Exec Business22july04herbertstbridge
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CARDIFF COUNTY COUNCIL DINAS A SIR CAERDYDD EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING: 22 JULY 2004 REPLACEMENT OF HERBERT ST BRIDGE AND POSSIBLE PUBLIC TRANSPORT LINKS BETWEEN CARDIFF BAY AND THE CITY CENTRE AGENDA ITEM: 10 Reasons for the Report 1. The Council wishes to enable the Lloyd George/Callaghan Square development to be completed, together with the associated comprehensive urban design package and fixed transport link between Cardiff Bay and the City Centre. This report examines the options available to achieve this end. Background 2. This report examines the options available to achieve completion of the Lloyd George Avenue/Callaghan Square development scheme, whilst seeking to enhance transport links to the city centre and providing the scheme design package element agreed between the former Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and the then Cardiff City Council. The Issues 3. The original concept agreed between Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and the Council’s predecessor authority in 1987 was for a comprehensive urban design package for Lloyd George Avenue and Callaghan Square incorporating new public squares, a linear park, other recreational facilities (made possible by the removal of the heavy rail embankment fronting Bute Street) and a light rail link to the city centre replacing the current heavy rail link. 4. The Scheme was to be progressed in two phases. Phase 1 works, comprising part of Callaghan Square, the road infrastructure and the Flourish have been completed. Phase 2, comprising the completion of the Square, and the removal of the heavy rail embankment to enable the linear park to be created, was subject to legal procedures with possible uncertain outcomes. Because of the uncertainty of these outcomes, a ‘fall back’ scheme was secured in principle in 1997 which would allow completion of the Square and associated road network including a new Page 1 of 10 bridge over Herbert Street. This scheme was to have been completed by December 2003 if the legal procedure had not been satisfactorily advanced. No procedures have as yet been started. 5. Following the wind-up of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation in March 2000, the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) in conjunction with the Welsh Development Agency (WDA) took responsibility for the process, funding and implementation of the outstanding works. A Task Force, which included Council Officers, was set up and chaired by the Welsh Assembly Government, and consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff were commissioned by the WAG to identify and assess the options for maintaining a fixed transport link to the City Centre and completing the Scheme. 6. There are two basic ways in which this can be carried forward, with or without a bridge over Herbert Street. Within these two basic options the consultants identified a number of sub-options based on potentially available rolling stock options. The detailed sub-options identified by the consultants are described in Appendix A. 7. These sub-options were then considered against the five key urban design elements of the scheme as a whole. · Fixed link crossing of Herbert Street. · Location of Cardiff Bay Station. · Embankment and retaining wall between Lloyd George Avenue and Bute Street. · Link to Cardiff Central Station/City Centre · Highway links between Lloyd George Avenue and Bute Street. 8. The WDA preferred option, as recommended by its consultants, is the retention of a heavy rail link to Cardiff Bay Station on a new alignment over a new longer span bridge over Herbert St. This would enable the completion of Callaghan Square and associated road infrastructure, and also ensure that the fixed transport link to the city centre is retained, whilst having no impact on traffic movement through Callaghan Square. The new alignment would also allow limited provision of the recreational elements of the original scheme. In addition the future provision of a light rail link is not prejudiced. This option is, in transportation and legal terms, one of the simplest to implement, although the use of a new alignment would require a Transport and Works Act Order. 9. Other options introduce constraints: for example railcars (diesel powered and able to share heavy rail track) are unable to cross roads at grade without barriered crossings and must be fenced, which would have severe implications for traffic and pedestrian flow around Callaghan Square. A bridge would therefore be necessary. Light rail vehicles (i.e. trams, such as those operating in Manchester and Croydon), which could cross at grade, would have interface problems with existing heavy rail services and infrastructure. Page 2 of 10 10. However from the Council’s point of view the WDA preferred option has a major drawback: it does not allow the full provision of a linear park, recreational facilities or the removal of physical (and social) barriers between Bute St and Lloyd George Avenue, which have been integral to the scheme from its conception, and thus conflicts with established Council policy. This is because the heavy rail link, and the embankment on which it lies, would remain. For this reason the WDA preferred option fails to satisfy the Council. 11. There are fixed transport link options, which could fulfil both the infrastructure and other design/social inclusion aspirations, which were not considered by the WDA’s consultants. An elevated transport system would not need the existing heavy rail alignment, but retention of the heavy rail link will not preclude the development of such a system, which could use a new bridge alignment to access Queen Street Station, provided that scope for this was included in the bridge design. If the heavy rail link were to be closed the embankment and fencing could be removed, enabling the provision of the linear park, recreation facilities and the free movement between Bute St and Lloyd George Avenue to which the Council aspires. Equally the elevated nature of such a guideway would not cause traffic congestion in and around Callaghan Square, as an at-grade light rail system might, and the completion of the Square and associated highway infrastructure could proceed. Modelling exercises carried out for Personal Rapid Transit (PRT), which is one transit system that could operate in this way, have demonstrated that such a system could cope easily with much larger passenger demands than the heavy rail branch currently carries. 12. The removal of the heavy rail embankment raises a number of complex issues, which are summarised below. However the Council aspires to pursue an improved fixed transport link between and within the city centre and Cardiff Bay independently of the issues raised in this report. Design and procurement of a suitable system and network will be taken forward in parallel with the processes outlined in this report, and are in no way prejudicial to the outcome of those processes. The approach could be through a partnership, separate from and running beside the Cardiff Transportation Partnership, and this could be progressed by the same method. 13. A number of complex issues arise from the promotion of any scheme which seeks the removal of the heavy rail link, and agreement from the Train Operating Company, Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail will be necessary before exploring any options which do not include heavy rail. In summary these issues are: (i) Closure of a railway may require an Act of Parliament, which is likely to take up to two years to obtain. (ii) In pursuance of obtaining agreement to a closure proposal objection to the proposal will trigger a Public Inquiry, which must come to a favourable decision. This is also a long and uncertain Page 3 of 10 procedure. The fact that closure would be being sought by a third party adds further complexities to the programme. (iii) The delay inevitably caused by these processes will leave a significant piece of the urban fabric incomplete in the city centre. There are also implications in terms of legal agreements and planning consent conditions. (iv) The current method of operation of Valley Lines services is only possible because of the Cardiff Bay branch. This is because there is insufficient capacity between Cardiff Queen St. and Cardiff Central Station for all the services currently entering Queen St. from the Treherbert, Aberdare, Merthyr Tydfil, Coryton and Rhymney lines to proceed to Cardiff Central. Each hour a number of trains need to be diverted away from the Queen St/Central station link, and the Bay branch is currently the only option. (v) Closure of the Cardiff Bay line would remove direct and connecting train services to Cardiff Bay from the Valley Lines, and could therefore render both local and regional public transport journeys less attractive to both commuters and leisure travellers as a result of journey time and ticketing penalties. (vi) The closure of the Bay branch conflicts with the Regional Rail Strategy which has been endorsed by the South East Wales Transport Alliance (of which the Council is a constituent member) the Strategic Rail Authority and the Welsh Assembly Government. (vii) Changes to the layout in the Callaghan Square/Lloyd George Avenue area would require the agreement of the parties involved in the PFI agreement, together with alterations to the agreement itself. 14. There are however a number of transportation and other benefits which would flow from the implementation of an elevated transit scheme, which are outlined below; · Removal of the community severance caused by the embankment · Improvement in the quality of the link between Queen St and Central Stations, and Central Station and the Bay · Modelling studies of one possible system, Personal Rapid Transit, have shown that there can be a 5-10% increase in other public transport use when a PRT system is in place. This would lead to a marked reduction in traffic congestion with the attendant benefits of less air pollution, fewer accidents etc.