Liverpool City Region Port Access Steering Group 21St March 2016
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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.