|
This is Felixstowe "going for broke" on the news that P & O and Shell are developing a new container port on the River Thames.
See Rival Port.
It is hard not to feel sympathetic to Felixstowe's situation, but that doesn't mean the decision is the right one or that permission should be granted.
Some of the arguments and statements being used in its favour have, long ago, been debunked.
"Felixstowe handles 40% of the nation's containerised trade."
This is a highly misleading statement and continues the tradition of Felixstowe understating its importance, see Traffic Generator.
Felixstowe handles a much higher percentage of relevant containerised trade, and since its owners Hutchison Whampoa bought Thamesport and facilities at Harwich, the company's total percentage is almost a monopoly.
The only competition is scattered, save for Southampton which is much smaller in throughput terms.
The advent of the new port on the Thames will, however, finally break Felixstowe's stranglehold.
"continued success of the Port is essential to…the national…economy."
This was true and the writer long ago spent an hour and a half giving evidence to a Select Committee of the House of Commons to this effect.
It is still dangerously true, see Just in Time, but the new development on the Thames will consign this argument to history.
By the time these new berths come on stream, the new port on London's river will be starting to handle its first vessels too.
That finally destroys this justification.
"The overall use of the largest container vessels is increasing rapidly…"
That is true, but many commentators, including the writer, are querying their viability see End of the Line.
Some experts predict that these extra-large containerships will only be viable if world trade increases at 9% p.a. after 2002, an increase that seems hugely unlikely.
Expect cancellations of shipbuilding orders.
"The Port is one of the most efficient ports in Europe…"
That's true too, but there seems little scope for any more improvements.
The new port on the Thames will be a good deal cheaper than Felixstowe for the average consignment once inland transport costs are included.
"…otherwise we will lose out to other ports in Europe."
This sounds good and has been used as an argument for giving Felixstowe what it wants many times in the past.
The reality is that it is meaningless, and always was so.
Every container has to leave this island either by a port or the channel tunnel - that is a fact of geography.
Felixstowe might, and will eventually, lose ships and traffic to other UK ports, but not other European ports.
Here the assumption is the deliberate colloquial English use of European to mean Continental and non-United Kingdom, in this context.
"the port is planning to build an all-new Rail Terminal… reduce… traffic…on nation's roads"
and looking for taxpayers' money last time we heard.
They shouldn't get it. Permission for any development should be conditional on Hutchison providing the new rail terminal at their expense.
"…contributed more to environmental programmes than any other port in the UK."
It had to.
Felixstowe's expansion over the years has substantially damaged the environment and impinged visually on an area of outstanding natural beauty.
This could only be justified by an over-riding national interest, which there was.
Felixstowe had to make some effort to minimise the damage.
"…East Anglia's major employers…direct employment for 2500 people…19000 people…in transport…around Felixstowe…continued success …essential to…regional economy."
Indisputably true, but although continued success is important, additional jobs and physical expansion are not necessary for the port to continue to prosper.
Indeed an over-expansion on a falling market at a time of new competition would be extremely damaging to the local environment and economy.
The only people that seem to "need" this expansion are the ultimate owners Hutchison Whampoa and their mainly overseas shareholders.
There is nothing wrong in principle with that, although it looks a very risky investment.
Maybe they would be better employed in adding value to their existing operations.
The local community would be better protected by a change in strategy.
|
|
