South West Regional Development
Agency
Sterling House
Dix’s Field
Exeter
Devon
EX1 1QA
South West Councils
Dennett House
11 Middle Street
Taunton
Somerset
TA1 1SH
19 November 2009
Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation – Joint Response
from South West Councils and South West Regional Development Agency
Dear Sirs
1. Introduction and Background
1.1. This letter is a regional response to the Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy
(RUS) Draft for Consultation (September 2009) from South West Councils (SWC)
Secretariat and the South West Regional Development Agency (South West
RDA). (Further details on the roles of SWC and South West RDA can be found in
Annex A).
1.2. The South West Strategic Leaders’ Board and the South West RDA welcome this
opportunity to respond to the RUS consultation and to contribute towards the final
version of the RUS. The Region particularly values the partnership working being
facilitated by Network Rail and their continued engagement with the work
undertaken by the two organisations. We welcome Network Rail’s clear reference
in the RUS to regional strategies, such as the Regional Spatial Strategy 2006-
2026 (RSS) and the Regional Economic Strategy 2006-2015 (RES) and the fact
that they have been considered in the preparation of the draft strategy for the
route.
However, based on our own analysis, we believe the passenger growth
parameters used to underpin the RUS for 2014 to 2019 in particular are flawed
and as such significantly underestimate future rail use, and hence future demands
on the region's rail infrastructure.
1.3. Our response reviews the Strategy outlined in the RUS, relates this to our
evidence on likely passenger growth levels, then compares the Rail Priorities for
the South West with RUS Options. A summary of main conclusions is also given.
2. Growth in South West
2.1 This section of the response focuses on the issues around the proposed growth
in population, housing and jobs in the south west and how the region has
identified ways in which the RUS can help to deliver the resultant transport
infrastructure such growth will require. The section is made up of a number of
specific topics, which are summarised below:
Growth Assumptions – the region suggests that the growth assumptions
contained in the RUS seriously underestimate the potential for growth in
the region and the effects this growth will have on travel. The region
strongly recommends an assessment based on higher growth scenarios –
Section 2.2
Concentrations of Regional Growth – the region believes that the
percentage increases shown in the proposed RSS best illustrate where the
greatest demand for rail services may be created – Section 2.3
Growth in Patronage – the region suggests rail patronage growth
assumptions are too low. Regional growth, emerging local and national
policy emphasis, local traffic conditions and electrification are all significant
reasons to suggest rail patronage will increase at a greater rate than the
RUS presumes – Section 2.4
Growth from Rail Improvements – the region welcomes the level of
improvements planned in the region (Crossrail, IEP, electrification) but
would urge that the RUS pays greater consideration to the suppressed
demand that these improvements will release – growth assumptions
should reflect this scenario – Section 2.5
2.2 Growth Assumptions in the South West
2.2.1 Chapter 5 of the RUS, “Planning Context and Future Demand”, outlines the basis
for growth figures used, and lists the wide scope of documents and strategies
reviewed. We argue in this section that while the assumptions for growth at an
average of around 3.2% per annum are explained in the RUS, this seriously
underestimates the potential for growth based on planned regional growth
figures, the likely distribution of that growth in relation to the road network,
historical growth in rail patronage, increasing emphasis on sustainable travel
measures and rail improvements already planned or taking place.
2.2.2 The growth drivers we have examined include:
regional growth in population levels, and consequent increases to housing
and employment proposed in regional strategies;
the increases in rail use throughout the region since 2000;
transport policy changes to increasing the future role of sustainable transport
set against the background of the Government's "Delivering a Sustainable
Transport System" (DaSTS) framework;
future changes in cost and availability of petrol and fuel oil for personal road
based transport;
ongoing improvements which affect the rail network and patronage in the
South West (such as improved performance, electrification of the Great
Western Main Line, the Inter City Express Programme, Reading Station
improvements and the ERTMS)
2.3 Concentrations of Regional Growth
2.3.1 Table 5.1 in the RUS lists the jobs, housing and population growth in the SSCT’s
to 2026. However, it is more meaningful to look at percentage increases, as
shown in Table 1 in Annex A. This highlights the scale of the increases in
SSCT’s and the resulting potential increases in rail passenger numbers, as new
housing, jobs and therefore commuter, business and education travel flows will
cluster round these main centres, all of which are on the rail network.
2.3.2 Considerable growth is planned around the West of England sub-region (e.g. up
to 39% in Bristol’s population). This already accounts for over 20% of the South
West’s population and creates a quarter of the region’s GDP. At the sub-region’s
core, Bristol is subject to severe traffic congestion in places, and parts of the
adjacent motorway network are classified as over capacity by the Highways
Agency. Whilst traffic speeds are currently the slowest outside of London at 12
mph there is little highway capacity currently for expansion of travel by private car
around the city. Significant planned measures to increase public transport use
include a “Managed Motorway” scheme for hard shoulder running, Variable
Message Signing for the M4 and M5 around the city, and the region is targeting
considerable sums for transport measures such as Bus Rapid Transit, Showcase
Bus Routes and a new South Bristol Link. Many of these measures will feed into
the rail network.
2.3.3 The local rail network is therefore seen as an essential component in the regional
transport picture, with planned schemes via the Regional Funding Allocation for
re-opening the branch line to Portishead and to establish a Greater Bristol Metro.
Close liaison with Network Rail has led to some local infrastructure improvements
being planned and delivered. The schemes for four tracking between Bristol
Temple Meads and Parson Street, additional platforms at Westbury and Bristol
Parkway and turnback facilities at Yate are all welcomed. However, please see
our comments at 2.4 and 2.5 below regarding schemes in this area.
2.3.4 Other areas which may see large proportional increases in growth are Plymouth
(up to 35% growth), Cheltenham/Gloucester (potentially up to 30% growth) and
Exeter (potentially up to 56% planned growth) with the possibility that this growth
is accommodated in urban extensions. It is important that any urban extensions
that are related to rail lines are planned and developed along more sustainable
lines than previous versions, increasing the likelihood of rail use.
2.4 Growth in Rail Patronage
2.4.1 Paragraph 5.5.4.2 of the RUS indicates that growth in rail use during the 2014 –
2019 period into Bristol is estimated to grow at an average of around 3.2% per
annum. However, paragraph 3.6.16 acknowledges a compound annual growth
rate in the West of England of an average of over 7% per year in the 10 year
period to 2007. Given the rates of growth in Annex A Table 1, traffic conditions
around Bristol, local and national policies emphasising “Smarter Choices” for
travel, the attraction of an electrified service to London, an improved and more
reliable local network plus short term steady fares, the projection of 3.2% is far
too low.
2.4.2 Similarly, while demand for rail services in the Exeter area has grown by just over
3% per year in the same period (Para. 3.6.19) Plymouth’s rail traffic grew by
nearly 4.5%. Plymouth’s population in particular is proposed to grow by 35% to
2026, with a significant urban extension at Sherford. Given these increases plus
the policy background, the 3.2% predicted is again far too low.
2.4.3 Significant growth has been experienced in the recent past on branch lines in the
region. Figures for Devon and Cornwall branches, where the most established rail
partnership operates, show a 22% rise for 2009 against 2008, while Severnside
rail partnership shows a 13% increase. While the majority of branch line traffic is
local in nature, elements are fed onto “main line“ services. The potential for
further increasing this traffic through the hard work of Partnerships is evident,
especially in view of tourism authorities in the region emphasising the benefits of
sustainable travel for tourists and striving to extend the visitor season.
2.4.4 The region is not convinced that the methodology outlined in Para 5.5.1.4 is
sufficiently robust in order to account for the growth forecasts outlined in both the
Draft RSS and the suppressed demand for travel that will be released by
additional policy changes in the future, for example, policy changes the Highways
Agency may carry out in relation to the M4/M5 motorway network around Bristol.
2.5 Growth from Rail Improvements
2.5.1 Paragraph 5.4.3 states that “early indications show that the effect of recession on
passenger demand has been minimal with the demand for rail still increasing”.
Paragraph 5.4.2 alludes to the doubling of rail passenger numbers over 30 years
identified in the “Delivering a Sustainable Railway” White Paper. Growth of travel
within the region has been at 4.6% for the 10 year period to 2007/08, with growth
in traffic to London in this period standing at 4.2% per year.
2.5.2 In the South West region, the following improvements are currently mooted to be
either operational or underway during CP5, each of which will have their own
upward pressure on rail passenger demand in the region:
Electrification of GWML Paddington to Bristol
Provision of new, higher capacity “inter city” stock under the IEP scheme
Major capacity and reliability improvements through Reading Station work
Completion of Crossrail scheme to join GWML at Maidenhead (potentially
extended to Reading)
Installation of ERTMS
There are also potentially additional influences from:
High Speed 2 line linking with GWML in Heathrow area
Incremental improvements to the South West rail network which further
improve the reliability and attractiveness of rail.
2.5.3 The region welcomes the electrification of the Great Western Main Lines between
London and Bristol Temple Meads via Swindon, Chippenham & Bath, and the
process will deliver shorter journey times, attract more passengers and increase
operating companies’ revenue from increased reliability and reduced operating
costs. Ultimately, electrification will work towards one of the most important
regional and national goals: creating a sustainable transport system and low
carbon economy.
2.5.4 Whilst we appreciate that the GW RUS document should not be taken in isolation
and should be read alongside other documents including the Network Rail
Electrification Strategy RUS, stakeholders in the region have raised some points
and issues with regards to how the GW RUS deals with the impacts of
electrification on the Great Western Main Line.
2.5.5 We are aware that electrification of the West Coast Main Line is projected to
increase passengers and revenue threefold in the 10 year period to 2012. If
similar work on the GWML achieves even half of this figure, then the growth
figure of 3.2% per year for travel from the region to the capital seems extremely
low. There is concern that whilst the RUS acknowledges that demand for rail in
the region has increased (and will carry on doing so) it has not adequately
factored in the further increases in demand that electrification will bring. The key
concern therefore, is that the region’s rail infrastructure will not be in a
position to cope with the suppressed demand that electrification will
release. This is a particular concern given the amount of work that will need to be
undertaken on the lines to implement the infrastructure works outlined in the
bullets above.
3. Comments on the Emerging Strategy
3.1 The strategy for CP4 2009 – 2014 is based around an investment programme
delivering infrastructure to operate an increased service level, longer trains and
consequent improvements to journey times, reliability and performance (Para.
7.2.2). The concentration is on infrastructure and station change, plus rolling stock
increase (Para. 7.2.6). This latter element of the strategy to increase capacity is
seriously at risk in view of the DfT’s autumn 2009 rolling stock review. While the
rationale for the review is understood, an urgent need had been identified in the
region for additional capacity, particularly on the Cardiff – West of England –
Portsmouth service. There needs to be an urgent review of how this element
of the strategy for capacity increase is to be achieved in the light of the
rolling stock review, and consideration of how the region’s short term needs
can be addressed.
3.2 The strategy for CP5 2014 – 2019 looks at the changes to service provision and
infrastructure enhancements that are required to accommodate the growth in
passenger and freight numbers, including targeting improvement at key pinch
points. (7.3.1). As a strategy this seems sound, but its effectiveness will depend
on the assumptions made on the level of growth.
3.3 Within CP5, electrification, IEP, ERTMS and Crossrail (London Heathrow –
Maidenhead) will all take place and affect the capacity and performance of
GWML. RUS has to be targeted to maximise the potential benefits for the GWML
and South West from these interventions and to minimise the disruptive impact of
associated engineering works. It is accepted that this long list of schemes,
combined with an uncertain financial background, makes firm forecasting and
planning difficult. Even within these schemes, there are some uncertainties, such
as the potential extension of Crossrail to Reading, a potential interface with HS2
around Airport Junction and a firm timetable for electrification. A RUS refresh
when timescales and outputs of all these measures are better known, e.g.
for 2016, or for 2 distinct stages to the RUS, should be considered.
3.4 The four generic RUS gaps of capacity, connectivity, performance and journey
times have been well analysed. For capacity, the 4 tracking BTM to Parsons
Street in light of future demands and ability to segregate fast & slow trains is
welcome. But are the HLOS proposals for +12 carriages robust, and how sufficient
or realistic are the aims for +9 carriages to serve Cardiff – Portsmouth, Cardiff –
Taunton and Gloucester – Weymouth? They are the right areas to address, but
have to be seen in the overall context of the rolling stock review. Additionally,
there is the need to replace 30 carriages in the very short term that have been
transferred from elsewhere on the network.
3.5 At paragraph 7.3.8 – service patterns – further liaison is needed with local
stakeholders (such as West of England Partnership) on precise patterns here.
There is already significant support for the Greater Bristol Metro from surrounding
local transport authorities, local interest groups and it is prioritised within the
region’s Regional Funding Allocation programme. The region stresses, however,
that service patterns need to take account of changing local needs. For example,
up to 10,000 MoD jobs are being moved to Abbey Wood from the Bath area,
South Gloucestershire Council are to consolidate jobs around Yate and a major
development is to be brought forward with regional funding in the Filton area. The
level of proposed services from West Wiltshire into Bath has also been highlighted
by users as a concern.
3.6 In the Weston super Mare area; there is an opportunity for development of a
Parkway at Worle Station with up to 10,000 jobs and 6,600 homes planned at
developments on Locking and Airfield sites. Planned improvements to
infrastructure in the area in CP4 have been delayed as train performance has
improved. While that may be workable in the immediate short term, planning
applications are now coming forward for these sites and network capacity will
have to be increased with firm plans required to achieve this.
3.7 While the north of the region will see significant growth, high levels are also
planned east of Exeter and around Plymouth. The region sees the concept of the
Devon Metro as important here, as well as improved connectivity to main regional
centres and more distant markets for the far south west. We have to address an
East – West intra regional economic gradient, and tackle peripherality for the far
south west. There is an opportunity here to maximise the benefits of infrastructure
improvements and recast the timetable for Exeter and the far South West, in much
the same way as is being considered for the West of England area. In our view,
this omission should be addressed by the RUS.
3.8 The importance of Freight Gauge enhancement work and potentially substantial
increases in rail freight forecasts are noted at 7.3.12. We welcome these CP4
improvements, and agree any downturn will be temporary, especially in view of
expansion plans at Bristol Port where over 30% of tonnage currently moves by
rail, with the Port keen to expand on this level. We understand initial planning
applications will be submitted shortly.
3.9 We are concerned that the planned improvement schemes for electrification and
IEP (especially the planned use of bi mode trains for longer distance travel) will
not lead to improvements in either connectivity or journey times from the Far
South West. In particular, through train services from Cornwall, Plymouth &
Torbay to London must be preserved and journey times improved where possible
to gain full benefits for these areas of rail investment. There is also considerable
branch line growth (discussed below) to feed off via improved connections and
potential for improved patronage from some stations.
3.10 The longer term Strategy at 8.6 for the Bristol area is welcomed. This recognises
the inter relationship of all the major infrastructure improvements planned during
CP4 and CP5 and the opportunity of increased capacity and flexibility this gives
for a future recast of services in the area. Our argument above is for this analysis
to be extended to the Penzance/ Plymouth/Torbay/ Exeter area to enable rail to
take full advantage of planned growth.
Sustainability and the Transport Policy Agenda
3.11 The region’s stage 1 report for Delivering a Sustainable Transport System
(DaSTS) noted the large part played by long distance commuting and business
travel in the overall travel picture for the South West, compared with national
statistics. Analysis of DfT’s Carbon Pathways work identified that 39% of all car
driver distance in the South West was for commuting and business travel, with a
related high level of carbon emissions. It will therefore be important to tackle
these travel segments to reduce carbon emissions in line with targets, and rail
services into main regional employment centres will have a large role to play in
this.
3.12 The Regional Funding Allocation has shifted in emphasis in the second five year
programme (equating to CP4) to include a majority of public transport based
schemes, including some of the first rail schemes in this programme. It is clear
that in the light of uncertainties surrounding public finances, that “RFA3” for CP5
2014 – 2019 will consider “Smarter Choices” in travel even more closely. The
DaSTS programme of work which focuses on transport priorities in the region’s
main growth areas for this time period is firmly set against a background of
sustainability. With the relatively low carbon profile of rail travel compared with air
or car travel, it is possible that rail schemes will feature even more prominently in
the regional transport priorities in future. The region also welcomes the DaSTS
goal of delivering a transport system that contributes to better safety and health
and promotes travel modes that are beneficial to health.
3.13 There is little reference in the RUS to facilitating interface with other modes of
travel, such as bus, taxi and cycle interchange at stations. The South West is
promoting a regional back office for travel smartcards, and is hopeful of a national
pilot for this facility over the next few years. If successful, such a scheme would
be active in the CP5 period, boosting ease of use of the region’s public transport
network. Furthermore, funds have recently been made available to improve
cycling facilities at stations and have also included a “Plus Bike” trial on
neighbouring South West trains. If extended, such measures will have a further
potential upward pressure on demand for rail services in the region.
3.14 The minimal reference to provision of adequate car parking at railway stations
has raised some concerns in the region that opportunities for modal integration
are being missed. There are a number of stations in the region that regularly
exceed capacity and where Network Rail owns these stations the region would
urge NR to work with the train operating companies responsible for station
management and operation to develop parking solutions. In addition to car
parking at stations the region would also like to see greater recognition in the
RUS for the provision of safe and secure cycle parking at stations in order to
increase opportunities for sustainable modal integration.
Integrating Rail Appraisal
3.15 We are keen to see more integration of rail planning appraisal and decision
making with wider spatial planning and prioritisation. We believe that where local
transport authorities adopt the DaSTS approach to delivering transport solutions it
will provide an opportunity for urban areas such as the West of England to
integrate decisions taken on rail with wider spatial planning and prioritisation.
3.16 Overall, we would suggest that the evidence above indicates that further
sensitivity tests should be undertaken for rail growth at a rate of 5% per
annum in the Exeter and Far South West area and at a rate of 6% per annum
for the Bristol and West of England area.
4. The RUS Options Appraisal and Regional Rail Priorities
4.1 This section of our response is concerned with the extent to which the draft RUS
content supports the achievement of the five Strategic Objectives set out in the
South West Rail Prospectus (for more information on the South West Rail
Prospectus see Annex A).
4.2 Addressing each of the relevant RUS Options in turn the following paragraphs
highlight instances where the draft RUS supports the achievement of the South
West region’s strategic rail priorities and goes on to suggests ways in which the
strategy could be modified to further meet the needs of the region. In each case
linkages with the South West Rail Prospectus Strategic Objectives are given in
italics. Table 2 is a grid which shows where the Options achieve one or more of the
region’s key strategic objectives and can be found in Annex B.
Option A: Increase capacity and improve performance on the Paddington to
Reading corridor including connectivity to Heathrow Airport and western
access – Strategic Objectives 1 & 3
4.3 The region welcomes the work to address current performance and capacity
issues as part of the Reading Area Station Redevelopment scheme. The Great
Western Main Line is a key corridor to and from London and the South East for the
movement of freight and passengers. A study previously carried out for the South
West region found that productivity decreases by 6% with each 100 minutes travel
time from London, our major market. This would indicate that any investment in rail
infrastructure which supports accessibility to regionally important places, and
improves accessibility between those places and their main markets, is likely to
maximise benefits to our economy. Through electrification and the introduction of
IEP, there will be a need to preserve through services and journey times and the
specification of the regional bi mode trains will need to account for this.
4.4 Ultimately the region would like to secure direct rail access to London Heathrow
airport from the west and welcomes the appraisal of the options covered in the
RUS. However, we note the recent suggestion by the Secretary of State that the
extension of Crossrail to Reading should be considered. SWC have engaged with
local transport authorities at officer meetings on this issue and are eager to gather
support from across the region for a direct rail link to Heathrow that will reduce
motor vehicle travel on congested motorways and link the region into important
international markets.
Option D: Improve connectivity and increase capacity on the West Midlands
to South Coast corridor – Strategic Objectives 1, 2, 4 & 5
4.5 The region welcomes the appraisal of options to create better links between the
West Midlands and the South West. The West Midlands, along with London and
the South East, is one of the key markets outside the region. The region is
particularly keen to support the development of options that will facilitate the
transfer of road based freight movement on to the rail network.
4.6 The region also welcomes the assessment of opportunities to lengthen trains to the
South Coast. Tourism is one of the region’s key industries and reducing train
congestion, increasing passenger comfort and improvements to reliability will make
it easier to travel to the region without a car and have the potential to increase the
number of visitors.
Option E: Improve capacity and performance through infrastructure
enhancements; Swindon and Gloucester – Strategic Objectives 1, 2 & 4
4.7 The development of a strategic rail link between Swindon and Gloucester will work
towards a number of the region’s rail priorities. Swindon and Gloucester are two of
the key growth areas identified in the draft RSS and SWC/South West RDA
welcome infrastructure enhancements that will help to deliver forecast growth and
future demand. We would stress that accommodating forecast growth along this
line (e.g. in the North Swindon and Central Severn Vale areas) is something
consistent with the priorities in the South West Rail Prospectus, alongside
improving reliability of local services at times of disruption to the network. As such,
options for an enhanced service pattern allowed by the upgrades needs to be
explored.
4.8 The region also welcomes the opportunity that an enhanced link will bring for the
creation of a passenger and freight diversionary route when the Severn Tunnel is
closed or is approaching capacity, particularly when the works planned for the
Great Western Mainline begin.
Option F – Review service provision on the Cardiff to Portsmouth corridor –
Strategic Objectives 1, 2 & 4
4.9 The region welcomes the review of the service provision on the Cardiff to
Portsmouth corridor and the development of options to address on train crowding
and improve journey times between Cardiff and Portsmouth.
4.10 In particular the region would support the proposition for the longer term option.
This option would address the needs of those rail passengers moving between
long distance destinations (Cardiff-Portsmouth, Bristol-Portsmouth) and those
travelling shorter distances, commuting from stations along the route to key urban
centres like Bath and Bristol. The development of a service that would suit the
needs of both groups would fit with the region’s strategic objective to increase the
efficiency and reliability of trains between key cities and towns and would be
welcomed by the region. Short term capacity on this route needs addressing prior
to any stock cascaded from the electrification programme becoming available in
2017.
Option G – Improve connectivity and increase capacity on the West Midlands
to South West corridor – Strategic Objectives 1 & 5
4.11 The region welcomes options that improve access between the West Midlands and
the South West Corridor, measures to improve reliability and connectivity of
services between the two places are key as the West Midlands is one of the most
important markets outside of the region.
4.12 Train lengthening on the Edinburgh to Plymouth service would relieve on train
crowding and make travelling by train a more attractive option between two of the
regions key urban centres: Bristol and Plymouth. In addition, the region would
welcome moves to extend the current Manchester services from their current
terminus Bristol Temple Meads and on to Exeter and Plymouth.
Option H – Lengthen services into Bristol Temple Meads and review service
proposition – Strategic Objectives 1 & 2
Option I – Improve capacity and performance through infrastructure
enhancements at Bristol – Strategic Objectives 1 & 2
Option J – Review service proposition across Bristol to provide additional
capacity and improve performance - Strategic Objectives 1 & 2
4.13 The response to Options H, I and J will be treated as one. There is concern that
assumptions for growth at 3.2% significantly underestimate the potential for growth
in the West of England sub-region. Considerable growth is planned around the
West of England sub-region. This already accounts for over 20% of the South
West’s population and creates a quarter of the region’s GDP.
4.14 Whilst the sub region (through West of England Partnership) has expressed
support for electrification of the Great Western Mainline there is concern that the
electrification process will release suppressed demand that the RUS growth
assumptions does not adequately take into account. Though the sub region
welcomes the electrification of the lines to Bristol Temple Meads via Bristol
Parkway and Bath Spa there is concern that Weston-super-Mare does not feature
on the identified RUS routes. Further examination of issues around the RUS
growth assumptions can be found in Section 2.
4.15 The region is disappointed that the RUS business case rating for a fourth platform
at Bristol Parkway is described as weak and therefore unlikely to be implemented.
We would strongly urge you to review this, given that operational flexibility is key to
managing the interface between long distance and local services, including those
suggested by the Bristol Metro RFA scheme.
4.16 There is some concern that the Greater Bristol Metro does not receive sufficient
recognition within the RUS. For example, why do the RUS Greater Bristol Metro
proposals for enhanced half hourly cross Bristol train services not include
infrastructure for trains to Weston-super-Mare and Yate. In addition the proposed
services in the RUS only begin and end at Bristol Temple Meads. The West of
England Partnership has evidence of considerable cross city flows such as Bath
and Oldfield Park to Filton Abbey Wood.
Option K – Improve capacity and performance through infrastructure
enhancements at Westbury - Strategic Objectives 1 & 2
4.17 The region welcomes the option to improve capacity and performance at Westbury
as a way of enhancing passenger services to key regional centres such as
Swindon, Bristol and Bath. The enhancements will also act as an important
diversionary route for when works take place on the GWML.
Option L – Increase connectivity between Exeter and Plymouth - Strategic
Objectives 1 & 2
4.18 The region welcomes the option to increase connectivity between Exeter and
Plymouth. The train lengthening measures and timetable improvements are
welcomed, particularly as a way of reducing on train crowding between Exeter St
Davids and Plymouth. Plymouth and Exeter are key centres for the region and it is
important that connections between the two are maintained and upgraded where
possible in order to maximise their place as key regional markets.
4.19 The region is concerned that the appraisal for the option’s Business Case does not
take into account potential over crowding on weekend services. Weekend services
from the region are subject to on train crowding particularly on Friday and Sunday
evenings, which are recognised as peak times for travel.
4.20 The region does, however, welcome the next appraisal exercise being modelled on
summer flows. Devon and Cornwall are key tourist destinations within the region
as a whole so it is important that every effort is made to increase the attractiveness
of visiting the region by train.
4.21 The region would also welcome in the RUS a greater focus on the Exeter Metro
project. The draft gives the impression that only the needs of target populations
have been considered, for example, Plymouth and Bristol and not enough
consideration has been given to the needs of the populations that feed into these
towns/cities. The Exeter Metro project is an example of where linkages and as
such, greater emphasis for the scheme in the final RUS version would be
welcomed.
4.22 With the development of additional housing in the Ivybridge and Sherford areas,
services to Ivybridge station need improving. We suggest that Cross Country trains
are stopped here, to provide a regular pattern link both to Plymouth, Exeter and
beyond. At 6.6.4.1, the RUS states an earlier link from Paddington to Plymouth
does not have a strong business case. A recently issued SLC consultation by First
Great Western proposes an improvement with an earlier morning train to Torbay
(connection to Plymouth). We would ask that the RUS is updated to include this
proposal
Further Potential Options
4.23 As stated previously, there has been significant growth in patronage on branch line
services in some areas. Infrastructure work has underpinned the service
improvements which have made this possible, e.g. passing loop on the Truro –
Falmouth branch to allow a clockface, half hourly service to operate.
4.24 There are potential improvements to other branch lines; e.g. Liskeard – Looe in
conjunction with a potential new Park & Ride site, or Par - Newquay branch in
conjunction with the Clay Country Ecotown development; where relatively small
improvements could make more regular or more frequent services possible. This
would then allow for good connections with regular main line services as well as
improve the potential for interchange with local bus services.
4.25 We would ask that all potential linespeeds are maximised following
improvement work, and work is undertaken on branch lines to reduce
journey times where possible and to maximise their potential as feeder
services into the GWML.
5. Conclusions
5.1 We would summarise our conclusions as follows:
5.2 We ask for an urgent review of how the element of the strategy for capacity
increase through provision of more carriages is to be achieved in the light
of the current rolling stock review.
5.3 We call for a RUS refresh to be undertaken when timescales and outputs of
all major investments affecting the GWML are better known, e.g. for 2016.
Two distinct stages to the RUS around this date should be considered.
5.4 The final RUS should encompass a long term strategy for the GWML to
Penzance/Plymouth/ Torbay/ Exeter areas along the lines of the Bristol area
strategy, to enable full advantage to be taken of major investment and to
accommodate planned growth.
5.5 A key concern is that, if the RUS growth assumption of 3.2% average per
year is used as a basis, the region’s rail infrastructure will not be in a
position to cope with the suppressed demand that electrification and other
major investments will release and population growth in the region will
provide.
5.6 We ask that further consultation is undertaken with sub-regional
stakeholders in the West of England on the pattern of Greater Bristol Metro
services to ensure local knowledge of needs is incorporated into plans
before they are finalised.
5.7 Overall, we would suggest that the evidence above indicates that further
sensitivity tests should be undertaken for rail growth at a rate of 5% per
annum in the Exeter and Far South West area and at a rate of 6% per annum
for the Bristol and West of England area.
5.8 Thank you for the opportunity to comment once again and we look forward to
discussing the results of the consultation exercise with you. Please do not hesitate
to contact us if you have any queries regarding this response.
Yours sincerely
Ian Miller Peter Brown
Transport Manager Senior Director
South West RDA South West Councils
Secretariat
ANNEX A
Annex A
To be read in conjunction with South West Councils and the South West
Regional Development’s joint response to the Great Western Route
Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation
1. Introduction and Background
1.1. SWC brings the region’s local authorities together to ensure the best
deal for their areas and to strengthen the local voice at regional and
national levels. The Strategic Leaders Board (SLB) is the executive
arm of SWC and, until new planning legislation being brought forward
through the Local Democracy, Economic Development and
Construction Bill comes into force, anticipated to be in early 2010, the
SLB (as augmented) is the Regional Planning Body for the South West.
1.2. The South West Regional Development Agency is charged with
furthering the economic development and regeneration of the area and
contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in the
region. RDAs lead on developing Regional Economic Strategies (RES),
which set the context for the sustainable economic development of the
English Regions. We will continue to work closely with the rail industry,
local authorities and passenger groups to identify rail solutions which
benefit the regional economy.
ANNEX A
Table 1 Percentage Growth in SSCTs to 2026
SSCT Up to % increase in population
Up to % increase in housing
Up to % increase in jobs
Barnstaple 53.3 54.9 25.5 Bath 15.6 20.2 23.1 Bristol 39 37.5 22.4 Cornish Towns 53.4 57 25.3 Cheltenham 24.5 28.6 12.3 Chippenham 39.2 40.7 22.8 Dorchester 94.3 98.7 23.9 Exeter 56.1 64.3 22.9 Gloucester 35.3 37 15.7 Newton Abbot 74.6 77 24 Plymouth 35.5 35.4 15.3 Salisbury 28 31.6 24.7 SE Dorset 19.8 19.8 23.9 Swindon 54.2 55.3 23.8 Taunton 65.4 70.3 27.4 Torbay 26.9 30.8 22.7 Trowbridge 40 41.9 22.8 Weston-super-Mare 30.8 34.1 25 Weymouth 21 23.3 18 Yeovil 62 64.3 18.2
2. South West Rail Priorities
2.1 From previous individual and joint consultation responses you will be
aware of the South West Rail Prospectus 1, a joint publication between
SWC and SWRDA (with additional input from a number of
stakeholders) that sets out the region’s strategic rail priorities. The
document was put together in consultation with rail industry partners,
local authorities and other stakeholders and identifies the five key rail
priorities which can be summarised as the following five strategic
objectives:
1 Further details on the South West Rail Prospectus are available at: http://www.swcouncils.gov.uk/nqcontent.cfm?a_id=4056
ANNEX A
Strategic Objective 1 (benefits both passenger and freight services)
Improving connectivity to and between the regions Strategically
Significant Cities and Towns (SSCTs 2), especially from those places
to London / South East and to Birmingham / Midlands.
Meeting the needs of business for reliable connections, improved
connectivity to key markets and reducing the pressure on the
strategic road network.
Strategic Objective 2 (benefits primarily passenger services)
Strengthen the position of the region’s SSCT’s, particularly Bristol /
Bath / Weston-super-Mare, Swindon, Bournemouth / Poole, Exeter,
Plymouth and Cheltenham / Gloucester, as focal points for growth
and regeneration through provision of efficient and reliable transport
systems, tackling congestion and supporting delivery of economic
growth.
Improve accessibility and encourage modal shift away from the car
for commuting trips to and within SSCTs.
Strategic Objective 3 (benefits both passenger and freight services)
Improve public transport interchange and access to airports
including Bristol, Exeter, Southampton, Birmingham and the London
terminals.
Secure a direct rail access from the region to London Heathrow
airport.
Strategic Objective 4 (benefits primarily freight but also passenger
services)
Facilitate the growth and success of Bristol Port, encourage
sustainable distribution and safeguard the potential for improved rail
traffic to and from Poole, Plymouth and other South West ports.
Improve the reliability and punctuality of passenger and freight
services in the Bristol area and along the Great Western Main Line.
2 The places identified in the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West
2006-2026 (RSS) as being the primary focus for development in the region. The draft
RSS identifies 21 SSCT’s: Barnstaple, Bath, Bournemouth, Bridgwater, Bristol,
Camborne/Pool/Redruth, Cheltenham, Chippenham, Dorchester, Exeter,
Falmouth-Penryn, Gloucester, Plymouth, Poole, Salisbury, Swindon, Taunton,
Torbay, Trowbridge, Truro, Weston-super-Mare, Weymouth and Yeovil. Those
SSCT’s in bold are identified as main growth areas in the region’s Regional Funding
Allocation Advice to Government.
ANNEX A
Strategic Objective 5 (benefits primarily passenger services)
Support growth in key regional business sectors, particularly tourism,
providing increased opportunities for people to travel and to and
within the South West and to the regions by non car modes.
Annex B To be read in conjunction with South West Councils and the South West Regional
Development’s joint response to the Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy Draft
for Consultation
Strategic Objective 1 Connections between key cities & towns
Strategic Objective 2 Efficiency and reliability of trains
Strategic Objective 3 Improve public transport access to airports
Strategic Objective 4 Freight transfer to rail
Strategic Objective 5 Improve access to leisure and tourism
Option A: Increase capacity and improve performance on the Paddington to Reading corridor including connectivity to Heathrow Airport and western access
Option D: Improve connectivity and increase capacity on the West Midlands to South Coast corridor Option E: Improve capacity and performance through infrastructure enhancements; Swindon and Gloucester Option F: Review service provision on the Cardiff to Portsmouth corridor Option G: Improve connectivity and increase capacity on the West Midlands to South West corridor Option H: Lengthen services into Bristol Temple Meads and review service provision Option I: Improve capacity and performance through infrastructure enhancements at Bristol Option J: Review service proposition across Bristol to provide additional capacity and improve performance Option K: Improve capacity and performance through infrastructure enhancements at Westbury Option L: Increase connectivity between Exeter and Plymouth