Item No. 090724/017

Response to ’s consultation on “ Route Utilisation Strategy”

To : Portfolio Holders Elizabeth Thomas Paul Barrington-King

17 July 2009

Main Portfolio Area : Planning and Development Environment and Street Scene

Author of report : Lene Beynon, Borough Engineering Officer John Spurling, Principal Planning Officer

Classification : Non-Exempt

Executive Summary

This report seeks to outline the Kent Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) recently published for consultation by Network Rail and to suggest issues which may be considered for inclusion in the response to the consultation.

The RUS Draft for Consultation covers main line services to London and regional services within Kent and parts of East Sussex. It identifies a number of gaps, the most significant of which concerns overcrowding on peak time passenger services into London on the Tonbridge and Chatham main lines.

The Draft includes the effect of committed schemes, including the 140mph new domestic services to St Pancras from December 2009, train lengthening in the period to 2014 and completion of the Thameslink Programme by 2015. At this stage there will be limited interventions possible using the "classic" rail network. Beyond this, the Draft identifies a number of options to significantly increase capacity on services on the new High Speed line to St Pancras as a way to provide crowding relief to services operating on the classic routes.

Corporate Priorities

Promote and maintain a thriving and diverse local economy. Care for our environment.

Report status

For decision

Report of Lene Beynon Borough Engineering Officer Continued

Background

(1) Network Rail is required, periodically to produce a Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) for all parts of the network. The objective of the RUS process is:-

“To make effective and efficient use and development of the route capacity available, consistent with the funding that is, or is reasonably likely to become, available during the period of the route utilisation strategy and with the licence holder’s performance of the duty’

(2) Network Rail develop and coordinate Route Utilisation Strategies (RUSs) on behalf of the rail industry. The RUSs will form the basis for the development and delivery of timetables, infrastructure maintenance and renewals for the network. They will also underpin the development of the franchise specification and will contribute to the Government’s High Level Output Statements

Kent RUS

(3) The Kent RUS geography includes major towns such as Maidstone, Canterbury, , Ramsgate, Ashford, Folkestone, Dover, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells and Hastings, with journey patterns into and between these centres being covered. Staplehurst, which serves the south east part of the Borough, is included in the Kent RUS.

Tunbridge Wells Borough is affected by other RUSs, Ashurst station was included in the South London RUS which was published in March 2008 and the Sussex RUS, which is out for consultation at present (deadline for comments being 21 August 2009), includes Gatwick and the Tonbridge to Redhill Line.

(4) A number of Strategic Gaps have been identified including:

Gap between committed capacity and the forecasts of future demand on peak services to/from London, leading to a prediction that such trains will become unacceptably overcrowded.

Gap between the planned train service within Kent (including linkages to adjacent areas) and the need to provide a train service consistent with future levels of demand across all transport modes.

Concerns about accessibility to the rail network.

Gap between the train service on offer at evenings, weekends and on bank holidays and the predicted demand for travel at such times.

Gap between anticipated train performance on an increasingly busy network and the need for strategic level interventions to reduce major delays

(5) Providing additional capacity on the “classic” routes is problematic. On the Tonbridge main line, whilst the Thameslink Programme alleviates track capacity at London Bridge there will still not be spare capacity in the central London area for additional trains to run. Furthermore, the two track section in the Orpington – Tonbridge area is a major barrier to growth.

(6) Given the limited opportunities on the “classic” network the RUS has therefore turned to the St Pancras services as the only practical means of responding to the gap in a meaningful way.

(7) Taking 2007 as the base year, total passenger demand in the RUS area is forecast to grow by 32 percent by 2019. However, this is not evenly distributed and a higher than average rate of population growth is expected in the Ashford and the Thames Gateway areas.

(8) As far as the busiest hour is concerned, in both the morning and evening peak periods, it is likely that the implementation of the RUS strategy in its entirety would be needed to maintain crowding at broadly today’s levels. The Tonbridge Line is one of the most crowded lines with frequent standing in 2008 and the prediction for 2019 being routine standing at peak hours to and from Tunbridge Wells.

(9) Other interventions The RUS has considered several possible options for increasing off-peak frequencies on routes not involving London, many of which are in response to stakeholder requests. The specific routes considered were Ashford – Hastings, Maidstone – Tonbridge and Redhill – Tonbridge. However, the analysis has shown that the RUS is unable to recommend increasing service levels on any of these routes, since there is insufficient demand to justify the additional operating costs. Similarly, the RUS has considered amending service specifications to provide new linkages between key traffic objectives by direct train, principally by extending the Medway Valley line service through the Medway Towns (to link Maidstone and Medway) and reinstating a Tonbridge to Gatwick Airport service. Again, no viable service changes have been identified.

(10) Longer term Government strategy as outline in the 2007 white Paper “Delivering a Sustainable Railway” anticipates a doubling of passenger and freight traffic over the next 30 years. Much of the additional traffic envisaged would be achieved by a modal shift from road, so London commuting – for which rail already has a large modal share – cannot be expected to grow to such an extent.

(11) The RUS has not been able to identify a solution before 2019 to capacity limitations on the Tonbridge main line. Interventions included in the strategy are therefore limited to a small degree of train lengthening in Control Period 4 and replacement of Cannon Street services with trains to the Thameslink network.

(12) Neither of the above interventions will provide significant levels of extra capacity from the West Kent area, leading to a risk that crowding on this congested route could worsen. However, it is noted that possible interventions elsewhere in this RUS, could indirectly alleviate crowding on this route.

(13) The RUS assumes that a number of planned improvement schemes will be introduced. These include the introduction of the turnback siding at Tunbridge Wells Station, which is due for completion at the end of 2009. This will enable Southeastern to facilitate four trains per hour between Tunbridge Wells and Charing Cross.

(14) The Kent RUS is looking specifically at the needs of the network for the next 10 years, and more generally for next 30 years. The final RUS for Kent is due to be published early 2010.

(15) Concerns That future development and regeneration in Tunbridge Wells borough will be restricted due to the lack of capacity of the railway services.

That we will not be able to achieve a modal shift from road to rail due to lack of capacity of the railway.

That emphasis is concentrated on the link to London with limited improvements to the links to other towns in Kent and to the areas east and west of Tunbridge Wells.

That introduction of the fast services in East Kent will not provide the anticipated increase in capacity on the Tonbridge corridor.

Crowding on trains in the Tunbridge Wells area will at best stay the same as at present. The seat utilisation figures for 2019 show that with or without the strategy passengers will routinely be standing at peak times when travelling between Tunbridge Wells and London.

(16) Recommendations It is recommended that the following concerns be included in the response to Network Rail:

Disappointment that there are very limited proposals to increase capacity on the classic rail network, particularly as Tunbridge Wells has been regarded in other RUS documents, e.g. connectivity between major centres as one of the least well connected within the Kent RUS area.

The Executive Summary of the South Eastern Regional Planning Assessment did state “work with local authorities on the development of their programmes responding to the South East Plan designation of “regional hubs” (…Tonbridge-Tunbridge Wells). The “hub packages” are likely to include: improving stations as interchanges, ensuring that they are well-integrated with the local walking, cycling and bus networks, as well as having adequate and appropriate car parking; ensuring that new trip-generation developments are well-located and strongly linked to existing stations”. The Tonbridge- Tunbridge Wells hub should be recognised in the RUS.

RUS should strengthen the section relating to access by foot and bicycle. While the RUS states that it would be best to address issues such as access by foot and bicycle at the local level, the RUS should be strengthened by referring to regional hubs, including Tonbridge-Tunbridge Wells and the hub packages. Furthermore, Network Rail is an important landowner and therefore additional or improved facilities such as cycle parking may be within the control. This should be referred to in this section.

Encourage that priority is given to a fast services from Tunbridge Wells to London

Encourage that a better link from Tunbridge Wells to Gatwick is developed

There should be a definite commitment to fully investigate the power supply systems south of Tunbridge Wells, which appears to preclude trains longer than 8-cars at present

While the RUS in its assessment of Option 7.3 (2 trains per hour service between Maidstone West and Tonbridge) concludes that “this not recommended, due to insufficient demand”, it is assumed that this is on the basis of current demand rather than future demand. It is important to note that Maidstone is a growth point and Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge are a regional hub and that the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council in its Core Strategy: Submission Document envisages that approximately 10% of the Borough’s total housing requirement will be delivered on sites at Paddock Wood, which is served by the Medway Valley line. The RUS recognises that “a journey from Maidstone to Tunbridge Wells currently requires two changes of train and takes over an hour and that unsurprisingly, most such journeys are made by car at present (para 7.3.15)”. Therefore, the RUS should encourage improvements to the connection between Maidstone (a growth point) and Tonbridge (Regional Hub with Tunbridge Wells) during peak as well as off-peak.

Support running trains more frequently on bank holidays, particularly as congestion is often experienced on highways network on these occasions.

Cross cutting issues

Legal 1. N/A

Finance and other resources, including ICT 2. N/A

Staffing 3. N/A

Value for money 4. N/A

Risk Management 5. N/A

Equalities 6. N/A

Safer & Stronger Communities 7. Improved public transport to provide access for all users

Health and Well-Being 10. N/A

Environment / Sustainability 11. LDF and Transport Strategy for Tunbridge Wells support a modal shift from road to public transport.

Human Rights Act 12. N/A

Communication and Consultation 13. N/A

Recommendation(s):

14. That a response is sent to Network Rail and that these comments are taken into account prior to the Final Kent Utilisation Strategy being submitted.

Reason(s) for recommendation(s):

15. Consultation by Network Rail

Contact Officer : Lene Beynon, Borough Engineering Officer, extension 3400 John Spurling, Principal Planning Officer, extension 2074

David Candlin Head of Economic Development and Regeneration

Appendices: None

Background Papers: Draft Kent Route Utilisation Strategy http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browseDirectory.aspx?root=%5CRUS%20Documents% 5CRoute%20Utilisation%20Strategies&pageid=4449&dir=%5CRUS%20Documents %5CRoute%20Utilisation%20Strategies%5CKent