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