1

Colchester Metro Town Concept Feasibility Project for CAUSE Tim Pharoah, MSc, MRTPI, MCILT, CMIHT, MTPS With input from Jonathan Tyler

Purpose of project Taking the Colchester Metro Town concept, to test the viability of its public transport proposals and, in the event of their not being feasible, suggest alternatives.

Summary The Colchester Metro concept is a valid option for structuring housing and related growth for Colchester and Tendring, based on the underused Colchester to Clacton line (and to some extent the Walton branch). Services can be increased to provide every hour: two regional trains (limited stop and including one to Liverpool Street) and four local trains (via Colchester Town). This will provide an extremely attractive public transport spine linking new areas of growth around stations on the line with the existing towns and communities. This rail corridor approach is feasible in operational terms, and exploits an existing valuable but greatly underused asset. The Colchester-Clacton rail corridor is physically capable of accommodating a substantial amount of housing growth, estimated at 6,000 – 8,000 homes (or 7,000 – 9,000 homes if higher densities are felt to be acceptable at the heart of these settlements, an approach which would be in line with the DCLG's current proposal to encourage higher density developments at commuter hubs), depending on land constraints. This rail-based growth would be distributed between the following station catchment areas: Alresford, Great Bentley, Weeley, and Thorpe le Soken. The catchment is defined as a 10-minute walk from the station. There would be benefits for existing communities, including the villages, by bringing extra local facilities and employment, although the existing populations may not accept that these outweigh perceived disbenefits of development. Further growth locations will be required to accommodate the balance of growth requirements. Part of this could be accommodated within the Metro framework by providing a new station at Clacton north, to serve the suggested “garden suburb” and related employment area. An additional station may also be feasible at Thorrington in the longer term, again opening up scope for further rail-based development. Rail demand would also be enhanced with the provision of a new station to serve the University, although apparently this does not open up any new housing potential. (See report by Jonathan Tyler on the rail operation aspects of the new stations.)

2

Some growth can and should be located in other areas of Colchester and Tendring, for example within the walk catchment of Marks Tey station, and in the coastal and riverine towns of Tendring. There is potential for larger scale growth east of Colchester, including a new settlement sited between Colchester and Elmstead market, and in the Fox Street and Crockleford Heath areas. These are identified as having potential in the Tendring Issues and Options paper, 2015. Such growth to the east of Colchester, if it is to occur with a high degree of transport sustainability, will need to be based on high quality bus links to Colchester, but the creation of such services will require a radically greater degree of public transport priority in Colchester than has been delivered to date. Cycling could also be an important component of a sustainable development model, although routes to central Colchester are affected by significant gradients. There may be opportunities for bus-based new development in other parts of Colchester, but these have not been included in the present study. Although Britain has a poor track record in delivering local rail infrastructure, there is potential for new developments east of Colchester to be served by a tram. The technical case for this has not been explored in detail, but the re-introduction of trams to Colchester would involve major changes in the town centre, as well as the creation of a new route(s) to the development areas. Figure 1 Colchester-Clacton Metro

3

Other location models for growth either do not jointly serve the Colchester-Tendring economy (such as Clacton growth unrelated to the railway), or are likely to produce transport outcomes that are heavily car dependent (such as growth in Tendring on sites that are outwith railway station catchments). In theory, frequent bus services can support sustainable development solutions, but it should be pointed out that Tendring has no sites served by high frequency buses. The Gateway120 proposals in West Tey meet neither the local economic boost nor the sustainable transport objectives. The positive aspects of the Colchester-Clacton rail corridor include:

Existing expensive infrastructure in place;

Capacity for a 15 minute interval local rail service in addition to half hourly regional services, all connecting with the GEML at Colchester North;

Plenty of suitable land around stations within a 10 minute walk catchment;

Contributes to economies of both Colchester and Tendring;

Existing village communities benefit from better local services;

Implementation can begin early;

Development can take place around two or more stations simultaneously, without needing large scale up-front infrastructure;

Potential for further longer-term growth, including new stations and faster trains;

Retaining land in East Colchester for longer-term growth when bus problems have been resolved.

Negative aspects include the following risks to the delivery process:

Gaining acceptance of growth at each of the village locations could be challenging;

Achieving appropriate rail fares and integration with buses;

There would need to be commitment to a major portion of the housing requirement (of both Colchester and Tendring) being met in the rail corridor, otherwise the growth will not deliver sufficient rail demand to support frequent rail services;

It is unlikely that such a pattern of growth could be delivered without a special mechanism such as an Urban Development Corporation.

Headline points 1. Plan for “Greater Colchester” as a whole

Housing and related growth can be used to foster a stronger economic and cultural area that may be referred to as the Greater Colchester area.

2. Plan new developments for transport sustainability New developments should be located and designed to address the current

4

high level of car dependency in the Colchester, Tendring and Braintree areas.

3. Existing towns as the focus for sustainable growth The key assets of Greater Colchester include Colchester itself as the main provider of employment and services; Clacton, with a different and complementary offer including seaside recreation; Essex University as a focus for “high octane” employment and education; and land around the stations and village communities, which provides the opportunity to tie in new development to the larger settlements with high quality public transport.

4. “Garden Satellite” growth model The pattern can be likened to “pearls on a string”. New housing and local services can be provided within the 10 minute walking catchments of the following stations: Alresford, Great Bentley, Weeley and Thorpe-le-Soken. There is scope also around Kirby Cross station on the Walton branch, and also on a smaller scale near Walton station itself. With rail as the main communications spine, a new station to serve the University would be a desirable. Further opportunities for growth that would strengthen the Metro concept, perhaps in the longer term, would be building in the catchments of new stations at Thorrington and Clacton North.

5. The railway as an underused resource The electrified double track railway from Colchester to Clacton (and single track to Walton) is a major piece of railway infrastructure that is currently underused, and yet provides congestion-free access into Colchester. Structuring growth around stations on this line would enable improvements to the service that will attract a high mode share at the expense of car travel in the area. This is essential if growth is not to create unacceptable congestion on the Colchester road network.

6. Buses need to become Bus Rapid Transit Buses currently have little priority over other traffic, and are therefore unable to offer an attractive alternative to the car. Major growth that is based on bus public transport (as would be needed in east Colchester) would need BRT routes with a high degree of protection from traffic congestion. The current road network and traffic arrangements are unsuited to this, and proposed bus priority routes have not been implemented as intended by 2015.

7. Rail and bus integration is needed If growth is to be rail-led, integration with local bus services will be important. This involves the physical interchange arrangements at stations, coordinated timetabling, and integrated fares and ticketing. Such integration is needed to provide an attractive alternative to the car for a goodly proportion of people’s travel, which is necessary to avoid extreme traffic consequences from the scale of growth required.

8. Colchester town centre traffic is a hindrance to transport and trade The town centre is far too dominated by traffic, and compares very poorly to many if not most historic centres in continental Europe. Radical

5

improvements to the environment are required not only to achieve competitiveness, but also to respond to the upswing in visitor/employee demand that will result from a population growth in the sub region of more than 30,000 in 15 years. A plan for growth must include a plan for upgrading existing town centres in Colchester and Clacton, and creating high quality public transport links to them. This is needed regardless of the distribution of growth.

9. The Great Eastern Mainline provides less opportunity for growth Locations for potential growth would require two or three new stations, and the GEML has capacity problems, constraining its ability to carry frequent local train services. The Harwich branch also lacks opportunity for growth, partly because of these GEML constrains, and partly a lack of suitable development land around stations on the branch itself.

10. Marks Tey has some potential for growth Within the walking catchment of the station, Marks Tey could accept some growth, although the train service may not increase from the current half hourly service, and buses would probably provide the main link to Colchester. For the Greater Colchester scenario, more frequent trains on the Clacton line would make for better interchange at Colchester (north) for Colchester Town and the Clacton line. (At present this is very poor.) The risk of Marks Tey is that growth there will be oriented more towards London commuters rather than Colchester.

In the above growth scenarios, some aspects are consistent with options already identified by Colchester and Tendring, or in the respective “call for sites”, in particular:

The establishment of a new settlement between Colchester and Elmstead Market, although the suggested size of 2,000 homes is too small to support a sustainable transport solution;

Growth east of Colchester in the Crockleford Heath and possibly Fox Street areas;

Small scale growth in the north of Tendring, based on existing settlements;

Growth within the walking catchment of Marks Tey station, which features in the “call for sites”;

Growth adjacent to the railway in north Clacton, which could be served by a new station.

Further public-transport led development could also be envisaged along enhanced frequency bus corridors, based on existing routes but integrated with the improved rail services on the Clacton line. These include:

Wivenhoe sites within 400 metres of the B1058 (bus 62) already integrated with Wivenhoe station;

Little Clacton sites within 400 metres of the B1441 (bus 76, integrated with Clacton and Weeley stations).

6

Other possible development areas in Tendring identified through the “call for sites” exercise are less able to be served by sustainable transport and will be highly car-dependent. These unsustainable sites are:

Brightlingsea (except sites served by bus 87, i.e. UE4.12 and UE4.13);

Clacton Fringe sites including Hartley Meadows “garden suburb”;

Elmstead Market sites unless related to major new settlement;

Frinton sites outside Kirby Cross and Frinton station catchments;

Great Bentley sites remote from the station;

Harwich and Dovercourt;

Lawford major expansion;

St Osyth, all sites;

Thorpe le Soken sites remote from the station (north of the B1033);

Weeley sites remote from the station.

Strategic considerations The planning of population and housing growth is based on “objectively assessed needs” that are primarily associated with the individual borough and district council areas. It is therefore appropriate to plan the distribution of growth in such a way as to address the economic and cultural issues and opportunities of those areas, as opposed to catering for the London commuter market. The Gateway120 proposal could be dominated by the London commuter market, which would suit the deliverability and saleability of new homes, but would be of less benefit to Colchester, and only marginal benefit to Tendring. The strategic planning of growth should instead be geared to supporting and expanding the local and sub-regional economy, in particular helping to bring vitality to Colchester and to boost and revive the economic potential of the Tendring coastal towns. One way of achieving this is to focus growth in the rail corridor between Colchester and Clacton and Walton, which is examined further in this paper. The assumed housing requirement for the Greater Colchester area is 14,000 new homes over the next 15 years, over and above what is catered for in existing planning permissions, and excluding modest growth in areas outside the Greater Colchester area (such as Harwich). A second key aspect of growth is that it should be planned to achieve “sustainable transport” outcomes, which in reality means much lower levels of car use by new and existing residents. The National Planning Policy Framework states that “planning should actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.” Similar policy

7

sentiments can be found also in the various local planning and local transport plan documents of the Essex local authorities.1 A strategy that delivers this will have at a minimum the following requirements:

Development whose occupants will depend in large degree on employment and service facilities in the existing towns, where public transport can provide a credible alternative to the car for access;

Development that includes local health, education, retail and community facilities that can be conveniently accessed on foot and cycle.

Providing development in the right place and of the right type requires a strategic planning framework in which growth sites are located and configured in relation to high frequency public transport stations and stops. The reliance on the “call for sites” exercise is at odds with this approach, in that any fit between identified sites and a sustainable transport strategy would be entirely coincidental. The call for sites exercise may help to inform the delivery process once location strategy has been determined, but it is utterly unsuited to the purpose of generating that strategy. A third strategic consideration is that whatever distribution of growth is decided, Colchester needs to improve the town centre offer, in terms of the quality of the trading and social environment. This can only be achieved by reducing the dominance of parked and moving traffic in and around the town centre streets. Colchester needs to up its game. In a survey of 29 towns by the Campaign for Better Transport, Colchester came out as 28th worst in terms of car dependence.

1 Colchester Issues & Options 2015 “The main transport issue …. location … of new

development …to reduce the need to travel; and new communities …planned …to influence a change in people’s travel behaviour, towards more sustainable modes of transport.” Colchester Local Plan objective (SA scoping report 2014) “4. To achieve more sustainable travel behaviour, reduce the need to travel and reduce congestion.” Tendring Issues and Options 2015 “ …actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations that are or can be made sustainable.” Tendring Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report June 2015 “One of the challenges to future development in Tendring is to minimise the dominance of the car as a main mode of travel.” Tendring Local Plan 2007 “Changes …should …reduce the number and length of journeys by car and provide for improved public transport, pedestrian, and cycle movement.” Essex County Council’s Cabinet Member for Highways and Transportation, Cllr Rodney L Bass: “Essex County Council is committed to promoting sustainable transport” Essex CC press release 10th July 2015

8

For comparison, journeys to work by car in Brighton and Cambridge are shown in Figure 2. Brighton has a good bus system whereas Cambridge is set up for bikes; but both have considerably less car use than Colchester. It is worth noting that, unlike well-planned towns and cities in continental Europe, many British towns and cities have no information on the mode split of trips other than those to work. Colchester and Essex are no exception. Given that journey to work trips account for a relatively small (currently 16%) and declining proportion of all travel, this is a serious weakness in the transport and land use planning system. Figure 2 Comparison of mode split of journeys to work (2011 Census)

In the following sections, we examine growth scenarios that can meet the twin requirements of boosting local economies and sustainable transport outcomes.

Scenario for rail-led growth – the Metro option Consideration has been given to two rail-led growth scenarios:

1. Growth based on the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML), at Marks Tey and at new stations, for example at Eight Ash Green, Fox Street and Ardleigh.

2. Growth based on the Clacton/Walton branch from Colchester North and Colchester Town.

Jonathan Tyler has produced a separate report providing more detail on the operational aspects. The GEML scenario has been ruled out on the following grounds:

9

The GEML has insufficient capacity to accommodate new frequent local services, given the need to provide paths for higher speed mainline services, including freight services;

New stations and local train services would be required to achieve significant growth in the corridor, and again the capacity issue renders this unworkable due to the disruption of paths for mainline express services;

Growth on the GEML corridor is likely to fuel demand from London commuters, which would contribute less benefits to the Colchester economy;

The configuration of track does not allow direct services to Colchester Town from stations north of Colchester.

For the reasons given above, a new station at West Tey to serve the Gateway120 development proposal has been judged unworkable. The second scenario based on the Walton/Clacton line by contrast is considered both feasible and beneficial in operational terms. This is discussed below.

Colchester-Clacton Metro Option The scenario is based on the following broad principles:

Public transport oriented development with low car dependence

Making good use of existing underused rail infrastructure

Benefitting the economies of both Colchester and Tendring

Exploiting the potential of Essex University and related industries

Creating high quality new neighbourhoods that combine the attraction of both town and country (perhaps called “garden satellites”).

Figure 3 shows existing rail passengers on the Colchester-Clacton Line, together with Colchester and Chelmsford stations for comparison. The low level of use of the intermediate stations on the Clacton/Walton line is starkly apparent. The potential to grow the passenger numbers by locating new development close to these stations will arise from the potential to increase service frequencies to every 15 minutes.

10

Figure 3 Existing rail passengers (2013-2014, source: ORR)

Figure 4 Underused stations on the Clacton Line: few trains and few passengers

11

The Colchester - Clacton Metro scenario is based on the principle of “Transit Oriented development” - TOD - (or, in the UK more clumsily referred to as public transport oriented development - PTOD). By focusing a higher proportion of people’s trips and destinations towards the existing town centres, this development solution will enhance Colchester and Clacton town centres as the main providers of employment and higher order services. The principle is also put forward that the Colchester-Clacton corridor can function as a sub-regional economic and cultural entity, with complementary assets and resources that will promote growth provided that the key areas and opportunities are linked with high quality transit, in this case the existing rail line. (The “town and coast” connection is recognised by the informal title of the Clacton railway as the “Sunshine Coast Line”, as used for example by the existing Community Rail Partnership.) A benefit of this scenario compared to Gateway120 or GEML scenarios is that the growth would boost the economy of Colchester and Tendring, and not be dominated by demand from London commuters. Figure 5 Transit Oriented Development (TOD) concept

A further principle on which the scenario is based is to achieve a high mode share of trips by the sustainable modes (walking, cycling and public transport) and a correspondingly low share of trips by car. This must include mode switch away from car by existing residents, as well as low car use by the new residents, in order to avoid serious additional congestion on the road network as the population grows.

12

To make this strategy work, growth will need to be related directly to the walking catchments of stations on the Colchester - Clacton Line. A maximum walk of 10 minutes is necessary, in order to keep overall journey times low and to compete effectively with the car. In addition, local buses must be integrated with rail, and enabled to operate without hindrance from congestion. Neither of these conditions at present applies, which at least in part must account for the high degree of car dependence in Colchester and north Essex. Cycling can become an important part of the scenario, but only if cycle-friendly infrastructure is provided throughout the growth areas. Cycle access to stations will be a particular opportunity, as will cycling to the University. The capacity of the Metro rail option is estimated to be 6-8,000 homes together with associated local facilities (open spaces, schools, recreation, local health and retail facilities etc.). These would distributed between the catchments of Alresford, Great Bentley, Weeley and Thorpe le Soken stations, and delivered in the 15 year plan period. This is based on a fairly modest assumption about the amount of land available for development within the station catchments, and an average net density of 40 dwellings per hectare. A significant proportion of the growth could be accommodated on land identified in the call for sites within the walking catchments of Alresford, Great Bentley and Weeley stations. This could mean an early start to delivery at these locations without the need for major new infrastructure. Significant growth could also be accommodated around a new station at Clacton North. In addition, perhaps in the longer term, a new station at Thorrington (there was originally a station at Thorrington, closed in the 1950s) could be opened, and play host to new development there. Table 1 shows the figures upon which the rail demand estimates have been based, with the assumed average density of 40dph highlighted. It should be stressed that the areas for development are based on a quick review of the Ordnance Survey maps at 1:25,000 scale, and do not necessarily take into account various constraints on development that might not be represented on those maps. Moreover, having made an estimate of the amount of land that could be developed within the 10 minute walk catchment, a fairly cautious approach has been taken to establishing housing development capacity, by assuming that 50-60% of the available area would be for housing. The remainder would be for roads, open spaces, schools etc. The exact amount of land available for housing would depend in part on the extent of facilities already provided in the existing settlements. For example, all of the villages mentioned in the section have an existing primary school, and there are existing open spaces such as Great Bentley’s huge village green. It can be seen from the table that the four intermediate stations between Clacton and Wivenhoe could accommodate around half of the 14,000 home requirement.

13

Land around stations on the Walton line could accommodate perhaps another quarter. Marks Tey on the Great Eastern Mainline could accommodate around 2,000 homes within the walk catchment, mostly on land north of the railway. Table 1 Assumed housing capacity within 10 minute walk catchments of stations

Figure 6 below shows the potential passenger demand increase at the stations with growth potential, bringing vitality and viability to the railway, and enabling the high frequency service that will bring about a high mode share for rail (assumed in this scenario to be 15% of all trips made by the new residents). The Clacton figure is based on the assumption of a new station at Clacton North. It is important to stress that the actual uplift in demand should be greater, because the more frequent service will attract more rail journeys by the existing population.

14

Figure 6 Estimated uplift in passenger demand generated by the Clacton line (in green) arising from station area housing growth, including a new station at Clacton North. Total annual passengers.

Scenario for bus-based growth – the BRT option The imperative for sustainable growth, with low car dependence, is to structure new development around high quality public transport, as well as good walking and cycling access to local facilities. One bus-based scenario for the growth of Colchester involves development near to the town to the east of the existing built up area and north east of the University campus. This broad area features in responses to the Colchester and Tendring “call for sites”. While the rail (Metro) option needs to include a substantial part of the housing growth requirement, there may be a need for additional growth in the Greater Colchester area further into the 15 year plan period, of perhaps 4-6,000 homes. This additional growth could be accommodated on sites to the east of Colchester. Moreover, if the rail (Metro) option for one reason or another were to be rejected, development could occur on a much larger scale east of Colchester to meet the majority of the growth requirement for Colchester and Tendring.

15

Bus based growth could be

A major new settlement between Colchester and Elmstead Market, straddling the borough boundary (similar to that described in the Tendring Issues and Options paper, 2015), which we have named “Elmstead Town” and/or

Major new settlement between the existing built up area and the A120, in the “Crockleford Heath” area.

Compared to the rail (Metro) option, the difficulties of achieving sustainable transport outcomes from these eastern sites should not be under-estimated. Cycling is not well provided for, and its potential is constrained by the presence of significant gradients. Buses are poorly catered for on the road network, and there appear to be no easy opportunities for creating a new bus (BRT) corridor through the existing built up area. Existing proposals in the Colchester Local Plan for bus only access routes at Recreation Road and alongside the River Colne have not been implemented, despite the large-scale development taking place in Hythe. The danger is therefore that development east of Colchester will be largely car-dependent, and will generate large traffic volumes that cannot be accommodated on the road network without significantly adding to traffic congestion, and thus further undermining bus services. The bus-based growth scenarios are considered in more detail below.

Bus provision in the Colchester Metro area As with most areas on Britain outside London and the big cities, bus services in Colchester and the surrounding areas are not up to European best practice standards. This judgment is justified on many grounds, prominent among them being as follows:

1. The services are fragmented between two major operators, and 9 (at the last count) smaller operators. Some routes have switched between operators over time.

2. There is no apparent coordination between the services in terms of frequency, routing or timing.

3. Tickets apparently are specific to each operator, and are not recognised by other operators on the same or similar routes.

4. There is no printed map showing the complete bus network, and the online map is difficult to use (See Figure 7).

5. Bus maps that exist for the two major operators are diagrammatic making it difficult to identify individual routes on the ground.

16

6. Frequencies are variable but there are very few routes with 10 minutes or better frequencies. The 2015 bus maps do not show frequencies.

7. The one-way bus routing through Colchester town centre makes it very difficult to match inbound and outbound stopping places.

8. Bus routing in the centre of Colchester is complex difficult to understand. 9. Real-time information is patchy. 10. Integration between rail and bus is poor, and non-existent at some

stations. According to the Colchester Bus Users Group (C-Bus) town services have seen an increase in the number of buses serving the town centre over the past 10 years. This should mean a better service overall, although it has put pressure on the capacity of town centre bus stops. Figure 7 The online bus map for Colchester town centre (Essex CC, 2015)

17

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and cycling Currently, all traffic linking east Colchester with the town centre, including buses, must use one of only two routes, East Street or Barrack Street (or more circuitously, Whitehall Road/Old Heath Road). The former is via a level crossing. Some buses use one or the other route (e.g. 64, 75), but some have a different route inbound from outbound (e.g. 74, 76 Clacton services). All the roads converging on these two gateway routes are typically congested especially at peak hours. Buses are afforded little, if any, protection from this congestion, resulting in slow journey times and lack of reliability. There is a bus-only access at Hythe station, but this also has a level crossing, and buses will have already negotiated the congested parts of the network in order to access the bus only section. It therefore gives buses little if any priority over other traffic. There are no obvious ways in which a dedicated BRT route(s) can be provided to developments east of the River Colne. The introduction of bus priority measures on the existing roads cannot easily be achieved without reducing capacity for other traffic. Unless the measures are sufficient to achieve significant mode switch from car to bus, this would be likely to lead to greater congestion. There are two proposals in the Local Plan for the creation of bus only routes towards East Colchester, one being to link Recreation Road to Colne Causeway, the other being to create a bus-only road adjacent to the railway between Colchester Town station and Hythe station (see Figure 8 below). The reasons for the delay in implementing these have not been explored in this study, but more important is the fact that neither of these proposals address the issues of bus access within the town centre, and congestion on the radial roads and junctions east of the busways. However, a potentially good route has been identified between the existing bus-only roads at the University and East Street, via Greenstead Road and Elmstead Road, crossing the A134 Colne Causeway by priority bus-only signals.

18

Figure 8 Possible BRT routes from the east to the town centre. The configuration of routes in the town centre would need to be planned in relation to reduced traffic and parking.

Compared to many of its European counterparts, Colchester has a relatively undeveloped local public transport network. Colchester used to support a tram system when the population was a mere 50,000. (See Figure 9). The present fragmented bus system in Colchester may be compared, for example, to Innsbruck (Austria), which has a similar urban population (124,000 compared to Colchester’s 117,000) but benefits from 4 tram lines along a 12 mile network of routes. Innsbruck’s tram system offers journeys that are swift, silent and smooth, and it is fully accessible (Figure 10). In Austria and Switzerland, and other European countries, there are towns with small populations that operate successful tram systems. In many cases these have been used as a framework for growth. Figure 9 Colchester tram network in the 1920s Colchester Corporation tramways operated from the mid 19th Century to 1929.

19

Figure 10 Innsbruck tram and network map

In theory, another approach would be to design and develop the eastern developments (Fox Street, Crockleford, Elmstead Town) as “cycling towns”, with dedicated cycle routes both within the development and linking to Colchester town centre and other prominent destinations, including the University. Most of these areas are within reasonable cycling distance of the town centre (5km or 3 miles). The A133 that would serve Elmstead Town has space for much of its length for segregated cycle tracks in both directions, but such provision would not be so easily provided on the Ipswich, Harwich, and Bromley Roads. In addition, there are some significant gradients involved on all the potential routes, which will tend to restrict the cycling choice to fitter members of the community, unless e-bikes become the norm. Therefore, while cycling may be an important component, high quality bus services would also be required. In addition, Colchester has even less of a cycling culture than a public transport culture, and so developing a high mode share for cycling in the new areas would be challenging. A further issue with basing eastward expansion of Colchester on BRT services is that of operators. Colchester has two major bus operators (First and Arriva), partly in competition with one another, for example for services to Highwoods, Greenstead and to the University. (Headingham also is an important operator connecting to Brightlingsea and other places outside the town.) This has attracted criticism from the House of Commons Transport Committee (“Competition in the local bus market”, Third Report of Session 2012–13). There are important questions to be answered before new developments can be certain of delivering a high bus mode share of trips generated by residents and visitors:

20

- Who would run the BRT routes? - Is their operation guaranteed, especially in the short term to serve early

residents? - Would the tickets and fares be integrated with others in the Colchester

network? - Would the network upon which the design and layout is based, and

investment decisions are made, be guaranteed for the future? The uncertainties surrounding these questions are a worrying risk factor in the delivery of BRT based developments in East Colchester, including any new settlement at Elmstead or Crockleford Heath. From this perspective, rail-based development may be seen as having considerable advantages over bus-based development in the greater Colchester area. Nevertheless, the extent of new housing required over the next 15 years may require growth in East Colchester, even if the rail corridor option is fully exploited. We therefore now consider the two eastern growth options identified above in more detail.

1. New settlement (“Elmstead Town”) Rail would not be of any help in tying this into Colchester or Clacton. Bus and cycle will be the main sustainable transport options, together with walking to local facilities. A settlement of 2,000 homes has been suggested by Tendring. This could be in the form of a corridor 600 metres wide and 1600 metres long, astride the Clacton Road, served by a single bus route along the Clacton Road. However, the population would probably be insufficient to support a bus frequency of more than 15 minutes, and more likely 20 minutes in the peak hour, and half hour at other times. This would be insufficient to attract a high bus mode share of trips, and therefore the settlement would generate significant car travel. It should be noted that buses need to provide a higher frequency than trains in order to attract a similar mode share. A better answer would be a settlement of 5,000 homes, (population 12,000), which would support higher order local facilities, and buses at 10 minutes frequency, capable of achieving a high sustainable mode share for residents’ trips. However, configuring a single bus service to be within a 4-5 minute walk of everyone can be difficult with a settlement of this size. It would depend on how dense (compact) the developed areas would be. Another option would be to provide a 10 minute service to stops at either end of the development, and then

21

split to two 20 minute routes within the settlement. This configuration is shown I Figure 11 below. Figure 11 Possible BRT configuration for “Elmstead Town”

It should be borne in mind that demand for the buses will also come from existing settlements. The 10 minute frequency from Elmstead Market, for example, will attract far more passengers than the current irregular, less than hourly service (76 Colchester - Clacton). The cycle options for internal movement could be excellent for a new settlement in this location, including links to the University, because of the flat terrain. Links to the town centre, however, involve some significant gradients, making the bus a more attractive option for many people. Electric bikes may, however, become a further reasonable option. The case for a large settlement near Elmstead market is reinforced by the benefits and uplift that the new population could bring to the existing village which, for example, could host restaurants, specialist shops and other quality services. Examples of where such a beneficial spinoff has occurred are Stony Stratford near Milton Keynes, and Old Harlow near Harlow new town. A “strategic gap” can be defined and protected around the new settlement, including the important Salary Brook valley, which should be protected from development as far as the ridge/tree line.

22

2. East Colchester development (“Crockleford”) A large swathe of land has been identified in the “call for sites” between existing development and the Ipswich Road to the north, and the A120 to the northeast, perhaps 700 ha in total. The area sits astride the Colchester/Tendring boundary, but much of the land within Colchester is the Salary Brook Valley, which has considerable landscape value and should be protected from development up to the ridge/tree line. The potential development area could be around 400 ha, divided into two by Salary Brook Valley. This division is further reinforced by the GEML railway which cuts though near the Valley. The southern part adjoins or overlaps the area suggested for “Elmstead Town”, so a decision would need to be made on whether to separate the “Crockleford” part from “Elmstead Town”. The “Fox Street” area, which lies mostly north of the railway, would be inconvenient and expensive to serve by BRT via the University, since this would involve building a route across the Salary Brook valley, and across the railway, and would result in a very indirect route to the town centre with relatively long journey times. Development in the Fox Street area would therefore need a different BRT access, probably involving the A137 Harwich Road, on which comprehensive bus priority may be problematic.2 The possibilities have not been explored in detail because it would seem the Crockleford Heath area offers much better prospects for connection with both the University and the town centre, and with less impact on the landscape. The high frequency buses needed to offer a rapid transit system for sustainable growth at Fox Street would require either an alternative route, or comprehensive bus priority measures, neither of which would be easy to provide.

Integration of bus and rail Development of the “Metro” option, with significant increases in population and local facilities around stations, will boost demand for, and require, the integration of local bus services. However good the rail service on the Colchester Clacton corridor, there will still be a need for public transport travel in other directions. The uplift in potential demand will enable services to operate at an increased frequency, and to provide credible (short wait times) interchange with rail services. Table 2 below suggests one example of how this might be configured.

2 The Fox Street area is currently served only by out of town bus routes to Harwich, with sparse

frequency on the Ipswich Road - Route 106, and half hourly on the Harwich Road – routes 103 and 104. There is also an Arriva service (2) via Ipswich Road and St John’s Road to Highwoods Tesco, with a 15 minute service. However, all of these routes use East Hill / East Street to access Colchester centre, and suffer from congestion on this part of the network.

23

Table 2 Bus routes with potential for high frequency and rail integration

Bus route description

Existing route number (main service)

Potential interchange stations and growth areas served

Colchester - Wivenhoe 62 Wivenhoe station

Colchester - Brightlingsea 87 Alresford station

Colchester - Clacton 76 Elmstead Town, Weeley station

Colchester – Clacton via Great Bentley

77/79 Elmstead Town, Great Bentley station

Manningtree - Clacton 2 Weeley station, Little Clacton

Harwich - Clacton 3, 4 Thorpe-le-Soken station

Figure 12 East Colchester “call for sites” (in red) and CAUSE settlement options

Access to Crockleford could involve the Harwich/Bromley Roads, and also from the A133 (Clacton Road). Bromley Road has no bus service (being mostly in open country), but the junction with Harwich Road is served by the half hourly First 75/75A route, which then takes a very circuitous route to the University. The Clacton Road has a sparse and irregular service to Aingers Green via Elmstead Market, Frating, Great Bentley station. This is a route that with major new

24

development could be improved. More importantly, a significant population at Crockleford cold support a frequent bus service to the town centre, probably via the University. It is therefore the case that major new development east of Colchester will require the provision of wholly new or greatly enhanced bus routes in order to provide BRT of a quality that would be seen as a credible alternative to the car. The main issue would not be the lack of potential demand, but the difficulties of providing a rapid and reliable network of services. Indeed, it is perhaps the case that the emphasis on development to the west and North of Colchester in recent decades has been due to the problems of the constrained road network to the east, due in no small part to the limited opportunities for crossing the River Colne.

Improved Colchester town centre access Whatever the distribution of future growth in the Greater Colchester area, the growth in population and jobs will bring significant regeneration potential for Colchester town centre, and other centres in the sub region. If pressure for people to access jobs and services by car is to be avoided, the town centre(s) will need to provide a high quality environment that is not dominated by the negative impacts of motor traffic. Colchester town centre at present offers an environment that compares poorly with equivalent centres in continental Europe, and demonstrates some of the worst aspects of traffic planning from the last century (see Figure 13). In order to create a successful town, the centre needs to be modernised by shifting a good proportion of access traffic to public transport, walking and cycling, and by converting important streets to pedestrian priority. While such a planning task is beyond the scope of this study, it is seen as a necessary adjunct to the projected growth. Key concepts would include:

Close the town centre to through movement (except buses);

Provide access to car parks from a ring route clearly signed “Parking Route”, producing a “drive to; not through” regime (see Figure 14);

Devise incentives to reduce the amount of private off-street parking;

Convert retail and mixed use streets within this ring to pedestrian priority designs, increasing significantly the amount of public space;

Rationalising bus routes and stops to be readily understandable and convenient for the main destinations and interchange points;

Reducing the severance caused by main road infrastructure, to encourage pedestrian access to the centre, especially Southway and the pedestrian route from Colchester Town station to the town centre.

25

Figure 13 Some images of Colchester town centre showing the dominance of roads and traffic

Figure 14 The “Drive to, Not Through” concept

26

Annex

Station 10 minute catchments Notes:

1. The open land shown on the maps within the catchment boundary is assumed, in most cases, to have potential for development, including for open space and various commercial and community facilities, as well as for housing. Constraints that are not apparent from the map have not been taken into account in assessing the development land potential, although the land area estimates contained in Table 1 are considered to be on the cautious side.

2. Sites received in the Tendring “call for sites” exercise 2015 are shown in pink. (Sites within the catchments in solid pink; sites outside catchments shown in outline pink.) Other areas shown as open land within the catchment areas are included in the estimates in Table 1.

3. The 10 minute walk catchment is shown as a circle based on the host

station with a 800 metre radius. In practice, the catchment will not be a circle because of the indirect nature of walking routes. This can mean significantly less land available within a 10 minute walk “on the ground”, and is especially at Marks Tey due to the indirect walking routes to reach land south of the railway and main roads in the area.

4. The catchments are shown on the OS 1:25,000 map base.

27

Alresford

Great Bentley

28

Weeley

Thorpe-le-Soken

29

Marks Tey

Kirby Cross and Walton-on-the-Naze (1:50,000)

30

North Tendring (1:50,000)