Transport and logistics facilities expansion and social sustainability: A critical discussion and findings from the City of Gothenburg, Sweden Jerry Olsson Department of Economy and Society, Human Geography Unit, School of Business, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg Anders Larsson Department of Economy and Society, Human Geography Unit, School of Business, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg Johan Woxenius Department of Business Administration, School of Business, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg Rickard Bergqvist Department of Business Administration, School of Business, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg
Working Paper Series Logistics and Transport Research Group No. 2016:2 Series editor Professor Rickard Bergqvist
[email protected] Tel.: +46 (0) 31 786 5241 Handelshögskolan vid Göteborgs universitet School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg Företagsekonomiska institutionen Department of Business Administration Industrial and Financial Management & Logistics Logistics and Transport Research Group P.O. Box 610 SE 405 30 Gothenburg
Transport and logistics facilities expansion and social sustainability: A critical discussion and findings from the City of Gothenburg, Sweden Abstract: Ports’ importance for international trade and for local, regional, and national economies is often emphasized by port authorities, governments, and the business community alike. The argument goes that the port has to grow for domestic industry to be competitive internationally and against other ports with overlapping hinterland. At the same time, port growth also generates more freight to be transported and stored, putting stress on the city, its urban landscape and social sustainability. The aim of this report is to contribute with a critical discussion concerning the relationship between investments and expansions in [transport] infrastructure and logistics facilities, national and local policies, and social sustainability. The point of departure is that the port-city relationship is multifaceted and difficult to delimit spatially, but needs to include factors such as institutions, governance, democratic planning processes, transparency, and citizen participation. The management of road and rail links and the siting and management of major nodal facilities such as port terminals and warehouses is crucial in this balance. This concern has both a very local neighbourhood dimension and a wider urban dimension. At the local level, the direct interface with communities and the urban landscape is at stake, while at the metropolitan scale, the impact of freight networks and infrastructure on urban structure and performance is important. The work is funded by the Foundation for Economic Research in West Sweden. Keywords: Urban logistics, Port centric logistics, Social sustainability, Sustainable transport @ 2016 Authors ISSN 1652-1021 print ISSN 1652-103X online
i
Table of Contents Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................ii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... iii Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... iii 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Ports, risk management and social sustainability........................................................... 2 1.2 Intersection of the freight sector with the urban fabric ................................................ 3 1.3 Aim and research question .............................................................................................. 4 2 A critical approach to present port-city relationships ........................................................... 5 2.1 The city’s and port’s intersection between local and global processes ........................ 5 2.2 Port expansion, internal composition of cities, and public opposition ......................... 5 2.3 Public-private sector roles and diverging interests between actors ............................. 7 2.4 Redefining the relationship between the port and the urban region ........................... 8 3 Laws and regulations for dangerous goods and infrastructure of national interest.......... 11 3.1 Risk in physical spatial planning .................................................................................... 11 3.2 Transport of dangerous goods and authorities involved ............................................. 11 3.3 Transport infrastructure and other facilities of national interest ............................... 12 4 Port of Gothenburg and risk picture in City of Gothenburg ................................................ 15 4.1 Planning, permissions and supervisions in Port of Gothenburg .................................. 15 4.2 Description of risk in City of Gothenburg ..................................................................... 16 5 Transport and logistics facilities expansion in the City of Gothenburg............................... 17 5.1 Transport infrastructure and other areas of national interest .................................... 17 5.2 Risks and accidents ........................................................................................................ 21 5.3 In-depth MMP for the sector transport of dangerous goods ...................................... 21 5.4 Present and future developments of transport and logistics facilities in/around the Port of Gothenburg ................................................................................................................... 25 1.2 5.5 Hamnbanan – solution and problem at the same time ......................................... 28 5.5 Zone of influence in case of accident with dangerous goods ...................................... 34 6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 36 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 36 References ..................................................................................................................................... 37 Appendix 1: Transport infrastructure of national interest in City of Gothenburg. .................... 43 Appendix 2: Primary road links in Gothenburg municipality. ..................................................... 44 Appendix 3: Fire and explosive activities in/around Port of Gothenburg, excluding the five port terminals within the port area. ..................................................................................................... 45
ii
List of Tables Table 1: Different authorities’ responsibilities concerning transport and handling of dangerous goods. ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Table 2: Freight handled in the Port of Gothenburg 1973–2014. .............................................. 15 Table 3: Dangerous activities located in close proximity to Port of Gothenburg. ..................... 21 Table 4: Calculation of the number of fatalities in an accident during the daytime with the most dangerous substances in the proposed physical frame. ............................................................. 23 Table 5: Ongoing/decided and planned infrastructure projects in-/outside the Port of Gothenburg area. .......................................................................................................................... 27 Table 6: Planning stages for the Eriksberg–Pölsebo Hamnbanan stage..................................... 30 Table 7: Public’s knowledge and attitudes about the Hamnbanan project (percent). .............. 32 Table 8: Issues concerning the Port of Gothenburg and Hamnbanan in news media in the City of Gothenburg. .............................................................................................................................. 33
List of Figures Figure 1: Transport infrastructure of national interest in City of Gothenburg. ......................... 18 Figure 2: Primary road links for transport of dangerous goods in City of Gothenburg, and fire and explosive activities in/around Port of Gothenburg. ............................................................. 19 Figure 3: Recreational areas and facilities and areas with high natural value in and around the Port of Gothenburg. ...................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 4: Terminal locations within City of Gothenburg 2014 (percent). Source: Olsson & Larsson, forthcoming..................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 5: Catchment areas in case of rail or road accident along Hamnbanan. ........................ 35
Abbreviations CAB CoG MMP MZP PBA PoG SCCA
County Administrative Board City of Gothenburg Municipal Master Plan Municipal Zoning Plan Planning and Building Act Port of Gothenburg Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency
STA TRGG
Swedish Transport Administration The Rescue Greater Gothenburg
iii
(Swedish: Länsstyrelsen) (Swedish: Göteborgs Stad) (Swedish: Översiktsplan) (Swedish: Detaljplan) (Swedish: Plan- och Bygglagen) (Swedish: Göteborgs Hamn) (Swedish: Myndigheten för Samhällsskydd och Beredskap) (Swedish: Trafikverket) (Swedish: Räddningstjänsten)
1 Introduction Often with good reasons, ports’ importance for international trade and for local, regional, and national economies is often emphasised () by port authorities, governments, and the business community alike (LVGL 2009; GP 2012a; Parola & Maugeri 2013; Monios 2015; Bergqvist et al. 2010; Bergqvist, 2007). The argument goes that the port has to grow for domestic industry to be competitive internationally and against other ports competing for parts of its hinterland. At the same time, port growth also generates more freight to be transported and stored, including that of dangerous goods. The last years several freight transport accidents have occurred in urban areas throughout the world, both with rail and truck (Yang et al. 2010; Ambituuni, Amezaga & Werner 2015), causing material destructions, pollutions, and human fatalities, most recently witnessed in the 2015 Tianjin port explosion in China (BBC 2015). In addition to this, ports themselves are also closely tied to safety issues, as they are often lined with military installations, refineries, fuel tanks, pipelines, chemical plants, and cities with dense populations (Merk & Dang 2013). Whether freight transport accidents will become more common in urban areas is uncertain, but we can rest assured it will happen again, either due to human or technical errors, poor maintenance of infrastructure and rolling stock, or insufficient safety measures. While risk awareness is high in physical planning, it could be questioned whether the public is aware of the sometimes somehow ‘cynical’ risk calculation associated with planning: ”The risks of transport of hazardous goods are weighted against other society values in the physical planning. It is not possible to build a society without risks. Often the advantages of a close and accessible transport system outweigh the disadvantages with the tiny likelihood of an accident with hazardous goods.” (STA 2014a, p. 3, own translation from Swedish). Furthermore, port activities and other transport related activities located close to populated areas have become constrained by limited acceptance by the population due to its negative impacts. Therefore port layout is important, as the boundary of the port area with the city could be considered the area were most of the environmental impacts take place. If this boundary touches a large population concentration, the intensity of port impacts will evidently be larger (Merk and Dang 2013). When impacts touch surrounding municipalities, it implies a metropolitan or regional approach to these impacts. The issue is certainly contemporary and, in a long article, the Washington Post highlights that ports are now conceived as “the new power plants” not appreciated as a neighbour (DePillis, 2015). There is also a governance component to the discussion above, as there are increasing calls for better horizontal management between the transport sector, including port policy (Gilman
1
2003) and other sectoral policies (Stead 2008; Gil et al. 2011). In fact, there is increasing acceptance in transport policy-making that integrating decisions across different sectors of policy are crucial to policy-making, especially as a way to achieve sustainable development goals. The policy areas span from transport to health and environment via social cohesion and land-use planning. 1.1 Ports, risk management and social sustainability Risk assessment and reduction of transport of dangerous goods has been investigated from different perspectives, often focusing on technology, within safety-related literature (see Journal of Hazardous Materials; Safety Science; Risk Analysis and specifically Fabiano et al. 2005; Saat et al. 2014) but also taking a logistics perspective (see, e.g., Arnäs, 2007 and Arnäs & Woxenius, 2013). There is also an abundant economic literature on port performance, management and governance, including management due to stricter environmental legislation (Olivier & Slack 2006; Brooks & Pallis 2008; Saengsupavanich et al. 2009; Gupta, Gupta & Patil 2012; Ng & Ducruet 2014). In many of these studies, the focus has changed from the local where the city was a relatively demarcated phenomenon, to the relationship between the local and the global. In sharp contrast to this port literature, social sustainability aspects and public participation indicators of port–city relations are still much less researched in the port-city literature, the exceptions being that on social corporate responsibility, port labour conditions, and communicative aspects (e.g., maritime museums, cultural projects) (Merk & Dang 2013; Shiau & Chuang 2015; Litman 2015; see Wakeman 1996 for an exception). Another exception is literature focusing renewal of city-centre waterfront areas abandoned by ports (see, e.g., Hayuth 1982; McCalla 1983; Hoyle 1989 and Hall 2007). The relative ignorance of social sustainability and public participation in port-city literature is startling, at least for three reasons. First of all, port-city relation is multi-objective in character, including different stakeholders, and as with the environment social issues are becoming increasingly important around the world, including that of transport of dangerous goods (Gilman 2004; Houston, Krudysz & Winer 2008; Yang et al. 2010). Except for the potential accident risk with freight transport, urban freight transport also raises liveability issues (Cui, Dodson & Hall 2015). Road noise and traffic in residential areas located close to ports affects liveability and property values, and residential areas around ports are often inhabited by low-income and minority-ethnic communities (Brockaway 2008; Grobar 2008). Secondly, it is acknowledged that instruments in the spatial development policy area, namely port land use planning, should be viewed as social sustainability instruments (Merk & Dang 2013). For example, the concept of social amplification of risk and the individual and social perceptions of risk play a role in land use planning, where inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the communication process may lead to rumours on risk magnitude. Finally, while the shape and design of other projects and policies (place making, parks, bicycle lanes etc.) are subject to
2
increased community participation (Silberberg et al. 2013), this has, with the exception for waterfront regeneration projects, not been used to the same extent in relation to port development. One reason for this ‘shortcoming’ could be related to the somehow ‘stay away’ policy from government intrusion in the freight sector, or as stated by the UK Government: “It is a strength of the ports industry that each undertaking has statutory powers suited to its needs. Commercial decisions, as well as responsibility for port operations, lie with those who have these powers and the duties that go with them. It is not the Government’s job to run the ports industry”. (DETR 2000, in Gilman 2003, p. 277). While this ‘stay away’ policy represent a government position, it is stressed that ports both need to serve (global) customers logistics demands and pay attention to the city’s demand for sustainability (Wiegmans & Louw 2011; Daamen & Vries 2013). 1.2 Intersection of the freight sector with the urban fabric ”The modern Swedish city is more of a transport facility than a room for a plentiful and lively city life”. (Franzén 2003, p. 33, own translation from Swedish). The discussion in previous sections has highlighted several port-city related issues that need further research, among other, empirical research on how various logistics facilities affect urban land use planning (Woudsma et al. 2008; Cidell 2010; Allen et al. 2012). The relationship between transport and urban form has been widely discussed since the mid-1980s, but has mainly affected passenger transport. There has been less comparable research regarding the interactions between urban areas and freight transport activities. Once a port investment or any major infrastructure investment is planned or decided, it is valid to question whether social sustainability aspects have been assessed from the inhabitants’ perspective, including public participation. Have decisions been democratic and has there been consensus among different stakeholders and affected parties? This can be problematic since operators (e.g., port authorities) are often primarily interested in profit, while regulatory agencies and politicians also have to ensure public and environmental safety (Merk & Dang 2013; Ambituuni, Amezaga & Werner 2015). Many negative impacts from freight transport are localised, taking place close to the port area (noise and dust) and in the metropolis (emissions, congestion, and land use). This represents an intricate port-city mismatch: the combination of benefits spilling over to other regions and localised negative impacts. In other words, the positive effects are distributed in a wide circle around the port, whereas the negative ones often stay within the vicinity of the port (Woxenius 2016) Another characteristic of ports is their space-intensity; they occupy a relatively large share of the city land surface. Land use impacts often become prevalent in case of port development projects, because they enter in competition for land with other land uses in the city. 3
1.3 Aim and research question Based on an analysis of academic literature, official document and reports, and newspapers, the aim of this report is to contribute with a critical discussion concerning the relationship between investments and expansions in transport infrastructure and logistics facilities, national and local policies, and social sustainability. The point of departure is that the port-city relationship is multifaceted and difficult to delimit spatially, but needs to include factors such as institutions, governance, democratic planning processes, transparency, and citizen participation. Stemming from this, the overriding research question is: How do port cities balance legitimate local concerns – such as social sustainability and democratic planning processes – with the need for efficient and competitive city freight flows? Crucial in this balance concern the management of road and rail links and the siting and management of major nodal facilities such as ports, intermodal terminals and warehouses. This concern has both a local neighbourhood dimension and a wider urban dimension. At the local level, the direct interface with communities and the urban landscape is at stake, while at the metropolitan scale, the impact of freight networks and infrastructure on urban structure and performance is important.
4
2 A critical approach to present port-city relationships 2.1 The city’s and port’s intersection between local and global processes “The current state of port-city relations is diverse, but port-cities have one common challenge: to increase the net positive impacts from their ports. This diversity of portcity relations is determined by the relative weight of the port vis-à-vis the city, the spatial constellation of the port (in or outside the city centre) and the development perspective of the city” (Merk & Dang 2013, p. 7). The above quote elucidates the ports’ and the city’s dual relationship, a relationship that in itself has largely changed from one characterised by close intertwining to one best described as spatial and functional separations (Wakeman 1996). As the port and the city have gone through land use transformations, the port has become increasingly encased by express-ways, gates, and fences. As a result from this, the local benefits from port operations and the public’s and authorities growing concern of negative externalities have received more attention (Hall 2009; Lam & Notteboom 2014). Ports have generally been seen as an economic generator, but there is no natural law saying that the ports can act as cash cow to the city: “Rather than the economic hub around which a city's economy thrives, a port is often the most voracious of welfare recipients, demanding constant and ever-increasing infusions of public money to remain competitive.” (Wakeman 1996, p. 65). In the context of globalisation and transport network centralisation, where ports increasingly serve distant and dispersed carriers, shippers, and customers, a decreasing share of the hubs’ benefits may be materialised locally (Merk & Dang 2013), thereby loosing much of their direct relationship with local stakeholders (Hall 2007; Jacobs, Koster & Hall 2011; Giuliano et al. 2012). In such a situation the costs of port externalities are concentrated in the cities, while the benefits are more widely dispersed. 2.2 Port expansion, internal composition of cities, and public opposition Some authors (Wiegmans & Louw 2011; Daamen & Vries 2013) claim that the sustainability discourse is often presented as an outside pressure on logistics and port operations. This should come as no surprise, because both economic and environmental sustainability aspects have received greater attentions and are likely to continue to do so due to further legislative restrictions and public opposition (Lam & Notteboom 2014). While there are fair measures of a port’s economic achievements on different geographical levels, these ‘achievements’ also bring several potential cumbersome repercussions and con-
5
flicts. Along with growing volumes and traffic to/from the port, the demand for land for expansion is also growing (Gilman 2003), and port area expansion is crucial for today’s port development (Merk & Dang 2013). Space-demanding logistics facilities (terminals, warehouses) are increasingly concentrated in certain nodes (ports, airports) and along certain freight routes (inter-city highways and railways) (Rodrigue, Comtois & Slack 2013). The demand for land results in intrusion on surrounding environments, such as sensitive ecological milieus, agricultural land, and port related facilities located adjacent to residential areas bring negative externalities close to the public (DePillis, 2015). The position of a major port, for example, close to the city centre will produce a very different set of planning, regulatory, infrastructure and broader institutional management questions and problems than a port located in an urban periphery. Accordingly, as many ports are located close to cities it has to be questioned at what level the port’s development and expansion plans and needs can be met before public opposition sets in. A port also generates freight traffic going through cities. Urban freight transport is also affected by the location of economic activity, land use, sensitive environments, geographical conditions, political and cultural values, composition of freight flows, infra-structure provision, and regulatory frameworks (Lindholm & Behrends 2012; Stathopoulos et al. 2012). For example, European cities in general face more local freight problems compared to US cities given their older built form, higher average population and land-use density, and greater share of small and independent firms (Dablanc et al. 2014). Furthermore, the lack of political or public acceptance of an instrument, restrictions imposed by pressure groups, and cultural attributes, such as attitudes to enforcement, influences the effectiveness of instruments designed to improve urban freight transport management (May et al. 2003). As cities grow, alternatives to port land use emerge, often leading to conflicts to what prime urban lands should be used for port functions. There are mainly three solutions for these portcity land use conflicts: increasing land productivity of ports, port re-location, and alignment of port and city land use plans. Land productivity rates among ports differ widely, indicating the potential that exists for many ports to become more land productive. The average number of TEUs handled per hectare per year show great differences (from 49,005 in South-East Asian container terminals to 9,303 in North America (Drewry, 2010)), although these statistics might be slightly deceptive because container terminals in some regions include functions not counted in other regions. One example is U.S. container terminals, which have devoted large parcels of lands to rail yards or ancillary facilities. Higher land productivity of ports can also be reached through planning, regulation and the relocation of non-essential functions. Higher densities can be reached by changing the layout of terminals (e.g., land fill) to create longer quays and a larger terminal surface that makes the terminal exponentially more productive. Certain container terminals manage to stack more than five containers high in their container transfer area, facilitated by superior yard planning. In Hong Kong multi-storey warehouses have been erected in order to rationalise space. Such
6
approaches would require changes in local regulation and building codes. Another approach would be to relocate functions that do not need quay access; in various ports non-port related firms have been granted land with access to water. As urban port land becomes scarcer, the port might want to reserve future land for purely port-related functions, while relocating other functions to other areas. 2.3 Public-private sector roles and diverging interests between actors The division of roles between the private and public sectors is an important dimension. The latter has traditionally acted as infrastructure funders, land use regulators and traffic managers (Ogden 1992; Visser & Hassall 2010), but the provision of dedicated freight infrastructure has periodically shifted between the sectors, towards the private one more so since the 1980s under the global privatisation wave. The private sector which work under competitive pressure, have financial imperatives to provide efficient freight movement at low prices, but they control a more limited set of factors than governments. Wider considerations, such as regional and national economic performance, environmental impact, and infrastructure regulation, may be of less importance for private firms’ decision-making, and thus face pressure to externalise their negative environmental and social costs. In contrast, governments also act to ensure that costs imposed are reflected in the direct or indirect costs incurred by individual agents (Russo & Comi 2012; Wittlov 2012). Ogden (1992) observed that governments often struggle to balance regulation of private firms’ activities against the need to leave operating decisions to firms, to support efficient outcomes through competition. Thus governments seeking to manage urban freight may trade off these priorities. While individual private firms may not be able to shape the institutional context, larger firms, or groups, may collectively be able to influence urban freight policy through joint lobbying for regulatory change or state investment in major shared infrastructure or facilities (Hall & Hesse 2013). Currently, there are indications that cost reductions in the privately owned part of the maritime sector are facilitated by massive investments in the publicly owned part. The introduction of ever-larger ships, for instance, significantly reduces the unit cost for shipping lines but is a true cost driver for maritime administrations, ports and land-side infrastructure providers. Rodrigue (2016) identifies disadvantages of scale and these costs are rarely passed on to the shipowners as they would if the maritime sector was an integrated economic system. The complexity of urban freight distribution and the presence of diverse stakeholders with diverging interests raise multiple critical institutional issues in planning for urban freight (Stathopoulos et al. 2012). Visser, van Binsbergen and Nemoto (1999), Taylor (2005), and Stathopoulos et al. (2012) have shown that varied stakeholders and their interlaced relationships need to be considered in planning efficient urban freight transport. Tradition-ally, receivers, carriers, and forwarders were identified as key stakeholders (Ogden, 1992), while Taylor (2005) suggests 7
that shippers, freight carriers, residents, and planners/regulators are the key stakeholders today. Stathopoulos et al. (2012) also include urban and transport policy-makers. Research and policy-making efforts that focus on a single type of agent are often in-adequate in providing solutions to shared challenges. Instead a wider perspective that considers different actors, their interconnected relationships, and their divergent preferences is essential (Stathopoulos et al. 2012), because different groups have varied and sometimes conflicting interests and objectives, making it hard to address the interests of all stakeholders (Taniguchi et al. 2001). 2.4 Redefining the relationship between the port and the urban region 2.1.1 A broader meaning of sustainable ports In her scrutiny of port developments over time and how to frame and achieve this within a sustainability context, Wakeman (1996) criticise the strong concentration of available (and needed) port facilities and services (berths, water depths, rail connections, freight value, market share, etc.) as the standard indicators of vigorous port activity. While Wakeman does not discredit these indicators (on the contrary), she argues such indicators can mis-measure the impact of port development on an urban region. To put her argument forward, she refers to Cobb, Halstead and Rowe (1995) stating that: “They [standard indicators] do not distinguish between productive and destructive activities, between sustainable and unsustainable ones. They do not witness the drop in port-related employment nor a port’s grim isolation. In that sense, they are little measure of a port’s actual well-being”. (Cobb et al., 1995, in Wakeman 1996, p. 76). Wakeman argues we need gauges to invoke the broader meaning of sustainable port development to integrate port activities into the urban regional context, in particular where ports are located close to the city. The narrow emphasis on competitiveness (infrastructure serving the port industry), is short-term thinking. These investments are based on criteria that position a port within international finance and shipping, forces that are defined outside the region. To fund these investments many ports have either been privatised or leased out different port facilities and activities. Although Wakeman wrote this close to 20 years ago, similar thought are put forward today by port researchers. According to Lam and Notteboom (2014), a port with a strong environmental record and a high level of community support is likely to be favoured as it plays an increasing role in attracting customers, partners, and investors. Furthermore, Lam and Notteboom (2014) argue that the growing concern about environmental impacts of ports implies that port authorities can no longer take broad public support for port operations and development for granted.
8
2.1.2 Dialogue between the port, the city, and its inhabitants Within the sustainability literature, the strong focus of economic competitiveness and growth is challenged, instead defending the cohesiveness of urban civil society. How then can a dialogue between the port and the city be realised? This includes many aspects, such as taking advantage of a place is natural environment and historic culture, which themselves are central to the ‘sense of place’ and belonging that strengthens community awareness and fosters concern for the port and the environment (Wakeman 1996). Furthermore, sustainability implies democratic participation and decision making through mediation and open dialogue; it merges the port into its locality and urban community as a part of everyday culture and economy (Wakeman 1996). But how then should often excluded actors be included into port policy and planning? Doing this requires going beyond the old definitions of urban renewal that redefined public spaces such as decaying docklands and waterfront as prime opportunities for private investment. The debate on port cities needs the voices of all constituencies and stakeholders in order to cope with economic globalisation and to answer questions about local identity and transformation.
9
3 Laws and regulations for dangerous goods and infrastructure of national interest 3.1 Risk in physical spatial planning In physical planning transport risks are weighed against other societal values. Often the benefits of having close and accessible transport outweigh the disadvantages of the small risks of a dangerous accident to occur (Banverket 2006). There is no national norm in Sweden for "acceptable risk”, but an assessment must be made in each case. The individual's propensity to accept risk is often limited if it is not associated with self-interest, and therefore risk assessment is mainly a task for society. No matter what the requirements are and what levels are considered to be reasonable, the economic and political arguments always weigh heavily in the discussion of risk acceptance (Banverket 2006). Dangerous goods are substances and products that have properties that can harm people, environment, and property. A fearsome example is the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster in Canada when a derailing crude oil train caused 47 fatalities and an almost fully demolished village (The Toronto Star 2013). Annually about 10 and 3 million tons of dangerous goods are transported on Swedish highways and railways, respectively, equivalent to 3 % of all goods transported (STA 2014). Oil-based products account for about 75 %. No fatalities involving dangerous goods by rail have occurred in Sweden over the last 50 years, but during the period 2006–2012, 296 accidents and incidents were reported (90 % by road, 10 % by rail), where dangerous goods were involved, mainly in connection with the loading/unloading of goods, derailments, and leakages (STA 2014). The probability of an accident is partly due to the number of shipments and the length of the journey, while the accident consequences will depend on the type of dangerous goods and where and when the accident happens. The dangerous goods traffic a limited part of the road network, mainly on roads and streets of a high standard, while rail transport is usually considerably longer, equivalent to about 33 % of all transport work. 3.2 Transport of dangerous goods and authorities involved Laws and regulations concerning the transport and handling of dangerous goods, which is distributed among many different authorities (Table 1), intend to maintain safety, reduce risk of accidents, and limit damage to people, property and the environment in case of accidents (STA 2014). According to the PBA, municipalities shall take into account the risks associated with land and buildings from the beginning of their plans.
11
Table 1: Different authorities’ responsibilities concerning transport and handling of dangerous goods.
Municipality County Administrative Board STA SCCA Police TRGG
Responsibility Physical planning; consider risks with transport of dangerous goods in line with the PBA. Have responsibility for overall risk management. To ensure that national interests are taken into account in different plans. Plan, build and maintain national networks so that transport can be performed with least risk for humans, the environment, and property. Legislative framework on transport of dangerous goods: prevent accidents and incidents and unlawful operation with dangerous goods in relation to transport. Permit for [un]loading in public spaces within densely built-up areas. Rescue operations at accidents with dangerous goods.
Swedish regulations on the transport of dangerous goods also follow international transport rules and recommendations. Transport of dangerous goods by road and rail is regulated by the Act and Ordinance on the transport of dangerous goods by road and rail. STA also makes risk analysis and environmental impact assessments before constructing new transport infrastructure and give recommendations regarding safety distances to the built environment. A general risk management policy for metropolitan areas has also been adopted by the County Administrative Board (CAB) concerning dangerous goods transport, but without exact distances, the zones are dependent on site-specific characteristics. Finally, manufacturers, shippers, carriers, drivers, receivers, and the person responsible for the transfer/storage of these substances have a statutory responsibility for transport of dangerous goods to take place in the safest possible way. 3.3 Transport infrastructure and other facilities of national interest Swedish municipalities have a planning monopoly but to avoid sub-optimisation, they have to consider national interests. These interests are particularly valuable and important for the whole country and should, according to the Environmental Code, be protected against measures that could harm their values or the possibility to use them for the intended purpose (CoG 2009). It is primarily the responsibility of municipalities to ensure that national interests are taken into account, while the CAB ensures that national interests are taken into account in different plans. The CAB, in consultation with the local authority, also monitor how national interests are met in the Municipal Master Plan (MMP), but the state can intervene if interests are threatened. In situations where an area is of national interest for several incompatible purposes, preference is given to the purpose/purposes found to be the most appropriate to promote long-term management of land, water, and the physical environment in general. All ports of national interest in Sweden are based on the same criteria, namely: i) a comprehensive port operation with a considerable freight activity with yearly volumes reaching a certain level (or fulfilling the EU's criteria for being a TEN-T A-Port), ii) port/part of port which has particularly good location bound natural resources suitable for shipping, iii) port/part of port that maintains or interacts with another facility of national interest, and iv) port/part of port that handles special products where no equivalent alternative is available. A prerequisite for the 12
port's business is to ensure transport to/from the port takes place in an acceptable manner. Thus as a place of national interest, also other facilities and activities deemed to be necessary for the port's activities are identified as being of national interest (e.g., roads, railways, marshalling yards, intermodal terminals, and certain industries). It is important to pay attention early on to the risk aspects that are linked to transport to/from ports, including interference zones along transport routes. Plan proposals which limit the possibilities for road/rail transport and therefore can have a negative impact on port operations must be weighed against the national interest. At the same time, it is important to pay attention to noise ratios (and air quality) to if new buildings are planned adjacent to the port, including protective distances. This applies to both the port operations and the road/rail infrastructure. Roads of national interest include roads that: i) are part of the Swedish TEN-T roads, ii) are included in the national road network, iii) form connections between regional centres, iv) are of particular importance to regional or interregional traffic, and v) connects communication facilities of national interest. The land areas affected by the designated road network shall be protected against measures that impede on the construction or the use of the road. The road's function is the basis for the designation, which means that new housing or new activities should not be located adjacent to major transport routes in such a way that the function can be compromised. As for rail, national interests recognise current and planned railway construction and buildings directly associated with rail traffic. In 2006, the then National Railway Infrastructure Authority (Banverket) made a designation to accommodate the railways claim to land and water areas for transport in 2030 (CoG 2009). The existing and planned rail installations of national interest should be: i) of international importance and are/may be included in the EU's TEN-T, ii) of national, inter-regional, special regional significance or of particular importance for regional development, iii) required for the redirection of traffic in certain situations, and iv) links a national interest with other designated nodes, sites or areas of national interest (e.g., ports, airports).
13
4 Port of Gothenburg and risk picture in City of Gothenburg The PoG (Figure 1), which is the largest port among the Nordic countries, has expanded considerably last 40 years (Table 2). Around 60 % of all containers shipped to/from Sweden and around 25 % of Sweden’s foreign trade go through the PoG (STA 2013). It is the only port which can accommodate today’s largest container ships, and services around 140 destinations around the world, including direct trans-ocean lines to Asia and America. In line with the global trend, where port operations have moved from the public to the private sector (Monios 2015), also the PoG has moved towards the landlord port model (World Bank 2007), wherein the public sector retains ownership while the terminal management and operations are leased to private operators.
Table 2: Freight handled in the Port of Gothenburg 1973–2014.
Containers (TEUs) RoRo units Energy products (tons) Total volumes (tons) Source: PoG 2015.
1973 107 000 18 370 000 25 642 000
1983 310 000 16 047 000 23 881 000
1993/94 430 000 391 196 17 582 000 27 008 000
2003 666 000 513 549 17 295 000 33 274 470
2013 858 000 557 000 20 400 000 38 900 000
2014 836 631 548 801 19 230 000 37 120 000
Activity in the PoG is growing, and 2009 the port was expected to at least double the amount of goods within 20 years, of which the vision is that at least 50 % of the increase to/from the port will go by rail (CoG 2009:72). This requires the expansion of yard areas and industrial rail tracks in the port area. While a majority of the containers handled in the PoG is still transported there by trucks, the share transported by rail has increased from 20,3 % in 2000 to 45,5 % in 2012 (PoG 2014). This is an outcome from PoG’s strategic work (cf. Bergqvist 2013, Bergqvist 2009) to develop train shuttles, numbering 26 at present. The shuttles have improved PoG’s environmental benefits significantly. All shuttles, except for one, services destinations in Sweden. 4.1
Planning, permissions and supervisions in Port of Gothenburg
The PoG and its main access routes are of national interest since 2000 (LVGL 2009), and to ensure the port's function in a coherent transport network, reliable road-/railway connections are necessary, as well areas of industrial production, which is dependent on the proximity to the port. As a basis for the municipality's spatial development, those aspects and features are included in the national interest and the areas concerned. They are required to not significantly hinder development or utilisation of the port, and a description of the competing national interests and aspects in/near the port, which is of importance to the national interest. According to the PBA, land and water shall be used for the purposes for which they are most suited, and
15
the Environmental Code shall be applied in the planning and siting of buildings (CoG 2009). In addition, the port is also dealt with in the CoG’s MMP. The port's location in central CoG requires the continued development of operations there, so that related infrastructure and the continued construction of the city can be done in parallel. In connection with the national interest of the PoG are activities that are directly related to the activities of the port and its connecting infrastructure that should be considered as areas of national interest for industrial production, such as handling/refining of oil, automobile or other heavy items. Even areas of logistics and transshipment between different modes of transport, logistics centres and intermodal terminals, must be regarded as being of national interest for industrial production, as well as planned development areas for these activities. 4.2
Description of risk in City of Gothenburg
CoG’s changing activity character entail a complex risk picture. CoG’s current expansion is based on urban densification through, amongst others, housing. CoG is characterised by large areas of urban (multi-family/apartment buildings) and extensive transport and industrial activity. The population of around 500 000 and the many people, who are temporarily staying in the municipality (commuting or visiting events), present a particular risk. ”In addition, the ever present risk for an accident with dangerous substances, e.g., poisonous chemicals at factories, storage areas or during transport. If such an accident leads to a rapid and large exhaust in or close to a populated ara, the consequences can be considerable.” (TRGG 2011, own translation from Swedish). The CoG’s terrain conditions, with steep mountains surrounding valleys that converge near the Göta river estuary has led to major transport routes until today have been drawn up gradually and expanded and strengthened through areas that are currently the most central parts. The city wants to convert several of the older industrial and terminal areas into a mixed city or personnel intensive areas, and is therefore located along transport routes for dangerous goods (CoG 1997a). For example, Norra Älvstranden has changed from a shipyard and industrial area into a cluster for high-tech companies, education, and residential areas. Along these routes are also residential and working areas that under current conditions could not have been built within today’s building free zones, and some transport routes would not have been allowed to be built at all (CoG 1997a). Some of the most prominent risks that could lead to major emergencies in CoG is the extensive transport of dangerous goods. The numerous and large industrial establishments, including the port, refineries, storage of petroleum products, and the marshalling yard, where there is largescale handling of hazardous substances, contribute to the risk character through its extensive transport needs. The many large and heavily trafficked roads through the municipality – which often take place in urban areas – represent a risk scenario in itself, and there is a constant conflict between development interests and risks in physical planning. 16
5 Transport and logistics facilities expansion in the City of Gothenburg 5.1
Transport infrastructure and other areas of national interest “Roads and railways create visible communication paths, which gives barriers within the city and the natural areas.” (Banverket 2009:24, own translation from Swedish).
Except for the PoG in itself, there are seven roads classified as being of national interest in the CoG, another five roads the STA believe should be classified as national interests, five railway lines, and five railyards and intermodal terminals (Figure 1). Of these national interests, at least eight of the twelve roads, one of the five railways, and all railyards and intermodal terminals are, in one way or the other, directly connected to the PoG. Thus many of the transport infrastructures of national interest are of importance for the port and its development plans. Of the 26 road links classified as primary roads (or road sections) in CoG, around ten are directly connected to or influence the PoG, especially Lundbyleden (but also Hisingsleden–Norrleden) (Figure 1), which reached an average of close to 40 000 vehicles per day in 2013, are of great importance for heavy traffic to the PoG, but also to reach logistics facilities and industries on Hisingen Island (CoG 2009). There is a need for greater capacity along the entire route of Hisingsleden–Norrleden, eventually four lanes will be needed (CoG 2009:78). Turning to roads used for transporting dangerous goods. Of the main roads used for transport of dangerous goods, the main ones are E6, E20, and Rv40 (Figure 2). Figure 2 shows that many of the roads used for transport of dangerous goods are connected to the PoG. Finally, there are also many other national interest located close to or within the PoG influence area (CoG 2009). To start with, the MMP identifies areas of great value, national interests, and/or of general interest for nature conservation and areas of natural beauty, cultural heritage and/or outdoor activities. In this category, at least seven areas and activities are within the PoG’s influence area would there become further port and transport infrastructure expansions (Figure 3) (CoG 2009).
17
Figure 1: Transport infrastructure of national interest in City of Gothenburg.
18
Figure 2: Primary road links for transport of dangerous goods in City of Gothenburg, and fire and explosive activities in/around Port of Gothenburg.
19
Figure 3: Recreational areas and facilities and areas with high natural value in and around the Port of Gothenburg.
20
5.2
Risks and accidents
Fire and explosion dangerous activities require protection distance. The purpose of the indepth MMP for the sector of transport with dangerous goods is to provide a basis for planning and permitting, among other things, the municipality to manage land use along transport routes for dangerous goods. The risk range of 50 % mortality from the road for various events shows that the incidents involving explosives and poisonous and flammable gases pose the highest threat to humans, where the consequence distance for toxic gas ranges up to a few km (CoG 2009). The latest in-depth MMP for dangerous goods came in 1997 (CoG 2015), wherein substances that can lead to serious implications regarding human life in an accident were the following: i) mass explosives (dynamite), ii) compacting, liquefied or under pressure dissolved gases (propane, chlorine, ammonia), and iii) oxidising substances and organic peroxides mixed with (gasoline or crude form of explosive substances). In the risk and accident analysis between 2004– 2006, a large number of facilities classified as having high or low accident risk were identified (Table 3).
Table 3: Dangerous activities located in close proximity to Port of Gothenburg. Substance characteristics Fire dangerous Explosives Poisonous Environmental hazardous Source: CoG 2009:123.
Handling 7 7 7 7
Manufacturing 6 6 6 6
Storage 12 11 9 9
Depot/terminal 4 4 4 4
Total 29 28 26 26
The locations of activities in the CoG classified as dangerous by the CAB are mainly clustered in/around the port area (Figure 2). These activities pose a danger to accidents and can cause serious damage to humans or the environment. Different scenarios for the local rescue services in these facilities, where the activity itself is obliged to take action alone is not sufficient for TRGG to prevent or limit. Nor is the municipal expected to handle these accidents alone, but need help from owners/operators and TRGG. 5.3
In-depth MMP for the sector transport of dangerous goods
Actions taking place in urban space today will last for a very long time, while other activities are more operational/dynamic and changing rapidly, for example transport of dangerous goods. Accordingly, the associated problems are complex as they relate to a changing society where transport and urban structure are fully integrated, or as stated by the CoG:
21
”A fundamental standpoint for this general plan is that city planning cannot be adapted to the situation, which at a certain time considers transport of hazardous cargo or to short-sighted projections of the situation. Instead, the general plan hsas to be directed towards long-term robust frame, which considers transport demand and safety as ecologically sustainable development, general social economy, cultural historic aspects, city planning etc. Transport has to be aligned with the city and the special values and conditions.” (CoG 1997:8, own translation from Swedish). Involved decision-makers have to consider traditional socio-economic aspects as issues of resource management in addition to urban issues and ethical and moral aspects, but also international treaties (which were strengthened by EU membership in 1995), and the business sector’s interests. Residents did not appear as a single interest group (the society represents residents) in the MMP for transport of dangerous, but it was mentioned that safety, and partly security, for people who live and work in areas along transport routes for dangerous goods is a main problem. However, according to the CAB and TRGG, adequate safety cannot be assured if only internationally requirements are applied (CoG 1997). In relation to this, in the MMP for transport of dangerous goods, two main critics from the referral bodies were revealed: the difference between road and rail regarding the width of the building free zone at the transport links, and the use of aversion curves as a basis for risk valuation. None of these comments led to changes in the proposed plan, and two influential bodies (CAB, TRGG) eventually accepted the proposed plan as the basis for CoG’s physical planning. 5.3.1 Distance between transport routes with dangerous goods and the built environment To clarify the risk situation, a settlement free zone of 30 meters is recommended to be maintained around railways and primary transport routes for dangerous goods (CoG 2009). Along railways, dense office buildings is allowed up to the 30 meters limit, while unifying residential construction is allowed up to 80 meters from the railway. Along roads, the corresponding distances are 50 and 100 meters respectively. To build new buildings in settlement free areas requires a risk analysis showing that the building is safe. The assessment of the consequences and probabilities of accidents contain many un-certainties. It is, as TRGG points out, not possible to adequately quantify events that both are very rare, and has major consequences. It is problematic to base planning on such assessments (CoG 1997:25). Notwithstanding, the consequences of an accident in terms of fatalities during the daytime, with the proposed physical settlement free zone were estimated to be rather severe (Table 4).1
1
The calculation referred to the "design event", taking into account both the probability and consequence.
22
Table 4: Calculation of the number of fatalities in an accident during the daytime with the most dangerous substances in the proposed physical frame.
Substance Mass explosive substances (dynamite) with 15–25 ton/carriage & 15 ton/truck Flammable/inflammable gases (e.g. propane) Poisonous gases (e.g. chlorine)2 Oxidised substances or organic peroxides Source: CoG 1997.
Human fatalities Railway Road 125–200 ~70
