| This report gave an outline of the proposals recently published in the Kent Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) and suggested issues which may be included in response to the consultation.
|
| Richard Howkins, Route Planner (South East Territory) from Network Rail, advised that when formulating a Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) it looked at future needs in the immediate future (10 years) in detail and then followed the next 20 years in broad outline, thereby covering a 30 year period. The RUS had to find any gaps in provision and suggest actions to deal with this. Mr Howkins then gave a presentation which included:
|
| | • | the process used to compile the strategy
|
| | • | passenger demand forecasts
|
| | • | peak crowding statistics
|
| | • | Chatham main line
|
| | • | High Speed rail options for future use
|
| | • | 2019 emerging strategy and the 30 year scenario
|
| | • | services within/beyond Kent
|
| | • | journey times
|
| | • | station accessibility and new station proposals
|
| | • | evening and weekend services
|
| | • | freight capability.
|
| The Public Transport manager gave a short presentation covering the following points and making suggested responses or questions this raised for Medway:
|
| | • | growth expected in Medway
|
| | • | Medway had already been identified as an existing bottleneck which appeared to deter new services, for example Thameslink
|
| | • | RUS proposed capacity enhancements - better use of High Speed services, maximum 12 car trains and East Kent re-signalling works - but there were concerns that these would not be enough to deal with the growth
|
| | • | Medway's key needs included - right balance of fast/slow services and Cannon Street fast services. Cannon Street was ideally placed for many users as the station to their place of work.
|
| | • | 'turnback' (termination of services) - identified as happening at Rochester and Gillingham but Rainham is one of the busiest stations, so the 'turnback' would be better further east
|
| | • | Gatwick - the RUS had identified this as not viable but was this considered as a slow, stopping service or a fast regional link? If used as a fast regional link, it might be more attractive to passengers as an alternative to the M25
|
| | • | Draft timetable for December 2009 recently published by South Eastern - papers were circulated summarising the morning and evening peak hour trains and journey times.
|
| The committee asked a variety of questions and made observations which included:
|
| | • | what happened to the comments from the consultation and how the strategy was finalised. Members were advised that Network Rail was the final judge and unless any objections were received within a 30 day time period to the first final strategy published in Spring 2010, then it would be finalised. Otherwise it was sent to the Office of the Rail Regulator for adjudication
|
| | • | options were outlined in the RUS for the extension of the high speed services from Rochester to Faversham or from Ebbsfleet to Ashford or Ebbsfleet to Maidstone via Strood. Members asked why the second option had not been put forward as a recommendation by officers to be encouraged by Medway Council as the preferred option. The committee was advised that the Faversham option could offer greater benefits for Medway and therefore the Strood and Maidstone option was not included in the recommendations. Network Rail responded that they expected that the Faversham option would be carried forward but there would be a choice between the Ashford and Strood/Maidstone options. Officers agreed to take this point forward to request that Cabinet recommends that the service should be built up in the best way possible from Medway's point of view
|
| | • | why it seemed that the main share of new services and development benefited south Kent when more people lived in north Kent (accepting that there had been development in Ashford.) The committee was advised that the options put forward in the consultation had tried to make the most of the whole network
|
| | • | the location of Rochester station and the problems with Rochester Bridge being the main bottleneck to the lines to London
|
| | • | the statistics for volume of passengers to the number of seats available - there was confusion on the statistics and what they represented. Members were advised the figures showed the number of passengers as a percentage of the seats available and were an average for all trains over the three hour morning peak period
|
| | • | an assurance that Rainham would not lose any services in the future - Network Rail did not expect any reductions but could not give any guarantee
|
| | • | franchising of station car parks and revenue - Members expressed concern that the revenue from station car parks was passing to private companies and not supporting the rail service. However, this was an issue for the train operating companies rather than Network Rail
|
| | • | how realistic were the growth figures in the RUS if 28% had already been achieved during the past 10 years, given the strong competition from coach services. Members were advised that the growth figures had been taken from the South East Plan and overlaid with Department for Transport estimations on services
|
| | • | disappointment that the proposal to combine Rochester and Strood stations was not put forward as a viable option. Members were advised that a separate re-development at Strood station was currently on-going. An assessment of Rochester Bridge concluded that it would not stand the additional weight of the platforms required
|
| | • | welcoming the proposals for the freight branch at Grain but requesting whether consideration could be given to the possibility of passenger services developed on this line - perhaps even a pay-as-you-go passenger service to Gravesend. The committee was advised that the use of the Grain branch for passenger services had not been investigated but that Network Rail was aware of the aspirations for this line. However, it would mean significant infrastructure at Gravesend with considerable cost implications, which current demand would not justify
|
| | • | re-development at Cannon Street - was this giving specific adverse effect to passengers from Medway. Members were advised that after the Olympics in 2012, there would be a three year construction period affecting services through London Bridge. The services would need to be thinned out and all of Kent would share the burden of a reduced service.
|
| The Chairman thanked everyone for their contributions to the meeting and asked if the recommendations set out in the report were agreed. A proposal for an additional recommendation was circulated as follows:
|
| "This committee notes with concern that the government has discriminated against South Eastern and North Kent rail users by ordering fare increases well above the rate of inflation. No consideration has been given to the expected increases in revenue due to the growth of passenger numbers in North Kent."
|
| On being put to the vote, this was lost. |