Policy T7 - Public Transport

It speaks for itself

This is area that may cause serious problems as there is currently no committment to providing genuine public transport services outside of perceived peak times. Evenings there are so few buses, services stop early.

As we are losing a lot of our own bus routes, it seems very strange to me that buses can be supplied for certain criteria but not the general public. The public transport in this area is overpriced and there are not enough buses now. We need more local buses to encourage people to use them and not get in their cars to drive to the airport etc. Surely encouraging people to come to the airport by train and bus should be a top priority and to discourage the use of cars and taxis.

The local bus company would jump at the chance of providing transport to the surrounding area as a way of raising revenue. In addition the new train terminal will bring in passengers fast and with no pollution.

congestion,congestion,congestion

Again the wording "expected" makes this a toothless and worthless statement. Nothing short of statutory requirements for the provision of public transport as an integral part of the plan can mitigate for the detrimental impacts.

I would like to see more details on this.

I am mystified as to why it is assumed that bus companies will be falling over themselves to provide services. The lack of bus services in Leigh is ridiculous. What is an 'appropriate' bus service. Flights 24-hours a day, buses to accommodate this = noise in surrounding areas 24-hours a day.

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.

No expansion please.

No expansion please. The roads are too congested as it is in Southend

SERT is good but must be running when people are working

This policy includes reference to SERT, which is now the subject of a public consultation. LSACL has a number of comments about the proposed routes which could be designed to serve the expanded airport and new employment areas, and will be making these comments to the SERT promoters.

The statement "It is expected that development will make a contribution to the establishment of an appropriate bus service" is very vague. In planning a major project such as this the word "expected" should not be in a planning document. Can the Council assure the public that agreement in principle has been reached with local bus operators to offer enhanced bus services to and around the airport and - just as importantly - airport industrial areas?

Given that currently industrial parks in the area are poorly served by public transport has the Council considered specific bus services for the industrial estates? This has been done to some success in other regions (Reading International Business Park for example) with subsidised buses linking the industrial estates with the town centre, railway and bus stations.

Have any bus operators agreed to run the new bus route? where will the money for it come from? Is there any substance or detail to these proposals?

the airport owners should be liable for all establishment costs, not just have to make a token contribution, and given that this is only 'expected' this will merely end up as an extension of the already laughable public transport system in this borough

I strongly object to the plans to extend southend airport. I do not believe the area needs another airport, particularly one that is in an urban area and will effect many people's lives in leigh on sea, both financially through the fall in house prices and environmentally. Plans to have night flights are totally unacceptable and will be detremental people's lives including children and will effect their education. I for one will be discussing this with my Local MP to stop this ridiculous proposal. A far better plan would have been to move the Hospital to the Airport site!!!

This will have a negative on:-

1. Environment (noise and pollution)
2. Wildlife and greenbelt
3. Surrounding residential properties
4. Public Services (Health and Education)
5. Infrastructure (congestion)

I dont believe the sweetner on job creation given the current climate so dont be fooled by this one. I can't see many companies wanting to invest in this proposal.

The "South Essex Rapid Transit" system won't be very rapid by the time all this extra traffic is generated...unless it is to be a tram with its own dedicated track...and who will foot the bill for that?

All the excess traffic predicted to be causing the need for these new travel measures wouldn't materialise if the airport remained at its present modest capacity.

Not required as airport should not expand. Not necessary.

The principle of SERT is a good one.
However I would see financial support of SERT as being more down to the Councils to support if this is required, rather than new businesses.
Businesses should help and support these services however, by offering encouragement/inducements for employees to use SERT wherever possible.
The JAAP should facilitate future SERT routes by safeguarding them in developments.

Object Policy T7: No airport expansion.

Congestion

Southend airport is in the wrong location for anything other than low growth. The roads are congested and the area is overcrowded. Expanding the airport will give rise to more noise and air pollution. A restriction on night flights should be enforced.

public transport, it might be nice to look at improving other areas first.

LONDON SOUTHEND AIRPORT & ENVIRONS JOINT AREA ACTION PLAN - PREFERRED OPTIONS

Thank you for sending us a copy of the above document.

We provide bus services on routes 7,8 and 9 which either border or go through the area under consideration.

These services run up to a 10 or 12 minute frequency during the daytime six days a week.

It is vital that every opportunity is taken to maximise the opportunities for travel by modes having the least impact on the area and the general recognition of that is welcomed.

New and expanded business parks - north of the airport

There does not appear to be sufficient emphasis on access to the proposed areas of business development.

Neither Aviation Way nor Cherry Orchard Way has a local bus service. Currently the nearest bus service is the 9 which serves Eastwoodbury Lane. The replacement of that section of Eastwoodbury Lane across the end of the runway with a new road to a new junction with Nestuda Way will result in the 9 omitting the section of Eastwoodbury Lane between Aviation Way and Nestuda Way which means a new bus service will be needed to serve the business parks.

Bus access to the airport

Previous discussions have suggested that the airport would be served by a minor rerouting of services 7 and 8 (Southend - Rochford - Hockley - Rayleigh) through the area immediately to the east of the proposed station. This area appears to be no longer available and clarification is needed as to how bus services will be able to serve the airport and station.

Park & Ride off Nestuda Way

It is unclear from the document if this proposal is intended to be a Park & Ride facility for the airport alone or as a means of access to Southend town centre. There would appear to be an opportunity here, subject to capacity, to provide a much needed facility for the latter. In either case it is important that the route followed by the Park & Ride bus service is, as far as possible, free of delay by other road traffic both to make the service attractive and to minimise the cost of provision.




Diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane to new junction with Nestuda Way

This link is a much better option than closing Eastwoodbury Lane and we would divert Service 9 accordingly. This brings a potential benefit for improved access to RBS offices, the Tesco store and the North Crescent and Feeches Road areas. I would suggest it would be beneficial if bus stops and a suitable pedestrian link can be provided in each direction on the new link with a suitable pedestrian path provided close to the corner of the RBS car park.

I trust my comments are clear and if you need any clarification please contact me.

There is little point in creating a better link to the A127 when it will be the A127 itself causing the restriction to traffic flows.

The junctions at Cuckoo Corner Roundabout, Hoblythick Lane, Bridgewater Drive and Progress Road throttle flows along this corridor. Any additional traffic on this corridor will now just add to the length of the queuing and impact on the downstream junctions. This will cause right turning and entry blocking obstructions and spread congestion to feeder roads. The only engineering solution to improve flows will be to provide grade separated junctions but due to boundary constraints this is not possible.

SERT although commendable for trying will be vying for the same junction/road space as private transport and inevitably this will further constrain flows for other vehicles. To provide a separate SERT lane alongside the current traffic corridors will be prohibitively expensive due to the need to divert statutory undertakers services (very expensive and a co-ordination nightmare). There will also be heavy objections from frontagers due to loss of verge/trees and moving the road closer to housing. Maybe this is why SERT has yet to be realised, 4 years of talking and still no progress.

Park and Ride is only viable when the journey to the Airport is itself congested, the road off A127 will be relatively free flowing. A more inviting site for P&R will be Progress Road area. By the time drivers have travelled along the congested A127 onto Nestuda Way their journey will almost be complete so what is the incentive to then jump on P&R? Passengers will have to transfer to a bus (with bags) for a journey of what will now be only a few minutes. Look at Sandon P&R, it is out of town on the edge of congestion with very good bus priority to Chelmsford. This a good model for P&R (it has just expanded and is still full). A Nestuda Way P&R does not make sense in this respect. A site near to the edge of A127 Congestion with good bus priority is the most inviting model for passengers (however providing bus priority along the A127 is problematic and expensive in Southend, see my SERT comments above)

The Councils need to take a global view of the A127 / A13 corridors as these will on top of the Airport proposals increase traffic on these 2 roads (the only high volume roads in Southend). Proposed expansion of communities at Great Wakering, Shoebury and Thorpe Bay Golf course plus Garons, Garrison, Shoebury Park (adj to ASDA) and the new planning approach to provide denser developments in town is concentrating more people movements in the Southend/Rochford area. A high percentage of these new residents will want to move through the A13 / A127 corridor.

Our main corridors will only get worse. We need to get people out of private cars and into public transport (or work locally) BUT all these issues are interrelated and should be considered as a WHOLE and not as a wish list of headline grabbing schemes. Not easy and will need strong decisions from our Councils.

With regards to the movement of people (and goods) - the isolated, ring fenced, wish list approach being taken to Airport expansion will only add to the towns growing transport problems. This is what will stifle the much coveted growth in the end if not deal with.

Agree.

Not necessary