DOCSLIB.ORG

Suffolk Local Access Forum

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Suffolk Local Access Forum Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Agenda Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/contact: Andrew Woodin 1. Welcome and apologies. 2. Minutes of last meeting (LAF 08/01). 3. Introduction of new members. 4. Bylth Estuary Draft Strategy. Michael Steen from Environment Agency to attend (LAF 08/02) 5. Onehouse – Chilton Way (LAF 08/03). 6. Correspondence – List of Streets, Lost Ways and National liaison between Natural England and Local Access Forums (LAF 08/04). 7. Tothill Junction (A14 NMU Audit) (LAF 08/05). 8. Ipswich Unitary Status Update (LAF 08/06). 9. Dates & Venues of Future Meetings. 10. Any Other Business. 11. Public question time. LAF 08/01 Suffolk Local Access Forum Title: Minutes Meeting Date: 17 January 2008 Author/Contact: Andrew Woodin Minutes of meeting held in Tranmer House, Sutton Hoo on Thursday 4 October 2007. Present: David Barker, Bryan Collen, Julie Craven, Gordon Merfield, John Pearson, (Chairman), Monica Pipe, Norman Southgate, Mike Taylor, John Wayman, Annette Whybrow, Anthony Wright. SCC Officers Present: Jill Christley (minutes), Catherine Osborne, Peter Tilley, and Andrew Woodin. 1. Welcome and apologies. Apologies: Angela Brown, Linda Hoggarth, Mark Timms, Bryan Freemantle, and Jane Midwood. 2. Minutes of Last Meeting (LAF 07/16). The minutes of the previous meeting were confirmed as an accurate record. No matters arising. 3. New members applications, resignation and re-election. Linda Hoggarth has resigned from the forum. Three more members are required to make up the required number. The vacancies have been advertised and six people have applied. Peter Tilley will retire at the end of November. 4. Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB Draft management plan – Presentation by Simon Hooton AONB unit manager, SC&H (LAF 07/17). A management plan is required under the Countryside &and ROW Rights of Way Act &and is reviewed every 5 years, – with the latest review due in 2007. The draft plan is currently out to consultation. It tTried to bring together things partners &and the public want, andThe draft plan picks up on CCountryside Character, setting out a vision for 2030. The plan reviews plans, strategies and extend external priorities and sets out aims, objectives, outcomes and monitoring. LAF 08/01 Simon Hooton flagged up some key drivers to the new plan: - sustainable Sustainable development. – development makes a big difference eg. in the Haven Gateway area with 50,000 new homes in 20 years where will the new population go for recreation? - - interest Interest in rural delivery – balancing the needs of urban &and rural communities. - Climate change – the need to understand the behaviour of people who want to enjoy the AONB, and help them to understand their impact and responsibility. - Coastal management – with the coming of Coastal Access the public need to understand that the coast is a resource. - Influence of farming &and forestry. -Development makes a big difference particularly in the Haven Gateway area – 50,000 new homes in 20 years and where will the new population recreate. - ROWIP o Countryside access o Suffolk Partners - Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) - Adverse influences - eg litter, disturbance, pressure of use. Need to find ways of minimising adverse influences. - Tranquillity - AONB has to balance visitors &and tranquillity. - Transport o Trying to encourage use of bus &and train by visitors. o Important to work with local tourist businesses, eg. Connect scheme, to encourage sustainability. o Coast link service to Minsmere &and Dunwich – very popular. - Multiple management areas like the Sandlings need integrated approach. - All major walks need upgrading, Simon Hooton distributed ‘Snape Explorer’ leaflet and raised possibility of a walking festival in ‘shoulder’ seasons. - Try to build on AONB branding. May have ‘You are now in….’ signs. Current ROW finger posts help already. - Volunteer ranger projects encourage people to get involved. Simon Hooton concluded he would welcome SLAF’s response to the draft document and would also welcome to comments on the strategic environmental assessment. John Wayman – doesasked whether Simon Hooton thought there would Simon think there will be funding to achieve objectives? Simon Hooton responded that although money was tight he was relatively confident of finding funding. The AONB has connections with various organisations, and many sources of funding eg. Haven Gateway, Interreg, the National Lottery and Connect. DEFRA have contributed to the sustainable development fund. LAF 08/01 Relatively confident they’ll find funding. Bryan Collen –pointed out that f Funding from Europe was likely to diminish; – it may need be necessary to get more from the public. Simon Hooton – agreed that there was a need to change the psyche of the public and convince them that they may have to contribute more. Gordon Merfield expressed concern at the number of cars in the AONB and said that some people arewere worried concerned that car park charges are were not going into funding the facility being visited. (Peter Tilley joined the meeting) The Forum discussed the need for an improved cycling infrastructure. It was felt that large tractors and trailers were making cycling in the countryside difficult and dangerous, and that saving money on cycle routes resulted in more injuries which in turn led to more costs in hospitals and emergency services. He asked what’s happening about cycling – need infrastructure for cyclists. – need to be safe. Large tractors & trailers make cycling difficult/dangerous. Wants to see cycle paths so people can leave cars behind. Peter Tilley responded reported that SCC is working on improved cycling routes but said that under the LTP it was easier to get funding for urban cycling, than for recreational cycling. Simon Hooton said he w– Would like to receive a response from SLAF containing GM’s these comments. The more these concerns are expressed, the more they would be taken into account in plans. John Pearson – The more cycles on the road the more accidents will happen. This impacts on hospitals – costs incurred here. The cost of cycle networks would be less than the cost of hospitalisation of injured people. Annette Whybrow asked how access and conservation can could be balanced. SH is responded he hoped to work with Natural England to promote positive aspects of visiting sites; to promote best behaviour in the countryside and to understand the implication of behaviour eg. letting dogs off leads. Wardens need to be out and about at weekends promoting good behaviour. Julie Craven was – Ppleased to see an emphasis on ICZM. Would She would like to see SLAF kept closely involved with the AONB plan. by maintaining good communications with them. The Coastal Zone is going to be important over coming years. LAF 08/01 SH responded he would like to strengthen links between SC&H AONB &and SLAF, as the ‘relevant authority’ body. John Pearson thanked Simon Hooton and asked for him to come back annually to review progress. He asked the Forum to feed back to their constituent organisations. 5. Response to Proposals to improve access to the English coast – comment on letter and pro forma (LAF 07/18). Forum happy with letter and pro-forma submitted. 6. A14 Joint working between Highways Agency and Suffolk County Council – update by officers. Andrew Woodin updated SLAF on a meeting in August between SCC officers and the Highways Agency and their agents, Atkins, to discuss access severed by A14 generally, and to discuss some specific sites: - Belstead – SCC are successfully negotiating improvements. - Bramford – edge of Ipswich – Agency acknowledge problems. They wanted to re-route the path to an underpass but are now looking at other options including installing a bridge suitable for walkers and cyclists. - Bury St Edmunds - the Agency may undertake a feasibility study on a cycle bridge over the A14. - All routes over A14 – Atkins will review their earlier audit of NMU crossings &and will involve SCC in this process. They acknowledge the same consideration needs to be applied to all the crossings. SCC will feed information into this process Andrew Woodin felt progress was being made and SLAF had an opportunity to get more involved. Catherine Osborne had spoken to the Atkins agent doing the survey. Catherine will look at crossing points and put SCC’s view before Atkins do their survey. ACTION: Catherine Osborne to draft letter from SLAF to Highways Agency asking for involvement/dialogue with them. ACTION: CO asked Forum members who had volunteered on this issue to meet to discuss. Anthony Wright noted the Agency needs to acknowledge that low use of ROW crossing the A14 is a direct result of the road itself, also this isn’t just about ROW but quiet lanes too. Highways Agency didn’t take this into account. LAF 08/01 John Pearson felt an ongoing positive dialogue is required that also looks at funding issues. He would like to meet the Agency once a year to discuss progress and asked CO to keep SLAF involved in ongoing discussions. It was generally agreed that previous success on Haughley Bends had resulted in more engagement from Highways Agency. They are more amenable now so SLAF need to maintain dialogue. Julie Craven asked if gaps and severance would be taken into account by Highways Agency? Andrew Woodin responded Highways Agency priorities have changed over last few years. Accessibility is now more of a priority. Severance of routes and splitting of communities is now more important to them. John Pearson expressed concern some s106 agreements were not working very well and SLAF need a better need understanding of them. Andrew Woodin told SLAF that SCC could fund a member on s106 and planning training. Peter Tilley explained that s106 are planning agreements made prior to submission of planning applications concentrating on highways and access to school. There is on average a contribution from developers of £150 - £250 per house for cycle paths and ROW.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Suffolk County Council
    Suffolk County Council Western Suffolk Employment Land Review Final Report May 2009 GVA Grimley Ltd 10 Stratton Street London W1J 8JR 0870 900 8990 www.gvagrimley.co.uk This report is designed to be printed double sided. Suffolk County Council Western Suffolk Employment Land Review Final Report May 2009 Reference: P:\PLANNING\621\Instruction\Clients\Suffolk County Council\Western Suffolk ELR\10.0 Reports\Final Report\Final\WesternSuffolkELRFinalReport090506.doc Contact: Michael Dall Tel: 020 7911 2127 Email: [email protected] www.gvagrimley.co.uk Suffolk County Council Western Suffolk Employment Land Review CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1 2. POLICY CONTEXT....................................................................................................... 5 3. COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MARKET ANALYSIS.................................................... 24 4. EMPLOYMENT LAND SUPPLY ANALYSIS.............................................................. 78 5. EMPLOYMENT FLOORSPACE PROJECTIONS..................................................... 107 6. BALANCING DEMAND AND SUPPLY .................................................................... 147 7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................... 151 Suffolk County Council Western Suffolk Employment Land Review LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 The Western Suffolk Study Area 5 Figure 2 Claydon Business Park, Claydon 26 Figure 3 Industrial Use in
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to This A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme Public Exhibition. This Exhibition Is About the Work We Are Doing
    A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme A1 Welcome Alconbury D3 Woolley A141 S2 Huntingdon St Ives A14 Town centre improvements including removal of A14 viaduct Ellington D3 The Hemingfords Brampton D2 Existing A14 Godmanchester Fenstanton Fen Drayton Proposed A14 Swavesey Buckden D3 D3 D2 The Offords A1 Northstowe Hilton Conington New development S2 A1198 D3 Boxworth Lolworth Histon Bar Hill D4 Milton Girton A14 D3 M11 Routes for construction traffic East Coast Mainline railway Cambridge River Great Ouse A428 Huntingdon Southern Bypass S2 Single 2 lane carriageway A1 widening D2 Dual 2 lane carriageway A14 on-line improvements D3 Dual 3 lane carriageway Cambridge Northern Bypass D4 Dual 4 lane carriageway Local access roads © Crown copyright and database rights 2016 Ordnance Survey 100030649 Highways England, creative S160069 Welcome to this A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme public exhibition. This exhibition is about the work we are doing in Huntingdon as part of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme. Members of the project team are here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you Highways England – Creative BED19_0157 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Why is the scheme necessary? The A14 provides an east- west route linking the Midlands with East Anglia. It begins at Catthorpe near Rugby, where it connects with the M1 and M6 motorway, and continues east for approximately 130 miles to the port town of Felixstowe. It forms one of the UK’s strategic routes and is part of the Trans-European Transport Network. The A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon serves an additional purpose, connecting the A1(M) motorway to the North The scheme will: of England with the M11 motorway � combat congestion, making the to London and the South East.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Ubiquitous Computing with Sensor Networks in Urban Environments
    Evolution of Ubiquitous Computing with Sensor Networks in Urban Environments Eiko Yoneki University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory Cambridge CB3 0FD, United Kingdom [email protected] ABSTRACT of smart WSNs with a bigger network such as the Internet A significant increase in real world event monitoring capability increases the coverage area and application domain of the with wireless sensor networks will lead to a further evolution of ad hoc network. Based on such a technological vision, new ubiquitous computing. This paper describes this evolution, lead- types of applications will rely on ad hoc connections between ing to humans being connected to the real world via comput- nearby nodes to establish multi-hop dynamic routes in order ers without awareness. We address an ad hoc communication to propagate data and messages between out-of-range nodes. paradigm, a data-centric approach, and a middleware’s task, to Sensors could be attached to any object, which may move understand the ultimate goal of this new world. We also briefly around, or be placed stationally. Furthermore sensors could explain our upcoming new traffic monitoring project in the city be attached to the human body creating Personal Area Net- of Cambridge. work (PAN). The communication among objects, humans, and computers happens at home, at an office, on a street, at EMERGENCE OF WIRELESS SENSOR NET- the train station, in a car, in a restaurant, or in other places at any time. Fig.1 shows application spaces for ubiquitous WORKS computing with WSNs. Ubiquitous Computing opens com- The evolution of cyber space started from mainframe com- munications over tiny sensor networks through Internet scale puters and moved to PCs.
    [Show full text]
  • A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme
    A14 CAMBRIDGE TO HUNTINGDON IMPROVEMENT SCHEME DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER - EXAMINATION Representation on Local Traffic Impacts By Cambridgeshire County Council Shire Hall, Castle Hill, Cambridge, CB3 0AP 2 September 2015 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8 CONTENTS CONTENTS 2 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. CHARM TRAFFIC MODEL 4 3. LOCAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS 6 3.2 Local Impact Report 7 4. SPECIFIC ISSUES 8 4.2 B1514 Brampton Road 8 4.3 Hinchingbrooke 8 4.4 Spittals 9 4.5 Galley Hill 9 5. ADDITIONAL WORK 10 6. MONITORING 12 7. INTERACTION WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENTS 13 7.1 Northstowe 13 7.2 A428 13 APPENDIX A - EXISTING NORTHSTOWE MONITORING 16 APPENDIX B – ADDITIONAL MONITORING LOCATIONS 18 APPENDIX C – ROAD CLOSURE GUIDELINES 19 APPENDIX D – SYSTRA REPORT 25 Page 2 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Development Consent Order Written Representation on Local Traffic for Deadline 8 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1.1 This Written Representation is in respect of Local Traffic Impacts and supersedes Chapter 10 of the County Council’s previous written representation (REP3-006) 1.1.2 This Written Representation, in respect of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme (the Scheme) Development Consent Order (the Order or DCO), is made in accordance with the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010, Rule 10. It must be read in conjunction with the Local Impact Report submitted for Deadline 8. 1.1.3 The Local Impact Report presents local traffic impacts and recommendations for mitigation. Information in the Local Impact Report is generally not repeated in this document.
    [Show full text]
  • SUFFOLK LOCAL PLAN MODELLING Forecasting Report - Forecasts with Demand Adjustments
    Suffolk County Council SUFFOLK LOCAL PLAN MODELLING Forecasting Report - Forecasts with demand adjustments SCC LP 9.2 OCTOBER 2020 PUBLIC Suffolk County Council SUFFOLK LOCAL PLAN MODELLING Forecasting Report - Forecasts with demand adjustments TYPE OF DOCUMENT (VERSION) PUBLIC PROJECT NO. 70044944 OUR REF. NO. SCC LP 9.2 DATE: OCTOBER 2020 WSP WSP House 70 Chancery Lane London WC2A 1AF Phone: +44 20 7314 5000 Fax: +44 20 7314 5111 WSP.com PUBLIC QUALITY CONTROL Issue/revision First issue Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3 Remarks Draft Draft Final Date July 2020 September 2020 October 2020 Prepared by Louise Murray- Leonardo Mendes Leonardo Mendes Bruce Signature Checked by Leonardo Mendes Charlotte Herridge Charlotte Herridge Signature Authorised by Michael Johns Michael Johns Michael Johns Signature Project number 70044944 70044944 70044944 Report number SCC_LP 9.0 SCC_LP 9.1 SCC_LP 9.2 File reference SUFFOLK LOCAL PLAN MODELLING PUBLIC | WSP Project No.: 70044944 | Our Ref No.: SCC LP 9.2 October 2020 Suffolk County Council CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 GLOSSARY 1 2 INTRODUCTION 4 2.1 BACKGROUND 4 2.2 TRANSPORT MODEL 4 2.3 STUDY AREA 6 2.4 FUTURE HIGHWAY SCHEMES 11 2.5 FORECAST DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS 14 3 RESULTS 16 3.1 SUFFOLK HIGHWAY FOCUS 16 3.2 VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIO 16 3.3 MODEL RUNS COMPARED 16 3.4 PASSENGER CAR UNIT HOUR DELAY REDUCTION BY LPA – DEMAND ADJUSTMENT IMPACT 17 3.5 OVERALL JUNCTION V/C SUMMARY BY LPA – DEMAND ADJUSTMENT IMPACT 22 3.6 OVERALL LINK V/C SUMMARY BY LPA – DEMAND ADJUSTMENT IMPACT 25 3.7 RESULTS SUMMARIES
    [Show full text]
  • Morelock Signs Working With
    working with The A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme covers a long and congested section of the A14 dual carriageway and is currently going through major works as part of Highways England's proposals to relieve trafc congestion, connect communities and enhance national economic growth. With the route at capacity, almost 85,000 vehicles use this stretch of the A14 every day with up to 21,000 being heavy goods vehicles. Since the start of the project and the installation of narrow lanes a temporary posted speed limit of 40mph was imposed. It became apparent that not all drivers were adhering to the speed limit especially during the evenings. Unfortunately, drivers felt they could exceed the 40mph limit through the enforcement cameras which evidently caused a rise in the amount of speeding offences issued and safety of road workers was being compromised. Working together with the Trafc Management team supported by Highways England, Morelock delivered a new solution with radar speed sign technology implemented in trafc management for the rst time. The introduction of the new LED speed indicating devices in construction work zones will protect the lives of road workers and encourage drivers travelling through to slow down. Radar speed sign technology is a successful technique being used for trafc calming efforts. These signs are proven to help reduce drivers' speeds in both the short and long term. Morelock's radar speed signs equipped with software that capture driver speed and relevant trafc data have been deployed in a host of applications from small communities to larger industrial sites and in partnership with the police force to tackle speeding by educating and changing driver behaviour.
    [Show full text]
  • Save Honey Hill Group Comments on Cambridge Waste-Water
    Save Honey Hill Group Comments on Cambridge Waste-Water Treatment Plant Relocation Phase Two Consultation Members of Save Honey Hill Group welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposals in the statutory Phase Two Consultation as set out in the CWWTPR Document Library. While we are keen to engage with AW for mitigation, we do this without prejudice to our stated aim to stop the relocation to Honey Hill as there is no operational need to do so1, the housing proposed for the vacated brownfield site can be met elsewhere more quickly than the planned availability of the site in 2028, and there is not a proper planning basis for this proposal. While the comments here are representative of the views of the group, individual members may also make their own responses. We welcome the fact that residents of a wider geographical area in North Cambridge have been consulted in this Phase. Comments to us from some of these residents are also included here. We recognise that not all surveys have been completed and that technical reports which would better inform our responses to the proposals are not yet available. We therefore recognise that proposals may change considerably before the Phase Three Consultation and reserve the right to comment more fully at that time. The questionnaire asks which environmental issues relating to the project are important to us. As all are of equal importance our comments are set out under specific issues but not necessarily in the order in which they appear in the questionnaire. 1. Design and Visual Impact Designs for recent Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTPs) elsewhere have aimed at achieving solutions which can neither be seen nor smelled, such as Southern Water’s Peacehaven plant2, Thames Water’s Deepham’s WWTW3 and Southern Water’s Eastbourne plant4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mesolithic and the Planning Process in England
    The Mesolithic and the Planning Process in England Volume 2 of 2 Edward Hillier Blinkhorn PhD University of York Archaeology January 2012 Table of Contents - Volume 2 Appendix 2 - Gazetteer of Interventions 3 2 B rigantia Brigantia Archaeological Practice Appendix 2 - Gazetteer of Interventions B ucks C M Buckinghamshire County Museum BUFAU Birmingham Archaeology C&N Hollinrake Charles and Nancy Hollinrake Archaeological Field Unit Cambridgeshire Unit Abbreviations C am A R C County Council Cambridge AU Cambridge Archaeological Unit C arlisle Carlisle Archaeology Abbreviation U n it CAT Canterbury Archaeological Trust AC AC Archaeology CBAS Chris Birks Archaeological Services A lbion Albion Archaeology Centre for Field Archaeology, University of A llen A A Allen Archaeological Associates CFA E dinburgh AOC AOC Archaeology Chester Arch Chester Archaeology APS Archaeological Project Services C hester A S Chester Archaeological Service Chichester District Archaeological Unit ARCA ARCA Chichester DAU Archaeoscape Archaeoscape Consulting CKC CKC Archaeology Archaeological Research & Consultancy at the Colchester AT Colchester Archaeological Trust ARCUS University of Sheffield C om pass Compass Archaeology ARS Archaeological Research Services Context One Context One Archaeological Services ASC Archaeological Services and Consultancy Cornwall AU Cornwall Archaeological Unit A S DU Archaeological Services Durham University C otsw old Cotswold Archaeology AS Archaeological Solutions Cresswell HT Creswell Heritage Trust ASE Archaeology South-East
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 5.0 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement
    Safe roads, reliable journeys, informed travellers A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme TR010018 5.1 Consultation Report APFP Regulation 5(2)(q) Revision 0 December 2014 Planning Act 2008 Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 5.0 Volume An executive agency of the Department for Transport A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Consultation Report Date: December 2014 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme Consultation Report Contents Foreword 1 Executive summary 3 Introduction 3 Approach to statutory pre-application consultation 4 Consultation outcomes 5 What happens next 7 Conclusion 9 1 Introduction 11 1.1 Purpose of this report 11 1.2 The scheme 11 1.3 Structure of this Consultation Report 11 2 The scheme 13 2.1 Overview 13 2.2 Strategic context 13 2.3 Need for the scheme 14 2.4 Objectives of the scheme 15 2.5 Evolution of the scheme 15 2.6 Recent development in the scheme proposals 16 2.7 The scheme 21 3 The consultation methodology 25 3.1 Purpose of this chapter 25 3.2 Overview of approach 26 3.3 Notifying the Secretary of State 26 3.4 Duty to consult local community 27 3.5 Prescribed consultees, section 42(1)(a) 33 3.6 Local authorities, section 42(1)(b) 33 3.7 Land interests, section 42(1)(d) 35 3.8 Section 48 publicity 36 3.9 Non-statutory design change consultation and engagement 37 3.10 Non-statutory informal engagement 38 3.11 Having regard to consultation responses 41 4 Overview of responses 46 4.1 Introduction 46 4.2 Statutory consultation 46 5.1 December
    [Show full text]
  • Moving the Road Sector Into the Market Economy by Gabriel Roth June 2013
    IEA Current Controversies Paper No. 43 MOVING THE ROAD SECTOR INTO THE MARKET ECONOMY By Gabriel Roth June 2013 Institute of Economic A airs IEA Current Controversies Papers are designed to promote discussion on economic issues and the role of markets in solving economic and social problems. As with all IEA publications, the views expressed are those of the author and not those of the Institute (which has no corporate view), its managing trustees, Academic Advisory Council or senior staff. Contents About the author 4 Summary 6 The failure of current government transport policies 8 What is wrong? 10 Commercialisation or privatisation? 12 The need to improve road pricing 14 Improving charging for road use 16 Proposal for a voluntary change in one UK county 20 How a privatised road system could work 25 Commercialisation without improved system-wide charging 31 The way forward 35 References 38 54 About the author 45 Gabriel Roth, civil engineer, transport economist, and early IEA author, researched the benefits from road improvement in the government’s Road Research Laboratory, and the economics of car parking at the Department of Applied Economics in Cambridge. He served on the Ministry of Transport’s ‘Panel on Road Pricing’ which reported in 1964. From 1967 to 1986 he was on the staff of the World Bank in Washington, which published his book on the private provision of public services in developing countries. Roth’s other publications include Paying for Parking (IEA, 1965); A Self- Financing Road System (IEA, 1966); two other books on the economics of roads; and over thirty papers on transport pricing, regulation and privatisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Global-Report-2 Sided 1 Column
    NORTHSTOWE PHASE 2 PLANNING APPLICATION Transport Assessment: Main Report August 2014 Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited 2212959 HCL House Fortran Road St Mellons Business Park St Mellons Cardiff CF3 0EY United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)29 2092 6700 Fax: +44 (0)29 2079 9275 www.hyderconsulting.com Homes and Communities Agency Northstowe Phase 2 Transport Assessment David Chapman/ Janice Author Hughes Checker Janice Hughes Approver Philip Harker Report No 5030-UA006156-UE31R-03 Date 18 August 2014 This report has been prepared for the Homes and Communities Agency in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment for Northstowe Phase 2 dated November 2013. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited (2212959) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party. Northstowe Phase 2—Transport Assessment Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited-2212959 CONTENTS 1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 3 1.1 Background .......................................................................................... 3 1.2 Planning Submission ............................................................................ 3 1.3 Site Description .................................................................................... 3 1.4 Purpose of the Report .......................................................................... 5 1.5 Report Structure ................................................................................... 6 2 Baseline Sustainable Travel
    [Show full text]
  • TR010018-002213-Highways England
    A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement Scheme Statements of Common Ground Report Update – Deadline 9 Date: 10 September 2015 Reference: HE/A14/EX/142 Version: Examination Deadline 9 Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ Highways England Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363 Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 2 Progress of the SoCGs ................................................................................ 3 3 Discussions ongoing in SoCGs.................................................................... 7 Individual Statements of Common Ground (SoCGs) Stakeholder Ref Suffolk County Council LA05 Coton Parish Council PC07 Fen Drayton Parish Council PC09 Fenstanton Parish Council PC10 Hinchingbrooke Healthcare NHS Trust LI09 Lordsway Park Residents Association NS01 A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon SoCG Report Update – Deadline 9 improvement scheme 1 Introduction 1.1.1 This report has been submitted at Examination Deadline 9 (10 September 2015) in response to the Examining Authority's (ExA) request for the submission of final Statements of Common Ground (SoCGs). SoCGs include points raised by the ExA through the Compulsory Acquisition Hearings and Issue Specific Hearings to date. 1.1.2 This report presents final versions of the SoCGs which have been completed since Deadline 8. Where possible, these SoCGs have been signed by the stakeholder and Highways England to confirm that the document appropriately reflects discussion outcomes. In instances where neither the stakeholder nor Highways England has signed the SoCG, the status of the SoCG remains agreed (and is unsigned for logistical reasons only). 1.1.3 These SoCGs are submitted to the ExA in relation to the application by Highways England for development consent under the Planning Act 2008 for the proposed A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme.
    [Show full text]