DOCSLIB.ORG

Agenda Item 10

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Agenda Item 10 Document Pack Page 347 Agenda Item 10 CABINET – 22ND JANUARY 2002 MULTI - MODAL STUDY - M1 CORRIDOR CONSULTATION REPORT ON DRAFT PREFERRED PACKAGE REPORT OF THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION PART A Purpose of Report 1. To inform Cabinet of the consultation report received from consultants W.S. Atkins acting on behalf of the Department of Transport Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) on the draft preferred package for the M1 Corridor and to recommend an appropriate response. Recommendation 2. It is recommended that the suggested response set out in paragraph 59 of this report be approved and sent as the response of the County Council. Reason for Recommendation 3. To enable the County Council's views to be taken into account in finalising the preferred strategy to be recommended by the team of consultants completing the multi-modal study. Timetable for Decisions 4. The consultation report was received on 28th December 2001 and invites a formal response by 25th January 2002. It will be acceptable for the County Council's response to be sent shortly after this date. 5. It is proposed that this matter be considered by Cabinet on 22nd January 2002; by the Planning and Environment Scrutiny Committee on 24th January 2002; and a final decision made by Cabinet on 5th February 2002. This will allow an interim response following Cabinet on 22nd January and a final response following Cabinet on 5th February. Policy Framework and Previous Decisions 6. An initial response to a consultation report on strategy development was approved by Cabinet at its meeting on 6th February 2001. 1 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 348 7. The aims of the Multi-Modal Study and the basis for selecting a preferred strategy are well related both to the County Council's Medium Term Corporate Strategy and to the objectives of the Local Transport Plans. However, the full impact of the proposals has not yet been assessed by the study and this raises a number of concerns. Resource Implications 8. There are no specific resource implications for the County Council raised at this stage of the multi-modal study. However, some of the proposals in the draft preferred package could in the future be implemented by the County Council either alone or in partnership with others. The method of funding these proposals will require further consideration and discussion with DTLR. 9. The County Treasurer has been consulted on the Resource Implications section of this report. Circulation under Sensitive Issues Procedure. Circulated to all Members under the Members Information Service – 16th January 2002. Officers to Contact Steve Marsh Telephone - 0116 265 7182 Douglas Reid Telephone - 0116 265 7103 2 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 349 PART B Background 10. The multi-modal study started in December 1999, and covers the M1 corridor from the south of Leicester and junction 21 to the north of Chesterfield and junction 30. The aim of the study is to find a way of tackling congestion on the M1 and meet development and travel needs up to 2021. Within the M1 corridor, a separate and more local multi-modal study also started in December 1999, and is concentrated on the A453 corridor between M1 junction 24 and Nottingham. 11. From the surveys of traffic movements, it was apparent early on in the study that congestion problems on the M1 are not just caused by excess north/south movements in the corridor. There are a number of longer distance east/west movements which use sections of the M1, as well as many local journeys using the M1 for relatively short distances. 12. A consultation report on strategy development was the subject of a report to Cabinet on 6th February 2001. In the very short time available the response was limited to comments on possible transport measures in Leicestershire. 13. After the above consultation, many further potential transport measures were identified within the study team or suggested by the wide range of interested organisations and individuals. The long list of measures was grouped into four strategy packages with different combinations of public transport development, road improvements and travel management measures. The packages were then tested for their effectiveness in meeting the objectives of the study 14. With the elimination of the least feasible measures, the four strategy packages were reduced to two composite packages for further evaluation and public consultation The two composite packages reflected the fact that congestion on the M1 can be attributed to both long distance traffic and also more local traffic. During peak periods, the latter category of traffic includes the increasing use of the M1 for driving to work. Package 1 was aimed at tackling the longer distance movements, and Package 2 approached the problem by focussing on the more local journeys. 15. The testing of the two composite packages, and the results of extensive recent public consultation, provide the basis for the draft preferred package proposed in the consultation report. 16. The stated purpose of the consultation report is to:- • advise consultees of the draft preferred package of measures which the consultants are continuing more fully to test and appraise; • seek views on the draft strategy and package; and • invite views on proposals for a behaviour change strategy for the area. 3 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 350 Public Consultation 17. The start of the public consultation period was marked by an event for MPs and Members of local authorities on 12th September 2001. This was arranged by the DTLR at the Government Office for the East Midlands. On 19th November a similar event was held at County Hall for all Members of the County Council. 18. During the public consultation period, the main source of information was Issue 3 of the News Update leaflet, a copy of which was circulated to all Members together with the Members' Information Item of 21st September 2001. The News Update leaflet contained a questionnaire for return by post. Views were also received in correspondence from a number of organisations and individual people. 19. Public exhibitions, attended by 1800 visitors, were held for two days in eight different locations including Leicester, Loughborough and Kegworth. This gave people the opportunity to find out more about the options being considered by the study and to express views directly to members of the study team. 20. From the questionnaire returns, correspondence and visitors to the public exhibitions, a wide range of views has been obtained. However, this self selecting sample, does not give a representative basis for gauging the levels of support for the different transport options under consideration. To gain this additional insight, a large household survey took place in parallel with the public exhibitions with 500 interviews in each of eight areas mainly corresponding to the locations of the public exhibitions. This provided a proper random sample of 4000 households. 21. The results of the household survey show a broad consensus that congestion is a serious problem needing to be tackled and that public transport needs to be improved, although there was disagreement on how effective this would be on its own. Most respondents accept that a combination of measures is required involving a mix of:- • Public transport improvements • Road improvements • Travel awareness and behaviour change The exceptions are the 7% of respondents who see road improvements as largely sufficient and the 5% who are opposed to road building. 22. The biggest split in opinion is on the issue of road user charging. However the findings indicate that although most people oppose the idea as an infringement of their freedom, and yet another tax on car drivers, about 60% of respondents seemed prepared to accept some road user charging in exchange for reduced levels of congestion. The analysis goes into some detail on this particular issue and also the various preferences for improving the motorway. Whilst there are many combinations of view, the weight of opinion appears to lie in favour of major improvements to the motorway. 4 D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\3\6\1\AI00003163\MultiModal40.doc Document Pack Page 351 Overall Strategy 23. The following broad conclusions have been drawn from the consultation report leading to an overall strategy as set out below. 24. Overall within the study area, the Government’s forecasts indicate traffic growth of 23% over the next 20 years. Without increasing motorway capacity, traffic flows on the M1 are predicted to increase by on average 35%. 25. From the early testing of a package of maximum public transport investments, the reduction in road traffic was a marginal 5% although this was matched by a 30% increase in the use of public transport. This means that if the aim is to reduce traffic to any greater extent, more would have to be done, over and above the initiatives that it has been possible to test during the study. 26. The existing travel pattern is dominated by journeys which are difficult to make by existing public transport. It will take very many years to put in place better public transport and begin to encourage a travel pattern that is less dependent on car journeys via the M1. This could require additional charging for car use or substantial travel behaviour change. 27. In the meantime the consultation report concludes that there will be unavoidable traffic growth which will use less safe local roads unless the motorway is upgraded to relieve existing congestion and accommodate the extra traffic. The overall strategy therefore consists of:- • Targeted improvements to public transport; • Major upgrading of the M1 to dual 4 or dual 5 lanes in width; • A comprehensive travel behaviour change strategy; • Further testing of methods of road user charging and consideration of stricter control of parking availability across the region as well as workplace parking charges in the three cities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Railfuture Response to National Infrastructure
    RAILFUTURE RESPONSE TO NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE COMMISSION RAIL NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE MIDLANDS AND THE NORTH – CALL FOR EVIDENCE FOLLOWING INTERIM REPORT Contribution from Railfuture East Midlands Branch – August 2020 National Infrastructure Commission | Rail Needs Assessment for the Midlands and the North - Interim report https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/RNA-Interim-Report-Final.pdf Introduction: The Railfuture response dated 29th May 2020 to the first round of this consultation https://www.railfuture.org.uk/display2324 placed considerable emphasis on freight. In contributing to the August call for evidence, we in East Midlands Branch: Re-submit our May 2020 Rf EM Branch submission for previous NIC RNA call for evidence. This is on pp6-15 below in red text with a few subsequent additions in blue. Attempt to answer the NIC’s broad questions Q1 to Q4 below. References are to the pages and tables in the NIC’s Interim Report (see header.) Prepared by: Steve Jones, Branch Secretary, Railfuture East Midlands Branch [email protected] including contributions from members of EM Branch. Question 1: Please provide specific sources for evidence that the Commission could use in estimating costs and the impact of proposals on journey time and capacity. For schemes already proposed other than by Railfuture, such as those listed on p36, much information is already available from Network Rail, SNTBs (TfN, Midlands Connect), local and combined authorities, TOCs, DfT. Campaign organisations. For additional schemes put forward by Railfuture, further work would need to be done, though campaign groups such as SENRUG, SELRAP, MEMRAP and CRIL may have initial estimates for specific lines or areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Timetable Planning Rules
    TIMETABLE PLANNING RULES East Midlands 2020 TIMETABLE VERSION 2.0 Issued by Amy Forte Timetable Production Manager The Quadrant:MK Elder Gate Milton Keynes Buckinghamshire MK9 1EN Tel: 07801 334042 Final Proposal for Principal Change Timetable 2020 8th February 2019 NETWORK RAIL Timetable Planning Rules Version: 2.0 East Midlands Final Proposal for Principal Change Date: 8 February 2019 Timetable 2020 Page: 2 of 113 Contents Section Page no. Section Page no. 4.6 Engineers’ Trains Restrictions ........................ 32 1 Introduction and General Notes ............... 3 5 Running Times, Margins and Allowances 33 1.1 Index of Routes ................................................ 4 1.2 Sectional Appendices and Rule Book .............. 5 5.1 Sectional Running Times ................................ 33 1.2.1 Sectional Appendix .................................... 5 5.1.1 Source of Current SRTs .......................... 33 1.2.2 Rule Book .................................................. 5 5.1.2 Method of Calculation .............................. 33 1.3 Definitions......................................................... 7 5.1.3 New and Revised Sectional Running Times34 1.3.1 Train Classification .................................... 7 5.1.4 Timing of Trains Conveying Passengers on Goods Lines ....................................................... 34 1.3.2 Days of Operation ................................... 11 5.2 Headways ....................................................... 35 1.3.3 Traction and Rolling Stock .....................
    [Show full text]
  • LNW Route Specification 2017
    Delivering a better railway for a better Britain Route Specifications 2017 London North Western London North Western July 2017 Network Rail – Route Specifications: London North Western 02 SRS H.44 Roses Line and Branches (including Preston 85 Route H: Cross-Pennine, Yorkshire & Humber and - Ormskirk and Blackburn - Hellifield North West (North West section) SRS H.45 Chester/Ellesmere Port - Warrington Bank Quay 89 SRS H.05 North Transpennine: Leeds - Guide Bridge 4 SRS H.46 Blackpool South Branch 92 SRS H.10 Manchester Victoria - Mirfield (via Rochdale)/ 8 SRS H.98/H.99 Freight Trunk/Other Freight Routes 95 SRS N.07 Weaver Junction to Liverpool South Parkway 196 Stalybridge Route M: West Midlands and Chilterns SRS N.08 Norton Bridge/Colwich Junction to Cheadle 199 SRS H.17 South Transpennine: Dore - Hazel Grove 12 Hulme Route Map 106 SRS H.22 Manchester Piccadilly - Crewe 16 SRS N.09 Crewe to Kidsgrove 204 M1 and M12 London Marylebone to Birmingham Snow Hill 107 SRS H.23 Manchester Piccadilly - Deansgate 19 SRS N.10 Watford Junction to St Albans Abbey 207 M2, M3 and M4 Aylesbury lines 111 SRS H.24 Deansgate - Liverpool South Parkway 22 SRS N.11 Euston to Watford Junction (DC Lines) 210 M5 Rugby to Birmingham New Street 115 SRS H.25 Liverpool Lime Street - Liverpool South Parkway 25 SRS N.12 Bletchley to Bedford 214 M6 and M7 Stafford and Wolverhampton 119 SRS H.26 North Transpennine: Manchester Piccadilly - 28 SRS N.13 Crewe to Chester 218 M8, M9, M19 and M21 Cross City Souh lines 123 Guide Bridge SRS N.99 Freight lines 221 M10 ad M22
    [Show full text]
  • East Midlands Route Study March 2016 Foreword March 2016 Network Rail – East Midlands Route Study 02
    Long Term Planning Process East Midlands Route Study March 2016 Foreword March 2016 Network Rail – East Midlands Route Study 02 We are delighted to present the East Midlands Route Study, a The work carried out within this Route Study enables us to identify document which sets out the building blocks of our strategic vision any gaps between the planned capability of the network in 2023, for delivering rail growth throughout the East Midlands over the and the capability required to meet forecast growth for passenger next 30 years. and freight demand. By also looking ahead over the longer term to 2043, we can build our understanding of capacity needs in the The East Midlands route serves many different rail markets, long future, making plans to deliver those in the most efficient manner. distance and commuting services operate regularly into London St Pancras International. Strong links between urban centres, such as Network Rail has led the development of the East Midlands Route Nottingham, Leicester and Derby, help people travel for work, Study which was published as a Draft for Consultation in January education and leisure. Being located at the heart of Britain’s rail 2015, and was open for consultation until April 2015. The study has network means the Route forms a key part of major cross country been developed using a collaborative approach with input from the and freight journeys. rail industry, local authorities, users and developers from the freight industry, the Department for Transport and Rail Delivery Group. Over recent years, the rail industry has seen consistent growth in demand and this is forecast to continue.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Document Pack
    Public Document Pack Meeting Planning and Environment Scrutiny Committee Date/Time Thursday 24 January 2002 at 2:00 pm Location Sparkenhoe Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield Officer to contact Ms. J. Bailey (Tel: 0116 265 6225) E-Mail [email protected] Membership Mr. D. R. Bown CC (Chairman) Mr. D. C. Bill CC Mr. P. D. Boult TD, CC Mrs. C. E. Brock CC Mr. B. Chapman AE, CC Mr. R. Fraser CC Mr. A. M. Kershaw CC Mr. O. D. Lucas CC Mr. C. H. G. MacLeod CC Mr. S. H. Preston CC Lt. Col. P. A. Roffey DL, CC AGENDA Item Report by Marked 1. Minutes of the meeting held on 20 December, 2001. A 2. Questions asked by electors under Standing Order 35. 3. Questions asked by Members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). 4. Any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent elsewhere on the agenda. 5. Declarations of pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests in respect of items on this agenda. 6. Declarations of the Party Whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16. 7. Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 36. B To consider the following petition: Petition presented by Mr. E.F. White CC, signed by _______C O U N T Y H A L L • G L E N F I E L D • L E I C E S T E R • L E 3 8 R A_____ T E L E P H O N E: 0116 232 3232 • F A X: 0116 265 6260 • M I N I C O M: 0116 265 6160 e.mail: [email protected] 2 413 local residents concerning the Earl Shilton bypass – the terms detailed in the paper marked ‘B’ on the agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Doningtonno Rock Festival in the UK Is Held in Such Affection by Fans and Bands Alike As Castle Donington Monsters of Rock
    FEATURE UNCOVERED DONINGTONNo rock festival in the UK is held in such affection by fans and bands alike as Castle Donington Monsters Of Rock. Not only did it define the ’80s metal scene, but it also created an environment where rock fans could be loud, proud, and more often than not incredibly muddy! John Nicholson brings you a heartfelt appreciation of why - A CELEBRATION Donington was so very special… “We parked up and walked over the hill and looked down into the bowl for the first time. There, spread out before us, were thousands and thousands of rock fans from all over the country. And the great thing was, they all looked just like us! It was such a great spirit.” Andy Copping, Live Nation executive president of UK touring WHEN PROMOTERS PAUL LOASBY and Maurice BACK IN the late ’70s there simply was no festival heavy rock was mutating into heavy metal, and when Loasby and Jones set a date for the inaugural Monsters Jones of Midland Concert Promotions (MCP) sat down dedicated to rock and metal in the UK. Yes, you could NWOBHM acts were pulling the music into a new decade of Rock – 16 August 1980. Tickets cost £7.50. Some together in a pub somewhere in the East Midlands in go to Knebworth to see the likes of Led Zeppelin. But with a speedier, more aggressive, reinvented brand of estimates put the attendance at 35,000, others at nearer 1979 and discussed the idea of putting on a one-day you’d have to sit through Chas and Dave, Fairport bludgeon riffola.
    [Show full text]
  • Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
    Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy March 2016 www.slcrail.com 1 | P a g e Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy CONTENTS Executive Summary 1. The Commission 2. Context 2.1 The Political Context 2.2 The Rail Industry Context 2.3 Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Economic Plan 3. The Industry Planning Process 3.1 The Long Term Plan 3.2 Indicative Train Service Specifications 4 Methodology 4.1 General Principles 4.2 Gross Value Added (GVA) Modelling 5. Leicestershire’s Rail Network 5.1 The Current Network 5.2 Passenger Services 5.3 Freight Services 5.4 Network Capacity 6. Planned Enhancements 6.1 Midland Main Line 6.2 East Midlands Gateway Strategic Freight Interchange 6.3 East West Rail 6.4 High Speed 2 7. GVA Study Results 8. Leicester to London 8.1 Enhanced Conventional Services 8.2 The Effects of HS2 on Leicester – London services 9. Train Service Options 9.1 To Leeds and North East England via HS2 9.2 To Swindon and Bristol 9.3 To the Thames Valley 9.4 To Manchester 9.5 To Leeds and North East England via the Conventional Network 9.6 To the Sussex Coast and/or Sevenoaks 9.7 To Norwich 9.8 To Burton-upon-Trent 10. “Making it Happen” 7.1 Next Steps 7.2 Opportunities to Influence Appendix A. Summary of Train Service Options Appendix B. Assessment of Economic Impact of Rail Service Options (separate supporting report incorporating the detailed GVA analysis.) 2 | P a g e Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Commission SLC Rail was commissioned in May 2015 to prepare a rail strategy for Leicester and Leicestershire.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Trains Refranchise Report
    REMAPPING OF THE CENTRAL TRAINS FRANCHISE PASSENGER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DELIVERY OF RAIL SERVICES IN THE EAST MIDLANDS TRAVELWATCH East Midlands MAY 2006 TRAVELWATCH EAST MIDLANDS REMAPPING OF THE CENTRAL TRAINS FRANCHISE CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3. SEEKING THE PASSENGER VIEW 3.1 THE PASSENGER SURVEY 3.1.1 Methodology 3.1.2. Results from ‘top 10 priorities’ question 3.1.2.1 Results from the East Midlands Survey 3.1.2.2 Comparison of results: East Midlands and West Midlands surveys 3.1.2.3 Comparison of results East midlands and National surveys 3.1.2.4 Conclusions from comparing survey results 3.1.3. Results from ‘paired choice’ question 3.1.4. Other comments 3.2. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 3.3. DISCUSSIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS 4. THE TRAVEL MARKET 4.1 INTER-CITY TO LONDON 4.2 INTER-URBAN AND REGIONAL 4.3 LOCAL-SUBURBAN 4.4. LOCAL-RURAL Page 2 TRAVELWATCH EAST MIDLANDS REMAPPING OF THE CENTRAL TRAINS FRANCHISE 4.5 INTER-REGIONAL 5. ROUTE SPECIFIC ISSUES 5.1 ROUTES ALLOCATED TO THE EAST MIDLANDS FRANCHISE 5.1.1 St Pancras – Derby / Nottingham / Sheffield / Leeds 5.1.2 Liverpool – Nottingham – Norwich 5.1.3 Matlock – Derby 5.1.4 Crewe – Skegness 5.1.5 Leicester – Loughborough – Lincoln 5.1.6 Worksop – Nottingham 5.1.7 Cleethorpes – Lincoln – Newark / Nottingham 5.1.8 Doncaster – Lincoln – Peterborough 5. 2 ROUTES ALLOCATED TO THE WEST MIDLANDS FRANCHISE 5.2.1 Birmingham –Leicester 5.2.2 Euston – Northampton 5.2.3 Birmingham – Coventry / Northampton 5.2.4 Coventry – Nuneaton 5.3 ROUTES ALLOCATED TO THE CROSS COUNTRY FRANCHISE 5.3.1 Cardiff / Hereford – Nottingham 5.3.2 Birmingham – Stansted Airport 5.3.3 Birmingham-Derby-Sheffield (existing Cross Country route) 5.4 OTHER ASPIRATIONS 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Document Pack
    Public Document Pack Meeting Cabinet Date/Time Tuesday 22 January 2002 at 2:30 pm Location Goscote Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield Officer to contact Miss P.B. Ewen - (0116 265 6036) E-Mail [email protected]. Membership Mr. H. Barber CC (Chairman) Mr. R. Mason CC Mr. R. Miller CC Mr. I. D. Ould CC Mr. D. R. Parsons CC Mrs. L. A. S. Pendleton CC Prof. M. E. Preston CC Mr. E. F. White CC Mr. P. G. Winkless CC AGENDA Item Report by Marked 1. To Advise of Any Other Items which the Chairman has Decided to take as Urgent on the Agenda 2. Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interest in Respect of Items on the Agenda 3. Quality Protects Management Action Plan Director of Social A Services 4. Learning Disability Joint Investment Plan Update Director of Social B 2002/03 Services 5. Education Development Plan 2002-2007 Director of Education C 6. Early Years Development and Childcare Director of Education D Implementation Plan 2002/2003 7. Changes to the Procedure for Appointing LEA Director of Education E Governors _______C O U N T Y H A L L • G L E N F I E L D • L E I C E S T E R • L E 3 8 R A_____ T E L E P H O N E: 0116 232 3232 • F A X: 0116 265 6260 • M I N I C O M: 0116 265 6160 8. Implementing the Expanded Shire Grants Scheme Acting Director of F Planning and Transportation, Director of Education, Head of Museums and Chief Executive 9.
    [Show full text]
  • East Midlands Thermal EHV System Map-Default
    EAST MIDLANDS DISTRIBUTED GENERATION CONSTRAINT MAP MISSON MISTERTON DANESHILL NORTH GENERATION WHEATLEY WEST BURTON HV TRUSTHORPE DB HALLCROFT RD HVB HALFWAY HOLME WORKSOP RETFORD B.R. CARR WEST ORDSALL RD WORKSOP ECKINGTON HVA KILTON RD CHECKERHOUSE WESTHORPE WOODBECK DB WRAGBY MANTON LINCOLN CHESTERFIELD WHITWELL CLOWNE SOUTH CARLTON BUXTON EYAM SHEEPBRIDGE STAVELEY ALFORD CRAGGS LANE STAVELEY WORKS BEVERCOTES CY SHEFFIELD ANDERSON LANE ROAD CF CHAPEL ST HX AX FISKERTON LEONARDS LINCOLN ROBIN HOOD GOITSIDE BOLSOVER TUXFORD HORNCASTLE QUEENS PARK RUSTONS ROBERT HYDE BUDBY CHESTERFIELD DH CHESTERFIELD WALTON WARSOP DODDINGTON ROOKERY FLAGG BAKEWELL PARK HINDLOW LANE WINGERWORTH SOOKHOLME THORESBY NORTH HYKEHAM INGOLDMELLS SHIREBROOK OLLERTON PC ACREAGE LANE GRASSMOOR CS SPILSBY MIDDLEMARSH BIWATER SWINDERBY WADDINGTON CT CARLTON ON TRENT MANSFIELD CLIPSTONE DANESMOOR BILSTHORPE MILLCLOSE WOODHALL SPA SKEGNESS WARTH LANE LINCOLN SKEGNESS METHERINGHAM CH HR TEVERSAL CROWN FM MATLOCK CO SKEGBY LANE LIME TREE PLACE HUTHWAITE HUTHWAITE RUFFORD AX WINSTER SUTTON BLACKWELL JUNCTION WESSINGTON MANSFIELDAU ALFRETON FARNSFIELD NEWARK STICKNEY TATTERSHALL MEADOW LANE PINITON CROMFORD NEWARK LONGCLIFFE BENTINCK AX ANNESLEY STAYTHORPE 'B' JUNCTION SITE BLIDWORTH AU HOPTON KIRKBY SOMERCOTES HL SOUTHWELL STAYTHORPE 'C' SHERWOOD HL HL DE PARK AMBERGATE RIPLEY WESTWOOD LEADENHAM AR HM AD HAWTON TZ RUSKINGTON HA WRANGLE CRANWELL CALVERTON HUCKNALL AD HMT MOORGREEN NOTTINGHAM LANGRICK CO SLEAFORD BELPER HEANOR TOWN CAYTHORPE DENBY ARNOLD SIBTHORPE ASHBOURNE
    [Show full text]
  • Ivanhoe Line Stage II Scheme Re-Appraisal
    Leicestershire County Council Ivanhoe Line Stage II Scheme Re-Appraisal Final April 2009 Leicestershire County Council Ivanhoe Line Stage II Scheme Re-Appraisal Revision Schedule Ivanhoe Line Stage II Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by 1 July 2008 Draft Tony Magee - Senior Transport Planner Principal Engineer 2 Sept 2008 Draft Tony Magee - Senior Transport Planner Principal Engineer 3 Nov 08 Draft Richard Carr Phil Deaves Rail Operations Manager Consultant Principal Engineer 4 21 Nov 08 Draft Richard Carr Phil Deaves Rail Operations Manager Consultant Principal Engineer 5 9 Jan 09 Draft Principal Engineer Associate Associate 6 23 Feb 09 Final Principal Engineer Associate Associate 7 30 Apr 09 Final Principal Engineer Associate Associate Scott Wilson 12 Regan Way Chetwynd Business Park This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Scott Wilson's appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that Nottingham appointment. It is addressed to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Scott Wilson's client. Scott Wilson accepts no liability for any NG9 6RZ use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, Tel: 0115 907 7000 without the prior written permission of the Company Secretary of Scott Wilson Ltd. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this Fax: 0115 907 7001 document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
    57 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy February 2017 www.slcrail.com 58 LEICESTER AND LEICESTERSHIRE RAIL STRATEGY 59 LEICESTER AND LEICESTERSHIRE RAIL STRATEGY DOCUMENT CONTROL Version Amendment details Author Date First issue to clients None SLC Rail 8 December 2016 02 Update of Priority 3 LCC / SLC Rail 13 December 2016 03 Revisions to take account of LCC 21 December 2016 consultation responses and paragraph numbering added 04 Revisions to take account of LCC 30 December 2016 comments received from Assistant Director Highways and Transportation, Leicestershire County Council 04 Minor text corrections and LCC 4 January 2017 tidying 05 Changes proposed by Leicester Leicester City 9 January 2017 City Council Council 0.6 Minor clarifications and SLC 11 January 2017 additions of keys to diagrams Cover image: .............................. Copyright .............. This document is copyright 2016 Leicester City Council, Leicestershire County Council and the Leicestershire Local Enterprise Partnership. The document commissioner is permitted allowable use of the contents, excluding commercial copying/reuse 60 LEICESTER AND LEICESTERSHIRE RAIL STRATEGY 61 LEICESTER AND LEICESTERSHIRE RAIL STRATEGY TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 4 Commission 4 Context 4 Priorities 4 Action Plan 7 1. The Commission .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]