1. Is there a need for NET Phase Two?
2. Is NET Phase Two part of an integrated transport strategy?
3. Is NET Line One a successful basis for NET Phase Two?
4. Is the tram subsidised and is it operating at a loss?
5. What benefits does the scheme bring to areas outside of the city centre?
6. Is the scheme aimed at commuters from outside Nottingham who would use the Park and Ride sites?
7. Will people use the Park and Ride sites? Is sufficient park and ride capacity proposed?
8. Why not provide the proposed Park and Ride sites but with a bus service instead of NET Phase Two?
9. Rail services should be improved instead of introducing NET Phase Two
10. How much will NET Phase Two cost and how do you know?
11. Is the scheme value for money?
12. Where will the local funding come from?
13. Can the money identified for NET Phase Two be used for other purposes?
14. Are existing bus services an adequate alternative to NET Phase Two for the future?
15. Could improving bus services and infrastructure meet the objectives of NET Phase Two?
16. Are there any other realistic solutions?
17. What main alternative routes were considered?
18. Why was the route to Attenborough not taken forward?
20. How will construction works be managed?
Your Questions...
Is there a need for NET Phase Two?
Many objectors have questioned the principle of extending NET, suggesting that current transport provision is functioning adequately. Whilst Nottingham’s public transport is currently recognised as “award winning” it is not realistic to maintain a short-term perspective. In order to understand the need for NET Phase Two it is crucial to recognise the key issues facing Nottingham as a conurbation.
Nottingham as a City has a particular and important status in national and regional terms. Since 2001 Nottingham has been one of the eight “Core Cities” , recognised by the Government as the most important drivers of the national economy outside London. In the 2006 Local Government White Paper (Strong and Prosperous Communities, 26 October 2006) the Government reiterated the importance of cities, as both key to economic growth and to ensuring that all have an opportunity to benefit from growth. These twin objectives also feature heavily in the Regional Economic Strategy [NET.C19], and as the most populous urban area in the East Midlands, Nottingham has a clear role to play in their achievement.
The City benefits from one of the highest GDPs per capita of cities in the UK. The City Centre in particular is an economic success, with 60,000 jobs, and has undergone significant development in recent years. The existing NET Line One system has been a central element to supporting the transformation and growth of the City Centre. The Broadmarsh and Southside Regeneration Zone developments will provide a further impetus for growth.
Nottingham has been ranked among the five top shopping centres in the country for three successive years, and attracts an annual spend of nearly £1.3 billion. Local property agents report 400 retailers waiting to move in. The City also features two of the country’s most popular universities, a thriving nightlife and a fast changing cityscape in which many millions of pounds are currently being invested.
Job growth has increased recently, and growth across Greater Nottingham is projected to continue in line with the UK average. The area remains a key employment centre in the East Midlands region. The City is an important employment destination, and more than half of jobs based there are taken by people living outside the City. Whilst this has helped the economy it has also created additional travel pressures across the conurbation.
As well as its importance in economic terms regionally, Nottingham’s regional centre status demands that the City offers good access and an attractive gateway to other areas within the region, most notably the other key centres of Derby and Leicester and between regions. NET Line One, integrated effectively with other transport services, has been a key element in providing this access from north of the city and its interchange with Nottingham Railway Station.
Nottingham has been identified as a Growth Point where significant housing growth and the development of sustainable communities is planned. It is proposed that the Growth Point would represent an increase, between 2006 and 2021, of over 7,500 homes (close to 25%) over what would be planned in any case. This increase will inevitably drive further demand for travel and associated pressures on available transport infrastructure and services. In terms of the Growth Point, the 3 Cities (Nottingham, Leicester and Derby) and 3 Counties (Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire) are collaborating to prepare a joint Programme of Development for submission to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in October 2007. DCLG expects high quality transport solutions. NET Phase Two has the potential to support the overall Growth Point objectives – linking new housing sites to existing communities and opportunities and reducing overall traffic impacts of new development in terms of capacity, congestion and pollution.
Though exhibiting economic success and vitality, Nottingham, in common with many big cities, also has some significant regeneration issues to address.
Despite Nottingham’s economic successes, not all have benefited. Many residents in communities in the inner city and outer estates remain disconnected from the opportunities that have been created in the City Centre. Nottingham is the 7th most deprived district in England according to the 2004 Indices of Deprivation. Many residents remain out of work; 20% of adults are claiming at least one working age benefit. Many others are in low skilled, low paid jobs which may be threatened as the economy changes and becomes more knowledge-intensive. The Regional Economic Strategy sees it as the responsibility of all partners to improve the life chances of current and future residents, and it makes economic good sense too. A bigger and better-skilled workforce will help businesses grow to their full potential.
Some of the City’s most deprived areas lie to the south of the City Centre. The Meadows area is within the three percent of most deprived wards in England. Clifton estate is within the eight percent most deprived. These areas have high rates of economic inactivity and low levels of car ownership. Parts of Beeston and west Chilwell are also in the lowest quartile of deprived wards. NET Phase Two also has the potential to improve linkages with deprived communities along the NET Line One corridor.
Three key regeneration zones that aim to be a focus for new investment have been established:
· The Southside regeneration zone includes the proposed Broadmarsh Shopping Centre development and extending into The Meadows estate. The 39 hectare Southside regeneration zone is to be transformed from an area with many vacant buildings into an area of mixed land use; Nottingham Railway Station and development of the NET interchange is central to the area and provides the gateway from the zone to the City Centre.
· The Eastside regeneration zone consists of 56 hectares of land, 37 hectares of which is intended for mixed-use development. Central to the zone is the £900 million Island scheme – Nottingham’s biggest office development. Nottingham Railway Station marks the western boundary of the zone and the gateway to the City Centre.
· The Waterside regeneration zone comprises 100 hectares of land and buildings along the River Trent and Nottingham Canal, with the first phase of building 128 luxury eco-friendly apartments already underway. The regeneration zone could create over 5,000 jobs and attract £1.4 billion private sector investment to create a landmark development area.
These zones are under performing areas located between the prosperous City Centre and more disadvantaged inner city areas. At present these areas are physically and perceptually disconnected from both the City Centre and surrounding communities. Masterplans have been drawn up that seek to: maximise the redevelopment potential of previously used employment sites taking advantage of their location in close proximity to the economic growth of the expanding City Centre; provide homes and jobs in sustainable locations particularly accessible to residents of the adjacent inner city areas that often currently suffer the highest levels of deprivation; achieve effective regeneration of traffic dominated environments and address deficiencies in terms of public transport, walking and cycling links as part of a comprehensive package of planning and transport interventions; and significantly enhance the urban realm and extend the environmental quality into areas currently exhibiting poor quality in this respect.
The provision of public transport infrastructure and services of high quality, reliability and capacity will be critical to ensuring that deprived communities and regeneration areas are accessible and attractive to residents and investors.
Nottingham is one of the eight Core Cities in the country. The success of Nottingham as a place to live and work is placing increasing pressure on the transport network. If recent high levels of investment continue, further strong employment growth is forecast. This, together with social and demographic changes within the Greater Nottingham conurbation, means that substantial increase in the number of households is also expected. In common with most other successful cities, Nottingham already suffers from severe traffic congestion, particularly at peak periods on main routes into the city and along the ring road. The congestion which costs the economy £160m a year according to a East Midlands Development Agency report [NET.C24] is a challenge that the conurbation needs to address now if it is to continue to grow as a vibrant and attractive area to live, work and visit in the future.
Development of a high quality sustainable public transport system is therefore essential to ensure that high levels of traffic congestion do not stifle economic vitality in the city and wider region. Public transport can play its part in delivering the transport capacity needed to meet future economic, environmental and social challenges, provided its alignment/route is kept clear of congestion. NET Phase Two being largely segregated will be of fundamental importance in delivering this impact.
NET Phase Two is a key element in the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan (LTP) [NET.C22] - a plan produced in accordance with statutory requirements and in full consultation with the Councils, businesses and the public. The LTP identifies seven key objectives. NET is strongly aligned to four of the seven objectives (congestion, accessibility, air quality, and regeneration) and supports the achievement of a further two (safety, and quality of life). With the prospect of long-term growth in traffic it is essential that measures are taken now to alter travel behaviour and to facilitate a cultural change towards more sustainable alternatives, to minimise rising car use. The combination of high capacity with low impact on street space, particularly in the tightly constrained City Centre, makes NET Phase Two essential to provide the step change to meet these requirements.
One of the key objectives of NET Phase Two is the provision of a sustainable alternative to the car for many journeys. This will help to tackle congestion, particularly on the strategic road network including the A453 and A52, which have been identified as essential in the government commissioned multi modal studies. Drivers changing travel behaviour as a result of the introduction of NET Phase Two would have a significant impact on the expected growth in car usage, by walking to get to NET tram stops, by interchanging from existing bus services or feeder bus routes, or by driving to use park and ride sites. For example, NET Phase Two is expected to reduce the growth of peak hour car journeys to and from all central area locations by one third between 2006 and 2021 to only 9%. Also in the busy south and south-west segments of the city outside the ring road between the A453 and A609, NET Phase Two is expected to reduce the increase in peak hour vehicle kilometres during the period 2006 to 2021 from over 3% to less than 1%. The A453 and A52 routes are crucial to maintaining the accessibility of Nottingham to its national and regional markets via the M1 motorway and were specifically identified as suffering from recurrent delays in the East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA) report [NET.C24]. These two principal routes into the conurbation from the M1 would be served by the NET Phase Two routes, including accessible park and ride sites at Clifton and Toton Lane.
Whilst traffic growth would be limited to some extent by the effects of congestion, economic growth and regeneration would be seriously constrained. It is most important that the transport network has the capacity to maintain the economic vitality of the Greater Nottingham area. Another key objective of NET Phase Two is to create a significant increase in the capacity of the public transport network that would enable increasing numbers of people to access employment and facilities in the region, so avoiding travel by car with its consequent impacts on congestion and the environment.
NET Line One currently carries 10 million passengers per annum and has contributed to a growth in public transport usage in Nottingham of 8% over 5 years, which is in stark contrast with most other UK cities. The wider network that would be developed with NET Phase Two would further enhance public transport usage and the contribution that sustainable transport modes can make to maintaining the economic vitality of Greater Nottingham. With the full network operating, well over 20 million passengers per annum are expected to travel on the NET system.
NET Line One has demonstrated that trams can attract people from cars, with around 30% of users having changed from car or using park and ride sites, and the NET Phase Two routes, with the associated park and ride facilities, represent an essential component of the wider integrated transport strategy for Greater Nottingham to meet local transport needs and broader conurbation demands.
Further objectives of NET Phase Two include improving accessibility and assisting in reducing social exclusion. “Accessibility” is the extent to which a wide range of places and opportunities can be accessed within a reasonable time. NET Line One has already shown it can deliver many accessibility benefits, including much easier access to tram stops and trams, high levels of journey time reliability and linking key travel destinations. The low floor trams and design of the system make it particularly easy to use by people with disabilities, the mobility impaired, the elderly and parents with young children. In providing a cross-city network linking key employment, health and education sites, both for residents living on the NET Phase Two routes and those served by NET Line One, the extended NET system would offer enhanced journey opportunities and improved community participation.
The wider NET network will support new commercial and residential developments. NET is regarded by developers and their investors as an asset and they are keen for tram stops to be located in close proximity to their developments. The use of NET images to promote development opportunities along the proposed routes of NET Phase Two, such as at the ng2 business park, shows this. The strong linking of land use and transport planning, in concentrating developments around high capacity, and high quality public transport facilities will provide for sustainable economic growth. Other examples of this strategy can be seen at sites served by NET Phase Two including Highfields Science and Technology Park and Beeston Town Centre.
Is NET Phase Two part of an integrated transport strategy?
NET Phase Two is a key component of the local and regional strategies for land use planning and economic development and is consistent with transport policies at national, regional, county and local level. In particular the proposals are fully consistent with the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan (LTP) [NET.C22], the Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands [NET.C20] and the City of Nottingham [NET.C28], Broxtowe [NET.C35] and Rushcliffe [NET.C34] Local Plans.
The transport strategy for Greater Nottingham is well established, having been developed through public participation over many years, and is focussed on improving access to the City Centre and surrounding district centres by developing greater transport choice and capacity. In particular the transport strategy proposes investment in public transport to meet future transport needs, supported by demand management measures, such as actions that cut down the use of cars.
As one of the key elements in the LTP, NET Phase Two contributes significantly to key policy objectives including reducing congestion, improving accessibility, supporting regeneration and maintaining economic growth in Nottingham and surrounding areas. The NET network is considered to be a fundamental element of the LTP because of the considerable change in public transport use it is expected to achieve.
Improving public transport provision is an important part of the Nottingham’s transport strategy which will be achieved in part by greater integration of tram and bus services and through a bus network development strategy. In this respect, the Government commissioned M1 and A453 multi-modal studies also concluded that NET Phase Two would play an important role in reducing traffic flows into Nottingham city centre. It would relieve pressure on the strategic road network, with particular benefits for the A453 and A52 routes. As mentioned in 2.1 above these roads are crucial to maintaining the accessibility of Nottingham to its national and regional markets via the M1 and have been specifically identified as suffering from recurrent delays in the above mentioned EMDA report [NET.C24].
The new NET Phase Two park and ride sites at Toton Lane and Clifton, with a capacity of 2400 spaces, are an important part of the overall transport strategy. In particular, the NET Phase Two sites will assist in managing traffic flows in the busy south and west corridors of the A52 and A453 which provide access to the M1 and will form part of the network of sites across Greater Nottingham, serving both local communities and the strategic road network. The NET park and ride sites would also enable longer distance car commuters and those travelling in the off-peak periods to use a more sustainable and environmentally friendly form of transport into the heart of the City and beyond (without the need to change trams) and to key centres such as the University of Nottingham and Queen’s Medical Centre, where parking is limited. Bus feeder services would be developed including to the Beeston Rylands area (serving in particular Boots) to enhance provision for outer areas and less accessible estates, whilst also improving general access to the district centres, as has been the case on NET Line One with the Hucknall Connect service that links the Hucknall estates to the town centre, and also serves NET.
back to questions
Is NET Line One a successful basis for NET Phase Two?
NET Line One is a success. It has been successfully delivered and people have adapted to the changed environment due to its introduction. Giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, on 10th November 2004 [NET.C18/1], Sir David Rowlands, Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport acknowledged Nottingham “got everything just about right… with proper park and ride provision, vehicles that work, well integrated with the local bus system, and so on….a success by any standards.” He went on to suggest he “cannot see any reason in principle why the Nottingham system should not be expanded.”
In its first year of operation (2004/5) NET Line One carried 8.5 million passengers; this increased to over 10 million last year; more than 30,000 trips per weekday on average. This has resulted in significant shift to public transport with around 30% of passengers estimated as having transferred directly from their car or using the 3,000 plus park and ride spaces served by NET. It was always intended that a substantial number of users would be existing bus users, freeing up bus infrastructure for other parts of the conurbation.
The growth in public transport usage following the introduction of NET Line One has more than offset the transfer of bus users to the tram and there has been an increase in public transport trips in the Nottingham conurbation rising from 71.7 million in 2000/1 to 77.6 million in 2005/6. This is in stark contrast to a national decline in public transport usage of 5% outside London since 2000/1.
Operating performance on NET Line One has been of a consistently high standard with system reliability and punctuality figures at 99% against the performance management system targets. A customer satisfaction survey in 2006 indicated that 93% were satisfied with the service provided, and 98% said they would recommend the service to others.
A survey of mobility impaired users on NET Line One showed that for these groups, the system, in offering a reliable, fully low floor and high quality transport system, has increased accessibility. People in the community who previously struggled with transport facilities can now travel around the city easily and independently, giving rise to wider benefits that come with increased community participation.
Concerns have been expressed that NET Line One has reduced accessibility because its stops are typically further apart than bus stops and that bus services have been lost. The tram stops on NET Line One (and those proposed for NET Phase Two) have been located so as to be convenient and safe to use, and experience from NET Line One and elsewhere is that people will walk further to access a reliable system such as NET than they would to a bus stop. In addition, and as mentioned in section 2.3.5 above, NET Line One has improved accessibility for mobility impaired users. When NET Line One came into operation several parallel bus routes were maintained but reduced in terms of frequency and some bus services in Hyson Green were reduced. However, services in other areas close to the line, such as in Basford and Highbury Vale, have been enhanced to meet demand and overall public transport usage in the corridor has increased by approximately 20% in the morning peak period. A balance does have to be struck between the extra patronage gained from additional tram stops along the route and the increased journey time and operating costs that would result from the longer journey times together with the consequent reduced attraction of NET for passengers.
Some objectors have claimed that other UK tram systems are not a success. The opposite is true. Usage has risen on the majority of UK tram systems since opening with over 70 million passengers per annum travelling on the five main tram systems (excluding Docklands Light Railway and Tyne and Wear which are effectively Metro systems). Significant growth has occurred recently on Croydon Tramlink with the system supporting the enhancement of Croydon as a retail destination though providing direct access to the new Centrale shopping centre. Usage on Sheffield’s Supertram has increased dramatically since its early years, again assisting in enhancing access to the city centre.
All of the UK systems have provided accessibility benefits to many user groups, especially those travelling with prams and pushchairs or heavy luggage. Although the numbers of wheelchair users in society as a whole is small, especially on public transport, there have been real benefits to some, with opportunities for independent travel that did not exist or was very difficult before the arrival of light rail systems.
It is accepted that in some cases the ‘press’ for light rail has not always been positive, with some shortfalls in expected patronage and financing issues affecting some, such as Croydon Tramlink. Nevertheless the systems are carrying high passenger volumes and offering significant benefits for many users; journey time, reliability, accessibility and quality improvements.
back to questions
Is the tram subsidised and is it operating at a loss?
Some objectors have asserted that travellers on NET Line One receive a subsidy of £2.47 per journey. This is simply not the case, as the operating costs of NET Line One are fully met by fares. The majority of the funding for the construction of NET Line One came from bank loans, taken out by Arrow Light Rail Ltd (Arrow), the company that holds the 30.5 year concession for NET Line One. Under the terms of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract a monthly “availability payment” is made by the NET Promoters to the NET Line One operator, based on the performance of the system. This is assessed against a number of factors, including reliability, punctuality and cleanliness – if the performance of the system has not met the set criteria, the availability payment is not paid in full. These payments are then used by Arrow to repay the capital investment in NET Line One they have already made. The payments are therefore helping to pay off a capital sum, rather like a mortgage, and are made for the infrastructure, similar to public expenditure on roads. They do not subsidise the operation of NET Line One and there is no subsidy for tickets on NET (other than for concessionary fares, as for buses). It is Government policy not to subsidise public transport operations and that schemes such as NET Line One should meet their recurring cost of operations through fares paid by users. The current operation of NET Line One and the economic appraisal for NET Phase Two are fully consistent with that policy.
Some objectors have also commented that NET Line One operates at a loss. NET Line One is not making a loss and Arrow has reported an operating profit each year since the system opened. Standard accounting policies, however, determine that assets must be written off equally over the life of the concession which means that in the early years of the concession the position after depreciation shows a notional loss; however, depreciation is purely an accounting matter and does not affect the strong cash or operational performance of the business.
back to questions
What benefits does the scheme bring to areas outside of the City Centre?
Some objectors have mentioned that NET only benefits the City Centre. This perception ignores the many benefits NET offers to local communities along its routes and also its potential to free up resources for the rebalancing of the transport network as a whole. NET Phase Two has not been developed in isolation; it is a key part of the Greater Nottingham transport strategy.
NET Phase Two has approximately 17km of new route and two new park and ride sites (2400 spaces) and, as part of an integrated transport strategy, is designed to provide a step change in public transport capacity in Greater Nottingham and an attractive alternative to the car for many journeys. Nottingham already suffers severe traffic congestion on parts of its strategic road network. Trams have demonstrated their ability to attract people from cars and NET Phase Two, with the associated park and ride facilities, represents an essential component to meet not only local transport needs in the city centre, but also broader conurbation demands.
Although the NET network is focused on the City Centre, NET Phase Two offers improved access to and from substantial residential areas, such as Clifton, Wilford / West Bridgford, Beeston and Chilwell, and to key attractions away from the City Centre. For example valuable links into Beeston will be provided from the Toton Lane Park and Ride site and Inham Nook, as well as improved accessibility to the Queen’s Medical Centre (QMC) and employment at Highfields Science and Technology Park and the ng2 business park. Tram stops are located near the University of Nottingham campus, Castle College, two new large schools at Wilford and adjacent to Nottingham South and Wilford Industrial Estate (off Ruddington Lane).
Additional benefits would also arise for the communities not directly served by NET Phase Two and those who can avoid congestion on the radial routes into Nottingham by using the NET-based park and ride at Clifton and Toton Lane. Others in Nottingham and those accessing the city via the rail network will benefit from a direct fixed link access to the regional health facilities at QMC and the University of Nottingham.
Residents on NET Line One would also be served by the extension of the NET system, through cross-city services and linkages to key employment sites, the ng2 business park and other development sites, local services, education and training facilities and QMC.
Investment in NET from central government, supported locally, would act as a catalyst for improvements in the public realm and other environmental improvements. Opportunities to transform for the better a number of neighbourhoods along the route, such as within the Meadows area, Chilwell Road / High Road and both Beeston and Clifton town centres would open up to wider catchments. An upsurge in development activity adjoining the NET Line One route has been observed and regeneration benefits are envisaged along the route of NET Phase Two.
Regeneration would also be stimulated by the confidence given to business and developments that a high-quality transport system offers. By bringing in significant government funding, NET Phase Two would unlock development potential and support regeneration across the city pulling in further private sector funding into the Greater Nottingham area. Impetus would be given to both central area and outer development sites, as can be seen with the use of NET images in promoting development outside the City Centre, such as at the ng2 business park.
Will people use the Park and Ride sites? Is sufficient park and ride capacity proposed?
With trams operating every 7.5 minutes throughout the day (0700 to 1900 hours) the public would have a frequent service. The park and ride sites at the ends of each NET Phase Two route would help to reduce commuter traffic into the city, but would also provide travellers with the opportunity to travel outside the peak periods. Commuters and non-commuters use park and ride facilities for a number of reasons: to avoid central area parking charges, because finding a space in the central area is difficult or inconvenient, to avoid congestion when getting into the city or because of the attractiveness of the service on offer. All of these factors are characteristics of the existing park and ride sites in Nottingham which are extremely well used throughout the day, and offer good interchange with feeder bus services from surrounding areas.
The history of park and ride in Nottingham goes back to the mid 1970s when the Forest site, now served by NET Line One, first opened. Park and ride has been well used in the City since, with the development of one of the largest network of sites in the UK. NET Line One added capacity to the provision of sites around Nottingham in 2004 and proposals exist for a further site at Gamston. As such there are currently over 4500 spaces available, served by tram and bus services. NET Phase Two would add 2400 more spaces, increasing the total to around 7000 spaces and contributing to around 5 million park and ride journeys per annum by 2016.
The proposed NET Phase Two park and ride sites at Toton Lane and Clifton are an important part of the overall transport strategy to manage traffic flows, particularly in the busy south-west corridors of the A52 and A453 which connect the city to the M1. Although these routes are also served by the Queens Drive Park and Ride site, much of the congestion occurs in and around Derby Road, Beeston and Clifton, reducing the potential benefit to users of park and ride at Queens Drive. The 1400 spaces at Toton Lane would provide direct access to the City Centre, but also allow travellers easier access to Beeston town centre, the University of Nottingham and Queen’s Medical Centre, further assisting in managing parking at these constrained key destinations.
back to questions
Is the scheme aimed at commuters from outside Nottingham who would use the Park and Ride sites?
In contrast to the objectors who believe NET Phase Two will only benefit the City Centre, other objectors have commented that NET Phase Two has been designed solely to take commuters from outside Nottingham off the road in order to reduce congestion. Although providing appropriate facilities to encourage commuters to use public transport is a key objective of NET Phase Two, it is also aimed at providing high quality, frequent and reliable public transport for other groups, particularly residents living along the routes, enabling access to key locations such as the town centres of Beeston and Clifton, the QMC and Nottingham as well as the wider public transport network. This is reinforced by the predicted usage figures for NET Phase Two, which highlight that people using the park and ride sites would only account for only around 15% of the total users.
Access into the City Centre and district centres outside the peak times is very important in maintaining vitality and quality of life for residents and visitors alike. This is borne out by the demand on NET Line One where usage is strong throughout the day, not just in peak periods. NET Line One service levels have increased a number of times since opening reflecting the demand for travel outside the peak periods, particularly for shopping journeys. Demand on Saturdays on NET Line One is particularly strong, with the system providing access to the main shopping areas and contributing to the City’s position as one of the UK’s five top retail centres.
Although the service would be attractive to park and ride users, the very high frequency and high capacity of trams would provide plenty of space for people wishing to board the trams further along the route. By encouraging commuters to switch to public transport the benefits of economic activity are retained in both the City and district centres, while reducing demand on the road network, improving traffic flows for residents and others.
Why not provide the proposed Park and Ride sites but with a bus service instead of NET Phase Two?
It has been suggested by some objectors that the proposed park and ride sites could be built without the need for a tram system if they were served by a conventional bus service.
Bus based park and ride solutions have been used elsewhere in Nottingham and will continue to be considered for future needs. Bus based Park and Ride sites at Toton Lane and Clifton would be affected by the buses needing to make long journeys on increasingly congested roads and this would result in reduced reliability and increased journey times compared with the NET Phase Two tram proposals. On the A52 and A453 corridors full bus lane provision is not possible and buses would inevitably get caught up in traffic jams, leading to a less attractive service to users. Also, buses from any new park and ride site would be bespoke with dedicated services running at high frequencies. For potential sites at Clifton and Toton Lane, such bus based services would require a very high number of buses to provide the high frequency and reliable service required for park and ride, with consequent high operating costs. As such, a bus based Park and Ride solution is considered to be inefficient and unattractive compared with a NET based option.
back to questions
Rail services should be improved instead of introducing NET Phase Two
Although increased use of the national rail network would support the objectives of the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan [NET.C22], there is little opportunity for rail to offer the same benefits as NET Phase Two. Not only does the location of Nottingham Railway Station offer poorer accessibility to central Nottingham than either bus or tram, but low rail frequencies in the Nottingham-Beeston area and the location of and access to Beeston Station mean that national rail services cannot meet the same wider objectives as extending NET. The strength of the rail network is in serving regional and national travel demands. Similarly, the East Midlands Parkway station which is due to open in late 2008 would not meet the same objectives as NET, as it would focus on providing access for long-distance rail services, rather than being a high frequency park and ride service into Nottingham Railway Station.
back to questions
How much will NET Phase Two cost and how do you know?
Many objectors have commented either that costs are uncertain or that insufficient detail has been given about the costs of NET Phase Two. The NET Promoters recognise the importance of containing costs within budget. For NET Line One the project cost to the public sector did not go over budget, and the NET Promoters are satisfied that the same would be true of NET Phase Two. Although some objectors make much of apparent cost increases during the development of NET Phase Two, some early costings (including the often referred to and misleading sum of £77m) were done for the purposes of options appraisal and comparison and did not include all common costs such as tram vehicles. Later increases have taken into account changes following consultation and market conditions. The NET Promoters consider the cost estimates for NET Phase Two to be robust.
These cost estimates were subjected to external scrutiny prior to the Secretary of State granting Programme Entry Approval in October 2006 [NET.B6] and include appropriate contingency allowances. This scrutiny was rigorous and substantially more detailed than the process that NET Line One was subject to. The scheme approved by the Secretary of State also takes into account early termination of the NET Line One contract and an additional contingency allowance, known as ‘optimism bias’. In other words, the costs approved by the Secretary of State already take into account the possibility of going over-budget.
For NET Phase Two, the cost estimates have been evaluated against the experience of NET Line One and also with knowledge of cost issues from tram schemes in other cities which have not progressed. For example, the reasons why some other schemes have not been realised may include cost increases in the construction industry and perceived risks in developing tram networks. A better understanding of these issues, and many others which inform cost estimates, has been essential in developing robust cost estimates that the NET Promoters believe the project can be delivered to. The estimates include an allowance for industry inflation and were calculated in the knowledge of the possible impacts of the Olympics.
Taking all these factors into account, the Secretary of State agreed a scheme cost ceiling of £482 million (expressed as a 2005 present value), against which the Government’s funding contribution would be based.
The format for information provided on costs within the Transport and Works Act (TWA) application is standard for schemes of this nature, and was presented in accordance with the requirements of the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 [NET.D4] (“the Application Rules”). The Application Rules do not require detailed financial analysis to accompany the application documents precisely because funding is the subject of a separate procedure. The Programme Entry Approval given by the Secretary of State was the first stage in this procedure, and if the Order is made, the NET Promoters would have to persuade the Secretary of State that the financial case remains strong enough to move to the next stage, known as Conditional Approval, which would allow the NET Promoters to negotiate with potential concessionaires. Following this negotiation, the financial case would have to be approved again, before Full Approval is granted and construction can begin.
Even though the funding approval process is separate from the TWA process, much of the financial information that was submitted to the Secretary of State in order to obtain Programme Entry Approval process has since been published with the NET Promoters’ Statement of Case [NET.A26]. It is therefore available to inform the TWA public inquiry. Again, this is standard for TWA schemes.
back to questions
Is the scheme value for money?
In assessing the application of NET Phase Two for Programme Entry Approval (PEA) the Secretary of State considered in detail the economic value for money of the proposals. The decision to grant NET Phase Two PEA and award scheme funding was based on an appraisal of the scheme, identifying the costs of developing and operating the scheme compared with the benefits once the scheme has opened. With benefit to cost ratios in excess of 2.0 (i.e. with the benefits worth at least £2 for every £1 invested), NET Phase Two is placed in the ‘high’ value for money category.
The scheme has been appraised in full accordance with the guidance laid down by Government for major public transport schemes. The guidance requires that a scheme must demonstrate good value for money when assessed against the following five objectives:
· Environment
· Safety
· Economy
· Accessibility
· Integration
Overall the scheme performs well against the five objectives and the full range of potential impacts of NET Phase Two has been considered during development of the scheme, building on the feedback received during consultation. Changes to the scheme design, both in terms of expected short-term impacts and the longer-term effects on both the local population and economy, have been considered. Whilst the assessment for NET Phase Two has identified some localised adverse impacts, the longer term benefits to city and surrounding areas in meeting the wider objectives of the scheme were considered by decision makers, both locally and nationally, to offer a strong case for investment in extending NET.
Where will the local funding come from?
Although central government pays for some national and local transport schemes, including small schemes that it funds through grant via the Local Transport Plan, it does not pay for the entire costs of larger local schemes, such as NET Phase Two, though it would still contribute around 75% of the funding required. It is a Department for Transport requirement that a local funding contribution is made to supplement this majority central government contribution. This is normal for all major schemes being promoted by local authorities.
On the basis of Programme Entry Approval, this local funding requirement for NET Phase Two would be 25% of the project costs and would be split between the City (80%) and County (20%) Councils. The two councils are already making a contribution through the funding of the next stages of project development and they are also making provisions to meet the remaining local funding needs.
The current preferred option to meet the majority of the funding requirements of the City Council is to introduce a workplace parking levy (WPL). The WPL proposals were subject to widespread public consultation in summer/early autumn 2007 with a public examination of the proposals having taken place in early October 2007. The City Council is also considering a range of other funding sources, including reserves, capital receipts from asset sales, contributions secured from local developers through planning agreements, local authority growth business incentive funds, prudential barrowing and potential future changes to the business rating system. The County Council is also considering the application of these funding sources, where available, together with revenue from its Revenue Support Grant and Council Tax. The final combination of funding sources will be subject to formal approval by the Councils. The Councils would have to prove the availability of all such funding sources before final approvals are made to proceed with the scheme, later on in the process.
back to questions
Can the money identified for NET Phase Two be used for other purposes?
There is a common misconception that the money made available from central government could be used for other purposes. This is not the case as the money is ring fenced for the scheme and therefore not available for alternative uses in the local area.
NET Phase Two would be funded largely with money from central government which would not otherwise be available to the local area. Once allocated by government to transport, the money is not available for non-transport uses and once allocated to a particular scheme it cannot be used for other schemes. The government funding allocation has been made on the grounds that extending NET offers a value for money use for the funds available. In addition, the scheme builds on the investment already made in NET Line One and would enable the NET Promoters to adapt their spending on other transport options to improve services across the wider area. Furthermore, as no other scheme contributes towards as many of the objectives of the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan [NET.C22], no other scheme would be likely to qualify for funding from central government.
As mentioned in section 2.12.3 above, the local contribution to NET Phase Two is likely to be found largely from the introduction of WPL within the City boundary. The Transport Act 2000 requires the proceeds from any such local road congestion scheme to be spent only on measures supporting local transport planning objectives. Therefore, it would not be possible to re-route any local funding obtained from the WPL into other non-transport schemes.
back to question
Are existing bus services an adequate alternative to NET Phase Two for the future?
Many objectors felt that the existing bus services were satisfactory and that NET Phase Two was not necessary. The tram proposals, aim to enhance public transport and to encourage further usage and satisfy the future needs of Greater Nottingham, including meeting the challenges of maintaining and enhancing economic growth.
Congestion on some key routes at peak times is a problem. With rising traffic levels in the future, congestion will continue to grow. Much work has been done to give buses priority on the main routes throughout Greater Nottingham, but with limited additional opportunity for further priority measures the reliability and journey times of buses will inevitably suffer as congestion grows. Unless buses have much greater total separation from other road traffic they would not provide the long term answer to growing traffic congestion. By contrast, the tram would be able to offer a more reliable and quicker journey on key routes into the city centre by utilising long sections segregated from other traffic. Approximately 60% of NET Phase Two would be segregated from other traffic, which is a high level of separation. Segregated tram routes are far more effective than bus lanes as they can only be used by trams with no other traffic able to enter them (other than emergency services, in some instances). Where the tram replaces well-used local bus services, then bus passengers would benefit from the better service that the trams would bring.
Buses would however continue to play a key role in meeting the transport needs of the Greater Nottingham conurbation, and in many areas they would continue to be the most appropriate method of transport. A particularly important role would be to operate feeder services into NET from surrounding residential areas and to key employers, such as Boots. Experience on NET Line One shows buses still operate viable services along the core route and feeder services have evolved, and continue to evolve, as part of an integrated, consolidated bus network. The Hucknall Connect Service links the Hucknall Estates with the town centre, but also serves NET with through tickets available. A collaborative approach by bus operators could also relieve capacity constraints for buses in the conurbation, enabling other parts of the conurbation to benefit from increased levels of service.
In developing the proposals to combat increasing traffic congestion and to plan for the transport needs of the future, tram and bus services must work together to build a better public transport service for the area. Following the introduction of the tram, bus operators would continue to operate services in the NET Phase Two corridors, although it is too early to say how these services might differ from current services. Existing bus stops would be retained, if slightly relocated in places. Future routes could be similar to those currently operating or they could be adapted to the changing circumstances and serve as feeder buses into the tram network. This would allow the strengths of both buses and trams to be realised. Local buses can take advantage of their flexibility by penetrating into the heart of residential communities where traffic is light and they would not get caught up in congestion. They can then feed the tram service, which can offer a more reliable and quicker journey into the city centre and beyond.
Improving public transport provision across the whole city is constrained by highway and, particularly, central area bus stop capacity. Parts of the City Centre bus route (the ‘loop’) have over 200 buses per hour and bus stop provision in the City Centre is already at capacity. Nottingham does not have a substantial inner ring road system for an urban area of its size and the City Centre is compact with a lack of alternative routings for bus services and stop locations. The City Centre is struggling to cope and NET Phase Two would use existing infrastructure within the centre, allowing valuable City Centre road space and bus stop capacity to be released that can be re-allocated to enhance bus frequencies and reliability to other parts of the city. Integrated ticketing, feeder buses and link bus services would increase accessibility beyond the NET area, bringing benefits to the wider community.
The bus network is supported by a voluntary partnership between the County and City Councils and the commercial bus operators; set out in the Greater Nottingham Bus Strategy. This recognises the need to continue to promote quality bus (and tram) services in an integrated public transport system. The two Councils are also committed to consultation with bus operators, bus users, neighbouring District Councils and other interested parties on bus–related issues.
Nottingham is served by two principal bus operators, Trent Barton and Nottingham City Transport (and subsidiaries), and each serves the NET Phase Two areas. The operators have responded in a measured manner to NET Line One and are likely to do so for the network extensions for the benefit of travelers throughout Greater Nottingham. The two companies are winners of industry awards, reflecting their standards of service and innovations introduced to the network in recent years, including working with NET on service and ticketing integration.
It has been suggested by some that trams would draw users from bus services. It was always anticipated that a significant proportion of passengers on NET would be former bus users; however some 30% of NET Line One passengers are former car users or use the park and ride provision. The transfer of passengers to NET would be an incentive for bus operators to service new markets on new routes within the area. Unlike any other Core City, public transport has grown in Nottingham by 8% (2000-2005), suggesting that the network is getting stronger and that overall convenience has not been adversely affected.
back to question
Could improving bus services and infrastructure meet the objectives of NET Phase Two?
In developing the NET Phase Two proposals a number of improvements to transport services were considered as alternatives to NET. These included assessing the contribution that improved bus and rail services could make to meeting the longer term economic and transport objectives of the Greater Nottingham area. Several bus based solutions were examined including a low cost on-street bus based alternative (utilising existing corridors) and considering additional bus priority measures with changes to the operating patterns of bus services; and high quality bus alternatives involving creating segregated sections of route similar to NET.
Low cost bus improvements deliver only modest benefits that are much lower than NET Phase Two and do not address many key traffic problems, or offer long-term solutions in maintaining economic growth. The expansion of bus services in this way is also constrained by the congestion on roads, particularly on key radial routes and bus stop capacity in the central area. City Centre capacity is one of the key problems that NET addresses by using existing NET Line One infrastructure and providing additional public transport capacity without impacting on existing bus routes and infrastructure.
In developing the NET proposals, a number of other options were considered for improving transport facilities in the busy south and west corridors of Nottingham. This assessment has allowed the Councils to determine that NET offers the best way of meeting the long-term transport needs of the conurbation and offers the best value for money for its local contribution.
Central government, in providing the majority of funding for the project, is also very interested in ensuring that schemes offer suitable returns in terms of delivery against both local and national objectives and that these cannot be delivered by lower cost solutions or alternative technologies. For a number of other schemes, central government has rejected the proposals and insisted that lower cost solutions are considered further. In contrast, in granting NET Phase Two programme entry approval, the Department for Transport identified NET Phase Two as the best value for money when compared with other alternatives.
In demonstrating the performance of these alternatives a high quality bus option has been assessed. To provide a level of service as near as possible to that expected for NET Phase Two, options were considered based on providing a guided busway network using an ‘ftr’ type vehicle currently operating in York, though in practice other modern bus-based systems could also be used. This assumed that the new system would utilise all or part of the segregated routes planned for NET Phase Two, apart from in the City Centre, where it would operate around the bus ‘loop’ rather than connecting over Nottingham Railway Station into NET Line One on a new bridge. Appraisals of the high quality bus option suggested poorer performance in a number of areas compared to NET, including economics and wider benefits and in ease of construction.
A single NET tram can carry as many people as three conventional buses, and as a consequence it can be given a much greater level of priority at traffic lights with less impact on other traffic. To provide a suitable network of high quality bus services and make best use of the infrastructure up to 20 bus journeys per hour would need to operate to broadly meet the capacity of NET Phase Two. This would cause difficulties in the City Centre with the requirement to use the existing circuitous and congested bus ‘loop’ with associated increased journey times and difficulties with providing suitable bus stop facilities in the City Centre. The limited bus stop capacity on some key roads in the City Centre would result in poor provision for the new service or the need to reduce existing levels of bus services on other corridors or relocate bus stops further out of the city. Outside of the City Centre, the very high frequencies would impact on the reliability of the service, as the bus alternative could not be guaranteed full priority crossing major junctions.
There could also be difficulty in justifying parts of the route, such as demolition of properties and use of sensitive environments, given that the overall benefits of the bus alternative are lower. The sections of route where the impact is the greatest are also the most essential parts of the proposals where significant journey time and reliability benefits can be realised; any difficulties in providing alignments in these areas would significantly compromise the benefits of the alternative bus based scheme.
Therefore, there is a significant risk that these alterative bus options could not be delivered or would fail to generate the reliability and wider transport benefits currently offered by NET due to the need to manage scarce transport capacity in the centre of Nottingham and in other locations along the two proposed routes.
However, were these problems to be overcome, then in economic terms, a high quality bus alternative, could deliver high levels of benefits at a cost lower than for NET Phase Two. But, importantly, the size of these benefits and the support offered to long-term objectives in Greater Nottingham would be much lower than those associated with NET Phase Two. Indeed, there would be lower benefit to cost ratios than NET Phase Two and a reduced contribution against other government objectives, so the high quality bus alternatives would be unable to meet either national or local objectives as effectively as NET Phase Two.
back to question
Are there any other realistic solutions?
Before deciding to promote a tram system for Greater Nottingham a number of alternative transport systems were assessed. Most were either impractical for meeting the short or longer-term needs of Greater Nottingham, such as ultra light rail, or were too costly and environmentally intrusive, such as underground or Metro-type systems which can only be justified in the very biggest cities or elevated monorails or other similar systems which are highly visually intrusive and would be inappropriate to the urban environment in Nottingham.
A number of innovative guided-bus based systems, some powered by overhead wires like trolleybuses, have been developed elsewhere in Europe with limited operation in some cities starting within the last few years. These options, which include optical or wire guidance, have many similarities with existing guided bus technology that have been deployed in the UK, though using a different guidance system. On segregated routes these systems would require full road construction rather than the ballasted track suitable for trams and could require overhead wires. Such options have effectively been considered in the assessment of the High Quality Bus Alternative to NET. In the UK, this technology has not yet been used and its introduction would be associated with an increased implementation and delivery risk.
Other developments in transport include fuel cell technology which has been trialled in a small fleet of buses operating a mainly tourist route in London, but may well be expanded elsewhere in the capital. Such vehicles are a welcome addition to the efforts to reduce pollution and may very well have a future role in Greater Nottingham. However, this vehicle would not by itself address the congestion and transport capacity issues driving the need for NET Phase Two which demand the development of improved services in the busy south-west corridors involving the provision of new infrastructure.
A mixture of tram and guided bus systems can only be justified in the largest cities where separate networks can co-exist, often serving wholly different areas. In a conurbation the size of Greater Nottingham the needs of integration and economics dictate public transport provision is best built on the existing modes of rail, bus and tram with new routes utilising the same technology as NET Line One to allow for through journeys.
back to question
What main alternative routes were considered?
A number of objectors have questioned the choice of the route and why other routes were not taken forward. The selection of the NET Phase Two routes by the County and City Councils was only taken after a rigorous assessment of a wide range of alternative options along the Chilwell/Beeston and Clifton corridors and elsewhere in the conurbation including through extensive consultation. Localised options within Beeston and the Wilford area were also considered. The key issues generally considered in comparing these alternatives included operational capability, (e.g. journey time and reliability), usage, costs, integration with other transport modes, development and regeneration potential, engineering impact, environmental impact and public acceptability. Clearly each route option cannot serve all destinations and buses would continue to play a key role in servicing the overall needs of the conurbation. The main options considered, and reason why alternatives were not taken forward, are summarised below:
There were three main alternative routes:
(i) Beeston/Chilwell options [NET.B2/6] – these were referred to as Beeston North (subsequently known as Beeston via QMC) and Beeston South. A further single option operating from the terminus of the Beeston North and South options to Chilwell (Beeston – Chilwell extension) was also considered;
(ii) Clifton Options [NET.B2/7] – these were via Queens Drive park and ride or via Wilford; and
(iii) West Bridgford options [NET.B2/8] – these were either to Sharphill Wood or Gamston.
(i) Beeston/Chilwell Options
The Beeston via QMC option operated from Nottingham Station to Beeston town centre via the former Royal Ordnance factory site (ng2), QMC and the University of Nottingham. The Beeston South option was from Nottingham Station to Beeston town centre via Riverside, Queen’s Drive park and ride site and the Boots site. The Chilwell option was routed along Chilwell Road and through substantial residential areas before terminating at a park and ride site adjacent to the A52.
The assessment of the route options concluded that:
· All route options were considered feasible in engineering terms.
· The Beeston via QMC route with the Chilwell extension would bring most positive economic benefits to the area and the key economic criteria indicate that the route was viable when tested against Government criteria;
· The route via QMC was 18 percent faster, and would attract 25 percent more patronage than the route via Boots;
· The options of terminating at Beeston or operating to Chilwell via Boots fell substantially below the required viability levels; and
· The Chilwell extension performed particularly well due to the residential catchment population and proposed park and ride site.
Public consultation returns indicated a clear preference for the Beeston via QMC route, due to being more accessible to more people, more direct and serving the QMC and University. There were high levels of adverse comment relating to the Chilwell extension, which focused on key local issues.
A number of localised route alternatives within the two corridors to Beeston were also considered. The main options on the Beeston via QMC route included alternatives into Beeston town centre. These routes included via:
· Queens Road/ Station Road;
· Queens Road/ Humber Road/ Middle Street/ Station Road, and
· Broadgate/Humber Road and Regent Road gyratory/Middle Street/Station Road.
While these alternatives were slightly preferable on environmental grounds to the selected route, all were longer and would have more unreliable journey times and had lower economic benefits.
Based primarily on the clear economic performance advantage, and possible mitigation measures to reduce localised environmental impacts, the route to Beeston and Chilwell via QMC was taken forward.
(ii) Clifton Options The Clifton via Queen’s Drive (CQD) option considered a route from Nottingham Station to a proposed park and ride site off the A453 Nottingham Road, via Riverside, Queen’s Drive park and ride site and Clifton district centre.
The Clifton via Wilford (CW) route was from Nottingham Station to the A453 park and ride site via Queen’s Walk, the Wilford former railway corridor and Clifton district centre.
The assessment of the options concluded that:
· Both route options were feasible in engineering terms;
· The CW route would attract substantial patronage and have a positive economic benefit on the conurbation and could attract Government funding; and
· The CQD route was 13% slower, would attract 15% less patronage, was significantly more expensive and fell substantially below the required levels to meet Government funding criteria.
Public consultation returns indicated a clear preference for the CQD route. This preference reflected the dissatisfaction with the CW route from the Wilford and Compton Acres area.
A number of localised alignment alternatives within the two corridors were considered. The main options on the Clifton via Wilford route included alternatives between Wilford Toll Bridge and the A52 Clifton Boulevard, including via:
· Coronation Avenue, the former railway line, Wilford Lane and Ruddington Lane;
· Main Road and Ruddington Lane.
The alternative routes were significantly slower and costlier than the core route and had lower economic benefits.
An alternative route to Clifton via Trent Bridge was also considered. This would have run via Arkwright Walk, Trent Bridge, Clifton Lane, the disused railway embankment and Clifton estate. This option was discounted in favour of the CW core route. The reasons for this included the operational and reliability implications of the extent of on street running on major roads (over 70% on street). The projected economic performance did not match that of the CW core route.
On the basis of its extremely competitive journey times, high levels of segregation from road traffic and the prospect of a very reliable operation and potential to attract Government funding, the CW route was taken forward.
(iii) West Bridgford Options
Two route options were considered as follows:
· The Sharphill Wood route was via the Meadows, Trent Bridge and Musters Road to the proposed development site at Sharphill.
· The Gamston route was via the Meadows, Trent Bridge, West Bridgford Town Centre and Davies Road to a proposed park and ride site at Gamston adjacent to the A52.
A full assessment of the route options was undertaken, however, neither route was economically viable when tested against Government funding criteria, and the routes were therefore not taken forward.
2.18 Why was the route to Attenborough not taken forward?
In addition to the main options considered by the County Council and the City Council, a further option for part of the Chilwell via QMC and Beeston route was considered. This option went between Beeston town centre and a park and ride site at Stapleford Lane, via Attenborough with a series of sub-options between Middle Street and Chilwell Olympia and a common section to the park and ride site. The options considered were:
· Option A: Chilwell Olympia via Station Road/ Queens Road West;
· Option B: Chilwell Olympia via Chilwell Road/ Depot Site/ Queens Road West;
· Option C: Chilwell Olympia via Chilwell Road/ High Road; and
· Common Section: Chilwell Olympia to a park and ride site at Stapleford Lane, via Attenborough.
The overall assessment concluded:
· All options would have a significantly slower journey time than the proposed route (primarily due to greater route length) which is likely to increase during peak periods due to the extent of on-street running and the associated potential for congestion.
· All options would provide less reliability than the proposed route, with up to 26% less segregated running and the crossing of up to eight more junctions. In addition all options run along the extremely busy strategic road (A6005 Queens Road) which experiences significant congestion at peak times. This compares with the proposed route which has minimal interaction with the strategic road network except at the proposed park and ride site.
· The capital cost for all options would be significantly higher than the proposed route due to increased length and the extent of on-street running.
· The usage levels of option A would be significantly lower than the proposed route primarily due to the poor penetration of Beeston town centre. The remaining options have similar usage levels to the proposed route.
All route options were considered feasible in engineering terms but have local land impacts, particularly on Stapleford Lane which would require significant regrading, and would also be likely to attract local opposition. The route options were predicted to have fewer adverse noise, biodiversity and townscape impacts that the proposed route.
Overall the higher costs and increased journey time of all the options together with the relative poor economic performance would make all the options poor value for money in economic terms. As a consequence the proposed route was taken forward.
Do the benefits of NET Phase Two outweigh/justify the local social, environmental and financial impacts/costs?
A general claim made by many objectors is that the benefits NET Phase Two would bring do not justify the local social, environmental and financial impacts/costs. However, the overall assessment of NET Phase Two, as considered by Government using a wide set of criteria, shows that the scheme is highly beneficial, with clear socio-economic benefits which, when considered against the costs of the scheme, offer ‘high’ value for money (see section 2.11.1). The NET Promoters recognise that there will be local impacts/costs and have sought to minimise and mitigate any adverse impacts in developing the proposals.
The main purpose of the public inquiry is to enable an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport to examine the extent to which the public benefits arising from the scheme justify any impacts/costs. The proofs of evidence submitted by the NET Promoters’ witnesses go into detail on the specific benefits and impacts to demonstrate that they do just that (see section 1.6).
back to question
Do the benefits of NET Phase Two outweigh/justify the local social, environmental and financial impacts/costs?
A general claim made by many objectors is that the benefits NET Phase Two would bring do not justify the local social, environmental and financial impacts/costs. However, the overall assessment of NET Phase Two, as considered by Government using a wide set of criteria, shows that the scheme is highly beneficial, with clear socio-economic benefits which, when considered against the costs of the scheme, offer ‘high’ value for money (see section 2.11.1). The NET Promoters recognise that there will be local impacts/costs and have sought to minimise and mitigate any adverse impacts in developing the proposals.
The main purpose of the public inquiry is to enable an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport to examine the extent to which the public benefits arising from the scheme justify any impacts/costs. The proofs of evidence submitted by the NET Promoters’ witnesses go into detail on the specific benefits and impacts to demonstrate that they do just that (see section 1.6).
back to question
Do the benefits of NET Phase Two outweigh/justify the local social, environmental and financial impacts/costs?
The construction of NET Phase Two will be undertaken in accordance with a Code of Construction Practice (CoCP). The CoCP will prescribe standards of construction practice imposed on the contractor to ensure that the works are undertaken in so far as is practicable, in a responsible and sympathetic manner and minimise any adverse impacts on the local environment and community. A draft of the CoCP has been agreed with the local authorities and is included within the Environmental Statement [NET.A15]. The CoCP will be finalised before construction starts.
Once finalised, adherence to the CoCP will be a requirement of the contract for the construction of NET Phase Two. The CoCP sets out the requirements for a range of issues, including:
· Liaison and provision of information to the public
· Minimising impacts on the existing highway, including footpaths and cycleways
· Protection of the water environment
· Control of noise and vibration
· Control of working hours
· Control of dust and pollution
· Disposal of waste and contaminated materials
· Protection of the existing ecology, historic buildings and archaeology
· Working practices at construction sites
back to question
