2.4 Transport & Accessibility

STRONGLY OBJECT TO ALL EXPANSION. Do minimum or preferably no expansion.The increase in aircraft noise for us residents will become intolerable, emissions will increase. The road system cannot cope with current traffic levels. If 2m passenger movements are reached this will require about 4000 extra car journeys per day!!! Imagine the road upgrading work for the next few years that would be required. This area has a high percentage of elderly people who hardly fly. Who will the expansion benefit, people flying from outside the region and the business people and major shareholders who will make millions of pounds.

This only highlights the existing problems with the local road network we have. Major improvements would be required which I do not believe money would be available for. Bus and rail services are in the hands of private companies that cannot be dictated too. Any improvement in cycle ways would be very beneficial. I cannot see why a bus link from the station to the airport could not be provided. Diverting Eastwoodbury Lane would be very costly and inconvenient but it could be dropped in an underpass - it works at Heathrow.

Any major airport expansion also requires massive infratructure spending on transport links. We would be in for years of upheavel and I ask the question again - what about protecting the council tax payers from having their lives blighted by what may ell be a white elephant given what is occurring in the global economy.

We are surprised that the bus services to the Airport are seen as poor. For the current employment market, two frequent bus services run close to the airport, routes 7/8 every 10 minutes and route 9 which was increased last month to every 12 minutes. We are sure that if the airport expands, these routes can be rerouted to enter the airport grounds.

Access to the section of Eastwoodbury Lane at the end of the runway is vital to ensure that the housing south of the airport boundary can continue to be served by buses. If this link is closed, any alternative route which does not allow access to Eastwoodbury Lane would cut off these residents from local bus services.

Cycle routes are virtually non-existant in the area. The ones in place on the arterial roads are used routinely for car parking, and are also rarely swept of glass etc: they are virtually unuseable. Roads in the town are notoriosly busy and most potential cyclists are offput by the perceived and real dangers. Aggressive car driving due to the traffic density is common. Pollution can be significant for cyclists.
Bus Services are good and frequent, their use should be encouraged by airport firms.

Vast improvements in the road system would be essential as passengers like to arrive at airports by car, irrespective of public transport options. The roads are already over congested and this proposal would only make matters worse.

Having taken the time to read fully the 100 page document reference the proposed joint area action plan report, I would like to put forward my points of view, I hope you will do the me the same courtesy and read the following 3 pages.

2.4 Transport & Accessibility:
Bus Services: There is a bus service (No:9), which stops at the end of he Aviation Way Business Park. Your proposed moving of Eastwoodbury Lane will mean this bus going onto the A127?!!!!!
Railway: The airport should consider a coach service to the nearest railway stations. Stansted, a much larger airport seems to be able to operate with a coach service. It has already been discussed and pointed out to the airport that commuter parking is not a feasible and safe option along Southend Road.
Eastwoodbury Lane: The word critical is used in this paragraph; this would only become critical if the airport extends the runway.

There does not appear to be any mention of the existing and proposed 'sound footprint' within the document. Please can you furnish us with the current, and increases for each scenario.

The Park & Ride is shown on the diagram but no explanation it is a Park & Ride to where and for whom?!

Solutions to any increase in traffic need to be addressed before agreement to any of the options. I cannot see any such foresight having been used in this document.

A good example of traffic problems is the RBS building, which is causing parking problems and disruption on the roads surrounding it and no serious attempt at providing adequate additional transport options.

There are plenty of industrial/shopping estates in he area, namely Airports' own shopping area, Aviation Way, Laurence, Britannia Park, Temple Farm and Purdey Industrial Estate; and the currently expanding Fossett Way estate with new football ground, hotel and shopping areas to be added. The analysis shows a number of sites to be currently vacant, so why do they want or need to increase the numbers, again it is likely that businesses will be cutting back due to economies rather than expanding.

I think proof and financial guarantees from 2/3 fixed base operators would need to be in place before any planning applications for expansion are agreed. This is particularly relevant at this time of economic constraints, ('volatility in aviation markets'-direct quote) e.g.:
Ryanair, Easyjet cutting back NOT expanding.

I include two quotes from a national newspaper this week, the first from aviation expert Doug McVitie who predicts some airlines will go bust in the coming months as they deal with the record fuel costs and a drop in consumer spending. The second regarding British Airways axing one in 20 flights in a bid to weather the economic downturn. Involving 1000's of short haul domestic, regional and European services expected to bear the brunt of the cutbacks. 6000 flights will disappear from its winter schedule with effect from October. Is it environmentally or economically sound to encourage more emissions, bearing in mind fuel costs etc.

4.3 i) Recent evidence is inferred, but no specifics given. Same as
above, there are plenty of new developments already taking place in the area.

ii) The roads are already at maximum capacity in the area.
iii) Employment growth brings more transport problems, see ii) above.

4.2 iii) Environmental Impacts removal of any green belt impacts on the environment. ('Ensuring quality of life is maintained for residents, and sustainable transport strategies are implemented to minimise traffic impacts'-direct quote) these are just words nowhere in the document does the airport show how it will be maintaining quality of life!!

4.6 The analysis shows a number of sites to be currently vacant, so why do
they want or need to increase the numbers, again likely that businesses will be cutting back due to economies rather than expanding.
Specific areas for change listed: you mention local recreation and amenity improvements, what are they? ix) Mentions the parkway, this has already been widely discussed and the safety issues explained, in fact there have been 3 serious accidents along Southend Road in the last 3 months, this is a narrow, dangerous stretch of road which vehicles constantly speed along resulting in regular road accidents

The new car showrooms due to start operating in the Autumn along Cherry Orchard Way, we have not yet seen what impact this will have on the road infrastructure i.e.: vehicle transporters, staff and customers.

The major redirecting of Eastwoodbury Lane to join with the RBS road exiting onto the dual carriageway, pushing all traffic onto the A127 Tesco roundabout shows lack of intelligence on whosoever devised this lunatic scenario. This is actually removing the option of avoiding the A127 for motorists and public transport.

The airport should NOT be looking for any public investment, as it cannot show any guaranteed financial returns.

('In changing the character of the area funding would be attracted to promote transport and environmental projects aimed at improving the JAAP area'-direct quote) BEFORE changing the character of the area, (not for the better in my opinion) transport and environmental projects should already have been chosen and explained with AIRPORT funding already in place, as it is the airport which wishes to make the changes.

Avionics technical advancement is consistently mentioned in the document with regard to potential noise and emission reductions, thereby not having a significant effect on the local area, but there is no proof of this.
Regardless, if with technical advancement we could also assume new aircraft being produced that can utilise the existing runway length thereby saving unnecessary expense.

The airport was purchased knowing the runway limitations and I don't see why the residents or local environment should suffer to assuage their greed.

Scenario 1: Low growth (do minimum) is the preferred option as any growth allowed will be later exploited and consistently pushed for further expansion. i.e.: the parkway which was NOT included in the original new railway station planning application but once this was agreed in principal the airport immediately tried to expand the area to include commuter parking which they admitted they would need the revenue from to help finance the station, if that was so they should have been honest in the first instance and applied for parking at the same time. This was also the case with the Shopping area at the airport where the planning application stated NO food outlets and then at a later date McDonalds was given consent to operate.

The current highway network is operating at or near capacity but airport development does not necessarily mean traffic levels will increase. It is true that people will travel to the airport mainly by car but these same people would otherwise be driving to other airports, Stansted, Luton, Gatwick or Heathrow: they currently have no alternative. Unless Southend is to offer services to destinations not served by other airports then the traffic levels ought to remain about the same. Higher fuel costs mean fewer flights with fewer operators bidding for destinations and travellers less willing drive long distances.

Current poor accessibilty makes Southend and its surroundings relatively unattractive for setting up new business ventures compared to, say, Basildon which is closer to the M25. If the airport is to attract new business and services, i.e, new airlines/destinations not offered elsewhere, then I fear that some drastic solutions may be needed to alleviate the likely future increase in traffic congestion. This could involve building a major new road to provide connectivity to London. As I see it, one perhaps rather unpalatable solution would be to build a link road from the airport to the A130/A127 (bypassing Stroud Green and
Hockley to join an upgraded A129). It could at some future date be extended eastwards to link up with the A13 at North Shoebury. Just a thought but it will be needed sooner or later!

The second bullet point on pedestrian facilities should note that one of the footpaths shown on Figure 2.4 crosses a taxiway and controlled airside area and is a safety and security risk. Efforts are being made to divert this little used route.

Figure 2.4 shows a potential Park 'n' Ride site. Although this scheme has been referred to in other plans (LTP2, RSL's Regeneration Framework, SSBC Core Strategy) further information is required on its purpose and how it would work and, in particular, whether it has any relationship to parking at the Airport.

It is vital that this aspect of transport is given its proper emphasis within any report. Southend airport is situated in the midst of densely populated area with road structures that have already reached more than saturation point. This factor alone means that further development of the airport is impracticable.

Given the likely impact of rising oil prices (a reduction in the demand to fly) the economic case and planning assumptions presented here are irresponsible.
At the very least the local authority should seek a moratorium on expansion for a period of 5 years to establish whether the industry can expand during a period of sustained price rises.
In the meantime Rochford and Southend should explore other ways of attracting more visitors to the area by rail and coach. The SEE FoE response to Renaissance Southend (available on its website) sets out clearly how this can be done.

Public Footpath 36 Rochford runs from Aviation Way eastwards across the airport taxiway and continues to link up with the network on Rochford Hundred Golf Course. The Definitive line of this path has not been affected by any legal diversion or extinguishment orders to date and therefore remains available for public use. ECC observation and feedback suggests it is actually well used. Any proposals to alter the alignment should take into account its importance as a sustainable link to Rochford and its amenity and biodiversity value, and consider improvement to accessibility and highway status (such as upgrade to bridleway).

Quite clearly transport links in our area are at saturation point, & whilst they may be able to support current activities at the airport, any further strain on them will actually have a negative effect on many of the existing businesses that provide jobs already.

We have reviewed your consultation document and have the following comments to make:

2.4 Transport and Accessibility

The proposed closure of Eastwoodbury Lane will be of interest to us, we would like to ensure diverted routes do not add to the congestion on the roundabout of the B1013, as we use a shuttle bus service transferring staff based in office accommodation in Comets Way, to the hospital. We would not want to see significant delays or congestion increasing which would deter staff from using the shuttle bus service and place increased pressure for staff parking.

P21 of the document notes the scale of growth will attract more cars into Southend, the A127 is severely congested now, what solustions are under consideration re creating airport passenger park and ride schemes outside of Southend? This would be an essential element of any development to ensure further obstructions for blue light ambulance access to the hospital do not occur.

The largest of the development options raises concerns re the impact of noise for the hospital, we were not clear re what the exact impact would be and should these options progress we would need to review any mitigation plans to ensure aircraft noise will not impact on our services.

I hope you find the above helpful, any future consultation documents should be sent to my office.