Sentencias de Unificación Jurisprudencial

6.3.1 This section outlines the calculation of port traffic volumes for the two scenarios outlined in paragraph 6.1.2. The methodology adopted and a summary of the results is presented below.

METHODOLOGY

6.3.2 For each traffic type, the amount that is distributed inland by rail and

waterborne transport was subtracted from the total traffic shown in Maritime Statistics to reach estimates the volumes distributed inland by road from Liverpool Docks in 2008. 6.3.3 For each port traffic type by direction that was handled in 2008, the traffic volumes in tonnes were translated into HGV volumes by assuming a payload in terms of tonnes per HGV. For LoLo we assumed the payload was one unit per HGV, while various payloads were assumed for non-unitised traffics; for example, for imported grain we assumed that the trucks carrying the cargo out of the port would, on average, have a payload of 16 tonnes per HGV.

6.3.4 Assumptions were then made about the proportion of HGVs for each port traffic that would secure backloads within the port estate. This is important because it has a major impact on the number of HGVs seeking access to and egress from the port. For example, we assumed that HGVs distributing grain would not secure any backloads, so that, for each 26 tonnes of grain distributed inland, there would be two HGV movements – one to arrive empty at the port and one to leave the port laden with grain. For Lolo traffic, however, we assumed that 75% of the hauliers would secure backloads of containers from within the port so that the trucks arrive with one container and leave with another.

6.3.5 The HGV movements by traffic type were then allocated to one of the four port access gates, based on the locations of the relevant port terminals handling the cargo; for example, LoLo traffic was allocated to Seaforth Gate because the Container Terminal is located in Seaforth Dock. Some of the scrap metal volumes were allocated to

Huskisson Gate because one of the scrap metal terminals is in Canada Dock to the south of the port estate.

6.3.6 Total annual HGV movements by traffic type by gate were translated into average daily HGV movements by dividing the annual total for 2008 by 350 days. 6.3.7 Forecasts of HGV movements to 2020 and 2030 by traffic type were produced by applying the forecast growth rates to the 2008 volumes i.e. assuming that payloads and backloads rates remain unchanged up to 2030.

6.3.8 An element of modal shift is included within the 2020 and 2030 forecast HGV data, as summarised in Section 3.

RESULTS

6.3.9 Tables 6.2 and 6.3 below set out the results of the analysis of existing traffics for 2008, with forecasts to 2020 and 2030, for HGVs and passenger cars.

TABLE 6.2: ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY HGV MOVEMENTS FOR EXISTING TRAFFICS BY PORT GATE IN 2008, WITH FORECASTS TO 2020 & 2030 (AVERAGE DAILY HGV MOVEMENTS)

Traffic type 2008 2020 2030 Port Gate

LoLo 1,246 1,531 1,958 Seaforth

RoRo freight Accomp 174 272 372 Seaforth

Unaccomp 368 574 784 Seaforth

200 312 426 Seatruck

Trade cars 6 6 6 Seaforth

Liquid bulk Molasses 46 50 53 Seaforth

Edible oils 34 36 39 Huskisson

Dry bulk Grain 528 548 572 Seaforth

AFS 330 342 357 Seaforth

Aggregates 101 101 101 Seaforth

Other 91 91 91 Seaforth

Scrap steel 241 296 296 Huskisson

122 150 150 Strand Road 310 381 381 Seaforth Waste from scrap metal processing 70 - - Seaforth

Semi-bulk Forestry products 84 101 101 Seaforth

Steel 165 189 189 Seaforth

General cargo 4 4 4 Seaforth

Total by gate Seaforth 3,524 4,190 4,970

Strand 122 150 150

Seatruck 200 312 426

Huskisson 274 322 334

Grand Total 4,120 4,967 5,864

Source: MDS Transmodal, based on DfT Maritime Statistics & industry sources TABLE 6.3: ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY PASSENGER CAR

MOVEMENTS FOR EXISTING TRAFFICS BY PORT GATE IN 2008, WITH FORECASTS TO 2020 & 2030 (AVERAGE DAILY PASSENGER CAR MOVEMENTS)

Traffic type 2008 2020 2030 Port Gate

RoRo passengers 31 40 42 Seaforth Cruise passengers 34 34 34 Seaforth

Total 65 74 76

Source: MDS Transmodal, based on DfT Maritime Statistics & industry sources Table 6.4 provides estimates of potential additional HGV movements from the opportunities for new traffics highlighted in the WP1 Working Paper. The key assumptions in this analysis are that:

50% of the port-centric distribution traffic would access the port via the Seaforth Gate, 25% via the Strand Road Gate and 25% via the Huskisson Dock Gate; The Atlantic Arc RoRo traffic would be handled in the Gladstone/Langton Dock area of the port and so HGVs would access the port via Seaforth Gate;

The household waste would be handled in the southern docks and so HGVs would access the docks via Huskisson Gate.

TABLE 6.4: ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY HGV MOVEMENTS FOR POTENTIAL NEW TRAFFICS IN 2020 & 2030 (AVERAGE DAILY HGV MOVEMENTS)

Traffic type 2008 2020 2030 Port Gate

Port-centric distribution

- 771 771 50%Seaforth, 25%Strand Road & 25% Huskisson

Atlantic Arc RoRo - 143 143 Seaforth Household waste - 50 50 Huskisson

Total - 964 964

Source: MDS Transmodal

INCREASED EMPLOYMENT AT THE PORT

6.3.10 In addition to trips generated by existing and new traffic sources a growing port will also create new employment. It has been estimated that there are around 3,000 people employed in the port area and with the Langton RoRo, Post Panamax and other potential port facilities creating a more vibrant port the number of employees is expected to increase significantly, as follows:

Langton RoRo = 100 direct employees Post Panamax = 200 direct employees

Port Centric Developments = 300 direct employees

Source: The Mersey Partnership: Liverpool Superport Economic Trends Study, MDS Transmodal Limited & Roger Tym & Partners (Date: August 2009)

6.3.11 The employment trip generation for the two growth scenarios is summarised in Table 6.5 below:

TABLE 6.5: EMPLOYMENT TRIP GENERATION

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Number of Employees 300 600

Number Travelling by Car 210 421

% Travelling to Work in Peak Hour 70 140 PORT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

6.3.12 Tables 6.6 and 6.7 below summarise the trip generation for the two port growth scenarios, namely:

Scenario 1 - The growth of existing port commodities passing through the port; and Scenario 2 - The growth of existing port commodities plus new port traffics and facilities

6.3.13 The above data is summarised by dock gate that the traffic will use to access the Port of Liverpool. 2008 forecast data has been validated based on observed traffic count data collected, summarised in Section 4.

TABLE 6.6: SCENARIO 1 - SUMMARY OF TWO-WAY ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY HGV MOVEMENTS

Forecast HGV Traffic Forecast Increase in HGV Traffic from 2008 figures % increase in HGV Traffic from 2008 figures 2008 2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030 Seaforth 3,524 4,190 4,970 666 1,446 19% 41% Strand 122 150 150 28 28 23% 23% Seatruck 200 312 426 112 226 56% 113% Huskisson 274 322 334 48 60 18% 22% Total 4,120 4,974 5,880 854 1,760 21% 43%

TABLE 6.7: SCENARIO 2 - SUMMARY OF TWO-WAY ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY HGV MOVEMENTS

Forecast HGV Traffic Forecast Increase in HGV Traffic from 2008 figures % increase in HGV Traffic from 2008 figures 2008 2020 2030 2020 2030 2020 2030 Seaforth 3,524 4,719 5,499 1,195 1,975 34% 56% Strand 122 343 343 221 221 181% 181% Seatruck 200 312 426 112 226 56% 113% Huskisson 274 565 577 291 303 106% 111% Total 4,120 5,938 6,844 1,818 2,724 44% 66%

6.3.14 In addition to the increases in HGV trips there will be increased car trips associated with the port, primarily as a result of increased employment. Table 6.8 below summarises the peak hour HGV and car trips and converts these to Passenger Car Units (PCUs), generated by each port gate.

TABLE 6.8: PEAK HOUR PORT TRAFFIC GENERATION