEAR PERIOD ENDING FEBRUARY FOR THE THREE YEAR PERIOD, THERE HAVE BEEN A TOTAL OF THIRTY FOUR PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT AT THIS JUNCTION. ASSESSMENT OF EXPECTED ACCIDENT FREQUENCY - EXISTING SITUATION GIVEN THE UNUSUAL LAYOUT OF THE SWITCH ISLAND JUNCTION, IT IS NOT CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO USE VOLUME 13, CHAPTER 5 OF THE DESIGN MANUAL FOR ROADS AND BRIDGES (DMRB). TD 16 / 07 OF THE DMRB PROVIDES AVERAGE ACCIDENT FREQUENCIES FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF ROUNDABOUTS. THE SWITCH ISLAND ROUNDABOUT IS OF UNUSUAL DESIGN AND COULD BE CLASSIFIED AS EITHER A DUAL CARRIAGEWAY ROUNDABOUT AND / OR GRADE SEPARATED ROUNDABOUT. TYPICAL ACCIDENT FREQUENCIES FOR THESE TYPE OF ROUNDABOUTS ARE PROVIDED BELOW. THE DATA SOURCES ARE BASED ON A SAMPLE OF 1,162 ROUNDABOUTS. EXPECTED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS PER YEAR EXPECTED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS THREE YEARS DUAL CARRIAGEWAY GRADE SEPARATED AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, THE EXPECTED NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS FOR BOTH JUNCTION TYPE IS BELOW THE LEVEL THAT CURRENTLY OCCURS AT THE SWITCH ISLAND ROUNDABOUT.

259 Appendix H SATURN Model Outputs Summary Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report

260 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100511_Atkins Model Traffic Flows.xls]2009_HGVs_Actual A565 CROSBY ROAD NORTH A565 CROSBY ROAD SOUTH 20 EB WB CAMBRIDGE ROAD AM NB SB IP AM PM IP PM A59 11 EB WB 10 EB WB 9 EB WB 8 EB WB 6 EB WB 1 EB WB 2 EB WB AM AM AM AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM PM PM PM A5036 PRINCESS WAY A5036 CHURCH ROAD A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD M58 ** All flows in PCUs ** 7 EB WB M57 3 EB WB 13 NB SB A567 AM AM AM BRIDGE ROAD IP IP IP PM PM PM NB SB AM SEAFORTH ROAD IP PM A59ORMSKIRK ROAD A5098 MARSH LANE 14 NB SB AM IP PM STRAND ROAD 15 NB SB 17 EB WB 18 EB WB 19 EB WB AM AM 6 30 AM AM IP IP 1 12 IP IP PM PM 23 8 PM PM A5058 MILLERS BRIDGE 16 NB SB AM IP PM DOUGLAS PLACE A567 STANLEY ROAD A5090 HAWTHORNE ROAD ORRELL ROAD A5058 BALLIOL ROAD EAST KIRKSTONE ROAD A5038 NETHERTON WAY A5038 SOUTHPORT ROAD A59 RICE LANE PARK LANE A5058 SOUTHPORT ROAD HEYSHAM ROAD COPY LANE 2009: HGV Traffic Actual Flow Appendix H1

261 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100511_Atkins Model Traffic Flows.xls]2009_HGVs_Actual A565 CROSBY ROAD NORTH A565 CROSBY ROAD SOUTH CAMBRIDGE ROAD 20 EB WB AM NB SB IP AM PM IP PM A59 11 EB WB 10 EB WB 9 EB WB 8 EB WB 6 EB WB 1 EB WB 2 EB WB AM AM AM AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM PM PM PM A5036 PRINCESS WAY A5036 CHURCH ROAD A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD M58 7 EB WB M57 3 EB WB A NB SB AM AM AM BRIDGE ROAD IP IP IP PM PM PM NB SB AM SEAFORTH ROAD IP PM A59ORMSKIRK ROAD A5098 MARSH LANE 14 NB SB AM IP PM STRAND ROAD 15 NB SB 17 EB WB 18 EB WB 19 EB WB AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM A5058 MILLERS BRIDGE 16 NB SB AM IP PM DOUGLAS PLACE ** All flows in PCUs ** A567 STANLEY ROAD A5090 HAWTHORNE ROAD ORRELL ROAD A5058 BALLIOL ROAD EAST KIRKSTONE ROAD A5038 NETHERTON WAY A5038 SOUTHPORT ROAD A59 RICE LANE PARK LANE A5058 SOUTHPORT ROAD HEYSHAM ROAD COPY LANE 2009: Total Traffic Actual Flow Appendix H2

262 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100511_Atkins Model Traffic Flows.xls]2009_HGVs_Actual A565 CROSBY ROAD NORTH A565 CROSBY ROAD SOUTH 20 EB WB CAMBRIDGE ROAD AM NB SB IP AM PM IP PM A59 11 EB WB 10 EB WB 9 EB WB 8 EB WB 6 EB WB 1 EB WB 2 EB WB AM AM AM AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP IP IP IP 15 8 PM PM PM PM PM PM PM A5036 PRINCESS WAY A5036 CHURCH ROAD A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD M58 7 EB WB M57 3 EB WB A NB SB AM AM AM BRIDGE ROAD IP IP IP PM PM PM NB SB AM SEAFORTH ROAD IP PM A59ORMSKIRK ROAD A5098 MARSH LANE 14 NB SB AM IP PM STRAND ROAD 15 NB SB 17 EB WB 18 EB WB 19 EB WB AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM A5058 MILLERS BRIDGE 16 NB SB AM IP PM DOUGLAS PLACE ** All flows in PCUs ** A567 STANLEY ROAD A5090 HAWTHORNE ROAD ORRELL ROAD A5058 BALLIOL ROAD EAST KIRKSTONE ROAD A5038 NETHERTON WAY A5038 SOUTHPORT ROAD A59 RICE LANE PARK LANE A5058 SOUTHPORT ROAD HEYSHAM ROAD COPY LANE 2009: Volume: Capacity Ratio Appendix H3

263 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100511_Atkins Model Traffic Flows.xls]2009_HGVs_Actual A565 CROSBY ROAD NORTH A565 CROSBY ROAD SOUTH 20 EB WB CAMBRIDGE ROAD AM NB SB IP AM PM IP PM A59 11 EB WB 10 EB WB 9 EB WB 8 EB WB 6 EB WB 1 EB WB 2 EB WB AM AM AM AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM PM PM PM A5036 PRINCESS WAY A5036 CHURCH ROAD A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD M58 7 EB WB M57 3 EB WB A NB SB AM AM AM BRIDGE ROAD IP IP IP PM PM PM NB SB AM SEAFORTH ROAD IP PM A59ORMSKIRK ROAD A5098 MARSH MARSH LANE LANE 14 NB SB AM IP PM STRAND ROAD 15 NB SB 17 EB WB 18 EB WB 19 EB WB AM AM 28 6 AM AM IP IP 3 12 IP 41 4 IP PM PM 25 7 PM PM A5058 MILLERS BRIDGE 16 NB SB AM IP PM DOUGLAS PLACE ** All flows in PCUs ** A567 STANLEY ROAD A5090 HAWTHORNE ROAD ORRELL ROAD A5058 BALLIOL ROAD EAST KIRKSTONE ROAD A5038 NETHERTON WAY A5038 SOUTHPORT ROAD A59 RICE LANE PARK LANE A5058 SOUTHPORT ROAD HEYSHAM ROAD COPY LANE 2027 Do Minimum: HGV Traffic Actual Flow Appendix H4

264 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100511_Atkins Model Traffic Flows.xls]2009_HGVs_Actual A565 CROSBY ROAD NORTH A565 CROSBY ROAD SOUTH CAMBRIDGE ROAD 20 EB WB AM NB SB IP AM PM IP PM A59 11 EB WB 10 EB WB 9 EB WB 8 EB WB 6 EB WB 1 EB WB 2 EB WB AM AM AM AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM PM PM PM A5036 PRINCESS WAY A5036 CHURCH ROAD A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD M58 7 EB WB M57 3 EB WB A NB SB AM AM AM BRIDGE ROAD IP IP IP PM PM PM NB SB AM SEAFORTH ROAD IP PM A59ORMSKIRK ROAD A5098 MARSH LANE 14 NB SB AM IP PM STRAND ROAD 15 NB SB 17 EB WB 18 EB WB 19 EB WB AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM A5058 MILLERS BRIDGE 16 NB SB AM IP PM DOUGLAS PLACE ** All flows in PCUs ** A567 STANLEY ROAD A5090 HAWTHORNE ROAD ORRELL ROAD A5058 BALLIOL ROAD EAST KIRKSTONE ROAD A5038 NETHERTON WAY A5038 SOUTHPORT ROAD A59 RICE LANE PARK LANE A5058 SOUTHPORT ROAD HEYSHAM ROAD COPY LANE 2027 Do Minimum: Total Traffic Actual Flow Appendix H5

265 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100511_Atkins Model Traffic Flows.xls]2009_HGVs_Actual A565 CROSBY ROAD NORTH A565 CROSBY ROAD SOUTH 20 EB WB CAMBRIDGE ROAD AM NB SB IP AM PM IP PM A59 11 EB WB 10 EB WB 9 EB WB 8 EB WB 6 EB WB 1 EB WB 2 EB WB AM AM AM AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM PM PM PM A5036 PRINCESS WAY A5036 CHURCH ROAD A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD M58 7 EB WB M57 3 EB WB A NB SB AM AM AM BRIDGE ROAD IP IP IP PM PM PM NB SB AM SEAFORTH ROAD IP PM A59ORMSKIRK ROAD A5098 MARSH LANE 14 NB SB AM IP PM STRAND ROAD 15 NB SB 17 EB WB 18 EB WB 19 EB WB AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM A5058 MILLERS BRIDGE 16 NB SB AM IP PM DOUGLAS PLACE ** All flows in PCUs ** A567 STANLEY ROAD A5090 HAWTHORNE ROAD ORRELL ROAD A5058 BALLIOL ROAD EAST KIRKSTONE ROAD A5038 NETHERTON WAY A5038 SOUTHPORT ROAD A59 RICE LANE PARK LANE A5058 SOUTHPORT ROAD HEYSHAM ROAD COPY LANE 2027 Do Minimum: Volume: Capacity Ratio Appendix H6

266 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100511_Atkins Model Traffic Flows.xls]2009_HGVs_Actual A565 CROSBY ROAD NORTH A565 CROSBY ROAD SOUTH 20 EB WB CAMBRIDGE ROAD AM NB SB IP AM PM IP PM A59 11 EB WB 10 EB WB 9 EB WB 8 EB WB 6 EB WB 1 EB WB 2 EB WB AM AM AM AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM PM PM PM A5036 PRINCESS WAY A5036 CHURCH ROAD A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD M58 7 EB WB M57 3 EB WB A NB SB AM AM AM BRIDGE ROAD IP IP IP PM PM PM NB SB AM SEAFORTH ROAD IP PM A59ORMSKIRK ROAD A5098 MARSH LANE 14 NB SB AM IP PM STRAND ROAD 15 NB SB 17 EB WB 18 EB WB 19 EB WB AM AM 6 27 AM AM IP IP 3 12 IP 38 6 IP PM PM 25 8 PM PM A5058 MILLERS BRIDGE 16 NB SB AM IP PM DOUGLAS PLACE ** All flows in PCUs ** A567 STANLEY ROAD A5090 HAWTHORNE ROAD ORRELL ROAD A5058 BALLIOL ROAD EAST KIRKSTONE ROAD A5038 NETHERTON WAY A5038 SOUTHPORT ROAD A59 RICE LANE PARK LANE A5058 SOUTHPORT ROAD HEYSHAM ROAD COPY LANE 2027 Do Something: HGV Traffic Actual Flow Appendix H7

267 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100511_Atkins Model Traffic Flows.xls]2009_HGVs_Actual A565 CROSBY ROAD NORTH A565 CROSBY ROAD SOUTH CAMBRIDGE ROAD 20 EB WB AM NB SB IP AM PM IP PM A59 11 EB WB 10 EB WB 9 EB WB 8 EB WB 6 EB WB 1 EB WB 2 EB WB AM AM AM AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM PM PM PM A5036 PRINCESS WAY A5036 CHURCH ROAD A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD M58 7 EB WB M57 3 EB WB A NB SB AM AM AM BRIDGE ROAD IP IP IP PM PM PM NB SB AM SEAFORTH ROAD IP PM A59ORMSKIRK ROAD A5098 MARSH LANE 14 NB SB AM IP PM STRAND ROAD 15 NB SB 17 EB WB 18 EB WB 19 EB WB AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM A5058 MILLERS BRIDGE 16 NB SB AM IP PM DOUGLAS PLACE ** All flows in PCUs ** A567 STANLEY ROAD A5090 HAWTHORNE ROAD ORRELL ROAD A5058 BALLIOL ROAD EAST KIRKSTONE ROAD A5038 NETHERTON WAY A5038 SOUTHPORT ROAD A59 RICE LANE PARK LANE A5058 SOUTHPORT ROAD HEYSHAM ROAD COPY LANE 2027 Do Something: Total Traffic Actual Flow Appendix H8

268 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100511_Atkins Model Traffic Flows.xls]2009_HGVs_Actual A565 CROSBY ROAD NORTH A565 CROSBY ROAD SOUTH 20 EB WB CAMBRIDGE ROAD AM NB SB IP AM PM IP PM EB WB 10 EB WB 9 EB WB 8 EB WB 6 EB WB 1 EB WB 2 EB WB AM AM AM AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM PM PM PM A5036 PRINCESS WAY A5036 CHURCH ROAD A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD M58 7 EB WB M57 3 EB WB A NB SB AM AM AM BRIDGE ROAD IP IP IP PM PM PM NB SB AM SEAFORTH ROAD IP A59ORMSKIRK PM ROAD A5098 MARSH LANE 14 NB SB AM IP PM STRAND ROAD 15 NB SB 17 EB WB 18 EB WB 19 EB WB AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM A5058 MILLERS BRIDGE 16 NB SB AM IP PM DOUGLAS PLACE ** All flows in PCUs ** A567 STANLEY ROAD A5090 HAWTHORNE ROAD ORRELL ROAD A5058 BALLIOL ROAD EAST KIRKSTONE ROAD A5038 NETHERTON WAY A5038 SOUTHPORT ROAD A59 RICE LANE PARK LANE A5058 SOUTHPORT ROAD HEYSHAM ROAD COPY LANE A Do Something: Volume:Capacity Ratio Appendix H9

269 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100511_Atkins Model Traffic Flows.xls]2009_HGVs_Actual A565 CROSBY ROAD NORTH A565 CROSBY ROAD SOUTH 20 EB WB CAMBRIDGE ROAD AM NB SB IP AM PM IP PM A59 11 EB WB 10 EB WB 9 EB WB 8 EB WB 6 EB WB 1 EB WB 2 EB WB AM AM AM AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM PM PM PM A5036 PRINCESS WAY A5036 CHURCH ROAD A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD M58 7 EB WB M57 3 EB WB 13 NB SB A567 AM AM AM BRIDGE ROAD IP IP IP PM PM PM NB SB SEAFORTH ROAD AM IP PM A59ORMSKIRK ROAD A5098 MARSH LANE 14 NB SB AM IP PM STRAND ROAD 15 NB SB 17 EB WB 18 EB WB 19 EB WB AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM A5058 MILLERS BRIDGE 16 NB SB AM IP PM DOUGLAS PLACE ** All flows in PCUs ** A567 STANLEY ROAD A5090 HAWTHORNE ROAD ORRELL ROAD A5058 BALLIOL ROAD EAST KIRKSTONE ROAD A5038 NETHERTON WAY A5038 SOUTHPORT ROAD A59 RICE LANE PARK LANE A5058 SOUTHPORT ROAD HEYSHAM ROAD COPY LANE 2027 Do Something: Total Traffic Demand Flow Appendix H10

270 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100511_Atkins Model Traffic Flows.xls]2009_HGVs_Actual A565 CROSBY ROAD NORTH A565 CROSBY ROAD SOUTH 20 EB WB CAMBRIDGE ROAD AM NB SB IP AM PM IP PM A59 11 EB WB 10 EB WB 9 EB WB 8 EB WB 6 EB WB 1 EB WB 2 EB WB AM AM AM AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM PM PM PM A5036 PRINCESS WAY A5036 CHURCH ROAD A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD M58 7 EB WB M57 3 EB WB 13 NB SB A567 AM AM AM BRIDGE ROAD IP IP IP PM PM PM NB SB SEAFORTH ROAD AM IP PM A59ORMSKIRK ROAD A5098 MARSH LANE 14 NB SB AM IP PM STRAND ROAD 15 NB SB 17 EB WB 18 EB WB 19 EB WB AM AM AM AM IP IP IP IP PM PM PM PM A5058 MILLERS BRIDGE 16 NB SB AM IP PM DOUGLAS PLACE ** All flows in PCUs ** A567 STANLEY ROAD A5090 HAWTHORNE ROAD ORRELL ROAD A5058 BALLIOL ROAD EAST KIRKSTONE ROAD A5038 NETHERTON WAY A5038 SOUTHPORT ROAD A59 RICE LANE PARK LANE A5058 SOUTHPORT ROAD HEYSHAM ROAD COPY LANE 2027 Do Minimum: Total Traffic Demand Flow Appendix H11

271 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100511_Atkins Model Traffic Flows.xls]2009_HGVs_Actual A565 CROSBY ROAD NORTH A565 CROSBY ROAD SOUTH CAMBRIDGE ROAD 20 EB WB AM NB SB IP 8 1 AM PM IP 0 0 PM A59 11 EB WB 10 EB WB 9 EB WB 8 EB WB 6 EB WB 1 EB WB 2 EB WB AM AM AM AM AM AM AM 20 0 IP 0 0 IP 0 0 IP 0 1 IP 0 0 IP 41 1 IP 28 0 IP 5 0 PM 3 40 PM PM PM PM PM 81 0 A5036 PRINCESS WAY A5036 CHURCH ROAD A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD M58 7 EB WB M57 3 EB WB A NB SB AM AM AM 1 74 BRIDGE ROAD IP 0 0 IP 15 0 IP 0 0 PM 48 7 PM 88 0 PM NB SB AM SEAFORTH ROAD IP 1 2 PM A59ORMSKIRK ROAD A5098 MARSH LANE 14 NB SB AM 0 65 IP 0 0 PM 0 16 STRAND ROAD 15 NB SB 17 EB WB 18 EB WB 19 EB WB AM 0 0 AM 0 0 AM 0 0 AM 0 0 IP 0 0 IP 0 0 IP 0 0 IP 0 0 PM 0 0 PM 0 0 PM 0 0 PM 0 0 A5058 MILLERS BRIDGE 16 NB SB AM 0 0 IP 0 0 PM 0 0 DOUGLAS PLACE ** All flows in PCUs ** A567 STANLEY ROAD A5090 HAWTHORNE ROAD ORRELL ROAD A5058 BALLIOL ROAD EAST KIRKSTONE ROAD A5038 NETHERTON WAY A5038 SOUTHPORT ROAD A59 RICE LANE PARK LANE A5058 SOUTHPORT ROAD HEYSHAM ROAD COPY LANE 2027 Do Minimum: Demand Flow/ Actual Flow Difference Appendix H12

272 J:\WSPDSchemes\Integrated Transport\Access to Port of Liverpool\ANALYSIS\Spreadsheets\Traffic Flows\[100511_Atkins Model Traffic Flows.xls]2009_HGVs_Actual A565 CROSBY ROAD NORTH A565 CROSBY ROAD SOUTH CAMBRIDGE ROAD 20 EB WB AM NB SB IP 7 1 AM PM IP 0 0 PM A59 11 EB WB 10 EB WB 9 EB WB 8 EB WB 6 EB WB 1 EB WB 2 EB WB AM 7 87 AM AM AM AM AM AM 17 0 IP 0 0 IP 1 1 IP 0 0 IP 0 0 IP 38 0 IP 27 0 IP 6 0 PM 3 36 PM PM PM PM PM A5036 PRINCESS WAY A5036 CHURCH ROAD A5036 DUNNINGS BRIDGE ROAD M58 7 EB WB M57 3 EB WB A NB SB AM AM AM 0 57 BRIDGE ROAD IP 0 1 IP 11 0 IP 0 0 PM 53 3 PM 58 0 PM NB SB AM SEAFORTH ROAD IP PM A59ORMSKIRK ROAD A5098 MARSH LANE 14 NB SB AM 0 48 IP 0 0 PM 0 17 STRAND ROAD 15 NB SB 17 EB WB 18 EB WB 19 EB WB AM 0 0 AM 0 0 AM 0 0 AM 0 0 IP 0 0 IP 0 0 IP 0 0 IP 0 0 PM 0 0 PM 0 0 PM 0 0 PM 0 0 A5058 MILLERS BRIDGE 16 NB SB AM 0 0 IP 0 0 PM 0 0 DOUGLAS PLACE ** All flows in PCUs ** A567 STANLEY ROAD A5090 HAWTHORNE ROAD ORRELL ROAD A5058 BALLIOL ROAD EAST KIRKSTONE ROAD A5038 NETHERTON WAY A5038 SOUTHPORT ROAD A59 RICE LANE PARK LANE A5058 SOUTHPORT ROAD HEYSHAM ROAD COPY LANE 2027 Do Something: Demand Flow/ Actual Flow Difference Appendix H13

273 Figures Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report

274 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

275 Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report

276 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

277 Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report

278 Stage 1 Report Access to the Port of Liverpool

279 Access to the Port of Liverpool Stage 1 Report