DOCSLIB.ORG

Access to Ports

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Access to Ports House of Commons Transport Committee Access to ports Eighth Report of Session 2013–14 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/transcom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 18 November 2013 HC 266 Published on 26 November 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £14.50 The Transport Committee The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Transport and its Associate Public Bodies. Current membership Mrs Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chair) Sarah Champion (Labour, Rotherham) Jim Dobbin (Labour/Co-operative, Heywood and Middleton) Jim Fitzpatrick (labour, Poplar and Limehouse) Karen Lumley (Conservative, Redditch) Jason McCartney (Conservative, Colne Valley) Karl McCartney (Conservative, Lincoln) Mr Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat, Torbay) Miss Chloe Smith (Conservative, Norwich North) Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Martin Vickers (Conservative, Cleethorpes) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at http://www.parliament.uk/transcom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mark Egan (Clerk), Farrah Bhatti (Second Clerk), Richard Jeremy (Committee Specialist), Adrian Hitchins (Senior Committee Assistant), Stewart McIlvenna (Committee Assistant) and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer) Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Transport Committee, House of Commons, 14 Tothill Street, London SW1N 9NB, The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6263; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 2 Priorities for port access 8 What are the priorities? 8 How are priorities identified and implemented? 9 Local transport schemes 9 Improvement of strategic networks 10 Conclusion 10 Who funds improvements? 11 3 Government strategy on access to ports 14 4 Conclusion 18 Conclusions and recommendations 20 Formal Minutes 22 Witnesses 23 List of printed written evidence 23 List of additional written evidence 24 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 25 3 Summary Ports are essential to the economic wellbeing of the UK. Some 95% of UK cargo movements by tonnage is waterborne and ports collectively employ some 117,000 people. Ports large and small are affected by the quality of transport links to their hinterlands, whether that be by road, rail, inland waterways or coastal shipping. Constraints on road and rail networks in particular can limit the size of a port and its economic impact. In this report we examine Government policy on improving access to ports. Local bottlenecks are of key concern to many ports. Local government structures and funding arrangements for local major transport projects have changed significantly in recent years and continue to evolve. Ports told us that the new arrangements were complex and might not prioritise projects of strategic importance. We recommend that the Department for Transport (DfT) act as an advocate for ports, helping the sector navigate complex arrangements for getting transport improvement schemes off the ground. The department should also be prepared to challenge decisions by local bodies where they fail to prioritise improvements in port access over other, less strategically important, schemes. Government policy on who should pay for transport infrastructure relating to ports is clear in principle but confused in practice and conceptually flawed. Port operators are expected to pay for measures required to mitigate increased traffic due to port expansion. Guidance exists on when the Government should contribute to traffic measures which have wider benefits, but it has never been used. However, whereas some ports have contributed towards transport schemes to improve access, others have not. The rationale for the differing treatment of different projects is not clear. Moreover, the principle that ports are likely to be the sole beneficiaries of transport schemes which make access easier overlooks the wider economic benefits of expanding trade and reducing logistics costs that are likely to arise from improved access. In our view, there should be a presumption that significant improvements to access to ports - particularly improvements to strategic networks - will be publicly funded, because of the wider economic benefits of doing so. However, this should not preclude ports from contributing to local transport infrastructure improvements, following discussions with relevant local bodies. Simplified, new guidance should be based on these principles. We commend the department for bringing forward a new high-level strategy on ports, which encompasses the issues raised in our report. We would like to see more details of how the strategy will be implemented. In our view, prioritising the removal of constraints to port development caused by inadequate transport infrastructure should be at the heart of Government strategy on ports. We also recommend that DfT: give a view on whether or not port master plans have had any impact and point to some good examples of these plans and of how they have influenced decision makers; devise a more effective successor to the Waterborne Freight Grant, to stimulate coastal shipping; and 4 clarify whether or not it intends to bring forward a National Policy Statement on National Networks and, if so, its timetable for doing so. Our impression is that the DfT could do more to promote ports’ interests within Government and internationally. We were particularly concerned to hear suggestions that UK ports were put at a competitive disadvantage when compared to foreign ports because the UK Government insists that ports pay for infrastructure that is paid for by national and local governments overseas. If the Government does apply European Commission state aid rules in this area more strictly than other EU countries it should explain why it does so. Finally, we were struck by the concerns raised with us about the complexity of the planning system. We recommend that the DfT tell us what it consider to be the appropriate balance between environmental protection and economic development in relation to ports; in what ways the Government has altered this balance since it came to power in 2010; and what work it is involved in to address complexities or regulatory barriers within the planning system which ports regard as detrimental to their interests. 5 1 Introduction 1. Ports are essential to the economic wellbeing of the UK. Some 95% of UK cargo movements by tonnage is waterborne and ports collectively employ some 117,000 people.1 Ports differ greatly in terms of their size and the cargoes they handle, as the chart below demonstrates. 2. In addition, planning consent has been granted for a number of new developments which are not yet fully operational or which, in some cases, are yet to be built.2 Collectively, these could accommodate an extra 12.5 million containers each year,3 compared to 8 million containers handled by UK ports in 2012.4 The Government has said that additional port capacity is likely to be required to meet demand over the next 20 to 30 years.5 3. Ports large and small are affected by the quality of transport links to their hinterlands, whether that be by road, rail, inland waterways or coastal shipping. Ports cannot function effectively if hauliers and logistics firms struggle to get goods in and out of them, no matter how modern and efficient the infrastructure inside the port gates. Constraints on road and rail networks in particular can limit the size of a port and its economic impact. 4. Less obvious, but equally important, is access to ports from the sea. Many ports depend on the dredging of channels of sufficient depth to accommodate visiting ships. Inadequate seaward access could prevent larger container ships reaching UK ports, leaving the country dependent on overseas ports for container trade and putting up costs for British business and consumers.6 5. Earlier on in this Parliament we expressed disappointment that the Government was not focusing more strongly on the connectivity of the UK’s international gateways, including marine ports.7 Since then, the Department for Transport (DfT) has placed increasing emphasis on transport infrastructure as an “engine for growth”,8 and announced a host of transport projects, some of which relate to ports.9 We decided to take a closer look at Government policy in this area and, in December 2012, asked for responses to the following questions: 1 Ev 38 paragraph 3 and see http://www.maritimeuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/The-economic-impact-of-the- UK-maritime-services-sector.-Ports1.pdf. 2 National Policy Statement for Ports (hereafter NPS for Ports) paragraph 3.4.8. 3 Using the standard “twenty-foot equivalent unit” measure. 4 DfT port statistics PORT0208. However, container traffic represents only a minority of overall shipping movements. 5 NPS for Ports, paragraph 3.4.16. 6 Q66. 7 Transport Committee, Third Report, Session 2010-12, Transport and the Economy, HC 473, paragraph 41. 8 DfT, Ports Strategic Partnership plan, Sep 13, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ports-strategic- partnership-plan-a-framework-for-discussion-between-government-industry-and-trade-unions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Harwich International Port
    [email protected] Harwich International Port Harwich International Port is located in the east of the county of Essex in the UK. It is one of the UK’s leading multi-purpose freight and passenger ports and oers rst Related Sectors class facilities for container and bulk operations. UK MULTIMODAL GATEWAY Strategically situated for freight and business travel • One of the UK’s top ten ports. What are the key • Handles over 3.7 million tonnes of freight per year. business benets • Key port for ro-ro ferries to Scandinavia and Europe. • Handles new generation of superferries to improve freight and passenger car of locating in facilities. Essex? • Part of Haven Ports cluster which handles 40% of UK freight. • Major supply port for oshore energy sector. Major property cost • Less than an hour from London. savings: • Less than an hour from London Stansted Airport. • 74% versus the City of London Rail freight facilities within port. • • 54% versus London • Excellent road links to A12 trunk road. • 26% versus England’s major cities Major labour cost Accessible location savings: Harwich International Port provides businesses with easy access to markets in the • 48% versus the City of London UK, mainland Europe and the world. • 21% versus London • 5% versus England’s major cities The port’s advantages include: Superb transport • Location in the Haven Gateway Ports cluster, the largest deep sea port cluster in connectivity: Europe. PDFmyURL easily turns web pages and even entire websites into PDF! • Proximity to English Channel shipping lanes. • City of London: 28 minutes by train (from Chelmsford, Essex) • 10 miles by road from Felixstowe, UK’s largest container port.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regional Impact of the Channel Tunnel Throughout the Community
    -©fine Channel Tunnel s throughpdrth^Çpmmunity European Commission European Union Regional Policy and Cohesion Regional development studies The regional impact of the Channel Tunnel throughout the Community European Commission Already published in the series Regional development studies 01 — Demographic evolution in European regions (Demeter 2015) 02 — Socioeconomic situation and development of the regions in the neighbouring countries of the Community in Central and Eastern Europe 03 — Les politiques régionales dans l'opinion publique 04 — Urbanization and the functions of cities in the European Community 05 — The economic and social impact of reductions in defence spending and military forces on the regions of the Community 06 — New location factors for mobile investment in Europe 07 — Trade and foreign investment in the Community regions: the impact of economic reform in Central and Eastern Europe 08 — Estudio prospectivo de las regiones atlánticas — Europa 2000 Study of prospects in the Atlantic regions — Europe 2000 Étude prospective des régions atlantiques — Europe 2000 09 — Financial engineering techniques applying to regions eligible under Objectives 1, 2 and 5b 10 — Interregional and cross-border cooperation in Europe 11 — Estudio prospectivo de las regiones del Mediterráneo Oeste Évolution prospective des régions de la Méditerranée - Ouest Evoluzione delle prospettive delle regioni del Mediterraneo occidentale 12 — Valeur ajoutée et ingénierie du développement local 13 — The Nordic countries — what impact on planning and development
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Pilotage Order: the Harwich Haven and Walton Backwaters
    Maritime Pilotage Order THE HARWICH HAVEN AND WALTON BACKWATERS (APPLICATION OF THE PILOTAGE ACT 1987) ORDER 2020 September 2020 Moving Britain Ahead Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard, please contact the Department. Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Telephone 0300 330 3000 Website www.gov.uk/dft General enquiries: https://forms.dft.gov.uk © Crown copyright 2020 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. You may re-use this information (not including logos or third-party material) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected] Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Page 2 Contents 1. Summary 4 How to respond 4 Confidentiality and data protection 5 What will happen next? 5 2. Introduction 7 What is Marine Pilotage? 7 What is a Competent Harbour Authority? 8 What is a Pilotage Direction? 8 3. The Proposal 9 The request to extend voluntary pilotage services 9 Consideration 10 Draft Order 11 Impact Assessment 11 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Haven Gateway Impact Logistics & Ports, Summary
    DRIVING THE HAVEN GATEWAY FORWARD THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE PORTS & LOGISTICS SECTOR THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE PORTS & LOGISTICS SECTOR IN THE HAVEN GATEWAY AREA An economic impact Harwich is steadily increasing the number survey work with passengers, we know assessment of the ports of cruise ships stopping for day visits to they spend locally in restaurants, hotels the area. With the larger ships carrying and retail outlets, and on petrol or and logistics sector more than 2,000 passengers and nearly diesel. All this spending contributes up commissioned by the 1,000 crew, the potential to sell services to £7.3 million a year to the Haven Gateway locally is significant. subregion’s economy. Partnership emphasises It is estimated that annual cruise passenger In total, passengers through the spending on services within the Haven the significance of the Haven ports are spending around Gateway area could be as high as £7 million. £14 million a year, which translates industry to the area. Ro-ro ferry passengers also spend in the into another 150-200 jobs in various area before joining their ferries. From service sectors. The key facts are: The sector: • employs 32,200 people (11.3% of Haven Gateway - number of PAYE and/or VAT registered businesses, 2009 - Transport and Wholesale Trades sectors, by district council area employee jobs in the Haven Gateway) • has a turnover of about £3 billion p.a. Wholesale trades Babergh Transport • buys £100 million of services in the area, Wholesale & Transport and thus Colchester • creates 1,000 more jobs in local service sectors Ipswich Sector employees Mid Suffolk • The average salary of ports and logistics employees in 2009 was £29,000 per Suffolk Coastal year - approximately 20% above the Haven Gateway average Tendring • The salary bill (including on-costs) for 32,200 employees is probably more than 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 £1.1 billion per year Number of PAYE and/or VAT registered businesses • The 32,200 employees have an after-tax Source: UK Business: Activity, Size and Location - 2009 - ONS Crown Copyright Reserved (Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposals to Transform the Port of Banjul Into a Transhipment And
    World Maritime University The Maritime Commons: Digital Repository of the World Maritime University World Maritime University Dissertations Dissertations 2000 Proposals to transform the Port of Banjul into a transhipment and distribution centre with special emphasis on feedering Ismaila Malang Bojang World Maritime University Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.wmu.se/all_dissertations Recommended Citation Bojang, Ismaila Malang, "Proposals to transform the Port of Banjul into a transhipment and distribution centre with special emphasis on feedering" (2000). World Maritime University Dissertations. 61. http://commons.wmu.se/all_dissertations/61 This Dissertation is brought to you courtesy of Maritime Commons. Open Access items may be downloaded for non-commercial, fair use academic purposes. No items may be hosted on another server or web site without express written permission from the World Maritime University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © WORLD MARITIME UNIVERSITY Malmö, Sweden PROPOSALS TO TRANSFORM THE PORT OF BANJUL INTO A TRANSHIPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION CENTRE: With Special Emphasis on Feedering By ISMAILA MALANG BOJANG The Gambia A dissertation submitted to the World Maritime University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in PORT MANAGEMENT 2000 © Ismaila M Bojang, 2000 Declaration I certify that all the material in this dissertation that is not my work has been identified, and that no material is included for which a degree has previously
    [Show full text]
  • 12120648 01.Pdf
    The Master Plan and Feasibility Study on the Establishment of an ASEAN RO-RO Shipping Network and Short Sea Shipping FINAL REPORT: Volume 1 Exchange rates used in the report US$ 1.00 = JPY 81.48 EURO 1.00 = JPY 106.9 = US$ 1.3120 BN$ 1.00 = JPY 64.05 = US$ 0.7861 IDR 1.00 = JPY 0.008889 = US$ 0.0001091 MR 1.00 = JPY 26.55 = US$ 0.3258 PhP 1.00 = JPY 1.910 = US$ 0.02344 THB 1.00 = JPY 2.630 = US$ 0.03228 (as of 20 April, 2012) The Master Plan and Feasibility Study on the Establishment of an ASEAN RO-RO Shipping Network and Short Sea Shipping FINAL REPORT: Volume 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume 1 – Literature Review and Field Surveys Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... xii Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................ xvii 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Scope of the Study ................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Overall
    [Show full text]
  • Ipswich Borough Council Response to Boundary Committee Questions
    Ipswich Borough Council Response to Boundary Committee Questions OVERARCHING QUESTIONS: 1. Why would your proposed model best address the social and economic challenges of the Suffolk county area? In particular, please consider the following issues: • The social and economic challenges of the Ipswich urban area • Neighbourhood arrangements in Ipswich • The specific challenges faced by Felixstowe and in particular Lowestoft • Neighbourhood arrangements in Felixstowe and Lowestoft • The challenges of coastal erosion and flooding in the coastal areas of the county Our submission argues that our proposed model best serves the different economic sub-regions in Suffolk and the differing needs and challenges of the urban, rural and coastal parts of the county. We believe this creates 3 or 4 authorities based upon natural communities. We have outlined in Sections 2 and 3 of our submission the social and economic challenges faced in the urban Ipswich area and consider that having one unitary council within the model that has a strong urban Ipswich focus is the best way of providing leadership, local empowerment and tailored services to successfully address those challenges. We have put forward specific proposals in Section 6 of our submission for neighbourhood arrangements that build on IBC's current model of 5 Area Forums and Area Committees with aligned Safer Neighbourhood Teams underpinned by a multi-agency steering group. We intend to continue with the successful practices of area profiling and the identification of and response to local needs and issues through hot-spotting. Felixstowe and Lowestoft share the social and environmental issues of coastal towns. Economically, Lowestoft is a regeneration area whereas Felixstowe is dominated by the port which is set to grow by some 50%.
    [Show full text]
  • (Felixstowe Branch Line Improvements- Level Crossings Closure) Order
    The Proposed Network Rail (Felixstowe Branch Line Improvements- Level Crossings Closure) Order Planning Statement March 2017 Felixstowe Branch Line Improvements and Level Crossing Closure Contents 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Background 3.0 Site and Surroundings 4.0 The Proposal 5.0 Planning History 6.0 Policy Considerations 7.0 Design and Access 8.0 Conclusion Felixstowe Branch Line Improvements and Level Crossing Closure 1. Introduction 1.1 Network Rail is applying to the Secretary of State for Transport for the Network Rail (Felixstowe Branch Line Improvements - Level Crossings Closure) Order (“the Order”) under the Transport and Works Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). 1.2 Pursuant to Rule 10(6) of the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006, the application for the Order is accompanied by a request for a Direction under Section 90(2A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. If given, the Direction would grant deemed planning permission, so far as it is required, is deemed to be granted for the development sought to be authorised by the Order, subject to any conditions. 1.3 The Order seeks authorisation for the closure of six level crossings over the Felixstowe Branch Line railway, the construction and maintenance of a proposed replacement bridleway bridge and environmental mitigation together with associated closures and diversions to the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network. 1.4 This Planning Statement is one of a suite of documents submitted in support of the TWA application and sets out the planning policy case for the proposed scheme having regard to provisions of local and national planning policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Suffolk Chamber of Commerce Transport and Infrastructure Manifesto
    Suffolk Chamber of Commerce Transport and Infrastructure Manifesto Topic Aims Road - National A14 (E24 + E30) Cambridge to Huntingdon Resilient final design and timely completion with improvements minimum disruption. ‘Whole A14’ Addressing congestion in the Suffolk section and in particular at: Ransomes Junction (57); Orwell Bridge; Copdock Interchange (Junction 55); Bury St Edmunds Junctions (42, 43, 44 and 45) and Newmarket Junctions (34 and 35). Orwell Bridge alternative Evaluations and comparative business cases for route option (long term) alternative routes including Northern Bypass and Wet Dock Crossing. Orwell Bridge temporary Identification of contingency crossing options, to ease closure contingency plan congestion when the Bridge is temporarily closed, (short term) including cross town routes and signing and new ‘stack’ locations. A12 between A14 and M25 Upgrading and improvements to whole Highways (E30) England-managed route between the A14 and M25. A47 between A12 and A1 Support the A47 Alliance in lobbying for upgrading and improvements to address poor quality and unreliability of parts of the route between Lowestoft and the A1; and Promote a new crossing of Lake Lothing to replace the ageing bascule bridge. A120 Stansted to Harwich Upgrading and improvements to tackle low standards, (E32) heavy congestion, high accident risk and poor journey reliability especially between Marks Tey and Braintree and in relation to travel between Suffolk and Stansted Airport. Road - Regional A140 between A14 and A47 Dual whole route and include in trunk road network to support economic and business growth between Ipswich and Norwich and improve access from Suffolk to Norwich International Airport. A12 between A14 and A47 Upgrading and improvements to the SCC-managed A12 between the A14 and A47.
    [Show full text]
  • Suffolk Rail Prospectus Cromer Sheringham West Runton Roughton Road
    Suffolk Rail Prospectus Cromer Sheringham West Runton Roughton Road Gunton East Anglia Passenger Rail Service North Walsham Worstead King’s Lynn Hoveton & Wroxham Norwich Salhouse Watlington Brundall Lingwood Acle Wymondham Downham Market Brundall Buckenham Peterborough Spooner Row Gardens Great Littleport Yarmouth March Cantley Lakenheath Thetford Attleborough Reedham Berney Arms Whittlesea Eccles Road Manea Shippea Brandon Harling Haddiscoe Road Hill Diss Somerleyton Ely Regional Oulton Broad North Waterbeach Bury St. Oulton Broad South Edmunds Lowestoft Chesterton (working name) Kennett Thurston Elmswell Beccles Newmarket Dullingham Stowmarket Brampton Cambridge Halesworth Shelford Darsham Whittlesford Parkway Saxmundham Great Chesterford Needham Market Wickham Market Audley End Melton Newport Great Eastern Westerfield Woodbridge Elsenham Stansted Airport Derby Road Stansted Ipswich Express Stansted Mountfitchet Felixstowe Sudbury Bishop’s Stortford Hertford Trimley East Sawbridgeworth Bures Wrabness Dovercourt Manningtree Ware Harlow Mill Mistley Harwich Harwich Chappel and International Town St. Margarets Harlow Town Wakes Colne Roydon Colchester Walton-on-the-Naze Rye House Braintree Broxbourne Hythe Great Frinton-on-Sea Wivenhoe West Cheshunt Braintree Freeport Colchester Bentley Weeley Anglia Town Waltham Cross Cressing Alresford Kirby Marks Tey Thorpe-le-Soken Enfield Lock Cross White Notley Brimsdown Kelvedon Edmonton Clacton-on-Sea Green Ponders End Witham Angel Road Chelmsford Hatfield Peverel Northumberland Park Southminster
    [Show full text]
  • Ely Area Capacity Enhancements Programme
    Ely Area Capacity Enhancements Programme Strategic Outline Business Case (Refresh of 2016 Interim SOBC) IN PARTNERSHIP with 1 Prepared by: Signature: Job Title: Programme Business Case & Assurance Manager Date: Checked by: Signature: Job Title: Senior Sponsor Date: Strategic Case approved by: Signature: Job Title: Head of Strategic Planning Date: Date: 2 Disclaimer In issuing this document for its stated purpose, the Network Rail EACE Programme makes no warranty, express or implied, that compliance with all or any documents it issues is sufficient on its own to ensure safe system of work or operation. Users are reminded of their own duties under health and safety legislation. All references made within this document were considered correct at time of approval. Supply Copies of this document are available electronically via Network Rail System Operator only Control This document shall be deemed uncontrolled once printed. This document is applicable to: Ely Area Capacity Enhancement Programme and all its associated packages including any Level Crossing design assessment, feasibility and option development work. Version History Date Version Amendments and summary of changes 08 Sep 2016 0.1 Initial draft 22 Sep 2016 0.2 Second draft 28 Sep 2016 0.3 Amendments to the Strategic, Economic and Management Cases 05 Oct 2016 0.4 Further amendments to the Strategic and Economic Cases 11 Oct 2016 0.5 Amendments following comments from the DfT and inclusion of Appendices 13 Oct 2016 1.0 Final amendments & issue to LEPs Updates from GRIP 2 discovery design phase & alignment with DfT new 04 May 2018 1.1 RNEP processes 13/06/18 1.2 Issued to Sponsor for input 09/10/18 1.3 Updated to include Level Crossing Strategy Ref: v.
    [Show full text]
  • Suffolk Local Transport Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 - Transport Strategy Foreword I Am Pleased to Introduce the Third Local Transport Plan for Suffolk
    Suffolk Local Transport Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 - Transport Strategy Foreword I am pleased to introduce the third local transport plan for Suffolk. At this time of financial constraint Suffolk County Council’s priority is to aid sustainable economic recovery and growth. Transport has a vital role to play in this. Good transport is essential for business and for people to access education and skills training. Maintaining our transport system, improving its reliability and reducing congestion are essential if we are to support the economic development needed for recovery and to place Suffolk in the strongest possible position to capitalise on emerging opportunities for future sustainable economic growth. I look forward to working with the new Local Enterprise Partnerships to ensure that transport investment supports our economic and business growth strategies. Suffolk’s local transport plan is in two parts. The first sets out the county council’s long-term transport strategy to 2031. The second part is an implementation plan, setting out how the strategy could be delivered over the short, medium and long term, using a variety of funding and delivery mechanisms. This includes a short-term programme of county council investment for the next four years. The implementation plan will be reviewed over time to take account of any changes in priorities and funding levels. Within this plan period we hope to see the delivery of a number of strategic transport improvements including: • dualling of the A11 between Barton Mills and Thetford • the Ipswich major scheme, ‘Ipswich- Transport fit for the 21st Century’ • the Beccles rail loop allowing increased frequency of trains between Ipswich and Lowestoft • the Beccles southern relief road • the Lowestoft northern spine road to help remove through traffic from the town • Ipswich rail chord to improve freight connections from Felixstowe • Copdock A14/A12 junction improvements.
    [Show full text]