Baseline Report Cheshire West and Chester

Cheshire West and Chester Integrated Transport Strategy: Baseline Report Cheshire West and Chester

July 2009

Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3

Remarks Final draft Final

Date 28/5/09 24/07/09

Prepared by Roy Desouza Roy Desouza

Signature

Checked by J Marsh J Marsh

Signature

Authorised by R Elliott R Elliott

Signature

Project number 11550051 11550051

File reference 090724 CW&C 090724 CW&C Baseline Baseline Report.doc Report.doc

WSP Development and Transportation The Victoria 150-182 The Quays Salford Website: www.wspgroup.com Manchester WSP is one of the world's fastest-growing design, engineering and management M50 3SP consultancies. Specialising in property, transport and environmental projects, we work

Tel: +44 (0)161 886 2400 with clients to create built and natural environments for the future. Fax: +44 (0)161 886 2401 CONFIDENTIAL http://www.wspgroup.com This e-mail is confidential to the named recipient. If you have received a copy in error,

WSP UK Limited | Registered Address WSP House,please 70 Chancery destroy Lane, London, it. You WC2A may 1AF, not UK | useReg No. or 01383511 disclose England the | WSPcontents Group pl cof | Offices this worldwidee-mail to anyone, nor take copies of it. The only copies permitted are (1) by the named recipient and (2) for the purposes of completing successful electronic transmission to the named recipient

Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Population, Travel Pattern and Economic Analysis and Trends 8

3 Understanding the Local Transport Network 45

4 Summary and Conclusions 109

Appendix A Additional Traffic Data Appendix B Accession Plots Appendix C Discussions With Representatives Of Community Rail Partnerships

Error! No table of contents entries found. Error! No table of contents entries found.

FIGURES 1.1 Cheshire West and Chester in context 2.3 Cheshire West and Chester sub-area boundaries 2.14 Resident location of people working in Cheshire West and Chester 2.15 Work location of Cheshire West and Chester residents 2.16 Resident location of people working in Chester 2.17 Work location of Chester residents 2.18 Resident location of people working in Ellesmere Port 2.19 Work location of Ellesmere Port residents 2.20 Resident location of people working in Northwich and Rural North 2.21 Work location of Northwich and Rural North residents 2.22 Resident location of people working in Northwich Town Area 2.23 Work location of Northwich Town Area residents 2.24 Resident location of people working in Winsford and Rural East 2.25 Work location of Winsford and Rural East residents 2.26 Resident location of people working in Winsford Town Area 2.27 Work location of Winsford Town Area residents 2.28 Resident location of people working in Rural West 2.29 Work location of Rural West residents 2.30 Resident location of people working in Neston 2.31 Work location of Neston residents 2.32 Resident location of people working in Rural West excluding Neston 2.33 Work location of Rural West residents excluding Neston 3.1 Cheshire West and Chester road network hierarchy 3.7 Cheshire West and Chester Rail Network 3.8 Cheshire West and Chester Local Bus Network 3.9 Chester Local Bus Network 3.10 Ellesmere Port Local Bus Network 3.11 Northwich Local Bus Network 3.12 Winsford Local Bus Network 3.13 Neston Local Bus Network 3.14 Bus frequencies on interurban corridors 3.15 Chester Park and Ride locations 3.16 Designated Cycle Routes in Cheshire West and Chester

4 4

1 Introduction

1.1 OVERVIEW 1.1.1 WSP, in association with Lambert Smith Hampton, has been appointed by the new Cheshire West and Chester authority to provide consultancy support in undertaking an Integrated Transport Study. The key requirement of this study is to ensure that a comprehensive evidence base is assembled that will underpin the development of the Authority’s Local Development Framework (LDF) and then the authority’s Local Transport Plan (LTP). Initially this involves reviewing the key development proposals in the authority’s area and compiling data that describes the current and future transport demands. 1.1.2 This baseline report sets out this body of data which will be analysed and turned into intelligence from which problems and issues are identified and prioritised. 1.1.3 The brief also requires WSP to evaluate the available modelling tools and determine whether these are likely to provide an adequate evidence base to support the development of the LDF. 1.1.4 The study will then seek to generate options for addressing these future challenges that will need to be capable, in the future, of being turned into a clear and deliverable programme of action informing the spatial planning decisions to be made in accommodating required growth in the authority’s area.

1.2 REPORT STRUCTURE 1.2.1 The report is structured as follows:

Section 2 – Population, Travel Pattern and Economic Analysis and Trends

Section 3 – Understanding the Local Transport Network

Section 4 – Summary and Conclusion 1.2.2 An Annex to this report (separate document) includes the following sections:

Policy Review

Transport Modelling Review

1.3 AREA APPRECIATION 1.3.1 The Cheshire West and Chester area is shown in its regional geographical context on Figure 1.1. 1.3.2 Cheshire West & Chester currently has a population of approximately 330,000 (2009 Estimate). The population of the area is forecast to rise from about 328,000 in 2006 to around 346,000 by 2026. This is an increase of 18,000, averaging at growth of 1,000 people each year. 1.3.3 The age profile of Cheshire West & Chester’s population is forecast to change broadly in line with national trends. In particular:

The number of people aged 65 to 84 will increase by just over 40% between 2006 and 2026, from 50,000 to 71,000;

The number of people aged 85 or older will nearly double between 2006 and 2026, from 7,000 to 13,000;

The number of residents aged 16 to 64 (working age) falls slightly, by around 3%, between 2006 and 2026; and,

There will be around 5% fewer children under the age of 16 living in Cheshire West and Chester by 2026 than there were in 2006. 1.3.4 The Authority covers an area of some 916 square kilometres and contains the key settlements of Chester, Ellesmere Port and Neston to the west, Frodsham to the north and Northwich and Winsford to the east. Large parts of central and southern West Cheshire are rural and the rural population (from DEFRA’s rural statistics) is some 85,760 or 26% of the total population. The rural economy is still serviced from smaller settlements, but there is also a substantial long-distance commuter population resident in the countryside which looks across the authority’s borders for employment.

1.4 CROSS BOUNDARY CONNECTIONS 1.4.1 The new authority has strong connections with its surrounding authorities. To the north, the area abuts the densely urbanised areas of the Wirral, Halton (Runcorn) and Warrington. The north western edge of the authority borders Merseyside, bringing close contacts with Wirral MBC and Merseytravel, as Integrated Transport Authority. In the east and south, it adjoins the more rural areas of the newly formed East Cheshire authority as well as part of Shropshire. The authority has a border to the west with North Wales in general and specifically with two of its constituent unitary councils (Wrexham and Flintshire). The transport interests of these bodies are represented by the Councils, their consortium (Taith) in respect of transport planning, and at greater remove, by the Welsh Assembly Government. A specific issue for Chester is that the urban area of the city extends into Wales. 1.4.2 While there is no common boundary the important economic role that Greater Manchester has in the North West also needs to be recognised and there are relatively strong employment and commercial ties between the Northwich area, in particular, and Greater Manchester.

1.5 WEST CHESHIRE GROWTH POINT 1.5.1 One of the key influences on the study is the West Cheshire Growth Point initiative, which seeks to significantly accelerate the pace of housing growth in the area, balanced with complementary economic development proposals. Government accepted the Growth Point proposals in July 2008 and awarded enabling funding in December 2008. Information provided by this study will assist in establishing the transport options that will need to be considered in implementing the proposals. 1.5.2 The strategy for West Cheshire will concentrate new growth in four key locations of Chester, Ellesmere Port, Northwich and Winsford. These four key locations are identified as areas where regeneration priorities are greatest and where there are a number of available sites that can deliver sustainable development. 1.5.3 A key objective behind the West Cheshire Growth Point is to link areas of housing potential to areas of employment and economic opportunity so as to create a more self contained sustainable area. There is therefore an opportunity to ensure that housing and economic growth is accompanied by a transport strategy that contributes to this overall objective.

1.5.4 The intention in terms of housing is to deliver an additional 2,700 units between 2007/08 and 2016/17, over and above the 11,853 already identified in the Regional Spatial Strategy, an increase of 23%. A prime motivation of the Growth Point is that of increasing the supply of affordable housing, which has been limited during years of strength in the market. Therefore, 30-40% of the new homes are expected to be delivered as affordable housing. 1.5.5 As mentioned above a key objective of the authority is ensuring good linkages between areas of existing and proposed housing and areas of employment. Examples include links between West Chester and Ellesmere Port and Deeside, the Wirral, and Liverpool. On a more local scale there is a need to improve interconnectivity within West Cheshire itself.

1.6 KEY DEVELOPMENT SITES 1.6.1 As part of the transport study the transportation implications of proposed major development sites in Cheshire West & Chester will be assessed at a strategic level, to determine their suitability for promotion through the Local Development Framework process. 1.6.2 It has been determined in discussion with Council officers that the critical sites in need of in-depth assessment at this stage of LDF development are as follows:

Wincham Urban Village, Northwich 1.6.3 This site lies on the eastern edge of Northwich but relatively close to the town centre. It is currently a mix of brownfield and greenfield land and is partly occupied by a number of industrial uses and by Witton Albion Football Club. The proposals for the site include a residential led, mixed use scheme. The site is capable of accommodating 750 to 1,000 dwellings. The proposal could be integrated into the town’s public transport network. The site is expected to be delivered over ten years from 2011 onwards. The Growth Point Programme for development envisages 50 dwellings being completed in the first two years and 100 dwellings per year being delivered in years 6 to 10.

Northwich Vision 1.6.4 Northwich Vision is the regeneration strategy for Northwich town centre. Proposals include a mix of retail, commercial and residential development as well as associated transport, infrastructure and public realm improvements. Development sites are all brownfield and are located in the town centre and are accessible by sustainable modes. The first site to come forward will be the Barons Quay site which is central to the regeneration of the town. This will include 300,000 sq ft of retail development as well as residential and commercial uses. The Northwich Vision could provide 750-1,000 dwellings. It is envisaged that the sites will be delivered from 2011 onwards over a timeframe of 15-20 years.

Winnington Urban Village 1.6.5 This site lies to the west of Northwich and comprises a number of parcels of land that are mainly in or were formerly in industrial use. The site has been granted outline planning permission for a residential-led mixed use development (1,200 dwellings) including employment provision, provision of a new primary school, a local centre for shops and services and a community facility. It is envisaged that the site will be delivered from 2011 onwards. The trajectory set out in the Growth Point Programme for development suggests that 100 dwellings will be provided in years one and two with 150 dwellings per annum in years three to six.

Middlewich Road, Rudheath 1.6.6 This site is located to the south of Northwich close to the town centre and within walking distance of the railway station. It lies within the east Northwich Neighbourhood Renewal Area. 1.6.7 Vale Royal Borough Council resolved to grant planning permission for a residential scheme and a continuing care village subject to the signing of a S106 Agreement. S106 contributions include a £50,000 contribution towards improvements at Northwich railway station. Planning permission was granted in 2008 for 434 dwellings on two parts of the site and a continuing care scheme comprising 172 apartments and a 96 bedroom care home on the remainder of the land. It is expected that the development will be delivered from 2011 onwards.

Lostock Triangle 1.6.8 This is a key gateway site bounded by the A556(T), A559 and Stubbs Lane in Lostock Gralam. The site is allocated for a B1 business park development in the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan First Review Alteration. An application for the development of the site has been approved and development has commenced on Phase 1. The timescale for the delivery of the scheme as a whole is currently uncertain.

Winsford Waterfront 1.6.9 The Winsford Waterfront proposals are a key part of the overall regeneration strategy for Winsford and incorporate the Town Park, the Old High Street and several sites along the Weaver Navigation. A development brief has been prepared for the area setting out a regeneration vision led by residential development and comprising some 300 dwellings, a new 60 bed hotel and associated restaurant and a small element of commercial development. The development brief suggests a preferred three phase approach to the development of the area which would take place over a 10 year period.

Ellesmere Port Waterfront 1.6.10 This site is located on the north eastern side of the M53, adjacent to the existing Waterways development. It is a brownfield site and is the largest single proposal emerging from the Growth Point initiative with a potential to develop some 7,500 dwellings over a 25 year period. It is intended that the scheme would link to the Mersey Waterfront Regional Park and would create new waterside recreation routes as well as being linked to nearby employment areas and the town centre. 1.6.11 The development of the whole site is envisaged as a 25 year project and is likely to take place in at least four phases. It is envisaged that 1,500 dwellings will be provided between 2010 and 2017 with 100 units being provided in the first year and 200 in each subsequent year. 4

Central Ellesmere Port Area Action Plan 1.6.12 The Ellesmere Port Action Plan relates to a mixed-use quarter comprising a collection of mainly brownfield sites on the edge of Ellesmere Port town centre. All the sites adjoin or sit close to Ellesmere Port rail station and are within a five minute walk of the town centre. The Action Plan identifies a number of sites that either have planning permission or are being considered for residential development. In total, some 1,500 dwellings could be delivered on these sites. The sites are capable of being delivered over the next nine years but all have significant remediation costs and some may require support funding in terms of infrastructure and environmental mitigation.

Cheshire Oaks 1.6.13 The large retail and leisure complex on the eastern periphery of Ellesmere Port is considered capable of further development to accommodate related land uses plus employment. A major retail development (Marks & Spencer) of 18,116 sq m (195,000 sq ft) and a 950 space car park is passing through the planning system at the present time. A public inquiry took place in June 2009.

Hooton Station 1.6.14 A series of sites that exist around Hooton Station have been identified for development, some of which are derelict. These sites, if developed, could help to stimulate greater use of the railway station, that has good links to Liverpool, Chester and Ellesmere Port. The sites are allocated for employment use in the adopted Local Plan but have proved to be unattractive to employment investment over the past 20 years. If allocated for residential use the sites could provide between 300 and 500 units over the next nine years.

Chester Super Zoo 1.6.15 Chester Zoo is working with consultants and the Northwest Regional Development Agency on a masterplan for a development and expansion now termed “Natural Vision”, with the aspiration of becoming a world-class visitor attraction and a global centre for conservation sustainability. The planned development of the zoo will be constructed in four phases totalling over £300 million of capital investment, with phase one being in the region of £100 million, and will triple the size of the existing zoo. The plan will divide the zoo into four zones representing African savannah, grassland, forest and island and wetland habitats. The estimated completion date is 2020. Annual visitor numbers are anticipated to increase from approximately 1.2 million to 2 million. The submission of a planning application is expected in autumn 2009.

Saighton Camp 1.6.16 Saighton Camp is a large vacant brownfield former army camp and latterly a medical training centre on the edge of Chester’s built up area. Operations ended in 1999 and the site has remained vacant since. Management of the site was taken over by Commercial Estates Group (CEG) in 2005 who have been promoting it for development. CEG see the site as having potential for a residential-led mixed use scheme with up to 1,000 family homes, including affordable housing. There are access issues that would need to be overcome given the site’s location adjacent to the A55. 1.6.17 The Growth Point bid suggested that the site could be developed over a nine year period with around 40 dwellings being delivered in the first and second years and 150 dwellings per year being developed between years four and nine.

1.6.18 In addition to the above, further sites could be identified for consideration in the testing phase of the study.

Chester City Centre 1.6.19 A strategic development area in central Chester has been identified, which incorporates a number of separate potential development zones:

The Gorse Stacks area

The “Station Quarter”

The Canal zone east of the station

City Centre (i.e. Northgate) 1.6.20 Developing the details associated with these sites is an ongoing process, however the intention is to support a variety of uses across the city centre, with each zone also supporting mixed land uses. This would include residential, commercial and employment in each case. 1.6.21 Permissions for some elements within these zones is has already been granted, such as for the residential development at the former Delamere St bus station and the Northgate scheme.

1.7 DELIVERING A SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT SYSTEM 1.7.1 The Government has recently published a consultation paper entitled the Delivering a Sustainable Transport System (DaSTS) which is likely, when approved in its final form, to summarise the over – arching aims and objectives of Government transport policy. DaSTS identifies five key objectives for the nation’s transport network. The five priorities provide a helpful framework for the development of an integrated land use and transport strategy. These are as follows;

To support national economic competitiveness and growth, by delivering reliable and efficient transport networks;

To reduce transport’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, with the desired outcome of tackling climate change;

To contribute to better safety security and health and longer life-expectancy by reducing the risk of death, injury or illness arising from transport and by promoting travel modes that are beneficial to health;

To promote greater equality of opportunity for all citizens, with the desired outcome of achieving a fairer society; and,

To improve quality of life for transport users and non-transport users, and to promote a healthy natural environment.

1.8 LOOKING FORWARD TO LTP3 1.8.1 Cheshire West and Chester will need to adopt its first Local Transport Plan by April 2011 at the latest, by which time the current Cheshire Local Transport Plan will have expired. The Government has recently published draft statutory guidance for the next and third round of Local Transport Plans for consultation purposes. Cheshire West and Chester will need to take on board the content of the finally approved guidance in developing its Plan.

1.8.2 It is likely, based on the draft version of the guidance that authorities will have a number of additional freedoms and flexibilities in the way the next round of Plans are prepared. These include the potential to separate out the strategic and implementation elements of the Plan into two separate documents. The transport strategy embodied in the LTP could potentially have a longer timescale than the implementation element. This longer timescale could potentially coincide with that of the core strategy that will form part of the Local Development Framework. 1.8.3 By summarising key information regarding the authority’s transport network and exploring its relationship with the developing spatial planning and land use strategy for the area, this Baseline Report has the potential to form an important building block in the development of the LTP. It is also envisaged that the document, or material contained within it, could assist in the consultation process that the authority must undertake in formulating its LTP. In particular the Transport Act 2000 (as amended) places a duty on local transport authorities, when formulating policies and plans, to consult with:

bus operators;

rail operators;

public transport user groups;

the Secretary of State, in respect of Highways Agency roads; and,

any other people they consider appropriate (e.g. environmental organisations). 1.8.4 The draft guidance also introduces opportunities for the areas covered by Local Transport Plans to reflect functional geographies rather than being constrained by local authority boundaries. Some of the information contained in this report aims to assist in defining the functional linkages that exist between Cheshire West & Chester and its neighbouring authorities. 1.8.5 Finally the guidance sets out a six stage process, recommended in the recently published Eddington Report that authorities should adhere to in developing an effective strategy and deciding priorities for implementation. These steps are as follows;

clarify goals;

specify the problems or challenges the authority wants to solve;

generate options to resolve these challenges;

appraise options and predict their effects;

select preferred options and decide priorities; and,

deliver the agreed strategy. 1.8.6 This baseline report is designed, in particular, to assist in the first two stages of this process and also to ensure that effective linkages are made between the development of the LTP and the wider strategy contained within the Local Development Framework and the Sustainable Communities Strategy.

2 Population, Travel Pattern and Economic Analysis and Trends

DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS

2.1 POPULATION CHANGE 2.1.1 The number of people living in the Cheshire West & Chester area has shown modest growth over the last 25 years. This trend is shown in Figure 2.1 below. Average annual growth has been approximately 700 people a year between 1983 and 2006. The population of the area was recorded to be approximately 327,500 in 2006. The mid-year population (June 2009) is forecast to be 330,000 people. Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1 show that the population is forecast to rise to about 346,000 by 2026. Alternative forecasts produced by the Research and Intelligence section of Cheshire County Council indicate it could rise to as high as 360,000 or as low as 332,000 by 2026.

FIGURE 2.1: POPULATION CHANGE

350

340

330

320

310 Population (Thousands) 300

290

5 7 9 1 83 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 9 98 98 98 99 993 995 997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Year

TABLE 2.1: TOTAL CHESHIRE WEST POPULATION Population Year (thousands) 2006 327.5 2009 330 2011 331.5 2016 335.1 2021 339.6 2026 345.7

2.2 POPULATION BY AGE GROUP 2.2.1 Long term trends in Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2 show that there will be about 5% fewer children living in Cheshire West & Chester in 2026 than there were in 2006, whereas the age group which shows a significant increase in size and proportion of the population, is those over 65. The number of people aged 65 and over will increase by around 40% from 56,000, in 2006, to 84,000 twenty years later. 2.2.2 Working age residents (aged 16 to 64) fall slightly in number throughout the forecast period. The proportion of working age residents is forecast to be approximately 3% smaller in 2026 than in 2006.

FIGURE 2.2: EXISTING AND ESTIMATED POPULATION BY AGE GROUP

250

200

)

150

100 in thousands (

50 ulation ulation p

Po 0 2006 2009 2011 2016 2021 2026 Years

0-15 Age Group 16-64 Age Group 65+ Age Group

TABLE 2.2: POPULATION BY AGE GROUP (IN THOUSANDS)

16-64 65+ 0-15 Age Age Age Year Group Group Group 2006 61.2 210.1 56.2 2009 59.3 211.7 59 2011 58.6 211.3 61.6 2016 57.3 207.6 70.2 2021 57.5 205.8 76.3 2026 57.5 204.6 83.7

TRAVEL PATTERNS

2.3 TRAVEL TO WORK DATA – CAR OWNERSHIP 2.3.1 Table 2.3 below highlights levels of car ownership as recorded in the 2001 Census in the Cheshire West & Chester area. These show significantly higher levels of car ownership than the regional and national averages. Managing demand for car use and addressing problems associated with congestion on the strategic and local networks will therefore inevitably be one of the challenges to be faced over the coming years.

TABLE 2.3: CAR OWNERSHIP PER HOUSEHOLD

No of cars per CW & C North West GB household 1 40% 43% 44% 2 38% 31% (2+ cars) 32% (2+ cars) 3 9% 4+ 3% 0 10% 27% 24% Sources: CW&C – 2008 Community Survey National and Regional – (2006 data) Transport Statistics GB 2008 Department for Transport

TABLE 2.4: HOW MANY CARS OR VANS DO YOU HAVE AVAILABLE FOR MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY TO USE

2005 Quality of Life Surveys 2008 Cheshire Community Survey Chester Ellesmere Vale Royal CW & C CW & C Port & Neston None 13% 13% 7% 10% 10% One 44% 40% 44% 43% 40% Two 33% 32% 43% 37% 38% Three 8% 11% 5% 8% 9% Four or 1% 3% 2% 2% 3% more

Count 208 173 217 549

2.3.2 Table 2.4 shows that there is similarity across West Cheshire in rates of vehicle availability, although the highest rates are seen in Vale Royal, with higher numbers of two car families in evidence. This is likely to be a product of relative affluence in the district. Between 2005 and 2008 there is a trend showing an increase in households with two or more cars and a slight reduction in one car households as a result.

2.4 MODAL SPLIT FOR TRAVEL TO WORK 2.4.1 Cheshire West & Chester is a diverse area and includes within its boundaries a complex mix of urban and rural settlements ranging from the industrialised areas at Ellesmere Port, to many smaller rural settlements. As a result, a variety of travel to work behaviours and patterns are exhibited by the journey to work data of the resident population, obtained from the 2001 Census. Whilst this data is now eight years old, it is considered to be the most reliable, detailed and complete source of information on the travel to work characteristics of the Cheshire West & Chester area. 2.4.2 A detailed travel pattern analysis has been undertaken for the areas covered by the five proposed Area Boards that make up Cheshire West & Chester. This has been supplemented by a separate analysis of the Northwich and Winsford Town areas along with the Rural West area which has been split into two, Neston and Rest of Rural West. Figure 2.3 shows these areas:

Chester

Ellesmere Port

Northwich and Rural North – Northwich Town Area

Winsford and Rural East – Winsford Town Area

Rural West – Neston – Rural West (excluding Neston) 2.4.3 Modal split for journey to work data for the resident population of each of the above sub areas has been analysed. The results of this analysis are presented and discussed below, making reference to North West regional and English national averages and drawing comparisons between the different areas within Cheshire West & Chester. 2.4.4 Modal split of the whole area: Firstly, in order to provide an indication of the travel characteristics of the Unitary Authority as a whole, the modal split for Cheshire West & Chester has been analysed. This shows that the majority of journeys to work are made by residents driving themselves, at 71 %. This exceeds both the North West regional and English national averages of 64 % and 60 % respectively. Public transport (rail and bus/ coach) usage in Cheshire West & Chester falls below the regional (12 %) and national (16 %) average. Travel by foot and cycle account for 10 % and 3 % of journeys to work respectively. The figure for walking falls just below the regional and national average of 11 %, with the figure for cycling equalling the national average and exceeding the North West regional average of 2 %. The results are illustrated in Figure 2.4 below.

FIGURE 2.4: CHESHIRE WEST & CHESTER RESIDENT POPULATION TRAVEL TO WORK MODAL SHARE

1% 2% 5% 10% 1% 3%

1% Rail Bus, minibus or coach 8% Taxi Car – driver Car – passenger Motor c y c le

Bicycle On foot Other

71%

2.4.5 Modal split in Chester: Given the more urban character of the Chester area it is to be expected that the travel characteristics will differ from the rest of the Cheshire West & Chester authority. As can be seen in Figure 2.5 below, the majority of journeys are made via car at 60% which is the same as the English national average, but slightly lower than the North West regional average of 64%. 15% of journeys were made on foot and 5% were made by bicycle, with both figures exceeding both the national (walking: 11%, cycling: 3%) and fegional (walking: 11%, cycling: 2%) averages. With regard to travel by public transport, 2% of journeys to work were made by rail and 9% by bus or coach. The public transport mode share for Chester is slightly lower than the regional average of 12% and indeed 5% lower than the national average of 16%. However, travel by more sustainable modes is the greatest and travel by car the lowest of all the other areas comprising the Cheshire West & Chester Authority.

FIGURE 2.5: CHESTER RESIDENT POPULATION TRAVEL TO WORK MODAL SHARE

1% 2% 15% 9% 1%

Rail 5% Bus, minibus or coach 1% Taxi Car – driver 7% Car – passenger Motorcycle Bicycle On f oot Other

60%

2.4.6 Modal Split in Ellesmere Port: Alongside Chester, Ellesmere Port is one of the more densely populated areas in the Cheshire West & Chester area, which is expected to influence the travel to work behaviour of its residents. Car borne trips represent the majority of journeys to work from Ellesmere Port, with 67% of residents driving to work, which exceeds both the regional and national average. 8% of journeys to work are made on foot with 4% via bicycle. It is notable that, whilst pedestrian journeys in Ellesmere Port fall below both the regional and national average, cycle journeys are double the regional average. Travel by public transport (rail and bus or coach) enjoys a 7% modal share which is 5% below the North West regional average of 12% and almost half that of the national average of 16%. The results are illustrated in Figure 2.6 below.

FIGURE 2.6: ELLESMERE PORT RESIDENT POPULATION TRAVEL TO WORK MODAL SHARE

8% 2% 5% 1% 4%

1% Rail Bus, minibus or coach 10% Taxi

Car – driver Car – passenger Motorcycle Bicycle On f oot

Other

67%

2.4.7 Modal split in Northwich and Rural North: this is one of the more varied areas in Cheshire West & Chester in terms of its land use and population densities, encompassing the more urbanised areas around Northwich and smaller settlements in the likes of Frodsham and Helsby. As a result of this, at 76%, the share of car borne journeys exceeds the regional and national averages. Parallel to the high car usage in the area, the public transport mode share in the area is well below the national and regional averages at four percent. With a mode share of three percent, bus and coach travel is a third of that in the North West region as a whole. Travel by sustainable modes of foot and bicycle represent three and eight percent of journeys to work respectively. Whilst travel by foot falls below the regional and national average, travel by bicycle equals the national average and indeed exceeds the North West regional average. The results are illustrated in Figure 2.7 below.

FIGURE 2.7 NORTHWICH AND RURAL NORTH RESIDENT POPULATION TRAVEL TO WORK MODAL SHARE

2.9% 1.4% 0.6% 0.2% 8.2% 2.6%

1.4% Rail 7.1% Bus, minibus or coach Taxi Car – driver Car – passenger Motor c y c le Bicycle On f oot Other

75.7%

2.4.8 Modal split in Northwich Town Area: as one of the main urban settlements in Cheshire West and Chester, the Northwich town area shows a slightly less car- dependent mode split than more rural areas. However, this is not a particularly marked effect, and generally Northwich is more car dependent that the other major towns and cities in the area. The car driver mode share is slightly lower, at 73%, than the more rural areas in Cheshire West & Chester, however it is significantly higher than all the other major towns and cities (Chester, Ellesmere Port and Winsford at 60%, 67% and 69% respectively). Likewise at 2.5%, Northwich’s bus mode share is also lower than the other major towns and cities. The results are illustrated in figure 2.8, below.

FIGURE 2.8 NORTHWICH TOWN AREA RESIDENT POPULATION TRAVEL TO WORK MODAL SHARE

0.5% 3.4% 0.5% 0.3% 12.2%

Rail 2.9% Bus, minibus or coach 1.4% Taxi

9.7% Car – driver

Car – passenger Motorcycle etc

Bicycle

On foot Other 69.2%

2.4.9 Modal share in Winsford and Rural East: Winsford and Rural East is a relatively rural area within the Cheshire West & Chester Region but encompassing the urban extent of the sizable settlement of Winsford. In line with the rest of the Cheshire West & Chester Unitary Authority, apart from Chester, car borne journeys are greater than the regional and national average at 76%. Public transport journeys account for four percent of journeys to work (one percent rail, three percent bus and coach). Journeys to work on foot are the second highest in the Authority at nine percent, and cycle borne journeys with a three percent modal share exceed the North West regional average and match the national average. The results are illustrated in Figure 2.9 below.

FIGURE 2.9: WINSFORD AND RURAL EAST RESIDENT POPULATION TRAVEL TO WORK MODAL SHARE

1% 1% 3% 9% 0% 3% 1% Rail 7% Bus, minibus or coach Taxi Car – driver Car – passenger Motor c y c le Bicycle On f oot Other

76%

2.4.10 Modal split in Winsford Town Area: the town of Winsford itself has a significantly less car-dependent mode split than the rural areas surrounding it, with a lower car mode share, and higher mode shares to each of bus, car passenger, cycling and walking. Winsford has a particularly high walking mode share (12%). This is higher than all parts of the area with the exception of Chester and significantly higher than the other main urban areas of Ellesmere Port and Northwich. The results are illustrated in Figure 2.10, below.

FIGURE 2.10 WINSFORD TOWN AREA RESIDENT POPULATION TRAVEL TO WORK MODAL SHARE

0.5% 3.4% 0.5% 0.3% 12.2%

Rail 2.9% Bus, minibus or coach 1.4% Taxi

9.7% Car – driver

Car – passenger Motorcycle etc

Bicycle

On foot Other 69.2%

2.4.11 Modal split in Rural West: due to its generally rural nature, the rural west area has highly car dependent commuting patterns, with 78% of all commuting being undertaken by driving, and 84% by car overall (including car passenger). These are the highest figures of any of the five area board areas. The area also has the lowest walking (6.8%) and cycling (2.0%) mode shares of any of the five proposed area board areas. However, bus mode share (3.1%) is slightly higher than both Northwich and Rural North and Winsford and Rural East. The Rural West area also demonstrates a higher bus mode share than the town area of Northwich, perhaps indicating the higher bus mode shares which are obtained by commuting into Chester from the Rural West area.

FIGURE 2.11 RURAL WEST AREA RESIDENT POPULATION TRAVEL TO WORK MODAL SHARE

3.1% 0.9% 1.6% 2.0% 6.8% 0.4% 1.0% 6.3% Rail Bus, minibus or coach Taxi Car – driver Car – passenger Motorcycle etc Bicycle On foot Other

77.8%

2.4.12 Modal split in Neston: Although less so than Chester and Ellesmere Port, Neston is a relatively urban area in comparison with the rest of the Cheshire West & Chester Authority. Again, car borne journeys represent the majority of journeys from the area with 76% of residents driving to work. This greatly exceeds the North West regional average of 64 % and the national average of 60 %. Travel by sustainable modes represents 9 % of all journeys to work, with travel on foot accounting for 7 % of journeys which is below both the national and regional averages. Travel by bicycle, at 2% percent mirrors the North West regional average but falls below the national average of three percent. With regards public transport, whilst the mode share of bus and coach falls well below the regional and national average at three percent, the mode share of three percent enjoyed by rail travel exceeds the North West regional average of two percent and matches the English national average. The results are illustrated in Figure 2.12 below.

FIGURE 2.12: NESTON RESIDENT POPULATION TRAVEL TO WORK MODAL SHARE

1% 2% 3% 7% 3%1% 1%

7% Rail Bus, minibus or coach Taxi Car – driver Car – passenger Motorcycle Bicycle

On f oot Other

76%

2.4.13 Modal share in Rural West (excluding Neston): Rural west is the largest and least urbanised area in Cheshire West & Chester, especially so once Neston is excluded. As can be expected of such an area, it has a highly car-dependent modal split for commuting. Driving to work at 79%, is higher than any other part of the Cheshire West & Chester area. Travel by public transport in the area falls well below the regional and national averages at four percent (one percent by rail and three percent by bus and coach). Similarly pedestrian and bicycle travel to work is below the national and regional averages at seven percent and two percent respectively. The results are illustrated in Figure 2.13 below.

FIGURE 2.13: RURAL WEST (EXCLUDING NESTON) RESIDENT POPULATION TRAVEL TO WORK MODAL SHARE

2% 7% 1% 3%0% 1%

6% Rail Bus, minibus or coach Taxi Car – driver

Car – passenger

Motorcycle

Bicycle

On f oot Other

79%

2.4.14 Summary of mode share: as can be seen from the data presented above, with the exception of Chester, each of the areas share similar travel characteristics, with high levels of private vehicle use and lower than regional and national average public transport usage. Across all six areas travel to work by foot is lower than regional and national averages, however, in some cases, such as in Chester and Winsford and Rural East, cycling exceeds the regional average and matches or exceeds the national average.

2.5 COMMUTING PATTERNS 2.5.1 In order to gain a thorough understanding of the demand for travel to, from and within Cheshire West & Chester, WSP have undertaken extensive analysis of travel patterns both within the District and between the District and the rest of the country. This chapter reports the results of this analysis. 2.5.2 This section in broken down into the following sub-sections:

Methodology;

Travel between Cheshire West & Chester and the rest of the country;

Travel between each of six defined sub-areas of the Authority and the rest of the country;

Trips between the Cheshire West & Chester sub-areas;

An examination of travel patterns associated with the urban areas of Northwich and Winsford; and,

A summary of Mode Share broken down by origin/destination. Methodology 2.5.3 The 2001Census includes information on where the population live and where they work and the mode of transport that they use for commuting. This information is publicly available as Table W203 of the travel to work datasets. Using this information we have undertaken analysis of travel patterns by selecting wards for which we are interested in understanding the travel patterns. To deliver the analysis presented below, we have looked at all journeys to work that are made to Cheshire West & Chester (i.e. people who work there) and all journeys made from Cheshire West & Chester (i.e. people who live there). This analysis not only reveals the distributional pattern of travel but also the mode of travel that is used. 2.5.4 In order to make the results of the analysis manageable, it has been necessary to divide the whole of England and Wales into 38 Travel Areas. These Travel Areas each reflect an ‘area of interest’ for this study. These areas range in size as small areas have been defined for the region surrounding Cheshire West & Chester to provide an insight into local movements. The further away from Cheshire West & Chester the areas are, the larger they become in order to understand broad strategic travel demand to Cheshire West & Chester. 2.5.5 The breakdown of the Travel Areas is as follows:

Cheshire West & Chester itself has been broken down into 6 sub-areas consisting of the 5 proposed Area Boards, with Rural West additionally being split into two areas, Neston being examined separately to the rest of Rural West in order to pick up any differences in travel patterns that might be associated with Neston, which is geographically relatively distant from much of the rest of Rural West; 21

11 areas make up the rest of the North West

7 areas make up the West Midlands;

6 areas make up Wales;

2 areas make up the East Midlands (Derbyshire being examined separately to the rest of the region due to its relative proximity to Cheshire West & Chester); and,

6 areas (the six remaining English regions) make up the rest of England.

Travel between Cheshire West & Chester and the Rest of the Country 2.5.6 Table 2.5 below provides a summary of all trips that are made to, from and within Cheshire West & Chester for work purposes for each of the 32 Travel Areas. These are mapped in Figures 2.14 and 2.15

TABLE 2.5: SUMMARY OF TRIPS BETWEEN CHESHIRE WEST & CHESTER AND THE REST OF THE COUNTRY

Region Area Inbound Outbound Balance Number % of Total Number % of Total Count

East Cheshire 7,796 15.5 8,986 17.1 -1,190 Greater Manchester 3,147 6.3 7,450 14.2 -4,303 Wirral 10,425 20.7 6,587 12.5 3,838 Liverpool 1,473 2.9 3,943 7.5 -2,470 Sefton 537 1.1 456 0.9 81 North West St. Helens 495 1 455 0.9 40 Knowsley 445 0.9 648 1.2 -203 Lancashire, Blackpool & Blackburn 528 1 651 1.2 -123 Cumbria 50 0.1 48 0.1 2 Halton 2,346 4.7 5,033 9.6 -2,687 Warrington 2,147 4.3 3,870 7.4 -1,723 Denbighshire 952 1.9 264 0.5 688 Flintshire 11,453 22.8 7,647 14.6 3,806 Wrexham 4,515 9 2,059 3.9 2,456 Wales Mid Wales 51 0.1 33 0.1 18 North West Wales 639 1.3 201 0.4 438 South Wales 78 0.2 45 0.1 33 Derbyshire 156 0.3 108 0.2 48 East Midlands Rest of East Midlands 162 0.3 204 0.4 -42 Herefordshire 18 0 0 0 18 Shropshire + Telford & Wrekin 948 1.9 606 1.2 342 Staffordshire 504 1 381 0.7 123 West Midlands Stoke-on-Trent 237 0.5 225 0.4 12 Warwickshire 21 0 48 0.1 -27 West Midlands Conurbation 108 0.2 261 0.5 -153 Worcestershire 21 0 54 0.1 -33 East of England East of England 195 0.4 510 1 -315 London London 90 0.2 564 1.1 -474 North East North East 156 0.3 57 0.1 99 South East South East 147 0.3 579 1.1 -432 South West South West 126 0.3 213 0.4 -87 Yorkshire & The Humber Yorkshire & The Humber 375 0.7 342 0.7 33 Total Trips to / from CW+C 50,341 100 52,528 100 -2,187 Internal Trips within CW+C 100,377 - 100,377 - 0

2.5.7 Particular observations from Table 2.5 are:

In total there were 50,341 journeys to work into Cheshire West & Chester in 2001 and 52,528 journeys out of Cheshire West & Chester. This means that Cheshire West & Chester had a net loss of 2,187 work-based trips. There were 100,377 internal trips within Cheshire West & Chester. This is approximately double the number of trips into or out of the region, showing that the majority of people who live in Cheshire West & Chester also work there. This indicates that overall, Cheshire West & Chester offers an appropriate number of employment opportunities for its number of residents, and that, despite its proximity to a number of large conurbations, is not a significant exporter of labour overall;

When looking at the individual Travel Areas, some clear patterns emerge. Only eight of the Travel Areas are responsible for over 1,000 inbound journeys (East Cheshire, Flintshire, Greater Manchester, Halton, Liverpool, Warrington, Wirral and Wrexham). The same eight Travel Areas also have highest number of outbound trips to them from Cheshire West & Chester, showing a high level of movement in both directions between Cheshire West & Chester and these Travel Areas;

There is a net loss of over 4,000 trips to Greater Manchester, over 2,000 trips to each of Liverpool and Halton and over 1,000 trips to each of Warrington and East Cheshire;

There is a net gain of over 4,000 people travelling into Cheshire West & Chester for work from both Flintshire and Wirral, and a net gain of almost 2,500 from Wrexham;

Two thirds of Cheshire West & Chester’s workforce, (67%), lives in the District. Co- incidentally, two thirds of Cheshire West & Chester employed residents, work in the District (66%). 2.5.8 Table 2.6 summarises the trips between Cheshire West & Chester and four broader geographic regions. These key geographies are made up of groups of Travel Areas to provide a more strategic view of connections between Cheshire West & Chester and surrounding areas.

TABLE 2.6: JOURNEYS BETWEEN CHESHIRE WEST & CHESTER AND KEY GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS Key Travel Areas Included Inbound % of all Outbound % of all Balance Geography Inbound Outbound Greater Greater Manchester 3,147 6 7,450 14 -4,303 Manchester Merseyside Liverpool, Wirral, Sefton, 13,375 27 12,089 23 1,286 Knowsley, St Helens Wales Wrexham, Denbigshire, Flintshire, North West 17,688 35 10,249 20 7,439 Wales, Mid Wales, South Wales

2.5.9 Key observations from Table 2.6 are:

Despite its proximity to two large conurbations, Cheshire West & Chester is not a major exporter of labour. Indeed, in relation to Merseyside, it is a net importer of labour;

Cheshire West & Chester’s relationship between the largest conurbations, Merseyside and Greater Manchester, is markedly different. The authority area has a net balance of -4,303 trips to Greater Manchester, showing that Greater Manchester is an important employment destination for a significant number of Cheshire West & Chester 24

residents. Having said this, almost twice the number of residents travel to Merseyside for work, showing the pull of Merseyside is far stronger than that of Greater Manchester for Cheshire West & Chester’s population. Cheshire West & Chester is a major attractor of journeys to work from Merseyside with over 13,375 trips, unlike the relatively small number of trips which are drawn to the district from Greater Manchester. The vast majority of these trips are from the Wirral, which accounts for over 10,000 trips to Cheshire West & Chester alone. Links between Merseyside (and particularly the Wirral) are therefore very important;

The commuter patterns between Cheshire West & Chester and Wales make up a significant proportion of the overall trips. There are over 10,000 trips to Wales from Cheshire West & Chester, with 17,688 in the opposite direction. Trips between Wales and Cheshire West & Chester are therefore characterised by the fact that Cheshire West & Chester is a significant net importer of trips from the Travel Areas in Wales. In fact, Flintshire alone accounts for more than 11,000 inbound trips to Cheshire West & Chester, the highest of any single Travel Area.

Travel between the 6 sub-areas and the rest of the country 2.5.10 Travel demand varies both in terms of destination and volume across Cheshire West & Chester. Table 2.7 summarises the total number of inbound and outbound trips to each of the six sub-areas.

TABLE 2.7: SUMMARY OF INBOUND AND OUTBOUND TRIPS TO/FROM CHESHIRE WEST & CHESTER SUB-AREAS

Inbound % of Total Outbound % of Total Balance Chester 45,392 30 36,038 24 9,354 Ellesmere Port 29,389 19 26,149 17 3,240 Neston 5,242 3 9,169 6 -3,927 Northwich & Rural North 27,519 18 33,901 22 -6,382 Rural West (excluding Neston) 22,755 15 22,806 15 -51 Winsford & Rural East 20,421 14 24,842 16 -4,421 Total 150,718 100 152,905 100 -2,187

2.5.11 Key observations for Table 2.7 are:

Chester attracts the largest number of trips of all of the sub-areas, with over 15,000 more trips that the second largest attractor and accounts for 30% of all trips into Cheshire West & Chester.

Chester is also the largest exporter of trips, though the difference between the other sub-areas is less pronounced.

Overall, Chester attracts a net balance of over 9,000 trips. Ellesmere Port is the only other net attractor of trips, with all of the four remaining sub-areas having a negative net balance. 2.5.12 Inbound and outbound travel from each of the six sub-areas that make up Cheshire West & Chester is shown graphically in Figures 2.16-2.33. 2.5.13 Key observations from these figures are:

Figure 2.16 shows the origins of journeys to work in Chester and shows that Chester has the widest catchment of people of all of the sub-areas, as would be expected given 25

the total number of trips that is attracts. Chester attracts over 5,000 journeys from Flintshire and between 1,000-5,000 people from the Wirral, Wrexham, East Cheshire, Rural West (excluding Neston), Northwich & Rural East;

Figure 2.17 shows that journeys to work from Chester are concentrated around the other Cheshire West & Chester sub-areas, the Wirral and Greater Manchester;

Figure 2.18 shows that there is a significant number of people who travel from Wirral to work in Ellesmere Port, whilst Figure 2.19 shows that the Wirral does not attract an equivalent number of trips from Ellesmere Port;

Figures 2.20 and 2.21 show trips into and out of Northwich and Rural North. These maps show that there is a significant commuter relationship in both directions between Northwich and Rural North and Greater Manchester, and that travel to and from Greater Manchester is of equal importance to Northwich and Rural North as travel to/from the other Cheshire West & Chester sub-areas;

Figures 2.24 and 2.25 show trips into and out of Winsford and Rural East. These show that Winsford and Rural East has a significant commuter relationship with Cheshire East and Northwich and Rural North;

Figures 2.30 and 2.31 show the trips into and from Neston. Neston has the lowest number of inbound and outbound trips of all the sub-areas, and this is clearly reflected in the maps which show the minimal catchment of Neston’s workforce;

Figures 2.32 and 2.33 show trips into and out of Rural West (excluding Neston). These indicate that Rural West (excluding Neston) has relatively balanced inbound and outbound commuter trips, perhaps surprisingly since one might have expected this area to be a significant commuter belt for Chester and Merseyside. However, it is apparent that this rural area also attracts significant numbers of employees.

Trips between the Cheshire West & Chester Sub-Areas 2.5.14 The third part of this analysis of the distribution of commuter trips provides a summary of internal movements between the six sub-areas. The volume of movements is summarised in Table 2.8 below.

TABLE 2.8: SUMMARY OF INTERNAL TRIPS WITHIN CHESHIRE WEST & CHESTER Origin

Chester Chester Ellesmere Port Neston & Northwich North Rural West Rural (excluding Neston) Winsford & East Rural Total Chester 19,572 1,806 117 369 3,187 228 25,279 Ellesmere Port 3,132 13,118 486 228 1,590 108 18,662 Neston 618 809 2,883 33 283 33 4,659 Northwich & Rural North 904 455 9 15,407 509 2,763 20,047 Rural West (excluding

Destination Neston) 4,497 1,952 108 578 8,133 381 15,649 Winsford & Rural East 642 195 15 3,425 358 11,446 16,081 Total 29,365 18,335 3,618 20,040 14,060 14,959 100,377

2.5.15 Key observations from Table 2.8 are:

In total over 100,000 trips are made within and between the six sub-areas. Overall, Chester is the most significant origin and destination. Interestingly, Chester is the most significant destination for Rural West (excluding Neston) but none of the other four other sub-areas, all of which have a different sub-area as their predominant destination. This shows that the relationship between the sub-areas is very complex and is not simply focussed solely towards any one dominant sub-area;

All of the sub-areas have internal trips, and without exception these are the highest number of trips associated with the sub-area. This shows that the majority of all internal trips within Cheshire West & Chester (70%) are local to a single sub-area.

An examination of travel patterns associated with the urban areas of Northwich and Winsford 2.5.16 The urban areas of Northwich and Winsford represent significant generators of employment related trips, both inbound and outbound, and this analysis examines these patterns, in isolation from their surrounding rural hinterlands, which might be expected to have significantly different trip characteristics. Table 2.9 summarises commuter trips associated with the town areas of Northwich and Winsford.

TABLE 2.9: SUMMARY OF INTERNAL TRIPS WITHIN CHESHIRE WEST & CHESTER Inbound % of Outbound % of Balance Total Total Northwich town 13,523 9.0% 14,585 9.5% -1,062 area Winsford town 12,594 8.4% 13,128 8.6% -534 area Total 150,718 100% 152,905 100%-2,187

2.5.17 Key conclusions from Table 2.9 are:

Both Northwich and Winsford are net exporters of trips, reflecting their proximity to, and commuter relationships with, larger conurbations such as Greater Manchester, Crewe and Warrington. The net export in Northwich is approximately double that in Winsford, perhaps reflecting Northwich’s closer relationship with Greater Manchester than the rest of the Cheshire West & Chester area;

Each accounts for between eight and nine percent of the total inbound and outbound commuters in Cheshire West & Chester;

Northwich accounts for 49% of the inbound commuters and 43% of the outbound commuters to/from Northwich and rural North;

Winsford accounts for 62% of the inbound commuters and 53% of the outbound commuters to/from Winsford and rural East; 2.5.18 The distribution of commuter trip patterns associated with the Northwich town area are shown in figures 2.22 (trips to work in Northwich) and 2.23 (trips to work from Northwich).

2.5.19 Figure 2.22 shows that, whilst Northwich does not draw workers from as large an area as Chester, it still has a significant catchment, with the majority of employees that do not live in the town itself travelling from the rural hinterlands of Rural North, Rural East and East Cheshire. Significant employees are also drawn from Warrington, and from Greater Manchester. 2.5.20 Figure 2.23 shows Northwich’s status, perhaps unlike much of the rest of the Cheshire West & Chester area, as a significant commuter settlement for Greater Manchester, with approximately1,500 Northwich residents commuting to work there. Significant numbers also journey to work in East Cheshire and Warrington, as well as Northwich’s immediate hinterland in the Rural North area. 2.5.21 The distribution of commuter trip patterns associated with the Winsford town area are shown in figures 2.26 (trips to work in Winsford) and 2.27 (trips to work from Winsford). 2.5.22 Figure 2.26 shows that the majority of Winsford’s employees live either within Winsford itself, or from the rural hinterland of the Rural East, Rural North and (particularly) Cheshire East areas. 2.5.23 Figure 2.27 shows that, whilst the relationship is not as strong as that associated with Northwich, a significant number of Winsford residents commute to Greater Manchester and there is a relationship shown with Stoke-on-Trent (only 25km away). 2.5.24 The analysis of trip patterns associated with both Northwich and Winsford also reveals that there is very little commuting (in either direction) between either town and Chester itself. The two towns are far more closely associated with Greater Manchester and East Cheshire than the rest of the Cheshire West & Chester area in terms of commuting patterns. 2.5.25 The use of the proposed Area Boards as the basis for the geographical analysis has the result that two of the main urban areas, Northwich and Winsford, are contained within relatively large rural areas. This therefore makes examination of the travel patterns associated with Northwich and Winsford more challenging. Since there are significant development proposals likely to come forward in both towns through the Local Development Framework process, we have undertaken a further specific analysis of the travel patterns associated with these two towns, separate to the rural areas which surround them.

A Summary of How Mode Share Varies by Origin/Destination 2.5.26 The final part of this analysis of the distribution of travel to work patterns examines how mode share varies by destination. Table 2.10 provides a summary of the modal split used to travel to Cheshire West & Chester from the Travel Areas that have more than 1,000 trips, as well as the overall average modal split from all trips to and within the Authority.

TABLE 2.10: SUMMARY OF MODAL SPLIT OF INBOUND JOURNEYS TO CHESHIRE WEST & CHESTER FROM TRAVEL AREAS WITH OVER 1,000 TRIPS Mode Work Rail or Bus Car (Driver, Motorbike Walk Other Total at Light passenger or taxi) or Home Rail Cycle East Cheshire 0 1 1 94 1 3 0 100 Flintshire 0 1 10 86 1 2 0 100 Greater Manchester 0 2 2 93 1 1 1 100 Halton 0 1 6 91 1 1 0 100 Liverpool 0 6 2 89 1 1 0 100 Warrington 0 1 1 97 1 1 0 100 Wirral 0 2 3 91 2 2 0 100 Wrexham 0 1 8 89 1 1 0 100 Internal Trips 14 0 6 63 1 16 0 100 Average (including internal trips) 9 1 5 72 1 11 0 100

2.5.27 Key observations from Table 2.10 are:

For the Travel Areas outside of Cheshire West & Chester, dependence on the car is very high, with values ranging from 86% to 97% of all trips being made by car;

Reliance on the car is significantly lower, at 63%, for internal trips within Cheshire West & Chester, with 16% of trips being made by foot or bike and a further 14% of people working from home. It is noted that, if people working from home are excluded from the analysis, 73% of internal commuters within Cheshire West & Chester commute by car, which is still relatively high;

Rail use is low overall, with 2% of journeys from Greater Manchester and Wirral being made by rail and 6% of journeys from Liverpool by rail. There is no significant movement by rail within Cheshire West & Chester, which is perhaps surprising given the large number of stations in the area;

Walking and cycling is very low for external trips (to be expected due to the relatively long distances involved) but quite high in internal trips at 16%;

Bus use is highest from Flintshire, with 10% of trips being made by this mode. This is likely to reflect the close proximity of some of the urban areas of Flintshire to Chester, and the relatively low car ownership found in these areas. 2.5.28 Table 2.11 shows modal shares of trips from Cheshire West & Chester to the same Travel Area.

TABLE 2.11: SUMMARY OF MODAL SPLIT OF OUTBOUND JOURNEYS FROM CHESHIRE WEST & CHESTER FROM TRAVEL AREAS WITH OVER 1,000 TRIPS Mode Work Rail or Bus Car (Driver, Motorbike Walk Other Total at Light passenger or taxi) or Home Rail Cycle East Cheshire 0 1 2 93 2 2 0 100 Flintshire 0 0 2 91 2 4 0 100 Greater Manchester 0 5 1 93 1 0 0 100 Halton 0 0 1 96 1 2 0 100 Liverpool 0 14 3 82 1 0 0 100 Warrington 0 2 1 96 1 0 0 100 Wirral 0 2 2 91 1 3 0 100 Wrexham 0 1 2 96 1 0 0 100 Internal CW+C Trips 14 0 6 63 1 16 0 100 Average (including trips within CW+C) 9 1 5 73 1 11 0 100

2.5.29 Overall, the modal splits for outbound journeys in Table 2.11 are similar to those for inbound trips shown in Table 2.10, retaining the high dependence on the car. There are two notable exceptions to this:

Firstly, there is a consistently low use of the bus to travel to work, even for trips to Flintshire, which had a high proportion of bus users in the opposite direction; and,

A high proportion (14%) of trips made from Cheshire West & Chester to Liverpool are by train, the highest proportion of all public transport trips that has been observed.

Conclusions from the Distribution Analysis 2.5.30 In conclusion, this section has thoroughly investigated the journey to work travel patterns associated with Cheshire West & Chester at three different scales. 2.5.31 Firstly, the relationship between Cheshire West & Chester and the rest of the country was investigated. This revealed that the number of people who travelled to work in the authority area is very similar to the number of people who travel from the District to work, meaning that the District has a relative balance of in and out-commuting and is not a major net importer or exporter of commuters. It also showed that approximately two thirds of jobs in the authority’s area are filled by Cheshire West & Chester residents. It was also shown that the relationships between the District and the nearest major conurbations, Merseyside and Greater Manchester, were significantly different, with Cheshire West & Chester providing a workforce for Greater Manchester but attracting a net workforce from Merseyside, particularly Wirral. 2.5.32 Secondly, the relationship between the individual sub-areas and the rest of the country was considered. This revealed that Chester was the most significant attractor of jobs, followed by Ellesmere Port. All four of the remaining sub-areas show a net outward migration of work trips.

2.5.33 Thirdly, trips between the sub-areas were considered. This revealed that links between the sub-areas are complex with no two sub-areas displaying the same travel characteristics. It was particularly noted, however, that Chester and Northwich & Rural North have the highest number of inbound and outbound trips of all the sub-areas, and that Chester was by some margin the single most significant attractor of internal trips. 2.5.34 Finally, an analysis was undertaken of the variations in mode share by origin and destination. A high degree of car dependence is generally shown throughout. However, there are some significant differences between areas in the use of other modes.

2.6 TRANSPORT BEHAVIOURAL DATA AND PERCEPTIONS 2.6.1 Two surveys have been undertaken in recent years that give a helpful insight into residents’ perceptions of the local transport network. The Cheshire Quality of Life survey was conducted in 2005 and the Cheshire Community Survey was undertaken in 2008. A wide range of questions were asked as part of both surveys. Some of these covered topic areas also covered by the 2001 Census while others probed the attitudes of residents to a wide range of issues to do with the accessibility and safety of the local network as well as seeking more detailed insights into local travel behaviour. The underlying data is more recent than the Census, although clearly the results are based on a smaller sample.

Quality of Life survey 2005 2.6.2 The data from the Quality of Life survey is disaggregated in various ways, including by (former) District Council areas, enabling some useful conclusions to be drawn about different parts of Cheshire West & Chester’s area. Information is also presented in aggregate form relating to the authority’s area as a whole. 2.6.3 The main information relating to transport is shown in the tables below.

TABLE 2.12: HOW FAR IS YOUR HOME FROM PLACE OF WORK? Chester Ellesmere Port Vale Royal CW & C & Neston Up to 2 miles 28% 24% 19% 24% 2 – 5 miles 19% 20% 19% 19% 5 – 10 miles 16% 28% 18% 20% Over 10 miles 33% 17% 33% 28% Work from 4% 11% 11% 9% home Count 113 92 122 327

2.6.4 There are significant differences across Cheshire West & Chester between the more urbanised areas and the former authority of Vale Royal, where there is a noticeably smaller proportion of workers travelling within traditional walking range of work, but a larger proportion of home workers. This information may be compared to the 2001 Census return shown above. 2.6.5 Ellesmere Port & Neston also exhibits a high proportion of ‘medium range’ travel (5-10 miles) and a lower proportion of long distance movement (10+ miles).

TABLE 2.13: HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE A CAR FOR AT LEAST PART OF YOUR JOURNEY TO WORK? Chester Ellesmere Port Vale Royal CW & C & Neston Always 52% 75% 77% 68% Usually 6% 4% 10% 7% Occasionally 8% 11% 5% 8% Never 33% 10% 8% 20% Count 110 82 110 302

2.6.6 On the frequency of car use for commuting, the former Chester district exhibits potentially contradictory headline figures showing both lower proportions of cars always used for work and the highest proportion of persons never using a car. This apparently contradictory result could be a reflection of the large rural population and the existence of Chester as a single large urban centre. 2.6.7 If the degree of car dependency is equated with the proportion of persons habitually always using the car for some of their commute, higher proportions of 75-77% indicate the greatest challenge in developing greater use of sustainable modes.

TABLE 2.14: HOW OFTEN DO YOU SHARE A CAR TO GO TO WORK? Chester Ellesmere Port Vale Royal CW & C & Neston Usually 10% 11% 8% 10% Sometimes 12% 8% 17% 13% Never 75% 81% 75% 76% Not answered 3% 0% 0% 1% Count 79 66 100 245

2.6.8 Car share features regularly in the journey to work experience, although there is no significant difference between different areas of Cheshire West & Chester.

TABLE 2.15: WHY DO YOU LIVE SO FAR FROM YOUR PLACE OF WORK? Chester Ellesmere Port Vale Royal CW & C & Neston Recently changed job 24% 45% 13% 15% Prefer rural location 17% 9% 21% 12% Always lived in this 25% 20% 17% 14% area Convenient for work, 20% 8% 15% 11% transport links – don’t think it’s far Like area, house, 20% 12% 25% 15% location, happy here, suitable location Freelance work, work 8% 4% 10% 7% anywhere in the country Family commitments 2% 27% 12% 7% Can’t afford to move 2% 0% 11% 5% Good schools in area 2% 19% 5% 5% To separate home 3% 8% 0% 1% and work, to avoid clients Live close to amenities 2% 5% 2% 2% Thinking of moving 0% 0% 0% 0% Other 2% 0% 0% 3% Count 38 18 44 Data – subjects over 10 miles from work; % of total agreeing with statement

2.6.9 For the reasons why longer-distance commuters find themselves in that position, the Ellesmere Port & Neston population appears qualitatively different to the other two former district council areas, with more job-mobility, less satisfaction with the area and stronger family and school ties in evidence. 2.6.10 Overall, the most important responses show the importance of inertia-related factors, which may be positive, such as liking the area of residence, and the need to travel due to changed personal circumstances.

TABLE 2.16: HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT NOTHING WOULD PERSUADE YOU TO USE YOUR CAR LESS Chester Ellesmere Port Vale Royal CW & C & Neston Agree strongly 6% 12% 5% 7% Agree 11% 15% 19% 15% Neither agree 11% 13% 12% 12% nor disagree Disagree 44% 32% 40% 40% Disagree 9% 7% 7% 8% strongly Don’t know 0% 0% 0% 0% N/A 19% 21% 15% <1% Count 208 173 216 597

2.6.11 The individual’s relative openness to change their travel behaviour is shown, which is a positive message to those promoting more sustainable lifestyles and modes as well as some willingness to adjust in the face of practical problems, regardless of policy initiatives. 2.6.12 The population of Ellesmere Port & Neston showed the greatest degree of car dependency from their responses to this survey question.

TABLE 2.17: HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT YOU DEPEND ON OTHERS FOR TRANSPORT? Chester Ellesmere Port Vale Royal CW & C & Neston Agree strongly 5% 10% 8% 8% Agree 9% 9% 5% 8% Neither agree 4% 1% 3% 3% nor disagree Disagree 35% 38% 46% 39% Disagree 46% 46% 38% 42% strongly Don’t know 0% 0% 0% 0%

Count 208 172 217 597

2.6.13 The responses to this question reveal a very conclusive majority view that personal mobility needs are being satisfied sufficiently well, so as not to impede independent living through relying on others.

TABLE 2.18: WAYS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF PEOPLE IN YOUR LOCAL AREA - % IN TOP 3 PRIORITIES Chester Ellesmere Port Vale Royal People taking 41% 36% 50% responsibility for their own health Smoke free buildings 41% 49% 39% Increase access to 46% 25% 39% physical activity Better access to local 33% 27% 33% doctors Support to reduce 30% 25% 26% alcohol and drug use Improve access to 23% 28% 24% health services Cut down traffic 14% 23% 17% congestion Reduce industrial air 16% 38% 24% pollution More national 17% 14% 15% campaigns about healthy living Cheaper alternative 13% 20% 14% medicine or therapies More community health 16% 14% 14% Information Count 206 296 213

2.6.14 It is not clear that those stating dependency are dissatisfied by this state of affairs, however it is likely that pockets of transport related social exclusion may be found amongst this group. These are likely to be hard to serve due to the numbers involved and their geographical distribution. 2.6.15 The relative importance of transport in people’s attitudes to health may be discerned from these responses. Transport is mentioned, which is important in itself, with physical activity (possibly walking and cycling) and accessibility also mentioned. Congestion also appears, although how it is meant to affect health is not clear. 2.6.16 There is some commonality in the answers, although physical fitness gets a lower rating from Ellesmere Port & Neston respondents as a contributor to health than from the other districts.

TABLE 2.19: WHAT FORMS OF TRANSPORT DO YOU USE TO GET ABOUT THE AREA (HEALTH-RELATED QUESTION) Chester Ellesmere Port Vale Royal & Neston Car 79% 84% 96% Walk 48% 45% 31% Bus 35% 28% 25% Taxi 8% 19% 6% Bicycle 9% 9% 3% Other 7% 0% 5% Train 1% 3% 3% Other 0% 0% 0% None 0% 0% 0% Count 78 74 82 EXCLUDES THOSE THAT HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THEIR GENERAL HEALTH

2.6.17 The most significant conclusion from this data may be the high proportion of persons with general health problems who do make some use of walking

IMPROVING THE SYSTEM

TABLE 2.20: WAYS TO IMPROVE THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT SITUATION - % IN TOP 3 PRIORITIES Chester Ellesmere Port Vale Royal Improve public 53% 43% 47% transport Better road 33% 40% 52% maintenance Measures to reduce 30% 37% 32% traffic in town centres Provide more parking 35% 27% 26% spaces in towns Improve the standard of 28% 39% 28% footpaths or pavements Increase traffic calming 31% 32% 33% measures Bring in better 25% 18% 25% community transport schemes in rural areas Introduce more cycle 23% 23% 27% lanes to make it safer for cyclists Improve bus stops and 20% 27% 18% bus and rail stations Give priority to buses 12% 12% 7% Count 236 196 258

2.6.18 Support for a wide range of interventions is given, although only better public transport and road maintenance score over 50%. This may indicate both some community value to bus use and mode shift on the one hand and a perception of poor highway maintenance being important to quality of life on the other.

Cheshire Community Survey 2008 2.6.19 Responses to many of the questions in this survey could assist in producing the evidence base required to inform the revised Local Transport Plan. In particular, the questions were concerned with travel to work, access to essential services, views on congestion and attitudes to several aspects of roads and pavements. Some of the key findings from the survey included;

Most of Cheshire West & Chester respondents (90%) own, or have available for use by their household, 1 or more cars;

Most journeys to work were by car (77%; mainly car drivers but some passengers); 4% took public transport; 18% either walked or rode a bicycle;

Those within the top 20% most deprived Lower Level Super Output Areas (LLSOAs) in Cheshire as a whole were less likely to travel over 10 miles to their workplace (19% compared with 30% in all other areas) and were more likely to walk (23%) to their place of work compared to all other areas (10%);

65% of respondents felt that road congestion in their local town had got worse over the past five years;

The local hospital was the service that most people reported as quite or very difficult to get to (26%) followed by their household waste recycling centre (15%); and,

27% of Cheshire West & Chester residents used a bicycle (other than for going to work), higher in the West (27%) than in the East (17%). Similar proportions of respondents were satisfied or dissatisfied with the quality and provision of cycle ways and cycle paths, 40% and 38% respectively. Views were obtained on roads and pavements and showed:

Overall, two-thirds (66%) of respondents were very or fairly satisfied with Cheshire’s road network, 17% were dissatisfied;

Similar proportions of respondents were satisfied or dissatisfied with footways and pavements in their local area, 43% and 42% respectively. 31% stated they were more difficult to use compared to three years ago; and,

Over half were dissatisfied with minor repairs such as patching (60%) and with the way trenches are filled (52%). 2.6.20 Views were requested on aspects of the local public transport system including public transport information. Understandably, those who had seen the information were more likely to be satisfied than those who had not.

Bus information users were most likely to find the information they needed in bus timetable leaflets (68%) and bus stop displays (61%);

All respondents were asked whether they had used a bus in Cheshire West and Chester in the last 12 months 54% had; over three quarters of these (79%) found the service very or fairly easy to use; and,

Of all respondents living in top 20% deprived Lower Level SOAs of Cheshire, they were more likely to use the timetable information available (62% of those seeing information), more likely to have used a bus in the last 12 months (67%) and were more satisfied with the public transport information overall (66%) than respondents from all other areas.

ECONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES

2.7 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 2.7.1 Economically, the sub-region is successful and prosperous. It has a diverse economy with significant presence in the aerospace/automotive, chemicals, financial services, food, engineering and tourism/retail sectors. West Cheshire has been recognised as one of the fastest growing sub-regions of the United Kingdom and its diversity of economic activities provides a good basis for establishing recovery from presently challenging conditions. 2.7.2 However, despite this general picture of relative prosperity, Cheshire West & Chester still has areas of significant deprivation. The former authority of Vale Royal contains some of the most deprived areas, with 8 wards being amongst the most deprived 20% in the country with significantly disadvantaged communities in parts of Winsford and Northwich. There are Neighbourhood Renewal Areas in East Northwich and Winsford where social inclusion and educational achievement are particular issues and where some development opportunities have been realised with benefits delivered for the local community. 2.7.3 Ellesmere Port also contains some of the highest levels of deprivation, with 12 LLSOAs being in the highest 20% in England on the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2007. Deprivation is concentrated in central Ellesmere Port, which is a focus for growth within the West Cheshire Growth Point. The former Central, Westminster and Stanlow & Wolverham wards exhibit particularly high levels of deprivation, particularly in terms of health deprivation and disability (19 LLSOAs, which equates to one third of the whole district, in the worst 20% nationally) employment skills and training (18) and crime (13). The Growth Point offers an opportunity for housing led regeneration to uplift the deprived communities and support and sustain community facilities, businesses and education/training opportunities. 2.7.4 Blacon and Overleigh wards in West Chester recorded LLSOAs ranked in the 2% most deprived in England. The Lache Estate, dating back to 1914, (forming part of the new Cheshire West & Chester Overleigh ward) is an area of predominantly social housing located on low - lying land south of the river Dee and close to the Welsh Border. The estate is often overlooked for significant investment or regeneration from a national level owing to its location close to more prosperous areas. Blacon is a larger community of some 16,000 people, physically separated from Chester and predominantly residential in character, with a split of half-private ownership and half social housing, with relatively few shops and facilities. The Growth Point initiative seeks to build on the regeneration work already underway in these communities. For example, the Blacon Vision and Action Plan sets out a long-term strategy for the regeneration of the area and identifies a number of key projects, including the redevelopment of Blacon Parade. 2.7.5 The Growth Point Strategy aims to ensure that these areas of deprivation are effectively linked to the areas of opportunity that are generated through the additional growth.

2.8 UNEMPLOYMENT 2.8.1 There were 6,800 unemployed claimants in February 2009 in Cheshire West & Chester. This represents some 3.5 % of the working age population. (Source Cheshire County Council, February 2009). The highest rates are found in Stanlow & Wolverham and Westminster wards of the former Ellesmere Port and Neston District, with 7% and 7.8% respectively of the working age population claiming benefit. In former Chester District, Blacon Hall (4.6%) and Lache Park (4.2%) have the highest proportion of claimants and in former Vale Royal, the highest rates are found in Northwich Witton (5.6%), Winsford Over (4.9%) and Winsford Wharton (4.6%). 2.8.2 The proportion of unemployed claimants in Cheshire West & Chester is lower than in the North West region (4.3%) and Great Britain as a whole (3.8%).

2.9 MAJOR EMPLOYERS / AREAS 2.9.1 There are a number of key employment areas in and close to the authority’s area and some particularly large employers. These include General Motors (Vauxhall) at Ellesmere Port, the Shell refinery at Stanlow, British Aerospace at Broughton and Bank of America and Marks and Spencer in Chester. In addition the major town centres are major concentrations of employment. 2.9.2 Data issued in the 2005 “economic information” factsheet identifies the larger employers located in Cheshire West & Chester. These are summarised in Table 2.21.

TABLE 2.21: MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN CHESHIRE WEST & CHESTER No of Identity Activity area Employees 5,000+ CW&C Local Authority Local Government MBNA (now Bank of Financial services America) 1,000-5,000 Vauxhall Motors Vehicle manufacture HBOS (now Lloyds Financial Services Banking Group) Mid Cheshire Hospitals Health & Social Work Countess of Chester Health & Social Work Tesco Stores Ltd Retail University of Chester Education Post Office Services Post & Telecomms Shell UK Ltd Petrochemicals Cheshire Constabulary Law & Order, Public Safety

Sainsbury’s Retail M&S Financial Services Financial Services Marks & Spencer Retail

2.9.3 Though reorganisation has taken place in the financial and local government sectors, both retain substantial workforces in the area. A distinction needs to be drawn between operators of larger sites, such as Vauxhall Motors, Shell UK or Bank of America and those with more distributed workforces in the retail sector. There have been no completely new organisations arriving in the area since 2005 with over 1,000 employees. The largest new employer to arrive has been Quinn Glass at Ince, with over 600 employees. 2.9.4 A number of site expansions have taken place since 2005 where the overall employee numbers may exceed the 1,000 person threshold, although individual business may not. 2.9.5 The distribution of commercial floorspace is illustrated in the following table.

TABLE 2.22: COMMERCIAL FLOOR SPACE Area Retail Offices Factories Warehouses Chester 380,000 382,000 261,000 371,000 EP & N 171,000 62,000 908,000 302,000

Vale Royal 193,000 151,000 602,000 453,000 C W & C total 744,000 595,000 1,771,000 1,126,000

NOTE: Area units = sq. metres 2.9.6 The preponderance of manufacturing in the Ellesmere Port area is clear, as is the strength of office and retail-based activities in Chester. This is a good reflection of the principal features of the local economy which are strongly focussed on those activities. The more stand-alone nature of businesses in the former district of Vale Royal cannot be determined by reference to their size, but of those larger organisations noted in Table 2.21, only the Police HQ and the ex District Council offices are located away from Chester or Ellesmere Port.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

2.10 CLIMATE CHANGE 2.10.1 Our climate is changing because the natural mechanism known as the ‘greenhouse effect’, which acts to warm the earth, is being increased by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. As the concentration of emissions rises well above their natural levels, additional warming is taking place. If left unchecked, this trend will lead to increased temperatures that are likely to result in dramatic changes in our weather systems, for example changes in rainfall patterns and intensity, increased occurrence of storms, heat waves and other extreme events. 2.10.2 In the North West, it is predicted that the average annual temperatures may rise by 2 to 3.5°C, with summer rainfall declining by 50% by 2080. Additionally sea levels are predicted to rise by half a metre by the end of the century. These predicted changes will have a major impact on our wildlife and vegetation, with species less tolerant to these conditions declining and other non-native species thriving. High winds, severe storms and increases in flash flooding will have an impact upon how we design and construct our buildings. This will place additional pressures on our infrastructure. 2.10.3 The Climate Change Bill of 2007 sets challenging targets for carbon dioxide

(CO2) reductions (one of the main greenhouse gases) across the UK. Nationally we are

committed to a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. The national ability to cut down

on CO2 is closely linked to how energy is produced and how natural resources are

managed. Transport related CO2 emissions have been rising nationally in recent years.

TABLE 2.23: CO2 EMISSIONS BY SECTOR (THOUSAND TONNES) Industry and Road Land Per capita Commercial Domestic Transport Use Total emissions CW + C 3,448 837 1,077 46 5,408 16.51 UK 245,076 153,605 135,007 -1,953 531,736 8.78

2.10.4 Table 2.23 summarises the volume of CO2 emissions by sector and Figure 2.34,

located below, shows the proportion of CO2 emissions by sector for the Cheshire West & Chester area.

2.10.5 The proportion of CO2 emissions by sector for the UK is also shown on Figure

2.35. The proportion of CO2 emitted by sector in Cheshire West & Chester differs from the national position, with a higher proportion attributable to industrial processes and business than the UK average and a lower proportion to road transport (and domestic power). This reflects the nature of the local economy, which retains a number of energy- intensive processes.

2.10.6 The CO2 emission figure for road transport (1.077m tonnes) equates to 3.29 kilo tonnes per head per year. This compares with the national picture of 2.23 kilo tonnes.

FIGURE 2.34: CO2 EMISSIONS BY SECTOR – CHESHIRE WEST & CHESTER

CO2 emissions by sector - Cheshire West & Chester

0.9% 19.9%

15.5% 63.7%

Industry and Commercial Domestic Road Transport Land Use

FIGURE 2.35: CO2 EMISSIONS BY SECTOR – UK

CO2 emissions by sector - UK

0.4%

25.2%

45.8%

28.7%

Industry and Commercial Domestic Road Transport Land Use

2.10.7 Clearly in the face of these challenges, it is vital that the Local Development Framework Core Strategy should assist in delivering more sustainable forms of development; nearly every decision that is made about development influences the demand upon our environment, communities, economy and the earth’s resources. 2.10.8 It is understood that the Council intends to implement the Government’s target for the Code for Sustainable Homes and will ensure that this is enshrined in the Core Strategy and within the Sustainable Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that will be prepared on the back of the Core Strategy policy.

2.10.9 At the heart of sustainable development is the simple idea of ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for future generations. Sustainable development can be considered to have four main objectives:

Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone;

Effective protection of the environment;

Prudent use of natural resources; and,

Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment. 2.10.10 Delivering sustainable development will mean that energy demands must be designed out when new development is being considered whilst energy production and supply must be designed in. This will require the whole development process from the design, material procurement and construction techniques, right through to the development’s occupation and future adaption to be examined. 2.10.11 Ensuring that the transport implications of new development are considered at the outset is an important part of the overall evaluation of the sustainability of development proposals. The delivery of an integrated transport strategy linked to a spatial strategy designed to reduce car dependency is therefore an important step towards ensuring that new development is delivered in a sustainable way.

AIR QUALITY 2.10.12 In 2007 a small number of locations within Cheshire West & Chester were identified as requiring more detailed assessment with respect to air quality standards. These included areas within Ellesmere Port, Northwich and Chester. Subsequently Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) have been declared in parts of Chester and Ellesmere Port. Work will have to be undertaken as part of the Growth Point initiative to ensure that the growth can proceed without detrimental impact on air quality in these two areas. 2.10.13 Progress within the four locations where air quality standards were noted as being of concern in 2007 is noted below.

TABLE 2.24: LOCATIONS SUBJECT TO AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT Local Area Location Pollutant Status Action Chester Boughton NO2 AQMA declared Action Plan being Gyratory developed

Chester Northgate Bus NO2 Detailed No action required Station area Assessment carried out

Ellesmere Port A5032 Whitby NO2 AQMA declared Action Plan Rd / Station Rd published 2008

Rural East (nr A54 Sproston NO2 Investigated No action required, Middlewich) Green need for however still area detailed of concern assessment

2.10.14 Ongoing work has highlighted the marginal nature of the A54 site’s clearance below the pollutant exceedence threshold and the site is therefore to be subject to further assessment. In addition, a possible traffic-related exceedence area has been noted in the A56 in Frodsham, which is being investigated.

3 Understanding the Local Transport Network

HIGHWAYS

3.1 HIGHWAY NETWORK 3.1.1 The road network, shown on Figure 3.1, inherited by the new Cheshire West & Chester authority comprises:

328 km ‘A’ (principal) road;

642 km ‘B’ and ‘C’ road;

1,359 km Unclassified roads; and,

In addition, there are 40.5 km of Motorway and 30km of non-motorway trunk road. 3.1.2 The main geographic features of this network are:

A circuit of motorways and trunk roads around Chester, with the western segment lying in North Wales;

Traditional radial networks of routes focussed on Chester, Northwich and Winsford;

Ellesmere Port’s enclosure by a ‘box’ of major roads;

A heavier density of major routes is evident in the western part of the Authority’s area compared to the eastern;

A major strategic interchange (M56/M53/A55/A5117) located on the south-east edge of Ellesmere Port;

A web of rural interurban ‘A’ roads across the area oriented very roughly in north- south and east-west directions;

A large network of rural roads of all categories; and,

Physical intrusion of the M6 on the eastern periphery of the authority’s area, but without any junction located within the territory. The closest, junction 18 however lies less than 500m east of the border on the A54. 3.1.3 Based on the 2008 Community Survey, only 13% of people surveyed were either fairly or very dissatisfied with the road network in the Cheshire West & Chester area.

3.2 UNDERSTANDING THE NETWORK The Authority’s area contains a number of strategic highway connections with the M6, M53 and M56 motorways and A55 and A5117-A550 dualled trunk roads running through the area. In addition, the A550 north of Woodbank is also classed as a trunk road, although not of higher standard than any other single carriageway principal road. Responsibility for all aspects of these roads lies with the Highways Agency.

3.2.1 The Chester / Ellesmere Port area is a hub for the trunk road network in the west of the area. The M53 motorway towards the Wirral Peninsula and Liverpool and the M56 motorway towards Manchester intersect here. The A55 runs along the North Wales coast to Holyhead and the A483 links the city to nearby Wrexham and Mid and South Wales. 3.2.2 West Cheshire is therefore a highly accessible area with already established high quality transport links to Manchester, Liverpool, North East Wales, the Wirral and via the M6 motorway to Preston, Birmingham and beyond. A good provision of key ‘A’ roads provide both internal links between the towns of West Cheshire and essential key transport links to areas such as North East Wales (A55), south Manchester (A556), Shropshire (A49 & A51) and West Wirral (A540). 3.2.3 Traffic growth on the motorway network has historically increased at a higher rate compared to non-motorway trunk and principal local roads. The LTP2 (2004) quotes an historic growth rate of 4% per annum, twice the rate of growth on the trunk road network. 3.2.4 The figures provided by the DfT for the period 2004-2007 (the latest available) suggests this rate has fallen since the earlier years of the decade, but trunk road traffic was still growing at a rate of over twice the average for local roads in Cheshire. 3.2.5 Compared with the data for Great Britain, the area exhibits higher rates of growth over 2004-2007 for strategic (HA) links but slightly lower rates for other roads than the national picture.

TABLE 3.1: TRAFFIC GROWTH 2004-07, CHESHIRE & GB Highway Class 2004 2007 Annual % change GB (bn vehicle-km) All motor traffic 498.5 513.0 0.97%

Motorway 96.6 100.6 1.27% Trunk Road ‘A’ 65.7 64.0 -0.86% Principal Roads 158.4 160.8 0.51%

All other classes Cheshire (m veh-km) Total 8476 8690 0.84% Excluding trunk rds 5020 5099 0.52% Cheshire M’ways + 3456 3591 1.3% trunk roads Source: Dept for Transport National Road Traffic Survey - estimated traffic flows for all motor vehicles by local authority: 1993-2007 3.2.6 Usage data for Cheshire West & Chester for the period 2004-2007 has been disaggregated from the previous overall Cheshire LTP figures.

TABLE 3.2: CW&C TRAFFIC GROWTH 2004-07 Road traffic 2004 2005 2006 2007 Mvkm Motorway 1118 1113 1151 1165 Trunk 414 404 424 423 Principal 1438 1428 1460 1427 Minor 903 912 929 959 Total 3873 3857 3965 3974 (Source – DfT NRTS) 3.2.7 The resulting local annual growth rates are:

Motorway 1.4%

Trunk roads 0.72%

Principal roads -0.03%

Minor roads 2.07%

Overall 0.87% 3.2.8 Using the TEMPRO methodology to produce a future year forecast for the Cheshire West & Chester area produces results as shown in the table below. The projected level of growth in the period up to 2026 (i.e. 20 years from 2007) for Cheshire West & Chester are similar to the above in that an annual growth rate of between 0.5 and 1.0% pa is likely. Contrastingly, TEMPRO shows the local growth rate as likely to be below the overall GB level in the future rather than higher, as it has been in recent years. 3.2.9 The TEMPRO methodology does not produce forecast traffic levels by different road classes and is an indication of trip ends (i.e. journey numbers) rather than distance travelled, which could partly explain the difference between national and local impacts.

TABLE 3.3: PROJECTED TRAFFIC GROWTH TO 2026 Projected Growth 2007-2026 (TEMPRO 5.4) Average Day – percentage rise GB 19.4% Chester 18.45% Ellesmere Port & Neston 17.4% Vale Royal 13.45% Average CW+C rate 18.1%

3.2.10 The impact of current economic conditions is likely to reduce the rates of increase, although the extent of this impact is unknown and in modelling terms, an updated version of TEMPRO to reflect this awaits formal adoption.

3.2.11 Local movement needs have been addressed by the former County Council and its District Council partners over several years using local transport studies to generate packages of schemes and other initiatives tailored to local conditions. These packages are aimed at addressing network problems, which vary widely across the Cheshire West & Chester area. 3.2.12 Figures 3.2 and 3.3 taken from the LTP2 document show the levels of use made of the overall Cheshire network in 2004 and predicted to apply in 2025. These were relatively simple forecasts based on applying factors to the then flow levels rather than attempting to model growth by accounting for development. The diagrams group flows into one of a range of bandwidths and it can be observed that the projected future flow levels cause certain roads to move into a higher bandwidth category, particularly:

M56 east of Ellesmere Port;

A51 and A556 east of Chester;

A55 and A483 around Chester;

A41 south east of Chester;

A5117 in the Woodbank area;

A49 north of Northwich area; and

A540 from Chester to Two Mills.

FIGURE 3.2: TRAFFIC FLOWS (CHESHIRE) IN 2004

FIGURE 3.3: FORECAST TRAFFIC FLOWS (CHESHIRE) IN 2025

3.2.13 More recent traffic data (2007) confirms the 2004 Cheshire data. The flow levels on the network show the main trunk roads generally carrying 50-100,000 vehicles per day (M53/M56/A55), while the principal network usually carries daily flows of under 30,000 vehicles. The one exception amongst the survey sites is in the inner Chester area (Boughton) where a flow in excess of this level was recorded. Only the M6 carries a flow in excess of 100,000 vehicles per day. A map showing the 2007 flows is shown in Appendix A. 3.2.14 The picture of projected traffic growth to 2025 is belied to an extent by the more varied picture presented by the data collected at individual sites around the area. This must not be equated with overall changes in traffic movements as they are flows collected at single points. A full list of traffic flow changes between 2002 and 2007 is presented in (Appendix A, table 3.3), however some points to be noted are as follows:

Not all sites have recorded growth in the 2002-2007 period. There are a number where significant falls in volume have taken place;

Out of 67 sites, 26 record falls, 36 rises and four show no change;

Of the ‘fallers’, 8 are in Chester, 7 in Ellesmere Port, 6 in rural areas, 4 in Northwich and 1 in Winsford; and,

Of the ‘gainers’ 6 are in Chester, 9 in Ellesmere Port, 13 in rural locations, 7 in Northwich and 1 each in Winsford and Frodsham. 3.2.15 The future year forecast flows will need revision to take account of two contrasting influences which affect the prospective rate of growth:

The economic downturn, which should reduce the rate of growth; and,

The existence of the Growth Point, which would tend to increase it.

3.2.16 These matters will play off against each other over time and place greater importance on how forecasting is undertaken and at what level of detail.

3.3 NETWORK STRESS 3.3.1 Cheshire’s first LTP estimated that by 2020, the extent of the network under stress would increase by 36%, leading to increasing unreliability in journey times for all road users. The location of congestion “hotspots” varies widely across Cheshire West & Chester. Figures 3.4 and 3.5 below show 2004 stress levels and those predicted for 2025 in Cheshire. The Network Stress diagram highlights locations where there is likely to be less than 5% reserve capacity in the morning peak when comparing traffic flow to the link capacity.

FIGURE 3.4: NETWORK STRESS (CHESHIRE) IN 2004

FIGURE 3.5: FORECAST NETWORK STRESS (CHESHIRE) IN 2025

3.3.2 The areas tipping into the stress category are unsurprisingly similar to those showing higher projected rates of growth, however it is worth noting that almost all principal roads around Chester and much of the Northwich principal road network could experience stress by the future reference year. 3.3.3 As noted below, the Taith (North Wales) regional model is capable of simulating conditions in western parts of the new Cheshire West & Chester authority. Future year tests using this model also highlight the A55/A483 and A5117/A550 areas as likely to experience capacity problems (see chapter 5). The Deeside Junctions scheme is likely to alleviate pressure at the latter location. 3.3.4 In respect of the three main urban locations within the Authority’s area at the present time: In Chester: - The key traffic issues are: -

There is peak hour congestion on the inner ring road and key radial routes such as A51;

Problems worsen particularly in the run up to Christmas or when seasonal events occur such as Chester Races or Bank Holidays at the Zoo;

The peripheral business parks generate commuter peaks in particular on the A483 in the vicinity of Chester Business Park; and,

Congestion problems also occur when accidents lead to the closure of the A55. In Northwich: - Peak time congestion occurs: -

in the town centre;

on the A533 through Winnington;

on A556 around Gadbrook Park;

the A559 through Hartford; and

the B5082 Middlewich Road, Rudheath. In Ellesmere Port : - congestion occurs at peak times:-

At the A41 in the vicinity of Hope Farm Road;

On approach roads to Cheshire Oaks especially during the Christmas shopping season; and,

The A41 through Little Sutton is also a diversionary route from the M53, which loads much more traffic onto this route when there is an incident on the motorway. 3.3.5 On the wider rural and inter-urban network, a number of specific hot spots are understood to experience stress: -

A49/A54 signal junction;

A49/A533 Bartington Crossroads;

A556 between Davenham Roundabout (A533) and the A530 and access to Gadbrook Business Park;

Motorway diversionary routes affect mid Cheshire and can greatly increase volumes on rural roads; and,

Motorways can carry significant volumes of purely local traffic, particularly within urban areas. 3.3.6 In summary, the local authority network is not considered particularly subject to congestion, however there are areas where problems are experienced. 3.3.7 Chester and Northwich are two settlements in the authority area that experience higher levels of congestion within their urban areas. Both these settlements also experience limited highway capacity. In Chester maintaining the historic city core reduces the potential capacity of the central area and in Northwich the swing bridge has a similar impact. In the other main towns, the normal morning and evening traffic peaks produce congested conditions but whether this is truly a problem or just a feature that people cope with is less certain. The peaks are generally quite short in duration. Consideration will need to be given to the scope for action in future years, in the event of the levels of urban network stress increasing. 3.3.8 The strategic network is likely to become a particular focus of network stress in future years. The causes of stress (growth) and the strong degree of interaction between the strategic and local networks generates more need for an integrated approach to managing traffic, reflecting the influence each network has on the other. 3.3.9 Respondents to the 2008 Community Survey were asked how often they considered congestion to be a major problem on certain types of roads. The results are summarised in Tables 3.4 to 3.6. The road types were:

Main A roads;

Local roads; and,

Town/city centre roads.

3.3.10 A quarter of respondents regarded congestion as a problem ‘most of the time’ on town/city centre roads. Congestion was regarded as more of a problem by more people on main ‘A’ than for local roads. Responses in 2008 were very similar to those obtained in 2006. 3.3.11 Table 3.7 shows that two-thirds of respondents (65%) felt that congestion in Cheshire West and Chester had got worse in their local town over the past 5 years. Only 3% felt it was less of a problem.

TABLE 3.4: HOW OFTEN DO YOU CONSIDER CONGESTION TO BE A PROBLEM ON THE MAIN ‘A’ ROADS? Urban* Rural* Cheshire West and Chester Most of the time 13% 11% 8% Frequently 31% 30% 30% Sometimes 47% 44% 49% Rarely 8% 13% 10%

Never 2% 2% 1% Unweighted count 663 438 537

NOTE – rounded percentages * - Figures for whole County area

TABLE 3.5: HOW OFTEN DO YOU CONSIDER CONGESTION TO BE A PROBLEM ON THE LOCAL ROADS? Urban* Rural* Cheshire West and Chester Most of the time 9% 3% 4% Frequently 26% 17% 20% Sometimes 36% 39% 37% Rarely 25% 33% 32% Never 4% 8% 7% Unweighted count 677 439 545 * - Figures for whole County area

TABLE 3.6: HOW OFTEN DO YOU CONSIDER CONGESTION TO BE A PROBLEM IN THE TOWN AND CITY CENTRES? Urban* Rural* Cheshire West and Chester Most of the time 22% 28% 21%

Frequently 37% 40% 36% Sometimes 33% 26% 35% Rarely 7% 5% 7%

Never 1% 1% 1% Unweighted count 671 426 539 * - Figures for whole County area

TABLE 3.7: DO YOU THINK ROAD CONGESTION IN YOUR LOCAL TOWN HAS GOT WORSE, STAYED THE SAME OR GOT BETTER OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS? Cheshire West and Chester Worse 65% Stayed the same 29% Better 3% Not lived in area in 4% last 5 years Unweighted count 544 * - Figures for whole County area

3.3.12 Some schemes to address congestion problems in the wider sub region are under development and are listed below. Not all of these are within Cheshire West & Chester’s boundaries.

Mersey Gateway- a second crossing of the river in Halton, paralleling the existing Silver Jubilee bridge and offering strategic relief to the Birkenhead-Liverpool tunnels;

M53 Bidston Moss Viaduct improvements, on access to Kingsway tunnel; and,

M53 Junctions 7-8 safety and lighting upgrades. 3.3.13 The recent improvement of the A5117/A550 corridor creates a grade separated route from the M56 through to the Welsh border at Sealand, effectively making this a motorway-standard link throughout.

3.4 DATA COLLECTION 3.4.1 An important aspect of work supporting the assessment of present and future traffic conditions is the collection of traffic flow and related transport data. The development of the evidence base needed to underpin LDF proposals critically depends upon the availability of data sufficient to enable the impact of proposals to be assessed. Data collection also supports ongoing monitoring of LTP delivery and outcome evaluation. The following section provides details of the highway-related data collection carried out by the Council.

Local Authority count sites 3.4.2 A network of permanent count sites is maintained within the new Authority’s area (see Appendix A). These provide a good coverage of the main road network, with concentrations in the vicinity of the four main urban areas as follows. • Chester: 19 • Ellesmere Port: 12 • Northwich: 11 • Winsford: 4

Missing Links 3.4.3 A number of links, which could offer strategic re-routing options for drivers and/or be subject to high flows or prospective growth do not feature a permanent count site. Some data is produced by regular manual counts, but there is potential for some more permanent counters to be emplaced to improve the capture of important traffic flow data. These following locations are suggested as potential sites:

A41 in Great Sutton area;

Neston urban area;

A540 north of Neston;

Chester inner ring road;

A56 NE of Frodsham;

Frodsham High Street;

A556 through Northwich – east and west of A530;

A533 south of town centre;

B5133 Weaverham;

A533 east of Wharton Green junction;

B5074 south of Winsford; and,

A530 south of Winsford. 3.4.4 Consideration of implementing any of these may be affected by the presence of counters in East Cheshire and any data sharing arrangement put in place between the two authorities.

Association with development sites 3.4.5 In addition, the Growth Point proposals should prompt more data collection around the main sites, such as the following:

Merseyton Road (A5032);

Rossmore Road (Ellesmere Port);

A5117 Cheshire Oaks;

B5133 Hooton;

B5132 Cheshire Oaks;

A41 near Chester Zoo;

Liverpool Road (old A41) north of Countess Health Park;

Sandy Lane, Huntington;

A41 north of A55 junction;

A54 Winsford town centre; and,

A559 in Northwich town centre, Hartford and Lostock Gralam areas.

Highways Agency count sites 3.4.6 The Highways Agency maintains a network of counters on the trunk road network. The complete list is shown in Table 3.3 in Appendix A. Data is available and used by the Council in its monitoring activities. 3.4.7 Note there are no permanent counters on the A550 between Hooton and Woodbank or A483 immediately south of Chester. 3.4.8 While there are a number of counters located on the A5117 covering the M56- North Wales movements, the Deeside Junctions scheme will render these superfluous, although it is not the Highways Agency’s plan to de-trunk the bypassed section of route for the foreseeable future.

3.5 NETWORK MANAGEMENT 3.5.1 The Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA) imposes a “network management duty” on local authorities. 3.5.2 The high level objectives of this duty are: -

Securing the expeditious movement of traffic on the authority’s road network; and

Facilitating the expeditious movement of traffic on road networks for which another authority is the traffic authority. 3.5.3 In creating this responsibility, the concept of Local Traffic Authority is formally recognised, alongside the established roles in the fields of highway planning, development and maintenance, passenger transport and strategic transport planning. 3.5.4 The Network Management Duty is concerned with making the best use of the existing road network, however the high level objectives do not constitute detailed guidance on what the Duty should mean in terms of day to day traffic planning.

3.5.5 Cheshire County Council developed a statement describing how the requirements of the Act were incorporated into the Authority’s managerial and operational structure and provided a general outline of the main classes of operational actions adopted to give effect to the Duty. 3.5.6 The relevance of this to the baseline report lies in very close linkages between network management, network pressures, growth and forecasting. Information inputs from staff and Urban Traffic Control systems and linkages with other stakeholders such as the HA, enables the Council to ‘expeditiously’ carry out network management on a day-to-day basis. 3.5.7 For longer term planning, there is some reliance on the strategic model to identify and quantify hot spots in the local authority’s area. This tool needs to be developed in order to give accurate predictions of capacity, congestion, delays and forecast conditions. At the present time, it is capable of being used for this purpose in the Chester, Northwich and Winsford urban areas through the Saturn models for these areas, but not for Ellesmere Port, or the ex-urban networks as it does not simulate junction operation in those areas. More information on the strategic model is given in chapter 4. 3.5.8 Further material on this subject is being prepared by 4NW (Regional Leaders Forum). Consultants are putting together route management strategy guidance for issuing to the Highways Agency and local authorities.

3.6 SERVICING AND FREIGHT 3.6.1 Cheshire County Council produced a draft freight strategy in 2007, which was not formally adopted prior to vesting of the Cheshire West & Chester Council. 3.6.2 For the authority to adopt any particular strategy, it is necessary to determine whether the subject is sufficiently important in terms of impact to justify developing a dedicated stand-alone approach, or whether the issues could be covered by amending the policies and actions of existing plans, extending them as necessary to reflect the local conditions. 3.6.3 In respect of freight it will be important for Cheshire West & Chester to consider whether the work undertaken on the previous freight strategy has relevance to the new authority or whether its meaning has effectively been lost by the division of the former County Council. 3.6.4 There is already a body of policy applying to freight, which is fully set out in the 2007 document. To this should be added the Dept for Transport’s recent DaSTS ‘Logistics Perspective’ (December 2008). 3.6.5 A future freight strategy would need to consider both operational requirements and the consequent planning responses that are required.

Operational Needs 3.6.6 The main transport and operational issues connected to freight fall into broad areas as follows: 1. Volumes of freight flows; 2. Sensitive locations affected by those flows; 3. Enforcement;

4. Concentrations of freight activity; 5. Maintenance; 6. Economic policy; and, 7. Sustainability and the future. 3.6.7 Future strategy would need to be informed by an analysis of the impact of freight movement on the transport network and the suitability of key links for managing current and future volumes. This could be a matter of high volumes (e.g. the M6) or unsuitable roads (e.g. rat-running or weak bridges), with implications for traffic management systems and the system of environmental controls. The LTP and Traffic Management Plan should address these needs. 3.6.8 Concentration of freight activity refers to logistics centres, parking areas and other locations generating large volumes of vehicle movements. This is a staple of Environmental Health policy and licensing activity. 3.6.9 As HGVs are responsible for significant rates of road wear, high volumes of HGVs will cause higher rates of structural deterioration and have implications for the maintenance regime. This ought to be considered within an asset management plan. 3.6.10 Economic policy should be a consideration in areas where industry or logistics are target sectors for local development. The former may be the case in Cheshire West & Chester but support for the latter is less clear. 3.6.11 Sustainability issues will be concerned with both the environmental impacts of freight activities and the spatial patterns of economic activity which require their support. 3.6.12 The 2007 document covers Cheshire’s experience of all of these operational matters to an extent, but does not show that the County was suffering from particular problems as a result. This could be a reflection of a lack of consultation with industry stakeholders or the community, but it could be that Cheshire was not abnormally affected by freight issues compared with other areas of the country. 3.6.13 The roads carrying the highest lorry flows are: -

A550 between the M53 Wirral motorway and North Wales;

A41 between Chester and the boundary with Shropshire;

A5117 between the M56 and A449, and between Pool Lane and M56junction 14;

A51/A500 between Chester and the M6;

A54 between A51 and A556, and connecting Winsford with the M6;

A49 north from the A51 at Tarporley to the boundary with Warrington; and,

A556 between A49 and the M6, and the connecting routes via the A533 to Winsford Industrial Estate, and the A530 to Middlewich.

Planning Need 3.6.14 The planning background is comprehensively described in the 2007 document, with national, regional and local policy relating to the movement of freight being described.

3.6.15 Despite the apparent complexity of this policy background, essentially the approach boils down to a small number of basic themes:

Recognising the role and importance of freight transport’s role in supporting economic activity;

Integrating freight distribution within the land use planning framework;

Improving the environmental performance of the industry, reducing negative impacts and increasing efficiency;

Encouraging a partnership approach between local authorities and the freight business community; and,

Working across institutional boundaries in order to achieve efficiency and effectiveness. 3.6.16 The stance taken by the policy documents do not point to particular problems in Cheshire, (or Cheshire West) and are largely concerned with encouraging best practice in freight developments and establishing overall grounds for planning mitigation, should it ever be needed.

Conclusions 3.6.17 A strategy should be more than just a document that collects together and summarises what is said elsewhere. The 2007 document does not go as far as to investigate problems or propose an action plan, doubtless for good, practical reasons and as such was not complete. This is not to say that there were no freight issues in Cheshire (or are in Cheshire West & Chester), but that justification for completing a separate strategy has not been established by what has happened to date. 3.6.18 What would be needed for this to happen is sufficient evidence, led by community and business interests, that a targeted approach was needed. It is possible this will come forward in consultations for the new LDF and LTP. 3.6.19 In the absence of such support, the question is left on what could be included on freight issues in the LDF and LTP. The objectives proposed in 2007 are still valid principles to guide thinking on freight:

Improving safety, particularly of lorries on the Council’s roads;

Encouraging the use of more environmentally sustainable alternatives to road freight;

Ensuring, where possible, that new development takes place in locations that are accessible by a choice of freight modes;

Where freight has to be moved by road, ensuring that suitable routes are provided that are free of any form of restriction and appropriate measures are considered to address problems of congestion, and that good quality information is provided to lorry operators;

Involving road freight operators effectively in traffic management decision making;

Improving the quality of life in residential areas and town centres by minimising intrusion caused by freight movements; and,

Supporting national and regional freight priorities.

3.6.20 The potential exists, in the future, to develop a freight partnership similar to those that exist elsewhere. Such a partnership, between representatives of the freight industry, the local authority, business and community interests, could work to jointly identify issues of concern and develop agreed strategies to address them.

3.7 ROAD SAFETY 3.7.1 The achievement of reduced levels of road casualties is a national priority, with local authority actions guided by a prescriptive target and indicator regime. Up until 2007 (the latest date for complete data availability), Cheshire County Council was on course to meet the targets set down, which are noted in the table below. 3.7.2 The County Council has followed the system of performance indicators set out by Government (BVPI 99a-c) and a local target which replicates BVPI 99a, but omits trunk roads, over which the authority has no management responsibility. 3.7.3 From 2008, the BVPI system has been replaced by National Indicators, with two BVPIs being carried over into the new system and one (99c) dropped. In the national review of indicators to be used for performance monitoring in future (2008), it was considered appropriate to continue to monitor all four road safety indicators as before, at least for the LTP2 period. 3.7.4 The latest figures reported for the former County Council are for 2007 and appear in the 2008 Road Casualty Report. These are summarised below in Table 3.8.

TABLE 3.8: ROAD CASUALTY REDUCTION – CHESHIRE 2007 Accident Class 1994-98 2007 2007 Percentage Change over: Average 2006 1994-98 average KSI Casualties 831 462 -15% -44% Child KSI 80 33 -13% -59% Slight Casualties 3807 2919 -3% -23% Slight Casualties per 51.2 n/a -8% -32% 100m vehicle km

3.7.5 Shown in Table 3.9, the LTP progress report for 2006-08 maps the above data against the specific road safety performance indicators.

TABLE 3.9: ROAD SAFETY - PERFORMANCE AGAINST TARGETS Indicator Description of Target Actual Notes target 06/07 06/07 BVPI 99a Road injuries – -38.8% -27% Overall trend remains on (NI 47) track but higher than Reduce number of expected number of people killed or KSI accidents occurred in seriously injured 2005 compared to 2004. in road accidents In response, additional by 43% by 2010 local safety schemes from 1994/98 capital funding was average of 80 KSI targeted at KSI locations in 2006/07. This approach will continue in 2007/08 and be likely for the remainder of the LTP2 period. BVPI 99b Road injuries – -46% -40% Overall trend remains on (NI 48) track but slightly higher Reduce number of than expected number of children killed or KSI accidents involving seriously injured children occurred in 2005 in road accidents from 2004. by 50% by 2010 There was only one child from 1994/98 road death during the average of 831 period (a passenger in a KSI HGV). BVPI 99c Road injuries – -4.5% -16.1% On track.

Reduce the Due to success in number of slight reducing slight casualties road injuries by there has been a shift 7.5% by 2010 towards targeted efforts at from 1994/98 sites and routes average of 3807 experiencing fatal and slight injuries. serious collisions. LT16 Road Safety – -40.2% -40.2% On track.

(Local Total KSI At the end of 2006 KSI Target) casualties on local casualties have reduced roads - Reduce by 36% from the 1994/98 total killed or average baseline. seriously injured casualties on local This is also a LPSA2 roads (excluding target. motorways) by 45% by 2008 from 1994/98 average.

3.7.6 Performance in disaggregated form shows a more challenging road safety picture for Cheshire West & Chester, as shown in the Tables 3.10 to 3.12, below. (NB data taken from 2007 Road Casualty Report, the latest date for which this data is available).

TABLE 3.10: ALL KSI CASUALTIES BY DISTRICT District 1994-98 2004 2005 2006 Average Chester 105 120 133 103 Ellesmere Port 85 40 39 35 & Neston Vale Royal 104 84 108 128

CW&C total 294 244 280 266 Crewe & 119 115 129 94 Nantwich Macclesfield 328 110 118 129 Congleton 90 36 80 55

E Cheshire 537 261 327 278 total

3.7.7 Reduction in KSI casualties is apparent in the former Ellesmere Port & Neston Council area, but not elsewhere, with great variability being shown from one year to the next.

TABLE 3.11: CHILD KSI CASUALTIES BY DISTRICT District 1994-98 2004 2005 2006 Average Chester 10 8 8 3

Ellesmere Port 12 5 10 4 & Neston

Vale Royal 11 4 7 12 CW&C total 33 17 25 19 Crewe & 13 14 10 8 Nantwich Macclesfield 27 9 9 6 Congleton 7 3 4 5

E Cheshire 47 26 23 19 total

3.7.8 Some improvement may be detectable in the child KSI picture, but once again there is great variability from one year to the next. With the data noting only comparatively small numbers of affected persons, statistical significance needs a reduction trend over an extended period in order to be certain that a change has taken place.

TABLE 3.12: SLIGHT CASUALTIES BY DISTRICT District 1994-98 2004 2005 2006 Average Chester 819 717 629 611 Ellesmere Port 282 297 279 263 & Neston Vale Royal 695 693 608 581 CW&C total 1796 1707 1516 1455 Crewe & 579 691 606 521 Nantwich

Macclesfield 974 735 697 654 Congleton 458 437 375 393

E Cheshire 2011 1863 1678 1568 total

3.7.9 The picture for slight casualties is clearer with a definite improvement seen overall, although this is not necessarily the case everywhere. 3.7.10 The implications of this are that for the most serious accidents, the picture in Cheshire West & Chester is not one of great improvement, except for the former Ellesmere Port & Neston area. There appears to have been a more consistent reduction in accidents in East Cheshire, with a startlingly large fall in the Macclesfield area. What this means is that the former Cheshire County Council relied on historic good performance in what is now East Cheshire to stay on track, and that Cheshire West & Chester Council may find it more difficult to achieve similar casualty reductions in the future. 3.7.11 New road safety targets had not been calculated for Cheshire West & Chester as at June 2009, so it is not possible to report on performance against trajectory at this time. 3.7.12 The programmes undertaken to improve road safety and reduce casualties encompass a number of types of action:

Safety Audits;

Highway engineering measures;

Speed limits review and advice;

Publicity campaigning;

Road Safety Education;

Working with schools; and,

Partnership working with Cheshire Police and neighbouring authorities. These programmes have their own internal objectives and programmes which the new authority will need to recognise within their own resourcing and planning processes.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

3.8 RAIL SERVICES AND OPERATIONS 3.8.1 The following section provides a basic description of rail services and infrastructure in Cheshire West & Chester and considers baseline passenger use made of the system. The main rail services operating through Cheshire are set out below in Table 3.13. The rail lines and stations are shown on Figure 3.6.

Long distance rail services 3.8.2 The West Coast Main Line (WCML) runs from north to south through the centre of the Cheshire West & Chester area. Stations exist at Acton Bridge, Hartford and Winsford, but these are not served by long distance services. Connections to such services are achieved by changing at Crewe or Warrington Bank Quay, with onward connections to London, Birmingham and Glasgow. 3.8.3 Chester is served by a frequent (hourly) service to London operated by Virgin West Coast. This service was increased in frequency to its current level in February 2009, with the intention of also offering easier links to London from the South Wirral. By contrast rail connections from Ellesmere Port to Chester are indirect and may not offer as convenient a choice of access as the car or taxi alternatives. It is possible that Ellesmere Port residents wishing to travel to London by train may have a more convenient journey by travelling via Liverpool.

Regional and local services 3.8.4 Rail services also connect Chester to Crewe, the North Wales coast, Liverpool, Manchester via Warrington Bank Quay or Northwich, Wrexham, Shrewsbury, Birmingham and South Wales. 3.8.5 Rail development is the concern of several Community Rail Partnerships covering the Borderlands (Wrexham-Bidston), Chester-Shrewsbury and Mid-Cheshire lines.

Train Operators 3.8.6 While there is no ‘County Rail Strategy’ to inform the new Council’s approach to rail-related issues, the former County Council maintained an active role in liaison with the industry and neighbouring authorities on rail matters as this mode is considered to be high-profile in nature, valued by the community and an important part of an integrated transport system for Cheshire West & Chester. In the context of the LDF, rail offers some potential to meeting the new transport needs of Growth Point proposals as well as fulfilling its current role.

TABLE 3.13: RAIL SERVICES OPERATING THROUGH CHESHIRE

Rail service issues 3.8.7 Four larger scale proposals have either been studied or have received consideration by Cheshire County Council and other interested parties:

Reopening the Sandbach – Northwich freight line to passenger traffic and reopening Middlewich station as part of the service package. A preliminary study has been completed and discussion between the stakeholders is ongoing. The possibility is raised by this initiative of recasting the Mid Cheshire line services and also offering longer term opportunities for tram-train development;

Establishing a regular passenger service over the Halton curve, linking the Chester – Warrington line with Runcorn and Liverpool, via Liverpool airport. Merseytravel has taken the lead in developing ideas for this opportunity, which would allow the network of services in the southern part of the Liverpool City Region to be recast;

Future development of the Wrexham-Bidston line, possibly by electrification or conversion to tram-train standard, and,

There is also a longer term aspiration for a western rail spur to Manchester Airport from the Mid-Cheshire rail line.

3.8.8 Other service operating matters raised by industry planning are:

The Chester – Manchester service now demands use of 3-car trains throughout the day to cope with demand. It is also understood that Arriva Trains Wales wish to extend this service from Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Airport;

Operating pattern of the Chester – Liverpool service, to increase frequency and/or speed. A possibility of increasing the frequency to 15 minutes all day is raised in the Merseyside Rail Utilisation Study. This may require construction of a new platform at Chester station; and,

Operating pattern of Ellesmere Port – Liverpool service, which may be affected by any changes to the all-day Chester service: improvements are not identified in the Rail Utilisation Study.

3.9 RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE

Station development issues 3.9.1 Chester Station and its immediate surroundings have received a major enhancement through the Chester Rail Gateway project. The ongoing scheme aims to transform the building itself and the road and footway network outside Chester Railway Station and improve this key gateway into the City of Chester. The proposals tie in with planning aspirations to promote development in the station quarter. 3.9.2 Cheshire County Council in the past played a major role as a funding stakeholder in this scheme: as the work to improve the station buildings is not yet completed, a continuing engagement may be anticipated although the availability of funding support is not clear. 3.9.3 Apart from the above, three other issues outside the building’s immediate envelope are also of concern the Council:

Expansion of car parking availability;

Provision of a footway/cycleway link over Hoole Bridge, possibly associated with any new car park structure; and,

Continuation of the City Rail Link, the free bus linking the station and city centre. 3.9.4 Apart from Chester, the condition of the other stations in Cheshire has also generated a number of initiatives to improve their general condition. This work has been targeted at specific issues such as car park provision, accessibility, security and integration with bus services.

3.9.5 There are twenty one stations in Cheshire West & Chester:

Acton Bridge* Frodsham Lostock Gralam

Bache Greenbank Mouldsworth

Capenhurst Hartford Neston

Chester Helsby Northwich

Cuddington Hooton Overpool

Delamere Ince & Elton* Stanlow & Thornton*

Ellesmere Port Little Sutton Winsford * - Infrequent service only 3.9.6 Station issues and proposals the Council is aware of, include the following: Neston: Action Plan prepared proposing pedestrian and cycle improvements, ticket machine and CCTV provision; Northwich: The Chester bound platform is not accessible: there is a low platform height issue. A need for improved public transport links from station to the town Centre is also identified; Winsford: The car park needs an improved layout so that buses can access and manoeuvre safely. Also a need to improve pedestrian and cycling links to the nearby Winsford Industrial Estate is evident; Helsby: More car park capacity is needed (parking causing nuisance for residents) and low platform height is also an issue; Frodsham: - More car park capacity needed; Hooton: Car park now at full capacity and Chester to Liverpool services may well increase within next 5 years, putting pressure on this major facility; Capenhurst: Capacity is available for increasing P&R capacity considerably; Ellesmere Port: Station is underused, so promotion and improvements to the station environs are needed; and, Bache: A shared car park with Morrison’s store has created capacity issues. 3.9.7 There are no active plans to pursue the opening of additional stations in the area although the following proposals have received attention in the past and may be taken forward in future;

Middlewich station reopening;

A new station in the vicinity of the Flintshire Northern Gateway – development related and could be located in Flintshire or West Cheshire; and,

Flintshire County Council also previously considered the prospect of a new station in the Lache / Saltney area to serve the Chester Business Park.

Non-station infrastructure development 3.9.8 A number of other infrastructure-related issues have been identified by the Council which are unrelated to stations, but are still ‘live’ matters for Cheshire West & Chester to consider:

Welsh Assembly Government plans for track redoubling between Saltney Junction and Wrexham, with line speed improvements (currently 60 mph limit), to improve reliability and service speed of Arriva Trains Wales’ North Wales - Cardiff and Birmingham service;

Line speeds on the Mid Cheshire Line (currently 60 mph limit) and the operational impact of the single line sections of route, one of which lies in the authority’s area;

Infrastructure implications of any longer term tram-train service proposals for the Mid Cheshire and Wrexham-Bidston lines;

Future use of the Ellesmere Port docks rail infrastructure in association with the Ellesmere Port Waterfront development site; and,

The Middlewich line and Halton Curve issues are noted above.

3.9.9 There are at least three longer term strategic possibilities that have been raised affecting the area. These could have land use implications if they were to be taken forward, but their status is currently undefined:

Manchester Airport Western Link;

Rail electrification (Crewe-Chester at least); and,

Rail-based strategic park & ride proposals.

3.10 DISCUSSION WITH LOCAL COMMUNITY RAIL USER GROUPS

3.10.1 In preparing this baseline report a meeting was arranged with representatives of local rail user groups to elicit user views on the main issues affecting rail services and infrastructure in West Cheshire. The organisations that were consulted were;

North Cheshire Rail Users Group;

Mid Cheshire Line Rail Users Group; and

Borderlands Line Community Rail Partnership 3.10.2 Full details of the discussions are provided in Appendix C, but the main points raised are as follows:

N Wales – Chester – Manchester service The overall level of service (hourly) with peak strengthening was seen as satisfactory at present, with services running usefully late into the evening. Train lengths were too short however.

Ellesmere Port – Helsby service Current service almost useless, but retained as a result of franchise specification. There was consensus that the line sat more naturally within the Merseyside RUS area (and therefore within the Merseyrail franchise)

Mid Cheshire Line The hourly frequency was felt to be too low, with half hourly being the ideal. Maintaining the link with Stockport and Manchester was also important.

Chester station Interchange between trains is not managed very well, despite the large numbers of connections made there. There is minimal staff presence to help passengers, as might be expected in a station like this. It is undersold as a point of access to and from a wide catchment area of interest to visitors. There should be a large Tourist Information Centre, complementing the City’s status, instead of merely a leaflet rack. Good aspects include the completion of the station forecourt traffic arrangements, the prospects for continuing work to complete the island platform, the new Costa franchise and integration with Wrexham and Mold bus services and the Monday to Saturday free bus shuttle.

Car parking There are widespread shortages of car parking. This was noted as affecting certain stations more acutely:

Chester;

Hartford;

Helsby;

Northwich; and,

Winsford.

Integration Suggestions have been received for improving linkages between bus and rail:

Chester - Zoo, Upton, Blacon and Saughall;

City Rail Link - Bus Exchange;

Bus links from the hinterland of Helsby and Frodsham stations to Alvanley, Manley and Kingsley; and,

Integration with Metrolink at Altrincham.

Major initiatives Two more achieveable ideas have been raised:

Mersey Basin connectivity, enabling communities around the river being linked by an outer circle, with Ellesmere Port – Helsby – Liverpool South Parkway, using the Halton Curve; and,

A tram-train future for the Mid Cheshire line, linked with reopening of services on the Middlewich line.

The Airport Western Link remains on the agenda as the single most significant scheme and has been considered within the Manchester Hub studies. It offers potential to radically recast service patterns in West Cheshire.

Relationship with planning context The Growth Point proposals are regarded as sufficiently significant as to provide justification for improving rail services. Of greatest significance are:

Northwich – Manchester;

Northwich – Crewe (Would require passenger services to be re – instated on existing freight line); and,

Ellesmere Port – Helsby.

3.11 RAIL USE 3.11.1 Patronage figures for individual lines or services are not released and are treated as sensitive data, however a picture of use can be gained by examining the detail of annual station footfalls provided by the Office of Rail Regulation. Though there are claims that this under-represents the true figures of use, for example by omitting season ticket data or by not surveying real footfall at unstaffed stations, an approximate view can be discerned. In Table 3.14 below, the annual figure is converted to rough daily equivalent by dividing by 6 days (i.e. omitting Sundays) and then by 51 weeks (omitting Christmas and Easter breaks).

TABLE 3.14: STATION FOOTFALLS TO 2007/08 Station Footfall Footfall Footfall Annual 2007/08 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 growth daily fig Chester 2,336,893 2,440,874 2,607,840 5.64% 8,522 Hooton 357,690 342,245 359,837 0.30% 1,169 Ellesmere Port 215,005 157,893 191,239 - 5.69% 625 Northwich 135,542 140,882 154,907 6.91% 506 Hartford 89,523 106,269 127,616 19.39% 417 Greenbank 73,086 80,667 90,598 11.34% 296 Frodsham 77,028 78,118 88,668 7.29% 290 Bache 60,430 53,016 88,074 20.73% 288 Winsford 67,986 78,521 86,772 12.97% 284 Helsby 52,067 57,412 68,386 14.60% 223

Capenhurst 53,069 44,215 59,993 6.27% 196 Cuddington 46,583 48,809 51,775 5.43% 169 Little Sutton 49,925 30,721 36,185 - 14.87% 118

Neston 35,216 32,716 35,922 1.00% 117 Overpool 50,627 26,995 33,929 - 18.14% 111 Delamere 16,736 20,996 28,220 29.85% 92

Mouldsworth 13,663 13,674 17,407 12.87% 57 Lostock Gralam 16,145 14,633 14,348 - 5.73% 47 Acton Bridge 4,162 8,913 11,373 65.31% 37

Ince & Elton 1,055 845 867 - 9.35% 3 Stanlow & 130 326 278 46.23% <1 Thornton

Community Rail Group Views on Rail Use 3.11.2 Issues regarding the current level of usage and crowding on local services were discussed with local community rail groups. In the groups’ view the station footfall figures provided by ORR and noted above are believed to under-represent the true usage of rail lines. Some unofficial data is collected which supports this view: in Cheshire West and Chester , the Mid Cheshire Rail Users Association collects such data and a comparison table for Mid Cheshire line stations is provided in Appendix C. 3.11.3 Perceptions of overcrowding were common, particularly affecting the N Wales – Chester – Manchester and Mid Cheshire services. The former was regularly overloaded in the peaks, or during instances when only a 2 car train is operated and at other times such as in connection with race days in Chester or summer Sundays. Mid Cheshire line trains have experienced reduced length trains since the formation of the Northern franchise. There is a view that existing rates of demand growth will demand a resolution coming from the operators in no more than 5 years’ time. 3.11.4 Patronage growth of 8-10% per year over the last 6 years has been seen on the Mid Cheshire line, up until the Dec 08 timetable, which has depressed usage into Manchester and Stockport by 22%. Unlike many commuter lines, the Mid Cheshire sees good use throughout the day. Sunday service use has risen considerably after recent timetable improvements from 3-hourly Chester-Altrincham to 2-hourly Chester- Manchester. It was felt that an hourly Sunday service was justifiable. 3.11.5 Data on other rail services has not been received (i.e. Virgin, Merseyrail Electrics and Arriva Chester-Shrewsbury), however overcrowding is not believed to be a severe a problem as experienced on the above services.

Census Data 3.11.6 Examination of the Census data in chapter 2 reveals that rail use overall is low, with journeys to work from any one of the 6 sub-areas not exceeding 3% of the total commuting population, with an average of 2% across the whole authority. This disguises the single largest flow, of a 14% rail market share for movements to Liverpool. This relatively high figure shows that provision of frequent, convenient services can have a major impact on mode shares for particular movements and illustrates the potential of the mode to meet longer distance travel demand.

3.12 RAIL PARK AND RIDE PROVISION 3.12.1 The County Council began a strategy of encouraging Park and Ride at rail stations. Hooton Station has recently been upgraded to provide over 400 parking spaces. Figure 3.9 shows the other rail stations within the authority area with car park facilities. The other stations with car parking facilities with over 50 or more spaces are:

Chester = 113 spaces;

Ellesmere Port = 109 spaces;

Bache = 61 spaces;

Northwich = 50 spaces; and,

Cuddington = 70 spaces. 3.12.2 There are existing car parking pressures at Hooton, Helsby, Frodsham and Capenhurst rail stations.

3.13 RAIL FREIGHT 3.13.1 The following rail freight movements either originate within Cheshire West and Chester or cross the authority’s area:

Logs from Scotland to the Kronospan works at Chirk;

Nuclear fuel traffic to and from Wylfa power station on Anglesey;

Coal is transported from Manisty Wharf (located in Cheshire West and Chester) by rail to Fiddlers Ferry power station; and,

Network Rail trains carrying stone from Penmaenmawr quarry to work sites across the country. 3.13.2 The continuing presence of heavy industry offers some potential for currently dormant facilities to be brought back into use:

Stanlow Oil Refinery (also proximity to Quinn Glass and Vauxhall Motors);

Chemical sidings at Northwich (various sites); and,

Corus steelworks, Hawarden Bridge (proximity to Deeside Industrial Park).

3.14 THE BUS AND COACH NETWORK 3.14.1 The mixed urban / rural context of the area creates a challenge for local bus services. Figure 3.7 shows an extract from the Cheshire County Council 2009 public transport map showing services in Cheshire West and Chester. This illustrates that in the urban areas there is a fairly comprehensive network of bus routes both serving intra urban movements and providing interurban connections. Figure 3.7 also shows that many of these services emanate from the City of Chester. 3.14.2 Figure 3.8 shows the frequency of bus services on the key corridors within the Cheshire West and Chester area. This shows that the higher frequency corridors are between:

Chester and Ellesmere Port;

Chester and Queensferry;

Chester and Mold;

Chester and Wrexham;

Ellesmere Port and Birkenhead / Liverpool; and,

Northwich and Winsford. 3.14.3 The number of passenger journeys on buses originating in the authority area is estimated to be currently 15.8 million per annum. This has been calculated by the authority as it is a national indicator (NI 177) as part of the ongoing monitoring of public transport use. The aforementioned figure equates to an average of approximately 50 bus trips per resident per annum. 3.14.4 A further national indicator (NI 178) highlights that 91.8% of bus services are operating to schedule.

3.14.5 The challenges in the less densely populated areas are that many of the towns and villages in the Cheshire West & Chester area are too small to support significant local bus networks. Furthermore, interurban services often do not carry sufficient numbers to operate on a frequent commercial basis. Therefore there is a continuing challenge in ensuring that revenue funding to support local bus services is deployed in the most beneficial way. 3.14.6 The Cheshire West & Chester authority contracts approximately 50 bus services in the area through a range of de-minimis, minimum support and minimum cost contracts. The total cost of the contract services is approximately £3 million. The contract services range from the Park and Ride services to the Chester and Ellesmere Port Dial a ride service and also extensions of the operating hours of existing commercial bus services. 3.14.7 To react to these challenges Cheshire County Council undertook a thorough review of all bus routes within the County. Further details of this review, as it relates to Cheshire West & Chester are summarised below.

3.15 LOCAL NETWORK – TOWNS / CITY 3.15.1 Figures 3.9 to 3.13 show the town/city bus networks for the key settlements in the Cheshire West and Chester area. It was highlighted above that the majority of bus services in the Cheshire West & Chester area are focused on routes that serve the City of Chester. As a result the City has several corridors which offer high frequency services, particularly when the inter– urban services are combined with those services that operate only within the City are also considered. In Chester the key bus corridors are:

Liverpool Road;

Boughton;

Wrexham Road;

Chester Rd / Saltney High St / Chester St / Hough Green; and,

Sealand Road. 3.15.2 These routes, operating with a high frequency regime to the City Centre, enable travellers bound to and from the centre to “turn up and go” as there is short headways between services. 3.15.3 The main bus drop off and pick up points in the city centre are at the bus station (bus exchange) on Princess St and also at the stops on Frodsham St and Foregate Street. 3.15.4 Ellesmere Port also has a comprehensive network of bus services made up of a combination of town services and bus services to wider destinations. In Ellesmere Port the key bus routes are:

Chester Road;

Whitby Road / Chester Road; and,

Sutton Road Stanney Lane. 3.15.5 Most bus routes accessing the centre of Ellesmere Port do so at the bus station adjacent to the Port Arcades Shopping Centre. The other key destination served within the Ellesmere Port area is the Cheshire Oaks complex. 75

3.15.6 Bus station facilities exist in Chester and Ellesmere Port, with on-street arrangements in Northwich and Winsford. The position in Chester is complex with a 1980’s facility, the Bus Exchange, showing potential for improvement. This is currently stalled pending further progress with the Northgate redevelopment scheme which should replace the earlier facilities. In the meantime, the main trunk routes to Mold and Wrexham have been relocated to terminate outside the main rail station, offering a degree of integration. Ellesmere Port’s bus station is of similar vintage to Chester’s, and is therefore not of a modern standard. 3.15.7 In the new authority’s area the council is also responsible for maintaining 4,600 bus stops and shelters and 2,600 bus stop timetable displays.

3.16 PUBLIC TRANSPORT PERCEPTIONS 3.16.1 Some of the findings of the Quality of Life survey 2005, in relation to public transport perceptions are summarised in Table 3.15, below. Concerning what is important to the attractiveness of bus services, Table 3.15 shows, that fares and frequency are highly rated, with other attributes of quality also noted. This is not surprising. Lower scores (<20%) are given to network coverage, speeds and vehicle quality. Furthermore, there is an interesting ‘hard core’ of persons who would apparently be resistant to any form of inducement to use public transport.

TABLE 3.15: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD MAKE PUBLIC TRANSPORT MORE ATTRACTIVE TO YOU? Chester Ellesmere Vale Royal Port Cheaper fares 57% 55% 58% Run more frequent 51% 54% 55% Services More reliable services 37% 48% 41% More direct services 28% 41% 37% More information on 35% 30% 37% Services Integration of bus and rail 28% 32% 32% timetables and fares More park and ride 15% 36% 33% Services Feeling safe at bus stops 29% 31% 22% or stations Better quality bus 34% 25% 16% shelters Improved journey speeds 19% 14% 18% Better quality vehicles 20% 17% 15% Improve or more routes 4% 3% 4% and stopping places Other 3% 6% 3% Nothing 10% 15% 9% Count 243 199 265

3.16.2 Interestingly a low proportion of people consider bus services difficult to use. Based on the 2008 Community Survey only 13% of people surveyed consider bus services in the Cheshire West & Chester area were either fairly or very difficult to use. In relation to public transport information approximately a quarter of people surveyed are fairly or very dissatisfied with the provision of information.

3.17 OPERATORS 3.17.1 In the Cheshire West & Chester area the network of bus services is provided by around 30 bus operating companies. The bus operators range from smaller companies who may only operate a few vehicles to the large national public transport providers. The two largest operators in the area are Arriva and First Bus.

3.18 COACH 3.18.1 National Express coaches in Chester terminate outside the city’s visitor centre and are not integrated with other local bus or rail services. This is considered unsatisfactory, as only basic shelters are provided at this location. 3.18.2 Parking for visitor coaches is restricted to the Little Roodee car park. Coaches, lorries and other large vehicles can park at this location for the following costs:

Up to 3 hours £5.50;

3-6 hours £8.00;

Over 6 hours £10.00; and,

Arrivals after 5pm £5.00

3.19 PARK AND RIDE

Bus Provision 3.19.1 One particularly successful policy intervention that has reduced congestion and reduces the pressure for city centre parking has been the park and ride strategy for Chester. The Chester P&R sites are shown on Figure 3.14. 3.19.2 There are four Park & Ride sites serving the city, providing a total of 3170 parking spaces at the following locations:

Sealand Road = 760 spaces;

Upton (The Zoo) = 460 spaces;

Broughton Heath = 750 spaces; and,

Wrexham Road = 1200 spaces. 3.19.3 In addition, the Upton Park and Ride has an all weather parking extension area on land owned by Chester Zoo that has been used to serve peak seasonal occasions such as Christmas shopping. 3.19.4 Bus services operate every 10 minutes for the majority of the day and at 15 minute intervals at some off peak times. The first buses bound for the city centre departing at 7:00am and the last bus from the city centre departing at 7:00pm. Car parking is free, and the adult return bus fare costs £1.70. 3.19.5 The city’s park and ride service is the 4th largest in the country, carrying over one million passengers per year. Figure 3.15, shows that patronage of Park and Ride in Chester has remained relatively static over the last 8 years.

FIGURE 3.15: ANNUAL USAGE OF PARK AND RIDE IN CHESTER

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4 Vehicles (in millions)

0.2

/03 /06

1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002 2003/04 2004/05 2005 2006/07 2007/08 Years

3.19.6 The 2005 Quality of Life survey established that use of park and ride differs across the authority’s area, with the Ellesmere Port & Neston area showing greater use made, shown in Table 3.16. This could be both use of the Chester system and also other facilities on Merseyside (Wirral), where station parking has been strongly promoted over the last 10-15 years for accessing central Liverpool and Birkenhead.

TABLE 3.17: HOW OFTEN DO YOU USE A PARK & RIDE SCHEME TO GO TO WORK? Chester Ellesmere Port Vale Royal CW & C & Neston Usually 0% 5% 0% 1% Sometimes 2% 7% 2% 4% Never 98% 87% 98% 95% Count 76 64 99 239

3.19.7 Strategic park and ride provision using coach services has been considered. However, at present there are no plans to introduce a facility in the Cheshire West & Chester area or in neighbouring authority areas.

3.20 COMMUNITY TRANSPORT 3.20.1 Community transport and demand responsive solutions are more appropriate than conventional services in areas of low demand for public transport services and for meeting the travel needs of some particular groups of users. Accessing employment, education, shops and leisure facilities via public transport is more difficult in the rural areas of Cheshire West & Chester and this is an issue that the existing Community Transport Strategy for Cheshire (published by Cheshire County Council in October 2007) seeks to address and which will need to continue to be addressed by the local transport policy framework within the new authority. In addition to demand responsive bus services, there is also a significant network of supported school bus services in place to enable pupils and students to reach schools and colleges from/in the more rural areas.

3.20.2 The Community Transport Strategy for Cheshire has involved a review of the current activities of the four largest Community Transport operators in Cheshire, two of which are in Cheshire West & Chester: Ellesmere Port and Neston Community Transport and Vale Royal Dial-a-Ride. The review found that these operators were delivering services to a reasonable level of quality and provided a good base from which to build. However, it highlighted the need to adopt a more dynamic approach to planning these services in order to effect improvements. 3.20.3 A significant stakeholder consultation exercise was undertaken as part of the writing of the strategy, and a number of options were examined for modernising Community Transport provision in the County. The preferred option ultimately adopted was the formation of an ‘umbrella’ body to oversee Community Transport across Cheshire and enable closer joint working between operators with the aim of bringing about economies of scale. 3.20.4 In relation to community transport key findings from the 2008 Community Survey are:

Only 16% or respondents were not aware of community transport services; and,

70% of respondents prefer pre-booked flexible services and 26% of respondents would prefer limited service fixed time services.

3.21 TAXIS 3.21.1 Taxis have an important role to play in an integrated public transport system, particularly in:

Facilitating and encouraging the use of other public transport services by increasing the catchment area of rail and bus services;

Decreasing car dependence, and enabling increased mobility of those who do not have access to a car;

Increasing the accessibility to public transport of areas which are not within walking distance of scheduled public transport services;

In some areas, taxi services may be the most efficient way of providing for certain statutory travel needs, such as school travel in very rural areas where demand does not justify a bus service; and,

Complementing Community Transport services in providing demand responsive public transport, particularly in rural areas. 3.21.2 Taxi licensing, in relation to both Hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, is currently still operated separately by the three former authority areas of Chester, Ellesmere Port and Neston and Vale Royal. This is done using a transitional arrangement which enables three licensing ‘zones’ (reflecting the former authorities) to be used within the new authority area. This transitional arrangement will be retained for a minimum period of a year from 1 April 2009. A consultation has been conducted on the future transition to a single arrangement for the whole authority, and the results of this consultation are likely to be put to Committee later in 2009.

3.21.3 In terms of vehicle numbers, there are currently around 1,000 private hire vehicles licensed in Cheshire West & Chester, and around 350 Hackney carriages (the latter being split approximately 100 in Chester, 200 in Vale Royal and 50 in Ellesmere Port and Neston). The private hire vehicles range greatly in vehicle type from standard cars to minibuses and stretched limousines, clearly serving different areas of the market in each case. No private hire vehicle is licensed to carry more than 8 passengers. 3.21.4 Chester and Vale Royal areas feature a ‘de-limited’ regime in relation to Hackney Carriages, whereas in Ellesmere Port a quantity limit of 50 Hackney Carriage licenses is imposed. Chester went through a process of ‘de-limiting’ last year, through which a previous limit on the total number of licenses was lifted. This was a significantly controversial process, and led to a subsequent High Court Appeal brought by taxi license holders, which found in favour of the authority. The question of whether to adopt a limit for the whole area is clearly an important decision to be taken at some point in 2009/10. 3.21.5 A series of quality, safety and medical requirements are attached the issuing of licences for both Hackney carriages and private hire vehicles. Currently, the fees charged by the former district council for the issuing of licenses for both Hackney carriages and private hire vehicles are still in operation. A proposal to homogenise these fees across the new authority exists but has been subject to significant objections and is yet to be finalised. 3.21.6 No significant recent survey work has been undertaken in any of the three former authority areas in relation to taxi customer satisfaction. However, some work was undertaken regarding the demand for licences in Chester in 2008 in relation to the de- limiting proposal.

3.22 SCHOOL TRANSPORT 3.22.1 The Cheshire West & Chester authority contract approximately 190 mainstream school bus services and just over 200 special needs school bus services. Cheshire County Council owned and managed a fleet of 8 Yellow School Buses. Currently some of these buses transport pupils from Winsford to St Nicholas Catholic High School in Northwich.

TABLE 3.17: HOW DO THE CHILDREN IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL TO SCHOOL? Chester Ellesmere Port Vale Royal CW & C & Neston Car 49% 54% 35% 39% Walk 41% 47% 49% 40% Bus 18% 4% 27% 18% Bicycle 3% 0% 0% 1% Train 0% 0% 0% 0% Taxi 1% 0% 1% 1% Scooter/moped 0% 0% 1% <1% Walking bus 0% 0% 0% 0% Count 58 43 65 166 ONLY INCLUDES THOSE RESPONDENTS WITH CHILDREN IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD

3.22.2 Table 3.17, taken from the Cheshire Quality of Life surveys (2005, shows that there are significant differences evident in the modes used across Cheshire West & Chester. Ellesmere Port & Neston shows the highest proportion of car based school runs and the lowest by bus, with the latter being much higher in the more rural Chester and Vale Royal areas. The walk proportions are similar across the area.

TABLE 3.18: COULD YOU TELL ME WHY YOUR CHILD(REN) TRAVEL(S) TO SCHOOL BY CAR Chester Ellesmere Vale Royal Port & Neston Dropped off on way 20% 44% 35% to work Distances 29% 21% 32% No suitable bus service 37% 17% 16% Roads are not safe 5% 19% 15% Personal safety 12% 26% 7% Alternatives take too 3% 3% 21% long Convenience, 17% 8% 10% Laziness Other 9% 6% 0% Car share lift with friends 5% 0% 3% Weather 6% 11% 5% Count 27 23 21

3.22.3 The information in Table 3.18 is an important indicator of the propensity of car travel to school to be catered for more sustainably. A lack of bus services is an impediment, but distance less so, perhaps indicating development of alternatives to the car could bring about some change. 3.22.4 The frequency of car use for school travel in relatively urbanised Ellesmere Port is likely to relate to potential safety fears and the ability to link school run and commuter trips. 3.22.5 Findings from the 2008 Community Survey are summarised below. When asked, how easy or difficult would it be for you to get to school by your normal method of transport the following response were given:

Primary schools 2% difficult or very difficult and 70% very easy;

Secondary schools 6% difficult or very difficult and 49% very easy; and,

Colleges 10% difficult or very difficult and 29% very easy.

ACCESSIBILITY PLANNING

3.23 BACKGROUND 3.23.1 The concept of accessibility planning was introduced by Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion. This 2003 publication was the end result of the commissioning by the Prime Minister in 2001 of the Social Exclusion Unit to explore, and make recommendations to overcome, the problems experienced by people facing social exclusion in reaching work and key services. The report introduced the concept of accessibility as a measure of the ease with which people can reach essential services such as employment, education, healthcare and food stores. As a result of the findings of the report, local authorities were required to include an Accessibility Strategy within their second Local Transport Plan (covering the period 2006-2011). 3.23.2 The concept of accessibility afforded to people in a particular area is often thought of in terms of three important factors:

The spatial distribution of the population of an area;

The spatial distribution of key services in an area; and,

The quality and attractiveness of the public transport services which enable the population access to those services. 3.23.3 In order to assist local authorities in modelling accessibility as part of their LTP accessibility planning work, the Government commissioned new Geographical Information System (GIS) based software: Accession. Accession has been successful in enabling local authorities to more easily model the interactions between land use, population and transport services and identify areas for improvement. However, in reality, the level of accessibility which people experience is governed by a wide range of factors at the local level, of which the above are usually the most tangible and easily defined. 3.23.4 For this reason the Government identified a five stage process which it recommended local authorities adopt in order to embed accessibility planning as part of their local transport planning processes:

1: Strategic Accessibility Assessment: strategic mapping audits are undertaken, and strategic partnerships established with whom to consult. These inputs combine to aid in prioritising issues, areas and groups for further action at subsequent stages;

2: Local Accessibility Assessment: taking forward the issues, areas and groups identified in stage 1 in more detail at the local level. This stage involves more detailed localised mapping and consultation targeted at particular areas;

3: Option Appraisal: drawing together the results of the accessibility assessments into a range of options aimed at addressing the identified issues at a variety of spatial and temporal levels;

4: Action Plan Development: refining options into focussed actions including resources, targets, delivery timescales, responsibilities and delivery partnerships; and,

5: Monitoring & Evaluation: the establishment of a monitoring framework capable of demonstrating the impact that the actions identified are having in relation to delivering accessibility objectives. 82

3.23.5 At each stage, quantified analysis using Accession is only part of the process. Engagement and dialogue with communities and interest groups must also play a key part in identifying issues and opportunities and informing the development of solutions at a variety of scales.

3.24 ACCESSIBILITY WORK TO DATE

LTP2 Accessibility Strategy and JMP Review 3.24.1 Cheshire County Council produced an Accessibility Strategy as part of its second LTP in line with government requirements to do so. Subsequent analysis and work has shown significant areas for improvement in this early accessibility work. DfT’s assessment of the LTP criticised the accessibility planning work as having a lack of flow through from the evidence base to priorities and targets; of being very focussed on transport solutions (rather than considering a wider range of potential options to improve accessibility); and of lacking evidence of partnership working with delivery agencies on accessibility. 3.24.2 In response to this assessment, Cheshire County Council commissioned consultants JMP to undertake a review of the work in relation to best practice, with the aim of recommending a way forward to develop the accessibility agenda in Cheshire. 3.24.3 JMP comprehensively reviewed the accessibility work undertaken as part of LTP2. They concluded that, though it was clear a lot of good work had gone into its production, there were a number of shortcomings in the way in which the work was presented, structured and communicated. In particular, JMP found that it was not always clear how the extensive background work (particularly the accessibility mapping and consultation work) fed into the development of the specific objectives, targets and the Action Plan. 3.24.4 JMP concluded their report with an ‘Accessibility Action Plan’ which identified a number of actions to successfully develop the accessibility agenda in Cheshire.

Strategic Accessibility Assessment 3.24.5 The feedback from JMP, combined with the decision to create two Unitary Councils in Cheshire, has prompted a full review of the existing evidence base in order to fully inform the accessibility agenda as part of the emerging LDF and LTP within each of the two Unitary Authorities. 3.24.6 Three new proposed priorities were identified following the JMP work, which were to be the focus for further analysis and consultation:

Access to key services from rural areas, particularly for older people;

Access to health care, particularly in relation to Primary Care Trust (PCT) modernisation plans; and,

Access to employment, particularly from areas of deprivation. 3.24.7 These three priorities were then subject to a comprehensive evidence review, consultation and accessibility mapping exercise in order to identify ways forward for improving accessibility.

3.24.8 In Cheshire West & Cheshire, this review has taken the form of a stage 1, Strategic Accessibility Assessment. This work took the form of a baseline review of existing evidence and policy, a strategic mapping exercise using Accession, and an extensive consultation process, including:

th A Rural Accessibility consultation event, held on 29 July 2008 at Peckforton Village Hall. This was a successful debating session organised in conjunction with Cheshire Community Action. It was attended by a wide range of rural representatives including village hall groups, Parish Councils, Local Authority Councillors and Officers, Parish Plan groups and other community groups. This was an important opportunity to engage with local communities and hear about what they had to say to inform decision making.

th An Accessibility Planning Consultation, held on 11 September 2008 at Crewe Alexandra Football Club. This was a focus group session in which over 80 representatives from partner organisations, community groups and the Citizen’s Panel were encouraged to discuss and debate accessibility issues.

An online questionnaire, which was developed and promoted to service users. Around 160 responses were received from the Cheshire West & Chester area, and these informed a number of useful conclusions. 3.24.9 Further to the consultation work described above, the accessibility assessment of the Cheshire West & Chester area has included an extensive accessibility mapping exercise, focussing on the three priorities identified above. This mapping exercise, in conjunction with the consultation work has informed the conclusion that the third of the above three priorities (access to employment) should be the main focus for accessibility work going forward in Cheshire West & Cheshire. In addition to the focus on deprivation, the work has highlighted the importance of rural areas, and the issues associated with access to employment that are present here. It is therefore intended that access to employment from deprived and rural areas will be the principal focus of future work, starting with more localised work as part of the stage 2 Local Accessibility Assessments. It is the intention that this work will be taken forward in partnership with the relevant Area Partnership Boards and Community Forums.

3.25 MODELLING – ACCESSION 3.25.1 As part of both the LTP work, and the more recent work focussed on Cheshire West & Chester in advance of the creation of the new Council, significant Accession modelling has been undertaken in order to investigate accessibility issues at a strategic level. Some outputs from the Accession Modelling are included in Appendix B.

3.25.2 Accession can be very valuable in quantifying the interrelationship between the population, key services and public transport. However it also has its limitations, particularly in relation to flexibly routed services (which are usually not possible to model successfully within Accession) and it is important that this is borne in mind in any interpretation of the results. However, Accession can be particularly useful in quantifying the impact of proposals in relation to the location of key services or public transport routes. For example, through the use of Accession it becomes possible to compare relative effects of a number of alternative sites for a business park, by measuring their impact on, for example, the percentage of the working age population living within 30 minutes public transport travel time of a major employment site. This type of application clearly has significant potential for application in the LDF/LTP process. 3.25.3 Accession modelling undertaken to date has been at a relatively high level as part of the strategic accessibility assessments undertaken. This has been at a Borough- wide level, with multi-destinational assessments aimed at establishing those areas which have poorer accessibility to key services, particularly employment, training (further education) and healthcare. 3.25.4 Accession functions essentially by modelling the journey times by public transport and walking (and cycling if desired) between set origins and destinations within an area. Destinations are typically set as key service centres (hospitals, schools, employment centres etc). Most Accession work undertaken in urban areas uses a grid pattern of origin points spread at set distances (typically 100-250m apart) across the area. However, due mainly to the dispersed nature of the population in Cheshire West & Chester, the decision was taken to use postcode centroids as the origin points within the Accession model. This approach is likely to yield more accurate results in terms of population numbers, since the postcode centroids are tied more closely to where the population actually lives. However, it does have the disadvantage that the visual results of the model are much less easy to interpret, since it is not possible to produce contoured maps of the results. This has had the net result that the point maps provided as part of the work undertaken in both the LTP and the more recent Cheshire West & Chester focussed work, are less easy to interpret than those produced by many other authorities.

3.26 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS / TARGETS 3.26.1 As part of the development of the Cheshire LTP, a monitoring framework was developed, with a number of local indicators being monitored as well as those monitored for all Local Authorities by DfT. However, only a single, very specific target was set, relating to increasing the number of bus trips to Leighton Hospital. This was an aspect of the Accessibility Strategy that was criticised by DfT, and the need to establish a number of more appropriate targets is recognised moving forward in the West Cheshire area. The work undertaken to date prior to Vesting Day, and currently ongoing, will take this into account. It is likely that new targets will focus on the three proposed priorities for action noted above.

3.27 FURTHER ANALYSIS 3.27.1 The processes are already in place for the continuation of the five-stage accessibility planning process in Cheshire West & Chester. This will involve significantly more Accession analysis. However, it is likely that some further Accession modelling will be valuable in order to inform the emerging work on the Cheshire West & Chester LDF and LTP. In particular:

Given that the mapping work to date has been focussed solely on strategic multi- desintational modelling, we propose to undertake some site-specific modelling in relation to a number of key sites being examined as part of the LDF work. This will assist in identifying the benefits of any proposals, and any potential public transport proposals which may need to be progressed to facilitate the developments; and,

In order to best inform our analysis, we propose to undertake Accession modelling using both postcode centroids and grid origin methodologies. This will enable both accurate population analysis (using the postcode method) and high quality contour mapping for improved visualisation of the results using the grid origin methodologies.

TRAVEL PLANNING / SMARTER CHOICES

3.28 CONTEXT 3.28.1 Travel planning activity within Cheshire, in common with many authorities, has historically been the responsibility of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator, based within the Transport Strategy team (mainly focussing on workplace travel plans) and a separate School Travel Adviser (focussing solely on school travel plans). The holder of the former post between 2005 and 2008 was successful in establishing an active travel planning network amongst local businesses, both voluntarily and through the Development Control process. However, since early 2008 the post has been vacant following the previous holder’s move to a broader role within the Transport Strategy team, and subsequently becoming part of East Cheshire’s team following Vesting Day. Workplace travel planning activity in Cheshire has therefore been largely on hold during the last year, since no staff have been available to take forward this work area.

3.29 WORKPLACE TRAVEL PLANS 3.29.1 Prior to 2008, workplace travel planning was the main focus of travel plan work in Cheshire and the authority had significant success in establishing a successful and growing network of businesses with or developing travel plans. A Cheshire Travel Plan Forum was established which held meetings approximately twice yearly, in spring and autumn, and the County Council produced a twice-yearly newsletter giving information for local businesses interested in travel plans. These forums were generally felt to have been successful and it is unfortunate that they have been neglected in recent months. 3.29.2 Whilst the focus of workplace travel planning activity had initially been on voluntary travel plans and working with employers who were keen to embrace the sustainable travel agenda for a variety of reasons, more recently a significant focus has been placed on enforcing statutory travel plans through the Development Control process. Cheshire had significant success in this regard in obtaining commitments to travel plans through planning agreements such as those made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 3.29.3 Monitoring of the implementation of travel plans, and the enforcement of planning agreements which relate to them, has historically been quite difficult to undertake, simply due to the level of resource required to do this effectively. The new unitary structure in Cheshire West & Chester presents a significant opportunity in this regard for greater joint working between the transport strategy team and the development control officers, which previously sat in separate organisations. The filling of the current travel coordinator vacancy would assist in this regard.

3.30 SCHOOL TRAVEL PLANS 3.30.1 School travel plans for both Cheshire West & Chester and Cheshire East are co-ordinated by the School Travel Team, part of the Integrated Transport service providing services to both Councils. The team currently has a total of six staff, some of whom work entirely on school travel plans. The team also has responsibility for Safer Routes to School and improving and developing the school travel network/infrastructure.

3.30.2 They work with both primary and secondary schools to promote the take up of sustainable travel initiatives through the medium of school travel plans. Currently, 85% of schools in Cheshire West & Chester have travel plans. A significant pot of LTP funding goes into promoting school travel plans each year, and this pays for a wide range of sustainable travel initiatives such as walking buses, facilities for walking and cycling at schools and working with schools to promote sustainable travel to children. 3.30.3 The team works closely with Children’s Services to respond to any changes in the school stock, locations etc and responds accordingly.

3.31 PERSONALISED TRAVEL PLANNING 3.31.1 A personalised travel planning (PTP) pilot scheme was undertaken in 2006/7 and funded through the Local Transport Plan. The County Council worked with significant local employers who were already engaged in the travel plan process and set up travel surgeries where employees could provide their regular journey details and be assisted to find out about potential ways of undertaking their trips using more sustainable modes of travel. The scheme was most successful at hospitals, where it was extended to patients as well as staff. Often, staff knew their journey options already and were not keen to engage with the trial. However, patients were often more receptive, being less knowledgeable about their journey to the hospital since it was not one that they generally made regularly. 3.31.2 The pilot project has not, thus far, led to any further investment in PTP in Cheshire.

WALKING AND CYCLING

Context 3.31.3 Walking and cycling represent vital modes of travel at the local level. Walking forms at least part of almost all trips, and is particularly important as a mode of transport in town and city centres where the ease of movement of people on foot is critical to the economic viability of retail and commercial businesses. Likewise, cycling can form a significant mode of transport over short and medium distances, and has significant potential to attract modal shift from the private car if good facilities exist. Both modes have important benefits for health and wellbeing and these links are well recognised in current national and local policy. As well as utility modes, both walking and cycling have significant roles as leisure activities, and this is particularly the case in a more rural district such as Cheshire West & Chester. 3.31.4 The 2008 Cheshire Community Survey (CCS) indicated that 16% of journeys to work in Cheshire were undertaken by either walking or cycling, and that this percentage is significantly higher in deprived parts of the authority. In Lower Super Output Areas within the top 20% most deprived areas in Cheshire, 23% commute on foot. The CCS also indicated that more than a quarter (27%) of respondents in the Cheshire West & Chester area regularly use a bicycle for trip purposes other than commuting. The survey also indicated that those people who cycle are increasingly doing so because of the health benefits associated with active travel. 3.31.5 In relation to footway and cycleway infrastructure the CCS established that 42% and 28% of respondents are fairly or very dissatisfied with the condition of footways and cycleways, respectively, in the Cheshire West & Chester area. 3.31.6 The importance of walking and cycling has been recognised by the new authority with the formation of a new Sustainable Transport and Road Safety team, who are delivery focussed and responsible for steering the delivery of all projects in relation to walking and cycling. 3.31.7 A significant new opportunity for cycling in the area has recently been secured in that Chester was designated as one of England’s cycling demonstration towns in 2008. As such, the authority now has access to very significant financial resources to promote cycling in the city. This work is currently being co-ordinated by the Sustainable Transport and Road Safety team, and significant progress has been made in the last few months in getting the project, known as Cycle Chester, started. However, it is recognised that a project of this size, with at least £2 million already secured and the potential for significantly more than this dependent on certain conditions, will require its own dedicated team in order to fulfil its potential. This team is currently being recruited. 3.31.8 Developing walking and cycling to meet accessibility, leisure, recreation and tourism needs is likely to be a key transport aim of the new authority.

Promoting walking 3.31.9 The health and recreational benefits of walking, as well as its value as the single most important mode of transport at the local level, make it a very important policy tool to deliver on a number of agendas. A vision for the development and promotion of walking in Cheshire was developed through the 2006-2011 LTP and the Walking Strategy, published in 2005. These set out ten objectives designed to ensure that the needs of

pedestrians are treated as being of greater importance than those of other modes of transport.

National Cycle Network 3.31.10 The Cheshire West & Chester area is relatively well served by the National Cycle Network (NCN). The following National Cycle Routes, shown on Figure 3.16 serve Cheshire West and Cheshire:

National Route 5: this long distance route, once complete, will connect Reading and Holyhead via Oxford, Walsall, Chester, Colwyn Bay and Bangor. The southern half of the route between Reading and Walsall is complete, however the northern half between Walsall and Holyhead is still under development. This route is open and signed between Kidsgrove and Connah’s Quay via Northwich, Runcorn and Chester;

National Route 45: this route is currently under development and once complete will connect Salisbury in Wiltshire with Chester, via Swindon, Cirencester, Gloucester, Worcester and Whitchurch. The route is then open and signed between Ironbridge and Chester via Whitchurch; and,

National Route 56: This route runs within the Cheshire West & Chester area from Chester to Neston, continuing up the Wirral to Liverpool, via Wallasey and linking with National Cycle Route 62 The Transpennine Trail in Liverpool.

Regional Cycle Network 3.31.11 Along with the above national routes running through the Cheshire West & Chester area, there are also a number of regional routes crossing the Authority, as detailed below. Some of the routes link into the National Cycle Network allowing destinations both inside and outside the Unitary Authority to be accessed via signed cycle routes.

Regional Route 70, the Cheshire Cycleway: this circular route around Cheshire links Neston, Bollinton, Marton, Beeston, and Chester, avoiding busy roads wherever possible along the route;

Regional Route 71: this east – west route across Cheshire links Tegg’s Nose near Macclesfield to Parkgate near Neston via Winsford;

Regional Route 73: this route runs between Congleton and Davenham, linking National Route 5 and National Route 55;

Regional Route 75: this route runs through Cheshire between Winsford and Audlem then continues south to Market Drayton and Newport in Cheshire; and,

Regional Route 89, the Cheshire Riverside Path: this route runs alongside the River Dee and is currently open between Hawarden Bridge and Chester.

Public Rights of Way 3.31.12 Public Rights of Way (PROW) form an important part of the Cheshire West & Chester Transport Network, both for leisure and utility purposes. They generally fall into the following categories:

Public footpath (a right of way only for pedestrians);

Bridleway (a right of way for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians); and,

Byways (a right of way open to all traffic).

3.31.13 Cheshire County Council published its Rights of Way Improvements Plan (ROWIP) in 2006. This is a statutory document which forms part of the LTP and identifies where the rights of way network can contribute to improving the quality of life of people in Cheshire, and where targeted interventions could improve the rights of way network. The document records that, as of 2006, the Definitive Map showed 2,834km of public footpaths, 171km of bridleways and 123km of byways in Cheshire. The plan recognises the importance of the rights of way network for the health, sustainability and social inclusion agendas. With this in mind it identifies a number of issues in relation to rights of way within the three districts which now make up Cheshire West & Chester:

Poor links into Chester district from Ellesmere Port and Neston;

Poor route density in the central part of Ellesmere Port and Neston;

Severance caused by major roads, railways and waterways (particularly the Manchester Ship Canal);

Lack of access in parts of the Peckforton hills;

An area to the South of Winsford is lacking in rights of way coverage;

Poor access to the surrounding countryside from Northwich, especially to the north and west; and,

Lack of facilities for off-road cycling and horse riding in the Peckforton hills.

Other Advertised Routes 3.31.14 Other advertised routes are present among Cheshire West & Chester’s cycle network which are promoted by the Local Authority including a number of both traffic free and lightly trafficked routes linking various localities into Chester.

Key Leisure Routes 3.31.15 Green infrastructure can be described as a network of environmental assets, green spaces and waterways that lies within and between our cities, towns and villages, providing a wide range of social, economic and environmental benefits.

Cycle Demonstration Project 3.31.16 Chester was designated as one of England’s cycling demonstration towns in 2008, and as such now has access to very significant financial resources to promote cycling in the city, and potentially the immediate surrounding area. 3.31.17 The City has adopted the brand of Cycle Chester for the project, and has already spent almost £500,000 of Cycle town funding between December 2008 and April 2009 in developing the brand and setting up a number of initial projects. The focus initially is on Chester itself and on the immediate outlying villages within easy cycle commuting distance of the city. The extent to which the funding may be used to benefit other areas of the district, further away from Chester, is a matter of some debate, and it may be that in later years of funding the geographical reach of the project is widened somewhat. 3.31.18 Projects embarked upon so far include:

‘Let’s Bike’ training schemes in 36 schools in Chester. These establish which get significant parental involvement and develop a year-long partnership between schools, parents and children;

The Purchase of 8 hybrid electric/pedal power bikes and 20 ordinary pedal cycles available for community uses such as bike to health schemes through local doctor’s surgeries, social rides from youth centres and community groups;

A number of cycling festivals occurring in Chester City Centre to celebrate the launch of the project;

Support for a number of significant infrastructure schemes funded from a variety of sources, particularly: – The New Dee Bridge to allow a crossing point of the Dee for walkers and cyclists between Huntingdon and the Meadows – Curzon Park Bridge upgrade, providing ramped access to areas south of the river and improved access for cyclists to British Aerospace – Guilden Sutton to Mickle Trafford greenway extension, providing approximately 3km of extension to the existing Millennium Greenway – Deva Link Access – providing access to the NCN route canal towpath from the Deva Link Road. – Improving the permeability of the Chester inner ring road for cyclists - a number of potential ways of doing this are being explored. 3.31.19 Cycle Chester is a programme of works encompassing both soft and hard measures that will deliver dramatic improvements to Chester’s Green Infrastructure. Cycle Chester is a key component of the Culture Park Strategy which is a 10 year programme of improvements that will exploit and capitalise on the City’s assets and development opportunities. 3.31.20 By building new bridges and access improvements this project will create sustainable links between employment and residential areas, including key sites proposed within the Growth Point bid. By promoting these access routes, and through school and adult training, Cheshire West and Chester Council aims to encourage residents and visitors that cycling and walking round Chester is a genuine alternative to the car.

Community Infrastructure Fund 3.31.21 There is the potential to secure significant additional funds for cycling through the second round of Community Infrastructure Fund bids. Following the submission of a number of initial expressions of interest, Cheshire West & Chester Council has been invited to submit a full business case for two projects under this DfT funding stream, which is intended to fund transport schemes which support the delivery of essential new housing development. The two bids proposed in Cheshire West & Chester are:

Ellesmere Port Waterfront (£0.75m): providing improved connections in Ellesmere Port between the Waterfront area and the town centre/rest of the town; and,

Access Weaver Programme (£1.65m): creating a network of high quality and primarily off-road cycling and walking routes which will connect areas of housing growth with town centres, education, employment and recreation sites.

Northwich Connect2

3.31.22 Northwich has secured funding from Sustrans for the establishment of new and improved cycling routes to the south of the town centre centred around the proposal to replace the now disused Riversdale Bridge as a key walking and cycling connection across the Weaver Navigation. The creation of new walking and cycling routes to and from Northwich Town Centre is a key priority of the Northwich Transport Strategy prepared to support the implementation of the Northwich Vision. 3.31.23 £600,000 of Sustrans Connect2 funding has been secured to part fund the construction of an iconic new bridge over the River Weaver at Northwich on the site of the former Riverside Bridge. The new link will provide a vital link in the cycle network, reconnecting local communities and providing walking and cycling access to a number of schools and colleges. 3.31.24 The total cost of the bridge is expected to be approximately £1.2 million and the remainder of the funding is currently being sought. Designs for the bridge are currently under consideration and it anticipated that the project will complete within the five year timescale required for the Connect2 funding.

Chester Connect2 3.31.25 £ 1.25 million has been secured from Sustrans’ Big Lottery Fund Grant to improve connections in Chester for cyclists and connect communities on either side of the river Dee. In February 2009 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between Sustrans, Cheshire County Council and Chester City Council committing the partners to the delivery of the project. The Sustrans resources will be complemented by other sources including Cycling England through the DfT, Revive funding through the North West Development Agency, Cheshire West & Chester LTP resources Sport England, Quercus and others. 3.31.26 As a result of its designation as a cycling demonstration city the completion dates of three elements of the Connect2 scheme have been brought forward two years to 2011. These works include;

Extending an existing Greenway by 3km from Hoole to Mickle Trafford and adding community links;

Connecting to north Chester and the university via a new “Deva link” ramp; and

The Curzon Park Bridge to provide a crossing of the river Dee alongside an existing railway bridge. 3.31.27 The final element of the scheme, to be completed in 2013 will be a new walking and cycling bridge to span the river Dee, a mile south of the existing town centre bridge.

Waterways as Part of the Walking and Cycling Network 3.31.28 A number of the waterways within Cheshire West & Chester represent an important part of the walking and cycling network:

In the West of the authority, The Shropshire Union Canal runs north-south between Chester and Ellesmere Port, and also links Chester to the Cheshire East area, particularly Nantwich and Middlewich;

In the north east of the authority, The Trent and Mersey Canal passes close to Northwich and links a number of villages and rural settlements; and,

Close to the Trent and Mersey Canal, the Weaver Navigation also has a tow path for much of its length and forms a valuable pedestrian and cycle link. The Weaver travels right into the heart of Northwich, and links the town with Winsford to the south and Runcorn to the northeast. 3.31.29 A particularly valuable walking and cycling route is provided by the towpath of the Shropshire Union Canal between Ellesmere Port and Chester, where the canal runs right into the heart of the city. The towpath is now well surfaced for walking and cycling, and indeed forms part of the national cycle network. 3.31.30 Cycling on most towpaths in the UK requires a free permit, available from British Waterways.

Walking and Cycling and the Development Control Process 3.31.31 Walking and cycling in Chester have often benefited recently from significant pots of funding being made available through securing agreements with developers to deliver certain schemes and improvements. Healthy partnerships have been established between the cycling officers and the development control highway officers in this regard. However, partnership working with district planning officers has sometimes proved more difficult and opportunities to secure funding have sometimes been missed as a result. The current economic climate is making it more difficult to secure funding through this route. 3.31.32 Local Government Re-organisation presents a significant opportunity for improving joint working between transport planning and development control staff in relation to walking and cycling.

3.32 WATERWAYS 3.32.1 Four significant inland waterways run through the Cheshire West & Chester area:

The Manchester Ship Canal;

The Weaver Navigation;

The Shropshire Union Canal; and,

The Trent and Mersey Canal. 3.32.2 The four waterways are of widely differing characters, but all are of significance in transport terms. The Manchester Ship Canal was opened in 1894 and provides direct access to the sea from Manchester. Today, it is still operated as a commercial seaway by Peel Ports, in conjunction with the Port of Liverpool, and is navigable for ships from its junction with the Mersey Estuary at Eastham, Wirral, to Salford Quays in Greater Manchester at the eastern end. Each year the canal still carries around 6 million tonnes of commercial cargo per annum.

3.32.3 The River Weaver rises in the Peckforton Hills and proceeds via Nantwich, Winsford, Northwich and Frodsham. Initially un-navigable, demand associated with the salt industry around Northwich and Winsford in the eighteenth century led to the establishment of the current navigation, which still follows the natural course of the river for much of its 20 mile length. It connects Winsford and Northwich with the Manchester Ship canal at Runcorn and thus to the sea via the Mersey Estuary. The navigation is still used for some commercial purposes, but is also increasingly popular amongst pleasure boats. This has been assisted greatly by the recent re-opening of the Anderton Boat Lift, which lifts boats over 15m from the Weaver to the Trent and Mersey canal. The lift had fallen into disrepair in the second half of the twentieth century, but its re-opening has been a significant focus for the development of waterways-based tourism in the Northwich and Winsford area. 3.32.4 The Trent and Mersey and Shropshire Union canals are very different waterways to those described above. Each was constructed in the inland waterways boom time of the second half of the eighteenth century, and is navigable only by standard narrow boats of 7ft beam and 70ft length (although the northerly reaches of the Shropshire Union to Chester do have wide locks, allowing boats of up to 9ft beam to use the navigation). These two waterways are now used entirely by pleasure craft, but the resurgence in inland boating as a leisure activity has led to their bringing significant tourism and regenerative benefit to a number of cities, towns and villages in the Cheshire West & Chester area. 3.32.5 The Shropshire Union runs from Ellesmere Port in the North (where it connects via Whitby Locks to the Manchester Ship Canal) to Nantwich, and ultimately on to Wolverhampton, where it joins the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal. The Trent and Mersey, as the name suggests, connects the two rivers Trent and Mersey, running from Preston Brook (where it meets the Bridgewater canal) in the North via Barnton, Anderton (where it connects with the Weaver via the Anderton Boat lift) and Northwich, ultimately to join the Trent near Shardlow on the Derbyshire / Leicestershire border. 3.32.6 The waterways form a significant part of the Cheshire West & Chester transport system. Their history of commercial traffic, with the exception of the Manchester Ship Canal, is now largely in the past, but with the burgeoning waterways tourism industry, they present significant new opportunities for the area, some of which are already being embraced.

3.33 MOTORCYCLES 3.33.1 The popularity of motorcycling has increased in recent years. Key issues include the relatively poor safety record of motorcycling, the need for high quality training to be available to motorcyclists and the need for appropriate parking facilities. 3.33.2 Table 3.19 shows numbers of Fatal, KSI and Slight casualties in recent years. The most recent comprehensive data, for 2007, shows that 9% of all deaths on Cheshire’s roads were motorcyclists. This is a significant percentage given the relatively small number of motorcyclists compared with users of other transport modes.

TABLE 3:19: CHESHIRE MOTORCYCLE CASUALTIES - I 2007: Number Percentage Change over 1994-98 2005 2006 2007 1994-98 average average Fatal 10 10 15 3 -70% Serious 98 104 111 111 13% Slight 185 200 181 185 0% All 293 314 307 299 2% GB -3% Motorcycle Traffic1 0.33 0.353 0.354 0% GB 33% Casualty Rate2 KSI 327 326 360 10% Slight 561 571 517 -7.8% All 888 897 877 -1% GB -27% 1 100 million vehicle kilometres. 2 Rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres 3 Motorcycle Traffic Figure for Major Roads only. No figures for 2006 available from DfT for Minor Roads. 4 2006 figure not available at time of publication, so 2005 figure used

3.33.3 Unfortunately disaggregated data for Cheshire West and Chester was not available. However, the 2006 data for the Cheshire County is presented in Table 3.20.

TABLE 3:20: CHESHIRE MOTORCYCLE CASUALTIES - II

Motorcycle casualties by severity and location 2004 2006

Ex-District Fatal Serious Slight Fatal Serious Slight Chester 1 19 43 3 16 35 EP & N 0 8 19 0 11 14

Vale Royal 3 17 37 3 31 41 CW & C total 4 44 99 6 58 90

3.33.4 The main conclusion is that the numbers of accidents and casualties have not fallen even if the rate may have done with more use being made of this mode. 3.33.5 The Council addresses problem locations through its programme of Local Safety Schemes and delivery of rider training is carried out with Cheshire Police through the Cheshire Safer Roads partnership using a variety of targeted initiatives. These continue the work of the former County Council. The Council does not have formally adopted standards for motorcycle parking, although emerging standards suggest provision of 1 motor cycle space per 25 car parking spaces in association with new development.

PARKING

3.34 PUBLIC PROVISION 3.34.1 The approach to public car parking adopted over recent years has been to ensure that the most conveniently located car parks are available for short stay use with long stay parking being located in more peripheral areas or centrally but at a higher cost. Below in this section can be found a summary of the car parking facilities in the key settlements. 3.34.2 Park and Ride in Chester was developed jointly by the County Council and Chester City Council to provide parking capacity on the edge of the city. The adoption of this approach seeks to ensure that essential car journeys do not add to congestion on the routes into the city centre and also limits the amount of space required for car parking in the historic core. The Park and Ride facilities are summarised in section 3.19.

CHESTER 3.34.3 In Chester city centre the new authority owns and operates 12 pay and display car parks. These car parks supply 2,740 spaces, which is just over 50% of the total number of parking spaces available in the city. There are also a number of other car parks which are owned and operated by National Car parks (NCP), The Grosvenor Shopping Precinct, Tesco and the Racecourse Company. 3.34.4 In 2007/8 approximately 951,000 vehicles used the councils' car parks. In 1997/98 this figure was approximately 1.7 million vehicles. Figure 3.17 below shows the trend over the last 10 years which illustrates the decline in use of the council’s car parks.

FIGURE 3.17: CITY CENTRE PARKING IN CHESTER

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6 Vehicles (in millions) 0.4

0.2

/03 /06

1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002 2003/04 2004/05 2005 2006/07 2007/08 Years

3.34.5 The Long and Short Stay car parks in Chester City Centre are summarised below:

TABLE 3.21: CHESTER LONG STAY CAR PARKS Car Park Spaces Payment Cost Northgate 429 Pay and Arrivals before 6pm £3.00 Display Arrivals after 6pm £1.50 Charisma Card Holders between 10am- Open 24 hours 6pm £2.00 St Anne Street 137 Pay and up to 1 hour £1.50 Display 1-2 Hours £2.50 2-3 Hours £3.50 Open 24 hours 3-4 Hours £4.00 4-6 Hours £4.50 Over 6 hours £4.50 Free for arrivals after 3.00pm Garden Lane 126 Pay and up to 1 hour £1.00 Display 1- 6 hours £4.00 Over 6 hours £4.90 Open 24 hours Arrivals after 6pm £1.50 Steam Mill Street 45 Pay and up to 6 hours £4.40 Display Over 6 hours £5.40 Arrivals after 6pm £1.50 Open 24 hours Little Roodee 452 Pay and Cars Display up to 3 hours £3.00 3 to 6 hours £4.90 opens 7.30am Over 6 hours £5.90 closes Arrivals after 5pm £1.50 10.30pm Coaches/Lorries/Large Vehicles Up to 3 hours £5.40 3-6 hours £7.80 Over 6 hours £9.80 Arrivals after 5pm £4.90

Frodsham Street 82 Pay and Daily 7am-6pm reserved for contract Display holders and people with disabilities. 6pm - 10pm available for public use - cars £1.50 Open 24 hours Race Course 500 Pay on Entry Privately Owned Castle Car Park 475 Pay on Entry Privately Owned

Public parking only after 6pm All day Saturday and Sunday

TABLE 3.22: CHESTER SHORT STAY CAR PARKS Car Park Spaces Payment Cost Gorse Stacks 312 Pay and Up to 2 hours £4.00 Display 2-4 hours £4.90 4-6 hours £5.90 Open 24 hours Over 6 hours £7.80 Free for arrivals after 3.00pm Watergate Street 128 Pay and Up to 2 hours £3.00 Car Park Display 2-4 hours £4.40

Car Park Spaces Payment Cost 4-6 hours £5.40 Open 24 hours Over 6 hours £7.80 After 5pm - £1.50 Cuppin Street 21 Pay and Up to 2 hours £4.00 Display 2-4 hours £4.90 4-6 hours £5.90 Open 24 hours Over 6 hours £7.80 After 5pm - £1.50 Trinity Street 148 Pay and Up to 1.5 hours £2.00 Display Up to 2 hours £4.90 Up to 3 hours £7.40 Open 24 hours Over 3 hours £11.70 After 5pm - £2.00 The Market Car 650 Pay and Up to 2 hours £3.70 Park Display 2-4 hours £4.60 4-6 hours £5.60 opens 7.00am Over 6 hours £8.80 closes 11.30pm Free for arrivals after 3.00pm Christleton Road 19 Pay and Up to 2 hours 20p Display Over 2 hours £3.00 Free after 5pm and Sunday Open 24 hours

Northgate Arena - 210 Pay on Exit Privately Owned Arena Users Open 24 hours Browns Yard 60 Pay on Exit Privately Owned (NCP) Open 24 hours Tesco - Shop 550 Pay on Exit Privately Owned hours only Open 24 hours The Mall Precinct 530 Pay on Exit Privately Owned (Newgate St NCP) Open 24 hours Pepper Street 288 Pay on Exit Privately Owned (NCP) Open 24 hours Sandy Lane Seasonal Pay and display -

Open 24 hours

ELLESMERE PORT AND NESTON 3.34.6 Cheshire West & Chester Council operates 29 car parks in Ellesmere Port. In the central area of Ellesmere Port there are some Pay and Display facilities but there are also some car parks that do not have a parking charge, many of these facilities can only be used for a limited period of time. The long stay, short stay and free car parks in Ellesmere Port are summarised below.

TABLE 3.23: ELLESMERE PORT LONG STAY CAR PARKS Car Park Spaces Payment Cost Civic Centre 350 Pay and 50p for up to two hours Display 70p for up to four hours £1 for up to six hours £1.50 for more than six hours Westminster 72 Pay and 50p for up to two hours Display £1 for more than two hours Wellington Road 275 Pay and 50p for up to two hours (Open 7am to Display £1 for more than two hours 7pm)

TABLE 3.24: ELLESMERE PORT SHORT STAY CAR PARKS Car Park Spaces Payment Cost Town Centre 1031 Pay and Display Free for up to four hours - four hour maximum stay Marina Drive 34 Pay and Display 70p for up to one hour - maximum stay of one hour, with no return within one hour Civic Way 27 Pay and Display 70p for up to one hour - maximum stay of Service Road one hour, with no return within one hour Shrewsbury Road 44 Pay and Display 50p for up to two hours 70p for up to four hours £3.00 for more than four hours McGarva Way 41 Pay and Display 50p for up to two hours 70p for up to four hours £3.00 for more than four hours

TABLE 3.25: ELLESMERE PORT FREE CAR PARKS Car Park Spaces Church Street, Westminster 22 Chester Road, Whitby (Water Tower) 70 Oak Grove, Whitby 15 Whitby Hall 27 Whitby Park 175 Randle Meadow, Hope Farm 45 Smith Lane, Little Sutton 39 Gleaneagles Road, Little Sutton 15 Chester Road (A41), Shopping Precinct 35 Ledsham Road, Little Sutton 40 Library (A41), Little Sutton 17 Old Chester Road, Great Sutton 18 Seacombe Drive, Great Sutton 25 Raby Road, Neston 139 Brook Street, Neston 50 Chester Road, Neston 10 Station Road, Neston 12

100

Car Park Spaces Drake Road, Neston 8 Neston Library 20 School Lane, Parkgate 15 Buckley Lane off Hadlow Road, Willaston 17

NORTHWICH AND WINSFORD 3.34.7 The new authority operates a number of car parks in the towns of Northwich and Winsford. No parking charges are applied to the car parks in these settlements, but some waiting restrictions may apply.

TABLE 3.26: CAR PARKS IN NORTHWICH Car Park Spaces Disabled Waiting Restrictions Spaces Barons Quay 453 18 3 hours maximum no return with 1 hour Cumberland, Leicester Street 126 0 14 hours in any 24 hours Hadfield Street 35 0 None Iceland, Central Palace Drive 10 all disabled None Market Traders, Watling Street 40 0 14 hours in any 24 hours (available non market days only) (Mon, Wed, Thurs, sun only) Jubilee 50 2 14 hours in any 24 hours Leicester Street No 3 (high level) 50 1 14 hours in any 24 hours Leicester Street No 4 (level 2) 24 1 14 hours in any 24 hours Leicester Street No 7 (ex 30 0 14 hours in any 24 hours bungalow) Memorial Hall 317 12 None Park Street 25 0 14 hours in any 24 hours Tabley Street 73 5 14 hours in any 24 hours Verdin Park 26 2 14 hours in any 24 hours Victora Club, Crum Hill 104 18 3 hours maximum no return in 1 hour Watermans, Venables Road 52 2 14 hours in any 24 hours Zion Street/Pleasant Street 40 0 14 hours in any 24 hours

101

TABLE 3.27: CAR PARKS IN WINSFORD Car Park Spaces Disabled Waiting Restrictions Spaces Church Street 30 0 None Marina, Bottom Flash 30 0 Waiting period 14 hours Barnton Stadium, Kingsway 112 2 None Kings Grange, Grange Lane 120 + 40 4 None surface Leslie Road, Woodford Park 10 0 None Industrial Estate Road One, Winsford Industrial 20 0 None Estate Ion Path, Winsford Industrial Estate 30 0 None Greville Drive 30 0 None

3.34.8 Other Council owned car parks in the Cheshire West & Chester area are summarised below:

TABLE 3.28: OTHER COUNCIL CONTROLLED CAR PARKS (VR AREA) Car Park Spaces Disabled Waiting Restrictions Spaces Mere Lane 13 1 None Moor Lane, Frodsham 36 2 None Station Car Park, Church Street, 35-40 4 None Frodsham unsurfaced Off Station Avenue, Helsby 15 0 None Rising Sun, Bell Meadow Court, 74 1 None Tarporley British Legion, High Street, 40 0 None Tarporley Church Street, Weaverham 28 2 None

3.34.9 The following car parks listed below are not owned by the Council:

102

TABLE 3.29: NON-COUNCIL CAR PARKS (VR AREA) Settlement Other Car Parks

Northwich Marks & Spencer, Leicester St, Sainsbury's supermarket, Venables Rd, Matalan/Halfords, Leicester St, Aldi foodstore, Leicester St, Tesco supermarket, Manchester Rd, Kwik Save foodstore, Chester Way, Floatel, London Rd, Northwich Retail Park, Manchester Rd, Railway Station, Manchester Rd, Waterway, London Rd. Winsford W M Morrison, Nat Lane, Aldi foodstore, Dene Drive, Railway Station, Station Rd, Civic Hall, Dene Drive, Dene Drive (adjacent to Wetherspoons), Asda store multi-storey , The Drumber, Barton Stadium, Kingsway leased to Winsford United

Frodsham Eddisbury Square, Church St, Co-op supermarket, High St, Railway Station, Church St, Castle Park, Chester Rd.

Weaverham Community Centre, Withens Lane

Helsby Railway Station, Station Avenue, Tesco store, Chester Rd.

3.35 PRIVATE PROVISION 3.35.1 Pressures on parking in residential areas surrounding town and city centres have led to the introduction of Residents Parking Schemes. Through Decriminalised Parking Enforcement powers the new authority will have the potential to implement further measures in the future. There are two Residents' Parking Schemes, one in Chester and one in Ellesmere Port. The Residents' Parking Scheme provides regulated on-street parking for residents who live in areas which have parking and congestion problems. The Chester scheme has 9 zones around the city centre. In Ellesmere Port the three areas are the Fields and Vale areas and Central area of the town. 3.35.2 The provision of parking in new developments is controlled through the application of Parking Standards. In accordance with PPG13, lower levels of parking provision will be required where means of travel other than the private car are available. Furthermore, the new authority will consider applying lower levels of parking where the need for high density development, associated with town centre functions, limit the potential for car parking.

103

PORTS

3.36 AIR AND SEA 3.36.1 Cheshire West and Chester is well located in relation to the North West’s key international gateways of Manchester and Liverpool Airports and the Port of Liverpool. Proximity to good international connections is an important issue for many companies considering inward investment in an area and ensuring high quality connectivity to airports and ports is a key element of many local transport strategies and features as a key objective of Delivering a Sustainable Transport System referred to earlier in the document .

Airports 3.36.2 Manchester Airport is the principal passenger gateway in the North West with some 22 million passengers per annum and direct flights to over 200 destinations worldwide. The airport is well connected to Cheshire West and Chester via the M56 motorway but rail connections are slower and less direct. Passenger growth forecasts for the coming years, if they come to fruition, will put additional stress on the local road connections. 3.36.3 On the matter of rail access, it is understood that Arriva Trains Wales are to extend their N Wales - Chester - Manchester service through to Manchester Airport in December 2009. Longer term aspirations have been proposed for a western rail link to the airport from the Mid Cheshire Line, which are receiving further review as part of the Manchester Hub study. 3.36.4 Liverpool Airport is the fastest growing regional airport specialising in low cost flights to European destinations. Links to Cheshire West & Chester by road are relatively good, although crossing the congested Silver Jubilee bridge in Runcorn is required to gain access to south Liverpool. This would be addressed by provision of the Mersey Gateway bridge. Rail access by contrast is less attractive, although could be improved by introduction of rail services over the Halton curve, bringing services to Liverpool South Parkway station, the main access point for the airport. Continuing to ensure high quality access to both airports, particularly by more sustainable modes of transport, will be a major challenge in the years to come.

Ports & freight 3.36.5 Access to ports is also an important consideration for business and again there are high quality connections from Cheshire West & Chester to the Port of Liverpool and of course to more local port facilities within Cheshire West and on the Wirral. Issues of local motorway congestion could impact on the accessibility of these key port facilities and the development of strategies to manage traffic on the motorway network to ensure that port related traffic can access the local ports reliably will be an important objective. 3.36.6 The authority also hosts port / waterway facilities. The DfT’s Waterborne Freight Benchmark Report 2007 identifies the Manchester Ship Canal and Weaver Navigation as the principal active inland waterways, although the latter sees comparatively little use. 3.36.7 The Ship Canal is associated with the Port of Manchester and ‘goods lifted’, a measure of the weight of freight tonnage handled at the port rising from 7,939m tonnes in 1997 to 8.079m tonnes in 2007.

104

3.36.8 Traffic on the Ship Canal itself totalled 6.72m tonnes, the difference being accounted for by Eastham Docks and Stanlow, which though part of the Port of Manchester are located at the ‘sea’ end of the canal and whose traffic largely does not figure in the maritime statistics. 3.36.9 Ship movements associated with the Port of Manchester totalled

796 tankers, <5,000 tonnes

637 tankers, 5,000 - <20,000 tonnes

24 tankers, 20,000 <99,999 tonnes

3 ro-ro vessels, 5,000 - <20,000 tonnes

15 fully cellular container vessels, <5,000 tonnes

1 fully cellular container vessel, 5,000 - <20,000 tonnes

383 other dry cargo vessels, <5,000 tonnes

88 other dry cargo vessels, 5,000-<20,000 tonnes 3.36.10 The total of 1,947 vessels is significant, and though much traffic and all of the large ship movements are confined to the westerly section from Stanlow to Eastham, significant traffic of smaller vessels ‘upstream’ of there is also evident. 3.36.11 The Merseyside Partnership has developed the concept of the “Liverpool Super Port”, encompassing the Mersey docks and airport plus the Ship Canal the logistics handing facilities and the accumulated expertise represented by this agglomeration of related activities. An economic study has been commissioned to support this initiative, which CW&C is in a position to engage with.

105

ASSET MANAGEMENT

3.37 ASSET MANAGEMENT PLANNING 3.37.1 The Department for Transport has encouraged Councils to develop asset management planning, encompassing the existing condition monitoring-based systems applying to highways and highway structure maintenance, but extended to cover non- highway transport assets. This is informed by the concepts of whole-life assessment and optimum infrastructure service levels and aims to determine levels of expenditure needed to maintain asset condition. Cheshire West & Chester Council therefore needs to disaggregate its ongoing maintenance targets from the former County Council system while considering development of a Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP). 3.37.2 The current asset condition system is structured around performance indicators reporting (in summary) against the national performance system.

3.38 HIGHWAYS 3.38.1 In respect of highways, there are three key indicators of which two form part of the national system (condition of principal and non-principal classified roads). A third indicator is carried forward from the previous Best Value regime and relates to the condition of unclassified roads. A fourth concerns footway condition. It is the intention of Cheshire West & Chester Council to continue measuring asset condition against these four indicators. 3.38.2 Asset condition is determined from surveys and in 2004/05 the assessment method was changed from deflectograph to SCANNER, which uses a combination of laser, video and other technology to assess condition. The change in methodology means that strict comparisons of the resulting indicators are not possible between the earlier regime and the current. 3.38.3 The indicators (in their different forms) refer to the percentage of road stock in each category that are deemed to be in need of repair, i.e. structural or heavy maintenance. The DfT historically used a figure of 12 per cent as a threshold under the old methodology, with best practice authorities ideally placed below this figure. 3.38.4 The 2008 LTP Progress Report notes the following results for Cheshire: Condition of Principal Roads (NI 168) - Percentage of principal road network requiring planned maintenance.

No target was set for 06/07: Actual performance = 7%

Target for 07/08 - 7%: Actual performance = 4% Other classified road condition (NI 169) - Percentage of remaining classified road network where structural maintenance should be considered

Target 06/07 – 20%: Actual performance = 6%

Target 07/08 – TBA: Actual performance = 6% Unclassified road condition (NI 169) - Percentage of unclassified road network where structural maintenance should be considered

Target 06/07 – 13.4%: Actual performance = 11%

Target 07/08 – 13.5%: Actual performance = 11%

106

Footway condition (BVPI 187) - Percentage of footway network where structural maintenance should be considered

Target 06/07 – 44%: Actual performance = 30%

Target 07/08 – 38%: Actual performance = 18% 3.38.5 These results show that a lower proportion and in some cases, a much lower proportion of County highway was in need of maintenance than deemed by the standard. The targets will be recalculated to reflect the situation within Cheshire West & Chester Council’s area. Availability of this data will enable the new authority to start afresh and continue development of its TAMP.

3.39 HIGHWAY STRUCTURES 3.39.1 Structures maintenance is undertaken in accordance with the nationally- developed Code of Practice 'Management of Highway Structures' and having already achieved Rating 4 of Milestone 1 the objective during 2009/10 is to reach the same rating of Milestone 2. 3.39.2 The inspection of bridges is undertaken using the CSS Bridge Condition Indicator method and all bridges have a regular General Inspection at not more than two year intervals. In addition Principal Inspections are carried out at typically six year intervals to provide a much closer examination of the structure. 3.39.3 The main objective for the Council is to maintain the asset of the highway at minimum long term cost and at the same time provide a safe and efficient transport system. In order to assist the Council in achieving this objective an electronic bridge management system is used for the storage of bridge asset data, management and analysis. The bridge management system forms part of the overall highway asset management system. It is intended that during 2009/10 asset valuation of bridges and structures will be completed. 3.39.4 There are a total of 321 bridges and 36 retaining walls on the inventory for the authority of which 105 bridges support the Principal Road Network. In addition there are a total of 219 bridges owned by Network Rail, British Waterways and Rail Paths Ltd which support the highway network. There are a total of 16 bridges which are weight restricted and a further total of 34 bridges which do not meet the load bearing capacity appropriate for the class of highway supported. There is a programme of work scheduled for 2009/10 to strengthen a few of these structures and hence improve accessibility of the network. 3.39.5 The movement of abnormal loads on the highway network is managed to ensure that the load effects on the structures do not exceed the load bearing capacity of structures on the route. A process is in place for managing abnormal loads within reasonable timescales and the use of Electronic Service Delivery for Abnormal Loads developed by the Highways Agency is anticipated to be more widely adopted during 2009/10. 3.39.6 Following the Great Heck disaster caused by road vehicle incursion onto the railway all bridge sites in Cheshire West & Chester have been checked of which two score in excess of 90, which is the threshold for action. During 2009/10 one of these bridges over the West Coast mainline will have mitigation works undertaken.

107

3.40 OTHER TRANSPORT ASSETS 3.40.1 There are currently no formally adopted national standards for non-highway capital assets, such as car parks, bus stations, information systems, shelters, electronic infrastructure, signage or vehicles, whose management is governed by specific agreements. The Council manages these assets using a Service Planning framework, which would need to be incorporated into a TAMP in order to capture the authority-wide management and funding benefits intended by such a plan.

108

4 Summary and Conclusions

4.1 SUMMARY 4.1.1 This baseline report is designed to form an important part of the evidence base which will underpin the production of Cheshire West & Chester’s Local Development Framework and Local Transport Plan. The document identifies some of the key drivers of a future transport strategy for the authority. In particular the Growth Point proposals are reviewed and the development sites that have been identified as part of this initiative that are likely to have a particular impact on future transport demand are described. 4.1.2 A key element of the report involves and analysis of the demographic and economic characteristics of the area along with a detailed assessment of current travel patterns. This analysis has confirmed that travel by car is currently by far the most important means of getting to and from work for local residents and that rates of car usage are higher than the regional and national averages. The analysis also shows that despite the dominance of car travel walking, cycling and public transport play an important role for some types of movement and have the potential to play a more significant role in future, particularly for shorter journeys and, particularly in the case of public transport, for journeys to the major town and city centres inside and outside Cheshire West & Chester. 4.1.3 The report provides a detailed description of the current transport network in the area and reviews the key performance indicators against which the transport performance of the authority will be measured. The strengths and weaknesses together with some opportunities for improvement are identified. 4.1.4 Section 4 of the report comprises a detailed review of national, regional and local policy that will need to inform the future transport strategy for the area. This ranges from the national requirement to work to reduce car dependency to local objectives to deliver improved maintenance standards on the local highway network. 4.1.5 The report concludes with a section that summarises the local modelling capability in the area which will be deployed to test a series of future development scenarios in the next stage of the study. 4.1.6 The report has demonstrated the complexity of Cheshire West & Chester’s land use and transport systems and has sought to provide important information that helps to draw out the connections between land use and transport planning decisions. The testing of future scenarios using the modelling framework will provide further insights into these connections and will provide further evidence to inform future strategy.

109