DOCSLIB.ORG

Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny 13 ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 9 JUNE 2016 LEICESTER TO BURTON RAILWAY LINE Comments received from Dr. T. Eynon CC As Local Member for Coalville, I welcome the report by AECOM into the potential costs and benefits of reinstating passenger transport along the Leicester to Burton rail corridor. I especially welcome AECOM's statement that (7.4.3) "further work may be beneficial to robustly support decisions relating to the progress of the scheme. In particular, use of the updated LLITM model may generate additional demand and a detailed bottom-up costing exercise may reduce the capital costs". I am concerned at the conclusions being drawn by the County Council. Further work is needed It goes without saying that "costs would need to be met by central government through the submission of a robust business case demonstrating sound value for money in terms of transport economics and wider economic benefits." (Briefing notes #10). The Council is going beyond the evidence in the report when it attempts to persuade Members that "The study has identified that such a business case could not be produced." (Briefing notes #10). The evidence provided by AECOM does not support the County Council's advice lto members that "the County Council should undertake no further investigatory work on the proposal at this time." (Briefing notes #2b). Far from concluding that no further progress is possible, this Council should work regionally and strategically, using innovative technologies, to assess whether or not a satisfactory cost benefit ratio can be achieved. I urge members of the Environment and Transport Scrutiny Committee to examine the evidence provided by AECOM, noting the final conclusions, and draw their own conclusions. Aspirations In his briefing paper (#5), the Director of Environment & Transport reminds Members that in 2009, just before the 2010 General Election, it was considered that, in the case of the Leicester to Burton line, "reintroduction of passenger services was a valid long-term aspiration". 14 When I moved to Coalville in 1994, with a high-flying career that involved regular trips to London, I was told that the Leicester to Burton line would be open within 5 years. 22 years later, Coalville is struggling to expand and regenerate. The SE Coalville development is hampered by the prospect of congestion on the A511. Sitting between the A42 and M1, a town that should be ideally situated for the aspirational commuter is the subject of a remedial "Coalville Project". Pre-election promises in 2015 to revisit the Leicester to Burton line raised hopes in my town. Neighbouring cities are coming up with innovative transport solutions. Trams that can run on rail and road are now a proven technology. The advice to mothball the project once again suggests that, with the next General Election 4 years away, there is no political will to overcome the technical barriers. Investment The Leicestershire and Leicester Rail Strategy (#14) expects that "rail passenger numbers will continue to grow as they have done since 1994, putting ever increasing pressures on rail capacity (line and train). In its East Midlands Route Study, Network Rail is forecasting increases in overall passenger numbers of between 30% and 40% by 2023 and between 50% to over 100% by 2043." The developing industrial corridor along the Leicester to Burton line is providing thousands of jobs. A recent RAC report condemned North West Leicestershire for having some of the worst public transport provision in the country and the highest used of the private car to get to work. Not only are aspirational commuters being let down in North West Leicestershire. The lack of investment in public transport expects low-paid workers in insecure employment to subsidise the economy's need for a mobile workforce. Technofix Transport Strategy solutions, such as online home-working and driverless cars, as discussed at the recent Members briefing, will do nothing to assist warehouse workers to travel from Leicester and Burton to workplaces in Bardon and SE Coalville. The Rail Strategy briefing advises members that "it is important for Leicester and Leicestershire to be as best placed as is possible to seek to secure future investments in the area’s rail network and services." The failure to integrate the Leicester to Burton line into the Council's rail strategy condemns North West Leicestershire to finding itself "at significant economic disadvantage in comparison to other parts of the country." (#24) Predetermination 15 AECOM made it clear at several points in their report that the Transport Model favoured by Leicestershire cannot be relied upon. It is also clear that the original intention of the paper was hampered by a predetermination not to explore the options fully. I lost count of the number of times AECOM said "During the course of this study it became apparent that there was a need for additional work in order to inform the ongoing debate around whether the scheme as a whole is likely to be able to generate a sufficiently robust business case and is therefore worth pursuing." (6.9.1) They made this point six times and it is clear from their overall conclusion as stated above that the report does not support the County Council's determination not to pursue options further. Limitations AECOM comments that the Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model (LLITM) "in common with all multi-modal transport models, forecasts generally very low rail growth over time, much lower than has been observed in recent years in reality." (5.6.1) It adds that "use of the current version of the model contains a number of caveats, many of which will be resolved or improved in the next version of the LLITM model which is being developed and expected in 2016 - this year. As a result, the demand and revenue that has been forecast in this case might be considered to be understated." (7.2.3) AECOM also advise that the high level cost estimates are "now out of date and will not reflect current engineering and costing practices." (4.4.2) The original intention of the study was a ‘reverse engineered’ appraisal designed to identify the level of capital cost required in order to generate milestone Benefit Cost Ratios (such as 1.0 (i.e. ‘breakeven’) and 1.5). AECOM do not advise closing down the debate. The County Council's determination to prove the project unaffordable is an attempt to do so. Duty to co-operate Further limitations in the study include a failure in the duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities. AECOM note that "Flows to/from Burton account for a significant majority of the demand being forecast." (5.3.16) Despite this obvious need for cross-county and cross-regional partnership working, this study has been conducted in grand isolation using a Leicestershire-centric Transport Model that "currently contains no bus demand outside Leicestershire at all, 16 meaning there would be no bus demand outside the county that could potentially switch to rail." (5.2.1) AECOM note that "bus services between Burton and Ashby currently take 45 minutes and are every 20 minutes, while the rail service would take only 14 minutes with a 60 minute headway, which looks very good by comparison." (5.3.11) Despite the housing growth planned for Bagworth, LCC are closing down the options without discussion with Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council. Housing growth along the Leicester to Burton corridor is significantly greater than that planned for South Leicestershire yet money has been brought in to improve the Midland Mainline at Market Harborough. The Leicester to Burton route travels through Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Leicester City as well as Leicestershire. Without any discussion with neighbouring authorities, LCC goes beyond the evidence in advising Members that passenger transport along the Leicester-Burton line "could not be afforded by the County Council or a combination of local authorities". The inability of Leicestershire to work in partnership with neighbouring authorities on strategic projects does not bode well for the Government's Devolution agenda. Knighton Curve On page 54 of the Leicester & Leicestershire Rail Strategy the County Council is advised that "The removal of the east-to-north connection at Knighton Junction many years ago severed the direct link to and from Leicester station. The former alignment has been sold and extensively redeveloped, meaning reinstatement would be very expensive." AECOM also note that "The Knighton Curve would be required to join the line to the Midland Main Line. " (7.2.1) AECOM also observe that there is generally substantially higher usage of the scheme being predicted in the northwest (e.g. Burton-Ashby) than in the southeast (e.g. Leicester-Leicester Forest East). (5.3.10) The predetermined focus on the Knighton Curve and failure to work with strategic partners has prematurely closed down the options for the Leicester to Burton transport corridor. LCC have chosen not to examine the possibility that people from Burton (Staffordshire), Gresley (Derbyshire), Coalville and Moira (NWLeics), Bagworth (Hinckley and Bosworth) might want to go direct to London or via Burton to Nottingham, Derby and Birmingham. 17 Rather than Reinstating Knighton North Curve why not direct trains direct from Burton via Coalville to London? Build a station at Knighton and passengers to Leicester from Burton and Coalville could change trains. Are people living in Coalville not allowed to aspire to a job in London? Are people currently working in the South East not allowed to aspire to a home in the National Forest? Conclusion The County Council are going beyond the evidence in the AECOM report in closing down further investigatory work on the proposal to use the Leicester to Burton Line for passenger transport.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Railfuture Response to National Infrastructure
    RAILFUTURE RESPONSE TO NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE COMMISSION RAIL NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE MIDLANDS AND THE NORTH – CALL FOR EVIDENCE FOLLOWING INTERIM REPORT Contribution from Railfuture East Midlands Branch – August 2020 National Infrastructure Commission | Rail Needs Assessment for the Midlands and the North - Interim report https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/RNA-Interim-Report-Final.pdf Introduction: The Railfuture response dated 29th May 2020 to the first round of this consultation https://www.railfuture.org.uk/display2324 placed considerable emphasis on freight. In contributing to the August call for evidence, we in East Midlands Branch: Re-submit our May 2020 Rf EM Branch submission for previous NIC RNA call for evidence. This is on pp6-15 below in red text with a few subsequent additions in blue. Attempt to answer the NIC’s broad questions Q1 to Q4 below. References are to the pages and tables in the NIC’s Interim Report (see header.) Prepared by: Steve Jones, Branch Secretary, Railfuture East Midlands Branch [email protected] including contributions from members of EM Branch. Question 1: Please provide specific sources for evidence that the Commission could use in estimating costs and the impact of proposals on journey time and capacity. For schemes already proposed other than by Railfuture, such as those listed on p36, much information is already available from Network Rail, SNTBs (TfN, Midlands Connect), local and combined authorities, TOCs, DfT. Campaign organisations. For additional schemes put forward by Railfuture, further work would need to be done, though campaign groups such as SENRUG, SELRAP, MEMRAP and CRIL may have initial estimates for specific lines or areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Leicester Area Strategic Advice 2020
    How can growth and partners’ aspirations be accommodated in the Leicester area over the coming decades? Leicester Area Strategic Advice July 2020 02 Contents 01: Foreword 03 02: Executive Summary 04 03: Continuous Modular Strategic Planning 07 04: Leicester Area Strategic Context 08 05: Delivering Additional Future Services 12 06: Leicester Area Capacity 16 07: Accommodating Future Services 22 08: Recommendations and Next Steps 27 Photo credits: Front cover - lower left: Jeff Chapman Front cover - lower right: Jamie Squibbs Leicester Area Strategic Advice July 2020 03 01 Foreword The Leicester Area Strategic Advice forms part of the The report was produced collaboratively with inputs railway industry’s Long-Term Planning Process covering from key, interested organisations and considers the the medium-term and long-term planning horizon. impact of planned major programmes such as High Investment in the railway is an aid to long-term Speed 2 (HS2), and the strategies and aspirations of sustainable growth for the Leicester area, supporting bodies such as Leicester City Council, the Department economic, social and environmental objectives. of Transport (DfT), Midlands Connect and the Train Network Rail has worked collaboratively with rail and Freight Operating Companies. industry stakeholders and partners to develop long- The recommendations from this report support term plans for a safe, reliable and efficient railway to Network Rail’s focus of putting passengers first by support economic growth across Britain. aiming to increase the number of direct services from This study has considered the impact of increased Leicester Station, supporting freight growth and demand for passenger services in the medium and improving performance and satisfaction with the rail long term, starting from a baseline of today’s railway, network.
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Map REOP7 15.9
    1 2 A2B Drumgelloch - Bathgate Thurso reopening in progress due Dec 2010 by the Scottish Parliament Georgemas Wick 3 GARL Glasgow Airport new rail link by the Scottish Parliament November 2002 due to open 2012 but cancelled 2009 Passenger rail Helmsdale 4 Unrecorded, refer to 63 Golspie 5 Edinburgh suburban line reopening Lairg 59 November 2002, cancelled 2009 Dornoch 6 Penicuik reopening proposal network diagram November 2002 Tain Garve 7 Borders reopening under planning Invergordon by the Scottish Parliament Dingwall 8 Blythe & Tyne and Leamside lines reopening proposal September 2002 and Feb 2008 Nairn Elgin Under construction Also Ashington & Blythe and Washington proposals by Keith ATOC Connecting Communities June 2009 Achnasheen Inverness Strathcarron Inverness Forres 9 Penrith - Keswick reopening proposal 64 Airport Huntly Plockton 10 Stanhope - Bishops Auckland Stromeferry reopening proposal or proposed November 2002 Kyle of Lochalsh Aviemore Inverurie 11 Pickering - Rillington reopening to enable through service over Yorkshire Moors railway Kingussie Dyce 12 Wensleydale Railway: Northallerton - Leaming Bar - SCOTRAIL Leyburn - Redmire Principal routes November 2002 Regional routes 13 Rippon reopening proposal Spean Aberdeen Local routes July 2004 Glenfinnan Bridge Mallaig Limited service 14 Grassington branch reopening proposal September 2002 Blair Atholl Fort William Stonehaven Under construction 15 Skipton - Colne reopening proposal Planned or proposed* September 2002 Pitlochry New station 16 York - Beverley reopening proposal
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Development Strategy 2016 - 2020
    Economic Development Strategy 2016 - 2020 South Derbyshire Changing for the better Contents Foreword 3 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 6 Recent Events 8 Overview 11 Way Forward 15 Vision, Objectives and Ambitions 20 Acknowledgements The Economic Development team at South Derbyshire District Council would like to thank all those who have participated in the development of this Strategy. Further Information Economic Development, South Derbyshire District Council Civic Way, Swadlincote, Derbyshire, DE11 0AH, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1283 595755 Fax: +44 (0) 1283 595720 Email: [email protected] Web: www.south-derbys.gov.uk Photographs kindly supplied by featured businesses and Christopher Beech Photography, Louise Galdes Photography and Tony Summers 2 South Derbyshire Economic Development Strategy 2016 - 2020 Foreword South Derbyshire District Council’s Corporate Plan 2016-2021 sets out a Vision to make the District a better place to live, work and visit. ‘Progress’ is one of its four key themes and central to this is the continued support and development of the local economy. The South Derbyshire Economic Development Strategy will directly contribute to the achievement of the Progress objectives. These focus on economic development, inward investment, The National Forest, tourism and town centre growth. In order to further build on our significant achievements, the Council will continue to help grow and diversify our strong local economy to keep South Derbyshire well and truly open for business. This includes harnessing the potential of The National Forest. We will maximise opportunities for the future by encouraging the formation of new enterprises as well as the continued growth of existing businesses, helping to increase visitor spend, and attracting inward investment.
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Coalville Transport Strategy (ICTS)
    Interim Coalville Transport Strategy (ICTS) September 2021 Contents 1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………….. 3 1.1 What is the Coalville Transport Strategy (CTS) ? .................................................. 3 1.2 The CTS refresh ................................................................................................... 3 1.3 CTS structure ........................................................................................................ 4 1.4 COVID-19 statement ............................................................................................. 4 2. Scope of the CTS ……………………………………………………………………………. 5 2.1 The CTS geographical area .................................................................................. 5 2.2 Infrastructure scope .............................................................................................. 5 3. Challenges…………………………………………………………………………….…….. 6 3.1 Government focus on economic growth and housing ............................................ 6 3.2 Existing transport challenges ................................................................................ 6 3.3 Future growth challenges ...................................................................................... 7 3.4 Challenges associated with HS2 Phase Two ........................................................ 8 4. Previous work ……………………………………………………………………………… 9 4.1 Work done to date ................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Work to refresh
    [Show full text]
  • Comments by Max Hunt , Item 48. PDF 63 KB
    PAPER F CABINET - 8 th SEPTEMBER 2009 LEICESTER TO BURTON RAILWAY LINE Ivanhoe Line Stage II: Scheme Re-Appraisal COMMENTS FROM MAX HUNT CC ON BEHALF OF THE LABOUR GROUP Our greatest concern with this report is that it seems to have ignored the new report “Connecting Communities” from the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), possibly because the work overlapped. That Report identified the Leicester to Burton/National Forest Rail Line (NFL) as one of 14 disused rail lines where there is a positive business case for a new passenger service. Two conflicting studies ATOC vs LCC Whilst both reports agreed on capital costs, the ATOC report, published in June of this year, took account of planned growth in the County in terms of population, housing and industrial output. Their conclusion was that the key economic indicator for the NFL, known as the benefits to costs ratio ( BCR), was 1.3. This means, of course, that one gets more back than one puts in and contrasts markedly with an older report prepared by the County Council which was initially drafted in July 2008 which claimed the BCR was only 1 (15.4) Both cannot be right, but the Train Operator’s report is more up to date. It may also be argued that they know more about the economics of running a railway that County Councillors! However the case is further strengthened if one uses the formula based on Operating Costs (OPEX). ATOC also state that it is now more common to use a formulae based on operating costs only (OPEX), citing recent decisions to reopen the Ebbw Vale and Scottish Borders lines.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing the Public Transport Network Serving the East
    Developing the Public Transport Network serving the East Midlands Enterprise Gateway: The Way Forward Developing the Public Transport Network serving the East Midlands Enterprise Gateway: The Way Forward December 2015 Report Sponsored by Leicestershire County Council and North West Leicestershire District Council Report Prepared by Integrated Transport Planning Ltd Stakeholders and Contributors: • Arriva Midlands North • Castle Donington Parish Council • Castle Donington Volunteer Centre • Derbyshire County Council • DHL • Donington Park • East Midlands Airport • Kinchbus • Leicestershire County Council • Marks and Spencer • Midlands Classic • North West Leicestershire District Council • Roxhill • South Derbyshire District Council • Trent Barton Developing the Public Transport Network serving the East Midlands Enterprise Gateway: The Way Forward Introduction This document provides a five-year framework for future development This framework document starts with an overview of current and of the public transport network serving the East Midlands Enterprise potential future employment opportunities in the EMEG, together Gateway (EMEG) area. It has been developed on behalf of the with other trends and developments that are likely to affect the future Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP) East public transport network. It then presents issues and data associated Midlands Enterprise Gateway Access to Work Task and Finish (T&F) with the potential future workforce. Public transport links currently Group. The document has been developed building on consultation serving the EMEG are presented, along with various analyses that help with the T&F Group members and other key stakeholders (including to identify gaps in provision. Issues associated with filling those gaps local authorities and transport operators), as well as a review of are then discussed, including likely funding sources and constraints, current transport networks, local growth strategies, economic plans and current priorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2019
    South Derbyshire South Infrastructure Delivery Derbyshire District Plan Council Planning and Strategic Housing January 2020 Our Environment | Our People | Our Future Page Intentionally Blank South Derbyshire District Council Infrastructure Delivery Plan January 2020 Contents 1. Introduction 2. National Policy Context 3. A Spatial Portrait of South Derbyshire 4. Local Policy Context 5. Local Plan Strategic Objectives 6. Local Plan Spatial Strategy 7. Scope of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan 8. Methodology 9. Delivery Mechanism 10. Monitoring and Review Process 11. Development Strategy for South Derbyshire 12. Next Steps 13. Water and Flooding Infrastructure 14. Waste Infrastructure 15. Transport Infrastructure 16. Energy Infrastructure 17. Communications Infrastructure 18. Sport, Recreation, Open Space and Social Infrastructure 19. Health and Emergency Services Infrastructure 20. Education Infrastructure 21. Environmental Infrastructure 3 1 Introduction 1.1. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) sets out the infrastructure required to support the level of development proposed in South Derbyshire’s Adopted Local Plan (2011-2028). 1.2. Over the Plan Period (up to 2028) there will be significant levels of growth in terms of housing, retail and employment and it is essential for the Council and its partners to deliver the services necessary to achieve timely, sustainable and effective infrastructure to meet the needs of all residents in the future. 1.3. The information in this document has been produced in collaboration with various infrastructure providers operating in the District, as discussed in more detail in section 8. 1.4. The 2008 Planning Act1 and subsequent Regulations define infrastructure as including roads and other transport facilities; flood defences; schools and other educational facilities; medical facilities; sporting and recreational facilities; open spaces; and affordable housing.
    [Show full text]
  • (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee, 09/06/2016 14:00
    Meeting: Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee Date/Time: Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 2.00 pm Location: Sparkenhoe Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield Contact: Mr. B. Holihead (Tel. 0116 3056339) Email: [email protected] Membership Mr. I. E. G. Bentley CC Mr. Max Hunt CC Mr. D. C. Bill MBE CC Mr. D. Jennings CC Mr. G. A. Boulter CC Mr. A. E. Pearson CC Mr. J. G. Coxon CC Mr. L. E. Yates CC Mr. S. J. Hampson CC Please note: this meeting will be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s web site at http://www.leics.gov.uk/webcast – Notices will be on display at the meeting explaining the arrangements. AGENDA Item Report by 1. Appointment of Chairman. To note that Mr. D. Jennings CC was nominated as Chairman elect to the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee at the Annual Meeting of the County Council held on 18 May 2016. 2. Election of Deputy Chairman. 3. Minutes of the meeting held on 7 April 2016. (Pages 5 - 10) 4. Question Time. 5. Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). 6. To advise of any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent elsewhere on the agenda. Democratic Services ◦ Chief Executive’s Department ◦ Leicestershire County Council ◦ County Hall Glenfield ◦ Leicestershire ◦ LE3 8RA ◦ Tel: 0116 232 3232 ◦ Email: [email protected] www.twitter.com/leicsdemocracy www.facebook.com/leicsdemocracy www.leics.gov.uk/local_democracy 7. Declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • HIGH SPEED UK RAILFREIGHT STRATEGY the UK High Speed Rail Initiative Has Been Heralded As a Major Opportunity for Railfreight
    HIGH SPEED UK RAILFREIGHT STRATEGY The UK high speed rail initiative has been heralded as a major opportunity for railfreight. The accepted wisdom, advanced in support of the HS2 proposals, is that the transfer of express passenger flows from congested existing intercity routes to new high speed lines will free up capacity which can be exploited by freight traffic, as well as local passenger traffic. HS2 Railfreight Issues However, the potential gains for railfreight are hugely compromised by HS2’s incomplete coverage, its fundamental lack of capacity and its inefficient configuration. With HS2 configured as a London-focussed ‘Y’, it can do nothing to enhance transpennine route capacity or the restricted structure gauge that greatly hinders the passage of container traffic; and it should be noted that more local initiatives such as the Northern Hub will do very little to promote cross-Manchester freight flows, with all transpennine flows compelled to pass through either Victoria or Piccadilly stations. As for capacity, with HS2’s London-West Midlands ‘stem’ only comprising 2 tracks, it cannot provide the extra train paths necessary to access all the major cities (such as Coventry, Stoke, Leicester and Derby) which are currently integral to the UK intercity network. Although HS2 plans currently show the express services to these cities reduced in frequency, and regressing to ‘regional’ status with more stops added (thereby creating the capacity for more freight traffic), a more probable outcome is that local political pressure will result in the retention of many of these express services. The likely consequence for overall network capacity is a severe ‘double negative’; the express trains will be poorly-filled due to abstraction of much of the core passenger flows onto the high speed line, and their continued operation will prevent ‘paths’ being released for freight traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7: Transport & Traffic Management
    Chapter 7: Transport & Traffic Management CHAPTER 7: TRANSPORT & TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Introduction 7.1 The existing transport network within the plan area relies on two major communication corridors along radial routes extending out from the Leicester urban area. The Soar Valley corridor including the A6, the London-Sheffield mainline railway, and the Grand Union Canal links Leicester and Loughborough. Along the Wreake Valley corridor run sections of the A607/A46 roads and that section of the Birmingham-Peterborough railway line between Leicester and Melton Mowbray. Elsewhere a network of minor roads connect smaller villages to the main road corridors, within and outside the Borough, and to the urban areas. The Great Central Railway between Birstall and Loughborough currently fulfils a recreational role only. 7.2 The land use policies and proposals of this Plan are closely related to future transportation requirements. Over the plan period there will continue to be a need for new roads and highway improvements, but increasingly an emphasis will be placed on providing for better public transport, safer cycling and pedestrian routes. The intention is to achieve an effective transport network providing choice in the means of transport for people and goods in the plan area with the aim of reducing reliance on private cars. This will only be achievable through the careful co-ordination of transport and land use planning. Government Guidance 7.3 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires all plans to include land-use policies relevant to the management of traffic and also empowers local planning authorities to keep under review matters which may be expected to affect the development of their area.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Trains Refranchise Report
    REMAPPING OF THE CENTRAL TRAINS FRANCHISE PASSENGER REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DELIVERY OF RAIL SERVICES IN THE EAST MIDLANDS TRAVELWATCH East Midlands MAY 2006 TRAVELWATCH EAST MIDLANDS REMAPPING OF THE CENTRAL TRAINS FRANCHISE CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 3. SEEKING THE PASSENGER VIEW 3.1 THE PASSENGER SURVEY 3.1.1 Methodology 3.1.2. Results from ‘top 10 priorities’ question 3.1.2.1 Results from the East Midlands Survey 3.1.2.2 Comparison of results: East Midlands and West Midlands surveys 3.1.2.3 Comparison of results East midlands and National surveys 3.1.2.4 Conclusions from comparing survey results 3.1.3. Results from ‘paired choice’ question 3.1.4. Other comments 3.2. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 3.3. DISCUSSIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS 4. THE TRAVEL MARKET 4.1 INTER-CITY TO LONDON 4.2 INTER-URBAN AND REGIONAL 4.3 LOCAL-SUBURBAN 4.4. LOCAL-RURAL Page 2 TRAVELWATCH EAST MIDLANDS REMAPPING OF THE CENTRAL TRAINS FRANCHISE 4.5 INTER-REGIONAL 5. ROUTE SPECIFIC ISSUES 5.1 ROUTES ALLOCATED TO THE EAST MIDLANDS FRANCHISE 5.1.1 St Pancras – Derby / Nottingham / Sheffield / Leeds 5.1.2 Liverpool – Nottingham – Norwich 5.1.3 Matlock – Derby 5.1.4 Crewe – Skegness 5.1.5 Leicester – Loughborough – Lincoln 5.1.6 Worksop – Nottingham 5.1.7 Cleethorpes – Lincoln – Newark / Nottingham 5.1.8 Doncaster – Lincoln – Peterborough 5. 2 ROUTES ALLOCATED TO THE WEST MIDLANDS FRANCHISE 5.2.1 Birmingham –Leicester 5.2.2 Euston – Northampton 5.2.3 Birmingham – Coventry / Northampton 5.2.4 Coventry – Nuneaton 5.3 ROUTES ALLOCATED TO THE CROSS COUNTRY FRANCHISE 5.3.1 Cardiff / Hereford – Nottingham 5.3.2 Birmingham – Stansted Airport 5.3.3 Birmingham-Derby-Sheffield (existing Cross Country route) 5.4 OTHER ASPIRATIONS 6.
    [Show full text]