Appendix 1
Item 1.
Liverpool City Region Port Access Steering Group
21st March 2016, 10:30 am Maritime Centre, Port of Liverpool, L21 1LA Proposed Agenda
1. Introductions & Apologies
2. Notes of last meeting and matters arising
3. Combined Authority update [name redacted]
4. Port of Liverpool Access Scheme Highways England • Communications and public engagement - feedback
5. Strategic rail issues Network Rail
6. Port issues Peel Ports • Liverpool 2 – progress/status • Coastal shipping • Biomass operations • Bootle Branch Line doubling • Rail access to Liverpool 2
7. Work programme progress update – overview • HGV parking demand study Sefton Council
8. Communications update
9. Programme and funding
10. Next meetings (tbc) – pm 19th May 2016, pm 25th July 2016
Meeting to conclude by 12 noon, to be followed by a site visit to the port estate to include Bootle Branch Line, warehouse expansion, Liverpool Biomass Terminal, Liverpool 2 and Seaforth Nature Reserve. Site visit is expected to last approx. 1 hour and conclude by 13:00.
Item 2.
Liverpool City Region Port Access Steering Group 10:30 am, Monday 21st March 2016 Maritime Centre, Port of Liverpool
Notes of Meeting
Present Margaret Carney (Chair) Sefton Council [name redacted] Sefton Council [name redacted] DfT [name redacted] Network Rail [name redacted] Network Rail [name redacted] Highways England [name redacted] Atkins [name redacted] Peel Ports
1. Introductions & Apologies
Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Apologies : [name redacted] Liverpool City Council [name redacted] SuperPort Committee Carl Stockton Highways England [name redacted] Halton BC [name redacted] Peel Ports [name redacted] LCR LEP [name redacted] Warrington BC [name redacted] Merseytravel [name redacted] Merseytravel
2. Notes of last meeting and matters arising
Notes of the meeting of 16th November 2015 were accepted as written.
Matters arising are on the agenda.
3. Combined Authority update
The CA continues to develop its approach and systems. The first devolution deal was agreed with Govt and proposals for a stage 2 devolution deal are being developed, which includes dealing with air quality issues and the establishment of a key route network. The Order for the first devolution deal has not been made yet, but the implementation of the deal is continuing anyway.
The AGM of the CA in June will approve an interim constitution that will cover the period until the City Region Mayor is elected in 2017.
The new devolution deal and Growth Plan is expected to include significant investment in transport infrastructure in coming years.
[name redacted] advised the group about the publication of the report on High Speed North, which is available from the national infrastructure commission website.
4. Port of Liverpool Access scheme
[name redacted], who is leading Highways England work on communications and engagement, provided some feedback on the recent public engagement events. Seven of the eight planned events have taken place so far, 2 informal Q&A sessions, 4 larger staffed exhibitions and 1 drop-in session at Asda, with 1 further drop-in session at Tesco remaining. About 450 people have attended the events so far. SM summarised some of the main issues raised so far.
1) Why can’t the freight be taken on rail ? [name redacted] noted that the long term future for rail from the Port was not certain because of commercial issues, but the work required on the rail network had been identified and a programme is underway, which will be part of the Northern Powerhouse rail programme. For rail to be economically viable, the trains need to be 650-750m long (50-60 lorries’ worth).
There are also issues for Peel because not all commodities are suitable for transport by rail. The option for rail in the long term depends on the mix of commodities and the destinations, e.g. biomass will all go by rail, trailers will go by road, animal feed is mostly local distribution so would go by road and containers could be either. The figures of what can or can’t go by rail need to be part of the scheme appraisal process and will be needed as part of the submission for approval of any scheme.
2) Where are the other organisations who are involved ? Why was the engagement only Highways England ? It was generally agreed that more information needed to be provided about the overall programme and the organisations involved.
3) What are the benefits for local communities ? Impacts are clear, but where will there be any benefits ? MC confirmed that Sefton has done some work on this, mainly in terms of employment potential, but that report is not public yet. It can be shared with Highways England for information, but not released more widely. There is a balance between the ‘prize’ and the ‘price’. Information on the ‘prize’ is becoming clearer, but the ‘price’ depends on the current options work and the decision on a preferred option.
4) Preferences for the two options were divided roughly equally, depending on where people lived.
Highways England would like greater engagement with the local MPs, but were conscious of the local political sensitivities. The group considered that I would not be a problem for HE to speak to the MPs. [name redacted] suggested the possibility of offering a briefing to all the CR MPs. MC agreed that this would be useful, but requested that the local MPS were briefed first, before widening the invitation.
A third newsletter will be drafted and published, which is planned to include FAQs arising from the engagement. Planned for release in April/May.
[name redacted] confirmed that Peel is willing to provide information or assistance as necessary, including attending future events.
Media uptake included Carl Stockton interviewed on Radio Merseyside and coverage in the Crosby Herald. MC confirmed that there had not been any sensitivities in relation to Sefton that had arisen.
[name redacted] advised that the next stage of consultation would be on the route options and would probably be later in the year, around Nov/Dec. HE planned to publish newsletters approx. every 3 months.
[name redacted] provided an update on the work that Atkins were doing over the rest of the year on the options assessment : • Updating traffic model; • Assessment of wider economic benefits; • Value engineering of designs for different options; • Incorporate information from ground investigation; • Continue and complete ecology surveys; • Identify mitigation requirements, including replacement land.
5. Strategic Rail
[name redacted] provided an update on strategic rail issues. There is not much change since last meeting. Of the four schemes identified in the Norther Ports and Trans-Pennine study, the three Merseyside schemes are going ahead, with delivery within the current control period (by 2019), but the one in Manchester has been paused.
Site investigations for the doubling of the track at the port entrance began in Feb. A MoU for the doubling has been agreed between MDHC and NR and a budget has been agreed.
In the short to medium term, closure or conversion of coal fired power stations may provide some greater capacity on the network. In the long term, freight capacity on the network will be linked with the HS3 (high speed north) proposals.
[name redacted] advised that the Shaw review of NR had been published last week and was available on the DfT website. Seven key priorities for NR were identified, including a more devolved organisation, better integration of passenger and freight services and increased accountability. The new geography would reflect the TfN boundaries. It was proposed to include NR’s Freight Manager in the PASG group circulation and they would be able to provide more information on operations issues.
The Merseyrail network study has been released for comment, with information about proposals for new trains, new stations etc.
Timescales for the doubling of the Bootle Branch section still need to be confirmed. [name redacted - NR] also agreed to approach NR’s communications team about providing more public information about freight schemes.
6. Port issues
[name redacted] provided an update on port related interventions. He confirmed Peel’s commitment to developing rail freight services from the Port. In Dec, a container train to the Midlands and back had been successfully trialled and Peel were continuing discussions with rail freight operators with the view to establishing a permanent service.
The long term aspiration is to achieve 34-36 trains per day. However, if this is to be achieved, the existing facilities do need to be upgraded to be able to accommodate longer trains and more trains. The aim for container trains is about 15 per day, but it is dependent on market conditions and on improving the infrastructure in the port.
The biggest long term challenge is the rail connection to Liverpool 2. The nature conservation issues associated with re-locating the nature reserve are substantial. An indicative layout for the rail connection has been prepared and discussions with Sefton about the coastal park are ongoing. Peel also need to find a suitable rail depot in the Midlands.
The biomass terminal is operating, with Phase 1 completed and further silos being built, to accommodate 3m tonnes of biomass. At present about 4 trains per day are running, but this is planned to increase to 10-12. It was noted that it would be useful to know what this would relate to in terms of ‘lorry loads’.
A couple of new coastal shipping services have started, one to the Mediterranean and another bringing containers from Southampton.
The Liverpool 2 terminal has experienced some delays, due to bad weather, but is expected to be completed by the summer.
7. Work programme progress update
An updated summary of the progress on the work programme and an updated programme had been circulated with the meeting notes and any comments or observations were invited. No major issues were identified and the majority of interventions are making progress.
[name redacted] asked about the budget that had been allocated for the port access work and what remained available. [name redacted] advised that there was still a significant amount available, but there was still a possibility that Highways England would require a contribution to the feasibility study work completed last year. It was agreed to provide an update report to the next meeting.
The options for using the available budget should be considered and criteria for identifying suitable schemes or studies for funding should be established. Other than the HGV parking study, no other specific studies for funding had been identified. Issues associated with local rail capacity, air quality, health and the impacts of increased rail freight could be considered for funding.
8. Communications update
Communications issues had been discussed previously, but an update of progress for the LEP website was required.
9. Programme and funding
See item 7 above..
10. Next meeting
Next meetings proposed for 19th May and 25th July 2016.
Item 3.
Project: A5036 Port of Liverpool Study
Subject: Meeting with Peel Ports - Port Demand / Rail Access
Date and time: 11 Apr 2016 - 1:00pm Meeting no: 1
Meeting place: Peel Ports Minutes by: [name redacted]
Present: [name redacted] Representing: Peel Ports Carl Stockton HE [name redacted] Merseytravel [name redacted] Merseytravel [name redacted] Atkins [name redacted] Atkins
ITEM DESCRIPTION & ACTION RESPONSIBLE
1 Demand [name redacted] advised that Peel Ports plan to undertake a refresh of the Mersey Port Masterplan. This will include an update to the forecasting exercise. Update likely to include a re-forecast of Including: a) Containers: • 2020 1.5m Teu • 2030 2.5m Teu Re-forecasting due to the delays to the opening of Liverpool2
b) No coal
c) Biomass increased - in to the port by ship and then all out via train to Drax. There will be an increase in rail biomass trains. • Currently Phase 1 - 4 trains per day • Phase 2 - 12 trains per day d) No forecast change to RoRo (other main generator)
Action: Atkins to refresh the Port HGV Demand assessment and share with Atkins [name redacted]in advance of Peel Ports planned update to forecasting which will be complete summer 2016. Action: [name redacted]to share with Atkins traffic monitoring data [name redacted] collected at port access gates.
2 On-Port Rail Issues / Challenges Currently 4/5 trains per day access the port. Potential for 35 trains per day each way (70 one way), post improvements – see later notes for off-port rail enhancements and constraints. Existing rail freight terminal can currently only accommodate 400m long
trains in 3 sidings. Aecom have drawn up plans for a new 4 sidings rail
freight terminal to serve L2.
[name redacted] Action: [name redacted]to share plans of rail terminal layout.
The construction of the new rail freight terminal will require the redevelopment of the port nature reserve, which is a RAMSAR site. Public ITEM DESCRIPTION & ACTION RESPONSIBLE Inquiry likely to be after A5036. Peel Ports in discussions with Sefton Council in relation to the proposals. Southampton / Felixstowe achieve a rail mode share of approx 25%.
3 Off-Port Rail Issues / Challenges Currently no containers enter / leave the port via the rail network. Future rail assignment - containers are estimated to require 15 trains per day, broadly as follows: • Scotland - 2/3 per day • Transpennines - 4/5 per day
• South on west coast mainline 7/8 per day Limited access for
container trains on Transpennine routes
HS2 will create a constraint north of Crewe post 2026. Could be some capacity on rail network released by replacement of south to north trains. Limited availability of paths across the Pennines – as confirmed through the Northern Freight Strategy.
Network rail projects - there are 3 Liverpool port schemes going forward for delivery:
1. Port of Liverpool/Network Rail Boundary Double Tracking – This will allow the Port of Liverpool to deliver the double tracking works and avoid the need to make enhancements to the Level Crossing. Currently scheduled to be completed during 2016. 2. Bootle Branch Linespeed Enhancements – GRIP 3 work ongoing looking at raising the linespeed from 20mph to 30/40mph. There are also short sections of 10mph and 15mph at the Port end of the Branch that could
be increased. A further key current limitation on linespeed is
Underbridge No.2, which is a 15mph within the middle of the branch. The work is investigating linespeed increases and whether there are some sections that can be increased through minor works. 3. Earlestown West Jn – GRIP 3 work is ongoing for the installation of flashing yellow aspects at the crossover at Earlestown West Jn. The flashing yellow aspect will enable the trains to pass through the crossover at the 30mph linespeed.
Other potential rail routes North Mersey Branch Line – doesn’t directly connect to the port. The Liverpool City Region Long Term Rail Strategy has safeguarded this route for passenger services.
Other modes Ship canal containers forecast to increase from 30,000 to 100,000 containers by 2030. [name redacted]to confirm whether this is containers [name redacted] or Teu. Coastal Shipping – expected to remain as forecast
Port Jobs [name redacted] advised they have collected Peel Ports employee data for the 550 employees. This data shows: ITEM DESCRIPTION & ACTION RESPONSIBLE • 70% of people live in Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral • Job creation forecasting analysis estimates there will be the creation of: - 408 new jobs directly employed in the port - 5,000 new jobs created in the wider area from support sectors through to freight / logistics companies.
Action: [name redacted]to provide additional data on existing and future jobs. [name redacted]
Item 4.
From: [name redacted]@peelports.com] Sent: 25 April 2016 14:17 To: Stockton, Carl
Hi Carl. I haven’t replied to [name redacted]yet as I’ve been trying to get to the bottom of their complaint internally about increased HGV’s. The only thing we do occasionally is divert traffic to the Strand Road Gate when there is congestion at the container port. This is to minimise HGV’s queuing outside the Crosby Road entrance onto the strategic road network. Essentially diverting to the Strand Road Gate enables the HGV’s to queue inside the port on what was the former Regent Road. The Notice they refer to is a small sign that the Port Police deploy at the main entrance in exceptional circumstances it is certainly not the norm. Also Regent Road was closed in the mid-1990’s at Rimrose Road as a result much of the port traffic then had to enter via the Crosby Road Gate. As you know the Crosby Road Gate is 24/7 whilst Strand Road is on limited opening (typically Monday – Friday 7.00am to 7.00pm). Hope this helps. Regards, [name redacted]
[name redacted]
[name/contact details redacted]
From: Stockton, Carl [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 25 April 2016 14:05 To: [name redacted] Cc: [name redacted]; [name redacted]; [name redacted] Subject: [name & address redacted]
[name redacted] At our recent meeting you confirmed that the above residents who live close to the Seaforth roundabout had written to you concerning a problem they are having with noise from HGV’s outside their property. They have written quite a few letters recently to various people including [name redacted]and myself to see if we can investigate their complaint.
I am about to provide a reply and could do with knowing whether you have yet responded to their letter. At the same time in their latest letter mention is made of a notice inside the port advising HGV’s to use the Strand entrance if they require the deep berth access and to access this entrance they turn around and come directly past their property. Can you let me know if this is the case and if this could be causing the extra HGV’s taking the route past their house?
I have attached a copy of their letter which I intend to respond to sometime later this week.
Any other comments which you feel may be helpful will also be gratefully received.
Regards
Carl Stockton, Project Manager Highways England | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD Tel: [number redacted] Web: http://www.highways.gov.uk GTN: 0300 470 6023
Item 5.
Liverpool City Region Port Access Steering Group
19th May 2016, 2 pm Bootle Town Hall, Committee Room Proposed Agenda
1. Introductions & Apologies
2. Notes of last meeting and matters arising
3. Combined Authority update [name redacted]
4. Port of Liverpool Access Scheme Highways England
5. Strategic rail issues Network Rail
6. Port issues Peel Ports
7. Work programme progress update – overview [name redacted]
8. Communications update [name redacted] • Feedback on ministerial visit • Lessons from Highways England public engagement • Progress update
9. Programme and funding [name redacted]
10. Next meeting – pm 25th July 2016
Item 6.
Liverpool City Region Port Access Steering Group 2 pm, Thursday 19th May 2016 Bootle Town Hall
Notes of Meeting
Present Margaret Carney (Chair) Sefton Council [name redacted] Sefton Council [name redacted] Merseytravel [name redacted] Network Rail [name redacted] Highways England [name redacted] Halton BC [name redacted] Warrington BC [name redacted] Peel Ports [name redacted] Liverpool City Council [name redacted] Sefton Council
1. Introductions & Apologies
Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Apologies : [name redacted] DfT [name redacted] SuperPort Committee [name redacted] Highways England [name redacted] Peel Ports [name redacted] Merseytravel
2. Notes of last meeting and matters arising
Notes of the meeting of 21st March 2016 were accepted as written.
Matters arising are on the agenda.
3. Combined Authority update
[name redacted] advised that there were no significant issues to update the meeting regarding the CA. A series of transport related reports had been considered at the April meeting of the CA, including the establishment of a Key Route Network in accordance with the devolution deal agreement. The network has been agreed, but there are ongoing discussions about the details of how it will be managed. [name redacted] requested copies of the CA reports – [name redacted] to provide a link to the reports where they can be downloaded.
4. Port of Liverpool Access scheme
[name redacted] reminded the group of the recent Westminster Hall debate about port access in response to issues raised by the MP for Bootle, Peter Dowd, details of which had previously been circulated to the group.
Andrew Jones, Roads Minister, who had responded to Peter Dowd in the recent debate had visited Merseyside on Monday 15th May and had visited the areas of both the on-line and the off-line potential routes. Highways England were able to show the Minister at first hand the sensitivities and challenges associated with both routes. The Minister then also visited the Port of Liverpool. The visit had received coverage in the local press.
The development process for the port access scheme was making progress. Highways England had now started Stage 2 of their Project Control Framework, the Options Appraisal stage and Atkins had been re-appointed to continue the scheme development work. The work that is ongoing includes: • Updating traffic model; • Assessment of wider economic benefits; • Value engineering of designs for different options; • Incorporate information from ground investigation; • Continue and complete ecology surveys; • Identify mitigation requirements, including replacement land.
The plans for publishing a 3rd project newsletter had been affected by the purdah period and it was now planned to publish the newsletter after the European referendum.
[name redacted] commented on the Westminster Hall debate to note that it was positive that port access was receiving such attention. However, he had reservations about the apparent concentration on the Bootle Branch rail line. Once the track had been doubled, that would provide sufficient capacity for the Port, but the main areas requiring investment were further afield, on the WCML and on the trans-Pennine routes.
[name redacted] noted that the option of transferring freight to rail had been raised regularly during the recent public engagement so it would be helpful to have a clear and consistent position regarding the potential for rail freight from the Port. [name redacted] stated that her interpretation of the issues Mr Dowd had raised were about ensuring that the connections to the main rail network were in place so that any capacity improvements that might emerge from HS2 and HS3 could be taken advantage of for rail freight.
The options work on the port access scheme is expected to be complete in the autumn and a public consultation on the viable options is then expected at the end of the year (Nov/Dec) with a subsequent preferred route announcement early in 2017.
5. Strategic Rail
[name redacted] advised that there was not much to update since the last meeting.
Site investigations for the doubling of the track at the port entrance had been done and had identified some issues with utilities which had required a realignment of the proposed double track. The scheme requires some land transfer and heads of terms of this are nearing completion. [name redacted] had not received an update on the timescales and would ask again so that the group could be kept informed.
The GRIP3 process for the line speed improvement was underway and some preparatory work was planned for the Christmas period this year. The speed increase was likely to be to 30mph rather than 40.
[name redacted] stated that the Port’s ambition was to achieve 35-36 trains per day. Once the track is doubled, that will provide sufficient capacity for those numbers.
[name redacted] advised that the consultation period on the Merseyside Strategic Rail Study had now closed and he was now reviewing the comments and responses.
The action from the previous meeting to approach NR’s communications team about providing more public information about freight schemes had not been completed and [name redacted] would follow this up.
6. Port issues
[name redacted] updated the group on port related activities. The ports across the north had been working together much more to raise issues of joint concern and to support each in other in tackling those shared issues. This had included developing stronger joint links with Government and with TfN and with a range of other public and private sector organisations.
Liverpool 2 would be starting marine trials soon and should be operational in the summer, though there was no announcement yet about new business coming in to the new terminal.
Short sea activity had increased with the introduction of new services to the Mediterranean. ACL has made a further 10 year commitment to operating from the Port and 3 of 5 new vessels are now in service.
There is scope to make progress on the Seaforth Nature Reserve issues by linking it in with the development Sefton coastal strategy.
The biomass terminal is operating, with Phase 2 almost complete. At full capacity, the terminal will handle 3m tonnes of biomass per year, operating 10-12 trains per day. Based on simple calculations, this would equate to an estimated 200,000 HGV movements.
The Ship Canal continues to operate within the terms of the MoU and Peel had met with Atkins as part of the new HGV parking study.
The Port has taken on about 100 new staff over the last 12 months, so it is proposing to do a new staff travel survey and also try to get more of the port tenants involved in the survey as well. This will then inform the completion of the green travel plan.
[name redacted] asked about the potential build up of trade and freight movements once Liverpool 2 opened. Had any work been done on the expectation of growth over the next few years, i.e. in advance of the new port access scheme being completed ? [name redacted] acknowledged that it was difficult to predict what the growth might be and that projections were not certain.
[name redacted] asked about the potential growth of traffic on the A5036. If Liverpool 2 was operating, there would be some growth in traffic. What would the short term impacts be and would there be a point where the possibility of delays may affect the performance of the port ? In addition, if the on-line option was chosen, there would be major disruption over the four year construction period.
It was agreed that there was very little information available to indicate what might happen over the next 5-10 years until the port access scheme had been constructed, whichever option is chosen. The option of commissioning some work to examine the potential traffic growth and associated traffic management issues was discussed and it was agreed that it would be desirable.
[name redacted] advised that it would be possible to commission some traffic modelling to provide forecasts over the near future, in advance of the main port access scheme. As the traffic model for the main scheme was being updated and nearing completion, it would make sense to use the same model, but to do some short range forecasts, based on different growth scenarios that could be agreed with Peel.
[name redacted] noted that Merseytravel were commissioning a City Region Freight Study and it may be possible to use that process as a way if identifying short term interventions. This was welcomed, but it was agreed that any short term assessment would need to address all traffic growth, not just freight traffic, because there may be implications for local traffic and for other potential developments in the area.
It was agreed that [name redacted] would prepare a specification for a new traffic modelling study to provide short term forecasts of traffic growth along the A5036 and surrounding routes, based on different scenarios for port traffic growth and for growth in other areas, e.g. relating to new developments. A specific request would be made to Highways England to enable use of the upgraded traffic model for this additional study. The study will be incorporated into the overall multi- modal work programme.
It could also include a review of any information about the impact of traffic congestion on the attractiveness and performance of ports. RP will be asked whether the DfT has any research findings on the impact for traffic on port and logistics activities in proximity to existing ports.
7. Work programme progress update
A summary of the progress on the work programme and an updated programme had been circulated at the previous meeting, so no further updates were provided at this meeting. [name redacted] advised that the Phase 2 works at Seaforth had been completed and that the next phase of the HGV parking study had started.
8. Communications update
The Minister’s visit earlier in the week had been mentioned previously. [name redacted] had e-mailed to advise that the visit had gone well.
The main issues raised during the Highways England public engagement had been discussed at the previous meeting and [name redacted] confirmed that they remained the main issues. She confirmed that for the consultation on the route options at the end of the year, they wanted to improve the publicity and the information available to people, especially regarding the wider multi-modal programme.
[name redacted] asked whether there was scope to prepare a joint communications plan for the whole port access programme. It was agreed that this would be worthwhile. However, it would need to be supported by robust and reliable data that everyone could agree on, for example, in relation to the forecasts of port growth and the quantities of different commodities and what modes were suitable or feasible for different modes.
[name redacted] confirmed that the port access is Highways England’s most contentious scheme in the north and it was key to provide as much information about the proposals and their context and the other modes as possible. She asked whether there was information available about the mode share at other ports that could also be used to provide context. It was agreed that it would be helpful to prepare a list of evidence or information that could be agreed and used in any communications activities.
[name redacted] circulated an update note about the wider port access programme for publishing on the LEP website. Any changes or comments were requested within two weeks. Also, [name redacted] proposed including links to the partner’s websites and relevant pages so partners were asked to confirm acceptance of this. It was agreed as a good idea, but [name redacted] noted that he wasn’t aware of a webpage for the Network Rail interventions. [name redacted] agreed to check and respond to [name redacted].
[name redacted] asked whether the Highways England scheme newsletter included reference or links to the other port access interventions. [name redacted] confirmed that the previous newsletters had included the link to the LEP website, but that it would be worth including more information in the next newsletter.
9. Programme and funding
[name redacted] noted that at the last meeting he had been asked for an update on the funding for the programme. A note on the main interventions, active and completed, was circulated, including some information about the funding arrangements for each.
[name redacted] advised that he had retrieved information on the budget available for the port access programme, but that there was a discrepancy that he had not been able to resolve yet ad would advise the group in due course. However, there is a budget available that can be used to commission the short term modelling work described previously.
[name redacted] asked about the proposed high level bridge being proposed in Warrington. [name redacted] confirmed that Warrington were discussing this with Government in connection with a devolution deal and it could be added to the programme. [name redacted] also advised that the jointly funded Canada Dock Branch Line study should be added to the list.
10. Any Other Business
[name redacted] advised the group of an e-mail enquiry from Transport for Greater Manchester regarding a proposed European funded project, Freight Optimisation and Solutions Technology (FrOST). The project is intended to use new technology to assist freight vehicle movements along key routes, including to and from the Port of Liverpool. Highways England are already engaged as a partner.
The request from TfGM was whether either Sefton Council or the City Region wished to be involved in the project, as a partner. [name redacted] wished to get a steer from the group about whether they thought the City Region should express interest in joining the project, possibly with Sefton as the lead partner.
[name redacted] considered that Sefton should express interest in participating as an observer. [name redacted] agreed that the City Region partners may be interested and that more information should be requested from TfGM and circulated to the Transport Advisory Group members for a decision. [name redacted] agreed to respond and request more details of the project.
11. Next meeting
Next meeting proposed for 25th July 2016.
Item 7. Liverpool City Region Port Access Steering Group
25th July 2016, 2 pm Bootle Town Hall, Committee Room Proposed Agenda
1. Introductions & Apologies
2. Notes of last meeting and matters arising
3. Combined Authority update [name redacted]
4. LCR Growth Strategy [name redacted]
5. LCR Freight and Logistics Strategy study [name redacted]
6. Port of Liverpool Access Scheme Highways England
7. Strategic rail issues Network Rail
8. Port issues Peel Ports
9. Work programme progress update – overview [name redacted]
10. Communications update [name redacted]
11. Programme and funding [name redacted]
12. Next meeting – tbc
Item 8. Liverpool City Region Port Access Steering Group
17th October 2016, 2:30 pm Magdalen House, Trinity Road, Bootle, L20 3NJ Ground Floor Conference Room 4 Proposed Agenda
1. Introductions & Apologies
2. Notes of last meeting and matters arising
3. Combined Authority update [name redacted]
4. LCR Freight and Logistics Strategy study [name redacted]
5. Port of Liverpool Access Scheme Highways England
6. Strategic rail issues Network Rail
7. Port issues Peel Ports
8. HGV Parking study [name redacted]
9. Work programme progress update – overview [name redacted]
10. Programme and funding [name redacted]
11. Communications update [name redacted]
12. Next meetings – 5th December 2016, 4pm 20th March 2017, 3pm
Item 9.
From: [name redacted]@peelports.com] Sent: 22 December 2016 12:55 To: [name redacted] Cc: [name redacted]; Stockton, Carl; [name redacted] [name redacted] Subject: RE: A5036 PoL Access - Consultation
Hi [name redacted]– thanks for the update. I have put the 24th January in the diary and have alerted [name redacted] he may want to attend the 10.00 – 11.00 slot. I will discuss with [name redacted] how else I can contribute as I will struggle to set all those dates and time slots aside with everything else I am doing at Peel Ports. On the Panel 3 that reads fine I have made a couple of suggestions as below. I’m not sure if you need any imagery for Panel 3 but we could arrange images of the Drax biomass train and the Ship Canal container ship as a couple of examples of multi -modal in action. Kind Regards, [name redacted]
From: [name redacted]@atkinsglobal.com] Sent: 21 December 2016 16:36 To: [name redacted]@peelports.com Cc: [name redacted]@highwaysengland.co.uk>; Stockton, Carl
Hi [name redacted]
Further to our recent conversation, below is a summary of the planned public events for the consultation. When we spoke you indicated that you would be able to attend the first event. If you are able to attend other events please can you let [name redacted] and me know.
1. Tuesday 24th January 2017 - 10am to 8pm The Park Hotel Dunningsbridge Road Netherton, L30 6YN
Note: 10am – 11am Media/VIP event & 1:1 sessions with directly affected residents 11am – 5pm Event open to members of the public 5pm – 8pm 1:1 sessions with directly affected residents
2. Friday 27th January 2017 – 2pm to 8pm St Faith’s Church Hall Milton Road Waterloo, L22 4RF
3. Monday 30th January 2017 – 10am to 5pm PlayFootball Drummond Road Crosby, L23 9YP
4. Wednesday 1st February 2017 – 3pm to 8pm Litherland Royal British Legion Orrell Road Litherland, L21 8NU
Note: 2pm – 3pm 1:1 sessions with directly affected residents 3pm – 8pm Event open to the public
5. Saturday 4th February 2017 – 11am – 5pm SING Plus Centre Cambridge Road Seaforth, L21 1EX
Note: 10am – 11am 1:1 sessions with directly affected residents 11am – 5pm Event open to the public
In addition, below is the summary text on the bigger picture / wider initiatives going on. If you have any further information or suggested changes please can you let us know.
Panel 3
The bigger picture
This road-based solution is part of a much wider set of proposals across Merseyside and the North West. The Liverpool City Region Combined Authority is working with a range of partners to deliver transport measures that will improve port access and increase capacity by rail, road and water.
Did you know?
• The maritime sector employs around 25,000 people across the Liverpool City Region; • Rail capacity on the Bootle Branch line will double over the next 2-3 years; • The new rail biomass terminal at the Port can handle up to 3 million tonnes of wood pellets – that’s the equivalent of 200,000 HGV trips per year; and • Freight on the Manchester Ship Canal has increased 10 fold since 2007.
More information is available at the following: www.liverpoollep.org/core-sectors/superport/access-to-the-port-of-liverpool/
Have a great Christmas and look forward to catching up with you in the new year.
Kind regards
[name redacted]Managing Consultant, Transportation
ATKINS Thought leadership in a complex world – www.atkinsglobal.com/angles Item 10.
From: [name redacted]@peelports.com] Sent: 18 January 2017 13:43 To: [name redacted]@highwaysengland.co.uk> Cc: [name redacted]@sefton.gov.uk>; Stockton, Carl
Hi [name redacted]– as part of the HRO process there was a requirement to provide a noise attenuation barrier immediately adjoining the port access road (next to Cambridge Road) which we have now implemented in consultation with Sefton MBC Environmental Health Officer. There were no commitments or ensuing obligations in respect of Dunnings Bridge Road and the residential properties along that corridor. As you will appreciate the noise environment of the A5036 is more than just to do with the port and HGV activity. Apologies I can’t assist further. Kind Regards, [name redacted]
[name redacted]
[name/contact details redacted]
From: [name redacted]@highwaysengland.co.uk] Sent: 18 January 2017 13:28 To: [name redacted] Subject: FW: A5036 soundproofing
[name redacted],
I don’t wish to become involved in too much detail regarding this. If you have a point of contact that I can provide to [name redacted]and this route can be explored directly with her this would be beneficial to all involved.
Thanks [name redacted], Asset Manager Highways England | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD Tel: [number redacted] Web: http://www.highways.gov.uk
From: [name redacted]@sefton.gov.uk] Sent: 18 January 2017 11:56 To: [name redacted] Cc: [name redacted]; Stockton, Carl; [name redacted] Subject: RE: A5036 soundproofing
Hi [name redacted],
The attachment you sent with your e-mail relates to the Harbour Revision Order for the deep water berth (Liverpool 2). The Order and all the measures associated with mitigating the impacts of the growth of the Port were the responsibility of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and that has now passed to Peel Ports.
I don’t have the details of the specific commitments relating to noise, what they covered, where it was agreed they were needed or how they were implemented. I’ve copied my response to [name redacted]at Peel Ports who may have some more details.
I very much doubt that there would have been an open-ended offer to provide financial support for double glazing, but that it would have been specifically targeted at those properties expected to be most affected and would have been based on the conclusions of the Environmental Assessment.
Either way, as far as I know, it is not something that we as a Council would have provided.
Hopefully, you can get some more detail from [name redacted].
Regards [name redacted]
Item 11.
From: [name redacted]@peelports.com] Sent: 27 February 2017 16:11 To: A5036 Port of Liverpool
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please find attached the formal response of Peel Ports Group.
Yours faithfully,
[name redacted]
[name redacted]
[name/contact details redacted]
A5036 Highways England 27th February 2017
Dear Mr Stockton Port of Liverpool Access Improvement
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments in respect of the current consultation. As you will be aware the Port of Liverpool is a key international gateway handling a diverse range of commodities. It is already one of the largest ports in Northern Britain and is the UK’s 3rd most busiest container port. In preparing the Port of Liverpool for the future we have recently completed investment in the region of £750 million in a new post panamax container terminal (Liverpool2), a biomass handling facility, steel and animal feed terminals, and related portcentric warehousing.
The benefit of our investments and the increasingly time critical supply chains are inextricably linked to good road and rail accessibility. For these reasons we have been an active participant in the Port Access Steering Group facilitated by Sefton Council which has entailed working with Highways England and Network Rail to effect enhanced surface access improvements and connections. The road intervention consultation is part of a much wider multi-modal strategy embracing coastal shipping, inland waterway (Manchester Ship Canal) and increasing use of rail freight notably biomass to Drax Power Station.
I am aware of the Government’s budgetary review of the road building programme (see attached press article) and worryingly the reference to the “Revamp of A5036 Princess Way the access to the Port of Liverpool to improve link to motorways”. We are extremely concerned that our investment plans and business growth would be undermined by the potential removal of the scheme from the programme.
In this respect we will be lobbying Government to safeguard the allocated investment in delivering enhanced road (and rail) connectivity to the Port of Liverpool one of the UK’s leading international gateways. Peel Ports has written to John Hayes MP, Andrew Jones MP and Andrew Percy in terms of their respective responsibilities for Ports & Shipping, Roads and The Northern Powerhouse.
In terms of the road interventions proposed we note there are two currently subject to the public consultation. Option A (on-line) is for the upgrading of the existing A5036 road with junction improvements. Option B (off-line) proposes a new dual carriageway bypass through the Rimrose Valley. The cost estimates for both schemes are between £16m - £41m and £187m - £294m respectively.
We have carefully considered both Options and do not believe that Option A to be a long- term sustainable solution to port access. Dunnings Bridge Road already suffers from severe congestion with poor journey time reliability. The trunk road not only provides the main access to the Port but is also a major commuter route to Liverpool City Centre as well as serving local businesses and residential properties. Option A in our opinion would merely provide some short-term relief to existing congestion problems and with anticipated increases in freight volumes linked to Liverpool2 the current problems would simply reoccur. A previous scheme for Option A entailed grade separated junctions at 4 locations which would have had a beneficial effect in providing capacity and resilience with the ability to maintain traffic flows although we note this is no longer being proposed.
In terms of the current consultation and in the absence of any alternatives the off-line proposal (Option B) appears to be the only credible solution providing a direct and reliable link from the Port of Liverpool and the M57/M58 at Switch Island. This option would also benefit the noise and air quality environment for existing residents along Dunnings Bridge Road with all HGV’s being removed from that corridor. We are aware of wider regeneration aspirations along the Dunnings Bridge Road corridor which we believe would be greatly enhanced by virtue of removing the port related HGV volumes to the new Option B route.
We have been made aware of the SCAR (Sefton Communities Against Roadbuilding) and their position which essentially opposes both Option A and Option B. Furthermore, their suggestion is to move any increase in freight via rail and hence there would be no necessity to effect any road improvements. As we have stated the road intervention forms part of the wider multi-modal freight solution which includes rail, coastal shipping and inland waterway. There is only a level of modal shift (from road) that we can genuinely effect particularly as certain commodities will only ever move by road.
For example, the Irish Sea Ro-Ro (trailer freight) sector is based around road based delivery and logistics solutions. This is not unique to the Port of Liverpool but equally applies to Ro- Ro Ports at Dover, Holyhead and Heysham for example. The distribution of agricultural products (animal feed) from the Port of Liverpool is based upon serving a North West hinterland (by road) into Cumbria, Lancashire, Cheshire and North Wales. Much of the scrap metal exported from Liverpool is again drawn from a North West hinterland up to a radius of 100 miles and hence road haulage is the predominant form of transport.
Peel Ports have developed a rail freight strategy which seeks to effect a shift onto rail of as much freight as possible but this does not negate the pressing need for a long-term sustainable road intervention. For those deep-sea container ports such as Felixstowe and Southampton which have a high proportion of rail freight (20% – 25%) this still means there is a predominant reliance (75% – 80%) upon road freight and good road capacity and resilience.
We trust the above information is useful for your purposes although do not hesitate to make contact should you require any further information or clarification on any point. Yours sincerely,
[name redacted]
Peel Ports Limited (Registered No. 4560424 England). Registered Office: Maritime Centre, Port of Liverpool L21 1LA Peel Ports Limited Maritime Centre Port of Liverpool L21 1LA [contact details redacted] E : [email protected] W : www.peelports.co.uk
Item 12.
Liverpool City Region Port Access Steering Group 3.00 pm – 20th March 2017 Bootle Town Hall
Notes of Meeting
Present Margaret Carney (Chair) Sefton Council [name redacted] DfT [name redacted] Merseytravel Carl Stockton Highways England [name redacted] Highways England [name redacted] Peel Ports [name redacted] Liverpool City Council [name redacted] Network Rail [name redacted] Warrington BC [name redacted] Peel Ports
1. Introductions & Apologies
Apologies from : [name redacted] , [name redacted], [name redacted], [name redacted] and [name redacted]
2. Notes of last meeting and matters arising
Agreed.
3. Port of Liverpool Access Scheme
Highways England updated on the Consultation response to date. Over 3,000 responses were received. Responses were still being analysed and results should be available by early May.
[name redacted] updated the Group on the Council’s position and confirmed that the Council did not support either option. Concern was expressed at the potential implications of the lack of Council support. [name redacted] reiterated that in the Council’s view the Tunnel option should have been included in the Consultation option.
4. Rail Update
Network Rail provided a verbal update and subsequently provided a written brief, which is attached to these minutes.
5. Future remit of the Group
The Group discussed the role of the Group and whether it should continue to operate. There was unanimous support for the Group to continue. [name redacted] requested all parties to review the Terms of Reference and feed in comments. A revised draft will then be circulated.
6. Dates of next meetings
Agreed
10th July 2017, 3:30 pm 30th October 2017, 3 pm 4th December 2017, 3 pm
Item 13.
From: [name redacted]@peelports.com] Sent: 23 March 2017 14:25 To: Stockton, Carl Subject: RE: A5036 Lane closure weekend of 17th to 20th March
Thanks for clarifying the position Carl much appreciated. On the related matter would you be able to let me have a few dates we would be pleased to meet up with you and Jacqui to discuss strategy going forward. There is likely to be an announcement later regarding the new Everton stadium so again improved road connectivity to North Liverpool is more than just the Port. Kind Regards, [name redacted]
[name redacted]
[name/contact details redacted]
From: Stockton, Carl [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 22 March 2017 19:56 To: [name redacted] Cc: [name redacted]; [name redacted] Subject: A5036 Lane closure weekend of 17th to 20th March
[name redacted]
A query was raised at the PASG as to why a lane was closed on the A5036 close to the Hawthorne Road junction.
I can confirm the following reply was provided from the Area team
On Friday 17th March a manhole collapsed and the traffic management was installed for safety. We had great difficulty finding a contractor available to repair the manhole and had to leave the TM in place over the weekend.
I’m pleased to say the work was done last night (20th March)and all lanes are now open.
As it happens [name redacted] and I went to take a look on Monday and got caught up in the hold ups as a result.
Regards
Carl
Carl Stockton, Project Manager Highways England | Piccadilly Gate | Store Street | Manchester | M1 2WD Tel: [number redacted] Web: http://www.highways.gov.uk GTN: 0300 470 6023
Item 14.
[Schedule of interviews for, and extracts from, 17 page OGC Gateway Review report dated 27 April 2017 subsequently produced containing all references Peel Ports]:
25-26/4/17
The driving force for the project:
The Port of Liverpool is an expanding port and continues to be an important transit point for freight for short sea, Transatlantic and Global trade. The port is the busiest sea-port in the North West and the sixth largest nationally in terms of total freight tonnage. It is also the home to Liverpool2, a new deep-water container terminal built following a £300m investment by Peel Ports.
Access to the Port from the motorway network is via the existing A5036 which links the Port with the Switch Island interchange of the M57 and M58 which in turn links to the M62 and M6 respectively. The road already suffers from a high level of congestion and with significant development pressures, necessary for much needed regeneration, it is predicted that the situation can only get worse.
The growth in the Port of Liverpool will result in major increases in the volume of freight passing through the City Region. Improved access to Port of Liverpool is a priority for the Liverpool City Region and is a key part of the Growth Plan because of its importance in supporting future economic growth. The city Region and Peel Ports recognise that it is essential to develop a multi-modal solution for port access, incorporating improved connections by water, rail and road, whilst also recognising the impacts on adjacent local communities.
ANNEX B List of Interviewees The following stakeholders were interviewed during the review:
Name Role on Project/Position in organisation Department/Division/Organisation Patrick Moran HE,SRO Carl Stockton HE, Project Manager Bruce Parker HE, Senior user Operations Directorate (OD) Peter Greenhalgh HE, Commercial Delivery Richard Steinberger HE, Traffic and Economics Lead Sheena Crombie HE, Environmental Lead Amarjit Doow- Powell HE, DCO Manager Lee Askew HE, Commercial [name redacted] Atkins, Project Manager- supplier [name redacted] Atkins, Traffic Director- supplier [name redacted] Sefton MBC, Head of Transport Planning and member of the City Region Port Access Steering Group [name redacted] Peel Ports Authority, Director and member of the City Region Port Access Steering Group [name redacted] Network Rail, Strategic Planner and member of the City Region Port Access Steering Group
Item 15.
Liverpool City Region Port Access Steering Group
10th July 2017, 3:30 pm
Committee Room, Bootle Town Hall
Proposed Agenda
11. Introductions & Apologies
12. Notes of last meeting and matters arising
13. Port of Liverpool Access Scheme Highways England
• Progress update • Next steps – stages and timescales
14. Rail update
• Bootle Branch Line schemes Network Rail • Liverpool 2 terminal Peel Ports
15. Short-term traffic modelling study Sefton Council
16. Programme update
17. PASG Terms of Reference – future remit of the group
18. Next meetings – 30th October 2017, 3 pm 4th December 2017, 3 pm