One thing at a time Alan. So far as being able to remove the pontoon structure, I was just answering your point about their apparently demountable nature while acknowledging that they could of course be removed. But disregarding the issue I already noted re: rights of boat owners moored there, under what powers would you remove the moorings once having been built under consent? There are only two that I can think of off-hand: first being a compulsory purchase order or some such, and the second would be to apply to the criminal court for removal of the offence. Why buy into such future trouble?
Regarding the comparative effort between creating space and creating infrastructure, we don’t need to put in structural effort to establish a freight traffic infrastructure for the Brent to Thames route – it is already in place at Commerce Road and just needs a little refurbishment.
“Second, creating the possibility of freight (leaving lots of space) is different from creating demand for freight (lots of haulage firms vying to get use of the canal). There's enough puff about the former - but nought that I'm aware for the latter.”
We don’t need to create the possibility of freight here in Brentford as it already exists, but we surely do need to preserve it. You are right of course in that in any event, that is entirely different from creating the demand, although that is one remove from the immediate discussion as to whether the potential should be preserved in the meantime.
To pick up on the point regardless, in some senses the demand has already been created, in that government policy and London planning law demands it – and that in itself has responded to the circumstantial demands of both immediate and future environmental concerns. Greenhouse gases and global warming may be in the future but road congestion for example is very firmly here and now. Even if we laid aside the pollution issues, there is a desperate need to find alternatives to road transport.
But you are presumably referring to direct demand from freight operators and/or the markets that could/should seek to use them. Of course that should be worked on – the difficulty will be overcoming the BW opposition. However the freight operators are there already, and obviously more than willing to expand into the market; the only area that really needs to be worked on is the customer base. As the report I showed earlier demonstrated, the financial argument alone for Hounslow and surrounding boroughs to use the well-tried Thames route for waste transfer is compelling, but it means getting committees to work together and agree on further pursuing it, and that is always a problem to even kick-start.
Such bureaucratic inertia is the biggest hurdle of all, and that will probably not be overcome until sufficient government pressure and encouragement comes into play. Huge incentives are given for less deserving causes, it is past time our government woke up to the breadth of opportunity that we still have in this country.
This is not a cry for a return to ‘olden days’, nor a suggestion that the canals can compete with or dislodge the established alternatives for all or most of the freight carriage market - but they don’t need to. Transport demands these days are so huge that every avenue possible needs to be exploited. As I’ve shown before, the Grand Junction Canal alone was able to shift over a million tons per year in the mid-nineteenth century with the infrastructure as then built. The infrastructure has been improved upon since then in regard to the canal to Thames link. The totals physically moveable through Brentford alone would be, to say the least in my opinion, not an insignificant potential contribution.
As to the amount of “puff” in that regard – there is plenty out there in trade and governmental circles. Specifically addressing canals, one article on the City Mayors website says: “The capacity of the London canal network is in excess of 10 million tonnes, equivalent to around two million heavy lorry trips a year. Although this represents a small percentage of total London road freight, the canal routes access inner London where the damage, congestion and pollution caused by heavy vehicles is at its greatest. Were the canal network to be used to capacity it could rival the quantities of freight currently carried on the rail network.” ( http://www.citymayors.com/transport/london-canals.html )
See also:
http://www.freightbywater.org/
http://www.ciltuk.org.uk/pages/downloadfile?d=598C4F5A-4CEC-44C8-9625-310633D05079&a=stream
http://www.pla.co.uk/display_fixedpage.cfm/id/2602/site/environment
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/freight/water_freight.aspx
http://www.freightbywater.org/news/290/2006-07-31/sea-and-water
Finally, the government Department for Transport recently published a study [with multi-layered map] of inland waterways potential, noting in the intro:
“The highlighted waterways represent those that the Department believes have the greatest potential for freight use because they can be used effectively by appropriate freight vessels in their existing condition. This does not mean that other waterways cannot be used, and in no way is intended to suggest that other waterways can be disregarded as of no use for freight. In effect, the map is to alert potential users to selected inland waterways with the most potential for freight use.”
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/freight/waterfreight/mapkeyinlandwaterways/mapwaterwaysreport?page=2#a1000
They highlighted London’s Grand Union Canal as a “Key Core waterway” with regard to freight potential –
The website helpfully gives many other relevant links for those interested.
“Third, who exactly wants to see garbage being transported down the canal? The thought of smelly and unsightly refuge barges chugging up and down the canal is not an attractive one.”
A fair question, with two sides to the answer. Anthony’s last comments are the immediate first reaction that many of us would have to any objection to industrial uses in an industrial environment to which residential occupants are newcomers. The resident view is thankfully not universally antagonistic, the Island development residents were unanimous in wishing industrial uses maintained at Commerce Road, and I know Ferry Quays residents who would welcome the greater waterways activity that would result. However the sad reality is that it usually only takes one objector to close down “incompatible” uses even when those are long established uses instead of re-instated ones.
On a less confrontational note, the plain fact is that Health & Safety legislation, quite apart from anything else, would not allow a scenario such as you depict, nor would it ever be necessary. Modern design solutions that address efficiency matters simultaneously involve complete encapsulation of containers so that open rubbish barges are very much past history. The new designs of waste carrying barges would be neither smelly nor unsightly.
“Fourth - what exactly is the basis of the environmental claims of the canal freight argument? I get the large truck engine versus the taxi engine size and fuel consumption concept; I do not get the 3 hours to drive to Brum compared to 2-3 days to chuck up the canal to Brum; let alone the 'we'll need to get another truck to get the goods from the canal basin to the warehouse / customer' issues. Why can we be certain that the barge is cleaner?”
That one is best answered by specific analysis of the question by reports such as this:
http://www.cboa.org.uk/downloads/pdf/environmental_impact_report.pdf