Thames Estuary Airport. Using the canals. The expansion of City Airport. Peruvian Wharf. Subsidising Clippers.
Did you commission research into all possible alternatives for airport expansion to serve London, including at Manston Airport, before deciding to pursue research into the feasibility of an island airport in the Thames Estuary? – Darren Johnson
In 2008, officers were asked to undertake an in-house, desk-top review of the feasibility of locating an airport in the Thames Estuary. This study did not address all possible alternatives for airport expansion to serve London, but did examine potential solutions to the east of London which had been looked at before – including Manston. This study provisionally concluded that a new airport in the Thames Estuary was technically feasible, did make spatial sense, and could contribute to regeneration in the Thames Gateway. I then appointed Doug Oakervee to take this work forward.
Do you plan to meet with politicians from all the local and county councils that would be affected by a Thames Estuary Airport to hear their views following the publication of the feasibility study and the establishment of the steering group? – Darren Johnson
My Deputy Mayor for Policing, Kit Malthouse, will be meeting with representatives from Medway Council in March 2010 on my behalf. He sits on the Thames Estuary Steering Group and is well suited to take such meetings.
Having told the Assembly’s Transport Committee on the 20th October 2009 that you “do not have an aspiration” to build the Thames Estuary Airport, are you now going to scrap the Thames Estuary Airport Steering Group? – Caroline Pidgeon
No.
I understand that your deputy Mayor for Policing, Kit Malthouse is meeting with the leaders of all the political groups on Medway Council on March 2nd following the request of Medway Council to set out their united opposition to an airport in the Thames estuary. Can you explain why you have refused to personally meet the key elected representatives of Medway Council on this significant issue? – Caroline Pidgeon
My Deputy Mayor for Policing, Kit Malthouse, sits on the Thames Estuary Steering Group and is well suited to take such meetings on my behalf.
What progress have you made on encouraging the use of London’s Canals and Waterways, excluding the Thames, for passenger transport? – Caroline Pidgeon
My draft replacement London Plan and draft transport Strategy both positively promote the use of waterways for passenger transport. However, the main focus for this is the River Thames, where there are real opportunities for attractive and viable services.
Away from the river Thames, vessel speeds are very low – limited to 4mph on the canals and there are the additional obstacles of locks. This means that such waterways have very limited appeal as passenger transport routes. There is more interest in providing tourist/ leisure services and there are some niche opportunities for freight on such waterways but my focus for water passenger services must remain on the key passenger opportunities on the Thames.
Why did you not see fit to intervene on the expansion of City Airport? – Murad Qureshi
I have no planning powers in respect of the airport’s ambition to expand its operations to 120,000 flights a year. However, after considering the economic and environmental information submitted with the planning application made by the airport to Newham Council in 2007 and clarifying any potential impact of the proposed expansion on the Thames Gateway Bridge, I decided that Newham Council was best placed to determine the application itself.
Has TfL undertaken studies to investigate the potential for passenger services on the Grand Union Canal between Willesden and Paddington/Camden? – Caroline Pidgeon
Please refer to my answer to question MQ120 / 2010. TfL is undertaking no such studies and has no plans to do so at this time.
Is the transport by river and canal of spoil and building materials pursued wherever possible within projects undertaken by the GLA and its Functional Bodies? What steps have you taken to encourage similar practice by the private sector? – Caroline Pidgeon
Construction Logistics Plans are being promoted to improve the sustainability and safety of transport operations associated with construction sites. Where use of water transport is operationally and economically feasible, it is actively considered and employed by the GLA and its functional bodies.
The DLR Woolwich Arsenal extension utilised the River Thames and more recently Crossrail has committed to use water freight to remove 5 million tonnes of excavated material from London. Work continues within the Olympics site to exploit water freight opportunities. Water freight remains crucial for developments associated with Canary Wharf and the London Plan requires new developments close to navigable waterways to maximise the use of water transport for bulk materials. A recent example of similar practice in the private sector was the removal of demolition material from Chambers Wharf by barge. Other future development projects have already indicated that they will use the river for construction material.
TfL works with the Boroughs, developers, industry and navigational authorities to promote the use of the Blue Ribbon network and has contributed funding towards water freight infrastructure such as Powerdays Wharf and Three Mills Lock.
Keeping in mind the environmental benefits of river transport, what progress have you made on encouraging the use of both rivers, as well as canals, for freight haulage purposes throughout London? – Caroline Pidgeon
TfL continues to work with GLA bodies, the Port of London Authority, British Waterways and industry to identify and implement water freight opportunities in both new sectors as well as established freight sectors such as aggregates. The River Thames remains the busiest inland waterway in the UK accounting for 47% of all UK inland waterway movements and substantial volumes of London’s aggregates and waste streams are moved by the river, which presents opportunities being pursued by TfL and the PLA.
TfL has also jointly funded a British Waterways’ Sustainable Transport Project Manager post for two years which will develop freight opportunities associated with the canal network. Work is focussed on niche streams, predominately for waste and aggregates. This includes working with waste authorities such as the North London Waste Authority and individual companies. One such company, McGraths, recently submitted a planning application for a new wharf, as well as assessing the feasibility of using Cody Dock as an aggregates wharf. This work is also helping to identify reasons why companies are not actively considering water freight within their supply chains.
As an example of how effectively the river can be used for freight, Crossrail will be using the river to move excavated materials from tunnelling for the project, out of the city. At least five million tonnes of materials from the project will be moved on the river Thames over the next five year. This will keep the equivalent of over half a million lorry movements off London’s busy roads. To support this commitment a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by Crossrail and the Port of London Authority in September 2009.
Crossrail will maximise the use of water and rail for the transport of excavated material, and estimates that on a tonne per kilometre basis, 85 per cent of the transport of the material will be by rail and water only.
What, if any, work is the GLA, including functional bodies, doing on the environmental impact of London City Airport? – John Biggs
The environmental impacts of London City Airport are clearly an issue of concern for local people, highlighted during my recent public question time in Ilford.
The only environmental impact work I’m aware of that has been undertaken by the GLA and its functional bodies relates to potential noise impacts arising from the proposed expansion of the airport on the LDA’s nearby landholdings.
I am aware that the planning permission relating to the proposed expansion, which Newham determined, and which I have no powers of direction over, has been challenged. I understand Newham are awaiting a decision from the high court as to whether the current permission can proceed.
I support the view that the CAA should consult the residents of east London when undertaking the 12 month review required following the implementation of airspace design changes and the associated changes to flight paths affecting departures from London City airport.
Are you still intending to proceed with a CPO for Peruvian Wharf? At what stage is this proposal? – John Biggs
I am no longer pursuing the CPO at Peruvian Wharf. This is because just before the CPO Public Inquiry was due to commence (in 2009), the site owners offered a legal agreement to the LDA, which effectively means that if they don’t re-activate the wharf for river borne cargo within 3 years, then the LDA have the option to purchase the site.
This agreement represents a reasonable approach and will ensure that, one way or the other, the site comes back into use as a freight wharf.
Policy Exchange’s recently released report At a Rate of Knots, which advocates the use of public subsidies to expand passenger transport on the Thames, claims that Thames Clippers currently receive a subsidy of 14p per passenger whereas Transport for London put the figure at 69p per passenger in 2005/6. Do you believe that the Policy Exchange figure is accurate? What figure does TfL currently give for the subsidy? – Murad Qureshi
TfL financially supports Thames Clippers’ Monday to Friday peak hour service between Woolwich Arsenal and the London Eye which operates under contract. The actual subsidy paid is calculated every four weeks. For example in December Thames Clippers were paid £33,978. 60,300 people travelled on the peak hour commuter service during these four weeks. This works out at 56p per passenger journey. This contract payment does not include the costs incurred by TfL to introduce Oyster Pay As You Go on Thames Clippers services in November 2009.
The remainder of the Thames Clippers’ services are operated under licence on a commercial basis. It is likely that the Policy Exchange figure has been arrived at by dividing the TfL contract payment over the whole of the Thames Clipper operation, i.e. both the supported and the commercial elements.
Comments are closed.