FUTURE RAILWAY INVESTMENT: CONSULTATION PAPER SUMMARY OF RESPONSES - JULY 2013
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
FUTURE RAILWAY
INVESTMENT:
CONSULTATION PAPER
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
JULY 2013Contacting Us If this document is not in a format that meets your needs please contact us. We will be pleased to provide additional copies of this document in accessible formats e.g. in large print, easyread, Braille or audio CD. We will also consider any requests for the document to be produced in alternative languages. The document is also available using the following link: http://www.drdni.gov.uk/index/publications/publications-details.htm?docid=9009 All of the Consultation Responses can be read in full on the Department’s website via the above link. You can contact us by writing to us at the address below or by Email: janette.galloway@drdni.gov.uk Telephone: 028 9054 0594 Fax: 028 9054 0604 Textphone: 028 9054 0642 Janette Galloway Sustainable Transport Branch Transport, Policy, Strategy & Legislation Division Department for Regional Development Room 301, Clarence Court 10-18 Adelaide Street Belfast BT2 8GB
CONTENTS Page
1. Executive summary 6
2. Introduction 8
3. Consultation process 9
4. Summary of consultee responses 10
APPENDICES
A List of consultee returns 18
51. Executive Summary The Department conducted a public consultation exercise between 14 January and 12 April 2013 seeking the views of the public and stakeholders on the priorities for future investment in our railways up to and beyond 2035. To facilitate an informed debate on the future shape of the railways here the consultation document considered projected future demand and set out a range of options for future investment under 8 distinct packages. Consultees were invited to prioritise these various packages in terms of their importance for Northern Ireland’s future transport needs taking account of best value for money and environmental considerations. A total of 119 written responses were received by close of the public consultation. These comprise of responses from private individuals and organisations, including those representing the interests of business and industry, community groups, older and disabled people, consumer groups, political representatives, and local authorities. A number of the responses were very detailed and well researched, professionally prepared and contained some well thought out arguments on a number of the packages presented. More than half of those who replied to the consultation indicated their priorities for the strategic directions that should be followed. Of these, the majority considered that the priority in spending should be given to maintaining existing tracks and rolling stock and to introducing measures to make best use of the current rail network. This “aligns with” support for Packages 1 and 2. Generally, lower priority was accorded to improving cross-border rail links, or electrification. Extensions to the network were seen as either desirable or essential by many of the respondents ranging from calls for the reinstatement of the Portadown to Strabane/ Londonderry line and rail links to Armagh to re-opening former Co Down lines and some new lines were also suggested. The electrification packages both cross border and on the local network, although accorded lower priority by most respondents, did however illicit an enthusiastic response from a number of respondents in spite of the costs. The reasons cited ranged from the advantages electrification presented in terms of better quality journeys, higher top speed, lower operating cost/fares, greater reliability and reduced carbon emissions. 6
Three public meetings were also held during the last week in February and first week
in March 2013 in Belfast, Londonderry, and Dungannon. The comments from those in
attendance mainly concerned local issues, with the Belfast meeting mostly concerned with
suburban services and improved services in and out of the city. Londonderry participants
applauded the completion of the Coleraine-Londonderry track renewal project and
timetable improvements to the city but felt this did not go far enough and that Londonderry
should be treated on equal par with Belfast, as a rail hub. The Dungannon meeting, on the
other hand, was concerned mainly with network extensions to Dungannon, Armagh, and
cross-border.
The Department, in consultation with Translink, will continue to analyse all of the information
gathered as a result of this consultation and will bring forward a further report later in the
year setting out its priorities for future railways investment up to 2035.
The report will be used to advise the transportation prioritisation framework being
developed under the New Approach to Regional Transportation. This framework will be
used to advise investment decisions in future budget cycles.
72. Introduction
2.1 In recent years there has been increasing interest in the future potential of the
railway network. This has included calls from politicians and interested bodies to
extend the network and enhance existing service provision. Railways investment will
continue to involve significant capital expenditure and requires a strategic approach
to the planning of investment.
2.2 Recognising that, the Minister Danny Kennedy MLA agreed to a consultation paper
‘Future Railway Investments: A Consultation paper’ seeking the public views on the
prioritisation of railways investment in future budget rounds over the period 2015-
2035.
83. Consultation process
3.1 The public consultation ran from 14th January 2013 to 12th April 2013. Consultees
were invited to prioritise the various packages presented in the consultation
document in terms of their importance for our future transport needs, taking
account of best value for money and environmental considerations.
Document Distribution
3.2 The consultation document was distributed to a range of stakeholders and
individuals contained within the Department’s Section 75 and the Inclusive Mobility
Transport Advisory Committee (Imtac) contact lists and others identified as being
relevant consultees.
3.3 As part of the consultation process, the Department also carried out public
meetings across Northern Ireland which were advertised in the local press and on
the Departmental website. The meetings were held during the last week in February
and first week in March 2013 in Belfast, Londonderry, and Dungannon. and were
facilitated by Departmental officials and Northern Ireland Railways representatives.
3.4 An Equality of Opportunity Screening Analysis has not been carried out in relation
to the consultation paper, as its purpose is to scope public opinion on priorities
for investment. An Equality Impact Assessment will be undertaken when the
Department brings forward proposals to prioritise railway and other transport
investment under the new approach to Regional Transportation Strategy.
Alternative Formats
3.5 The Department provided the consultation document in a number of alternative
formats including Braille, Easyread, audio CD and large print.
3.6 The Department received 119 formal responses to the public consultation. A list of
those who responded can be found at Appendix A.
3.7 The consultation document is also available using the following link:
http://www.drdni.gov.uk/index/publications/publications-details.htm?docid=8604
94. Summary of Consultation responses under
the 8 packages presented in the consultation
document
Package 1 - Maintain present network and train fleet
4.1 This package reflects the on-going renewals work necessary to maintain the existing
railway network in a fully operational condition over the period 2015-2035.
The majority of respondents suggested that we must maintain the present network
to the highest possible standard, in line with package 1 (maintain present network
and rail fleet). However almost everybody that commented on package 1 also
suggested that package 1 does not go far enough and that elements of package 2
(improve and increase passenger capacity) were also necessary.
• Of the 66 respondents who commented specifically on this package 65
supported it with views ranging from passive support to essential priority;
o 37 of this number ranked this as their number 1 priority. While recognised
as an essential building block or a precursor to all other options, it was
also suggested that it did not go far enough and that some elements of a
combination of the other packages most notably packages 2 and 3 need to be
included in future investment;
o 27 supported or agreed with implementation of this package without giving it
a ranking; and
o 1 ranked it second to package 2.
• 1 of the respondents who commented on this package ranked it as unnecessary.
Package 2 - Improve Passenger capacity on existing network
4.2 The objective of this package is to respond to the projected increase in passenger
numbers on the existing network without any further track extension or network
enhancement over the period 2015/16 - 2034/35.
• 65 respondents commented on this package with 61 supporting it with views
ranging from passive support to essential priority;
o 4 of this number ranked it as No 1 priority;
o 20 ranked it No 2 priority;
o 3 ranked it No 3 priority;
10o 1 respondent ranked it No 8; and
o 33 supported or agreed with implementation of this package without giving it
a ranking.
• 4 did not consider this package as necessary or felt that passenger numbers
could be increased sufficiently by implementing packages 1 and 3.
Package 3 - Increase Network Capacity to Accommodate More Trains
4.3 This package reflects the work necessary to allow the network to operate more
frequent trains/larger trains as passenger numbers grow as a result of improvements
outlined in packages 1 and 2. Many respondents identified the need to remove
bottlenecks in the system to improve or maintain journey times, and to introduce
more halts.
• Of the 63 respondents who commented on this package all supported it with
views ranging from passive support to essential priority:
o 40 supported this package without giving it a ranking with a number of those
respondents favouring a combination of packages 1– 3 as the best approach.
Others felt that it should only be implemented when passenger numbers
reach 18 million;
o 15 ranked it as 3rd priority;
o 6 ranked it 2nd in importance to package 1 and some felt elements of this
package such as removing bottlenecks should take precedence over the
proposals outlined in packages 1 and 2;
o 1 give it No 1 priority ahead of packages 1 and 2; and
o 1 ranked it No 4 in priority order.
Package 4 - Enhancing the Enterprise Service
4.4 The objective of this package would be to deliver a 90 minute journey time on
selected rail services between Belfast and Dublin and an hourly frequency on the
Enterprise service. This package also included electrification of the line.
There was considerable interest in improvements to the Enterprise Service with
many supporting proposals for a new Belfast Transport Hub at Great Victoria Street
(outlined under package 2) because of the potential advantages for rail passengers
using the Enterprise services. This along with electrification of the Belfast Dublin
line would facilitate a more frequent service as well as a reduction in journey time.
However not everyone felt that electrification of the system was necessary to
achieve this and some respondents expressed the view that a dedicated track solely
11for the Belfast Dublin service would be more cost effective and would allow for
increased speeds and shorter journey time.
Those who were in favour of electrification suggested it could act as a catalyst for
a roll out of electrification across the entire network and applauded the benefits
this would bring in terms of increased speed, lower operating costs and the
environment. They also felt EU funding could be sourced and that both governments
and rail companies should work closely on putting this entire package together
and improving cross-border travel. A number of other respondents supported an
extension of the Enterprise service to both Derry and Cork.
• Of the 49 respondents who commented on this package 45 supported it with
views ranging from passive support to essential priority;
o 2 ranked it as No.1 priority;
o 8 ranked it as No.4 priority;
o 1 ranked it as No.6 priority;
o 1 ranked it as No.7 in priority order; and
o 33 supported this package to varying degrees without giving it a ranking
a number of whom felt that it should be mid to long term. 10 or more of
this number felt that this package should form part of an all island wide rail
strategy or should only be pursued in conjunction with the Irish Government
and a further 3 favoured extending the Enterprise service to Londonderry.
• 4 respondents did not consider this package as necessary.
Package 5 - Electrification of Northern Ireland Network
4.5 This package which considers electrification of the Northern Ireland rail network
received a mixed response with most respondents of the view that in the longer
term maybe, but that priority for funding needs to be on maintaining and improving
the present network. It was generally felt that as NIR have now an almost entirely
new train fleet, the electrification argument should be considered in twenty or thirty
years’ time when fleet renewal is required.
Quite a number of those who supported this package commented that it was a
natural progression following package 4 (Electrification of Belfast Dublin route).
Others felt it should be introduced on selected NI routes only such as Belfast -
Bangor.
• Of the 50 respondents who commented on this package 40 supported it with
views ranging from passive support to essential priority;
12o 3 ranked it as No. 3 priority;
o 1 ranked it as No. 4 priority;
o 5 ranked it as No. 5 priority;
o 1 ranked it as No 7 priority; and
o 30 supported or agreed with implementation of this package without giving it
a ranking
• 10 respondents did not feel that this package was affordable or that it was not
needed at all
Package 6 - Re-opening Antrim-Knockmore line and link to Airport
4.6 The objective of this package would be to re-open the Antrim to Knockmore line
for local commuter traffic and to construct a rail spur from it to provide a halt
serving Belfast International Airport.
• Of the 62 respondents who commented on this package 51 supported it with
views ranging from passive support to essential priority:
o 1 ranked it as No. 1 priority;
o 1 ranked it No. 3 priority;
o 3 ranked it as No. 4 priority;
o 1 ranked it as No. 5 priority;
o 45 supported this package to varying degrees without giving it a ranking.
• 11 respondents did not consider this package viable or did not consider it good
value for money.
Some of the reasons given for supporting this package included support for the
line being re-opened as a commuter line and adding additional stations to other
towns along the route and extending it further west. A small number supported
this package because it opened up the possibility of a Derry to Dublin route. It
was also suggested by a number of respondents that this line could be used as a
direct link from Derry to Dublin.
Spur to Belfast International Airport
Of the 51 respondents who supported this package only 26 supported a new
spur to Belfast International Airport. Many felt that this would be a waste of
resources because there was insufficient passengers passing through the airport
and that there was an efficient bus service linking the airport to Belfast and other
major towns and cities. Those who supported the airport spur however, felt that
it would lead to an increase in passengers using the airport.
13Package 7 - New lines to the West
4.7 The objective of this package would be to re-open railway links to towns in the
west of Northern Ireland, which were formerly connected to the rail network in the
nineteenth and part of the twentieth centuries.
Extensions to the network generally was enthusiastically supported by most of the
respondents to the consultation (see Table 1 below) ranging from creation of an all-
island railway network to reinstatement of former lines most particularly Portadown
to Dungannon/Strabane and Portadown to Armagh. The significant costs involved in
laying new tracks did not deter demands for such services to be reinstated.
• Of the 93 respondents who commented on this particular package 71
supported it with views ranging from passive support to essential priority. Many
were in favour or supportive of re-opening railway links to varying degrees, but
the majority were in favour of extending the railway network to counties Armagh
Fermanagh and Tyrone with many also supporting cross-border extensions to
border towns in the Republic linking into the Irish Rail network;
o 31 ranked this package their No. 1 priority;
o 2 ranked it No. 4 priority;
o 3 ranked it No. 5 priority;
o 1 ranked it No. 6 priority; and
o 34 supported this package to varying degree’s without giving it a ranking.
• Of those who supported this package, 47 (plus a petition containing 291
signatures) were calling for the re-opening of the Portadown to Armagh line.
Approximately 25 of these respondents were campaigning solely for re-opening
of the Portadown - Armagh line and giving this option their No. 1 priority;
• 22 respondents stated that they did not support this package with views that
included ‘unrealistic’ , ‘too costly’ and ‘drain on resources’; while others expressed
the view that it did not warrant consideration but should be reviewed in the
future, or that a feasibility study should be carried out.
14Table 1 –Support for New Rail Connections and Reinstatement of Former Lines
PROPOSAL Numbers Supporting
Portadown to Armagh 47+petition
Derry to Donegal 25
Portadown to Dungannon 13
Portadown to Enniskillen 10
Belfast Comber Newtownards 13
Cross-Border connections (various) 17
Rail Link to Belfast International Airport 26
Rail Link to George Best City Airport 8
Rail Link to City of Derry Airport 8
Package 8 – Rail Links to Donegal
4.8 There have also been proposals, from interested parties in the North West, to
establish a link from the existing rail network at Londonderry across the border into
Donegal.
There was less support for a Derry Donegal railway link than the links from
Portadown to Armagh and the general view here was that this was not a priority or
it was not economically viable at least in the short term.
53 respondents to the consultation exercise commented on this particular package:
• 25 supported this package with views ranging from passive support to essential
priority
o 1 ranked it as No. 2 priority;
o 2 ranked it as No. 6 priority;
o 2 ranked it as No. 8 priority; and
o 20 supported this package to varying degree’s without giving it a ranking.
• 26 respondents commented that it was ‘unrealistic’, ‘difficult to justify’ ‘not
good value for money’, or ‘too costly’ while others felt it should be kept under
review for the future or a more in depth study should be undertaken. A few
respondents felt it was more realistic to extend the network into Donegal from
Portadown/Strabane.
15Other Proposals
4.9 There were numerous other proposals put forward for future investment as
summarised below. Some of these were highly ambitious but unrealistic in terms
of the funding available or likely to be made available in future funding rounds.
These proposals included linking the entire island with high-speed trains or having a
separate rail network circumnavigating the whole island. There was also numerous
calls to open many cross-border routes to encourage tourism and commerce.
4.10 There was strong criticism for the lack of rail freight discussion in the consultation
document with a number of respondents commenting that freight should be moved
from road to rail and that there needs to be rail links to ports to facilitate and
encourage rail freight. The absence of rail freight on our network was seen by some
as a major oversight for domestic north-south and European traffic activity.
4.11 It was also felt by some that rail-sail options should be investigated with a view to
building railway spurs to our major sea-ports with link up to cross channel
rail services.
4.12 Other proposals included:
• Line linking Londonderry to Dungannon via Strabane, Omagh and Portadown;
• New Package with Londonderry as a central Hub;
• Open a rail line from Ballymena to Glenariffe Forest Park/Glenravel;
• Link entire island with high speed trains;
• A line circumnavigating Ireland - enters only Belfast & Dublin plus a Dublin –
Galway link. New stations on passing loops on the periphery of towns;
• Reopen Belfast – Ards, Comber via Dundonald;
• Introduce card machines on board or an Oyster card type barrier at
train stations;
• A radial programme of rail reform as in GB;
• Spur from existing Coleraine to Derry line into Limavady town;
• Congestion charges to fund rail investment;
• Spur to Sprucefield park and ride;
• Improve bus links to lines for rural services eg Banbridge, Limavady;
• Contractual incentives to use rail;
• Street tramway network linked to Gt Victoria Street, York. Street and Bridge End;
16• Re-open Belfast County Down line;
• Containerisation should be considered – mode changing for freight flexible and
easy;
• New Lines linking Derry, Coleraine, Maghera, Magherafelt, Antrim, Belfast. Line
linking: Omagh, Cookstown, Maghera, Ballymena and Belfast;
• Reopen Kingsbog to Ballyclare and Belfast – Comber line.
• Rail link to Belfast City Airport required;
• High speed inter city service between Belfast and Derry;
• Move freight to train;
• An all-island organisation should be set up for inter-city services;
• Rail/ferry options must be considered as an alternative to flying with link up to
cross channel rail services;
• Park & Ride at Maze site, former Mossley Station, and Ballykelly;
• Halt at Derry City Airport;
• Improve parking facilities at Lurgan, Portadown, Lisburn, Belfast & Bangor;
• Upgrade of old railway halts;
• Liaise with the DOE to strengthen protection of railway trackbeds;
• A more unified ticketing system and deliberated inter-linking of bus and rail
services, as in Switzerland;
• Create a proper all-island rail network. The use of an all-island rail passenger/
freight network would reduce road traffic congestion and protect the
environment by reducing emissions;
• All Ireland rail network should be a strategic priority; and
• All-island approach best managed through the Agenda of the North-South
Ministerial Council. Consider the wider strategic linkages of such investments
within an EU context, which might provide an additional funding stream.
17List of Consultee Returns APPENDIX A
Consultee Consultee Organisation/individual
Reference Number
1 Mark Brown PSNI
2 John McManus Office of the Commissioner for
Older People NI (COPNI)
3 Joel Binkley Planner
4 Trevor Campbell Member of Public
5 Aaron X Vennard Allied Irish Banks (AIB)
6 A Leech Member of Public
7 Edward Gorringe NIJAC (NI Judicial Appointments
Commission)
8 Mark Walsh RPSI
9 Peter Egan Member of Public (Cross ref:
Response 23)
10 Howard Knott Irish Exporters Association
11 Eugene McMahon Member of Public
12 Cllr James McCorkell DUP
13 Alderman George Robinson MLA
14 David Gilmore Member of Public
15 EJ Scott DUP Constituency Office
16 Brian Courtney Member of Public
17 Suzan McComb Member of Public
18 Chris Dawson Member of Public
19 Chris Daly Member of Public
20 Sam Magee Member of Public
21 Alastair Ross MLA
22 Jean Dunlop Member of Public
23 Peter Egan Member of Public (Cross ref:
Response 9)
18Consultee Consultee Organisation/individual
Reference Number
24 Harry Boyle Member of Public
25 Nathan McArdle Member of Public
26 Paul Eliasberg Member of Public
27 John Graham Member of Public
28 Thomas McAllister Member of Public
29 Denver Calvin Member of Public
30 Daniel Holder Member of Public
31 John Waddell Poyntzpass Community
Regeneration
32 Andrew McKeever Member of Public
33 Bob Pue Belfast Express Transit
34 Malcolm Lake Member of Public
35 Albert Cardwell Member of Public
36 Neil Richardson Member of Public
37 RPSI Railway Preservation Society of
Ireland
38 CBI (NI) Confederation of British Industry
(NI)
39 Portadown Armagh Railway Portadown Armagh Railway
Society (PARS) Society (PARS)
40 Alan Gibson Member of Public
41 Tom Wilson Freight Transport Association
(FTA)
42 James Donaghy Member of Public
43 John Lockett OBE Member of Public
44 Robert Price Member of Public
45 Norman Hawkins Member of Public
46 Dominic Bradley SDLP Newry & Mourne
47 Bryan Hutchinson Member of Public
48 Robert Gardiner Member of Public
49 Glenda McMullen Member of Public
50 Sullivan Boomer RPSI
51 Warren Whitney Member of Public
19Consultee Consultee Organisation/individual
Reference Number
52 Laurence Bindley Member of Public
53 Consumer Council Consumer Council
54 Andrew Bratton Causeway Coasts & Glens
Heritage Trust
55 Chris Morgan Dungannon Regeneration
Partnership
56 Bruce Carnaby Newrail
57 Philip Heyburn CIHT
58 Alan Liddell Member of Public
59 Frances Dougan Member of Public
60 Mary Knipe Member of Public
61 Kim Gillespie Member of Public
62 S Carmichael Member of Public
63 Armagh Council Armagh Council
64 Fermanagh Council Fermanagh Council
65 Cllr Mealla Campbell Councillor
66 Barry Tapster Member of Public
67 Brian McGleenan Member of Public
68 John Wright Member of Public
69 Railfuture Railfuture
70 Julie Davidson Member of Public
71 Craigavon DC Craigavon DC
72 David McCombe Member of Public
73 Downpatrick & Co Down Downpatrick & Co Down
Railway Railway
74 Peter McCarron Member of Public
75 IMTAC IMTAC
76 Sheelagh and Desmond Members of Public
Bratton
77 Raymond Hall Member of Public
78 Anthony Whitehall Member of Public
79 Frances Dougan Member of Public
20Consultee Consultee Organisation/individual
Reference Number
80 Grace McDermott Sinn Fein
81 NI Environment Link Northern Ireland Environment
Link
82 Armagh City Shopping Centre Armagh City Shopping Centre
83 Caroline White Member of Public
84 Omagh DC Omagh DC
85 Ian Souter Member of Public
86 Cllr Mark McKinty Councillor
87 Stephen McFarland Member of Public
88 Strabane DC Strabane DC
89 MAG for Architecture and the MAG for Architecture and the
Built Environment Built Environment
90 Rhoda Baxter Pavestone Centre
91 Suzan McComb Member of Public
92 Unite the Union Unite the Union
93 Cathal ÓhOísin MLA Sinn Fein (East Derry)
94 Ken Griffin Member of Public
95 Owen Griffiths Member of Public
96 Into the West Into the West
97 Northern Corridors Railways Northern Corridors Railways
Group Group
98 Cllr Sean McGlinchey Limavady DC
99 South Belfast Partnership South Belfast Partnership
100 Larne Line Passenger Group Larne Line Passenger Group
101 Cllr Ciaran Archibald Sinn Fein
102 Andrew Boal Member of Public
103 Alliance Party Alliance Party
104 Bernard Allan Member of Public
105 Irish Central Border Area Irish Central Border Area
Network Network
106 Paul Campbell Member of Public
107 Donegal County Council Donegal County Council
21Consultee Consultee Organisation/individual
Reference Number
108 Armagh City Centre Armagh City Centre
Management Management
109 Irish Rail Irish Rail
110 Anthony Gray Member of Public
111 David Sexton Member of Public
112 West on Track West on Track
113 Prof Austin Smyth Member of Public
114 NewRail NewRail
115 Institute of Civil Engineers Institute of Civil Engineers
116 NILGA NILGA
117 Sustrans Sustrans
118 Jennifer Anderson Member of Public
119 Belfast City Council Belfast City Council
2224
You can also read
