Don't let rail freight hit the buffers
The government must maintain its support for rail freight
Given the urgent need to reduce road congestion and reduce freight’s carbon emissions, I urge the government to maintain its support for rail freight in two ways: by backing the planned upgrading of the rail network and through the spatial planning system.
Rail and road complement each other and rail is well placed to provide the long distance trunk haul between ports and distribution hubs in the supply chain, with road supplying the local leg to stores.
The overwhelming need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in order to avoid climate change is understood, and that is why rail, as a low-carbon, energy-efficient means of freight distribution, is so important in the context of creating the low-carbon economy. The simple statistic which shows that an average freight train can remove the equivalent of 50 long-distance HGV journeys from our roads clearly illustrates what rail freight contributes to our economy and society.
Rail’s share of the container market (intermodal), increased both traffic and market share during the recession and industry forecasts show that this sector could grow five-fold over the next 20 years if the rail network is upgraded.
Rail freight receives limited targeted government interventions which are helping the industry become more efficient – for example, using longer trains – and gives the industry the confidence to invest longer-term. At the core of the existing government policy is the Strategic (Rail) Freight Network (SFN), which will provide a reliable, robust strategic network with diversionary routes to cater for the current and forecasted growth in intermodal rail freight, connecting national major freight routes.
Crucial schemes, which attracted third-party funding, have already been committed, so it is critical that these upgrades take place and are not subject to cuts. Furthermore, if rail freight is to strengthen its position as a low-carbon choice for the logistics industry, unfunded upgrades are needed beyond 2014. Capacity upgrades on the rail route out of Felixstowe, our largest container port, which runs parallel to the congested A14, would remove 40 million lorry miles a year.
I am also campaigning to safeguard revenue grants awarded for actual lorry miles taken off the roads and the resulting reduction in congestion, pollutions and exposure to accidents, without which trainloads of rail freight will be forced back onto our congested roads. Additionally, capital grants remain important in offsetting the initial start-up costs of the transfer to rail.
Rail freight cannot grow without new terminals, and the planning system is critical in delivering these facilities. Local policies and at a national level, using National Policy Statements, to define national policy and establish the need for national infrastructure projects will be retained according to the coalition programme for government. However, there is a danger that the proposed “decentralisation” will make it difficult to obtain planning permission for a range of facilities, including small wind farms, incinerators and medium-sized rail freight terminals, which have wider economic and environmental advantages but face local opposition and competition from other land use, such as housing.
Strategic transport decisions need to be made at the right level, and it remains to be seen how well local authority-run Local Economic Partnerships will work in practice, once regional strategies are abolished.
And I believe it is crucial that the principle of national decision-making for nationally important projects, such as the strategic rail freight interchanges, is retained in some form after the Independent Planning Commission is abolished.
The reality is, if the country is to achieve the 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to which the government is committed by 2050, freight emissions have to be controlled. Rail, which is popular, safe and produces 70% less carbon dioxide than the equivalent road journey, can help achieve this. That is why I believe it is crucial that the government retains its policy of opposing 83ft 60-tonne mega trucks, which could effectively become travelling warehouses, would be more dangerous than conventional trucks, add to road congestion and freight emissions and undermine sustainable alternatives.
Rail and road complement each other and rail is well placed to provide the long distance trunk haul between ports and distribution hubs in the supply chain, with road supplying the local leg to stores.
The overwhelming need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in order to avoid climate change is understood, and that is why rail, as a low-carbon, energy-efficient means of freight distribution, is so important in the context of creating the low-carbon economy. The simple statistic which shows that an average freight train can remove the equivalent of 50 long-distance HGV journeys from our roads clearly illustrates what rail freight contributes to our economy and society.
Rail’s share of the container market (intermodal), increased both traffic and market share during the recession and industry forecasts show that this sector could grow five-fold over the next 20 years if the rail network is upgraded.
Rail freight receives limited targeted government interventions which are helping the industry become more efficient – for example, using longer trains – and gives the industry the confidence to invest longer-term. At the core of the existing government policy is the Strategic (Rail) Freight Network (SFN), which will provide a reliable, robust strategic network with diversionary routes to cater for the current and forecasted growth in intermodal rail freight, connecting national major freight routes.
Crucial schemes, which attracted third-party funding, have already been committed, so it is critical that these upgrades take place and are not subject to cuts. Furthermore, if rail freight is to strengthen its position as a low-carbon choice for the logistics industry, unfunded upgrades are needed beyond 2014. Capacity upgrades on the rail route out of Felixstowe, our largest container port, which runs parallel to the congested A14, would remove 40 million lorry miles a year.
I am also campaigning to safeguard revenue grants awarded for actual lorry miles taken off the roads and the resulting reduction in congestion, pollutions and exposure to accidents, without which trainloads of rail freight will be forced back onto our congested roads. Additionally, capital grants remain important in offsetting the initial start-up costs of the transfer to rail.
Rail freight cannot grow without new terminals, and the planning system is critical in delivering these facilities. Local policies and at a national level, using National Policy Statements, to define national policy and establish the need for national infrastructure projects will be retained according to the coalition programme for government. However, there is a danger that the proposed “decentralisation” will make it difficult to obtain planning permission for a range of facilities, including small wind farms, incinerators and medium-sized rail freight terminals, which have wider economic and environmental advantages but face local opposition and competition from other land use, such as housing.
Strategic transport decisions need to be made at the right level, and it remains to be seen how well local authority-run Local Economic Partnerships will work in practice, once regional strategies are abolished.
And I believe it is crucial that the principle of national decision-making for nationally important projects, such as the strategic rail freight interchanges, is retained in some form after the Independent Planning Commission is abolished.
The reality is, if the country is to achieve the 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to which the government is committed by 2050, freight emissions have to be controlled. Rail, which is popular, safe and produces 70% less carbon dioxide than the equivalent road journey, can help achieve this. That is why I believe it is crucial that the government retains its policy of opposing 83ft 60-tonne mega trucks, which could effectively become travelling warehouses, would be more dangerous than conventional trucks, add to road congestion and freight emissions and undermine sustainable alternatives.
Click here to email the editor and comment on this story
Receive our FREE news email bulletin click here
- 13 − 15 March 2012
- 22 − 23rd March 2012
- 25th April 2012 for 12 weeks.
- 12 − 14 June 2012
