DOCSLIB.ORG

Transport Committee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transport Committee TRANSPORT COMMITTEE Transport and the economy TE 01 London Borough of Newham TE 02 Royal Aeronautical Society TE 03 Richard Starling TE 04 Derek Halden TE 05 liftshare TE 06 FSB - Federation of Small Businesses TE 08 PACTS TE 09 TRL - Transport Research Laboratory TE 10 TfL - Transport for London TE 11 Transport Watch TE 12 Stagecoach Group plc TE 13 Joint from Dr Greg Marsden and Professor Peter Mackie TE 14 Unite - the union TE 15 Merseytravel TE 17 Passenger Focus TE 18 CILT - The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport TE 19 Local Government Technical Advisers Group (TAG) TE 20 Rail Freight Group TE 21 Roger Vickerman TE 22 UK Major Ports Group TE 23 TravelWatch NorthWest TE 24 National Alliance Against Tolls TE 25 Virgin Atlantic Airways' TE 26 VisitBritain TE 27 Independent transport commission TE 28 David Simmonds Consultancy Ltd TE 29 ADEPT TE 30 Wharf Weston TE 31 BAR UK TE 32 North of Tyne Transport Group TE 33 Norfolk Chamber of Commerce TE 34 "The Northern Way" TE 35 South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive TE 36 Edward Gibbins TE 37 Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and the Transport Planning Society (TPS) TE 38 Light Rail Transit Association (LRTA) TE 39 Southampton City Counci TE 40 FlyingMatters TE 41 RAC Foundation TE 42 The Hoseasons Group TE 44 The Transport Planning Society (TPS) TE 45 London First TE 46 James Morshead TE 47 Directors of Public Health for the West of England Partnership Area TE 48 ASLEF TE 49 North West Rail Campaign TE 50 West of England Authorities TE 51 Oxfordshire County Council TE 52 PCS Union TE 53 Town and Country Planning Association TE 54 English Regional Development Agencies TE 55 Halton Borough Council TE 56 Dr David Metz TE 57 East of England Space for Ideas Forum of business leaders TE 58 Association of Greater Manchester Authorities and Greater Manchester Intergrated Transport Authority TE 59 Economy on behalf of the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) TE 60 British Ports Association (BPA) TE 61 British Air Transport Association (BATA) TE 62 Centro TE 63 Living Streets TE 64 London TravelWatch TE 65 CBI TE 66 The Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation (CIHT) TE 67 Associated British Ports TE 68 City of York Council TE 69 DB Schenker TE 70 Freight on Rail Memorandum from the London Borough of Newham (TE 01) 1. Summary of key points 1.1 East London is set to become the capital’s economic powerhouse over the next decade. Over time, it will be the key strategic location for trade, commerce, leisure and development in London. It is estimated that at today’s prices, raising the productivity of the Thames Gateway to the same level as the Greater South East would contribute around £13bn to UK GDP.1 In other words, success here has a national impact. 1.2 Currently, there is no recognised major transport hub in East London. Stratford, which already has the capacity and the connectivity, and is at the centre of London’s major development plans for the next twenty five years, is ideally placed to become the UK’s newest transport hub serving the Britain of 2025. 1.3 Transport infrastructure is absolutely critical to realising the unparalleled opportunities for growth in this part of the UK. If we fail to develop the necessary conditions for the capital’s growth in the next decade, companies will choose to invest in other cities around the world which are more conducive to development. It would be a debilitating mistake to let this happen. 1.4 High speed rail is part of the transport package that East London needs to support its economic development; which also includes ensuring that Crossrail is delivered in full, along with the Thames Gateway bridge and the extension of the Docklands Light Railway (DLR). Delivery of these three major transport projects together will determine the extent to which the regeneration potential of the Royal Docks – a key Opportunity Area in the London Plan and part of the Green Enterprise District vital to supporting a low carbon economy – is realised. Given the cancellation of the Thames Gateway Bridge, it is particularly vital to the regeneration and economic development of the area that the Crossrail South East branch, currently subject to reappraisal, is delivered. 1.5 More information is available on these issues should it be of interest the Committee. However, this submission focuses specifically on the contribution that high speed rail would make as a key driver of the local and national economy, if Stratford were utilised as a high speed rail “hub”. 1.6 Over £210m worth of public money has already been invested making the station fit for its purpose as an international station, yet no international services currently stop at Stratford. It is an international station in name only. One of its roles was intended to be the London stop for international 1 Return on Capital: a prospectus for the future of the London Thames Gateway, Thames Gateway London Partnership http://www.thames‐gateway.org.uk/ services originating in the UK regions ‐ the Committee will recall that over £350m was expended on purchasing Regional Eurostar train sets which have never been used for these services. Together with the cost of a link between the West Coast Mainline and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, well over £600m has been invested to enable the regions to benefit from links to the European high speed rail network, none of which have been realised. 1.7 However, Stratford has a large catchment of potential users even without supporting regional international services. We believe that there is a commercial case for operators on the current High Speed One line to stop at Stratford and have independent evidence which supports this. In their report (attached as an appendix), Colin Buchanan Associates found that stopping at Stratford is financially viable, would see 2 million passengers opt to use the station annually and deliver £600m in user benefits in the evaluation period (based on the Department for Transport’s own methodology for valuing journey time savings). 1.8 We are keen to ensure that the UK maximises its investment in new transport infrastructure, specifically in the new high speed rail line (High Speed Two). The new network should generate longer term growth, development and investment in the country. 1.9 The debate around high speed rail has for too long been based on the assumption that the UK’s transport needs tomorrow will be the same as our needs today. Yet the new line will not open until the mid‐2020s. Planning for how our transport infrastructure, and economic growth, will develop in the next two decades will be critical in ensuring that we maximise the potential of high speed rail for the whole of the UK and gain a return on our investment. Stratford is a key strategic location in the future UK economy, and has a major role to play within this agenda. Yet we are concerned that current plans are not exploiting economic trends or major areas of future growth, such as East London. 1.10 We miss a huge opportunity if the objective of our new high speed rail network is solely to cut journey times within and between UK regions. This is a chance to open up the West Midlands, Northern England and Scotland to European trade and investment and create a real driver for our economic recovery through easier access to European trade and industry. 1.11 Yet current plans remain focused on a line which does not connect High Speed One and High Speed Two. This is despite the fact that both the current Secretary of State for Transport and his predecessor have said they see the strategic argument for linkage; especially in the context of building a railway line for over 100 years of use. There is a distinct risk that a series of discrete high speed lines will be built that fail to join up, rather than a network. Stratford is the location which can facilitate a more joined up approach. 1.12 With the new network, we are presented with a unique opportunity; to join the three major transport projects of our generation together, creating the foundations for future economic growth. Connecting the Crossrail link to Heathrow with High Speed One and High Speed Two ‐ in one strategic location ‐ would transform business in the UK, and act as a catalyst for future investment. 1.13 We would welcome the Committee to Newham for a site visit around Stratford and the station, to see the potential and scale of the development opportunity here, and present in person our case for Stratford as a transport hub, and its relevance as a strategic location for the UK economy. Main submission East London Moving East 2.1 East London is expected to become the economic powerhouse for the capital over the next two decades. Take some simple statistics: East London is expected to accommodate up to 249,000 new jobs by 2016 ‐ nearly 40 percent of London’s total employment growth. It will be the location of a third of all London’s new homes. 2 Over twenty years, the GLA predicts a population increase of 260,000 people in the 5 Olympic host boroughs alone, the equivalent of a whole new borough the size of Newham. These boroughs are already home to one sixth of London’s population.3 The Mayor of London’s replacement London Plan cited East London as the single most important regeneration priority in the capital for the next 25 years.4 2.2 Stratford holds a unique strategic position in the economic development of London and the UK as a whole.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thames Estuary Airport: AEF Position Paper
    Thames estuary airport: AEF position paper 3rd December 2009 Summary The London Mayor has suggested that the development of an estuary airport may provide an alternative to Heathrow expansion and commissioned Doug Oakervee, the engineer who masterminded Hong Kong’s island airport, to conduct a feasibility study. This briefing takes a historical look at estuary airport proposals and the issues that have arisen, assesses the recent report from Douglas Oakervee, and sets out AEF’s view on the proposal to construct a new airport in the Thames Estuary. AEF considers that all UK aviation expansion plans should be put on hold pending a review of the fundamental evidence underpinning Government policy on airports. We are concerned about the environmental impacts of a new airport in the Thames Estuary in terms of biodiversity loss and likely increases in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of increased aviation activity. Purported environmental benefits of in terms of noise, air pollution and risk, meanwhile, remain uncertain. We are therefore opposed to the building of a new airport in the Thames Estuary, and consider that rather than investing further public money into consideration of new airports, investment should instead focus on provision and promotion of low-carbon alternatives to aviation. Why estuary airport proposals have never got off the ground: some historical examples Maplin Sands A proposal to build a new airport at Maplin Sands was considered as part of the Airports inquiries 1981-83. TCPA – the Town and Country Planning Association – supported it on the grounds that, in terms of both agricultural and noise impacts, it was preferable to the expansion of Stansted.
    [Show full text]
  • Inner Thames Estuary Airport: Review of the Evidence on Socio- Economic Impacts a Report for the Airports Commission
    www.pwc.co.uk Inner Thames Estuary Airport: Review of the evidence on socio- economic impacts A report for the Airports Commission Airports Commission June 2014 Final report www.pwc.co.uk Important notice This final document has been prepared for the Airports Commission in accordance with the terms of the Provision of Consultancy for Commercial, Financial and Economic Option Appraisal and Analysis (DfT) framework and the Contract Reference RM 2750 (650) dated 12th February 2014 and solely for the purpose and on the terms agreed with the Airports Commission. We accept no liability (including for negligence) to anyone else in connection with this document. This document contains information obtained or derived from a variety of third party sources as indicated within the document. PwC has not sought to establish the reliability of those sources or verified the information so provided. Should any person other than the Airports Commission obtain access to and read this document, such persons accepts and agrees to the following terms: 1. The reader of this document understands that the work performed by PwC was performed in accordance with instructions provided by our client, the Airports Commission, and was performed exclusively for their benefit and use. The document may therefore not include all matters relevant to the reader. 2. The reader agrees that PwC accepts no liability (including for negligence) to them in connection with this document. Inner Thames Estuary Airport: Review of the evidence on socio-economic impacts Contents Executive summary 2 1. Introduction 6 2. Rationale for airport closure and commercial considerations 8 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Carrying Trade and the First Railways in England, C1750-C1850
    The Carrying Trade and the First Railways in England, c1750-c1850 Carolyn Dougherty PhD University of York Railway Studies November 2018 Abstract Transport and economic historians generally consider the change from moving goods principally on roads, inland waterways and coastal ships to moving them principally on railways as inevitable, unproblematic, and the result of technological improvements. While the benefits of rail travel were so clear that most other modes of passenger transport disappeared once rail service was introduced, railway goods transport did not offer as obvious an improvement over the existing goods transport network, known as the carrying trade. Initially most railways were open to the carrying trade, but by the 1840s railway companies began to provide goods carriage and exclude carriers from their lines. The resulting conflict over how, and by whom, goods would be transported on railways, known as the carrying question, lasted more than a decade, and railway companies did not come to dominate domestic goods carriage until the 1850s. In this study I develop a fuller picture of the carrying trade than currently exists, highlighting its multimodal collaborative structure and setting it within the ‘sociable economy’ of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century England. I contrast this economy with the business model of joint-stock companies, including railway companies, and investigate responses to the business practices of these companies. I analyse the debate over railway company goods carriage, and identify changes in goods transport resulting from its introduction. Finally, I describe the development and outcome of the carrying question, showing that railway companies faced resistance to their attempts to control goods carriage on rail lines not only from the carrying trade but also from customers of goods transport, the government and the general public.
    [Show full text]
  • Flying Into the Future Infrastructure for Business 2012 #4 Flying Into the Future
    Infrastructure for Business Flying into the Future Infrastructure for Business 2012 #4 Flying into the Future Flying into the Future têáííÉå=Äó=`çêáå=q~óäçêI=pÉåáçê=bÅçåçãáÅ=^ÇîáëÉê=~í=íÜÉ=fça aÉÅÉãÄÉê=OMNO P Infrastructure for Business 2012 #4 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ________________________________________ 5 1. GRowInG AVIATIon SUSTAInABlY ______________________ 27 2. ThE FoUR CRUnChES ______________________________ 35 3. ThE BUSInESS VIEw oF AIRpoRT CApACITY ______________ 55 4. A lonG-TERM plAn FoR GRowTh ____________________ 69 Q Flying into the Future Executive summary l Aviation provides significant benefits to the economy, and as the high growth markets continue to power ahead, flying will become even more important. “A holistic plan is nearly two thirds of IoD members think that direct flights to the high growth countries will be important to their own business over the next decade. needed to improve l Aviation is bad for the global and local environment, but quieter and cleaner aviation in the UK. ” aircraft and improved operational and ground procedures can allow aviation to grow in a sustainable way. l The UK faces four related crunches – hub capacity now; overall capacity in the South East by 2030; excessive taxation; and an unwelcoming visa and border set-up – reducing the UK’s connectivity and making it more difficult and more expensive to get here. l This report sets out a holistic aviation plan, with 25 recommendations to address six key areas: − Making the best use of existing capacity in the short term; − Making decisions about where new runways should be built as soon as possible, so they can open in the medium term; − Ensuring good surface access and integration with the wider transport network, in particular planning rail services together with airport capacity, not separately; − Dealing with noise and other local environment impacts; − Not raising taxes any further; − Improving the visa regime and operations at the UK border.
    [Show full text]
  • Framework Capacity Statement
    Framework Capacity Statement Network Rail December 2016 Network Rail Framework Capacity Statement December 2016 1 Contents 1. Purpose 1.1 Purpose 4 2. National overview 2.1 Infrastructure covered by this statement 6 2.2 Framework agreements in Great Britain 7 2.3 Capacity allocation in Great Britain 9 2.4 National capacity overview – who operates where 10 2.5 National capacity overview – who operates when 16 3. Network Rail’s Routes 3.1 Anglia Route 19 3.2 London North East & East Midlands Route 20 3.3 London North Western Route 22 3.4 Scotland Route 24 3.5 South East Route 25 3.6 Wales Routes 27 3.7 Wessex Route 28 3.8 Western Route 29 4. Sub-route and cross-route data 4.1 Strategic Routes / Strategic Route Sections 31 4.2 Constant Traffic Sections 36 Annex: consultation on alternative approaches A.1 Questions of interpretation of the requirement 39 A.2 Potential solutions 40 A.3 Questions for stakeholders 40 Network Rail Framework Capacity Statement December 2016 2 1. Purpose Network Rail Framework Capacity Statement December 2016 3 1.1 Purpose the form in which data may be presented. The contracts containing the access rights are publicly available elsewhere, and links are provided in This statement is published alongside Network Rail’s Network Statement section 2.2. However, the way in which the rights are described when in order to meet the requirements of European Commission Implementing combined on the geography of the railway network, and over time, to meet Regulation (EU) 2016/545 of 7 April 2016 on procedures and criteria the requirements of the regulation, is open to some interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • Firstgroup Vies with Virgin in West Coast Rail Bidding War | Business | Guardian.Co.Uk Page 1 of 2
    FirstGroup vies with Virgin in west coast rail bidding war | Business | guardian.co.uk Page 1 of 2 Printing sponsored by: FirstGroup vies with Virgin in west coast rail bidding war Aberdeen-based group is frontrunner, along with incumbent, in battle to secure 14-year franchise contract Dan Milmo, industrial editor guardian.co.uk, Sunday 15 July 2012 14.13 BST Virgin, the current holders of the west coast franchise, pay an annual premium of £150m to the government. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian FirstGroup has emerged as a frontrunner for the multibillion-pound west coast rail franchise alongside incumbent Virgin Trains, with the contest now a two-horse race between the experienced operators. Aberdeen-based FirstGroup is vying with Virgin despite announcing last year that it is handing back its Great Western rail contract three years ahead of schedule, avoiding more than £800m in payments to the government. The Department for Transport is expected to bank a considerable windfall from the new 14-year west coast contract, with Virgin currently paying an annual premium of about £150m to the state. Both bidders are expected to promise an even bigger number over the life of the new franchise. The winner is expected to be announced next month. It is understood that FirstGroup and Virgin are still in talks with the DfT, but two foreign-owned bidders on the four-strong shortlist are no longer considered likely contenders. They are a joint venture between public transport operator Keolis and SNCF, the French state rail group, and a bid from Abellio, which is controlled by the Dutch national rail operator.
    [Show full text]
  • A Monte-Carlo Approach to Estimating the Effects of Selected Airport Capacity Options in London
    A Monte-Carlo approach to estimating the effects of selected airport capacity options in London. Daniel Irvine, Lucy C.S. Budd and David E. Pitfield. Transport Studies Group, School of Civil & Building Engineering Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU U.K. [email protected] Abstract The issue of future airport capacity in London is currently the subject of much political debate in the UK. Through the use of Monte Carlo simulation, the paper quantifies and compares the relative capacity enhancements that may be afforded by the construction of a new hub airport, additional runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and changes to operating practices at Heathrow. The simulations indicate that a new hub airport would be the most effective way to increase capacity, although the reported financial and environmental costs of such a development suggest a comparatively poor rate of return. Proposed new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and the removal of runway alternation at Heathrow provide more modest increases in capacity. Keywords: airport capacity, Monte Carlo simulation, London, UK. 1. Introduction Debates surrounding the provision of future airport capacity in London and the South East have had a long and controversial pedigree with the issue polarised between those who claim connectivity is vital for economic growth and those who believe that 1 airport expansion creates an unjustifiable social and environmental burden. At the time of writing, a UK Government-appointed Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, is evaluating a number of possible options to enhance airport capacity in London and the south east. This paper employs Monte Carlo simulation to provide estimations of the relative effect on airport capacity that five proposals, which are all reportedly under consideration, afford.
    [Show full text]
  • Midland Lodge, Sutton Park
    MIDLAND LODGE, SUTTON PARK A history of the building with details of its architecture, its association with two well-known tenants and the establishment of Sutton Coldfield’s Vesey Club in 1888. Roy Billingham Midland Lodge is a residential property situated within Sutton Park, designed by William Jenkins, a Birmingham architect, and built in 1880 for the Warden and Society of Sutton Coldfield. Following the Town’s incorporation in 1886, ownership passed to the new Corporation of Sutton Coldfield, and to Birmingham City Council in 1974 after Government reorganisation of local authority boundaries. The site of Midland Lodge (O.S. Grid Ref. SP 1121 9715) is adjacent to the Midland Gate entrance to Sutton Park at the western end of Midland Road which was constructed as a private road by the Midland Railway Company in 1879 to provide direct access for train passengers to and from the Park for their Sutton Park railway station. “New Lodge”, as the cottage was originally called, had several tenants prior to 1886 when Benjamin Stone, Sutton Coldfield’s first Mayor, took over the tenancy in order to meet the necessary residential qualifications to become a burgess of the Town. During his four years as Mayor, 1886-90, the lodge was known as “The Mayor’s Cottage” which he treated as his pied- à-terre, his own home being in Grange Lane, Erdington. After Stone terminated his tenancy in 1891 the cottage was referred to ever afterwards as “Midland Lodge”. Fig. 1(a) – Midland Lodge in c. 1910 Fig. 1(b) – Midland Lodge in February, 2014 Photograph by Benjamin Stone [Ref.
    [Show full text]
  • West Midlands & Chilterns Route Study Technical Appendices
    Long Term Planning Process West Midlands & Chilterns Route Study Technical Appendices August 2017 Contents August 2017 Network Rail – West Midlands & Chilterns Route Study Technical Appendices 02 Technical Appendices 03 A1 - Midlands Rail Hub: Central Birmingham 04 elements A2 - Midlands Rail Hub: Birmingham to 11 Nottingham/Leicester elements A3 - Midlands Rail Hub: Birmingham to 17 Worcester/Hereford via Bromsgrove elements A4 - Chiltern Route 24 A5 - Birmingham to Leamington Spa via 27 Coventry A6 - Passenger capacity at stations 30 A7 - Business Case analysis 50 Technical Appendicies August 2017 Network Rail – West Midlands & Chilterns Route Study Technical Appendices 03 Introduction to Technical Appendices Cost estimation These Technical Appendices provide the technical evidence to Cost estimates have been prepared for interventions or packages of support the conclusions and choices for funders presented in the interventions proposed in the Route Study. The estimates are based main Route Study document. The areas of technical analysis on the pre-GRIP data available, concept drawings and high level outlined in these appendices are capability analysis, concept specification of the intervention scope. To reflect the level of development (at pre-GRIP level), cost estimation, business case information available to support the estimate production, a analysis and passenger capacity analysis at stations. contingency sum of 60% has been added. The estimates do not include inflation. Indicative cost ranges have been provided based The appendices are presented by geographical area with the on this assessment. exception of the business case analysis and passenger capacity analysis. Business case analysis The areas of technical analysis are summarised below. Business case analysis has been undertaken to demonstrate to funders whether a potential investment option is affordable and Capability Analysis offers value for money.
    [Show full text]
  • A Call Against the Decline in Local Bus Services
    A call against the decline in local bus services Resolution Shortlist Briefing Notes A call against the decline in local bus services Over the last decade there has been a massive decline in the number of bus services, particularly of those in rural and semi-rural areas. In order to alleviate loneliness, improve health and wellbeing, as well as promoting sustainable development, the NFWI calls on the Government and local authorities to increase subsidies and work in partnership with bus companies and community transport operators to enable an adequate provision of services. Proposer’s position The proposer would like the importance of a local sustainable bus service, particularly in rural areas, to be more widely recognised. In light of the falling coverage of bus services and the wide-spread impact on communities, this resolution calls on local and national government to take action. The scale of the problem Since 2010, local authorities have faced budgets cuts which have put pressure on the delivery of local services such as health centres, post offices and libraries. Those without access to a car rely heavily on public transport, and the loss of a bus service can reduce access to services and facilities and contribute to social exclusion and loneliness. According to the Campaign for Better Transport, council bus budgets have been cut by 45% since 2010. Local authorities across England and Wales were found to have taken £182 million away from supported bus services over the decade, affecting more than 3,000 bus services in England and 259 in Wales. According to Rural England, about half of people in smaller villages do not have access to any public transport and young people's access to education is being impacted by poor public transport provision.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Ungovernable'? Financialisation and the Governance Of
    Governing the ‘ungovernable’? Financialisation and the governance of transport infrastructure in the London ‘global city-region’ February 2018 Peter O’Briena* Andy Pikea and John Tomaneyb aCentre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS), Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU. Email: peter.o’[email protected]; [email protected] bBartlett School of Planning, University College London, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, 620 Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London, UK WC1H 0NN. Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author 1 Abstract The governance of infrastructure funding and financing at the city-region scale is a critical aspect of the continued search for mechanisms to channel investment into the urban landscape. In the context of the global financial crisis, austerity and uneven growth, national, sub-national and local state actors are being compelled to adopt the increasingly speculative activities of urban entrepreneurialism to attract new capital, develop ‘innovative’ financial instruments and models, and establish new or reform existing institutional arrangements for urban infrastructure governance. Amidst concerns about the claimed ‘ungovernability’ of ‘global’ cities and city-regions, governing urban infrastructure funding and financing has become an acute issue. Infrastructure renewal and development are interpreted as integral to urban growth, especially to underpin the size and scale of large cities and their significant contributions within national economies. Yet, oovercoming fragmented local jurisdictions to improve the governance and economic, social and environmental development of major metropolitan areas remains a challenge. The complex, and sometimes conflicting and contested inter-relationships at stake raise important questions about the role of the state in wrestling with entrepreneurial and managerialist governance imperatives.
    [Show full text]
  • The Need for Indigenous Aggregates Production in England
    The need for indigenous aggregates production in England Open Report OR/08/026 BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OPEN REPORT OR/08/026 The need for indigenous aggregates production in England T J Brown, F McEvoy and J Mankelow (BGS) with J Ward, S Bloomfield, T Goussarova, N Shah and L Souron (cebr) Keywords England, aggregates, economy, construction. Front cover Dowlow Quarry, Derbyshire C Mitchell, BGS © NERC Bibliographical reference BROWN, TJ, MCEVOY, F AND MANKELOW, J (BGS) WITH WARD, J, BLOOMFIELD, S, GOUSSAROVA, T, SHAH, N AND SOURON, L (CEBR). 2008. The need for indigenous aggregates production in England. British Geological Survey Open Report, OR/08/026. 74pp. Copyright in materials derived from the British Geological Survey’s work is owned by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and/or the authority that commissioned the work. You may not copy or adapt this publication without first obtaining permission. Contact the BGS Intellectual Property Rights Section, British Geological Survey, Keyworth, e-mail [email protected]. You may quote extracts of a reasonable length without prior permission, provided a full acknowledgement is given of the source of the extract. © NERC 2008. All rights reserved Keyworth, Nottingham British Geological Survey 2008 BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY The full range of our publications is available from BGS shops at British Geological Survey offices Nottingham, Edinburgh, London and Cardiff (Welsh publications only) see contact details below or shop online at www.geologyshop.com BGS Central Enquiries Desk Tel 0115 936 3143 Fax 0115 936 3276 The London Information Office also maintains a reference collection of BGS publications, including maps, for consultation.
    [Show full text]