Port of Liverpool

[sloyne]

The M.D.& H.C. have announced they have applied for a Harbour revision order to allow them to build a in-river berth to accommodate post Panamax ships. They are estimating it will cost 80 million pounds. It will enable the Port of Liverpool to accept the worlds largest container ships. The berth will be located on reclaimed land at the Royal Seaforth Dock.

[TheMerseyOrange]

Irish Sea Express have ceased operations on their Liverpool-Dublin Seacat service with immediate effect from Wednesday. Obviously sad news, most especially for the 150 or so people who've now lost their jobs, but I'd be lying if I said I was in the least bit surprised. Reliable year-round services and fast ferries just don't go together and that's before you throw Ryanair & Aer Lingus competing on the air route, the ever-reliable Norse Merchant being back with full services on their Birkenhead-Dublin run and horrendously high oil prices into the mix. It just wasn't going to work unfortunately.

[new]

this has gone to a public enquiry....20 objections and 2 from councillors regarding environmental problems. They are saying an increased number of Lorries will wreck the area for those living there.

[Pietari]

Originally Posted by new

this has gone to a public enquiry....20 objections and 2 from councillors regarding environmental problems. They are saying an increased number of Lorries will wreck the area for those living there.

Don`t forget they are using more rail links now.

[JUXTAPOL]

Details of the planning application to extend the windfarm at Seaforth by errecting 5 more wind turbines.
These will be almost 2 times as high, (135m), as the ones at Crosby (75m).

Planning application

[scouserdave]

Online DP

Mersey MEPs try to kill EU ports bill

Jan 18 2006

Daily Post


MERSEYSIDE Euro-MPs are expected to play a key role today in killing off a controversial European bill that would have a major impact on the Port of Liverpool.

EU officials want a new directive that would lead to greater controls in the way ports across Europe are owned and operated.

The big fear is the new law could eventually mean the virtual re-nationalisation of the Port of Liverpool.

MEPs in Strasbourg will vote today on the proposed Access to Port Services Directive, which aims to open up competition in a bid to force down prices across Europe.

It would require operators to bid against each other for the right to provide services at ports. Ship owners would be allowed to bring in their own staff to replace dockworkers in loading and unloading vessels.

Peter Jones, chief executive of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, claims the measure has been designed with continental ports in mind and is wholly inappropriate to the UK situation.

He fears that long-term partnerships that support major investment projects, such as the planned £80m container terminal enhancements, could be put at risk.

[Blabbernsmoke]

Thanks for the info.

I've noticed in various articles over the last few weeks that several other UK ports are planning to develop big container ports like the one planned for Seaforth. If I remember correctly there are proposals (possibly permissions) for Hull, Essex, and I think Southampton.

Is this container port development happening or what? Does anybody have any news on it? I think Liverpool needs to get this in the bag, after all, there are plenty other competitors more than willing to take the trade.

[sloyne]

Originally Posted by Blabbernsmoke

Thanks for the info.

I've noticed other UK ports are planning to develop big container ports like the one planned for Seaforth. I think Southampton.

I believe both Southampton and Hull have been rejected but Avonmouth and Clyde Port (owned by Peel Holdings) are still in the running.

[Blabbernsmoke]

Cheers Sloyne.

[TheMerseyOrange]

Originally Posted by Blabbernsmoke

I've noticed in various articles over the last few weeks that several other UK ports are planning to develop big container ports like the one planned for Seaforth. If I remember correctly there are proposals (possibly permissions) for Hull, Essex, and I think Southampton.

Is this container port development happening or what? Does anybody have any news on it? I think Liverpool needs to get this in the bag, after all, there are plenty other competitors more than willing to take the trade.

I posted an overview of all the UK proposals on the old thread last year but it didn't survive the hacking. Things have moved on significantly since then so I guess it's time to have another go. The major deepwater proposals are -

Scapa Flow - 1.5-4.0m TEU capacity/ project cost £150-450m

London Gateway - 3.6m/ £700m

Hunterston - 2.0m/ £250m

Felixstowe South - 1.95m/ £200m

Bathside Bay (Harwich) - 1.7m/ £300m

Bristol - 1.5m/ £200m

Teesport - 1.5m/ £300m

Liverpool - 0.7m/ £80m

I have to confess I've never heard of a specific deepwater proposal at Hull, rejected or otherwise, although they do now have approval for a new shortsea terminal. The Northern Way nonsense does promote it as being a suitable site however but it doesn't seem to amount to anything more than over-optimistic daydreaming. Southampton's scheme is well and truly dead though and as the same ports group, ABP, owns both Southampton and the Humber ports it's still possible, although perhaps unlikely, that something new may emerge at Hull or maybe Immingham at some point in the future.

London Gateway & Bathside Bay both (somewhat surprisingly) gained provisional approval late last year and Felixstowe South is expected to follow shortly. Between them, these three schemes will satisfy anticipated UK demand until at least 2015 and possibly to 2020 with the combined Felixstowe/Harwich operations (both are owned by the same company) alone providing a combined total of 15 deepwater berths and around 7m TEU annual capacity.

Teesport was intended as an alternative to the southern ports so it's very unlikely to proceed given the scale of the investment required there (it might be the 2nd largest UK port overall but it has miniscule deepsea traffic at the moment) although the port authority hasn't formally shelved the scheme yet. The same probably applies to the two Scottish proposals as well and it's notable that although Peel sanctioned the go-ahead for Hunterston last year, their anticipated release of formal plans to the public is now some six months overdue suggesting that they're maybe reassessing their plans in the light of the south east approvals. They, and the proponents of Scapa Flow, may just put their plans on hold and wait to see how the market develops over the next 10-15 years knowing they have the best sites to meet any increased demand in the longer term.

Bristol simply won't happen unless a major shipping line agrees to use it; as with Teesport, the cost of the scheme is far too great to justify it being built speculatively and it's difficult to see how they'll be able to persuade a major carrier to sign up now there's to be so much extra capacity available at their preferred ports on the east coast. If Bristol doesn't proceed then that will be very good news for Liverpool mainly because Bristol is/was the only English proposal to specifically target Liverpool's core container business, namely UK west coast-North America traffic.

Everything I've read about the Liverpool proposal suggests it to be very different to all the other ones mentioned. It's obviously on a much smaller scale than the others both in capacity terms and also cost but that's because it's intended to be primarily an insurance against any potential future switch to larger vessels on Atlantic services (thereby protecting its existing services, in particular ACL) rather than being a means of attracting new business particularly from somewhere like the Far East. The capacity of the port to compete with those southern ports for such traffic is limited to say the least.

Originally Posted by Blabbernsmoke

What has angered many North West MEPs is that German and Dutch governments continue to subsidise the ports of Hamburg and Rotterdam.

Mrs McCarthy added: "How can ports like Liverpool compete fairly when other countries are undercutting prices with illegal cash plugs?

Hmmm....someone really ought to buy her an atlas then she might just understand that Rotterdam's market dominance (369m tonnes in 2005, as much as the top ten UK ports combined) isn't so much down to dubious Government assistance (although, amongst other things, the Dutch state does pay for all dredging work there and has just signed an agreement to be a 25% stakeholder in the port's new €3bn 8.6m TEU capacity terminal scheme ) as it is to simple basic geography.

[Blabbernsmoke]

Cheers MO, I stand enlightened

[Louis1986]

yeah, coz its vital that its built

[sloyne]

On a recent (Dec-Nov 2005) cruise into the South Pacific we visited Pitcairn Island for six hours. The docking facilities are none existant so the inhabitants come out to the ships by longboat. The islanders had about five hours aboard the ship and they estimated they sold $55,000.00 worth of goods. The ship had 1200 pax and 400 crew aboard. That works out to aproximately $35.00 spent per person and the only items for sale were shirts, crafts, hats and stamps. Remember, this was items carried from the island to the ship by about 30 people, that equates to about eighteen hundred dollars of sales per person. Not bad for a five hour shopping day.

[westisbest]

i think its essential for economical reasons to have a big freighter terminal in liverpool for container ships upto lengths of 1000ft, like in ny, hk, singapore etc, would be nice i think

[kung_fuzi]

Absolutely vital for the future of the port.

[scouserdave]

From the BYM News website

Liverpool container terminal faces fierce Felixstowe competition and opposition from residents

Wednesday, 15 March 2006
Marian Martin

A public hearing into the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company’s application for a Harbour Revision Order to allow construction of a new post-Panamax container terminal at the Port of Liverpool, will be held on April 26.

The £80 million terminal would be capable of simultaneously accommodating two of the new generation of larger containerships, but faces fierce competition from the Port of Felixstowe. The East Coast port was given the go-ahead for further development last month, which will see the former P&O North Sea Ferries basin and the existing Landguard Terminal converted into a new deep-sea container terminal. That development includes dredging to 16 metres, alongside 1,350 metres of quay, an approach channel dredged to 14.5 metres, an additional 13 ship-to-shore gantry cranes and a new rail terminal, capable of replacing 500,000 lorries on the roads.

Supporters of Mersey Harbour’s expansion fear that, unless the facilities are upgraded the city will lose business to Felixstowe, with a negative impact on the regional economy, but the firm’s lawyers will face opposition from environmental groups, including English Nature, over potential damage to wild life and the local quality of life, when they present the case for expansion at the public hearing.

Residents groups are also challenging the construction plan, on the grounds that there is already a high level of illness, such as asthma and skin conditions, caused by pollution from the existing port facilities, which will be exacerbated if expansion goes ahead. They also point out that, without new Felixstowe style railway links, any expansion would lead to serious road traffic problems.

[kung_fuzi]

Won't these high levels of illness affect felixstowe also or is this just peculiar to seaforth?

[scouserdave]

Originally Posted by kung_fuzi

Won't these high levels of illness affect felixstowe also or is this just peculiar to seaforth?

[LiverOdysea]

WELL SAID!!

Give Liverpool its Terminal or Stop Reading the echo, icliverpool n post!! bring down the economy.

[Paul D]

Deadlock in shipping plans is broken by anti-noise pledge Mar 24 2006

By Nick Coligan, Liverpool Echo

A BREAKTHROUGH in talks with angry families could help plans for an £80m shipping terminal.

A chief objector will no longer block moves to expand Seaforth dock so it can handle giant container ships.

It follows the dock owner's pledge to put up noise barriers so the proposed 800-metre quay-side does not affect Waterloo residents.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Company's plan will still go before a public inquiry in two months because of mass protests from the terminal's neighbours.

But Waterloo residents association, which represents 7,000 households, will not oppose it.


Chairman Ian Hamilton Fazey said: "Movement of empty containers within the port makes the most noise, and they're stored close to homes in Cambridge Road at the moment.


"But if the new terminal is built, they'll be relocated a mile-and-a-half away.


"MDHC is also going to put up acoustic barriers so noise is deflected upwards, rather than around the neighbourhood.


"We were concerned road traffic in and out of the port would double, but we now know a great number of containers will be unloaded on to other ships or taken away by rail."


The group has also asked MDHC to put money into a fund to pay for noise reduction measures like double-glazing for the dock's closest neighbours.


The plan would open up the dock to bigger ships, potentially bringing millions of pounds into Merseyside's economy.


At the public inquiry, a government inspector will hear the arguments for and against the development. If he sides with the objectors, it might have to be shelved for the near future.


MDHC has held discussions to try and remove opposition, which previously included the council.


It has already agreed to reopen the Radar Tower, near Crosby marina, to the public, and allow anglers back onto the dock site.