ITEM CA7 - APPENDIX B

Eco-towns: Living a Greener Future

Joint report by Cherwell District Council and Oxfordshire County Council.

1. TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT WORK

(Draft subject to comments from the Highways Agency)

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has produced Guidance on Transport Assessments. Whilst not a statement of Government policy, it does draw together a number of themes carried forward in Government policies, and hence it will be expected to be used as a basis for the Transport Assessment of the proposed development at Weston Otmoor.

What follows does not reproduce the DCLG Guidance, as it is expected and assumed that the promoter’s team will be fully au fait with its contents and will follow the Guidance assiduously. However, there are features of the proposal that will require specific attention and these are set out below.

There has been a considerable amount of information supplied to date on transport matters and the summary of the transport offer set out in section 2 below, seeks to pull this information together into one document in order to provide a joint understanding of the proposal. There are many aspects of the proposal that need considerable clarification and submission of further supporting information. It is also necessary to establish what discussions have taken place to date with other stakeholders in order to arrive at the scheme proposals and mitigation measures highlighted in the submissions.

A. General points arising for consideration in the TA

(Specific and detailed questions are set out in section 2.)

I. Assumptions on trip generation, distributions and modal split

The documentation provided to date does give some limited details of trip generation, modal split and mitigation measures (as noted in the CLG transport assessment guidance). However, full supporting justification for these assumptions needs to be provided as soon as possible. Key to this will be a requirement to provide the following:

· Mode split - Evidence from similar sized and located developments, preferably in the UK, that the mode split assumptions are realistic and how any failure to deliver certain bits of infrastructure would impact on modal splits;

· Trip distribution - Use data to demonstrate the whole journey origin and destination trip distributions (not just station to station) are realistic and provide evidence to demonstrate how (given the information supplied to date) the modal split will be achieved;

· Junction analysis - Detailed analysis of key junctions using micro-simulation, TRANSYT or other similar software – key junctions to be agreed;

· Strategic public transport strategy – much has been headlined about the public transport strategy, but there is a need to establish, and justify with evidence, the likely levels of patronage and profile over a 24hr period, 7 days a week (Saturday is a particular problem in the Bicester area due to Bicester Village etc). There is a need to understand the strategy for trips beyond stations, notably Oxford (such as Harwell, Milton Park, Oxford Science/Business Parks etc), how bus use fits in with the proposals, and how sufficient passenger capacity will be provided.

II. Wider context information required

It is considered that a development of this scale with “headline scheme proposals and mitigation measures”, requires significantly more supporting information in relation to deliverability. This will have a significant impact on the ability of the development to achieve the desired trip rates and modal splits referred to in the documentation submitted and will therefore need to cover:

· The deliverability, both in engineering and financial terms, of the proposed schemes and mitigation measures, and the risks associated with not being able to deliver one or more schemes (including impact on trip rates, modal splits etc);

· The certainty of funding of the mitigation measures and the risks associated with not being able to secure funding that does not have any detrimental impact on other County Council initiatives;

· Provision of evidence to demonstrate the achievability of the desired results from the initiatives and schemes – the evidence needs to be appropriate to the scale, location, and characteristics of the transport network to be utilised by trips to and from the development;

· The nature of agreements that will be entered into with third parties and the Council to deliver the proposed schemes and mitigation measures, and the risks associated. The Council wishes to see a draft section 106 agreement and draft transport conditions (both complying with Circular 11/95) for;

o the off-site transport infrastructure and services, including a schedule illustrating what is to be provided and by when; and

o the traffic restriction measures to restrict flows to/from A34 and other external roads.

· Evidence to demonstrate the ability of the developer to maintain the roads and associated highway infrastructure (street lighting, drainage etc) within the development to an acceptable standard, and the safeguards that are in place should the highway authority be required to adopt and maintain this infrastructure;

· The legalities and risks associated with access for public service/utility vehicles such as bus services, refuse vehicles, utility companies;

· The ability of the developer to enforce any parking or speeding restrictions that are put in place on site. The risk of residents abusing any parking controls that are put in place (by parking off site for instance) and therefore undermining the road pricing strategy and overall sustainability of the site;

· Any legal issues concerned with the deliverability of the proposed schemes and the risks associated due to civil liberty and human rights legislation that may be an obstacle to any of the enforcement, monitoring or provision of initiatives and schemes proposed;

· What will be the nature of the contract that will be signed by residents and business owners of the proposed development to enable the financial penalties to be imposed on residents and employers?

III. Study area

The TA study area should be expanded beyond J9 M40 and should include J10 and the A34 to the A420 interchange.

IV. Park and ride

The purpose, operation and assumptions regarding the proposed Park and Ride need to be fully explained.

B. Modelling scenarios

OCC has been asked to set out the options to be tested by the Central Oxfordshire model when it becomes available at the end of June. It has been agreed that the test runs will be carried out by Halcrow but paid for by the developers.

It is considered that the following options need to be tested:

1. a modal split based on ‘normal’ expectations having regard to the location close to M40/A34 (for example; 70 percent by private vehicle, 30 by public transport). The percentage will need to be agreed based on assumptions used to inform the BicITLUS (Bicester Integrated Transport & Land Use Study) which can be used as a guide; however, it should be noted that with the eco-town site being closer to the strategic road network, there is a greater possibility of out-commuting if public transport incentives and demand management fail;

2. a scenario based on the ‘low-tech interim solution’ as set out in the Parkridge letter dated 1st March 2008. This scenario assumes that the rail infrastructure offer is not in place before the housing (or at least some of it) is occupied. This scenario would need to test the number of dwellings (if any) that could be constructed without the promised infrastructure offer but with an improved bus service from the town. An acceptable level of bus service would have to be agreed (destinations and frequency);

3. the third scenario would test the promoter’s suggested 80/20 modal split and the ability to achieve this. As part of this scenario it would be necessary to assess:

3a. the ability of the park and ride site to remove cars from the network and hence free-up space for road users from the eco-town’; and

3b. the impact of different levels of congestion charge on private vehicle use.

A modelling meeting should be set up between the promoters, Halcrow, OCC and Cherwell to discuss and agree the details of how this work can be taken forward.

2. Summary of transport offer and detailed questions arising

NB. A full list of questions relating to rail issues is included in the annex entitled ‘Initial Analysis of Railway Proposals’.

Referenced documents:

1. Expression of interest A3 document – October 2007
2. Additional information 10 Jan 2008
3. Additional information 21 Jan 2008
4. Letter from Roger Sporle to Henry Cleary 14 Mar 2008
5. Document submitted for a cross governmental meeting 21 Feb 2008
6. Initial Transport Assessment (Waterman) 9 May 2008

East West Rail

• Complete implementation of the Oxford to Milton Keynes section (A8, A17)
• Reinstate two tracks between Oxford and Milton Keynes from the outset, including the short tunnel to the North East of Oxford Station (Wolvercote tunnel), to W10 gauge (C1)
• Improved signalling on the East West route to accommodate 12 paths per hour in each direction (E32)

Why is only £150m allocated to build significantly more infrastructure?

At what Network Rail GRIP stage is the Parkridge cost estimates?

What assumptions have been made about signalling?

How will the Parkridge proposal be compatible with the West Coast Main Line Strategy?

How will Parkridge provide more than 2 trains per hour to Milton Keynes?

How will the proposal allow for DfT strategic passenger and freight movement?

Will the Parkridge proposal allow inclusion of the Aylesbury spur?

How will the rail offer impact on the viability of existing bus services from Bicester and surrounding areas?

Other rail infrastructure

• New Weston Otmoor station (A9, A17)
• Chord at Bicester (Gavray Drive) to create Oxford to London route (A9, A17, B1)
• New signalling and platform provisions at Oxford (C1)
• Base layout to provide sufficient capacity for the first 10,000 dwellings without the need to touch the existing signalling at Oxford (D2)
• Amend internal layout of the goods yard at Oxford to accommodate extra train paths by relocating Network Rail’s sidings to Weston Otmoor (D2)
• Additional stabling for NR maintenance trains at Weston Otmoor (D2)
• Additional canal crossing at Oxford station to allow East West trains and trams to be fully integrated into the existing station (D2)
• Extend existing bay platforms and provide new tram platforms by relocating NR buildings to Weston Otmoor (D2)

How will the different infrastructure requirements be achieved in practice?

How will Parkridge achieve W12 gauge clearance to meet industry requirements?

What agreement is there to the removal/relocation of the stabling sidings at Oxford?

Why has the masterplan not allocated land for the relocation of the sidings?

If the platform at Milton Keynes Central is too short, how will capacity be provided?

Will Parkridge provide W12 gauge clearance between Oxford and Milton Keynes?

How much money is Parkridge allowing for changes to/rebuilding Oxford Station?

Has Network Rail or First Great Western agreed to relocate the Turbo sidings and/or offices to Weston Otmoor?

When will Parkridge have a detailed layout for the revised Oxford Station?

Will existing train services still be able to use the bay platforms facing north?

Who will operate the signalling, and from where will it be controlled?

How can the required level of service be provided ahead of Oxford re-signalling?

Is there a contractual relationship between Parkridge and Chiltern Railways for use of Gavray Drive Chord?

Will Parkridge compensate Network Rail for the cost of operating the signalling?

How will the provision of the new station impact on travel from Bicester and surrounding areas?

Rail services

• Up to 5 trains per hour (tph) in each direction (A9, A17)
• Travel to Oxford in 6 minutes (A9, A17)
• Travel to Milton Keynes in 30 minutes (A9, A17)
• Travel to London Marylebone in about an hour (A9, A17)
• Up to 5000 people an hour able to travel on the rail routes (A9, A17)
• 4 tph each way to Milton Keynes (B1), operated by double-decked trains (C1) or longer trains (D2)
• 4 tph each way to London Marylebone (B1)
• 4 trams per hour each way to Oxford (B1), doubling as part of the on-site tram service (C1) using specially commissioned bespoke vehicles to run on conventional tram lines and the new rail lines (C1)
• Through ticketing to enable rapid interchange between tram and train (C1)
• Rail (and tram) services would be franchised by the Weston Otmoor Management Company (B3)
• Alternative to tram would be additional 4 tph between Oxford and Weston Otmoor (C1)
• Provide one extra path per hour into Milton Keynes (D2)

What demand modelling has been undertaken to prove the need/establish the viability for the level of service proposed?

How will services be franchised?

How will freight movements be accommodated under the Parkridge proposal?

What timescales are known about the approval of new rolling stock by the rail authorities?

Does Parkridge have any contractual arrangement with a rolling stock manufacturer?

Who will fund the new heavy rail rolling stock (for East West Rail and London services)?

What discussions have been held with the DfT?

Where will the new rolling stock be maintained?

Will the new technology (tram-train and double deck trains) really be achievable?

What timetable and performance modelling has been done to prove a high frequency service is possible?

How will a single bi-directional line function with such a high intensity service?

How will Parkridge ensure that existing services do not suffer as a result of introducing more trains, particularly to London, onto the network?

Is Parkridge prepared to pay for higher operating costs incurred by existing train operators?

How will an intensive train service affect traffic using the Bicester road network?

Tram system (or bus (A8, A17))

• Continuous running 5 minute frequency around development (B1)
• 15 minute frequency to Oxford via rebuilt railway (B1)
• Hybrid system (tram-trains on heavy rail network) (B1, D3)
• The tram service would be franchised by the Weston Otmoor Management Company along with Oxford – Milton Keynes rail services (B3)
• Explore the obvious opportunity to extend the tram system (D3)
• New stop at Peartree or Water Eaton to allow interchange with current P&R connecting buses (F20)
• Routes along Oxford Northern Bypass to BMW & Oxford Science Park, to the JR Hospital, to the Oxford Business Park North and to Sandy Lane West (F21)
• Longer term improved penetration into the City centre with on-street running on Hythe Bridge and Park End Streets (F21)
• Utilisation of the freight line to BMW (F21)
• Extension to Didcot (F21)

Is the tram-train technology sufficiently advanced to be a realistic proposition here? What evidence is there for this?

Have the main bus and taxi operators been approached for a view on the impact on their operations of street running trams?

How will land required for delivery of the above schemes be acquired?

Has the cost of providing the above been estimated?

Bus Rapid Transit (Fastrack)

• Increase flexibility of the public transport offer to residents and those who wish to travel to Weston Otmoor by facilitating high quality links to the main employment areas in and around Oxford such as areas to the south and east of the city; Oxford Science Park, hospitals and Brookes (D3)
• Examine bus-based options from Weston Otmoor; bus connections from Oxford Station (D3)

• Enhanced strategic road based service pattern of Bus Rapid Transit (F18)
• Fastrack links to Banbury, Warwick, Wantage/Grove and Didcot/Abingdon (F18)
• Routes connecting Peartree and Water Eaton P&Rs direct to places of employment, avoiding the City centre and utilising the ring road, incorporating some level of priority in several locations such as service roads, soft landscaping and wide ped/cycle paths (F20)

What are the suggested routes, frequencies and journey times?

What are the anticipated operating costs and how will this be funded?

Would these trips be free to residents too?

How would the bus offer link with existing bus service provision/possible enhancements to service provision?

Further details of what is envisaged as part of ‘fastrack’ are needed – would it be segregated from other traffic? If not, what bus priority measures would be provided? If so, would existing bus services be able to use the facility?

How would this fit with the proposed bus based P&R proposal at SW Bicester?

Free public transport

• Free public transport to Oxford from Weston Otmoor residents (A8)
• Between Bicester and Oxford (A18)
• Between the site and Oxford or Milton Keynes (B1)
• Free for life (B1), from the outset (B3)
• For everyone connected with the development (B1)

Does “everyone connected with the development” include those who work there but live elsewhere? If not why not?

Would it also be free to Reading, Swindon, London (Marylebone and Paddington)? If not why not?

What is the impact of free public transport on long-distance commuting and how does this relate to the eco-status of the town?

Highway infrastructure

• Bridge over A34 to form Main Street (A13)
• Zero impact on M40, A34, A41 (except M40 J9) (B2)
• £20m improvement package at M40 J9 to deal with anticipated increase in turning movements (B2); delivering in excess of a two-fold increase in capacity; designed to meet demands of all employment-generating development in Bicester (C4)

How can increased traffic on M40 southbound to J9/A34 not impact also on J10/A43?

Why the £10m discrepancy over cost/budget available for the J9 improvement?

Is it possible for the existing bus services from Bicester to serve the development from the A34?

Park & Ride

• 5000 space P&R, rail based to Oxford and Milton Keynes (A8)
• 6000 space P&R to reduce commuter traffic on A34 and lessen impact on A41 and M40 south (B2)
• P&R would be operated by the Weston Otmoor Management Company (B3)

How much will it cost for non-residents to use the P&R?

How will the cost compare with existing Oxford P&R and therefore how attractive will this be in practice?

What is the rationale for the scale of park and ride proposed (5 -6,000 spaces) and what will be the impact on long-distance travel by private vehicle?

What are the use and income projections in order to generate sufficient revenue to offset the costs of free public transport for residents?

Parking management

• Limited private car access to the body of the development (A18)
• Parking in managed areas towards the periphery of the development (B1)
• Pre-registration of cars parked for 4+ hours (B1)
• Variable charging rates for parking (first space free) (B2)
• Parking charge exemptions for key groups such as doctors and nurses (B2)

How would the limited access to the body of the development work in practice; for example, would residents be able to drop off shopping, children, large items etc at their front doors? If so, how will this movement and parking be managed?

How will the key groups exempt from the parking charges be determined – is it all public sector workers? How many exempt vehicles are likely to enter/exit the town over the course of a day?

How will parking associated with employment uses be managed?

How will deliveries and other travel associated with employment uses be managed?

How will parking management be enforced?

Why is the development not car-free?

Road pricing

• Pricing scheme along car park feeder roads via ANPR cameras (B2)
• Arrivals and departures would be charged (B2)
• Charging levels would be sufficiently punitive to deter significant usage (B2)
• Exceptions would be made for key workers, emergency trips or multiple occupancy (B2)
• Traffic would be wholly constrained to pre-agreed levels (no more than 20% of journeys by private car (C2) so congestion problems along the key trunk routes serving the development would never be allowed to develop (B2)
• Should congestion occur the toll charges would simply be raised until the pre-agreed levels were re-established (B2)
• Revenue collection and setting and enforcement of road tolls would be carried out by the Weston Otmoor Management Company (B3)
• Use of local roads other than the M40, A34 and A41 would be prohibited; off-site problems would be alleviated through a system of targeted fines (B4); threshold values (maximum development related peak hour traffic) would be agreed with the HA for A34 and ANPR cameras used to ascertain whether this was exceeded; if so, then charges would be raised until threshold reached (C3); suggested charge £200 for peak hour departure (C3)

Where have such systems been trialled before and how successful have they been? How would the technology work; for example, how would space on the network be measured?

How would residents be informed on a day-to-day, hour-by-hour basis about whether they could use their cars to leave the site?

Is it realistic to expect residents on the WOMC to approve the high charges necessary to reduce car travel demand?

Would the roads remain private or be offered for adoption? How would this affect the ability to run a road pricing system?

If the roads within the town are to be private, what financial allowance has been made for future maintenance and possible offers/requests for the Highway Authority to adopt/maintain at a later date? (The Highway Authority would require a significant bond to secure future maintenance/adoption; has this been taken into account in the financial calculations?)

If the roads within the development are to be private, how would public service/utility vehicles gain access (e.g., refuse collection, bus services, air quality monitoring, utility companies etc)?

What is the legal basis for targeted fines for driving on roads away from the development and how can this be realistically enforced through Section 106? If it cannot be enforced by S106, what comfort does the council have that private travel demand can be managed?

What is meant by multi-occupancy and what impact will this have on car use?

How have the costs of running and managing such a system been assessed in perpetuity?

How would the system deal with travel to the site by private vehicle?

How would residents parking off-site in neighbouring villages and rural roads be managed/enforced?

How can these matters be enforced?

Management

• Weston Otmoor Management Company would deal with all transport related matters (B3)
• WOMC would retain a car bank of zero emission taxis for emergency car access (B3)
• Real Time Variable Message Signs on site roads and in homes with information on road charges, train and tram times (C3)
• Further methods of car restraint and smarter choices will be included in the proposals as they are developed (D3); to include high quality pedestrian and cycling access and routes throughout the settlement and to nearby destinations including making use of the existing National Cycle Route No 51; travel plan programmes which would ensure residents and employees have access to travel and transport advice and information including the use of travel plan coordinators and real time information systems in each house and place of work; car pooling and car club schemes; highways and traffic management including the use of priority routes and corridors for public transport; high quality bus links (D3)

How will “community involvement” be reflected in the WOMC?

Is it expected that all the roads would be adopted as public highway?

Who will pay for the maintenance of the real time information system in perpetuity/renew the system when required etc?

Funding sources

• Capital costs will be wholly borne by the developer and written off (B3)
• Revenue (running) costs, anticipated to be £10m p.a. (E36), would be funded from five sources (B3):
• Rail revenues from the franchise for the Oxford – Milton Keynes (and possibly tram) service, including income from 3^rd party use of this route and the Oxford – London Marylebone route
• Road charges for both parking and arrivals and departures
• Service charges paid by all employers based on floorspace occupied
• Advertising within the main facilities and trams
• Interest from lump-sum cash endowment, in the order of £100m (C2)

East West Rail operating costs have been calculated at £9m+ p.a. – how can the total revenue costs for the Weston Otmoor transport offer therefore be as low as £10m p.a.?

“Low-tech” interim transport solution

• If, for any reason, the rail connection is not operational before the first houses are occupied, the “low-tech” interim solution could take the form of buses, conventional or guided, electric or diesel, along with the Park & Ride facility, whether that is by train or a combination of train and bus (D4)
• As an alternative to the tram, an electric bus option could be utilised and allow car restraint to be fully operational from the outset (D5)
• There are no reasons why all the methods of car restraint cannot be introduced from the outset, along with high quality pedestrian and cycle routes, car pooling, car clubs and travel plan programmes (D5)
• There are no reasons why flexible public transport arrangements could not be offered to residents and those who will wish to travel to the eco-town; the bus alternative would give a wider network than rail or tram links (D5)

How can the “low tech” offer be considered a reasonable alternative to the tram-train in exerting the same level of car restraint on residents?

How would such an offer fit with the existing public transport services operating in the area?

What improvements to the off-site cycle network are proposed (e.g., between the site and destinations such as Bicester, Kidlington and Oxford)?

Transport infrastructure budget

The budget given for transport and transportation is as follows: (E8)

M40 Junction 9 improvements	£30m
East West Rail Line (Oxford to Milton Keynes) implementation	£150m
Park and Ride facilities	£15m
Integrated Tram network	£25m
Public transport subsidies	£5m
Primary on-site roads	£10m
The “Main Street”	£5m
Earthworks and “bridging” the A34	£10m
Total	£250m

Timing

• The Oxford – Milton Keynes railway line, the tram network, the Park & Ride, Junction 9 improvements and car parking and road pricing management systems will all be in place and operational before first occupation (B4)
• The base layout requires the implementation of the existing East West Rail Scheme plus the dualling of track through Wolvercote tunnel – East West rail operational at 4 trams and 2 trains per hour in each direction; new Western Otmoor station; M40 Junction 9 rebuilt and 1500 spaces at P&R to be delivered before the first house is occupied (E32)
• Phase 1 improvement (to cater for the whole development) requires completion of the chord at Bicester and the use of the existing Network Rail sidings at Oxford Station, together with their replacement at Weston Otmoor – 2 tph to London; East West Rail improved to 7.5 minute frequency (8 tph) between Weston Otmoor and Oxford (E32)
• Phase 2 improvement requires demolition of existing Post Office buildings at Oxford Station – London service provided from Oxford, 2 trams per hour each way; East West Rail improved to 6 minute frequency, Weston Otmoor to Oxford (E32)
• Phase 3 improvement requires Oxford re-signalling – 4 tph from Oxford to London Marylebone; East West Rail service improved to 5 minute frequency (12 tph) (E32)

Please note that as the TA emerges the Council is likely to require information in addition to that outlined above, particularly around some of the more innovative interventions and proposals described by the promoters.

June 2008