'London needs rail freight interchanges'

Rail freight interchanges (RFIs) still have a future in London, despite last year’s rejection of the London Internal Freight Exchange (Life) proposal.
The SRA is producing a policy framework to promote RFIs and reassure developers who may be wary after planners killed off the west London Life project in August.
Speaking at the Life after Life conference last week, Jeff Miles, the SRA’s head of freight market development, emphasised that the decision “did not set a precedent”.
The government was behind rail freight, and appropriate projects could still go ahead, he said.
The SRA believed three or four RFIs were needed around London. Although it could set a framework, it still needed developers to come forward with proposals.
But developers questioned whether strategic policies counted for anything in light of the Life decision.
Nick Gallop, director of Intermodality LLP, said mixed messages on the targeted increase in rail freight and doubts over funding were putting off developers. They needed a “better steer” and the government had a crucial role to play in this.
The SRA’s framework, to be published in the autumn, will explain the benefits of RFIs to government, local authorities and regional planning authorities.
The SRAwill assess and actively support proposals in which it has confidence.
A better fit between planning and transport objectives was needed, said Mike Hughes of the Rail Interchange Investment Group, which has £2bn available to fund suitable projects. If the framework translated into planning permission, he was convinced that state-of-the-art RFIs could pull money onto the rail network.
Robert Owen, a partner at legal consultancy Bircham Dyson Bell, which has advised on RFI proposals, said the Life proposal was not in line with government policy, and it would have had a negligible effect on pollution and congestion.
The rail freight aspect had been secondary to provision of new warehousing, which may have been why the plan was rejected.
“The tail was wagging the dog, ” he said.
To make future proposals successful, RFIs needed to be included in local development frameworks and transport plans, Owen said.
nThe Greater London Authority is including RFIs in its transport plan. Its London Rail Freight study recommends at least one major intermodal terminal.
Welcoming the news, Philippa Edmunds of Freight on Rail, said the priority must be to safeguard sites for RFIs. “It would be almost impossible to find a viable alternative to the rail-connected site at Cricklewood in north London, so this is the first interchange issue to resolve, ” she said.

For use with: Co-Act