Alternative options report fudges figures to support original scheme
25/8/09The Route Partnership have claimed that their report into alternatives to building on Battery Rocks beach supports their original scheme, but their conclusions downplay the advantages of an out of town freight handling depot and ignore the risks associated with their own scheme.
While the report, which was published today (see link below), concludes that the alternative options are “workable solutions” to the needs of the Isles of Scilly Link, it goes on to say that the out of town freight depot is too costly to run. An alternative analysis of the running costs in the report (see below) shows that this is NOT the case and that capital cost savings associated with the alternative options, which are all substantially cheaper to set up than the RP scheme, can be recycled to offset most or all of any additional running costs.
The alternative analysis by the Friends of Penzance Harbour illustrates that the out of town freight depot option as specified by the RP is just 8% more expensive to run than the RP scheme (the equivalent of less than 1% of freight turnover). However, there is controversy over the manning levels used by the RP and in particular the inclusion of two full-time lorry drivers to cover just 150 miles/week; these are not needed and an operator would instead use multi-tasking staff that work the depot for the rest of the day. With the truck drivers taken out of the equation the out of town freight depot is 14% cheaper to operate than the RP scheme.
It is also likely that the RP's original scheme will be more costly to operate than the report suggests. It assumes that forklift trucks are used to take freight from the depot on Battery Rocks beach to the ship on the Lighthouse Pier; this keeps the operating costs of their scheme down (relative to the alternatives) but is unlikely to be sustainable. Noise levels during early morning operating and health and safety concerns will probably force the use of “MAFI” trucks instead; these will have to be purchased but more importantly they will push up operating costs. As the RP report acknowledges, if their scheme uses MAFI trucks then it will be more expensive to operate than all of the alternatives (this is the case even without the recycling of capital cost savings).
In our alternative analysis we also describe two other options. The first involves a passenger terminal next to the Meadery (as the Civic Society has proposed) and the purchase of an existing depot at Long Rock. The second is the same but assumes that the depot is rented and not purchased. Both of these options further dramatically reduce operating costs with savings of 29-52% when compared with the RP scheme.
All the figures in our analysis are figures from the recent RP consultants report into alternative options, and they show quite clearly that on cost grounds alone the out of town freight depot approach is to be preferred. If you add the benefits of removing so many vans and lorries from the harbour area and the fact that Penzance gets to keep Battery Rocks beach and its historic seafront then the out of town freight depot is by far the best option.
Notes
1. The scope and brief for the alternative options report was decided by the RP who commissioned if from the same consultants that are responsible for implementing their original scheme. The outcome of the report is a function of the brief and of relations between the RP and the consultant. It is not “peer-reviewed” science and cannot be relied on to be an objective assessment of the relative merits of the different options.
2. When the RP first proposed an alternative options appraisal the Friends of Penzance Harbour expressed its concern at the narrow scope of the study, the modest budget allocated and the timescale envisaged. We nonetheless agreed to assist with the study on the basis that if it was conducted in good faith and with a genuine will to finding an alternative to building on Battery Rocks beach then it might come up with useful proposals. Unfortunately the RP’s behaviour during the report’s preparation (continuing to lobby aggressively for their original scheme) and the refusal of the reports authors to address the concerns raised shows that the study has been undertaken in anything but good faith. We provided comments on the first draft of the report and immediately before publication, and copies of these are available on request.
3. The recycling of capital cost savings is possible because capital saved when undertaking the harbour works in Penzance can be used to buy the new boat (the Department for Transport are funding both); this reduces the size of the Cornwall Council loan on the boat and the payments that have to be made to service it. The fee from the operator has to cover the full cost of the boat loan; if the loan is reduced because a less expensive alternative harbour option is chosen then the fee from the operator will cover the loan and provide a positive revenue stream for the Council; this can then be used to cover any additional running costs of the out of town freight depot (which are in any case modest).
FoPzH Alternative Analysis of Option Running Costs : download pdf | view pdf
Link to Route Partnership Report into Alternative Options