Productivity Rail Study - Final Report

8/14/2019 Productivity Rail Study - Final Report

1/70

Nor th West Product iv i t y Rai l St udy

Final Report

Northwest Regional Development Agency

July 2008

In association with


2/70


3/70

North West Productivity Rail StudyFinal Report

Contents

Executive Summary 11 Introduction 12 Background 22.1 Introduction 22.2 Economic policies 32.3 Recent employment trends 42.4 NW RUS and rail trends 72.5 Likely future trends 92.6 Background on WEBs 112.7 Summary 123 Methodology 143.1 Schemes to be assessed 143.2 Agglomeration modelling 154 Results 234.1 Central scenario 234.2 Sensitivity tests 244.3 Summary 295 Transport Innovation Fund 316 Costs and deliverability 336.1 RUS Costings 336.2 Scheme Deliverability 346.3

NW RUS Schemes 35

7 Other schemes 397.1 Other NW RUS schemes 397.2 Stakeholder discussions 407.3 Future RUS documents 408 Conclusions 43Appendix 1 Assumptions register 45Appendix 2 Employment forecasts 48Appendix 3 References 49Appendix 4 Glossary 50

Tables

Table 3.1: RUS schemes included in CB modelling 14Table 3.2: RUS schemes excluded from CB modelling 15Table 3.3: Selection of NW productivity differentials 17


4/70


Table 4.1: Assumptions used in agglomeration modelling 23Table 4.2: Wider economic benefits in central scenario, m PV 23Table 4.3: Wider economic benefits with different growth scenarios, m PV24Table 4.4: Wider economic benefits in crowding sensitivity tests, m PV 25Table 4.5: Wider economic benefits in productivity sensitivity test, m PV26Table 4.6: Wider economic benefits in employment density sensitivity tests, m

PV 27Table 4.7: Wider economic benefits in elasticity sensitivity tests, m PV 28Table 4.8: Wider economic benefits in rail share sensitivity test, m PV 29Table 4.9: Wider economic benefits with further peak lengthening, m PV30Table 6.1: Scheme Estimations 34

Figures

Figure 2.1: Employment Density in the North West 2006, Railway lines shown ingrey 3

Figure 2.2: Employment in the North West 1991 to 2006, and scaled forecasts to2025 with a fitted linear trend through the history 5Figure 2.3: Employment in the North West 1991 to 2006 for Experian and ONS

data sources, Indexed to 2000 values 6Figure 2.4: Forecast growth for Manchester, Liverpool and Preston and each of

the North West sub-regions 7Figure 2.5: Geography of NW RUS 8Figure 2.6: Percentage change in rail trips between 1999-00 and 2004-05 9Figure 2.7: Ratio of commuting in-flows to out-flows 10Figure 3.1: Crowding Deterrence Function 16Figure 3.2: Process for calculating M2MPJ benefits 18Figure 3.3: Middle layer super output areas included within the analysis 20Figure 3.4: Process for calculating pure agglomeration benefit 22


5/70


6/70

2


The main recommendations that arise from this study are as follows:

The highest priority should be to provide increased rail capacity into

Manchester by lengthening peak trains this is the scheme with the highestWEBs. Our assessment, based on the NW RUS analysis of providing 47 additionalvehicles, shows that this would provide 23.3m of wider benefits over the appraisalperiod as a present value.

Further work should be undertaken to study the factors that will affect futurerail demand.Our assessment of the WEBs of peak lengthening may beconservative if rail captures a higher share of trips in the future. That seems likelygiven the constraint on highway capacity and possibility of congestion charging inManchester. Our sensitivity tests indicate that a comparatively small shift in modeshare to rail would lead to a case for further peak lengthening beyond that which isincluded in the RUS scheme.

Other schemes in the NW RUS that will lead to WEBs are those that increaseaccessibility between key central business districts (Manchester, Liverpool,Preston and Leeds). The scheme to provide additional platforms at Salford Centralalso performs well. WEBs are about providing links between high-productivity jobsso there needs to be a focus on connecting the key city regions. However, it isimportant not to overstate the case for WEBs of those schemes that providemodest time savings.

When looking at future scheme options, contenders for WEBs will be one of twotypes:

- Those that relieve capacity constraints into growing city centres- Those that link key CBDs within the region

Schemes that address capacity constraints will tend to perform better becausethey provide both a move to more productive jobs and pure agglomeration benefit.Those that increase accessibility between cities within the region are unlikely tohave a significant impact on the BCR of the scheme unless they offer a substantialreduction in average generalised costs of travel and have a high rail mode sharefor those trips. As a result the White Paper scheme to improve journey timebetween Liverpool and Manchester is likely to be strong in terms of WEBs.


7/70

1


1 In t roduc t ion

1.1.1 Colin Buchanan (CB) has been commissioned by the Northwest Regional DevelopmentAgency (NWDA) to investigate the wider economic benefits (WEBs) of rail schemes in theNorth West. The study has also been supported by the North West Regional Assembly(NWRA) and Network Rail (NR).

1.1.2 WEBs are playing an increasingly important role in transport appraisal. In 2005 theDepartment for Transport (DfT) issued guidance (Transport, Wider Economic Benefits,and Impacts on GDP, DfT 2005) outlining a methodology for quantifying and valuingagglomeration benefits the productivity benefits that arise from undertaking economicactivity in a dense area. The link between transport improvements and agglomeration isnow well recognised and CB has assessed which of the schemes that wererecommended in the North West Route Utilisation Strategy (NW RUS) may offer WEBs.

The focus is on passenger rail schemes rather than freight, since it is passengerschemes that are most closely related to agglomeration and several of the freightschemes recommended in the NW RUS are already being funded.

1.1.3 This study has been undertaken with Volterra Consulting. The rest of the report isstructured as follows:

Chapter 2: Background summary of relevant information on the NW economy, railissues and WEBs;

Chapter 3: Methodology used for calculating WEBs of NW rail schemes;

Chapter 4: Results of the agglomeration modelling and sensitivity tests;

Chapter 5: Transport Innovation Fund how a potential TIF bid for one of the NWschemes would need to be approached;

Chapter 6: Costs and deliverability an assessment of the feasibility of each scheme andany other enabling work that would be required;

Chapter 7: Discussion of other NW schemes that could offer WEBs; and

Chapter 8: Conclusions.

1.1.4 The Appendices provide more details on some of the assumptions used in the modelling,the employment forecasts available, references used and a glossary of terms.


8/70

2


2 Background

2.1 In t roduc t ion

2.1.1 The North West is a diverse region, from the National Parks of Cumbria to the hustle andbustle of central Manchester. The concentration of activity in the centre of the region isdemonstrated by considering the location of employment, as mapped in Figure 2.1.

2.1.2 Recent years have seen significant growth, with a resurgence of activity in central cityareas in particular. This has been driven by the growth of service industries locating in theaccessible centres of cities.

2.1.3 Economic policy in the region focuses on the need to support improved productivity,particularly by taking advantage of the growing city regions, and enabling the clustering of

activities.

2.1.4 Rail investment has an important role in this mix, since it enables large volumes of peopleto access central areas. In order to estimate what the value of rail investment is foreconomic growth we first need to understand the economic prospects of the region andthe challenges it faces.

2.1.5 This background section introduces the key issues, while further details of employmentforecasts are provided in Appendix 2.


9/70

3


Figure 2.1: Employment Density in the North West 2006, Railway lines shown ingrey

Bolton

Barrow-in-Furness

Whitehaven

Workington

Kendal

Penrith

ManchesterManchesterManchesterManchesterManchesterManchesterManchesterManchesterManchester

SalfordSalfordSalfordSalfordSalfordSalfordSalfordSalfordSalford

CarlisleCarlisleCarlisleCarlisleCarlisleCarlisleCarlisleCarlisleCarlisle

LancasterLancasterLancasterLancasterLancasterLancasterLancasterLancasterLancaster

PrestonPrestonPrestonPrestonPrestonPrestonPrestonPrestonPreston

LiverpoolLiverpoolLiverpoolLiverpoolLiverpoolLiverpoolLiverpoolLiverpoolLiverpool

ChesterChesterChesterChesterChesterChester

St. AsaphSt. AsaphSt. AsaphSt. AsaphSt. AsaphSt. AsaphSt. AsaphSt. AsaphSt. Asaph

Employment Density 2006Jobs per sq km

5,000 to 30,500 (22)

1,500 to 5,000 (164)

500 to 1,500 (318)

400 to 500 (58)

300 to 400 (70)

200 to 300 (71)

100 to 200 (82)

0 to 100 (114)

N.B. Numbers in brackets within the key denote the total number of Lower Layer Super Output areasthat fall within each category.

2.2 Economic po l ic ies

2.2.1 The most important document underpinning economic policy for the North West is theNorthwest Regional Economic Strategy 2006(NWDA 2006). It highlights the North

Wests output gap relative to the average for England, which is due to lower productivity(particularly in the service sector) and fewer people working per head of population.


10/70

4


2.2.2 The RES identifies three major drivers for closing the output gap: i) improving productivityand growing the market; ii) growing the size and capability of the workforce; and iii)creating and maintaining the conditions for sustainable growth. A series of actions arelisted that are linked to the drivers for growth. Of particular relevance for this study are thefollowing actions:

- Action 54: Capitalise on the strengths and key assets of the cities ofManchester, Liverpool and Preston as key drivers for city regional growth

- Action 67: Identify and deliver necessary capacity improvements to theManchester Rail Hub

- Action 69: Enhance public transport services between Liverpool /Manchester / Central Lancashire / Leeds / Sheffield

- Action 78: Secure improved public transport links between East Lancashireand employment growth potential in Manchester and Preston

- Action 80: Deliver the designated strategic regional sites as regionalinvestment sites, knowledge nuclei or intermodal freight terminals

2.2.3 Increasing transport capacity to overcome constraints into busy city centres can bringabout benefits that are additional to the benefits calculated in a conventional transportappraisal, as can an improvement in links between key central business districts (CBDs).This is explained in more detail later in the report. The actions listed above in the RESare designed to help bring about this process, thereby helping to reduce the NWs outputgap.

2.2.4 The output gap is also the key consideration of the Northern Way. The three NorthernRegions have produced combined strategies which particularly focus on the need todevelop the city regions and to ensure integrated transport between them and to keygateways including ports and airports across the regions.

2.2.5 On a more local level there are now City Region Development programmes for

Manchester, Liverpool and Central Lancashire, which include detailed economicstrategies and transport priorities.

2.3 Recent em ployment t rends

2.3.1 Employment in the North West has seen some dramatic changes in the past thirty years.Large employment losses until the early 1990s, mainly due to losses in manufacturing,have now been turned around with large gains, particularly in business and publicservices. The past decade has seen sustained growth in employment.

2.3.2 An examination of employment trends by sector is shown in Appendix 2.

2.3.3 A number of employment forecasts have been prepared for the North West region, and

these are also detailed in Appendix 2. These include two sets of forecasts from Experian.The first set (which dates back to 2005) was produced for the baseline to the RegionalEconomic Strategy and used to inform the Regional Spatial Strategy (which used acombined scenario). A second forecast was produced in May 2008. Additionally there arethe TEMPRO planning scenarios produced by the Department for Transport (DfT). At thetime that the RUS was produced TEMPRO 4 was being used, although a newer versionTEMPRO 5 is now available. All four forecasts are shown here as a comparison.

2.3.4 The forecasts appear to be very pessimistic in comparison with historic trends. Volterrahave therefore produced an economic projection based simply on the continuation ofhistoric trends, taking the lower of long term (since 1991) and medium term (since 1998)trends in each district in order to be conservative. This provides an opportunity toexamine what would happen if recent economic growth continues, and the role that rail

might have in this circumstance.


11/70

5


2.3.5 Figure 2.2 below compares the employment forecasts at a North West level, alongsidethe historic employment levels since 1991. The dotted line shows a fit through the longterm trend from 1991.

Figure 2.2: Employment in the North West 1991 to 2006, and scaled forecasts to2025 with a fitted linear trend through the history

2,000,000

2,200,000

2,400,000

2,600,000

2,800,000

3,000,000

3,200,000

3,400,000

3,600,000

3,800,000

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

ABI/AES History Volterra Conservative Experian Combined

Experian 08 TEMPRO 4 TEMPRO 5

Linear (ABI/AES History)

Sources: ABI, AES, Rescaled AES, Volterra, TEMPRO 4 and 5, Regeneris Evidence base for theRES and Experians May 2008 forecasts. Experian and TEMPRO forecasts have been scaled tomatch 2006 ABI employment levels. The dotted line shows a fit through the long term trend from1991.

2.3.6 It appears that part of the difference between the Volterra and Experian forecasts may bedue to the measurement of the historic employment levels in the region. Experian havetheir own historic data series of Full Time Equivalent jobs which shows higheremployment levels in the early 1990s. The Volterra linear trends use full time employmentfrom ABI and AES sources, which climb from a lower base, and therefore show strongerhistoric growth and imply that future growth is likely to be higher. The two data series are

compared in Figure 2.3.

2.3.7 Experian forecasts, however, are still below the rate of growth that would be implied by along time linear trend from 1991.


12/70

6


Figure 2.3: Employment in the North West 1991 to 2006 for Experian and ONSdata sources, Indexed to 2000 values

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

104

106

108

110

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Indexed Experian Indexed AES and ABI 2000 index

Sources: ABI, AES, Rescaled AES, Volterra, and Experians May 2008 forecasts.

2.3.8 At a local level there has been a range of experiences, with the big cities tending to growmore quickly than the region as a whole as they benefit from the changes in economicstructure. Figure 2.4 compares the forecast employment growths by district. The Experian

and TEMPRO forecasts do not seem to be as optimistic regarding growth in Manchester,Preston and (particularly) Liverpool as may be expected given recent trends. Localforecasts are shown in the Appendix.


13/70

7


Figure 2.4: Forecast growth for Manchester, Liverpool and Preston and each ofthe North West sub-regions

ABI BaseEmployment

(2005)Growth from 2005 to 2025

VolterraConservative

ExperianCombined

Experian2008

TEMPRO 4 TEMPRO 5

Manchester 303,682 23% 11%* 14% -14% 12%

Liverpool 226,017 21% 1%* 4% -3% 0%

Preston 92,454 33% 7%* 1% 18% 1%

Cumbria 201,005 26% -6% 4% 0% -13%

Lancashire 604,117 15% 7% -1% 2% 1%

GreaterManchester

1,163,718 15% 11% 11% 5% 10%

Merseyside 539,906 14% 1% 1% -2% -1%

Cheshire 479,028 21% 8% 1% 17% 10%

TOTALNorth West

2,987,774 16% 7% 5% 5% 5%

*Experian Combined forecasts only available at a sub regional level, district levels assumed equalto sub-region level growth rates

2.4 NW RUS and rai l t rends

2.4.1 The NW Route Utilisation Strategy is one of a set of RUS documents being produced byNetwork Rail. The aim of the RUSs is for:

the effective and efficient use and development of the capacity available, consistent withfunding that is, or is reasonably likely to become, available during the period of the RouteUtilisation Strategy and with the licence holders performance of the duty

2.4.2 The NW RUS covers the period 2007 to 2017. It is worth noting that it does not includethe whole of the North West. The area that is focused on in the RUS is broadly as shownin Figure 2.5 below. Manchester is a particularly important city within the geography ofthe NW RUS, with twelve of the thirteen corridors in the RUS serving either Victoria orPiccadilly station.


14/70

8


Figure 2.5: Geography of NW RUS

Source: Network Rail

2.4.3 For many of the potential schemes that are assessed in the RUS, a business case hasbeen produced and therefore the assumptions relating to future demand growth areimportant.

2.4.4 The version of the RUS that went out to consultation in 2006 contained a reference andalternative scenario, which forecast growth in passenger demand of approximately 6%and 14% over the ten year period of the RUS. Feedback from stakeholders

1during the

consultation led to those forecasts being revised upwards, since short-term trendsseemed to indicate that growth would be higher in the next few years. If this proves to bethe case there could be considerable strain on some parts of the rail network in the nextfew years, given the existing gaps.

2.4.5 Appendix A of the RUS provides useful information regarding the recent growth of raildemand. Figure 2.6 below shows the percentage change in rail trips between 1999-00and 2004-05. The data for this table was sourced from the LENNON database.

1Stakeholders included Northern Rail, TransPennine Express, English Welsh and Scottish Railway, Freightliner,

the Association of Train Operating Companies, Greater Manchester PTE, Merseytravel and the Department forTransport.


15/70

9


Figure 2.6: Percentage change in rail trips between 1999-00 and 2004-05

Source: NW RUS, Appendix A

2.4.6 Figure 2.6 shows that overall growth for the NW was 13% over the five-year period,equivalent to annual growth of approximately 2.5%. Trips to and from locations such as

Greater Manchester had higher growth than this, for instance trips from Merseyside toGreater Manchester increased by 39% and trips within Greater Manchester increased by24%. Trips between stations in the rest of the study area remained flat.

2.4.7 A direct comparison with national trends was not possible as national data from the samesource was not available. However, data published by the DfT (Transport Statistics GreatBritain 2007) indicates that overall trips in the UK increased by approximately 12% overthe same period, slightly lower than the average for the NW and well below the averagefor destinations such as Greater Manchester and Merseyside.

2.5 L ike ly fu tu re t rends

2.5.1 How strong is growth in city centre employment and the associated rail demand likely to

be? Are recent trends likely to continue, or is it more likely that growth will slowsignificantly as per the Experian and TEMPRO forecasts?

2.5.2 Rail demand in the region seems likely to continue to increase due to a combination ofpush and pull factors. The former relates to factors that may lead to people switchingmodes from e.g. car to rail; the latter refers to increasing employment in city centres andthe likely increase in rail demand that will result.

2.5.3 Evidence from a report2

by the Centre for Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures(SURF, 2006) suggests that pull factors will continue to be strong. The report identifiesManchester, Liverpool, Preston and Chester as four key nodes in the NW (and a fifthnode Leeds with important links to the NW), pointing out that Manchester and Leedsare:2Strengthening the Evidence Base of Key Economic and Spatial Strategies in the North West


16/70

10


amongst the best examples in the countryof extended urban areas that contain thedensity and mix of physical, institutional and cultural assets and the level of connectivitythat are necessary for creating and sustaining high level, knowledge-rich economicactivity. The Liverpool city-region shares a number of these characteristics, whilst theareas centred upon Chester and Preston, in different ways, exhibit substantial strengths,albeit on a smaller scale

2.5.4 The conclusion is that the five nodes will grow in importance in the future, and thateconomic and spatial strategies for the NW should focus on these nodes and theconnections between them.

2.5.5 Another issue drawn out by SURF is the increased propensity of professional workers tocommute long distances. Figure 2.7 is taken from the SURF report and shows the ratio ofcommuting in-flows to out-flows. A ratio greater than 1.0 means that there is a net in-flowof workers.

Figure 2.7: Ratio of commuting in-flows to out-flows

Source: SURF

2.5.6 Figure 2.7 shows that commuting in-flows of professionals are high for cities such asManchester, Preston and Liverpool. If these cities are to continue to attract workers into

high-skilled jobs, it therefore seems likely that the number of commuting trips will increasesignificantly, with rail accounting for at least some of this growth.

2.5.7 The tendency towards increased city centre employment is also reflected in the demandfor office space, which has increased significantly in Manchester recently by 20% in2007 according to a report by Colliers CRE

3, with the amount of occupied Grade A office

space increasing by 55% over the past two years. Similarly, the amount of office spacelet out in Liverpools central business district increased by 17% in 2007

4.

2.5.8 It is also worth noting the significance of Action 80 within the NW RES and the aim todeliver the strategic regional sites. Several of the sites that are described in the NWDAs

3http://www.choregus.co.uk/servicedoffice-blog/manchester-office-space-take-up-on-the-up-940.html

4http://www.ldpbusiness.co.uk/commercial-property-liverpool/commercial-property-news/2008/02/26/17-

increase-in-liverpool-s-lettings-in-2007-96026-20528153/


17/70


18/70

12


Greater potential for contact and knowledge sharing both informally via socialinteraction and more formally via conferences.

2.6.4 A process was developed whereby the productivity or agglomeration benefits couldbe quantified and valued. This was incorporated and updated in the DfT guidance notereferred to in paragraph 1.1.2.

2.6.5 The two key wider benefits are the move to more productive jobs and pureagglomeration; these are described below.

Move to more productive jobs (M2MPJ)

2.6.6 This benefit relates to the way in which a new transport scheme can relieve constraintson demand for travel into areas (typically city centres) where productivity is higher. Ifsome workers are able to access more productive jobs who previously could not due to atransport constraint, then the total output that they produce will be higher when they move

to the new job.

Pure agglomeration

2.6.7 In situations where there is a constraint on employment within a city for instance,crowding off of demand on peak period rail services due to insufficient capacity a liftingof that constraint will enable more workers to find employment in the central area of thecity, where productivity tends to be highest.

2.6.8 In itself, that move to more productive jobs is captured as M2MPJ (see above). However,it also brings about a further agglomeration benefit.

2.6.9 The reason for this is that moving more workers into the same area will deepen the

existing cluster of employment. As explained above, clustering of employment leads to anumber of productivity benefits (knowledge spillover effects, wider / deeper labour marketetc). Because of these reasons, the further clustering of employment causes the existingcity centre workers to become more productive. This latter effect is the agglomerationbenefit.

2.6.10 The definition of density is an important issue. When work on WEBs was initiallydeveloped, it was simply defined as employment density so if the number of city centreworkers increased by 10%, then the density of the city centre was increased by 10%.

2.6.11 Current guidance is based on effective density. As well as employment impacts, it alsotakes into account accessibility by including generalised costs in the calculation ofdensity. This means that, even if the distribution of employment remains unchanged, anincrease in effective density for a particular area could come about if it became easier for

jobs elsewhere to access that area. Pure agglomeration benefits can therefore also arisefrom transport schemes that lead to an increase in accessibility between certain areas.

2.7 Summary

2.7.1 A key part of achieving the vision set out in the NW Regional Economic Strategy will be toincrease average productivity levels. This will be best achieved by continuing the recenttrend of increased city centre employment.

2.7.2 Although there is inevitably uncertainty regarding future trends, it seems likely thatemployment growth will continue to be strong in cities such as Manchester and Liverpooland that commuting by car will become more expensive, time consuming and unpleasant.This is also likely to mean that recent strong growth in rail demand will continue. The right


19/70

13


type of transport scheme can help to support this growth and lead to agglomerationbenefits and the associated boost to productivity levels.


20/70

14


3 Methodology

3.1 Schemes t o be assessed

3.1.1 Our starting point was to make an assessment of which of the recommended schemesfrom Figure 5.2 of the NW RUS could and should be taken forward for a more detailedassessment of the wider benefits. Table 3.1 lists those schemes that have beenassessed in more detail in the rest of the report, and Table 3.2 provides a justification forexcluding the remaining RUS schemes. Some of the excluded schemes are discussed inmore detail in section 7.

Table 3.1: RUS schemes included in CB modelling

Scheme Impacts Wider Benefit provided

Peak lengthening Increases capacity of peak trains along anumber of corridors into Manchester andLiverpool (including Bolton, Calder Valley,Chat Moss, CLC, Hadfield, Marple andStalybridge). The RUS analysis assumes thatthe associated necessary platformlengthening is also undertaken.

Move to more productivejobs and pureagglomeration

Additional platformsSalford Central

Enables passengers from Liverpool to alightat Salford Central rather than continuing toManchester Victoria

Pure agglomeration

Through trains to SalfordCrescent

Improves connectivity between Leeds andSalford

Pure agglomeration

Chat Moss linespeed

6

Faster journeys between Liverpool andManchester Pure agglomeration

Liverpool-Manchester off-peak services

Increase from one to two trains per hourbetween Liverpool and Manchester on theChat Moss line

Pure agglomeration

Glossop trianglelinespeed

Slight improvement in performance of trainson Hadfield corridor

Pure agglomeration

Blackpool off-peakservices

Increase from 3 to 4tph in the off-peak, thusimproving generalised journey time betweenPreston and Manchester

Pure agglomeration

Line speed improvementManchester - Blackpool

Faster journeys between Preston andManchester

Pure agglomeration

Blackburn-Manchester

off-peak services

Increase from one to two trains per hour

between Blackburn and Manchester in theoff-peak

Pure agglomeration

3.1.2 The Blackburn-Manchester off-peak scheme is not amongst the recommended schemes

in Figure 5.2 of the NW RUS; however, NWDA requested that CB investigate this as aspecial case.

6The scheme assessed here is in line with that outlined in the NW RUS, although the time saving could be

higher as per the Government White Paper (which would lead to the journey time for Lime Street Oxford Roadbeing reduced to 30 minutes). The latter scheme would therefore lead to higher WEBs.


21/70

15


Table 3.2: RUS schemes excluded from CB modelling

Scheme Likely impact Reason for excluding fromWEBs modellingAirport station third platform Improved performance Scheme is already going ahead

Bootle branch W10Enable larger freight containers to

be accommodatedScheme is already going ahead

Olive Mount chord Increased freight capacity Scheme is already going ahead

Rainhill headway

Increased freight capacity This study is focusing on benefitsto passenger services rather than

freight

Remodel BuxtonIncrease freight capacity and

improve performanceDoes not impact on links between

key CBDs in the NW

East Manchester gaugeIncrease freight capacity and

improve performanceLargely a freight scheme rather

than affecting passenger services

East Manchester Route AvailabilityIncrease freight capacity and

improve performanceLargely a freight scheme rather

than affecting passenger services

CLC interchange with Metrolink atWhite City or Cornbrook

New station with Metrolinkinterchange, providing better links

with Salford Quays

This scheme could potentially offerwider benefits, but at present there

is insufficient transport data tomake a further assessment

Eccles integration with Metrolink

More trains calling at Eccles, andimproved interchange with

Metrolink

This scheme could potentially offerwider benefits, but at present there

is insufficient transport data tomake a further assessment

Develop Newton-le-Willows as aninterchange

Improved station and car parkingfacilities, improves journey quality

Does not impact on links betweenkey CBDs in the NW

Stalybridge interchange

Improved journey time through the

junction

Does not impact on links between

key CBDs in the NWEdgeley - Hazel Grove line speedincrease

Improved journey time Does not impact on links betweenkey CBDs in the NW

Extra off peak service Stalybridgecorridor

Increase off-peak frequency to3tph


Salford Crescent remodelling

Does not directly provide WEBs,but could act as an enabler forother schemes (see chapter 7)

Does not directly provide WEBs

Bolton additional platformImproved performance Insufficient scheme information

available

Guide Bridge interchange

Develop the station with suitablecar parking and station facilities to

use as a park and ride site


Chat Mo s electrificationsImproved journey time Insufficient scheme information

available3.1.3 We therefore have a shortlist of schemes that have been assessed for WEBs. The

method for undertaking the assessment is described in section 3.2.

3.2 Agg lomera t ion mode l l ing

3.2.1 Separate spreadsheet models were developed to calculate the benefits of the move tomore productive jobs (M2MPJ) and pure agglomeration. As indicated in Table 3.1, it isonly the combined peak lengthening scheme that has an M2MPJ benefit as it is the onlyone that increases capacity on busy peak trains. However, all of the schemes do have a

pure agglomeration impact.


22/70

16


Move to more productive jobs

3.2.2 The M2MPJ benefit is about overcoming crowding constraints that will enable people to

take jobs in central business districts where they will be more productive, thus increasingoutput. A key requirement is therefore to know what the level of crowding will be, with andwithout the proposed rail scheme.

3.2.3 In order to do this, we used the same base data (for year 2005/06) on lineloads that wasused in the NW RUS. This shows, for each train, the number of passengers boarding andalighting at each station.

3.2.4 Future demand was then obtained by applying the appropriate employment growth ratesfor demand at each station. Several different growth scenarios can be used, as outlinedin chapter 2. Our central scenario uses the TEMPRO 5 forecasts, as these are most likelyto be accepted by the DfT. However, as noted elsewhere in the report, there may well bea case for arguing that growth will be higher than forecast by TEMPRO.

3.2.5 Future demand was calculated for 2009 (the assumed opening year of the scheme), 2015and 2025.

3.2.6 Data on the capacity of the train was also available from Network Rail, and thereforecrowding levels for each train at each station were calculated, for the Do Minimum andDo Something scenarios.

3.2.7 Once crowding levels have been calculated, the extent to which trips are deterred bycrowding needs to be estimated, and therefore how much crowding off is relieved whencapacity is increased.

3.2.8 For our core estimate of WEBs, the approach has been to apply a crowding deterrencefunction (CDF). This is represented in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Crowding Deterrence Function


23/70

17


3.2.9 The CDF says that, up to a level of crowding of 100%, trips are not deterred and allpotential growth is achieved there is no crowding off. When crowding exceeds 100%,there begins to be crowding off of additional trips, such that when crowding reaches150% all trips are deterred.

3.2.10 We can therefore use the CDF to determine the number of trips that are crowded off inboth the Do Minimum and Do Something scenarios. Fewer trips are crowded off in the DoSomething, because of the extra capacity which reduces crowding levels to some extent.

3.2.11 The difference between crowding off in the Do Minimum and Do Something allows us,once trip patterns have been taken into account, to determine how many workers areable to move to more productive jobs in Manchester and Liverpool due to the crowdingconstraint being relieved.

3.2.12 To value the M2MPJ, it is necessary to know the difference in average productivity levelsbetween Manchester / Liverpool and the areas where those workers would have been

located if the crowding constraint had not been lifted7

.

3.2.13 Data on output per worker by district is not readily available. As a result, we have useddata on earnings from the Annual Survey of Hourly Earnings (ASHE), and applied anuplift to convert it into output per worker. The uplift is derived by taking the ratio betweentotal output and total earnings in the North West.

3.2.14 More on the specific productivity differentials can be found in the Appendix; however,Table 3.3 gives some examples of the values that have been used.

Table 3.3: Selection of NW productivity differentials

District Implied outputper head 2005

Relative toManchester

Manchester 43,729 0%Liverpool 35,660 -18%Salford 34,610 -21%Preston 34,595 -21%Bolton 33,078 -24%Blackburn with Darwen 32,865 -25%Wigan 32,020 -27%Blackpool 30,261 -31%Carlisle 28,798 -34%Burnley 28,692 -34%

3.2.15 The implication is that someone moving from a job in Bolton to one in central Manchesterwould, on average, produce additional output worth just over 10,000 a year.

3.2.16 Once this exercise has been undertaken for all the jobs moving from the various districts,the total amount of additional output is obtained. In line with DfT guidance, only 30% ofthis total can be claimed as a welfare benefit within the transport appraisal.

3.2.17 The process is summarised in Figure 3.2.

7Our analysis assumes that, if they are deterred from travelling to Manchester or Liverpool, workers will instead

work in their home district.


24/70

18


Figure 3.2: Process for calculating M2MPJ benefits


25/70

19


3.2.18 The benefit is calculated in 2009, 2015 and 2025 with straight-line growth assumed foryears in between. After 2025, there is assumed to be no further employment growth, sothe annual benefit is constant (except for the increase that comes about from annualproductivity growth).

Pure agglomeration

3.2.19 As pure agglomeration is related to changes in effective density determined by changesin employment and generalised costs of travel typically a detailed transport networkmodel would be used to model the impact of each scheme and this would feed into thepure agglomeration calculation.

3.2.20 However, that detailed level of modelling was not available for this study; we havetherefore set up our own simplified spreadsheet model.

3.2.21 The basis of the model is that the most important links are those between key central

business districts (CBDs). We have therefore included the following cities in the model:

- Manchester8

- Liverpool- Preston- Leeds (not in the NW but a key link with Manchester)- Blackburn (not perceived as a key CBD, but needs to be included in order to

assess the Blackburn Manchester off-peak scheme)

3.2.22 The first element of effective density is employment. Although we know the level ofemployment in each city, it is important to know how much of that is accounted for by theCBD. It is the CBD jobs that will benefit, in terms of agglomeration, by linking with CBDsin other cities.

3.2.23 To determine the size of the CBDs, our approach was to map employment by middlelayer super output area (MSOA) using ONS data. A series of minimum employmentdensities was tested, in order to calculate which level of density mapped most sensibly asa CBD (the most sensible level being one that leads to a cluster of super output areasincluded in the CBD, rather than lots of different super output areas scattered around thecity).

3.2.24 It was concluded that super output areas with an employment density greater than 5,000employees per square kilometre should be included as part of the CBD

9. The map

10in

Figure 3.3 represents the areas that are included, with super output areas marked in redforming the CBDs in Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool and Preston.

8For the two Salford schemes, the model is adjusted to take Salford into account.

9It should be noted that other parts of the NW do also have MSOAs with employment density of this magnitude

(e.g. Chester, Wigan and Lancaster), but they are not included as key CBDs within the model used for thisstudy.10

The map marks up MSOAs with a density over 8,000 employees per sq km rather than 5,000 as this preventsChester, Wigan etc from being marked on the map


26/70

20


Figure 3.3: Middle layer super output areas included within the analysis


27/70

21


3.2.25 The assumptions register in Appendix 1 shows the proportion of total employment that isaccounted for by the CBD in each case.

3.2.26 The second element of effective density is the generalised cost of travel. This needs to bedetermined for trips between each of the CBDs. A base matrix was therefore produced,expressing generalised costs in terms of time, and taking into account the followingfactors:

- walk time from the origin CBD to the origin station, and from the destinationstation to the destination CBD

- wait time at the station- in-train time- fare (converted into time by applying a value of time)

3.2.27 More information on the generalised costs is provided in Appendix 1.

3.2.28 The base employment and generalised costs are then used to calculate the Do Minimumeffective density. For each CBD this takes into account employment in other CBDs andthe generalised cost of travelling to each one. Our model also includes own-zoneemployment and generalised cost so, for instance, the effective density of Manchestertakes into account CBD employment in Manchester as well as Leeds, Liverpool, Prestonand Blackburn.

3.2.29 Do Something effective density is determined by:

- Do Something CBD employment: the only scheme where this differs fromthe Do Minimum is the peak lengthening one, as this is the only scheme thathas a M2MPJ impact.

- Do Something generalised costs: only the in-vehicle time element ofgeneralised costs varies in the Do Minimum. Information on this was

available from Network Rails MOIRA modelling of the schemes.

3.2.30 The next step is to calculate the percentage change in effective density for each CBD ineach scheme. The agglomeration elasticity is then used to determine the percentagechange in workers productivity as a result of the change in effective density.

3.2.31 Care needs to be taken when applying the increase in productivity, as it would not bevalid to apply it to all workers. As described above, it is only CBD workers who shouldbenefit from the increase in effective density. A further adjustment is that it is onlyworkers who use rail to access the other CBDs that should benefit. An assumption hasbeen made about rail share of trips and this is discussed in more detail as a sensitivitytest in chapter 4.

3.2.32 Unlike the M2MPJ, all of the increase in output as a result of the pure agglomeration can

be included as a welfare benefit. The overall process for calculating the pureagglomeration is summarised in Figure 3.4.


28/70

22


Figure 3.4: Process for calculating pure agglomeration benefit


29/70

23


4 Resul ts

4.1 Cent ra l scenar io

4.1.1 A large number of parameters within the modelling work can be altered, and the results ofdoing this are covered in the sensitivity tests, with a description of various parametersprovided in Appendix 1.

4.1.2 Table 4.1 shows the assumptions that have been used in the central scenario.

Table 4.1: Assumptions used in agglomeration modelling

Parameter / variable Value in central scenario SourceEmployment growth TEMPRO 5 growth rates DfT

Crowding off CDF function is used, with lowerlimit 100% and upper limit 150%

CB assumptions, discussionsat Steering Group meeting

Productivity growth 1.13% a year Volterra estimate of long termtrends

Agglomerationelasticity

0.125 Graham 2006

CBD employment CBDs are based on employmentdensity over 5,000 employeesper square kilometre

Volterra and CB calcs usingONS middle layer super

output area dataRail share of trips Assume 2001 levels throughout 2001 census journey to work

data

4.1.3 Table 4.2 shows the wider economic benefits of each scheme and compares this with theconventional transport benefits that were presented in the NW RUS. Unless otherwisestated, all values are presented as a Present Value over 60 years, discounted to the baseyear 2002.

Table 4.2: Wider economic benefits in central scenario, m PV

Scheme Transportbenefits

Widereconomic

benefitsPeak lengthening 323.3 23.3Blackpool Manchester linespeed 60.3 4.0

Additional platforms Salford Central 22.8 2.5Chat Moss linespeed 17.3 0.6Liv-Manc off-peak services (10-year appraisal) 3.8 0.4Blackpool off-peak service (10-year appraisal) 3.3 0.3Blackburn - Manchester off-peak (10-year appraisal) 2.6 0.3Glossop triangle linespeed 4.7 0.2Through trains to Salford Crescent 18.5 0.1

4.1.4 Table 4.2 shows that the peak lengthening scheme has the highest WEBs. This isunsurprising as it is the largest project and has an impact both on pure agglomerationand M2MPJ.


30/70

24


4.1.5 For consistency with the RUS, the WEBs of the three off-peak service schemes havebeen calculated over ten years rather than 60. A ten-year appraisal was used in the RUSas those schemes are not infrastructure ones where a longer appraisal period would beappropriate in line with DfT guidance.

4.1.6 Of the corridors that are covered by the peak lengthening scheme, by far the strongestperformers are Bolton, Calder Valley and Stalybridge. These corridors account for almost90% of the move to more productive jobs element of the WEBs for that scheme. Animportant reason for this is the extent to which additional capacity is to be provided ontrains on these corridors. The peak lengthening scheme involves the provision of 47additional vehicles in total. That total is made up of 21 trains being allocated oneadditional vehicle, and 13 trains being allocated two additional vehicles. The corridorslisted above account for eight of the 13 trains that receive two additional vehicles. Thisprovides a more substantial boost to reducing overcrowding and hence higher WEBs.

4.1.7 This indicates that there may be a case for further peak lengthening beyond that included

in the RUS. This is discussed in more detail in section 4.3.

4.2 Sens i t i v i ty tes t s

4.2.1 A series of sensitivity tests have been undertaken in order to understand the impact thatthey have on the results. These are outlined below.

Demand growth

4.2.2 The results in section 4.1 above are based on the forecast employment growth rates fromTEMPRO 5. Two other scenarios have been tested:

- Volterra scenario, based on long term employment trends since 1991

- Experian scenario, based on the forecasts that were produced for the NWRegional Economic Strategy 2006

4.2.3 Table 4.3 shows the results if those growth scenarios are used instead of TEMPRO 5.

Table 4.3: Wider economic benefits with different growth scenarios, m PV

Scheme WEBs incentral

scenario(TEMPRO 5)

WEBs inVolterra

scenario

WEBs inExperianscenario

Peak lengthening 23.3 55.3 26.1Blackpool Manchester linespeed 4.0 4.8 4.3

Additional platforms Salford Central 2.5 2.9 2.8Chat Moss linespeed 0.6 0.7 0.7Liv-Manc off-peak services (10-year appraisal) 0.4 0.4 0.4Blackpool off-peak service (10-year appraisal) 0.3 0.3 0.3Blackburn - Manchester off-peak (10-yearappraisal) 0.3 0.3 0.3Glossop triangle linespeed 0.2 0.2 0.2Through trains to Salford Crescent 0.1 0.1 0.1

4.2.4 The peak lengthening scheme has much higher WEBs in the Volterra scenario. This isdriven by the higher Manchester employment in the Volterra forecasts an overall

increase of 27% between 2001 and 2025, compared with 16% and 18% in the TEMPRO5 and Experian forecasts respectively.


31/70

25


4.2.5 The results for the other schemes are broadly similar. The M2MPJ is driven by the growthbetween Do Minimum and Do Something employment, but the pure agglomerationbenefit is related to total employment which is much more stable.

Crowding function

4.2.6 The central scenario assumes that the crowding deterrence function begins to take effectwhen crowding reaches 100%, and all growth is deterred when crowding reaches 150%.In reality the limits of the CDF could be different, so a variety of combinations of lowerand upper limit have been tested.

4.2.7 A different way to approach the issue of crowding off would be to follow the methodologysuggested in the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH). This suggests thata crowding penalty should be calculated for each train based on the level of crowding,and an elasticity then applied to determine the extent to which demand is crowded off. Acrowding off factor is then applied to all passengers on the train, regardless of whetherthey join the train at a point where crowding is very low.

4.2.8 It therefore seems likely that this method overstates the extent of crowding off;nonetheless, a test based on this approach has also been carried out. The results of allthe crowding tests are shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Wider economic benefits in crowding sensitivity tests, m PV


scenario

Lowerlimit

100%,upper

limit120%

Lowerlimit

100%,upper

limit180%

Lowerlimit

100%,upper

limit200%

Lowerlimit80%,

upperlimit

120%

Lowerlimit80%,

upperlimit

150%

PDFHmethod

Peak lengthening 23.3 38.9 16.8 14.6 55.9 37.6 392.4Blackpool Manchester linespeed 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0Additional platforms Salford Central 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5Chat Moss linespeed 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6Liv-Manc off-peak services (10-yearappraisal) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4Blackpool off-peak service (10-yearappraisal) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3Blackburn - Manchester off-peak (10-year appraisal) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3Glossop triangle linespeed 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Through trains to Salford Crescent 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.14.2.9 Changing the crowding function only affects the M2MPJ benefit, and therefore it is only

the results for the peak lengthening scheme that change with these tests. Table 4.4indicates that the WEBs for peak lengthening could be more than twice as high if thecrowding function is tightened such that the lower limit becomes 80% and the upper limit120%.

4.2.10 The result for the PDFH method test (the 392.4m reported in Table 4.4) probablyrepresents an unrealistic maximum. In reality, the demand factors that it produces shouldbe different because i) the elasticity is based on in-vehicle time rather than totalgeneralised time and ii) it seems unrealistic that demand will be crowded off even onparts of the route where crowding is low enough for all passengers to be seated.


32/70

26


Productivity growth

4.2.11 The central scenario assumes productivity growth of 1.13% a year, based on long term

trends. If more recent trends are used instead, this value would be 0.86%. Table 4.5shows the effect of changing the productivity assumption.

Table 4.5: Wider economic benefits in productivity sensitivity test, m PV


scenario(productivity

of 1.13% ayear)

WEBs withlower

productivity(0.86% a

year)

Peak lengthening 23.3 21.4Blackpool Manchester linespeed 4.0 3.7

Additional platforms Salford Central 2.5 2.3Chat Moss linespeed 0.6 0.6Liv-Manc off-peak services (10-year appraisal) 0.4 0.4Blackburn - Manchester off-peak (10-yearappraisal) 0.3 0.3Blackpool off-peak service (10-year appraisal) 0.3 0.3Glossop triangle linespeed 0.2 0.2Through trains to Salford Crescent 0.1 0.1

4.2.12 As would be expected, the reduced productivity growth does have a downward impact onthe WEBs, although not as significant as the effect of changing some of the other

parameters.

Size of Central Business District

4.2.13 As outlined above, the central case is based on the assumption that the CBD is made upof employment in areas where employment density is greater than 5,000 employees persquare kilometre.

4.2.14 Two further tests have been undertaken, whereby the CBD definition changes to i)greater than 8,000 employees per square kilometre; ii) 10,000 employees per squarekilometre. Table 4.6 shows the results for these tests.


33/70


34/70


35/70

29


Table 4.8: Wider economic benefits in rail share sensitivity test, m PV

Scheme WEBs incentralscenario

Railproportionof trips 2%

higher


higher


higherPeak lengthening 23.3 62.0 107.8 115.3Blackpool Manchester linespeed 4.0 4.5 5.3 6.5Additional platforms Salford Central 2.5 2.8 3.3 4.1Chat Moss linespeed 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0Liv-Manc off-peak services (10-yearappraisal) 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6Blackpool off-peak service (10-yearappraisal) 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5Blackburn - Manchester off-peak (10-year

appraisal) 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5Glossop triangle linespeed 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3Through trains to Salford Crescent 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

4.2.23 For the peak lengthening scheme it can be seen that the incremental benefit when the

proportion of trips is 10% higher as opposed to 5% higher is much smaller than when theshare moves from 2% to 5%. This is because demand is so high in the 10% higherscenario that the additional capacity does not do enough to ease crowding off.

4.3 Summary

4.3.1 The results in our central scenario show that several of the NW RUS schemes provideWEBs, with the peak lengthening scheme offering over 20m of additional welfarebenefits to the conventional transport appraisal.

4.3.2 The results are sensitive to changes to parameters within the models. In particular, thebenefits of the peak lengthening scheme could be much higher depending on theassumptions relating to i) the crowding function and ii) rail share of trips. It seemsparticularly likely that rail will have a higher share of trips in the future, given that there isunlikely to be a substantial increase in highway capacity over the next few years and thatlarge parts of the system already have high levels of congestion. DfT forecasts from 2007suggest that average highway delays will increase

12by 22% in the North West by 2015

(relative to 2003 levels), with average vehicle speeds decreasing by 3%.

4.3.3 It is certainly the case that the peak lengthening scheme is likely to have the highestWEBs as it plays an important role in addressing crowding constraints that prevent

workers from accessing jobs in key CBDs. Is there a case for going further and providingeven more additional capacity on those trains?

4.3.4 For the peak lengthening scheme, we tested the impact of adding one or two additionalvehicles to each train, further to the 47 additional vehicles that were recommended in theRUS. Table 4.9 below shows the impact on the WEBs of the scheme for a range ofscenarios.

12http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2007/february07/regionaltrafficforecast/regionaltrafficinformation. N.B. this

does not take into account the potential impact of TIF schemes.


36/70


37/70

31


5 Transpor t Innovat ion Fund

5.1.1 Guidance on the TIF13

(DfT 2006) was first published in 2006. The fund was set up tosupport regional, inter-regional and possibly local schemes that are beneficial to nationalproductivity. At that time a stream of funding from 2008-09 to 2014-15 was announced.Schemes were able to apply for either congestion or productivity TIF. The former ismainly about road pricing schemes whereas the P-TIF is applicable to a wider range ofschemes. The TIF guidance itself says:

Examples of schemes...having the potential to deliver significant productivity gains at thenational level include improved road or rail access to ports and airports of nationalsignificance which are important for international trade and promote competitiveness, andimproved inter-urban connections which have strong mobility and business cost reductionbenefits

5.1.2 Schemes that have been awarded P-TIF funding include the following:

- Gauge and capacity enhancements on the Gospel Oak Barking route inNorth London (18.5m, announced in July 2007);

- Gauge and capacity enhancements on the Peterborough Nuneaton freightroute (80m, October 2007);

- Gauge enhancement on the Southampton Nuneaton rail corridor (43m,October 2007);

- Capacity improvement on the link between the Humber Ports and the EastCoast Mainline (8m, October 2007); and

- Reinstallation of the Olive Mount Chord and works on the branch toLiverpool docks (1.7m, October 2007).

5.1.3 At present it is not clear whether P-TIF is going to continue to be an available source of

funding. Nonetheless, it does seem likely that the government will continue to supportschemes that can demonstrate that they provide productivity benefits.

5.1.4 The list above shows that it has principally been freight schemes that have beensuccessful with P-TIF. However, in theory any scheme that can demonstrate a goodtransport case, coupled with wider benefits as measured using the DfT guidance, shouldbe in a strong position to bid for government funding be it TIF or another source.

5.1.5 Typically a submission document when applying for TIF funding would be expected toprovide the following information:

- Introduction: outlining the objectives of the scheme and problems that itovercomes;

- Policy context: an assessment of which local and national governmentpolicies the scheme addresses;

- Scheme options: if appropriate, a demonstration that a number of optionshave been considered and justification for taking forward the selected option,detailing any necessary enabling works and overall scheme costs;

- Appraisal framework: an outline of the methodology used to calculatebenefits and costs in the appraisal, and a summary of the key assumptionsused;

- Transport appraisal results: a summary of the scheme benefits and costswith resulting BCR;

- Productivity benefits: a summary of the wider benefits that the schemeprovides (this may be quantitative, qualitative or both);

13Transport Innovation Fund: Guidance January 2006


38/70

32


- Combined appraisal results and sensitivity tests;- Timetable for delivery and consideration of risks to the scheme;- Funding summary: a demonstration that other sources have funding have

been considered and, where appropriate, how much of the scheme costs willbe funded by the alternative source; and

- Commercial arrangements.

5.1.6 Schemes would almost certainly need to be at a more advanced stage of developmentthan they are in the RUS documents in order to be successful with a TIF bid. The RUShas highlighted a number of schemes that are recommended to be investigated in moredetail. The cost and business case would need to be developed further. Similarly, thecase for showing that the scheme provides productivity benefits could be made strongerby developing a full network model that could be used as an input to the agglomerationcalculations.


39/70

33


6 Cost s and del iverabi l i t y

6.1 RUS Cost ings

6.1.1 The costings for schemes in the NW RUS are mostly Network Rail in-house estimates toGRIP level 0 or 1, although the Salford Crescent remodelling scheme has been costed toGRIP 2. At these levels, it is reasonable to expect that the costs reflect known unit costsfor track and signalling components. It is also reasonable to expect that the likely costsfor standard engineering solutions for changes to station platforms, bridges and otherstructures will be based on recent similar examples. However, taking rail engineeringprojects from the initial pre-feasibility assessment through option selection to design andimplementation is a costly, intensive and time consuming process which can often resultin significant changes to scheme costs.

6.1.2 CB has not assessed in detail the build up of costs assumed in the NW RUS. We havediscussed the costing approach with NR and are satisfied that standard methodologieshave been applied. We recognise that the nature of the RUS process and cost ofassessing options, feasibility testing and identifying preferred solutions demands anapproach that is fit for purpose and allows the benefits of schemes to be assessed inorder to allow the most effective solutions to be prioritised for further development.

6.1.3 We are abundantly aware that the forthcoming Manchester Hub Study will have asignificant impact on scheme development and implementation. While a number of theschemes reviewed here fall within the HLOS and will see commencement ofimplementation in Control Period 4 (CP4) between 2009 and 2014, any majorinfrastructure changes will fall under the Manchester Hub Study and will not be deliveredbefore CP5.

6.1.4 Table 6.1 summarises envisaged timescales for selected schemes and the estimatedcosts.


40/70

34


Table 6.1: Scheme Estimations

Scheme Estimated Time Scale for Scheme Estimated Cost (if available)for SchemePeak lengthening combinedscheme

HLOS commits some peak lengthening inCP4 i.e. in the next 2 years.At the route and service level, timescaledepends on extent of services to belengthened as that in turn determines thenumber of platforms, depots and stablingpoints which require physical work. Givenrecent rapid growth in demand, this schemeis the highest priority. A phased approachcould deliver some lengthened serviceswithin 2 years, with the aim of 2 further

phases to be completed by 2012.

HLOS identifies the need andprovides funding for additionalvehicles. Northern Rail, NRand DfT work underway toallocate the committedadditional vehicles to meetdemand growth.

Additional platforms atSalford Central

2-3 yrs 5-10m

Salford Crescentremodelling

2-3 yrs 15-20m

Through trains to SalfordCrescent

3 yrs, post Salford Crescent remodelling Opex approx 250-500k pa

Glossop triangle line speed 2-3 yrs 1-3mAdditional off-peak serviceto Blackpool

3 years, post Salford Crescent remodelling Opex approx 2m pa

Line speed improvementChat Moss

Potential for implementation in CP5 Cost dependent on preferredsolution, including whether theline is to be electrified and

whether speed is to be 90 or100mph. Approx 15-20m, butcould be up to 90m withelectrification.

Liverpool Manchesteradditional off-peak services

Likely to be subsumed within ManchesterHub project assessment but could bedelivered in 3-5 years

Opex approx 3m pa

Blackpool Manchesterlinespeed

Likely to be addressed in Manchester Hubproject assessment

3m

Blackburn Manchester off-peak services

Dependent on Salford Crescent remodellingand prioritisation within Manchester HubStudy. CP5

Opex up to 2m pa

6.2 Scheme Del iverabi l i t y

6.2.1 The RUS process involves consultation with stakeholders from an early stage. Theinvolvement of Local Authorities and Passenger Transport Executives as well as railindustry bodies including freight and passenger operators is designed to ensure thatschemes included in the RUS process have been considered before being put forward.Essentially, before consideration in the RUS context, the vast majority of schemes willhave been assessed at least in outline for the benefits that they are likely to provide andtheir deliverability. Many of the schemes considered through this process will have beenpromoted previously, in some cases over many years.

6.2.2 The NW RUS presents a number of recommended schemes, all of which are considered

to be deliverable by 2017. Although there will be particular issues relating to politicalsupport, the environment, planning consents and conservation none are expected to be


41/70

35


exceptional. Some schemes will have more local political support than others. The NRStrategic Business Plan(SBP) indicates which schemes can be funded in CP4, i.e.before 2014, but may not have included every scheme considered a local priority.Schemes not included in the SBP or RUS may have been excluded due to long leadtimes, rather than poor value for money or feasibility. The Manchester Hub study willdevelop a longer-term view of what rail infrastructure investment is required in andaround Manchester. This is intended to report in 2011 so as to inform HLOS2 and CP5investment plans.

6.2.3 Key issues which constrain deliverability, aside from availability of funding, can besummarised as follows:

Network impact can the existing network accommodate the new service withoutsuffering deterioration in functionality and performance? The rail network isnational and complex. A change to service pattern or network performance at onelocation can affect train paths and performance over a long distance.

Passenger capacity does the scheme create overcrowding on trains and atstations?

Disruptive engineering possessions can the scheme be implemented withminimal disruption to the existing rail service? Network Rail is moving towards aseven day operational railway meaning shorter possessions and therefore lessaccess.

Interaction with NR maintenance and renewals programme incrementaladjustments to signalling may, in many cases, be technically challenging if notundertaken while signalling renewal is taking place.

Planning processes is a Transport and Works Order required before the schemecan be implemented? The process is costly and time consuming, but not adeterrent to developing major schemes with significant benefits. The key issuehere is the timescale impact rather than absolute deliverability.

6.3 NW RUS Sc hem es

Peak Train Lengthening Combined Scheme

6.3.1 Lengthening existing services is technically and operationally feasible in that availablerolling stock types allow coupling to lengthen trains. Significant constraints could applyhowever:

- platform lengths across the network- capacity at terminating stations- depot and maintenance capacity.

6.3.2 The former can be resolved at many locations by extending the platforms to

accommodate the longest train formation, although this is not always straightforward.Some stations may be constrained due to having been built between two roadoverbridges, which prevent the platform being extended. Land ownership adjacent to therailway can also be an obstacle. Location of signals may in some cases mean that, evenif there is sufficient land available to lengthen the platform, the need to relocate signalscould have technical and cost implications which impair the business case.

6.3.3 A debate has taken place over a number of years regarding the feasibility of overlengthtrains serving short platforms. The safety culture in the UK rail industry is a significantobstacle, but Selective Door Opening on newer types of rolling stock may allow longertrains to serve shorter platforms, subject to safety approval.

6.3.4 Lengthening platforms or providing additional platforms at terminating points, in particular

Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Victoria and Liverpool Lime Street, is a majorconstraint. Platforms which will accommodate three trains of three vehicles will not hold


42/70

36


three trains of four cars. A further issue to consider is having a complex set of serviceswith varying train lengths; this can occasionally result in overlength trains being signalledinto platforms which are not long enough, causing delay and disruption.

6.3.5 The NW RUS assumes that Northern Rail will deploy 47 additional vehicles daily in theNorth West from around 2012. Exactly how the additional capacity is deployed will besignificant. To gain most effective use of the additional capacity, it may be appropriate tolengthen short distance local services rather than longer distance services, as this islikely to enable the longer trains to make more than one effective peak trip.

6.3.6 Increasing the size of the fleet may require remodelling of maintenance depots. If thecurrent Newton Heath depot, for example, is unable to stable more than the current fleetrequirement, it will be necessary to develop a maintenance and stabling strategy whichensures that trains are stabled at remote locations which may need investment inadditional secure facilities. Alternatively, additional depot infrastructure will be required.

6.3.7 Overall this scheme performs well in terms of WEBs and should be given the highestpriority of the schemes assessed. It is the only NW RUS scheme that leads to anincrease in rail capacity in the peak period and therefore relieves crowding for commuterstravelling into Manchester.

Additional platforms at Salford Central

6.3.8 There is an opportunity to provide two additional platforms on the Liverpool (Chat Moss)lines with the option of a new curve to connect Victoria to Piccadilly at grade, as identifiedin work produced for the Northern Way. This latter scheme was primarily aimed atremoving TPE services from Manchester Piccadilly throat to resolve junction conflicts.Salford Central is adjacent to the Spinningfields employment area so enhancing accessby rail at Salford Central opens up the employment market to passengers from Liverpool

and points along the Chat Moss Lines.

6.3.9 Although this scheme is not strong in terms of meeting government targets to increasecapacity and improve reliability and safety, there may still be a case for considering itgiven the WEBs that it is likely to provide.

Through trains to Salford Crescent

6.3.10 If a bay platform were built at Salford Crescent, this would allow a current Caldervaleservice to run through instead of terminating at Manchester Victoria, with a consequentialeasing of capacity at Manchester Victoria. This would have a performance benefit to NRand Northern Rail. It is likely that this scheme could be delivered with minimal disruptivepossessions.

6.3.11 The scheme has the lowest WEBs out of all those that were assessed and would need tobe justified on other grounds.

Glossop triangle linespeed

6.3.12 The current twenty minute service interval on the Glossop / Hadfield line is difficult totimetable without causing conflicts with the fifteen minute interval TPE service at GuideBridge and Piccadilly. Resolving this by moving to a fifteen minute interval to Glossop andHadfield has performance benefits.

6.3.13 The existing infrastructure and method of operation on the Hadfield Line, especially in thevicinity of the Dinting triangle, makes a fifteen minute pattern of services impossible.

Northern and Network Rail believe that there may well be a solution involving changes to


43/70

37


both methods of operation and infrastructure. For example alterations to the speeds andsignalling in the Dinting area that would allow a fifteen minute pattern for peak serviceson the Hadfield line.

6.3.14 The results in chapter 4 indicate that this scheme provides low WEBs; 0.2m over 60years. This is because the average time savings are comparatively low.

Additional off-peak service to Blackpool

6.3.15 This service should be assessed for operational and performance impacts throughout.Capacity on the route between Salford Central and Preston may not be a major concern,but interaction with services in Manchester and at Preston will need careful assessment,including performance modelling.

6.3.16 Table 4.2 shows that the WEBs for this scheme are relatively modest (although a 10-yearappraisal period has been used) and it is unlikely that it should be a high priority in terms

of WEBs.

Linespeed improvement Chat Moss

6.3.17 Improving journey times between Liverpool and Manchester was identified in the HLOSas a high priority. Achieving a 30 minute non-stop journey time from Liverpool Lime Streetto Manchester Oxford Road via the Chat Moss Line would generate much higher WEBsthan the Chat Moss linespeed scheme that has been assessed for the results in Chapter4 since the latter offers a comparatively small reduction in average generalised journeytime.

Liverpool-Manchester additional off-peak services

6.3.18 A thorough assessment of capacity and performance of the infrastructure and rollingstock options will be required to establish the case for additional off peak services. It isunlikely that additional services outside the peak will require investment in infrastructureor rolling stock.

6.3.19 One major issue affecting the ability to operate additional services is constrained capacitybetween Manchester Piccadilly platforms 13/14 and Oxford Road. While not included inthe NW RUS, a scheme to re-route Freightliner trains to and from Trafford Park wouldease this capacity constraint. A possible solution could be to reinstate the disused linkfrom Glazebrook via Culcheth to the Chat Moss Line. It would enable trains from TraffordPark to access the West Coast Main Line at Earlstown as well as gaining rapid access tothe key Trans Pennine freight corridor between Liverpool, Manchester and the North

East. Further assessment of this option should be included within the remit for theManchester Hub Study. Liverpool and Manchester are two of the key city regions in theNorth West so providing improved accessibility between the two is likely to be beneficial.

Blackpool Manchester linespeed

6.3.20 The proposed scheme to improve linespeeds between Blackpool and Manchester in theNW RUS is comprised of several elements. Our WEBs assessment is based on the partof the scheme that would raise the overall speed to 90mph between Manchester andEuxton Junction. This is a strong scheme that is likely to be developed further; it improvesaccessibility between Manchester and Preston and hence has relatively high WEBs.


44/70

38


Blackburn Manchester off-peak

6.3.21 There is currently a service running from Clitheroe to Manchester via Blackburn that

consists of one train into Manchester in the morning peak and one train out ofManchester in the evening peak. Adding off-peak services will increase business tobusiness accessibility and deliver WEBs, albeit on a modest scale. It should be noted thatone of the factors driving the WEB results is the rail share of trips for journeys. Thesource used for this is census journey to work data which puts the Blackburn Manchester rail share at 25%. However, the census data is largely a peak period value;the off-peak rail share is likely to be lower than this

14and hence the WEBs would also be

lower.

6.3.22 There would also be an increased performance risk if extra trains were introduced as theygo over the single line Bolton to Blackburn section. Having just the two trains per daymeans that the timetable has time to recover however additional trains could increasereactionary delay throughout the day.

14This is an issue that could also affect the WEBs of some of the other schemes, although as indicated in Table

A 1 Blackburn Manchester has the highest rail share from the peak data used.


45/70

39


7 Ot her schemes

7.1 Other NW RUS sc hem es

7.1.1 Many of the schemes recommended in the NW RUS have been excluded from this studybecause it is felt that they are unlikely to offer significant WEBs. However as outlined inTable 3.2, there are two schemes that may lead to WEBs but have not been assesseddue to a lack of available information at present. These are as follows:

- Chat Moss Option 7: Eccles interchange with Metrolink- CLC Option 2: Cornbrook or White City new station and interchange

7.1.2 The Eccles interchange scheme would have two main impacts:

- improve Eccles as an interchange with better DDA access, facilities and

signage- more trains would stop at Eccles

7.1.3 This would lead to improved access to Salford Quays, which is becoming an increasinglyimportant employment area. There would therefore be an increase in effective density forSalford and corresponding increase in productivity.

7.1.4 An increase in effective density for Liverpool may also be expected, although anycalculations would need to be careful when taking into account i) the number of tripsaffected; ii) the negative impact on journey times for through passengers travelling toManchester.

7.1.5 The second Metrolink scheme would create an interchange between trains on the CLCcorridor and Metrolink services. The two sites considered are i) adjacent to the Metrolink

station at Cornbrook; ii) further west at White City.7.1.6 In terms of WEBs, the Cornbrook option would probably be stronger as it offers better

connections providing a link with Salford Quays, Altrincham and (after theimplementation of phase 3B of Metrolink) Manchester Airport without passengers havingto travel in to central Manchester and back out again. However, it is considered thatconstruction would be easier for the White City option.

7.1.7 There may potentially be slightly longer journey times for some trains, and this wouldneed to be taken into account in a calculation of potential WEBs. It is recommended inthe RUS that business case work for this scheme could be developed once furtherempirical evidence is available (e.g. from the Eccles interchange scheme).

7.1.8 Another scheme recommended in the RUS is to remodel Salford Crescent. It may be

possible to relocate the station to Frederick Road to provide four longer platforms. Theexisting island platform is too short for the six-car Transpennine trains which currently callthere. There is a case for investment of 25m at Salford Crescent to capture significantperformance benefits as well as the benefits of access to employment. The disbenefit tothe University of relocating the station away from the campus is a significant stakeholderconcern. Other options will also be considered that better address those concerns.

7.1.9 While the remodelling of Salford Crescent station is a significant scheme, it appears to bea technically sound project. The possession plan and alternative service arrangementsduring construction will need careful staging to ensure that disruption is kept to aminimum. The scheme has not been assessed for WEBs; however, it will act as anenabler for other schemes including the Blackpool off-peak service and through trains toSalford Crescent.


46/70

40


7.2 Stakeholder d iscuss ions

7.2.1 As part of the study, CB met with some of the NW RUS stakeholders to seek their views

on the relevant rail issues. Some of the points that arose were as follows:

Metrolink is becoming increasingly important within Manchester; the central areaof the city is expanding beyond the Manchester district itself and so people areincreasingly making multi-leg journeys to get to work rather than being able to walkto work from a central station. This also helps to highlight why the Metrolinkinterchange schemes outlined above may be useful.

A high priority for Manchester is to lengthen peak trains and enable the associatedplatform lengthening, since there is crowding on many parts of the GreaterManchester network and hence additional trips are either being made by road (thusadding to traffic congestion) or suppressed altogether.

Providing four trains per hour between Manchester & Leeds and Manchester &

Liverpool as per the Network Rail Business Plan is viewed as very important. Thisis considered to be a significant constraint on development in the NW and wouldtherefore have a major impact on the economy of North England.

Off-peak capacity was also highlighted as an important issue for Liverpool, inparticular on the City Lines. In particular the Liverpool Wigan route via St HelensCentral is very busy.

7.2.2 The 4tph schemes would be very likely to offer WEBs. They would lead to both anincrease in capacity and accessibility (by reducing generalised journey times) betweenkey CBDs. We would recommend that WEBs for these schemes are explored in thefuture.

7.2.3 Off-peak capacity schemes can also provide WEBs, as shown in the results for this

report. However it is important to focus on those schemes that provide a link between keyCBDs. Improving the Liverpool Preston link would provide WEBs and there could alsobe a case for improving accessibility to Wigan.

7.3 Fut ure RUS docum ents

7.3.1 Our brief was to assess the schemes recommended in the NW RUS; however, it isrecognised that there are a number of other proposed rail schemes in the North West thatcould also lead to wider economic benefits. The NW RUS identifies additional schemesthat will need to be revisited at an appropriate defined point in the future, and the RUSsfor Merseyside / Lancashire & Cumbria / West Coast Main Line / Yorkshire / Wales willhave further relevant schemes.

Merseyside RUS

7.3.2 Work is currently ongoing on the Merseyside RUS. It will cover the following routes:

- New Brighton, West Kirby, Chester and Ellesmere Port to Liverpool JamesStreet via Liverpool Central (Wirral Line)

- Hunts Cross to Southport, Ormskirk and Kirkby via Liverpool Central(Northern Line)

- Liverpool James Street to Liverpool Central (stock interchange line)- Aintree to Bootle Junction (North Mersey branch)

7.3.3 The RUS will review two issues addressed by other RUSs, mainly to ensure consistencywithin the Merseyside RUS:

- peak crowding on the City Lines out of Liverpool Lime Street; and


47/70

41


- connectivity between Liverpool and Preston.7.3.4 Improving connectivity between Liverpool and Preston would be likely to be a strong

contender for WEBs due to the increase in productivity arising from increased effectivedensity. Overcoming peak crowding out of Lime Street may also provide WEBs, althoughmore would need to be known about destinations of affected trains and the extent towhich it would be valid to claim a benefit in terms of a move to more productive jobs.

Lancashire and Cumbria RUS

7.3.5 The Lancashire and Cumbria RUS is currently at consultation stage. Although many ofthe schemes are likely to be about social deprivation-related gaps rather than schemesthat will lead to agglomeration, there are still some schemes that will address Liverpool Preston connectivity that could be suitable for WEBs.

Chat Moss electrification7.3.6 Only 40 per cent of the UK rail network is electrified. Tough emission targets for diesel

engines will come into force in 2012 and this, along with concerns over the future cost offuel, may provide a stronger business case for further electrification. The DfT have saidrecently that they see great potential for a rolling programme of electrification

15,

recognising that electric trains can offer additional carrying capacity and improvedpassenger comfort compared to diesels. In this context, they have set up a cross-industryworking group to re-examine the business case for electrification and agree priorityschemes.

7.3.7 In 2005, Merseytravel commissioned a pre-feasibility study on electrification betweenLiverpool and Manchester

16. The study found that a number of routes would be feasible,

with connections between Edge Hill and Earlestown and Newton-le-Willows to Castlefield

junction (i.e. the Chat Moss line) offering the strongest potential advantages. This isparticularly given the forthcoming expiry of local train operator leases for diesel multipleunit stock. The study estimates that electrification could cost around 2m per double trackkilometre with the Chat Moss route costing around 87m taking into account that someshort sections of the route are already electrified.

7.3.8 Electrification of the Chat Moss route would enable faster journey times to be achievedand would allow alternative train service patterns to be developed, including linkingLiverpool to the West Coast

Productivity Rail Study - Final Report

Documents

Transcript of Productivity Rail Study - Final Report