Vladimir Nikolayev: “Does Neva need an alternate route?”

Vladimir Nikolayev, Head of Volgo-Balt State Basin Authority, tells PortNews IAA about opportunities to build a new waterway as an alternative to the Neva river.

- Mr. Nikolayev, it is well known that ship owners operating at Volga-Baltic waterway suffer severe losses due to ship demurrage caused by the necessity to wait for drawing of bridges in St. Petersburg. What is your opinion about construction of an alternate route in order to solve the above problem?

- I consider it to be a fantasy of ignorant economists. Just think about their proposals! As of today, every vessel waits for about 10 hours till the bridges are drawn and free passage is available to get to the port for two hours while the proposed alternative implies passage along a paid waterways for three days to “cut” the costs.

- Those who support canal construction say it is reasonable as navigation is unsafe at the Neva. In case of any accident with hazardous cargo an environmental disaster is possible.

- It is the only convincing argument. If we could get an alternate route by magic tomorrow, I would be the first to feel happy. There are three dangerous sectors at the Neva: Koshkinski pass, Ivanovskiye rapids and draw bridges. Any ship owner dreams to pass those places. Ladoga-Sestroretsk or Ladoga - Vyborg could be considered as alternate routes causing no special economic damage to shipping. But fabulous free canal is just a dream. In reality, construction needs money, to get which a feasibility study is necessary. Such a feasibility study is unreal considering the existing capacity of other sectors of Volga-Baltic waterway. If safety issue is urgent, dangerous cargo is likely to be prohibited from transportation rather than money are given for construction of a canal for transportation of 5 million tonnes of heavy fuel oil considering current cargo flows.

- You say “current flow” while the Ministry of Transport promises to increase the capacity of Volga-Baltic waterway.

- As of today, it is not just a promise but a large-scale approved program aimed at reconstruction of Volga-Baltic waterway envisioning construction of new facilities and it is under implementation today. Just think deeper into the following facts: from 1999 till 2005 (seven years) we used to get RUR 60 mln of annual allocations, in 2006-2007 – RUR 550 mln, in 2008-2009 RUR 1.5 bln, while in 2010-2015 it is planned to spend RUR 30 bln for reconstruction and capital repair.

During that period Volgo-Balt SBA is to raise reliability of hydraulic engineering, solve the problem of one-way sectors with limited navigation, build the second lane of Nizhne-Svirski lock, create modern systems of navigation and communications, but! But there will be no any dramatic and fantastic increase of capacity. Verkhne-Svirski lock and six locks of Vytegorskaya stairway are single-lane locks.

When developing a program till 2020 and till 2030 we will insist on the necessity to build second lanes for all locks. Only when they are built Neva will keep down possible cargo flows and the second argument for construction of an alternate route will appear.

-So reduction of risks related to passing the bridges is impossible, isn’t it?

Emergency risk reduction is possible at any type of transport when involving people and real transport apart from paper work. All emergencies occur due to either human factor or equipment failure caused by human factor as well.

Unfortunately, the fleet is quite old today and the older a vessel the more thorough examination it needs before operation approval. The same problem is with personnel. Well experienced older experts leave their positions while there are few people wishing to earn their living at such positions.

One would remember six bridge-related incidents in 2005 and blame it on high water level. Is it correct? Perhaps, technical state of vessels, discipline and qualification were lower than usually as there was no position to control navigation in 2005 alone. Take traffic police off the roads and watch the consequences.

Our old fleet has 5-10 left. New vessels are to be built to continue shipping. I’m sure those to be deployed for operation at Volga-Baltic waterway will have lower deck-houses so that they can pass wider spans of bridges both at day and at night. It is to decrease risks and to improve competitiveness of water transport.

-From what you have said follows that you areskepticalabout solving the Volga-Baltic problem through construction of an alternate route along the southern border of the Leningrad region, reasonability of which was discussed by the Committee on the region’s transport infrastructure on September 3?

- No signs of skepticism. If we call things by their proper names and do not distort facts, everyone will understand the discussion was dedicated not to construction of an alternate route in favor of Volga-Baltic navigation but a comprehensive development of south-eastern districts of the Leningrad region. Natural resources of vast territories are out of operation today. Only infrastructure development is able to breathe life into their industrial and social development.

Enthusiastic authors provided the meeting with several ways to develop transport corridors required for the region’s comprehensive development.

These corridors are to have up-to-date highways, railways and navigation canals. Of course, canals are not very efficient economically as their construction is costly and their navigation period is limited but the authors insist on ecologically clean water transport, which is difficult to disagree with.

Nowadays, large-capacity automobiles carry sand, crashed stone and timber across the region thus severely destroying the highways hence accidents and permanent repairs. The development of a waterway network in the Leningrad region is a perfect solution of this problem. It is the way chosen by our neighbors at both warm rivers of Europe with round-the-year navigation and at seasonal lakes of Finland.

And now imagine the following! The waterways are built along the southern border of the Leningrad region from Podporozhje to Ust-Luga; industrial enterprises have appeared along them, residential areas and social sphere has developed and the goods produced by regional plants are delivered directly to the port of Ust-Luga; river tourism is developing in districts where one could not even dream about. To implement this enthusiastic scientists who had participated in the meeting did their best and, probably, tomorrow designers and builders will work their on the order of the regional administration.

Implementation of any of the proposed variants related to construction of waterways along the southern border of the Leningrad region will result in reduction of the load on federal Volga-Baltic waterway. Attraction of both Russian and international transit cargo will be possible with the decrease of local cargo.

I would like to believe that unequal competition with highways and railways will be won by ecologically friendly waterways which are to hold a worthy position in transport infrastructure of the Leningrad region.

Interviewed by Nadezhda Malysheva