Nottingham Express Transit Network Extensions Study · PDF fileDocument Control Project Title:...

Nottingham Express Transit Network Extensions Study (Stage 1) Kimberley Route Options April 2001 Prepared by: WS Atkins Rail Limited MVA Limited

Document Control

Project Title: Nottingham Express Transit Network Extensions Study

Project Number: MVA-C05903 WSA-BL1969

Document Type: Kimberley Route Options Report

WP Reference:

Directory & File Name: c:\windows\temporary internet files\olk2255\bl1969r16_021.doc

Document Approval

Primary Author: Reg Sweet, WSA Reviewer(s): David Carter, MVA

Issue

Date Distribution Comments

1 12/03/01 MVA, WSA, NET First draft 2 16/03/01 MVA, WSA, NET Second draft 3 26/04/01 MVA, WSA, NET Final

NET Network Extensions Study (Stage 1)

Kimberley Route Options

Page 1

1 General 1.1 Route options to Kimberley have been considered as possible western

extensions to Line One from the terminus at Phoenix Park on the Cinderhill branch.

1.2 The main motivation for considering a route on this corridor would be to

serve locations such as the following: -

Residential areas in the vicinity of the Nuthall Roundabout A possible P&R site between the Nuthall Roundabout and Junction 26

of the M1 Motorway (awaits M1 Multi-Modal Study results) Existing and new developments at Nuthall New developments at Watnall

Existing areas of Kimberley The industrial estate adjacent to the A610 at Giltbrook, including the

Ikea Store Possible future extension to Eastwood

1.3 A NET line along this corridor should provide interchange opportunities

with bus services and possible P&R sites. 1.4 However, serving all the possible locations along this corridor with one

single line would not be plausible. Therefore, two alternative routes for serving Kimberley are proposed under this study – i.e. a route serving the Kimberley Main Street area (KMS) and another to the Ikea Store via the proposed Watnall development site (KI). These two routes would share a common section up to New Nuthall on the west side of the M1 Motorway.

1.5 The Kimberley Main Street Route (KMS) would be extended westward

from the Line One terminus at the Phoenix Park P&R site and would proceed towards the Nuthall Roundabout, where it could serve a possible new P&R site near Junction 26 of the M1. The route would then swing northwards to meet the disused London North Eastern Railway (LNER) alignment, which has an existing bridge under the M1 and provides a corridor into Kimberley. The route would stop short of Main Street near the recreation ground.

1.6 The Kimberley Ikea Route (KI) would diverge to the north from the KMS

alignment near New Nuthall in order to serve the southern part of the proposed Watnall development area. The route would then join the alignment of the disused London Midland Scottish (LMS) Railway and skirt around the northern part of Kimberley. It would continue westwards along the LMS corridor towards Ikea, crossing first over the A610 Kimberley-Eastwood By-Pass on a new viaduct before passing under it again at the existing bridge on the major roundabout near the Ikea Store.

NET Network Extensions Study (Stage 1) – Kimberley Route Options

Page 2

1.7 The proposed route options to Kimberley are shown on the following drawings included in the Appendices to this report: -

BL 1969 – 500: Kimberley Routes (1:20000 scale) BL 1969 – 501 and 504: Kimberley Routes (1:5000 scale)


Page 3

2 Route Description 2.1 Common Section for KMS and KI Options Line One Phoenix Park P&R Site to New Farm Lane (Drawing Nos. 503 & 504 refer) 2.1.1 The alignment of the Kimberley route options would head west from the

P&R site at the proposed Phoenix Park terminus of Line One, proceeding alongside the extension of Millennium Way West. It would then swing past the back corner of the residential property at the end of Anders Drive, at which point the route would move from a Nottingham City to a Broxtowe Borough Council controlled area.

2.1.2 The route would continue on a segregated alignment through the

existing open area to the north of the A610 Kimberley-Eastwood By-pass and south of the Hempshill Vale residential area. A box culvert would be required where the route crosses the stream that runs into the nearby pond. Some realignment and remodelling of the access lane and footpaths within this open area may be required to ensure the segregation of the NET route.

2.1.3 The alignment would then cross under the A6002 Low Wood Road in a

new concrete subway structure through the road embankment about 100 metres to the north of the Nuthall Roundabout. Some temporary traffic management measures would be required during the construction of this underpass structure.

2.1.4 The location of a stop in this area would be dependent on the provision

of a possible P&R site that would serve traffic coming from Junction 26 of the nearby M1 Motorway. Such a P&R site could be provided in the area between Low Wood Road and the M1 to the north of the B600 Nottingham Road. Should this be the case, then the stop would be located within the P&R site. If a P&R site were not provided, then a more suitable location for the stop would be immediately to the east of Low Wood Road near Hempshill Hall.

2.1.5 Recommendations regarding the need for a P&R site in close proximity to

the M1 Motorway are being addressed within the context of the M1 Multi-Modal Study. Issues concerning road access to the P&R site would need to be carefully considered in view of the congestion that occurs at the Nuthall Roundabout.

2.1.6 After passing under Low Wood Road, the alignment would swing

northwards towards the right-of-way of the dismantled London North Eastern Railway (LNER). The precise alignment through this area would be dependent on the proposals for a possible new road access to the envisaged development site at Watnall, which would be located to the west of the M1. The section of the NET route up to the disused LNER right-of-way would need to be developed as a segregated corridor to enable higher operating speeds to be attained.


Page 4

2.1.7 Upon reaching the disused LNER alignment, the route would swing westward and make use of the existing railway formation. It would then pass under the M1 Motorway through an existing bridge, less than 1km to the north of junction 26. This bridge would need to be checked for clearances and headroom to ensure that they would be suitable to accommodate the NET vehicles and overhead catenary system. Alternatively, a new access road to the Watnall development site may be provided, requiring a new bridge under the M1 Motorway. The NET route could then be incorporated into this new road alignment.

2.1.8 To the west of the M1 bridge, the route would continue towards New

Nuthall along the LNER formation as segregated track. It would cross New Farm Road at grade requiring a signalled crossing junction to be provided with the necessary priority being given to the NET vehicles.

2.1.9 The KMS and KI routes would diverge approximately 150m to the west of

the New Farm Road crossing and south of Redfield House. The exact location would need to be determined once details of the Watnall development site became available.

2.2 Kimberley Main Street Option (KMS) New Farm Lane to B600 Main Road Watnall (Drawing Nos. 502 & 503 refer) 2.2.1 The KMS route option would continue westwards along the LNER

alignment until reaching the B600 Main Road Watnall at a point immediately to the south of the existing industrial bakery. The engineering in this area becomes more difficult, because a large earth bund has been constructed on the railway formation to screen the residential properties on the south side from the noise and visual intrusion caused by the bakery. Part of this earth bund would need to be removed to enable the NET route to pass alongside the bakery. A retaining wall would be required to support the remaining part of the bund to ensure that the screening effect is not diminished.

2.2.2 The KMS route would then cross the B600 Main Road Watnall at grade.

This would require that a new signalised junction be provided to ensure that the NET may cross with the requisite right of way and priority.

2.2.3 A NET stop would be located immediately to the west of the B600 Main

Road Watnall. This would serve the residential areas in this vicinity and also the bakery. Pedestrian access routes to the stop would need to be provided and possibly also a signalised pedestrian crossing on the B600.

B600 Main Road Watnall to Terminus (Dwg. No. 502 refers) 2.2.4 To the west of the B600, development has taken place along the old

LNER alignment, thus allowing only a short length to be available for the KMS route. The deep cutting along this section has been filled in over a part of its length. This has left a steep bank separating the filled section from the deep cutting section.


Page 5

2.2.5 The KMS alignment would then run westwards for about 200m along the

LNER right-of-way before turning to the south at Chestnut Close. It would then run within the existing green area alongside Chestnut Close and Chestnut Drive before turning westwards again to run adjacent to the back gardens of the properties along Lime Close.

2.2.6 The KMS route option terminus would be situated in the area behind the

properties in Noel Street, in the immediate vicinity of the Kimberley Main Street. This stop would serve the main commercial area of Kimberley.

2.2.7 A route providing direct access to Main Street could not be found,

without first requiring significant property acquisition and demolition. Also, the roads within the central area of Kimberley are fairly narrow and would not be suitable for LRT operations. This would make it difficult to extend the KMS route in the future.

2.3 Kimberley Ikea Option (KI) New Farm Lane to A610 Kimberley-Eastwood By-Pass (Drawing Nos. 501 & 502 refer) 2.3.1 The Kimberley KI route option would diverge from the KMS route to the

south of Redfield House about 150m west of New Farm Road. It would swing towards the north into the proposed new Watnall development area, but at this stage no definite alignment can be defined – i.e. until such time as the development proposals are made known. A segregated route for this NET extension would need to be incorporated into the planning for the area, if the developer were interested in capturing the benefits of a LRT service for this site.

2.3.2 The Watnall development proposals that are being considered cover a

very large area. This is bounded in the east by the M1 Motorway, in the west by the B600 Main Road Watnall, in the south by New Nuthall and in the north by B6009 Long Lane Watnall. It would be difficult for the KI route to penetrate the northern part of this site and also serve Kimberley. Therefore, one option that might be considered in the future would be to provide an extension or a spur that would serve this new site only.

2.3.3 The KI route would pass through the southern part of the proposed

Watnall development until it reached the east-west alignment of the disused London Midland Scottish (LMS) Railway that runs approximately 200m to 300m to the north of the LNER. It would join this alignment about 200m to the east of the B600 Main Road Watnall.

2.3.4 This would be a suitable location for a NET stop, as it would be able to

serve both the north and south of the development area. In addition, it would be able to serve some of the existing residential and industrial sites along the B600. Consideration could also be given for including a P&R site in the vicinity of this stop as part of the development proposals.


Page 6

Pedestrian access routes to the stop would need to be provided and possibly also a signalised pedestrian crossing on the B600.

2.3.5 On reaching the disused LMS alignment, the KI route would run

westwards towards Kimberley in a deep cutting, which has been designated as a SSSI by English Nature. It has been assumed that the route would pass under the B600 Main Road Watnall in an existing 150m long railway tunnel. However, the status of this tunnel would need to be confirmed by carrying out a detailed search of available records and a site inspection.

2.3.6 The KI alignment then continues westward in deep cutting along the

disused LMS corridor for about 700m, at which point the route is blocked by an embankment carrying Hardy Street across the cutting. It has been assumed that a new subway bridge would be provided for the NET to allow it to pass under Hardy Street. This would require temporary traffic management measures to be implemented during the construction of the underpass structure. Alternatively, the KI route could be ramped up to road level to enable Hardy Street to be crossed at grade, with a new signalled junction being required.

2.3.7 A stop could be located in the vicinity of Hardy Street, as this would be

as close to the Kimberley Town Centre that this route would come. The stop could be located either before Hardy Street, near the footbridge linking with Hardy Close, or beyond it opposite the Kimberley Brewery and the old station building, that was until recently used as a social club. Suitable pedestrian access routes to the stop would need to be provided.

2.3.8 As it continues west towards Eastwood Road along the old LMS

alignment, some development and encroachment on the old right-of-way would be encountered. This would possibly require some land acquisition and minor demolition to be undertaken.

2.3.9 The KI route would cross over Eastwood Road on a new bridge at the

site of a previous railway bridge. One of the abutments of this old bridge still remains and could possibly be reused for the new bridge. The construction of this new bridge would be relatively simple, with only minor temporary traffic management measures being required.

2.3.10 Beyond Eastwood Road, the route would continue along the disused

railway alignment towards the A610 Kimberley-Eastwood By-Pass. Some development has taken place on the old LMS right-of-way, requiring possible land acquisition and demolition to be undertaken.

A610 Kimberley-Eastwood By-Pass to Ikea Terminus (Drawing No. 501 refers) 2.3.11 A new viaduct would be required to take the KI route over the A610

Kimberley-Eastwood By-pass. This viaduct would cross the A610 at a highly skewed angle and its construction would entail the implementation of major temporary traffic management measures.


Page 7

2.3.12 The route would continue westwards along the LMS alignment for about 150m, before crossing Awsworth Lane at grade. A new signalled junction would be required at this location in order to provide the necessary right of way for the NET.

2.3.13 A possible stop location would be adjacent to Awsworth Lane, as this is

linked to a subway under the A610 that would provide access to the residential area about 150m away. Suitable pedestrian access routes to the stop would need to be provided.

2.3.14 Continuing westwards along the LMS alignment for a further 400m, the

KI route would then encounter another disused railway corridor. It would then turn quite sharply northwards along this alignment for about 150m before reaching the A6096 Gin Close Way. This road would be crossed at grade requiring a new signalised junction for the NET.

2.3.15 After crossing Gin Close Way, the alignment would turn towards the

roundabout serving the junction of the sliproads from the A610 with the A6096 and B6010 Nottingham Road. The NET route would pass under the existing A610 bridge on the western side of the roundabout traffic lanes. This would require the NET route to cross over the westbound and eastbound sliproads of the A610, with both requiring new signalised junctions. Retaining walls would be required to support the spill-through embankment at the bridge abutment where it would need to be cut back to make space for the NET tracks.

2.3.16 Immediately after crossing the eastbound sliproad of the A610, the

alignment would make a right-angled turn towards the west where it would skirt the edge of the industrial estate and approach the parking area serving the Ikea Store. A terminus stop for the KI route would be provided at this location.

Possible Alternative Route along Eastwood Road 2.3.17 An alternative route to the Ikea Terminus that was considered, but not

studied in detail, would be to run on-street along Eastwood Road/Gilt Hill from the point where the old LMS alignment crossed this road. Instead of providing a bridge over Eastwood Road, the old bridge would be removed and the alignment ramped down so that the NET could join the roadway at grade. This would require a new signalled junction on Eastwood Road and some remodelling to provide space to accommodate the sharp curves for the NET tracks.

2.3.18 This alternative route would then continue on-street along Eastwood

Road and Gilt Hill, before crossing over the B6010 Nottingham Road and entering the industrial estate at Giltbrook where the Ikea Store is located. The junction with the B6010 would require remodelling and signalling to enable the NET to cross with the requisite priority.

2.3.19 The high costs associated with providing a suitable on-street alignment

along this busy arterial road were not considered to be justified when


Page 8

compared with the potential benefits of providing better penetration to potential sources of patronage. The adverse operational impacts on journey time and service reliability by operating along a busy road were also factors that were considered when deciding not to pursue this alternative.


Page 9

3 Operational Aspects 3.1 General 3.1.1 This section identifies and describes some of the operational aspects that

were considered for the Kimberley route options during this study. 3.1.2 Journey Times –It was necessary to develop a simplified journey time

model for this Stage 1 study. The bases and assumptions included in this journey time model are as follows: -

The overall route length and intermediate distances to stops and junctions were estimated and modelled;

The maximum speed for each route section was estimated taking into account whether the track is on-street, segregated or pedestrianised; the degree of interference from other traffic; section length; and curvature;

Average operational acceleration and deceleration rates of 0.8 and 1.0 m/s2, respectively, were used to calculate journey times;

NET would generally get priority at signalled junctions, although not always absolute priority;

Delays at junctions were estimated based on the likely level of priority that could be given to NET;

Dwell times at stops were generally assumed to be 15 seconds in order to be consistent with previous studies.

3.1.3 NET journey time comparisons with other transport modes were also

carried out where possible. In particular, comparisons with the existing bus services provide a realistic indication of the relative advantages or disadvantages of the NET journey times.

3.1.4 Operating frequencies - Extending NET to Kimberley would enable

services to be offered to Line One destinations south of Phoenix Park and to the possible NET extensions to the south of Nottingham Station. The frequencies to Kimberley would logically match those of the Line One service to Phoenix Park, although enhanced patronage from a new P&R site near Junction 26 may eventually warrant higher frequencies.

3.1.5 Comparisons between likely NET service frequencies and other public

transport modes, primarily buses, were also carried out where possible. This would provide a realistic indication of the relative advantages or disadvantages of the NET service frequencies.

3.1.6 Service reliability – this is strongly influenced by interference from

other traffic and the number of at-grade junctions that the NET service has to negotiate. Measures that have been considered for minimising such effects on service reliability, include the following: -

Segregation of trams from street traffic wherever possible; Routing trams along roads with lower traffic densities; Provision of high levels of priority and right of way for trams

through road junctions;


Page 10

By timetabling for recovery time. 3.1.7 Vehicle Requirements – Until such time as robust patronage figures

become available, it will not be possible to accurately determine the vehicle fleet requirements. However, the notional number of additional service vehicles required for each route option was calculated using the estimated journey time and likely service frequencies on Line One to Phoenix Park as the key variables. The basis of the calculation and assumptions made, include the following: -

The number of round trips per hour that each tram can make is

derived using the journey time (see Appendix 1) and a layover time allowance of 2.5 minutes at each terminus;

Using the number of round trips per hour, calculated as above, and notional service frequencies of 4 and 6 per hour (i.e. 15 and 10 minute headways), the number of trams per route option is derived;

No allowance has been made for spare trams; The calculated number of trams is always rounded up to the

nearest whole number. In practice, it may be possible to operate with greater allowances or slightly increased frequencies.

3.2 Kimberley Main Street (KMS) Option 3.2.1 The three (3) stops considered for the Kimberley KMS route are as

follows: -

Low Wood Road, near the Nuthall Roundabout. Alternatively, if the new Junction 26 P&R site is developed, then the first stop would be within the P&R site.

Main Road Watnall, opposite the Bakery.

Kimberley terminus near Main Street. Journey Times 3.2.2 The journey time from Phoenix Park to the Kimberley Main Street

terminus has been calculated as shown in Appendix 1. These have been added to the average of the inbound and outbound service journey times for Line One (NTC Operating Plan, Base Timetable, September 2000) from Nottingham Station to Phoenix Park and are indicated in Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1 – Journey Times for Kimberley KMS Route

Stop Phoenix Park (Line One)

Low Wood Road

Main Road Watnall

Kimberley terminus

Time from Nott’m

Station (min) 24½ 25½ 29 30½


Page 11

3.2.3 The journey time for the Kimberley KMS route length of 3.5 km is 6 minutes, which gives a high average end-to-end speed of 34.9 km/h from Phoenix Park. The estimated journey time assumes that segregated running would be possible throughout, except through the major road junctions.

3.2.4 The NET journey time from the Kimberley KMS terminus to Theatre

Square would be approximately 26½ minutes (4 minutes less than to Station Street). This is very similar or slightly faster than the timetabled bus journey times from Kimberley Library on the key long distance routes to Nottingham. Timetabled bus journey times are around 25 to 28 minutes to Victoria Bus Station, with the faster services routeing via Basford and Sherwood Rise (Trent service 27), but the higher frequency routes running along Nuthall Road (Trent route Rainbow 1).

3.2.5 All bus routes benefit from the use of various bus priority measures along

the two main routes and also from being able to largely run limited stop since many travellers from the urban area continue to use the Nottingham City Transport ‘City’ services rather the out-of-town Trent routes. For those routes running along Nuthall Road it is possible to access the central area from Upper Parliament Street before the bus terminates at the distant Victoria Bus Station. Route 27 which runs via Basford can only serve Victoria Bus Station requiring travellers to walk to the main destinations in the City, such as Old Market Square area, which NET can serve in around 28½ minutes.

3.2.6 NET can also serve the southern end of the centre, with stops serving

the Lace Market, Broadmarsh and Nottingham Station in around 30½ minutes. None of the present bus services from the Kimberley area serve Old Market Square and the southern commercial zone. Therefore, whilst there is only likely to be a moderate journey time saving due to NET for travellers to the north side of the city centre, the benefits will be much larger for those accessing the area to the south of Old Market Square due to the better central area penetration offered by NET.

Operating Frequencies 3.2.7 As noted above, the principal bus services from Kimberley into

Nottingham centre are provided on two routes, both operated by Trent. These services run onto Eastwood or Ilkeston with many services running further into east Derbyshire to serve Alfreton/Ripley. The principal route serving Kimberley is the Rainbow 1 route which offers high frequency services of six buses per hour throughout the day until 1830 and is operated largely by a dedicated fleet of the latest low-floor vehicles. In the evenings and on Sundays a half-hourly service is operated.

3.2.8 The second main service from Kimberley is route 27/27A which runs from

Ilkeston and provides links to Basford and into Nottingham centre via Nottingham Road and Sherwood Rise. This route operates with a half-hourly frequency during the peak periods and interpeak, but with a much


Page 12

reduced level of service in the evenings and at weekends. All routes run along Nottingham Road in Kimberley; there are no local bus services scheduled to use the Kimberley Eastwood By-pass

3.2.9 A number of other minor routes operate through Kimberley including

hourly services to both Hucknall via Watnall and to Beeston via QMC. Both of these destinations could be reached by interchanging to northbound Line One services or on through/interchange services if the Beeston North route option were to be pursued. However, both routes form part of longer routes from Derby, Heanor and Eastwood.

3.2.10 All routes from Kimberley to Nottingham serve Nuthall with route 27

running via Larkfield Road and Watnall Road and Rainbow 1 running along Nottingham Road. The northern edge of Kimberley and Watnall are served by buses on the Watnall Road. Radial services to central Nottingham are limited from this area; route 331 operates an irregular service with three departures in the peak and a service interval of around 1½ to 2 hours in the interpeak. Regular hourly services exist on Watnall Road provided by the Derby-Eastwood-Hucknall route.

3.2.11 A NET extension to Kimberley would be expected to be provided as an

integrated extension of Line One route to the Phoenix Park park and ride site. Providing frequencies to Phoenix Park were around six services per hour, NET would be able to offer a similar frequency to the existing principal bus route, Rainbow 1. Were the Line One frequency to Phoenix Park to be lower, say only four services per hour in the interpeak, then NET frequencies would not be competitive with the existing bus from Kimberley Main Street terminus.

3.2.12 Assuming that all Phoenix Park NET services are extended to Kimberley,

then at low frequency of four services per hour, a single extra vehicle would normally be required to operate the service, subject to the minimum turnround allowances included in the schedule. For increased frequencies of six services per hour it may also be possible to operate the service with only one additional vehicle. However, the reliability of the Kimberley service with only one more vehicle would be less than the original Phoenix Park service due to reduced actual turnround times; two additional vehicles would allow the service to have an increased level of reliability. A total of four additional vehicles would be required to operate a service of eight trams per hour over the KMS extension, two vehicles associated with the increased frequency to Phoenix Park and a further two to provide services on the KMS extension.

Bus Restructuring 3.2.13 There may be some opportunities for restructuring of the bus network in

the corridor following introduction of NET. Such measures can offer patronage benefits to NET by providing feeder services or reducing direct competition between modes. Also, by reducing the number of buses on key radial routes, wider benefits can be realised through reduced road congestion.


Page 13

3.2.14 In order to maintain high levels of service on the rest of the bus network

out towards Eastwood and beyond, it is very unlikely that the operator would wish to reduce frequencies as a result of any cooperation with NET. Although NET does not offer significant improvements in journey time over the existing bus services, the improved penetration of the central area could offer benefits for bus users through the use of feeder services to NET at Kimberley for services from Eastwood, providing an easy and well integrated interchange is possible.

3.2.15 However, it may be very difficult to locate a suitable interchange near

the Kimberley KMS terminus as this is hidden away from Main Street itself behind properties on both Main Street and Noel Street. Therefore, whilst buses may be able to stop on Main Street there would not be a real opportunity to provide the turnround and waiting facilities that would be associated with a important modal interchange.

3.2.16 There would also continue to be a need to offer some level of service for

the residential areas on Nottingham Road from the east of Kimberley centre towards Nuthall. This would suggest a need to offer a further feeder service, probably to the Phoenix Park stop as serving the intermediate stop Low Wood Road would be difficult and suitable interchange facilities already exist at Phoenix Park.

3.2.17 Similarly, there could be a need to maintain links between Eastwood and

intermediate destinations along Nuthall Road within the City boundary. However, such intermediate destinations are likely to be relatively limited; Phoenix Park can be served directly as can Basford (as a replacement for route 27/27A). Therefore, it is possible to envisage a reduced through service, say maintaining half-hourly or 20-minute through services from Eastwood, with the remainder of the routes acting as dedicated feeders.

3.2.18 A number of key issues then arise, primarily focused around the

possibilities of integration or competition between the NET and bus operators. Current services are operated by Trent/Barton; NET Line One will be operated by a consortium including Nottingham City Transport. Therefore, at least until an operator of the KMS extension is chosen, there can be no guarantee of cooperation between commercial operators.

3.2.19 One of the key issues in the decision of an operator to cooperate or

compete with NET will be revenue loses and operating cost savings that resulting from reductions in overall passenger and vehicle kilometres on their network. A further consideration will be the relative attractiveness of interchanging relative to through services. Here key issues are the availability of a suitable and well designed interchange location, combined with high frequency services on both journey legs, timetable/service integration and through ticketing. As noted above the provision of well configured interchange in Kimberley may not be possible.


Page 14

3.2.20 However, with respect to the principal of interchange, it is interesting to note that Trent currently operate a feeder service to the Rainbow 1 route offering further penetration of the Eastwood area. The Connect 1 service to the Giltbrook Farm area of Eastwood currently offers the same high frequency as the core Rainbow 1 route with timed connections to and from Nottingham.

3.2.21 Nevertheless, whilst opportunities may exist for providing feeder

services, the effect of competition between already high quality public transport services offering a wide range of through services from Kimberley, Eastwood and the distant hinterland, could be significant. Although in general, the main impacts of competitive situations may be expected to be felt only in the short-term, in the longer term problems could still remain as the Trent services are sustained by demand from the areas to the west of Kimberley. This would allow the operator to maintain a much more competitive stance than would be the case for fully urban operations directly parallel to NET.

Other Issues 3.2.22 The entire Kimberley KMS route is segregated and this is likely to have a

positive impact on reliability due to minimal interference from other traffic.

3.3 Kimberley Ikea (KI) Option 3.3.1 The five (5) stops considered for the Kimberley KI route are as follows: -

Low Wood Road, near the Nuthall Roundabout. Alternatively, if the new Junction 26 P&R site is developed, then the first stop would be within the P&R site (as per KMS option).

Watnall Development stop, near the B600 Main Road Watnall. [The actual location of this stop would be dependent on the proposals for the development site.]

Hardy Street, near the Kimberley Brewery and possibly making use of the old station building.

Awsworth Lane, serving the residential area to the north of the A610 with access via the existing subway.

Terminus at Ikea store parking area. Journey Times 3.3.2 The journey time from Phoenix Park to the Kimberley Ikea terminus has

been calculated as shown in Appendix 1. These have been added to the average of the inbound and outbound service journey times for Line One (NTC Operating Plan, Base Timetable, September 2000) from Nottingham Station to Phoenix Park and are indicated in Table 3.2 below.


Page 15

Table 3.2 – Journey Times for Kimberley KI Route

Stop Phoenix Park

(Line One)

Low Wood

Road

Watnall

Development

Hardy

Street

Awsworth

Lane

Ikea

terminus

Time from Nott’m Station

(min)

24½ 25½ 28¾ 30 31½ 34½

3.3.3 The journey time for the Kimberley KI route length of 5.9 km is 10

minutes, which gives a high average end-to-end speed of 35.3 km/h from Phoenix Park. The estimated journey time assumes that segregated running would be possible throughout, except through the major road junctions.

3.3.4 The journey time issues noted above for the Kimberley KMS apply for the

Kimberley KI options, except that location for the Kimberley centre stop would move north westwards to onto Hardy Street. The route would then run further to serve the Ikea store on the outskirts of Eastwood near the Giltbrook area. Comparable bus journey times from eastern Eastwood are around 4 to 5 minutes longer than from Kimberley; similar to the additional NET journey time of 4½ minutes from Hardy Street in Kimberley to the Ikea terminus.

Operating Frequencies 3.3.5 The general issues concerning bus frequencies noted in relation to the

Kimberley KMS option above also apply for the Kimberley KI option. The service frequencies remain as outlined above, except that the half-hourly service 27/27A from Ilkeston via Basford to Nottingham joins the corridor at the junction of the Nottingham Road and the A6096 just east of the Eastwood and adjacent to the Ikea terminus.

3.3.6 Issues concerning the relative frequencies of bus and the NET Kimberley

KI option will be similar to the Kimberley KMS option. However, in terms of vehicle requirements, in general the Kimberley KI option would require a further additional in-service vehicle compared to the KMS option. However at a frequency of six services per hour both routes could be worked with only two additional vehicles, but with a reduced actual turnround time, and therefore reliability on the longer route.

3.3.7 At low frequencies it would be possible to operate the Kimberly KI

service with only a single extra vehicle if layover allowances were very small. However, to maintain reasonable layover times two additional vehicles would be required. A total of five additional vehicles would be required to operate a service of eight trams per hour over the KI extension, two vehicles associated with the increased frequency to Phoenix Park and a further three to provide services on the KI extension.


Page 16

Bus Restructuring 3.3.8 The general issues concerning opportunities for bus restructuring noted

in relation to the Kimberley KMS option above also apply for the Kimberley KI option. However, in order to maintain levels of service to the residential areas on Eastwood Road in Kimberley, it would be necessary to run feeder services from this area, whilst the feeder services from the Eastwood area could run direct to the terminus on the outskirts of Eastwood. A key issues here is the suitability of the Kimberley IKEA terminus as a major interchange location given that it is tucked away off Nottingham Road and ‘out-of-hours’ has no facilities or pedestrian presence. Similar problems may also exist in providing any interchange location nearer to Kimberley centre on Hardy Street.

Other Issues 3.3.9 The entire Kimberley KI route is segregated and this is likely to have a

positive impact on reliability due to minimal interference from other traffic.

3.4 Summary and Conclusions 3.4.1 Journey Times and Vehicle Requirements

the journey time from NET Station Street to the Kimberley KMS Terminus is 30.5 minutes or 34.5 minutes to the Kimberley KI Terminus;

current bus services serve only the north end of the city centre with journey times similar or slightly longer than the equivalent NET journey times to Theatre Square/Old Market Square. The increased central area penetration of NET suggests that there will be much greater overall travel time benefits compared to bus for journeys to the southern parts of the central area;

it may be possible to restructure the bus network to provide feeder services to NET;

potential time savings for users would be relatively small; there appears to be limited opportunity for locating a

suitable interchange in Kimberley; the nature of bus operations in corridor suggest that

competition could be sustained against NET in the long term if cooperation does not occur;

vehicle requirements– at frequencies of four and six services per hour, the Kimberley KMS route would require one or one/two additional in-service vehicles, respectively, to provide the service. In general, an extra vehicle would be required for the Kimberley KI although with reduced layover and reliability it would be possible to operate a low frequency service with only one additional vehicle.


Page 17

4 Passenger Demand 4.1 General 4.1.1 This section considers a number of the patronage issues that are

apparent with the Kimberley route options. No patronage estimates have been made for either option.

4.1.2 It is clear, however, that both options are unable to properly access the

principal markets that they are intended to serve. It would appear that the potential for sustainable levels of patronage for the provision of light rail is largely dependent on the ability to deliver high quality integrated feeder bus services as noted in Section 3 above. Even with full integration, there would have to be a substantial increase in public transport patronage in the corridor to warrant the provision of a high frequency and high capacity light rail system as opposed to the high quality bus service currently on offer.

4.2 Kimberley Main Street (KMS) Option 4.2.1 The principal sources of patronage for the Kimberley KMS route are likely

to be transfers from existing bus services, some transfer of existing car users, either direct to the alignment or using park and ride, and patronage arising from the potential development site in Watnall.

Local Patronage 4.2.2 The three stops on the Kimberley KMS corridor serve a number of

residential areas, however, the local catchment areas of these stops are limited. Although NET would offer a reasonably competitive service relative the existing bus network and against car journey times that can suffer from congestion on a radial routes into Nottingham, it is the limited catchments that suggest NET patronage would be very low for these sources.

4.2.3 A stop in the Low Wood Road area, if constructed east of Low Wood

Road, would serve, at some distance, the southern end of Hempshill Vale. However, it is intended that this area will be provided with high frequency feeder service to the Bulwell stop on Line One. Access from Nottingham Road, either side of the Nuthall roundabout, would also be limited with difficult access across the A610 and small residential catchments.

4.2.4 The Watnall stop on Main Road, located immediately to the west of the

B600 would serve the residential areas in this vicinity and also the large bakery. Provided suitable pedestrian access routes to the stop are provided then it would be expected that this stop would attract a significant proportion of existing travellers from the area, largely since levels of service offered by the bus network are relatively low. However, the catchment of the stop would be limited relative to that around the Larkfield Road area.


Page 18

4.2.5 The Kimberley KMS terminus, being located behind Main Street and Noel Street would suffer from being very much out of the way relative to its desired destination. A key to attracting local patronage would be easy access to Main Street, but nevertheless the terminus would remain hidden away and somewhat distant from the main commercial activity in Main Street around the Library.

Park and Ride 4.2.6 The Kimberley KMS option provides the opportunity to locate a new park

and ride site to the north of the B600 Nottingham Road to serve traffic coming from Junction 26 of the nearby M1 Motorway. There are a number of issues here affecting the provision of park and ride as a whole in the corridor and the trade-off between park and ride and the local catchment areas; a stop serving the park and ride site would result in more difficult access for potential users from the Hempshill Vale area.

4.2.7 A park and ride site located to the north of the B600 would mean that

users from the M1 or Kimberley would have to continue to negotiate the congested Nuthall roundabout as they do at present to access the nearby Phoenix Park park and ride site. It is possible that a new link road could be constructed to provide direct access into the site, avoiding the delays at the roundabout. However, this would involve extensive engineering works in providing access to both carriageways of the A610 and in crossing the B600.

4.2.8 As noted above, recommendations regarding the need for a park and

ride site in close proximity to the M1 Motorway are being addressed within the context of the M1 Multi-Modal Study. It is possible that this study may conclude that a park and ride south of the B600 could be an attractive proposition, in that it would avoid the need for park and ride users to negotiate the congested Nuthall roundabout.

4.2.9 A park and ride site located to the south rather than the north of the

B600 would be far more accessible, even if a direct access link were possible to the latter. This would be expected to further improve the attractiveness of park and ride in terms of accessibility, awareness and potential capacity relief when compared with the Phoenix Park site, as this could become overloaded once NET services commence.

4.2.10 A further consideration with respect to the provision of park and ride

south of the B600 is that this precludes an extension further westwards. The service would then terminate at the park and ride site. At certain frequencies and minimum layover times it may be possible that the service could be operated without an additional in-service vehicle, although with reduced reliability compared to the Phoenix Park service. To maintain reliability, important for a key park and ride service, it is likely that an extra in-service vehicle would be required.

4.2.11 This requirement may raise issues of the relative efficiency of vehicles

operating on the core Line One route to Hucknall and on the Phoenix


Page 19

Park/Nuthall park and ride spur. It is likely that loadings on the latter will be less than on the route from Hucknall and Bulwell, yet to maintain an attractive park and ride service, relatively high frequencies need to be operated. It may not be in the operators’ interest, with a limited fleet size, to dedicate an extra vehicle to the relatively lightly loaded Nuthall park and ride spur. However, from a promoters perspective in encouraging modal transfer and reduced road congestion, it could beneficial to ensure both sites could be served and with an appropriate frequency.

Development Opportunities 4.2.12 Although no intermediate stops have been proposed on the Kimberley

KMS alignment between Low Wood Road and Main Road, Watnall, it is possible that the scale and nature of the potential Watnall development could provide sufficient patronage to warrant the provision of a new stop. There are no firm plans for this large development site, which effectively covers the most of the available land bounded by the M1 to the east, the B600 to the west and the B6009 to the north.

4.2.13 However, the Kimberley KMS alignment would only serve the southern

extremities of the development site and so the patronage benefits of a new stop and the ability to use NET to encourage suitable radially based public transport movements would be limited. Associated with an additional stop would be a journey time penalty for the remainder of the route that could be important in relation to journey times on competing modes.

4.3 Kimberley Ikea (KI) Option 4.3.1 The principal sources of patronage for the Kimberley KI are likely to be

similar to the Kimberley KMS route; transfers from existing bus services, some transfer of existing car users, either direct to the alignment or using park and ride, and patronage arising from the potential development site in Watnall.

Local Patronage 4.3.2 The five stops on the Kimberley KI alignment serve a number of

residential area and commercial areas, however, the local catchment areas of these stops are limited. Although NET would offer a reasonably competitive service relative the existing bus network and against car journey times that can suffer from congestion on a radial routes into Nottingham, the limited catchments, similar to the Kimberley KMS option, suggest that NET patronage from local catchment sources would be very low.

4.3.3 The patronage impacts related to the Low Wood Road stop will be similar

to those noted under the Kimberley KMS route option.


Page 20

4.3.4 A stop provided within the Watnall development, about 200 metres from the B600 (as described in Section 2) would provide access for development related trips (as noted below) and for the local catchment in the vicinity of Newdigate Road/Holly Road. Provided suitable pedestrian access routes to the stop are provided then it would be expected that this stop would attract a significant proportion of existing travellers from the area, largely since levels of service offered by the bus network are relatively low.

4.3.5 In order to serve Kimberley centre a stop would be provided at Hardy Street in the vicinity of the Hardy and Hanson Brewery. Again, the location of this stop is somewhat distant from the centre of main commercial activity in Kimberley and also a little isolated from the nearby population. A key to attracting patronage would be an easy and visible access to the stop; located either in the existing railway cutting, or at grade if the alignment could be ramped up to cross Hardy Road on the level.

4.3.6 The residential parts of western Kimberley would be served by the

Awsworth Lane stop. This stop would be located south of the Kimberley Eastwood By-pass and would be connected to the population north of the road by a subway (following the alignment of Awsworth Lane which was severed by the by-pass). Although the stop would be only 150m south of the A610, it would be isolated from the catchment in the rest of the area, particularly residents somewhat distant from the Awsworth Lane or large population north of Eastwood Road. A further problem with this stop would be its general location being very isolated in rural land near Cabcroft Farm, giving rise to security concerns, particularly outside core operating hours. Given these issues it would be expected that patronage from this stop would be minimal.

4.3.7 The terminus of the Kimberley KI route in the vicinity of the Ikea car

park would again be very distant from any local catchment areas for direct access to the system. Although it may be possible to provide some access to the Smithurst Road area of Giltbrook, the stop would remain a minimum of 200m away from the nearest properties and with a very poor environment, especially out of core hours. The population with easy access to the stop would also be very small in relation to the much dense populations in Giltbrook and Newthorpe and nearer to Eastwood centre. It would be expected that the use of this stop from the local catchment would also be minimal.

Park and Ride 4.3.8 The principal issues related to park and ride for the Kimberley KI option

are similar to those considered above for the Kimberley KMS option, with the possible site at Nuthall north of the B600. However, the terminus of the Kimberley KI option at the Eastwood Ikea store may provide the opportunity for an additional park and ride facility. Park and ride could also be provided in the Watnall development, although such a site would


Page 21

have a relatively limited catchment from the B600 and has not been considered further here.

4.3.9 Although not formally identified as a park and ride at present, the car

park at the terminus, currently used by Ikea, has the potential to act as a park and ride site, at least on a part-time basis. A site in this location would be easily accessible being adjacent to the A610/A6096 junction. If further land is not available for park and ride, then, subject to agreement with the landlord/lessee, the use of the store car park for formal park and ride purposes would probably have to be limited to weekdays only due to the requirements of store parking at weekends. This type of arrangement has been used elsewhere with park and ride sites sharing parking facilities with major destinations; management is largely left to signing the site for use on Mondays to Fridays only.

4.3.10 In addition to access to the Ikea car park for park and ride purposes,

there are also issues of whether the site would be used when alternative sites in the corridor at Nuthall and Phoenix Park exist. With a journey time over 32 minutes to Old Market Square, the public transport leg of a park and ride journey would be relatively long. Under these circumstances one of the key influences on the site from Eastwood and its hinterland would be congestion levels at the M1/A610 junction and Nuthall roundabout.

Development Opportunities 4.3.11 Unlike the Kimberley KMS option, the Kimberley KI route option includes

an intermediate stop within the Watnall development site. Although there are no firm plans for this large development site, the Kimberley KI alignment would be able to serve much more of the development site than the Kimberley KMS option which runs around 300m to the south and for a much shorter distance.

4.3.12 With better penetration, the development site and a stop location serving

the southern half of the development site, the patronage potential offered by the would be greater than the alternative more southerly route. Similarly, the presence of NET may be better able to encourage or enhance development potential to ensure that suitable radially based public transport movements is likely to be generated by the site.

4.4 Summary and Conclusions 4.4.1 Patronage Issues

both route options are unable to properly serve the catchments that would generate significant levels of patronage;

the Kimberley Main Street option has to stop short of its ideal terminus;

the Kimberley IKEA option serves more of Kimberley but is unable to reach central Kimberley and although it can serve western


Page 22

Kimberley the relevant stop would be very isolated. Similarly the Ikea terminus would be distant from any local catchment;

high levels of patronage would only be achievable were it possible to provide high quality feeder bus services;

there may be some potential due to possible development in Watnall, which would be served better by the Kimberley IKEA option.

park and ride opportunities could exist with both options at Low Wood Road, but if north of the B600 this site would appear to offer very little benefit compared to the existing Phoenix Park site;

a further park and ride site could be provided at the Kimberley Ikea terminus; this may have to be provided on a part time basis if further land is not available and the success of the site may be dependent on continued congestion at the M1/A610 and Nuthall roundabouts;

a shorter extension from Phoenix Park to a new Park and Ride site nearer to the M1 south of the B600 could be practical in the longer-term; there may be some benefits of such a site, but also some operational drawbacks.


Page 23

5 Key Engineering and Environmental Aspects 5.1 General 5.1.1 During the high level review carried out under this Stage 1 study, only

the key engineering and environmental aspects were identified and considered. Should one or both of the Kimberley route options be selected for further consideration under Stage 2 of the study, then a more detailed investigation of these aspects would need to be carried out.

5.1.2 The key engineering and environmental issues considered during this

study are briefly summarised below. 5.1.3 Corridor Issues – The key objective here would be to identify corridors

for the NET extensions that would cause as little disruption as possible to communities and highways, whilst providing a fast and reliable NET service. Aspects considered in this regard include the following: -

Make use of segregated track, as opposed to on-street, wherever possible;

Use existing railway corridors where former tracks have been lifted, but the railway formation and boundary remains;

Utilise central reservations or verges along wide roads; Use undeveloped sites within developed areas where possible; Bias towards utilising highway corridor, rather than acquiring

private property;

Topography considerations, including gradients and curvature. 5.1.4 Environmental Issues – The key objective here would be to cause as

little impact as possible to the environment and, where possible, to enhance it.

5.1.5 Highway Issues – The key objective regarding highways would be to

incorporate the NET extensions into the current and future local transport planning proposals.

5.1.6 Structures Issues – A key objective here was to avoid having to

provide major structures, wherever possible, because of the high costs involved and the visual intrusion and severance that is often caused.

5.1.7 A preliminary geotechnical desk study was carried out to determine the

underlying geology for the proposed structures along the NET Extension routes to Kimberley. In the preparation of this study the following have been assessed: -

1:50,000 geological maps of the area Regional geology guides Existing borehole records located near to the proposed structures

from the British Geological Survey (BGS).


Page 24

5.1.8 The preliminary foundation options have been based on the depth to competent strata using the BGS borehole logs obtained and the local geological map. Where the data identifies that less than 3m excavation is required to the top of a competent bearing strata, shallow foundations have been suggested for the preliminary foundation option in Tables 5.3 and 5.6 below. However, where greater than 3m of excavation is required, piled foundations have been indicated.

5.1.9 Several coal mines have existed in the Nottinghamshire area, as listed in

H.M Mining Inspectorate report of the Midland District in 1896 and by the Peak District Mines Historical Society. In the Eastwood and Kimberley areas, mining activities have been carried until fairly recently. However, mine closure plans have not been obtained under this Stage 1 study and details of relevant mine layouts are thus not available for comment. This would need to be done under the Stage 2 study should the Kimberley route options be selected for further development.

5.2 Kimberley Main Street (KMS) Option 5.2.1 A summary of the key environmental issues identified along the

Kimberley KMS option is provided in Table 5.1 below.

Table 5.1 – Summary of Environmental Issues for KMS Option

Location Description

Common KMS & KI

Hempshill Vale Possible minor land-take to back of residential property at SE corner of Anders Drive, where route moves from

Nottingham City to Broxtowe Borough Council area.

Open area to north of A610, east of A6002 & south of

Hempshill Vale

Visual intrusion & severance within this open recreation area. Some realignment of footpaths/cycleways may be

required, with restricted crossing of NET route. Possible minor loss of habitat due to new culvert over the stream

running into the local pond.

A6002 Low Wood Road to M1 Motorway

Encroachment into Green Belt/farmland. Visual intrusion and severance through this area. Noise & vibration

impact on residential properties from NET likely to be minor, but possibly more so from a P&R site if provided.

Increase in emissions likely if P&R provided.

M1 to New Farm Road Minor severance and visual impact only, as an old railway corridor.

Kimberley KMS

New Farm Road to B600

Main Road Watnall

Minor severance and visual impact only, as an old

railway corridor. Partial removal of earth bund screening

residential properties from industrial bakery – may cause minor increase noise disturbance. Minor noise &

vibration impact from NET traffic.

Stop location immediately to west of B600

Possible demolition of buildings that have encroached on old railway corridor.

B600 to KMS Terminus Visual intrusion and noise & vibration impact to properties backing onto NET route. Encroachment and

severance on public open space.


Page 25

5.2.2 A summary of the key highway issues for the Kimberley KMS option is

provided in Table 5.2 below.

Table 5.2 – Summary of Highway Issues for KMS Option


Common KMS & KI

Phoenix Park P&R site and Millennium Way West

Possible minor realignment of existing road and loss of parking bays to accommodate extension of NET tracks.

New subway under A6002

Low Wood Road

Temporary traffic management measures required

during construction of new underpass for NET through existing embankment.

Stop near Low Wood Road Pedestrian access route to stop required, with a

signalised crossing of Low Wood Road possibly also needed. The NET underpass may require provision for a

pedestrian walkway.

Possible P&R site near Nuthall Roundabout

The M1 Multi-Modal Study may show the need for a P&R site to serve Junction 26. This could be to the west of

the A6002 and north of B600 Nottingham Road – providing suitable road access would require careful

consideration. Also, the impact of increased congestion

from generated traffic would require modelling.

Existing M1 Motorway

underbridge on old LNER

corridor

Modifications to the parapets would be required to

provide protection for the electrified NET route. Access

to the bridge for inspections and maintenance would become more restricted with the NET in operation.

At grade crossing of New Farm Road

A new signalled junction would be required giving priority to the NET where it crosses this road at grade.

Kimberley KMS

B600 Main Road Watnall junction

A new signalled junction would be required for this new at grade crossing, giving priority to the NET.

Stop location immediately to west of B600

Pedestrian access routes to stop required, including a signalised crossing of B600.

KMS Terminus near Main

Street

Pedestrian access routes to stop required from Main &

Noel Streets - also signage to provide ‘visibility’ for stop.

5.2.3 A summary list of the key structures proposed for the Kimberley KMS

option is provided in Table 5.3 below.

Table 5.3 – Summary of Key Structures for KMS Option

Route

OptionStruct. No. Drg No. Description Type

Found

TypeRamp

Ramp

Length

(m)

Span

(m)

Width/

height

(m)

KMS

KMS.1

(Common) 504

Bridge under A6002 Low

Wood Road (box under

embankment) D+Gx0.6 spreads 4X16 64 20 10

KMS.2

(Common) 503

Existng bridge under M1.

New parapet + minor

mods only. B spreads 0 40 9.5

KMS.A(RW) 502

Retaining Wall south of

existing bakery. E spreads 200 200 2

Type Key: A - New steel/conc composite; B - Minor mods to existing; C - Widening of existing; D - Box structure; E -

Retaining Wall; F - Culvert; G - Reinforced Earth


Page 26

5.2.4 There would be two significant structures required under the Kimberley

KMS route proposals, these being as follows: -

An underpass bridge for the NET through the embankment of the B6002 Low Wood Road. This bridge would need to be wide enough to accommodate both NET tracks and possibly also a public footpath providing access to the nearby tramstop;

A retaining wall to the south of the bakery near the B600 Main Road Watnall required to support the remaining part of the existing earth bund built over the old railway alignment that would need to be partially removed to provide space for the NET tracks.

5.2.5 There would be no interfaces with the Railtrack network along the

corridor proposed for the KMS route option. 5.3 Kimberley Ikea (KI) Option 5.3.1 A summary of the key environmental issues identified along the

Kimberley KI option is provided in Table 5.4 below.

Table 5.4 – Summary of Environmental Issues for KI Option


Common KMS & KI

As per KMS in Table 5.1 above

Kimberley KI

New Farm Road to B600

Main Road Watnall

Minor severance and visual impact only, but needs to be

sympathetically incorporated into Watnall development

proposals.

B600 to Hardy Street The cutting has been designated as a SSSI by English

Nature, so possible loss of habitat and vegetation. Only minor visual intrusion and noise & vibration impact, as

route in deep cutting in this area. Possible minor

severance along old railway corridor.

Hardy Street to A610 Severance, visual intrusion and noise & vibration impact

to adjacent properties. Some land-take & minor

demolition may be required where development taken place on old railway right-of-way.

A610 to Terminus at Ikea Minor severance and visual intrusion only, as mostly on old railway alignments. Possible minor disturbance to

habitat where route crosses Gilt Brook.

5.3.2 A summary of the key highway issues for the Kimberley KI option is

provided in Table 5.5 below.


Page 27

Table 5.5 – Summary of Highway Issues for KI Option


Common KMS & KI

As per KMS in Table 5.2 above

Kimberley KI

Stop to east of B600 Pedestrian access routes to stop required, including a

signalised crossing of B600.

Old LMS Tunnel under B600 Condition assessment of tunnel required before it could

be utilised for NET – may require strengthening to

ensure integrity of roadway.

Hardy Street A new underpass bridge through road embankment

required for NET – temporary traffic management

measures needed during construction. Alternative option for an at grade crossing would require a new signalised

junction giving priority for NET.

Stop near Hardy Street Pedestrian access routes to stop required, with a possible need for a signalised crossing of Hardy Street.

Eastwood Road Minor temporary traffic management measures needed during construction of new bridge over this road.

New viaduct over A610

Kimberley-Eastwood By-Pass

The new highly skewed NET viaduct over the A610

would require significant temporary traffic management measures, including lane closures and diversions.

Awsworth Lane A new signalled junction required where the NET

crosses at grade. Also require pedestrian access route to the nearby stop to be provided.

A6096 Gin Close Way A new signalled junction required where the NET

crosses at grade.

A610/A6096/B6010

roundabout & sliproads

New signalled junctions required where the NET crosses

at grade over the westbound and eastbound sliproads

on the western side of this roundabout. New traffic management measures and signalling would be required

to control traffic movements on the roundabout during NET movements.

Existing A610 Bridge at

roundabout

Modifications would be required to the parapets where

the NET passes under the existing A610 bridge at the western side of the roundabout. Also, access to the

bridge for inspection and maintenance would be restricted during NET operations.

Ikea parking area Possible remodelling of road access and parking bays

within Ikea parking area. Also require secure pedestrian access routes to the NET platforms.

5.3.3 A summary list of the key structures proposed for the Kimberley KI

option is provided in Table 5.6 below.


Page 28

Table 5.6 – Summary of Key Structures for KI Option

Route

OptionStruct. No. Drg No. Description Type

Found

TypeRamp

Ramp

Length

(m)

Span

(m)

Width/

height

(m)

KI

KMS.1

(Common) 504

Bridge under A6002 Low Wood Road

(box under embankment) D+Gx0.6 spreads 4X16 64 20 10

KMS.2

(Common) 503

Existng bridge under M1. New

parapet + minor mods only. B spreads 0 40 9.5

KI.3 502

New Bridge under Hardy Street.

Possibly insitu box most suitable.

Includes walls. A+G spreads 4X10 40 10 15

KI.4 501

Bridge over Eastwood road. Possibly

insitu box most suitable. A+G spreads 2X90 180 120 9.5

KI.5 501 Bridge over A610. High skew. A+G spreads 2X90 180 100 9.5

KI.6 501

Railway through back spans of

existing bridge (under A610).

Retaining wall 4.0m high. E spreads 40 40 5

Type Key: A - New steel/conc composite; B - Minor mods to existing; C - Widening of existing; D - Box structure; E - Retaining Wall;

F - Culvert; G - Reinforced Earth 5.3.4 Apart from the A6002 Low Wood Road underpass that is common to

both the KI and KMS route options, there would be four other major structures required under the Kimberley KI route extension proposals. These structures would be as follows: -

A new underpass for the NET through the Hardy Street

embankment that has been built across the deep cutting of the old LMS railway alignment;

A bridge for the NET over Eastwood Road at the location of a previous railway bridge. The eastern abutment of this old bridge remains and could possibly be reused;

A new viaduct over the A610 Kimberley-Eastwood By-Pass on the alignment of the old railway corridor. This viaduct would be highly skewed over the A610 and would require an intermediate pier within the central reservation between the road carriageways;

High retaining walls are required to support the embankment through the back spans of the existing A610 bridge on the western side of the roundabout at its junction with the A6096 Gin Close Way and B6010 Nottingham Road. The embankment needs to be cut back to provide space for the two NET tracks in the verge alongside the roadway.

5.3.5 There would be no interfaces with the Railtrack network along the

corridor proposed for the KI route option.


Page 29

6 Cost Aspects 6.1 Unit Costs 6.1.1 LRT Infrastructure Unit Costs (Year 2000 Cost Base) are shown in Table

6.1 below. These unit costs are construction costs and preliminaries, but exclude land acquisition and vehicle costs. The accuracy of these unit costs is generally +/- 30%.

Table 6.1 – LRT Infrastructure Unit Costs (2000 cost base)

6.1.2 The unit costs listed in Table 6.1 above have been consolidated into

typical unit costs per route length for segregated track, on-street (paved) track and track on structures. These consolidated unit costs are shown in Table 6.2 below. The route costs for stops and signalled road/NET junctions are calculated separately based on the actual number of these along the proposed route. The costs for structures and Railtrack enabling works have been estimated separately.

Units Unit Cost - £

Clear right of way km 9,000.00 2 per route km

Drainage km 200,000.00 2 per route km

Preparation total 209,000.00

Demolition km 100,000.00 1 per route km

Ballasted track m 500.00 2 per route km

Track on Structure m 750.00 2 per route km

Grooved rail, paved track m 1,000.00 2 per route km

turnout (inc signalling) No 100,000.00 2 per track km

OHLE Segregated track Km 170,000.00 2 per route km

OHLE Street & structure Km 260,000.00 2 per route km

signalling, segregated & structureKm 180,000.00 2 per route km

signalling, street Km 25,000.00 2 per route km

Stop No 30,000.00

E&M No 60,000.00

Ticketing No 60,000.00

Stop total 150,000.00

Comms Km 70,000.00 1 per route km

Utilities Diversions Km 2,500,000.00 1 per route km

Road works (lighting etc) Km 250,000.00 1 per route km

Roadworks total 2,750,000.00

Re-signal & re-model junction No 75,000.00

RATES


Page 30

Table 6.2 – Consolidated Unit Costs per Route Km

6.1.3 Typical unit costs for new structures (Year 2000 Cost Base) are shown

below. These are construction costs and include preliminaries, but exclude design, project management and Railtrack possession costs. Exceptionally, higher unit costs have been used where unique structures or construction provisions are required. The accuracy of these unit costs is generally +/- 30%.

Type A – New steel/concrete composite viaduct: £1050 - £1150/m2 Type B – Minor modifications to existing bridges: £50 - £100/m2 Type C – Widening of existing bridge: £650 - £800/m2 Type D – Concrete box structure: £750/m2 Type E – Concrete retaining wall (3-5m high): £700/m2 Type F – Concrete culverts : £600/m2 Type G – Reinforced Earth walls : £2850/m2 (2-4m) - £4750/m2 (4-6m)

6.2 Kimberley Main Street (KMS) Option 6.2.1 The estimated infrastructure cost of the Kimberley KMS route is £10.7M.

A breakdown of these costs, showing the approximate lengths of segregated, on-street and on-structure track within each section, is included in Appendix 2.

6.2.2 A summary of the structures costs for the Kimberley KI option is shown

in Table 6.3 below.

Rates

£/track km £/route km £/track km £/route km £/track km £/route km

Track 500000 1000000 1000000 2000000 750000 1500000

Turnout (inc signalling) 100000 200000 100000 200000 100000 200000

OHLE 170000 340000 260000 520000 260000 520000

Signalling 180000 360000 25000 50000 180000 360000

Preparation 209000 418000 209000 418000 209000 418000

Demolition 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000 100000

Roadworks 0 0 2750000 2750000 0 0

Comms 70000 70000 70000 70000 70000 70000

Part Cost per Route km 2488000 6108000 3168000

£ each £ Total £ each £ Total £ each £ Total

Stops 150000 150000 150000

Resignalled junctions 0 75000 0

Structures Itemised Itemised Itemised

Segregated Street Structure


Page 31

Table 6.3 – Summary of Structure Costs for KMS Option

Route

OptionStruct. No. Description Type

Ramp

Length

(m)

Span

(m)

Width/

height

(m)

Cost - £

KMS

KMS.1

(Common)

Bridge under A6002 Low

Wood Road (box under

embankment) D+Gx0.6 64 20 10 324,000

KMS.2

(Common)


parapet + minor mods only. B 0 40 9.5 19,000

KMS.A(RW)

Retaining Wall south of

existing bakery. E 200 2 280,000

Type Key: A - New steel/conc composite; B - Minor mods to existing; C - Widening of existing; D - Box

structure; E - Retaining Wall; F - Culvert; G - Reinforced Earth 6.2.3 For a route length of 3.5km and an estimated infrastructure cost of

£10.7M, the cost per kilometre is £3.04M. This is a low cost/km and is attributable to the track being segregated throughout, except through two road junctions. This has been made possible by the use of a disused portion of the London North Eastern Railway alignment, including the crossing under the M1 Motorway and the corridor through parts of Kimberley.

6.2.4 The structure costs are estimated at £0.62M, which is largely attributable

to two major structures – viz. A new bridge under the A6002 Low Wood Road and a retaining wall to the south of the bakery in Kimberley.

6.2.5 Although a disused railway alignment is utilised for this KMS option, there

would be no need to interface with the Railtrack network. This avoids having to make a significant cost contingency item to cover the risks associated with Railtrack enabling works.

6.3 Kimberley Ikea (KI) Option 6.3.1 The estimated infrastructure cost of the Kimberley KI route is £21.8M. A

breakdown of these costs, showing the approximate lengths of segregated, on-street and on-structure track within each section, is included in Appendix 2.

6.3.2 A summary of the structures costs for the Kimberley KI option is shown

in Table 6.4 below.


Page 32

Table 6.4 – Summary of Structure Costs for KI Options

Route

OptionStruct. No. Description Type

Ramp

Length

(m)

Span

(m)

Width/

height

(m)

Cost - £

KI

KMS.1

(Common)

Bridge under A6002 Low Wood

Road (box under embankment) D+Gx0.6 64 20 10 324,000

KMS.2

(Common)


parapet + minor mods only. B 0 40 9.5 19,000

KI.3

New Bridge under Hardy Street.

Possibly insitu box most

suitable. Includes walls. A+G 40 10 15 458,000

KI.4

Bridge over Eastwood Road.

Possibly insitu box most

suitable. A+G 180 120 9.5 2,052,000

KI.5 Bridge over A610. High skew. A+G 180 100 9.5 1,853,000

KI.6

Railway through back spans of

existing bridge (under A610).

Retaining wall 4.0m high. E 40 5 140,000

Type Key: A - New steel/conc composite; B - Minor mods to existing; C - Widening of existing; D - Box

structure; E - Retaining Wall; F - Culvert; G - Reinforced Earth 6.3.3 For a route length of 5.9km and an estimated infrastructure cost of

£21.8M, the cost per kilometre is £3.72M. This is a relatively low cost/km and is attributable to the route being segregated throughout, apart from at five road junctions. This has been made possible by the use of a disused portion of the London North Eastern Railway alignment to cross under the M1 Motorway (as for KMS above) and also a section of the disused London Midland and Scottish Railway corridor through the outskirts of Kimberley.

6.3.4 There would be a significant cost for structures under this Kimberley KI

option, with the estimate being £4.85M. Apart from the new bridge under the A6002 Low Wood Road (in common with KMS above), there would be three other bridges required under this option - i.e. under Hardy Street, over Eastwood Road and a skew crossing over the A610 Kimberley-Eastwood By-Pass. There would also be a major retaining wall required through the back span of the A610 bridge near the A6096/B6010 roundabout.

6.3.5 There would be no interfaces with Railtrack under this option – i.e. no

cost allowance would be necessary for Railtrack enabling works.


Page 33

7 Appraisal of Options 7.1 General 7.1.1 The appraisal matrices for the Kimberley extension options to Line One

are included at Appendix 3 of this report. 7.1.2 A summary of the appraisal parameters and the assessment for the

Kimberley route options is provided in Table 7.1, where the overall impact for each parameter has been assessed on the basis of the following rankings: -

H = High or Favourable M = Medium, Neutral or Average L = Low or Unfavourable X = Overriding Issue - = Not Considered

Table 7.1 Summary of Appraisal for Kimberley Options

Appraisal Parameter KMS KI Operational Criteria

1. Environmental Impact - - Severance; Noise & Vibration; Visual Impact;

Sensitive Areas; Reduce Traffic & Emissions.

2. Safety Impact - - Segregated vs On-street; Reduce Traffic &

Accidents.

3. Acceptability - - Statutory Consultees; Local Political Support; Travelling & General Public Acceptability.

4. Community Impact - - Beneficial and Adverse – trade-off; Relative

Need.

5. Development and Regeneration Potential

L L Support economic and residential development; Central Area, Existing and New

Development Sites.

6. Accessibility - - Access for disabled & those without cars; Reduce Severance.

7. Integration with other Transport Modes

- - NET Line One; P&R Sites; Heavy Rail; Bus Stations & Routes.

8. Patronage X X Modal transfer from car & bus; Serving Residential, Commercial , Employment &

Recreation Centres; Hospitals & Universities.

9. Operational Issues - - Comparative Journey Times; Frequency &

Reliability; Balanced Flows; Turnback

Facilities.

10. Engineering Feasibility H M/H Technical risk; Construction impacts; Future

Extensions.

11. Costs H M Value for Money; Capital Costs; Operating Costs.

12. Funding Potential - - EU, Central & Local Govt.; Developers &

Business; Employers; Concession Value.


Page 34

7.1.3 As indicated in Table 7.1 above and elaborated upon at Appendix 3, the overriding factor concerning both of the Kimberley routes is the lack of an existing patronage base. Therefore, most of the other parameters were not assessed, as they would not influence the conclusions of the appraisal.

7.2 Kimberley Main Street (KMS) Option 7.2.1 The Kimberley KMS route journey time is 30½ minutes from the

proposed terminus near the Main Street to Nottingham Station. The existing bus services in the corridor do not serve Old Market Square or the southern parts of the central area, suggesting NET would offer significant benefits for trips to these areas. For journeys to the northern part of central area journey times by bus and NET would be very similar. Service frequencies would be also be similar provided the Kimberley route is integrated into Line One and a service frequency of six trams per hour is provided to Phoenix Park throughout the day.

7.2.2 The generally poor accessibility of stops on the Kimberley KMS option

suggest that levels of patronage would be very low from the catchments areas directly served by the route, unless it proves possible to provide a fully integrated feeder bus network. Given the relatively small journey time benefits, the existing quality of bus services in the corridor, and the wider destinations served by the bus network, it is possible that severe competition, rather than cooperation, could occur between the bus and tram operators. There may be some opportunities for park and ride on the route, but the benefits of using the Nuthall site, north of the B600, would be limited.

7.2.3 The infrastructure costs of £10.7M for the Kimberley KMS route extension

are competitive, because of the high degree of segregation possible – costs per kilometre of £3.04M are very attractive. The incremental operating costs would also be cost effective, as the short journey time and route length make the costs marginal over those for Line One.

7.2.4 Therefore, the justification for Kimberley KMS route is presently

undermined by the lack of an existing strong patronage base. Should a strong patronage base be identified associated with firm or committed feeder bus proposals, then this extension could provide an attractive option for an incremental increase to the NET Network. It is recommended that further development along this corridor be subject to some form of ‘safeguarding’ to ensure that a future NET extension is not unduly prejudiced.

7.3 Kimberley Ikea (KI) Option 7.3.1 The Kimberley KI route journey time is 34½ minutes from the proposed

Ikea terminus. As with the Kimberley KMS route option, bus services in the corridor do not serve Old Market Square or the southern parts of the central area. For other trips to the central area journey times by bus and NET would be very similar. Service frequencies would be also be similar


Page 35

provided the Kimberley route is integrated into Line One and provided with a suitable service frequency to sustain two park and ride sites.

7.3.2 Similar patronage issues arise for the Kimberley KI route as for the

Kimberley KMS option; the generally poor accessibility of stops on the route suggest that levels of patronage would be very low from the catchments areas directly served, unless a fully integrated feeder bus network can be provided. There are more opportunities for park and ride with the Kimberley KI option, requiring either additional land or the operation of part time site at the Ikea terminus, however, the benefits of park and ride would be relatively marginal given the existing provision in the corridor. The option also offers more potential to tap the markets generated by the large Watnall development or to influence the scale and type of development provided.

7.3.3 The infrastructure costs of £21.8M for the Kimberley KI route extension

are relatively competitive, because of the high degree of segregation possible – costs per kilometre of £3.72M are fairly attractive. These unit costs are higher than those for the KMS option, because of the high cost of structures on the KI route. The incremental operating costs would also be cost effective, as the fairly short journey time makes the costs marginal over those for Line One.

7.3.4 Therefore, the justification for Kimberley KI route is presently

undermined by the lack of an existing strong patronage base. Should the proposed developments materialise and a strong patronage base be identified associated with firm or committed feeder bus proposals, then this extension could provide an attractive option for an extension to the NET Network. It is recommended that further development along this corridor be subject to some form of ‘safeguarding’ to ensure that a future NET extension is not unduly prejudiced.

7.4 Summary and Conclusions 7.4.1 It has not been possible to determine a strong enough patronage base

for either of the Kimberley extensions to Line One at present, although the costs of such extensions would be competitive. Therefore, the Kimberley route options have not been recommended as priority routes for the next phase of NET Network Extensions.

7.4.2 Once more details are available on the nature and extent of the proposed

developments at Watnall and possibly Nuthall, then it is possible that the Kimberley extensions could be progressed as stand-alone incremental additions to the NET Network.

7.4.3 A short extension to a possible P&R site near the Nuthall Roundabout

serving Junction 26 of the M1 Motorway may be considered as a first phase of an extension to Kimberley. However, this would be dependent on the outcome and recommendations from the M1 Multi-Modal Study that is presently being undertaken. A more suitable location for such a park and ride may be south of the B600, but this would not permit a


Page 36

later extension to Kimberley and may require some significant structural works in crossing Nuthall roundabout.

7.4.4 Acceptability

Lack of penetration into Kimberley Town Centre may lead to local objections;

Localised demolition of buildings that have encroached onto old railway reserve would be unpopular;

Acceptability of utilising the Ikea car park for park and ride purposes;

Encroachment into a SSSI in the old railway cutting between the B600 and Hardy Street may raise objections;

The encroachment onto Green Belt around Nuthall and south of the Kimberley/Eastwood By-pass for the KI option may raise some objections.

Key Issues for Next Stage 7.4.5 The key issues for both the Kimberley KMS and Kimberley KI route

options that would need to be investigated in more detail if this extension option were to be taken forward for development, include the following: -

Determine requirements from M1 Multi-Modal Study for possible P&R site near Junction 26;

Undertake more detailed assessments of possible stop locations, including KMS and KI termini;

Develop proposals for structures in more detail, including condition and suitability of old railway tunnel under B600 (KI option);

Determine alignment details for new access road to Watnall development site and possible M1 underbridge;

Provide more detailed junction layouts and capacity checks for crossing B600, B6096 and A610 sliproads;

Obtain details of the development proposals at the Watnall development site;

Noise attenuation measures for residential properties in close proximity to the NET route, especially where NET speeds are relatively high along the segregated track;

Undertake more detailed studies into the forecast patronage for this KMS and KI routes;

Discuss with the local bus companies the options for bus service restructuring, in particular the use of extensive feeder bus routes, and opportunities for providing suitable interchange locations;

Consider the impact of park and ride sites associated with each option and their impact on the use of the existing sites in the corridor;

Develop the vertical alignment along the route.


Page 37

Concluding Comment 7.4.6 Clarification of the development proposals at Watnall and the

requirements for a possible major P&R site serving Junction 26 of the M1 Motorway would need to be obtained before the Kimberley route options could be considered any further. Also, more details of the emerging local planning proposals from the Broxtowe District Council would need to be obtained in order to maximise the potential benefits from a possible NET Extension serving those along this corridor.

RS/wsa + DC/mva 26/04/01 c:\windows\temporary internet files\olk2255\bl1969r16_021.doc


Page 38

Appendices


Page 39

Appendix 1

Detailed Journey Time Estimates


Page 40

Kimberley Main Street (KMS) – Detailed Journey Time Estimate

Section

Dist.

(m)

Notional

Top

Speed

(km/h)

Est.

Time

(s)

Cumul.

Journey

Time

(s)

Journey

Time

from

Phoenix

Park

(min) Remarks

Ave.

Speed

in Link

(km/h)

Cumul.

Dist.

(m)

Av.

Journey

Speed

(km/h)

1. Phoenix Park P&R stop

to Low Wood Road stop 700 60 61 61 1 Assume that tram attains 60km/h 41.3 700 41.3

Delay at stop 15 76 700 33.2

2. Low Wood Road stop to

New Farm Lane junction 1360 70 92 168 2 3/4 Assume that tram attains 70km/h 53.2 2060 44.1

Delay at junction 10 178 Assume that tram has priority 2060 41.7

3. New Farm Lane junction

to B600 Main Road Watnall

junction 800 70 63 241 4 Assume that tram attains 70km/h 45.7 2860 42.7


4. Main Road Watnall

junction to stop 50 20 15 271 4 2/4

Tram can attain 20km/h over short

length 12.0 2910 38.7

Delay at stop 15 286 2910 36.6

5. Watnall Main Road stop

to Kimberley terminus stop 570 50 73 359 6

Speed through pedestrianised site

assumed to be limited to 50km/h 28.1 3480 34.9

Total Route inc. Stops 3.5 km 359 6.0 min 34.9


Page 41

Kimberley Ikea (KI) – Detailed Journey Time Estimate

Section

Dist.

(m)

Notional

Top

Speed

(km/h)

Est.

Time

(s)

Cumul.

Journey

Time

(s)

Journey

Time

from

Phoenix

Park

(min) Remarks

Ave.

Speed

in Link

(km/h)

Cumul.

Dist.

(m)

Av.

Journey

Speed

(km/h)

1. Phoenix Park P&R stop

to Low Wood Road stop 700 60 61 61 1 Assume that tram attains 60km/h 41.3 700 41.3

Delay at stop 15 76 700 33.2

2. Low Wood Road stop to

New Farm Lane junction 1360 70 92 168 2 3/4 Assume that tram attains 70km/h 53.2 2060 44.1


3. New Farm Lane junction

to Watnall Development

stop 920 70 70 248 4 1/4 Assume that tram attains 70km/h 47.3 2980 43.3

Delay at stop 15 263 2980 40.8

4. Watnall Development

stop to Hardy Street stop 870 70 67 330 5 2/4 Assume that tram attains 70km/h 46.7 3850 42.0

Delay at stop 15 345 3850 40.2

5. Hardy Street stop to

Awsworth Lane stop 1000 70 73 418 7 Assume that tram attains 70km/h 49.3 4850 41.8

Delay at stop/junction 20 438

Assume that tram has priority on

departure from stop 4850 39.9

6. Awsworth Lane stop to

Gin Close Way junction 600 70 53 491 8 1/4 Assume that tram attains 70km/h 40.8 5450 40.0


7. Gin Close Way junction

to westbound A610

sliproad junction 220 50 32 533 9 Assume that tram attains 50km/h 24.8 5670 38.3


8. Westbound A610

sliproad junction to

eastbound sliproad junction 80 25 19 562 9 1/4

Assume that tram attains 25km/h

over short distance 15.2 5750 36.8


9. Eastbound A610

sliproad junction to Ikea

terminus stop 110 20 26 598 10

Speed around sharp curve and

approach to stop assumed to be

limited to 20km/h 15.2 5860 35.3

Total Route inc. Stops 5.9 km 598 10.0 min 35.3


Page 42

Appendix 2

Infrastructure Cost Estimates


Page 43

Kimberley Main Street (KMS) –Infrastructure Cost Estimate

Section Infrastructure Item Route

Length

(m)

Unit Cost (£)

Item Cost (£)

Common Section -

Phoenix Park P&R to New Farm Lane

KMS/KI Junction

Segregated Track (m) 2100 2,488 5,224,800

Street/Paved Track (m) 50 6,108 305,400

Track on Structures(m) 0 3,168 0

Stops (No.) 1 150,000 150,000

Signal Junctions (No.) 1 75,000 75,000

Structures (Lump Sum) 343,000 343,000

KMS/KI Common Sub-Total 2150m £6,098,200

New Farm Lane

KMS/KI Junction to

Kimberley Centre




Stops (No.) 2 150,000 300,000



KMS Only Sub-Total 1350m £4,556,800

KMS Route


Street/Paved Track (m) 200 6,108 1,221,600


Stops (No.) 3 150,000 450,000



KMS Route Total 3500m £10,655,000

Cost/m £3044/m


Page 44

Kimberley Ikea (KI) –Infrastructure Cost Estimate

Section Infrastructure Item Route

Length

(m)

Unit Cost (£)

Item Cost (£)

Common Section -

Phoenix Park P&R to New Farm Lane

KMS/KI Junction




Stops (No.) 1 150,000 150,000



KMS/KI Common Sub-Total 2150m £6,098,200

New Farm Lane KMS/KI Junction to

Ikea Store at

Giltbrook Industrial Estate



Track on Structures(m) 220 3,168 696,960

Stops (No.) 4 150,000 600,000


Structures (Lump Sum) 4,503,000 4,503,000

KI Only Sub-Total 3720m £15,712,960

KI Route



Track on Structures(m) 220 3,168 696,960

Stops (No.) 5 150,000 750,000


Structures (Lump Sum) 4,846,000 4,846,000

KI Route Total 5870m £21,811,160

Cost/m £3716/m


Page 45

Appendix 3

Appraisal Matrices


Page 46

Appraisal Matrix Kimberley Main Street Option

Appraisal

Parameter Appraisal Comments Impact

1. Environmental Impact

[Appraisal not considered against this parameter due to other over-riding issues leading to the rejection of the option at present.]

-

2. Safety Impact [Appraisal not considered against this parameter due to other over-riding issues leading to the rejection of the option at present.]

-

3. Acceptability [Appraisal not considered against this parameter due to other over-riding issues leading to the rejection of the option at present.]

-

4. Community

Impact


-

5. Development

and Regeneration Potential

Some potential exists for serving new developments in the Watnall area,

although the route would not serve these areas particularly well.. L

6. Accessibility [Appraisal not considered against this parameter due to other over-riding issues leading to the rejection of the option at present.]

-

7. Integration with other Transport

Modes


-

8. Patronage This route option is unable to properly serve the public transport market in Kimberley when compared to the existing bus service; it has to stop

short of its ideal terminus and is unable to serve current population sites. Developments in Watnall are not committed

X

9. Operational

Issues


-

10. Engineering

Feasibility

Very little exposure to technical risks and disruption due to on-street

route – 3.3km of 3.5km is segregated. Risks linked to retaining wall & earth bund near bakery. Developments on old LNER alignment cause

some problems. Potential for future extensions is difficult.

H

11. Costs Infrastructure cost of approx. £11M (£3.1M/km) is very favourable, as

mostly segregated route and few structures. Operating costs would be relatively low, as short and fast route.

H

12. Funding

Potential


-


Page 47

Appraisal Matrix Kimberley Ikea Option

Appraisal

Parameter Appraisal Comments Impact

1. Environmental Impact


-

2. Safety Impact [Appraisal not considered against this parameter due to other over-riding issues leading to the rejection of the option at present.]

-

3. Acceptability [Appraisal not considered against this parameter due to other over-riding issues leading to the rejection of the option at present.]

-

4. Community

Impact


-

5. Development

and Regeneration Potential

Some potential exists for serving new developments in the Watnall area,

although the route would not serve these areas particularly well. The presence of LRT at the eastern extremity of Eastwood may provide an

impetus for further development

L

6. Accessibility [Appraisal not considered against this parameter due to other over-riding issues leading to the rejection of the option at present.]

-

7. Integration with other Transport

Modes


-

8. Patronage This route option is unable to properly serve the markets it is intended to; it serves more of Kimberley, though is not ideal, and then stops short

of Eastwood, missing out any intermediate markets. Developments in Watnall that that may provide patronage are not committed

X

9. Operational

Issues


-

10. Engineering

Feasibility

Little exposure to technical risks and disruption due to on-street route –

5.4km of 5.9km is segregated. Risks linked to several bridges & retaining wall at crossing under A610. Route in very deep cutting on old LMS

alignment – condition of tunnel under B600 needs checking. Potential for

future extensions to Eastwood is possible.

M/H

11. Costs Infrastructure cost of approx. £22M (£3.7M/km) is favourable, as mostly

segregated route. Cost higher than KMS as longer and more structures. Operating costs higher than KMS, as longer route.

M

12. Funding

Potential


-


Page 48

Drawings

Kimberley Routes

BL1969 – 500 to 504

Nottingham Express Transit Network Extensions Study · PDF fileDocument Control Project Title:...

Documents

Transcript of Nottingham Express Transit Network Extensions Study · PDF fileDocument Control Project Title:...