Return to Agenda

ITEM EN8

COPY

EXECUTIVE – 7 JANUARY 2003

Rail Projects

1. The objective of this report is to 1) inform the Executive of progress with the key rail projects undertaken in the past twelve months and; 2) review and approve a list of rail aspirations compiled by the Rail Development Officer and Parish representatives.
2. In April 2000, the former Public Transport Sub-Committee agreed a list of aspirations for passenger rail in the county, and officers have used the list that was approved to guide them when dealing with rail related issues. However, in the past the County Council was not best able to promote its aspirations as various officers in the public transport team dealt with rail in addition to their main work. In April 2002, the post of Rail Development Officer was created to enable the County Council to take a more proactive role in its relationship with the rail industry.
3. I am proposing to submit an annual report to the Executive. This will review progress of the rail projects during the previous twelve months; review, and where necessary update, the rail aspirations list and; establish priorities for the coming twelve month period, that can then feed into the allocation of council finance. This is the first such report.
4. So that the Executive can give due consideration to the contents of this report, I have provided some background information about the rail industry in Annex 1. The structure of the rail industry is in a period of great change, and there is considerable uncertainty about how this will effectaffect services in Oxfordshire over the next few years.

Consultation with Parish Councils

5. During the preparation of this report, contact was made with each Parish Council and Parish Transport Representative and they were given the opportunity to submit comments and provide a measure of the important local issues. I would like to place on record my thanks to all of those who took the time to respond.
6. There werehave been a total of 56 responses from parishes to date. Where parishes expressed support for a particular project I have identified these within Annex 2. Some parishes also suggested new aspirations that they would like members to consider and these are included in Part D of Annex 2. Th ere was 1 response that supported all the aspirations put forward in the consultation and this came from Abingdon Parish Council. Copies of all responses have been provided in the Members Resource Centre.

Key Rail Projects and Future Aspirations

7. The list of rail aspirations that I am asking the Executive to consider has been compiled from a number of sources. The foundation for the list is derived from the existing rail aspirations that were agreed by Public Transport Sub-Committee in April 2000. Some of these aspirations have been achieved, and some have evolved since then and the Rail Development Officer has refined the list to reflect any development. The final input into the proposed list has come from the responses to the recent parish consultation. I am confident that the County Council now has a comprehensive list of rail aspirations that meet local needs.
8. In Annex 2 I have included the detail on each rail project and aspiration. I have split the Annex into four sections. In Part A, (download as doc. file) I have given information relevant to the key rail projects where officers have directed their attention in the past twelve months.
9. The remaining aspirations are then listed in Parts B and C, in no particular order. Part B (download as doc. file) includes the aspirations that are specific to a particular location, or train operator, whilst Part C (download as doc. file) focuses on the more generic countywide aspirations. The final section, Part D (download as doc. file), lists any additional aspirations that have been suggested by parishes as part of the recent consultation.

Recommended Changes

10. As well as indicating which aspirations have specific support from parishes, I have, in some cases, also recommended a change to an existing aspiration, primarily to reflect progress that has been achieved since April 2000. The Executive is asked to consider and adopt these recommended revisions.
11. Members are also invited to consider any additional changes they would like to make, and nominate any other scheme and aspiration that they would like to see included in the list.

Prioritisation

12. An important part of this report is to seek guidance on the relative importance of directing resources to achieving each rail aspiration in 2003/04. This will enable the Rail Development Officer to direct his limited resource to those aspirations that members feel are important in the coming year.
13. year. Other staff resource will be available to help progress some of the aspirations, such as the relocation of Oxford station.
14. Rail related issues will also be progressed in the context of our general transport and land use planning work and in consideration of individual planning applications.
15. I have indicated the likelihood of progressing each aspiration in the coming year within the rail environment outlined above.in Annex 1. This is based on the information available to officers at the present time. This does not mean the aspiration cannot be achieved in later years.
16. I have recommended an overall priority for each rail aspiration, and this indicates how each one will be taken forward. This recommendation seeks to take into account the achievability of the aspiration in the coming year and also an understanding of members' views and its importance to local people.
17. Having regard to the resources available, aspirations that have a recommended overall priority of LOW will only be mentioned as Oxfordshire County Council aspirations, as and when appropriate. An overall priority of MEDIUM will enable officers to actively pursue a particular aspiration as and when the opportunity arises, whilst an overall HIGH priority will indicate those aspirations that will be proactively pursued and will occupy the bulk of the Rail Development Officers time.
18. Members may wish to consider revising some of the recommended overall priorities. However, it should be remembered that the Rail Development Officer only has limited resources to work proactively on a small number of projects at any one time. I would suggest that no more than 5 HIGH priority schemes which have a HIGH staff resource, or an equivalent number of lower staff input projects, can be taken forward simultaneously.
19. The effect of moving a small number of aspirations between the LOW and MEDIUM priority categories would have a lesser effect on officer workload. However, if the majority of aspirations were moved to the MEDIUM category this would make it difficult for officers to determine those of a higher importance, and that, in effect, is likely to mean that in practice they are treated as being of LOW priority.
20. If members decide to elevate some of the aspirations in overall priority, they would also therefore need to consider decreasing the priorities of a similar number of aspirations. A summary of the priorities can be found at the start of Annex 2.

Financial and Staff Implications

21. As I have highlighted in Annex 1, the rail industry is going through a state of almost constant change. It is difficult to predict with any degree of confidence the level of staff resource and finance that each project may require in the future. However, so that the members are able to give consideration to each project, I have endeavoured to indicate the effect that each rail aspiration may have on officer time and the financial implication for the Council.
22. At this time it is not possible to quantify the number of hours or days of officer time that may be required on each project. However, for indicative purposes only, I have given an indication of the likely implication on officer time on a low, medium and high basis, based on the information available at the present time.
23. How these projects will be funded will become clearer as each project is progressed. Some of the aspirations may be funded entirely by the rail industry, whilst others may be funded jointly by the rail industry and the County Council. In some cases, they may be deliverable only if the county council provides the majority of the funding either from its Capital Programme, possibly supplemented by developers contributions. Until work on each project is advanced, more precise costs will not be known and I am therefore only able to give an indication of the likely financial implication of each project for guidance only.

Potential Funding Mechanisms

24. As discussed above, the SRA is now the key investor in the industry and will decide where to direct its investment in line with its strategic policies and best value objectives. Network Rail and the train operators will function as delivery agents.
25. In the current environment, the SRA has indicated that they are unlikely to agree to substantial investment in infrastructure and services. It is, however, continuing with its Rail Passenger Partnership (RPP) scheme which can fund smaller, local schemes.
26. Under the RPP Scheme, a bid is submitted to the SRA for up to 50% of the total cost of a project, with the balance coming from the local community. Inevitably, this is likely to be from the County Council or District Council, although it is possible that for very small improvements, the local train operator may be prepared to share some of the funding responsibility. There is substantial work involved in preparing an RPP bid, as they need to meet certain criteria laid down by the SRA, including a financial appraisal, and they must have the support of Network Rail and a train operator.
27. Another very useful source of funding comes from commercial development. In some places, developer contributions already exist; for example the County Council has secured a major contribution from the developer of Bicester Village. There is potential for more contributions to be secured and directed towards enhanced public transport infrastructure, including rail.
28. Another potential source of funding is from the County Council’s Capital Programme. The proposals for Grove/Wantage and Kidlington stations are included in the Preparation Pool for the Capital Programme, although with no start date attached to them. The most recent advice from the Government Office for the South East suggests that capital allowancesallocation in support of the Local Transport Plan should only be used for passenger interchange works, and that trackside and other works on the railway itself should be funded from within the rail industry. This means that Local Transport Plan funding can only make a relatively small contribution towards the overall cost of opening the stations.
29. Although the SRA is looking to continue funding smaller schemes through the RPP process, one of the main ways of identifying where investment will take place will arise through franchise replacement. The SRA is keen to improve performance and reliability and to link these to franchise subsidy. It seems likely that the SRA will direct funding towards schemes that help achieve this overall objective. With the expected changes to the franchises serving Oxfordshire there may be the opportunity that some of the Council’s aspirations could be achieved in this way.

RECOMMENDATIONS

30. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to:

1. note the progress of the key rail projects during the past year; and
2. subject to consideration of:

1. whether there are additional or amended details that members would like to add to existing aspirations, or any additional aspirations; and
2. whether there are specific locations where members specifically want officers to investigate if some of the general aspirations contained in Part C of Annex 12 can be introduced;

DAVID YOUNG
Director of Environmental Services

Background papers: NILpapers: NIL

Contact Officer: Adrian Saunders, Rail Development Officer Tel: Oxford 815080

Printed on 9 December 2002

 Return to TOP