S'HAMPTON PORT PLAN

[FinesseChris]

S\'HAMPTON PORT PLAN

From the dept of Transport:
News Release 2004/0042:
20 April 2004

DIBDEN BAY PORT TERMINAL PROPOSALS REJECTED

Transport Minister Tony McNulty today accepted the recommendation of the Dibden Bay Inquiry Inspector to turn down proposals for a new container terminal on Southampton Water. This decision was based on the individual merits of this application.


Associated British Ports proposed to build a 1.85 kilometre long, six berth deep water quay at Dibden Bay covering some 240 hectares of the site, known as the Dibden Reclaim, and taking some 76 hectares of intertidal foreshore, some of it designated as of international conservation importance, to provide new container terminal facilities. ..........

More detail at http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2004_0042

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[[2574]]

Re: S\'HAMPTON PORT PLAN

what astonishing news, everyone was thinking that this was a foregone conclusion. Obviously the right decision for Hythe, but what about Southampton port, the city and Hampshire generally? Big economic impact surely.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Evadne]

Re: S\'HAMPTON PORT PLAN

I agree, I thought it was a foregone conclusion, we'll have to wait for ABP's appeal I guess.
My opinion was that ABP intended to transfer as much of its port activities as it could over to Dibden in the long term, especially the car transporters, leaving it free to make a killing from the acres of potential offices and housing to be built around ocean village and the cruise liner terminal. Not getting the go ahead will not decrease the port traffic, except for the extra-large box boats of the future. The car transporters, grain ships and cruise liners, not to mention the "smaller" container ships will continue to call, IMHO.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[milltech]

Re: S\'HAMPTON PORT PLAN

I agree with that. On my limited visits to the docks, and without any specific skill or understanding, there appear to be acres of unused area either containing old structures or just waste ground that they could utilise, and I don't suppose it's too wide of the mark to guess they had the City Centre development potential of the waterfront in mind.

I think its a pity that waterfront areas have not been adequately protected on the Thames and elsewhere. Traditional marine industries can never compete with modern real estate values.

<hr width=100% size=1>John
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.allgadgets.co.uk>http://www.allgadgets.co.uk</A>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Phew!

And well done the Cruising Association, which continued to object after the RYA did a deal with ABP.

I guess the price of property in Hythe Marina ViIlage has just shot up!

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[flaming]

Re: S\'HAMPTON PORT PLAN

Don't really see your logic there. A large modern port is hardly a thing of beauty! When the old docks were built the cargo was offloaded by hand and transported by horse. This obviously meant the docks needed to be a close as possible to the markets. Modern docks have very large machinery and are considered something of an eyesore. Better they're downriver away from residential areas, having a modern dockyard in the centre of London would not be a popular option!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: It\'ll go through on appeal.

There's no logical argument against it. The port needs more volume to meet the needs of the UK.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ships_parrot]

Re: S\'HAMPTON PORT PLAN

<snip>
having a modern dockyard in the centre of London would not be a popular option!
</snip>

There are a lot of people in London, so you can say that a large share of what gets unloaded at the docks downriver would be transported by lorry (relatively inefficiently) to get it to London doing nothing for traffic or the environment.
All this to make sure the people using the stuff don't have to put up with the unpleasant reality of their consumer lifestyle while someone else does. The sooner everyone realises that everything has it's price the better.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[brianhumber]

Re: Not as simple as that

Having just read about the new bigger C/Bs in my institute mag, if they do not call then the feeder boats will not come to service them either. They will go to Le Harve or Belguim/Holland, therefore loss of trade, loss of jobs, resulting in no income for the NIMBY pension funds etc etc.

Still the NIMBYs can visit the deserted docks heritage museums, or wade in the mudflats in compensation I suppose.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[nicho]

Re: Phew!

They're already £400K for a small 3 bed terrace, £450K for a slightly larger one, whilst a friend has just sold a 5 bedroom one for £1 million!! The most expensive is valued at £1.6 million. You do get a berth for that price though, but how much further can they go up??

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: It\'ll go through on appeal.

A major port needs to be as close to population centres and to the transport network to maximise ease of transport and minimise transhipment environmental pollution. Southampton is not good here because the transport infrastructure simply does not exist. Can you imagine the chaos on the M3,A36 and A34 trying to cope with the projected lorry movements ... one HGV every 20seconds? As for the railway .. forget it!

<hr width=100% size=1>I Have The Body Of A God... Buddha

 

[nicho]

Re: It\'ll go through on appeal.

Will there be leave to appeal in this case??

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: It\'s as good as anywhere else.

The link to the M27 will cost a few bob, but not that much for the benefit.

Felixstowe/Harwich gets by on the A12, Fleetwood is worse. Southampton has M27, M3, A34. The A34 is getting the "missing link" built as we speak, at the M4 junction.

I can't think where else might work better.

Dibden gets the increased traffic flow traffic out of Southampton.

So it won't make much difference on the water, about two or three ships a day, the road traffic is kept out of the city, it creates jobs, the burden on the environment is not excessive, the commercial need is clear and ABP could be tucked up for a good size contribution to the infrastructure improvements.

Yeah! I can see why this project was refused.

Anybody want a refugee camp?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: It\'s as good as anywhere else.

Do'nt see the roads as key but the rail network most certainly is .. and it do'nt exist. A rail link is required both north and east for heavy freight. The M27 alone could not cope with the traffic of, I beleive, 5000 lorry movements per 24 hrs.

<hr width=100% size=1>I Have The Body Of A God... Buddha

 

[Mirelle]

There\'s no logical argument against it?

here are a few:

There are three container port companies active in the UK. APB is UK only, P&O Ports is a big global player and so is Hutchinson. APB have Southampton, Hutchinson have Felixstowe, Harwich and Thamesport and want Bathside Bay. P&O Ports are developing the old Shell Haven refinery in Sea Reach into what they will call London Gateway.

Hutchinson say we need more port space. a view in which they are backed by Maersk, which lends credence to the widespread view in the industry that Bathside Bay is intended to be a Maersk dedicated terminal, and Hutchinsons are running as their stalking horse.

Whether we need more terminal space now, or not, depends on how you do the numbers; If you say that transhipment is a Good Thing, as Maersk do, we need more space now. If you say that it is not, as others do, including, oddly enough, John Meredith, Group CEO of Hutchinson Port Holdings, on the grounds that it does nothing for the local economy, we are fine until 2010.

P&O Ports say we are fine but their competitors say that is because they want to run London Gateway as a roro port first (cheaper).

Add to this that global container trade has been growing unsustainably fast and most of these projections uinvolve putting a ruler on that graph.

So, you see, it is all smoke and mirrors!

What is NOT is that UK container terminal productivity is lousy - 18-19 moves/hour/crane, as compared with 32-36 in Hong Kong and Singapore. This is blamed by the port companies on the laziness of the British worker, but it can also be put down to reluctance by the port operators to invest in ports in Britain when development land for new terminals is so cheap. Look round a British terminal and you will find equipment that belongs in a museum of containerisation, half the time.

<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?

 

[brianhumber]

Re: It\'s as good as anywhere else.

To get a good rail infrastructure we have to get rid of the biased poloticians who cannot see what has been done on mainland europe.
They would rather send the business to near by ports and raise taxes to cover the loss of business taxes.

Let me out of here

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Evadne]

Re: Not as simple as that

That was ABP's argument, although I think it's a moot point as to how many of these terminals we need in the UK. The real problem with Dibden was access, ABP not willing to invest the money needed for a railway and/or large road link to the motorway system. It's bad enough getting the lorries in and out of Southampton, but at least the train (which carries mostly cars, containers all seem to go by road these days) goes down to the waterside.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: True enough But!

It'll likely be 2010 before the things running, even if it gets cleared this year.

The investment in new cranes etc. might well be forced on all of the operators by the bigger ships that are on the way. So productivity might rise through that.

I'm assuming that it's increased ship numbers rather than just box numbers that is driving this proposal. Is that wrong.

I still think that Southampton is a good place to increase the capacity if it has to be done.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mirelle]

More ships, but mainly more boxes

carried aboard bigger ships. Dibden was always going to be tide restricted for the bigger ships, which was a major strike against it.

There are 109 ships of over 7,000 TEU on order at the moment, and two Lines, China Shipping Group (CSG)and Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) have ships of over 9,000 TEU on order.

These big ships need new cranes, mainly made in China, by the market leaders, Zhonghua (ZPMC) but on most British terminals you will still find some relics of the 60's and 70's handling the smaller ships. The "back lot" is even more important - the way in which containers are handled on shore between ship and train or truck - and there is a lot of lod kit around here, too, often under repair.

It is possible to automate the entire process but few British terminals will even consider that as an option; they are slow to automate even half way. And we still have nonsenses like the outgoing driver climbing all the way down before the incoming driver starts up, and so on.

<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: It\'s as good as anywhere else.

the A34 'missing link' at the junction with the M4 merely removes a bottleneck and nothing more. at a cost of £50m, 5000 per day of the b*ggers will arrive more quickly at the next bottleneck further North or South ... the one to the North is called Oxford

the commercial need is not at all clear. ABP never intended to operate Dibden. Snippet from his report:
36.656 The second test is that the project "must be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest". If a project is to satisfy this requirement, the public might reasonably expect some assurance that the requisite works would be undertaken if authorised. However, in the present case there is no such assurance. On the contrary, ABP have indicated that they do not intend to operate the Dibden Terminal themselves; and that they would not proceed with construction of the Terminal unless they had a binding long-term contract with a prospective operator. As far as I am aware, they do not yet have even a provisional contract [3.259].

The Inspector's attitude to rail/transport pushes the problem (correctly) onto the government (or two jags, as he was responsible at the time - remember the 10yr plan?):
36.23 However, I see no reason to doubt that at least 15% of the landward movement of containers to and from the Dibden Terminal could be accommodated on the national rail network. In this connection, I note that there was general agreement between the parties on this point [3.1055]. It is the Government's aspiration that the amount of freight carried by rail should increase by 80% during the next decade [24.1]. I also note that the SRA plan to enhance the capacity of the route between Southampton and the West Coast Main Line [3.1054]. It seems to me that the applicants should be able to place some reliance on that intention being realised. In the circumstances, I see no necessity for the proposed certification. Accordingly, I recommend against the Councils' proposed modification of the HRO as set out on page 2 of HCC/0/45A under the heading "Regulation of Modal Split" (where phasing of ABP's plans would be conditional on achieving certain levels of rail shipment).



<hr width=100% size=1>