Wards Affected: Item No EXECUTIVE BOARD 29Th October 2001 NET
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Wards affected: Item no EXECUTIVE BOARD 29 th October 2001 NET DEVELOPMENT BOARD 18 th October 2001 REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR – NET NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT – NETWORK DEVELOPMENT 1. SUMMARY This report provides an update of the NET network feasibility studies and preliminary public consultation. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that:- 2.1 Further work and consultation on route options be undertaken to ensure that local concerns have been addressed and that all alternatives have been thoroughly assessed and a further report be brought before the Board in early 2002; 2.2 The budget implications as set out in section 12 and the City Treasurers observations are noted; 3. BACKGROUND Futher development of light rail systems is a key plank in the Government's transport policy. In Nottingham the Nottingham Express Transit (NET) is a fundamental element of the Local Transport Plan, combining with other measures to provide an integrated transport system to reduce traffic congestion and pollution and assist inward investment, urban regeneration and social inclusion. Line One of NET, now under construction, is intended to be only the first of a network of routes which will eventually bring the environmental, economic and accessibility benefits of light rail to other areas of the conurbation. A report was presented to the Executive Board on 6 February 2001 outlining progress on the NET network extension studies. A wide ranging study of potential LRT routes within the conurbation assessing their potential transport, economic and environmental benefits had been undertaken by consultants MVA and WS Atkins. The study identified alternative route options to Beeston, Clifton and West Bridgford to be taken forward for further studies to identify preferred routes. A separate study commissioned by the County Council subsequently recommended that an extension from Beeston to Chilwell should also be incorporated into the further studies. The cost sharing arrangements between the two authorities have been amended to reflect the additional option. The report also provided details on the process for taking routes forward. Selected routes will be subjected to rigorous scrutiny as to their adherence to Government objectives and their commercial viability. Approval of the Department of Transport Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) will be required before any routes meeting the necessary criteria can be promoted through the Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) process. The TWAO is the means by which to obtain the power to construct and operate LRT lines. In parallel, discussions will be held with Government and potential private sector concessionaires and funders to secure a funding package for the scheme. 4. ROUTE OPTIONS APPRAISAL Since the appointment of the consultants, considerable work has been undertaken to further investigate the route options. This has focussed on an assessment of engineering feasibility of alignment and construction locations, environmental impacts of the route options, and the likely patronage and cost-benefit performance of the route options. At this stage of route assessment, much of the work has been at a “high” level. Its purpose has been to appraise the route options to sufficient depth to enable a robust comparison of the alternative “corridors” to Beeston, Clifton and West Bridgford in order to select preferred routes. These would be assessed at a later stage in much greater detail, with a detailed public consultation on the specific routes. A preliminary public consultation took place during the summer seeking views on the possible tram network, particularly from those living in the vicinity of the seven route options under consideration. This was not intended to be a statistically meaningful exercise, but gives an indication of levels of support. A sample distribution of questionnaires to 17,000 households in the affected corridors was undertaken, and leaflets were left in public buildings. Discussions have also been held with the Nottingham Transport Partnership, District Councils, bus operators NCT and Trent, the Environment Agency and interested third parties including the University of Nottingham, QMC and Nottingham Tennis Centre. Adverts and articles were placed in the business press and Evening Post. 5. APPRAISAL CRITERIA A set of nine appraisal criteria have been used to assess the relative performance of the route options. These are based on; • The national transport objectives as laid out in the Transport White Paper, to improve the environment, safety, economy, accessibility and integration. • Local transport objectives, as set out in the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan (LTP), which elaborate on the Government’s objectives. • Government requirements for assessing how and whether schemes can be delivered in practice, including the financial and commercial performance of a scheme, its affordability and its public acceptability. The appraisal criteria are: • Operational capability • Costs • Usage • Cost – benefit analysis • Integration with other transport modes • Development and regeneration potential • Engineering impact • Environmental impact • Public acceptability A detailed explanation of the criteria is set out in appendix A. The operational criteria in particular considers NET journey speeds which must be fast and competitive against alternative modes and operational reliability which requires as much segregated running as possible, and for high priorities when interacting with other traffic. The scheme costs, usage and cost-benefit analysis highlight the economic and commercial deliverability of the scheme. The link to wider policies is made, in particular, through assessing integration with other modes and land use planning. The engineering and environmental criteria assess the buildability and local impact of the scheme and the views of the public and stakeholders are assessed in relation to overall acceptability. 6. ROUTE COMPARISONS The consultants’ studies have been undertaken to assess the seven route options on the basis of their performance against the above criteria and summaries of their findings are provided in appendix C, D and E. Summaries of the key points as they affect the seven options are provided in sections 7 to 10 below. It should be noted that much of the technical information will be subject to on-going refinement as the scheme develops. The patronage and cost-benefit information in particular is less developed than expected owing to delays in receiving outputs from the Greater Nottingham multi-modal model. Areas which require further development are summarised in MVA’s progress report (appendix C). The initial indicators provided to date do however provide a useful benchmark for comparisons between options, but are insufficiently robust to rule out any options at this stage. The route options are shown on the attached plan (appendix B). All the options share a common section in the City Centre, which requires a viaduct across Nottingham Station from the Line One terminus north of Station Street. An interchange stop would be provided over the station and this is being investigated as part of the Nottingham Station Masterplan. The cost of the structure would be shared between route options if two or three of the routes are taken forward. The plan also identifies common sections of route between the Station and Queens Drive park and ride site on the Beeston and Clifton (via Queens Drive) options. These shared sections would offer enhanced service frequencies and significant savings in route costs and these are identified in the assessment of route options. It should be noted however, that despite long sections of shared running, the Beeston South and Clifton via Queens Drive options together are more expensive than the Beeston North and Clifton via Wilford options together. 7. BEESTON ROUTES Both Beeston routes would provide an important strategic role. The Beeston North (BN) option serves the major destinations of the Queens Medical Centre (QMC) and the University of Nottingham. It also operates through the Royal Ordnance Factory (ROF) development site, which is expected to achieve employment levels of 3 – 4,000 by 2005. The Beeston South (BS) route would operate through the Crossgate Drive / Riverside industrial park and the Boots site. Both options serve Beeston Town Centre, and the BS route also serves the Rylands residential area to the south of Beeston. Route performance is set out below; • Operational capability . BN (20.5 mins) has a significant journey time advantage over BS (25 mins) and importantly, over existing bus services (24 – 33 minutes). Neither route provides high levels of segregation from other traffic. The strategic road network is crossed 4 times on BN and 3 times on BS. For both options further detailed consideration needs to be given to priority requirements for tram operation and broader traffic management measures. • Costs . BN (£102m) has a marginally cheaper capital cost than BS (£112m), although the difference would be negligible if BS was developed in combination with Clifton Queens Drive. BN has lower operating costs (approximately 5 – 10%), requiring fewer vehicles to operate the service due to the shorter route length. • Usage . Initial patronage estimates indicate a greater demand for the BN option, as this route serves more densely populated areas, the QMC and University, and has shorter journey times. However, demand from the Queens Drive park and ride site on BS offsets this lower patronage to a certain degree. •