SHORTSEA MOTORWAYS OR MUDDLE?

Reducing the number of people using the roads is not a realistic option but removing freight is, and that has been the driver behind the current Motorways of the Sea initiative. Part of the Trans-European Network – Transport (TEN-T), Motorways of the Sea seeks to establish a network of streamlined maritime links connecting member states with the central objective of reducing road congestion through encouraging modal shift. A secondary objective is to increase links with periphery or island states.

Although still largely undefined, a sea motorway would appear to involve a fast and regular ro-ro (and perhaps lo-lo) service operating between major ports of at least two member states. The ports must have good road and rail connections and streamlined arrival and departure procedures. In other words, Brussels is hoping to extend the reach of road motorways by linking them across national boundaries by sea and offering, in effect, a turn-up-and-go service for freight.

To allow a real concentration of freight flow and to produce a noticeable and beneficial impact on the transport system, the EC wants to be selective over the introduction of sea motorways. Initially, they envisage just four routes which would be funded by a mixture of private and public money and involve all elements of the supply chain:

These would be:

Baltic Sea – linking Baltic Sea member states with member states in Central and Western Europe Western Europe – leading from the Iberian Peninsula via the Atlantic Arc to the North Sea and the Irish Sea Southeast Europe – connecting the Adriatic Sea to the Ionian Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean to include Cyprus Southwest Europe – connecting Spain, France, Italy and including Malta, and linking with the Motorway of the Sea Southeast Europe.

In terms of funding, again things are not yet clear. It appears that some ?20 billion has been made available to the entire TEN-T initiative but Motorways of the Sea will be just one of around 30 TEN-T projects competing for these funds. A decision will be made during this year but the bulk of whatever amount is allocated will not be available until 2007. Until then a small pot – to be announced during the early part of this year – is being made available for initial scoping studies.

The other important clarification which needs to be addressed is access, via ports, to these sea motorways. Latest thinking suggests that the motorways will not begin or end at a specific port nor will specific ports act as access points along the way. Brussels is looking for individual member states to nominate a range of ports adjacent to their designated motorway. Grant aid would then be allocated to these ports to upgrade infrastructure, intermodal links and such like.

Whilst the channelling of European aid into nominated ports will not be so much of an issue for most member states, those whose ports operate in a privatised and highly competitive environment (UK for example) will have greater difficulty if they don’t want to upset the commercial balance. How, for example, can a state select one port or group of ports over another without distorting the prevailing market?

Or has that decision largely been taken already by Brussels in defining – however roughly – the location of their four motorways and so implying the logical location of the access ports?

At this stage Brussels appears to be promoting two alternatives to address the issue of selecting “winning” ports. The first is simply to allow the member state to select a port or group of ports. The second nods more in the direction of overcoming market distortion and suggests that member states invite tenders from consortia of ports, liner operators and related service companies, and then judge the responses against a comprehensive list of criteria. Winning bids would then go to the Commission for final selection.

And if market distortion is addressed successfully how will a sea motorway reduce road congestion for island nations in particular? The UK for example has some 50 or so commercial ports of significant size which handle around 96% of all its imports and exports. If a handful of these in the same geographical area are to be designated as motorway ports – leaving the others bereft of business – it seems reasonable to suggest that road traffic will increase as all freight lorries attempt to get to the same few ports.

Brussels must be applauded for seeking to address the issue of road congestion and should be doubly congratulated for turning to the sea as a sustainable, environmentally friendly, versatile and underutilised alternative. And a serious allocation of grant aid, if handled sensitively, is also helpful. But Motorways of the Sea, whilst sound in theory, has a number of issues which need to be addressed if it is ever going to become an effective reality. In general, freight movement is dictated by the market and not by administrators.

Mike Elsom is md of Sea & Water www. seaandwater. org and can be reached at mike. elsom@seaandwater. org