Item No 4 By: Mr A King, Cabinet Member --- Regeneration Pete Raine, Strategic Director Strategic Planning
To: Cabinet --- 5 April 2004
Integrated Kent Rail Franchise (IKF) Subject:
Classification: Unrestricted
______Summary: This report recommends that a draft response to the Strategic Rail Authority’s (SRA’s) consultation should form the basis for the County Council’s submission.
For Decision
1. Introduction
History
1.1 Since 1986, the County Council has recognised the opportunities the Channel Tunnel and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) provide to modernise Kent’s railway system. Kent has supported both projects, despite having to put up with considerable disruption due to the building of the Tunnel, started in 1987, followed by the CTRL which is still under construction. It did so in the expectation that there would be a significant improvement to rail services as outlined during the Select Committee process in both Houses of Parliament. The proposed new Integrated Kent Franchise has the potential to improve rail services in Kent dramatically for the first time since 1963. It is vital for the people of Kent that the SRA’s specification addresses the needs of the county and that the franchise holder has the flexibility in the future to add services as demand grows.
1.2 The SRA’s consultation period for its Integrated Kent Franchise proposals ends on 23 April. A Kent Rail Forum meeting was held on 29 March where representatives of Medway Council, District Council, other representative bodies and key private sector companies attended to discuss the proposals. Richard Bowker, the Chairman of the SRA, attended for part of the meeting.
2. Draft Consultation Response
2.1 Following the Kent Rail Forum, a draft County Council response has been prepared and is attached. It is recommended that the Cabinet approves this draft as the basis for the County Council’s response to the consultation. Following Cabinet, the draft will be circulated to members of the Kent Rail Forum for comment and it is recommended that the Cabinet Member for Regeneration is remitted to approve any subsequent changes that result. It is also recommended that the County Council puts forward a nominee to the non-executive board of the IKF franchise holder so that the interests of the people of Kent are represented.
- 4.1 - 3. Recommendations
It is recommended that:
• the attached draft response forms the basis for the County Council’s submission to the SRA; • approval of the final submission to the SRA is delegated to Alex King, the Cabinet Member for Regeneration. • That the County Council puts forward a nominee to the non-executive board of the IKF franchise holder.
Mick Sutch David Hall Head of Planning & Transport Strategy Regeneration & Projects Manager Tel: (01622) 221612 (01622) 221982
Background Documents: Integrated Kent Franchise --- SRA, February 2004.
COM\IKF CABINET APRIL 2004
- 4.2 - Integrated Kent Rail Franchise A Response to the SRA from Kent County Council ( DRAFT )
1. Executive Summary
1.1 New fast services from East and North Kent to Stratford and St Pancras are welcomed.
Particular concerns relate to:
• Capacity issues and loss of existing London termini facilities on the North Kent line. • Loss of off-peak provision at many rural stations. • Overall provision of services to/from Maidstone. • Rail heading. • The failure of the service proposals to take into account the significant growth planned for Kent and London. • The impact on London Bridge of the policy to restrict London termini operation is a major concern. • The provision of CTRL domestic services to Dover. • Proposals are London Centric.
2. Background
2. 1 History
Since 1986, the County Council has recognised the opportunity the Channel Tunnel and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) provide to modernise Kent’s railway system. Kent has supported both projects despite considerable disruption due to the building of the Tunnel, started in 1987, followed by the CTRL which is still under construction. It did so in the expectation that there would be a significant improvement to rail services as outlined during the Select Committee process in both Houses of Parliament. The proposed new Integrated Kent Franchise has the potential to improve rail services in Kent dramatically for the first time since 1963. It is vital for the people of Kent that the SRA gets it right.
2.2 Rail Co-ordination
Kent County Council actively works with the rail industry in a number of important areas through a Memorandum of Understanding with South Eastern Trains. We also support an innovative funding co-ordination agreement in partnership with South Eastern Trains and Network Rail.
It is in this context, as an active stakeholder and “critical friend” to the rail industry that the County Council is able to comment knowledgeably on the SRA’s Integrated Kent Franchise (IKF) proposals.
- 4.3 - 2.3 Consultation on IKF
To champion the interests of the people of Kent, the County Council has consulted extensively with a wide range of stakeholders. This has included organisations and individuals with an extensive knowledge of the Kent rail network and its complexities. We have been proactive in undertaking station passenger counts at locations where the IKF proposals will have a significant impact upon the level of service provided as we believe that the industry figures underestimate passenger numbers and particularly school children.
The County Council has brought together political and business partners through the Kent and Medway Rail Forum. This Forum met on 29 March where a broad Kent-wide consensus on the IKF proposals was agreed. 2.4 The Growth Agenda
Existing Regional Planning Guidance and Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan (with designated growth areas in the Thames Gateway and Ashford) will impose substantial house-building in Kent, in addition to the housing which is needed because of internal demographic change. RPG calls for 5,700 new houses per year to be built in Kent for the 15 year period up to 2016 (85,500 new houses). This figure may be further increased by the recommendations of the recent Barker Report.
In parallel with the creation of new homes, the scale of new development, particularly in the Thames Gateway and Ashford, will create up to 100,000 new jobs over the same period.
Such expansion is impossible to achieve in a sustainable way without substantial investment. Kent County Council is working with Government to identify ways to unlock the £10 billion needed to ensure appropriate infrastructure, including rail, is provided. This is clearly a major challenge.
The County Council presented to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in 2003 a document entitled What Price Growth? This recognised four challenges:
• improve rail services, roads and motorway junctions to kick start the Kent economy; • provide community infrastructure for schools, learning, leisure, health and community facilities; • enhance and regenerate existing town centres; • create jobs.
2.5 The Role of Rail
In its response to the CTRL scheme, the County Council developed six key tests to measure the proposals against. Four of these tests remain relevant for consideration of the IKF proposals:
• Economic development – the regeneration of the growth areas and coastal towns.
- 4.4 - • Environment – the need to achieve model shift, particularly road to rail. • Freight – the need to maximise the use of existing lines and CTRL for freight. • Domestic services – faster, more reliable journeys to London and within Kent.
In addition, the County Council considers that rail services should provide good access to:
Work School and post 16 education travel Leisure/shopping Healthcare journeys
This is consistent with the County Council’s priorities in the expenditure of its £6 million bus service budget for supporting services which are necessary for social, school and work reasons.
2.6 Previous IKF Consultation
In November 2003, the County Council provided the following mission statement, agreed by the Kent and Medway Rail Forum, in response to the SRA’s second round of IKF consultation:
Kent Common Position on Service Provision
The concept of the Integrated Kent Franchise is welcomed as it offers the potential to integrate classic and CTRL domestic services and maximise the benefits of the rail service in Kent.
The extension of CTRL Domestic Services beyond the Core Option of Gravesend, Folkestone and Canterbury to include services to Thanet, Medway and Swale is welcomed. These services are essential for the delivery of sustainable growth in the Growth Areas and the priority areas for regeneration.
The current financial position of the SRA is acknowledged. The SRA is funded through central government that is also promoting the sustainable growth of the Thames Gateway and Ashford. It is, therefore, imperative that there is a co-ordinated approach from Government to achieving these services, and that the Integrated Kent Franchise is capable of modification over time to reflect fully current levels of overcrowding and the additional demands that growth in the County will bring.
There should be no overall reduction in the number of trains serving the Growth Areas of the Thames Gateway (south east London to Swale) and Ashford. The SRA should use the opportunity of the complete review of the south east network to seek to maximise the number of services through the Medway Towns within the existing infrastructure constraints in the short term.
The SRA must plan to improve the infrastructure through the Medway Towns and possibly east of Dartford in the medium term so that additional services can be
- 4.5 - introduced as the Thames Gateway develops. This should be reflected within the franchise agreement.
3. Current IKF Proposals
3.1 Background
Kent County Council warmly welcomes the proposal to provide high-speed CTRL domestic services from East and North Kent. These services will, in most cases, substantially reduce journey times to and from London and give a significant boost to the sub-regional economy and the delivery of sustainable development in the Growth Areas and regeneration of the coastal towns. Ebbsfleet and Ashford will be destinations in their own right with the planned mixed growth of housing and employment. The scale of Ebbsfleet in particular requires a large labour catchment area and so needs to be served by an appropriate level of services, both from within the County and in the contra-peak direction from London.
We welcome the SRA’s recognition that train services in West Kent have suffered over the past 10 years through overcrowding and that improvements are justified. The SRA’s positive approach to exploring all options for a CTRL domestic service to Dover is welcome and it is hoped that a solution can shortly be found. The full service implications of a positive decision on these services need to be made clear by the SRA as soon as practically possible.
The County Council is, however, very disappointed that the IKF consultation document is completely silent on any investment in infrastructure which would ease bottlenecks such as Rochester Bridge junction. The consultation process undertaken by the County Council has revealed deep concerns about service reductions to the existing London termini particularly before new travel patterns are fully established. In short, growth priorities for Kent set by Central Government do not appear to be reflected within the IKF Consultation Document.
Concern has also been widely expressed concerning the pressure that is likely to be placed on London Bridge through the reduction in choice of train service destination in London.
The proposal to reduce services at a number of village stations is deplored. This has overshadowed and undermined the consultation process. Depriving communities of an off-peak service will have a devastating effect particularly on school journeys, healthcare visits and shopping/leisure. It will also deprive communities of flexibility and choice of travel times. For those with cars, this will undoubtedly lead to rail heading or switching to car for the whole length of the journey. For those without cars, social exclusion will increase. We believe that the SRA should have undertaken detailed surveys of passenger flows rather than relying on ticket sales data which is inherently unreliable in many cases. This is particularly evident with flows of school children which appear to have simply been ignored. In the absence of any better data, all stations should receive a minimum hourly service with enhancements at school peak travel times, unless special local circumstances demonstrate that this level of provision is unnecessary.
- 4.6 -
The following section will deal in detail with the IKF proposals, line by line;
3.2 North Kent Line via Medway
This line, in the Kent Thames Gateway corridor which is faced with significant development pressures, feels the full impact of “substitution” from existing London termini to St Pancras. We have calculated that at least 1500 “seats” will be lost on services east of Faversham. Journey times to London are extended by around 15 minutes which will have a significant impact upon Whitstable and Herne Bay in particular and could lead to rail heading at Canterbury West.
With the removal of six “slow” services via Gravesend from Gillingham, it is possible to operate more fast services on the North Kent line to existing London termini than is envisaged under IKF. A total of four “fast” Cannon Street services should operate during the peak period with at least one hourly “fast” train to Victoria operating all day. It will also be important to ensure that connections are provided from the Canterbury East/Dover line to the Cannon Street trains as Canterbury West will have no direct link to the City.
CTRL domestic services should be extended from Sittingbourne to Faversham which would provide a very attractive level of service from Faversham and ease the potential bottle-neck at Sittingbourne.
3.3 Ashford-Maidstone-West Malling
The proposal to withdraw the off-peak service at Charing, Lenham, Hollingbourne and Harrietsham is not acceptable. Station counts have been undertaken at these locations and significant flows of school children use the service in the morning peak and mid-afternoon. Other than Lenham, it is accepted that there is relatively low use of these stations at peak times, but a withdrawal of the off-peak service would encourage people with cars to access stations with an all day service, i.e., Bearsted or Staplehurst with the associated parking problems that this creates. Journey time between Canterbury and Maidstone is not a particular issue and it is strongly recommended that the Canterbury West-Ashford-Maidstone-Victoria trains stop additionally at stations between Canterbury and Bearsted.
The three additional peak trains from Maidstone East are welcomed and it is hoped that a balance of slow and fast services can be achieved to improve the attractiveness of the Maidstone East line.
However, the loss of the shoulder peak fast Charing Cross and fast off-peak Cannon Street services is not acceptable as this will further enhance the perception of the poor journey times between Maidstone and London. It is recognised that the current fast Cannon Street service is poorly patronised, but the new Maidstone Fremlins Walk shopping centre, the significant additional development of Kings Hill and the proposed housing growth in Maidstone, Malling and the Medway Gap will significantly increase the demand on this line.
- 4.7 - We are particularly concerned about the limitations in capacity on the Maidstone line through the introduction of class 465 Networkers. With a maximum length of six carriages due to platform length constraints, careful attention must be given to stopping patterns to avoid overcrowding.
It is recognised that there is minimal off-peak use of Kemsing but there would be little inconvenience in stopping the slow off-peak hourly Maidstone East-Victoria at this station.
3.4 Dover
We appreciate that the SRA is looking at all possibilities regarding CTRL access to Dover. It is regretted, however, that existing classic services from Dover are significantly slower than at present. This is not acceptable and the SRA is urged to plan for fast connectivity from Dover at Ashford and/or Folkestone.
3.5 Tonbridge/Tunbridge Wells/Sevenoaks
The proposed service pattern is broadly welcomed, although widespread concern has been expressed about the reduction of direct trains to Cannon Street. This is likely to place a significant pressure on London Bridge as more commuters will seek to change trains at the station. The reduction in service to hourly for Dunton Green and Knockholt is unacceptable in view of the existing peak use of these stations. In particular, this relates to a reduction in the Sevenoaks “slow” services and it is recommended that at least two of these trains are reinstated over the peak period. We recommend that consideration is given to stopping the slower Hastings trains additionally at Sevenoaks.
3.6 Sheerness Branch Line
There is surprisingly high use of this line between Sittingbourne and Sheerness, particularly at peak times. The reduction of this service to hourly is unacceptable as it would not be possible to cater for existing passenger flows. There is a significant level of new development proposed for the Isle of Sheppey which will further increase demand for services on this line. There is no operational reason why the Sheerness branch line needs to be reduced by half.
A Community Rail Partnership is in place on the Sheerness branch line and a good deal of local effort is being put in to local improvements and marketing initiatives. Reduction of this service will undermine the good progress which has already been made.
The proposal to serve Swale with one train per week is unacceptable and appears to be a cynical way of avoiding a station closure.
- 4.8 - The proposal to operate Medway Valley line trains to Tonbridge is welcomed. This will significantly enhance the attractiveness of this line for journeys between Tonbridge, Maidstone and the Medway Towns.
The proposal to reduce stopping services at Maidstone Barracks is unacceptable as this provides the main station link to Maidstone East. Significant pupil flows have also been identified between Cuxton, Snodland and Aylesford to schools west of Maidstone town centre.
The proposal to serve Beltring with one train per week is unacceptable and appears to be a cynical attempt to avoid a station closure.
We regret that an opportunity has not been sought to re-look at joining the Medway Valley line with the Redhill-Gatwick corridor as part of a wider orbital route.
Given that the Medway Valley line will form a valuable link between Maidstone and CTRL domestic services at Strood, we are very disappointed to note the reduction to hourly provision after the peak period. Off-peak services are usually operated at marginal cost so the service reduction appears to make little sense, particularly in view of significant planned development along the Medway Valley.
3.8 North Kent-South East London Network
The service specification appears to indicate that all station services do not run east of Slade Green except in the peak. This removes the direct link from Dartford to Belvedere, Erith and Slade Green which is unacceptable.
In broad terms, the service proposals are supported although it must be recognised that there is a balance between these and the travel needs of longer distance Kent commuters.
Service proposals from Gravesend are broadly welcomed although the loss of the peak hour service to Cannon Street is unacceptable. This will further compound the need to change trains at London Bridge with the pressures that this will create.
Kent County Council is keen to ensure that connectivity between classic services and the new high speed link is made between Northfleet and Ebbsfleet. This is likely to be a key interchange point.
4. Other Key Issues
4.1 Background
In addition to the specific train service proposals there are a number of absolutely key issues, fundamental to the successful introduction of high quality rail services in Kent. These are described below.
4.2 Capacity for Growth- Review of IKF Services
- 4.9 - Section 2.4 of this response discusses the growth agenda for Kent. Our concern is that this has not been fully taken into account through the IKF proposals.
Growth of employment in London is now forecast at 636,000 extra jobs over the next five years which will increase commuting from Kent. We are also concerned that whilst the IKF service specification is quite detailed in the proposed number of trains, it gives no clues as to the overall capacity. In the context of significant numbers of new homes and jobs, this is a real concern.
At the Kent and Medway Rail Forum held on 29 March, Richard Bowker gave an assurance that the IKF service provision will be reviewed relatively soon after commencement. It is suggested that this is done in 2012 or when Thameslink 2000 is introduced. This should ensure that the rail services from Kent are fit for purpose, the Growth Areas are appropriately served and the extra capacity at London Bridge and through to St Pancras on Thameslink are correctly apportioned and overcrowding on Kent services is minimised. This review will also show how attractive Ebbsfleet has proved to be and how large its catchment area actually is when passengers experience congestion, parking charges and possible premium fares. It will also demonstrate how well connections with bus and underground work at St Pancras and Stratford. Within the context of this review, the Train Operating Company should be encouraged to add services according to demand.
4.3 Ebbsfleet/Stratford
Whilst fast services to St Pancras are welcomed, we have concerns that these services will pose additional demands on the underground and national rail network. Delays to the Thameslink 2000 project means that essential additional capacity designed to complement CTRL will not be available for some years. TfL have calculated that an additional 5000 passengers per hour will be arriving at St Pancras with existing facilities providing insufficient capacity to enable efficient dispersal.
The County Council believes that Stratford is potentially a very attractive location from Kent, given its close proximity to the City of London and Docklands. This could be undermined, however, given the location of CTRL in relation to the existing Underground and national rail facilities. We urge therefore, that consideration is given to diverting the Dockland Light Railway (DLR) into CTRL and Stratford.
4.4 CTRL/Classic Integration
The transfer of significant numbers of passengers east of Faversham and Canterbury to CTRL does reduce the connectivity and journey opportunities on existing classic services. It is therefore very important that interchange between classic and CTRL services are given the highest priority particularly at Ashford and Ebbsfleet.
4.5 Quality Services
- 4.10 - The standard of train services in Kent has to improve, both in terms of punctuality and reliability. This includes the quality of rolling stock and the station environment. It is critical that the Train Operating Company is given incentives to make improvements in the cleanliness of trains and the whole station experience including personal security. The longer distance operation of the Networker fleet is a concern and the SRA is urged to ensure that these trains are brought up to a standard which is fit for purpose and includes selective door operating equipment so that the platform lengths do not determine the capacity of a particular line.
4.6 Car Parking
There are a number of stations that will be directly affected by car parking issues particularly related to the operation of high-speed trains. We are particularly concerned about the potential impact of Ebbsfleet and it is important that a balanced policy is formulated to ensure that this station does not completely undermine other adjacent train services.
4.7 Engineering Works
Whilst acknowledging the importance of a safe and well-maintained railway, we are concerned at the possible encroachment of engineering works into the “core traffic” day on Monday to Wednesday nights. This will do little to encourage off-peak rail patronage and could increase car trips to the outskirts of London.
4.8 Freight
Increasing the transfer of freight from road to rail is a key issue for the County Council, so it is imperative that sufficient pathways through the County are reserved for railfreight to the Channel Tunnel and the major ports and that the opportunity to run railfreight to Dover is maintained. It is also vitally important that the potential impacts of the proposed Howbury Park intermodal terminal at Erith and other possible terminal facilities in or near the county are factored into the Integrated Kent Franchise specification. Additionally, there is a need to improve the economics of railfreight dramatically to compete with road haulage. This would be achieved from 2007 by running high-gauge freight on the CTRL between Barking and mainland Europe at night when Eurostar and domestic CTRL services are not running. This will demonstrate the need for gauge enhancement on the existing network, between the Channel Tunnel/Dover, London and beyond in the longer term.
5. Conclusions
The Integrated Kent Rail Franchise offers a one off opportunity for a vastly better quality of train service in Kent and South East London. Whilst we warmly welcome the proposal to offer a fast service from East and North Kent to London, the IKF proposals do not sufficiently take into account the scale of growth with is effectively being forced on Kent by Central Government. Unless appropriate investment is allocated to ensure a railway fit for the 21 st century, the Government’s growth agenda will be difficult to achieve and impossible to sustain.
- 4.11 - Next Steps
It is recommended that Cabinet approves this document as the basis of the County Council’s response to the SRA on the IKF proposals. It will sent to all members of the Kent and Medway Rail Forum although all partners will be encouraged to submit responses to SRA to cover particularly local points of concern.
It is recommended that Kent County Council puts forward a nominee as a non-Executive Board Members to the IKF Franchisee as innovative way of maintaining a close interest in rail in partnership with rail industry.
COM\IKF CABINET APRIL 2004
- 4.12 -