Public Rights of Way Report - Chiltern Evergreen3

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4 THE CASE FOR MODIFICATIONS TO PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAYINTRODUCTION4.1 This section of the report sets out the case for extinguishing the at-graderailway crossings and the factors that influenced the alternatives consideredand the preferred solutions which are proposed.CHILTERN RAILWAYS’ APPROACH TO PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY ISSUES4.2 Throughout the evolution of the Scheme, the design team has sought tominimise the impact on the public rights of way network, whilst seeking todeliver safety improvements associated with the Scheme. This has been thecase during the initial appraisal of alternative crossing options and later in thedesign of the Scheme as shown in the Planning Direction Drawings and theDeposited Plans and Sections which have been assessed in the EnvironmentalStatement.4.3 During the process of considering alternative crossings and identifyingdiversions, consideration was given to the tests in Sections 119A of theHighways Act 1980 and Circular 1/09 on Rights of Way.4.4 Where at-grade railway crossings are to be extinguished, either a replacementbridge is proposed and/or the creation of new public right of way in order toprovide a diversion to link back conveniently into the public rights of waynetwork.THE SAFETY CASE FOR CLOSING AT-GRADE CROSSINGSRail and Level Crossing Safety4.5 Britain’s railways are one of the safest transport systems in the world, and in2008 there were no fatalities for either passengers or railway workers in trainaccidents. The risk to travellers using the railway is much lower than for othermodes. Railway passenger and workforce fatality rates in Britain were alsolower than the European average over the four year period 2004-2007 (1) . Thelong-term trend shows that railway safety has improved greatly over theyears. The exception is public, non-passenger fatalities due to trespass,suicide and use of level crossings.(1) Rail Safety & Standards Board Annual Safety Performance Report 2008.ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT11CHILTERN RAILWAYS
4.6 Level crossings are now seen as the primary safety risk for railways. “The riskis from pedestrian and road user abuse. Since (1999) road users have caused moredeaths on the railway than the railways have” (1) . The rail industry has maintainedsafety improvements in many areas against a backdrop of increasingpassenger numbers. However, there has been a deterioration of publicbehaviour at level crossings, where there was an increase in the number ofpedestrian fatalities over that time period (2) .4.7 The overall improvement in rail safety has not been matched by that at levelcrossings. Whereas non-level crossing risk has declined by around 70% in thepast decade, level crossing risk has fallen by only around 25%. The risk topassengers from train accidents is now dominated by collisions with roadvehicles at level crossings. People’s behaviour at level crossings is the maincause of such accidents, and is an area in which the railway has limited control(3).4.8 Incidents at level crossings are now the third largest cause of fatality andinjury after suicides and trespass and the number is rising. In 2004 there weresix fatalities at level crossings. By 2008 this had risen to 12 (4) . In addition toactual accidents there are numerous ‘near misses’ where trains came close tocontact with road vehicles or pedestrians. Recent trends suggest that whilstthe number of near misses between trains and vehicles is improving, thatbetween trains and pedestrians is worsening (5) .4.9 Incidents involving road vehicles, farm equipment and large animals canresult in damage to the train and/or derailment, with consequent risk to traincrew and passengers, as well as a high risk of fatality or injury for the crossingusers. Incidents involving pedestrians are less likely to result in a trainaccident, but are very likely to kill the person. The high ratio of fatalities toinjuries is shown in Table 4.1.Table 4.1:Fatalities as a Proportion of Accidents at Level CrossingsFatalities as % of all accidents(excluding suicides)Year2004 2005 2006 2007 200848% 44% 55% 46% 44%Source: Rail Safety & Standards Board Annual Safety Performance Report 2008.(1) Len Porter, Chief Executive RSSB, quoted in Rail Magazine, 7-20 October 2009.(2) Rail Safety & Standards Board Annual Safety Performance Report 2008.(3) Rail Safety & Standards Board Annual Safety Performance Report 2008.(4) Rail Safety & Standards Board Annual Safety Performance Report 2008.(5) Paper to RSSB Board 13th December 2007 “Road-Rail Interface”.ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT12CHILTERN RAILWAYS
Page 1: Transport and Works Act 1992Transpo
Page 6 and 7: 1 INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION TO THE S
Page 8: 2 LEGAL TESTS IN RESPECT OF EXTINGU
Page 11 and 12: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT6
Page 13 and 14: REGIONAL POLICY3.4 The South East P
Page 15: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT1
Page 19 and 20: 4.14 The Rail Standards & Safety Bo
Page 21 and 22: 4.19 Network Rail, as the operator
Page 23 and 24: 4.27 A number of general comments w
Page 25 and 26: • Oddington Level Crossing - supp
Page 27 and 28: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT2
Page 29 and 30: Table 5.1:Chiltern Railways Biceste
Page 31 and 32: Sustrans National Cycle Route map a
Page 33 and 34: Yew Tree Farm [FP 318/2]5.23 This i
Page 35 and 36: 5.37 A site visit in July 2009 show
Page 37 and 38: COMPLIANCE WITH THE DISABILITY DISC
Page 39 and 40: London Road Level Crossing6.11 The
Page 41 and 42: 6.22 There are no footpath diversio
Page 43 and 44: 6.37 There are no footpath diversio
Page 45 and 46: CONCLUSION6.52 In summary there are
Page 47 and 48: Whether it is Reasonably Practicabl
Page 49 and 50: 7.15 The survey in June 2009 showed
Page 51 and 52: 7.30 The diversion will result in t
Page 53 and 54: 7.45 The diversion will result in t
Page 55 and 56: oad. The proposed diversion is only
Page 57 and 58: Name:Tubbs LaneOS Grid Ref: SP 5905
Page 59 and 60: Name:Langford Lane Level CrossingOS
Page 61 and 62: Name: Elm Tree Farm Number 1OS Grid
Page 63 and 64: Name:Wendlebury FootOS Grid Ref: SP
Page 65 and 66: Name:Oddington FootOS Grid Ref: SP
Page 67 and 68:
Name:Oddington Level CrossingOS Gri
Page 69 and 70:
Name:Oddington Number 5 CrossingOS
Page 71 and 72:
Name:Islip Level CrossingOS Grid Re
Page 73 and 74:
Name: Water Eaton Number 5OS Grid R
Page 75 and 76:
Name: Gosford and Water Eaton Numbe
Page 77 and 78:
Name: Gosford and Water Eaton Numbe
Page 80 and 81:
Annex CDescription of Public Rights
Page 82 and 83:
Location ofPublicCrossingsIslip Foo
Page 84 and 85:
Table D.1 Chiltern Railways Oxford
Page 86 and 87:
NORTH OF GAVRAY DRIVE [FP 129/3]Pho
Page 88 and 89:
LONDON ROAD LEVEL CROSSINGPhotograp
Page 90 and 91:
ELM TREE FARM NUMBER 1 [FP 398/6]Ph
Page 92 and 93:
BEEBONT BRIDLEWAY [BR 157/4]Photogr
Page 94 and 95:
YEW TREE FARM [FP 318/2]Photograph
Page 96 and 97:
ISLIP FOOT [FP 318/7]Photograph 21:
Page 98 and 99:
ISLIP LEVEL CROSSINGPhotograph 25:
Page 100 and 101:
GOSFORD AND WATER EATON NUMBER 10 [
Page 102 and 103:
Botom of kerbDROPICICPipePipeICIC I
Page 105:
100LOCATION OFFOOTBRIDGETrackLevel
Page 111 and 112:
CFMotelMastMastPeartree HillFarmSPC
Page 113 and 114:
#IA! B#ILangford Lane Level Crossin
Page 115 and 116:
!P#IQ#IIslip Level Crossing!#IR#I S
show all

Public Rights of Way Report - Chiltern Evergreen3

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?