Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC

Value for Money Case 2011

August 2011

DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET BPP 04 F8

Client: Coventry CC / Centro Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Project: Job No: B1152700 Upgrade MSBC Document Title: Value for Money Report 2011

Originator Checked by Reviewed by Approved by

ORIGINAL NAME NAME NAME NAME G Smith R Middleton G Smith R Middleton DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE August 2011

Document Status: Draft Final Report

ORIGINAL NAME NAME NAME NAME

DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

ORIGINAL NAME NAME NAME NAME

DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

Document Status:

ORIGINAL NAME NAME NAME NAME

DATE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE SIGNATURE

Document Status:

This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs Consultancy UK Ltd (“Jacobs Consultancy”) in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs Consultancy’s contract with the commissioning party (the “Client”). Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs Consultancy. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs Consultancy.

Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs Consultancy at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs Consultancy has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs Consultancy for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs Consultancy will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document.

This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs Consultancy, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this document. Should the Client wish to release this document to a third party, Jacobs Consultancy may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that (a) Jacobs Consultancy’s written agreement is obtained prior to such release; and (b) by release of the document to the third party, that third party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against Jacobs Consultancy and Jacobs Consultancy, accordingly, assumes no duties, liabilities or obligations to that third party; and (c) Jacobs Consultancy accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Jacobs Consultancy’s interests arising out of the Client's release of this document to the third party.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1

2 BACKGROUND TO THE SCHEME 2 2.1 Background 2 2.2 Scheme Objectives 3

3 CURRENT SERVICE AND PASSENGER DEMAND 4 3.1 Existing Rail Service 4 3.2 Base Rail Demand 4 3.3 Recent Growth in Base Rail Demand 7

4 MODELLING APPROACH 8 4.1 Introduction 8 4.2 Scheme Elements 8 4.3 Available Models 9 4.4 Summary of Modelling and Appraisal Approach 14

5 MODEL DEVELOPMENTS AND APPLICATION 16 5.1 Introduction 16 5.2 Base Year Model Adjustment 16 5.3 Future Year Forecast Matrices 19 5.4 Future Year Networks 23 5.5 Future Year Forecasting Assumptions 39 5.6 2031 Model Convergence Issue 41

6 DEMAND AND REVENUE FORECASTS 44 6.1 Introduction 44 6.2 Annualisation Factors 44 6.3 Base and Do-minimum Model Passenger Forecasts 46 6.4 Do – Something Model Forecasts 48

7 ANALYSIS OF PASSENGER DEMAND 54 7.1 Summary Annual Demand Forecasts 54 7.2 Comparison of New Station Flows with Existing Stations 54 7.3 Impact on Mode Shares 55 7.4 Explanation of the Rail Demand Increase 59

8 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS 61 8.1 Introduction 61 8.2 Capital Costs 61 8.3 Operating Costs 62 8.4 User Benefits 62 8.5 Non – User and External Benefits 66

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011

8.6 Economic Appraisal 71 8.7 Next Best Alternative 73 8.8 Low Cost Alternative 74 8.9 Wider Economic Impacts 74 8.10 Sensitivity Tests 80

9 NATA ASSESSMENT 85 9.1 Introduction 85 9.2 Environment 85 9.3 Safety 98 9.4 Economy 100 9.5 Accessibility 103 9.6 Integration 105 9.7 Supporting Analysis 110

10 CONCLUSIONS 111 10.1 Appraisal Summary 111 10.2 Value for Money 111

APPENDIX A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS 112

APPENDIX B APPRAISAL SUMMARY TABLE (AST) 121

APPENDIX C TEE, AMCB AND PA TABLES 124

APPENDIX D APPRAISAL COST SUMMARY SHEET 128

APPENDIX E AFFORDABILITY AND FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY 129

APPENDIX F OTHER NATA WORKSHEETS 130

APPENDIX G DESIRE LINE DIAGRAMS 133

Table 1 Existing Timetable 4 Table 2 Summary of Approach to Modelling Key Scheme Impacts 14 Table 3 Comparison of RPA counts to 2009 Observed Counts 16 Table 4 Calibration/Validation Results of Rail Flows Coventry – Nuneaton 19 Table 5 2016 Fares Matrix 35 Table 6 Preferred Scheme Timetable (Half-hourly) 36 Table 7 2016 Generalised cost weightings 40 Table 8 2031 Generalised cost weightings inter peak 40 Table 9 PT Assignment Parameter Value of Times 40 Table 10 2016 Mode Choice VOT parameters 41 Table 11 2031 Mode Choice VOT parameters 41 Table 12 TUBA results for Successive Iterations (£000’s) 42 Table 13 Annualisation Factors 45 Table 14 Public Transport Journey Purposed by Time Period (2008) 45 Table 15 2008 Weekday Additional Passenger Forecasts (2-hour periods) 46 Table 16 2008 Base Annual Passenger Forecast 46 Table 17 2016 Do-Minimum Weekday Passenger Forecasts (2-hour periods) 47 Table 18 2016 Do Minimum Annual Passenger Forecast 47 Table 19 Historical West Midlands Rail Patronage Growth 48

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011

Table 20 MOIRA Model Forecasts of Long Distance Impacts 48 Table 21 Bedworth Existing and Future Long Distance Trips 49 Table 22 Forecast Long Distance Trips for New Stations 49 Table 23 Events Traffic Forecast 50 Table 24 2016 Do Something Weekday Passenger Forecast (2-hour periods) 51 Table 25 2016 Do-Something Visum Model Annual Passenger Forecast 52 Table 26 2016 Long Distance and Arena Event Trips 52 Table 27 2016 Combined Annual Passenger Forecast 52 Table 28 2016 Additional Annual Passenger Forecast (DS – DM) 53 Table 29 Summary Annual Demand Forecast 54 Table 30 Comparison of Demand Forecasts with Existing Stations 55 Table 31 Mode Share Analysis - Screenlines 56 Table 32 Capital Costs (1st Quarter 2011) 62 Table 33 Annual Additional Operating Costs (1st Quarter 2011) 62 Table 34 User Benefits Weekday Trips 63 Table 35 Time Benefits by Size of Time Saving (‘000s of person hours) 63 Table 36 Monetised Time Benefits by Size of Time Saving (£k) 64 Table 37 Benefits of Increased Physical Activity (Mortality Benefits) 65 Table 38 Estimation of Reduced Absenteeism Benefits 66 Table 39 External Costs of Car Use (Non-user benefits) rates / values. 68 Table 40 Forecast increase in Highway Delays (Southbound) 68 Table 41 Greenhouse Gases Impact Calculations 70 Table 42 Economic Appraisal – Preferred Scheme 73 Table 43 Economic Appraisal – Next Best Alternative 73 Table 44 Economic Appraisal – Low Cost Alternative 74 Table 45 Checklist for Wider Impacts Assessment 75 Table 46 Quantified Wider Economic Benefits (£k PV). 79 Table 47 Economic Appraisal with Wider Economic Benefits 79 Table 48 Sensitivity analysis results 80 Table 49 Calculation of High Growth Test Factors 81 Table 50 Calculation of Low Growth Test Factors 81 Table 51 Sensitivity Test Results 82 Table 52 Estimated Reduced Pollutant Emissions 86 Table 53 Journey Ambience Impact Worksheet – Preferred Option 98 Table 54 Station Catchment Population (2001 Census) 104 Table 55 Accessibility – Severance Worksheet 105 Table 56 New Station Catchments Proportion of non-car owning households 105 Table 57 Assessment of Change in Passenger Interchange 107 Table 58 Integration – Other Government Policy Worksheet 109 Table 59 Development Sites 112 Table 59 Model Year Assumptions 117

Figure 1 Coventry – Nuneaton Corridor 2 Figure 2 Coventry – Nuneaton Line within the Rail Network 3 Figure 3 Key Existing Passengers Flows 5 Figure 4 Comparison of Loadings between Nuneaton and Bedworth 5 Figure 5 Comparison of Loadings between Bedworth and Coventry 6 Figure 6 Comparison of Loadings between Coventry and Bedworth 6 Figure 7 Comparison of Loadings between Bedworth and Nuneaton 7 Figure 8 Passenger Growth March 2007 – September 2010 7 Figure 9 Scheme Elements and Impacts 8 Figure 10 Public Transport Network 10 Figure 11 Coventry PT Visum Model Zones 10 Figure 12 Bus and Rail Passenger Loadings 2008 AM Peak 11 Figure 13 Highway Model network 12

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011

Figure 14 Demand Forecasting and Appraisal Process 15 Figure 15 Difference Plot of PT AM network with adjusted matrices and Original 2008 PT Model 17 Figure 16 Difference Plot of PT IP network with adjusted matrix 18 Figure 17 Difference Plot of PT PM network with adjusted matrix 18 Figure 18 Future Matrix Development Process 20 Figure 19 Difference Plot of 2031 and 2016 AM PT Matrices (Methodology 1) 22 Figure 20 Difference Plot of 2031 and 2016 AM PT Matrices (Methodology 2) 23 Figure 21 Friargate Site Location 24 Figure 22 Arena Park Revised Traffic Junction 24 Figure 23 Ring Road Junction 1 Changes 25 Figure 24 Ring Road Junction 1 Changes 25 Figure 25 Browns Lane Proposed Scheme 26 Figure 26 A444 Phoenix Way and Foleshill Road Hamburger Roundabout 26 Figure 27 A46 Binley Woods Roundabout Signalisation 27 Figure 28 Blue Ribbon Park Development Plans 27 Figure 29 M6 J2 Improvement Scheme 28 Figure 30 Griff Roundabout Signalisation Scheme 29 Figure 31 Walsgrave Hospital Development Scheme Plan 30 Figure 32 Paragon Park Scheme 31 Figure 33 Tollbar End Junction Improvement 32 Figure 34 2016 AM Peak Highway Network Flows 33 Figure 35 2031 AM Peak Public Transport (Bus) Network Flows 33 Figure 36 2016 AM Peak Highway Network Stress Links 34 Figure 37 Coventry Arena Station Model Coding 37 Figure 38 Walk Links within one km radius of Coventry Arena Station 37 Figure 39 Comparison of 2008 Base and Do Something Network at Coventry Arena Station 38 Figure 40 Bermuda Park Station Model Coding 38 Figure 41 Walk Links within one km radius of Bermuda Park Station 39 Figure 42 Comparison of 2008 Base and Do Something Network at Bermuda Park Station 39 Figure 43 2031 Do-minimum Choice Model Convergence results 43 Figure 44 Screenlines for Mode Share Analysis 57 Figure 45 Coventry Arena Station Catchment 58 Figure 46 Bermuda Park Station Catchment 58 Figure 47 2016 AM Do Minimum Peak Highway Volume / Capacity 69 Figure 48 Functional Urban Area Coventry / Nuneaton and Bedworth 75 Figure 49 Transport Model Zone Correspondence 77 Figure 50 WITA Zone Correspondence 78 Figure 51 WITA Local Authority District Zones 78 Figure 52 Trip Distribution Model Impact in the AM Peak. 84 Figure 53 Trip Distribution Model Impact in the Inter Peak. 84 Figure 54 Security Indicators for Public Transport Passengers 99 Figure 55 Change in Accessibility to Coventry City Centre 101 Figure 56 Change in Accessibility to Coventry Arena. 102 Figure 57 Change in Accessibility to Bedworth Station 102 Figure 58 Change in Accessibility to Bermuda Park 103 Figure 59 Change in Accessibility to Nuneaton 103 Figure 60 800m and 2km Station Catchments 104

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

This section presents the economic appraisal of the Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade and the wide appraisal of the scheme in accordance with the Governments Guidance for Major Public Transport Schemes. The economic appraisal has been undertaken in accordance with the Department for Transport’s Appraisal Guidance (WebTAG) including the Rail Appraisal Guidance. The approach and methodology was influenced by the scheme objectives and anticipated impacts and the available data and models. The appraisal required;

• Demand and revenue forecasts for the impacts of the new stations and frequency increase;

• Estimation of transport user benefits, non-user benefits and wider impacts;

• Estimation of performance impacts;

• Estimation of capital and operating costs and cost benefit analysis to determine economic value for money within the NATA appraisal

The demand and revenue forecasts need to take account of the integration of the improved rail line and stations within the public transport network between Coventry and Nuneaton. In addition, the scheme will have wider benefits through improving connectivity between Coventry and Leicester and beyond. The benefits of improving accessibility to Ricoh Arena and the implications for the demand and revenue forecasts also require specific attention.

This appraisal covers the preferred scheme option;

• with new stations at Coventry Arena and Bermuda Park plus a bay platform at Coventry Station, turnback facility at Coventry Arena and a half hourly train service.

A number of changes to the scheme appraisal have taken place since presentation of the business case in the value for money report within the original business case submitted in March 2010 for Programme Entry. This report presents a summary of the scheme appraisal, highlights differences from the original business case and draws on the results of the previous work. However, we have sought to provide a comprehensive presentation of the scheme’s business case rather than refer back to previous documents.

The value for money report is supported by 3 appendices;

• Highway Model Local Model Validation Report – which differs from that submitted in 2010 due to recalibration using Wardrop multi-equilibrium assignment technique in place of Lohse technique, to secure more robust costs for input to the choice model; • Public Transport Model Local Model Validation Report – As March 2010, and; • Choice Model Local Validation Report – As March 2010.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 1 of 134

2 BACKGROUND TO THE SCHEME

2.1 Background

Figure 1 shows the Coventry – Nuneaton Corridor running north south and with almost continuous urban development. The corridor has significant urban regeneration issues as a result of the economic transition from its’ mining and manufacturing past. The population of Coventry City and Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough was 431,000 in 2008. Figure 1 Coventry – Nuneaton Corridor

The Coventry – Nuneaton rail line runs between the Trent Valley Line at Nuneaton and the West Coast Main line to Birmingham at Coventry station. The route forms an important connection between the lines running further north and south, particularly the Nuneaton – Leicester and Coventry – Leamington Spa / Banbury / Oxford routes.

The rail corridor is 10 miles long with double track, recently re-laid. There is a 45 mph line speed and the corridor has recently been re-signalled to modern standards with the potential for 60mph line speeds. It is an important route for freight with 2 sidings (the Prologis branch and Murco Petroleum at Bedworth) and regular container trains.

Figure 2 shows the corridor within the rail network and the stations on the route. The existing service calls at Coventry, Bedworth and Nuneaton only and operates broadly hourly.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 2 of 134

Figure 2 Coventry – Nuneaton Line within the Rail Network

2.2 Scheme Objectives

The Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade scheme involves providing a half hourly service and calling additionally at two new stations at Bermuda and Coventry Arena. This will increase accessibility to the rail network and provide a more attractive level of service which will assist in providing improved connectivity to aid transport movements and encourage regeneration and economic growth in the corridor.

Specifically, delivery of the Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade will;

• Increase accessibility, including providing access to jobs, retail and leisure; • Support the planned housing and employment growth along the corridor, and; • Support the development of new leisure and retail opportunities.

It will support the continued development of Coventry Arena by providing increased transport capacity and improved rail access to the conference, leisure and stadium facilities.

It will also support the major Friargate redevelopment proposal that has the potential to deliver 15,000 new jobs to the area directly adjacent to Coventry station

As the frequency increase will require provision of a bay platform at Coventry station to provide capacity for the new service it will also improve rail network performance on the West Coast Main Line and CrossCountry routes through the removal of existing services from laying over on the through platforms at Coventry station.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 3 of 134

3 CURRENT SERVICE AND PASSENGER DEMAND

3.1 Existing Rail Service

The timetable for the current service is shown in Table 1. The timetable is broadly hourly on Weekdays and Saturdays with a gap in the mid morning.

Table 1 Existing Timetable

Nuneaton 0637 0737 0828 0930 1110 1210 1310 1410 1510 1610 1710 1810 1910 2010 2110 2220 Bermuda Park ------Bedworth 0644 0744 0835 0937 1117 1217 1317 1417 1517 1617 1717 1817 1917 2017 2117 2227 Arena ------Coventry 0656 0757 0847 0953 1134 1234 1338 1434 1534 1634 1738 1834 1938 2034 2134 2239 Journey Time 0019 0020 0019 0023 0024 0024 0028 0024 0024 0024 0028 0024 0028 0024 0024 0019

Coventry 0612 0706 0804 0906 1045 1145 1245 1345 1445 1545 1645 1745 1845 1945 2045 2144 Arena ------Bedworth 0623 0717 0815 0917 1056 1156 1256 1356 1456 1556 1656 1756 1856 1956 2056 2155 Bermuda Park ------Nuneaton 0630 0727 0823 0925 1104 1203 1303 1403 1503 1603 1703 1803 1903 2003 2103 2202 Journey Time 0018 0021 0019 0019 0019 0018 0018 0018 0018 0018 0018 0018 0018 0018 0018 0018

3.2 Base Rail Demand

Existing Lennon Data for 2009/10 for the Coventry – Nuneaton service code (3280) provides an estimated base demand of 217,170 passengers per annum of which 44% are wholly within the corridor and 56% involve interchange at either / or Coventry and Nuneaton.

For comparison a baseline demand figure of 297,500 passenger trips per annum comes from factoring up the 2008 VISUM public transport model period flows to annual flows.

The Lennon figure is likely to be underestimated as it is based on ticket sales data and under-forecasts flows against counts primarily due to a range of tickets that don’t have a specific origin – destination. In particular the data fails to capture Centro area season tickets sales which are available with add-ons for stations in the wider journey-to-work area including Bedworth and Nuneaton. Therefore some allowance needs to be made for these additional flows and other factors such other area tickets (eg: day rovers), staff pass use, ticketless travel and potential differences between the modeling and actual behaviour of through passengers.

A one day rail passenger survey was undertaken in Autumn 2009 which revealed that 52% of trips have at least one end of the journey off the line and 8% of trips are through trips with neither origin nor destination between Coventry and Nuneaton. Therefore the proportion of through trips may also be underestimated by Lennon by 4%.

The top destinations quoted are;

• Leicester (25%) • Birmingham, London (5% each) • Loughborough, Nottingham, Tamworth, Leamington, Oxford and Rugby (3% each); and, • Hinckley and Atherstone (2% each).

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 4 of 134

The relative importance of the existing flows on the line is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Key Existing Passengers Flows

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0% Route

10.0%

total of the route %

5.0%

0.0%

h n th h th n h th ton rt o rt o rt u a o d orth d o o e w n Nor South N n N S n d o - dwo - - Sou icester o - - u e L y - e L N B Leicester - y B n n - th th - y tr tr - o r - tr n n on - London rth o ry y n e n n - Leicestert w wor t e to o a neat rth - Le d d n v ove a e u o e e entry - o Cov C e Nuneato B v ve n N B C u Nun Bedwo Co Co Coventr N Nuneat Bedw

Passenger loading counts on the Coventry-Nuneaton rail corridor were sourced from London Midland (LM) the train operating company. These counts were collected by ticket inspectors on each service for a week and consist of 3 to 5 observations. These have been compared with the result of the 1 day survey (see figures 4 to 7) and show that the 1 day survey was light of trips – especially in the interpeak and pm peak periods. The LM counts were 20% to 25% higher than the 1 day survey.

Figure 4 Comparison of Loadings between Nuneaton and Bedworth

Loadings between Nuneaton and Bedworth 60

LM

50 JACOBS

40

30

20

10

0 06:37 07:37 08:28 09:30 11:10 12:10 13:10 14:10 15:10 16:10 17:10 18:10 19:10

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 5 of 134

Figure 5 Comparison of Loadings between Bedworth and Coventry

Loading between Bedworth and Coventry 70 LM 60 JACOBS

50

40

30

20

10

0 06:37 07:37 08:28 09:30 11:10 12:10 13:10 14:10 15:10 16:10 17:10 18:10 19:10

Figure 6 Comparison of Loadings between Coventry and Bedworth

Loading between Coventry and Bedworth 70 LM JACOBS 60

50

40

30

20

10

0 06:12 07:06 08:04 09:06 10:45 11:45 12:45 13:45 14:45 15:45 16:45 17:45 18:45

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 6 of 134

Figure 7 Comparison of Loadings between Bedworth and Nuneaton

Loading between Bedworth and Nuneaton 60 LM

JACOBS 50

40

30

20

10

0 06:12 07:06 08:04 09:06 10:45 11:45 12:45 13:45 14:45 15:45 16:45 17:45 18:45

3.3 Recent Growth in Base Rail Demand

Figure 8 presents the results the passenger demand on the Coventry – Nuneaton line from the rail industry MOIRA model1 which is based on ticket sales data. This shows that there has been significant growth in passenger demand for the existing service particularly between March 2009 and March 2010 to around 250,000 journeys per annum.

Figure 8 Passenger Growth March 2007 – September 2010

Passenger Journeys

300000

250000

200000 150000

100000

50000 0

7 7 8 9 9 0 -07 0 0 08 -09 0 1 ar un- un-08 ec- ar un- un-10 M J Sep-0 Dec-07Mar-08J Sep- D M J Sep-0 Dec-09Mar-10J Sep-

1 Note MOIRA also under-forecasts non destination specific tickets / journeys. Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 7 of 134

4 MODELLING APPROACH

4.1 Introduction

The approach taken to forecasting the demands, revenues and benefits of the scheme takes account of all of the identifiable impacts of the scheme and application of the most appropriate modelling tools to quantify the impacts.

4.2 Scheme Elements

Figure 9 shows a diagrammatic representation of the scheme elements and impacts which were identified for determining the modelling approach. This identifies 6 key transport impacts.

Figure 9 Scheme Elements and Impacts

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 8 of 134

4.3 Available Models

Rail demand forecasts are usually based on the application of elasticity based models (such as MOIRA) and trip rate models for new stations. The trip rate model approach was not followed for this scheme as the corridor and service have no realistic local comparator stations for calibration of trip rates. In addition, the scheme operates within a relatively self contained corridor of high bus and highway traffic movements which would not be assessed accurately in the traditional approach.

Most of the demand and benefits are expected to come from within the corridor between Coventry and Nuneaton – where the main frequency impact and new stations will be provided. Coventry City Council commissioned the development of a full range of transport models to cover the City (and North – South Corridor to Nuneaton) between 2008 and 2011. These comprise;

• Public Transport (bus and rail) assignment model; • Highway (cars, light and heavy goods vehicles) assignment model, and; • Choice model2 to provide modal switch, and trip frequency changes in response to changes in either the public transport or highway models.

The models were created for the appraisal of a range of transport schemes in the corridor including this rail scheme and bus rapid transit schemes, as well as examining the transport implications of developments.

The benefit of these models is that they produce forecast changes in rail use based largely on existing trip levels in the corridor and incremental change in transport conditions.

4.3.1 Public Transport Model

The Coventry Public Transport Models were created in 2009 based on 2008 public transport interviews and counts. The rail matrix was developed from passenger surveys and counts on the rail network factored to line flows from the West Midlands RPA model. The public transport network is detailed – as shown in Figure 10.

The model uses Visum and is a multi-routing assignment model which assesses the ‘generalised travel times’ by alternative routes (including combinations of different services), identification of realistic alternative routes and allocation of the travel demand across the available routes according to their relative attractiveness. The Visum Public Transport model covers three time periods, AM peak, PM peak and Inter- peak, each covering two hours, 0700 – 0900, 1600 – 1800 and an average two hours between 1000 and 1600, respectively.

There is a detailed zone structure in the model especially inside Coventry and the north – south corridor, as shown in Figure 11. There are larger zones in the other Warwickshire districts. This ensures an accurate representation of available route choices in the model.

2 The choice model used for MSBC submission included Modal Choice and a combined frequency / distribution function and was based on trip origins and destinations. A model with a trip redistribution function was not fully available at the time of the MSBC submission. Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 9 of 134

Figure 10 Public Transport Network

Figure 11 Coventry PT Visum Model Zones

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 10 of 134

Figure 12 shows the Bus and Rail passenger loads in the public transport model. This reveals the importance of Coventry City and the north – south corridor in terms of existing bus flows and the relatively poor level of rail use in the corridor.

An advantage of this model is that interaction between the proposed new stations and improved level of service is modelled in detail (including taking account of timetable interactions) enabling through rail and bus / rail combined trips to be assessed.

A disadvantage of the model is that the impact on longer distance trips through interchange at Coventry and Nuneaton is limited by the geographical scope of the model.

Figure 12 Bus and Rail Passenger Loadings 2008 AM Peak

Bus Rail

4.3.2 Highway and Choice Models

The highway models are also based on Visum and were created by updating a previous highway model using 2008 traffic counts. The coverage of the highway model is shown in Figure 13. This Visum model takes account of link and junction capacity in determining highway travel times and speeds. It assesses available routes between each zone – zone pair, assesses the fastest route and allocates the traffic – iterating several times to ensure that equilibrium is reached, where traffic switches between routes.

The highway model has three time periods - similar to the Public Transport model but for 1 hour time periods. The model contains highway traffic split by vehicle type and journey purpose including cars, LGV’s and HGV’s.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 11 of 134

Figure 13 Highway Model network

Nuneaton

A444

M6 A45 M69

A46

A429

A46

Kenilworth

The opportunity to switch between the highway model and the public transport model in response to the improved accessibility is determined through the application of the Choice model. The model is based on an incremental choice structure which assesses the change in the ‘do-minimum’ and ‘do-something’ scenarios for the two forecast years 2016 and 2031 compared to the reference case for the base year.

A further benefit of the use of the corridor assignment / choice models is that forecast additional rail demand is largely constrained to the existing traffic levels within the model. There is a restricted generation of new demand, related to the level of change in accessibility brought by the scheme, produced by the Choice Model related to the proportionate change in accessibility. The forecasts are therefore more likely to be constrained than the alternative of trip-rate forecasts and are considered reasonable.

The local model validation reports describe the development and calibration of the models in detail in Appendices 11, 12 and 13 of the submission.

4.3.3 MOIRA Model (Longer Distance Trips Impacts)

The MOIRA rail industry demand and revenue forecasting model covers the whole of the UK rail network and is based on ticket sales data. The model covers all rail trips and services and utilises elasticities in line with PDFH3 to assess the implications of timetable alterations.

3 Rail Industry Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook. Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 12 of 134

An up-to-date MOIRA model was secured from the Department for Transport with base data for 2008 / 09. Using this model ensured that the appraisal could include the effects of recent investment in the capacity and services on the West Coast Main Line, both the Trent Valley route through Nuneaton and the West Midlands branch through Coventry which received an increase from 2 to 3 trains per hour to London. The model also properly reflects the patronage levels on the Coventry – Nuneaton line, which have been increasing relatively quickly in the recent past.

This model overcomes the geographical limitation of the Coventry Transport Models to assess some specific aspects of the scheme impacts;

• The frequency improvement impact on connectivity between Coventry and Nuneaton to places north and south and longer distance through journeys; • The impact on longer distance trips to / from Bedworth, and; • Through analysis of the long distance trip impacts for Bedworth estimation of longer distance trips for the new stations at Coventry Arena and Bermuda.

Care is taken to remove double counting between the Corridor Model and MOIRA model results throughout the presentation of the impact of the scheme and in terms of the Business Case.

4.3.4 Additional Trips Generated by Coventry Arena (weekdays)

Whilst the corridor transport models cover some background trips to Coventry Arena, the existing public transport modal shares are very low. The scheme will transform public transport accessibility and is expected to result in a significant change to transport patterns.

The specific implications were analysed through processing of Coventry Arena detailed attendance information using a spreadsheet. Care was taken in processing the data to avoid inclusion of the major stadium events – which would require strengthened train services – and the underlying background traffic data that could be assumed as within the base models. However, there are a substantial number of medium sized events at Coventry Arena throughout the year such as conferences and exhibitions which would benefits from the improved rail accessibility brought by the scheme.

4.3.5 Coventry Bay Platform Impacts

The removal of the existing passenger service from laying over on Platforms 1 and 2 onto the new bay platform at Coventry station will provide increased capacity for other services passing through the station. Detailed timetable modelling revealed an average performance (reduced delays) benefit per passenger which was applied to MOIRA model data to estimated the benefits for existing passengers.

Whilst it would be possible to estimate passenger and revenue growth for this impact the time savings are relatively small in terms of the longer distance journeys that are affected and (though the revenue per journey would be high) the computation of the benefits is considered inappropriate in relation to the scale of the demand and revenue impact expected. As a result, only the performance benefits of this element of the scheme were included within the economic appraisal.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 13 of 134

4.4 Summary of Modelling and Appraisal Approach

Our approach is to use the best model / methodology for the forecast of each impact of the scheme, taking great care to avoid double counting. The approach is summarised against the key scheme impacts in Table 2.

Table 2 Summary of Approach to Modelling Key Scheme Impacts

Scheme Impact Approach / model Approach / Model for demand and for Benefits revenue forecasts Improved Frequency existing stations – Coventry Transport TUBA (User Benefits) within Corridor Models; • PT Transfer • Car Transfer • Generation New stations trip generation – within Coventry Transport TUBA (User Benefits) Corridor Models; • PT Transfer • Car Transfer • Generation Improved Frequency existing stations – MOIRA MOIRA (User long distance benefits) Improved frequency Bedworth station – MOIRA MOIRA (User long distance benefits) Long distance trips from new stations Analysis of MOIRA Analysis of MOIRA data for Bedworth data Additional trips generated by Coventry Analysis of Visitor Analysis of MOIRA Arena medium scale events Data – Assumed data mode share Bay Platform benefits - MOIRA passenger volumes and PDFH values.

The application of more than one transport model for demand, revenue and user benefits forecasts resulted in the need to combine the results in an economic appraisal spreadsheet. In addition, the transport models were unable to accurately forecast non- user benefits so the Rail Appraisal Guidance estimation of external impacts approach was used for the appraisal of non-user benefits.

The Structure of the modelling an appraisal process is shown in Figure 14.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 14 of 134

Figure 14 Demand Forecasting and Appraisal Process

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 15 of 134

5 MODEL DEVELOPMENTS AND APPLICATION

5.1 Introduction

For the appraisal of the Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade Scheme the models were developed to cover do-minimum and do-something scenarios for two forecast years, 2016 and 2031, these are default planning horizons. The models were revised since the presentation of the Business Case for Programme Entry in Spring 2010 principally to review the developments proposed and background traffic growth.

5.2 Base Year Model Adjustment

Since development of the Public Transport models in 2008/09 and presentation of the business case for the scheme to the DfT for Programme Entry in 2010, additional information regarding the base flows on the Coventry – Nuneaton line has been sourced through a 1 day survey and acquisition of London Midland train counts. The London Midland counts were considered better than the 1 day survey as they are an average of several counts. The decision was taken to improve the base flows in the models through recalibration of the rail line using the London Midland count information.

Table 3 presents a comparison of the original model flows (based on the RPA model counts factored by MOIRA growth to 2008/09) between Coventry and Bedworth with the London Midland counts. This reveals that;

• The base model AM peak count is lower in the southbound direction and similar to the LM counts in the northbound direction.

• The base model Inter Peak counts are not similar in either direction. The southbound count is higher than the LM counts and lower in the northbound direction.

• The PM peak base model counts are similar to the LM counts in the southbound direction but significantly lower in the northbound direction.

Table 3 Comparison of RPA counts to 2009 Observed Counts

Direction Location Counts Time Period AM IP PM Southbound Bedworth to Coventry Base Model 47 74 51 London Midland 94 53 53 Northbound Coventry to Bedworth Base Model 43 30 81 London Midland 31 71 108

It was concluded that the use of the RPA counts in the 2008 calibration would have resulted in inaccurate demand flows on the Coventry – Nuneaton line particularly in the AM peak and Inter peak periods. This could have an impact in the appraisal of the Coventry - Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade Scheme. Recalibration of the corridor would resolve this problem using the LM counts.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 16 of 134

An important consideration in adjusting the public transport models related to avoiding the need to recalibrate the variable demand models, which were developed from the base year models. The base year public transport models calibrated well against a range of counts throughout the model on bus and rail services. It was therefore important to identify a modelling approach that would adjust the imbalance in the rail line flows without major impact over the model as a whole.

Three methodologies were investigated; (a) matrix estimation with the LM counts and all remaining rail counts; (b) matrix estimation of the LM counts together with all counts, and; (c) matrix adjustment of rail flows between Coventry and Bedworth and vice versa. The alternatives were tested with the AM Peak model and the third approach was determined as most appropriate in terms of minimising change throughout the PT models.

The approach involved select link analysis on the rail link between Coventry and Bedworth. Flow matrices were extracted and factored to the LM counts and re- assigned to the PT model. Figure 15 presents the difference plot of the AM network of the adjusted matrices and original PT model and Figures 16 and 17 show the Interpeak and PM peak results.

Figure 15 Difference Plot of PT AM network with adjusted matrices and Original 2008 PT Model

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 17 of 134

Figure 16 Difference Plot of PT IP network with adjusted matrix

Figure 17 Difference Plot of PT PM network with adjusted matrix

s

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 18 of 134

Further analysis was carried out to check the validation of the flows against the counts between Bedworth and Nuneaton (not used in the factoring process) as shown in Table 4. The new model flows are significantly closer to the observed flows and the GEH statistics and proportionate difference between the modelled and observed flows meet the criteria for model acceptance. Specifically, the GEH figures (which is the accepted statistic of goodness of fit) are all significantly below the target of less than or equal to 5.0, and the proportionate differences are below the target of +/- 25%.

Table 4 Calibration/Validation Results of Rail Flows Coventry – Nuneaton

Direction Location Time Period Obse Modelled New Model Pass rved Old New GEH Mod/Obs % SB Nun to AM (7-9) 78 35 69 1.0 88.5% Yes Bed IP (avg 2hr 10-16) 50 67 55 0.7 110.0% Yes PM (16-18) 55 43 45 1.4 81.8% Yes Bed to AM (7-9) 94 42 80 1.5 85.1% Yes Cov IP (avg 2hr 10-16) 53 67 55 0.2 103.1% Yes PM (16-18) 53 49 52 0.1 98.1% Yes NB Cov to AM (7-9) 31 42 34 0.5 109.7% Yes Bed IP (avg 2hr 10-16) 71 30 54 2.2 76.1% Yes PM (16-18) 108 80 98 1.0 90.7% Yes Bed to AM (7-9) 36 49 41 0.8 113.9% Yes Nun IP (avg 2hr 10-16) 71 29 54 2.1 76.4% Yes PM (16-18) 101 69 85 1.7 84.2% Yes

5.3 Future Year Forecast Matrices

Figure 18 shows the future year matrix development process.

The future year highway and public transport trip matrices were developed through forecasting new public transport and highway traffic relating to proposed new developments listed in Appendix A and constraint of the matrices to Tempro (V6.2) growth forecasts. The developments included in the models were based on advice from Coventry City and Warwickshire County planning departments in terms of the sites, nature of development and likelihood of delivery by 2016 and 2031.

The review of the developments revealed a small number of changes in terms of the forecast timing of developments and some were removed from the models. However, as much of the outlined developments in Spring 2010 were not forecast as near certain or reasonably foreseeable, as the local development plan for Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council had not been finalised, they were not included in the matrices. The revised Tempro forecasts are lower than the previous assumptions and presented an issue in the development of the 2031 matrices.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 19 of 134

Figure 18 Future Matrix Development Process

Development Planning 2008 Base Year Data Matrices

Trip Rate Model applied based on the type of developments

Redistribution of trip

ends using the

adjacent zones trip distribution (similar characteristics) by time period and purpose

New Development Matrices

2008 Base Year +

New Development

Matrices

Constrained to TEMPRO by time period and purpose

Forecast Matrices

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 20 of 134

5.3.1 Calculation of development trip rates

For each individual development, trip rates were calculated based on the volume and mix of land use. Trip rates were be based on the latest published information and made use of data from similar developments held on such databases as TRICS. Trip rates were determined by journey purpose, time period and mode for each development for the reference forecasts. These were allocated to zones in the transport models.

5.3.2 Calculation of matrix trip ends

The trip rates were added to existing matrix zones trip ends according to journey purpose and time period. The allocations were net, not gross – i.e. where a new development is replacing all or part of an existing land use in a zone, the forecast total trips to and from a zone include only the net increase in trips (new development trips less the replaced existing land use trips).

The resulting trip end growth was compared with TEMPRO central case. Trip ends for each model zone were constrained to TEMPRO forecasts. Coventry for example has one TEMPRO/NTEM zone, therefore the total trips to and from model zones within Coventry do not exceed the forecast for the TEMPRO zone. This may mean that trip ends for some model zones may remain unchanged or decline in the reference forecasts.

This process was undertaken by journey purpose, time period, mode and car availability. TEMPRO provides forecast trip ends at this disaggregate level for NTEM zones. Therefore the traffic model zones were mapped to NTEM zones in order to apply the TEMPRO constraint to the forecasts.

5.3.3 Calculation of Reference Forecast matrices

The forecast trip ends were applied to the base year distribution of trips by journey purpose, mode and time period using the Furnessing technique based on the approach described in WebTAG 3.15.2 section 5.4.6-7. Note that the traffic model matrices are in origins and destinations and the highway model particularly does not have fully observed external – external movements

It is recognised that with the changes in land use between the base year and the forecast year certain trip making patterns may have disappeared. For example: the replacement of a factory with a housing estate. This meant that some seeding of the base year matrix with a synthesised distribution of trips was required prior to Furnessing. The synthesised distribution was derived from the distribution of trips to and from zones with similar land use and in close proximity to the proposed development.

5.3.4 Development of the 2031 matrices

Two methodologies were tested to develop the future year matrices. The main objective of the tests was to investigate and understand the impacts of the furnessing process to the future year matrices. The tests were carried out for the 2031 scenario. The tests that were carried out were:

1. Methodology 1: Controlling back the ‘2016 + 2031 new development’ matrices to 2031 TEMPRO.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 21 of 134

2. Methodology 2: Controlling back the 2031 new development totals to the difference between 2031 TEMPRO and 2016 totals

(a) Methodology 1

The 2008 matrices totals were factored to 2031 totals utilising the 2008 to 2031 TEMPRO growth factors. The 2031 new development matrices were added to 2016 forecast matrices and later controlled back to the factored 2031 totals.

Figure 19 shows the assignment of the difference between the 2031 and 2016 AM PT matrices which shows that the furnessing process has decreased trips to / from some zones due to controlling back to the TEMPRO totals. This results in bus flow reductions over a large part of Coventry which are unrealistic. These decreases were largely due to the size of the growth in the Walsgrave Hospital Zone, New Deal for Communities developments in northwest Coventry and Camp Hill zones, leading to corresponding significant bus passenger increases on services to those areas.

Figure 19 Difference Plot of 2031 and 2016 AM PT Matrices (Methodology 1)

(b) Methodology 2

For methodology 2 the difference of the 2016 and factored 2031 totals were calculated and the 2031 new development matrices were furnessed to those totals. The furnessed matrices were then added to the 2016 matrices to develop to the 2031 matrices. This effectively constrained the growth in the new development zones to the Tempro factors.

Figure 20 shows the assignment of the difference between the 2031 and 2016 AM PT matrices utilising this methodology which shows significantly less reductions in flows on most bus services and smaller increases on services to the key development zones. This means that the growth restraint is applied mainly to the growth between 2016 and 2031 – rather than having a disproportionate impact over the model area.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 22 of 134

Figure 20 Difference Plot of 2031 and 2016 AM PT Matrices (Methodology 2)

It was concluded that methodology 2 produced more reasonable results whereby we assumed that the difference growth between 2016 and 2031 are from the new developments, and was therefore used in the development of the 2031 reference matrices.

5.4 Future Year Networks

5.4.1 2016 Do Minimum Adjustments

The ‘Do-minimum’ scenario is required to provide a background against which the do- something scheme is assessed. The Do-Minimum needs to contain committed / funded transport network improvements.

Transport network changes associated with the new developments were introduced as follows;

• Coventry 2012 – Adjustment of bus routes associated with the closure of Broadgate and new stop locations proposed. Adjustment of traffic network to take account of reduced and altered signals and reduction in road capacity. Pedestrian Crossing over the ring road coded as ‘no worse’ than the existing access via the underpass.

• Friargate – highway mitigation measures coded as detailed in transport assessment accompanying planning application.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 23 of 134

Figure 21 Friargate Site Location

• Arena Park 2 – Revised traffic signal junction arrangements on A444 to provide two right turn lanes into the site northbound (with loss of 1 straight-on lane) and additional right turn lane into West car park southbound.

Figure 22 Arena Park Revised Traffic Junction

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 24 of 134

• Royal Mail Bishop Street – Changes to Ring Road Junction 1 as shown in Figure 23.

Figure 23 Ring Road Junction 1 Changes

• New Century Park – Binley Road junction changes and new traffic signals.

Figure 24 Ring Road Junction 1 Changes

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 25 of 134

• Severn Trent – Changes to Ring Road Junction 5.

• Dunlop Site – revised zone loading and opening of Swallow Road.

• Browns Lane – Internal access arrangements coded.

Figure 25 Browns Lane Proposed Scheme

• MCD Butts – Windsor road assed and new signal junction added.

• Former Accordis Works, Foleshill Road – A444 Hamburger Roundabout Coded plus local highway network changes.

Figure 26 A444 Phoenix Way and Foleshill Road Hamburger Roundabout

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 26 of 134

• Binley District Centre – Highway network changes including signalisation of A46 Roundabout.

Figure 27 A46 Binley Woods Roundabout Signalisation

• Blue Ribbon Park – Access road onto A444 added including signals and zone connectors adjusted.

Figure 28 Blue Ribbon Park Development Plans

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 27 of 134

• Cyan Park – Access and A444 signals added.

These measures were not included in the models used for the Programme Entry Business Case in Spring 2010.

Two general highway improvements were also coded;

• M6 Junction 2 improvement scheme involving signalisation of the roundabout and widened the access slips towards the roundabout (Figure 29), and;

• Griff Roundabout signalisation (A444 between Nuneaton and Bedworth) under construction in Autumn 2009.

Figure 29 M6 J2 Improvement Scheme

(a) Griff Roundabout Signalisation

This is a Major Project wholly funded by Warwickshire County Council. The scheme has been designed to address the serious injury accident history at the roundabout, ease congestion and provide crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.

Figure 30 shows the scheme design. The works involve alterations to the entries and exits of the roundabout with provision of traffic signals on four entry legs, A444 north

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 28 of 134

and southbound and both of the B4113 Coventry Road. There will also be traffic signals installed on the circulatory carriageway of the central island. Four of the roundabout exits will have signals installed, these being the B4113 Coventry Road east and southbound, A444 north and southbound.

The controlled crossings will include facilities for pedestrians and cyclists and assist traffic joining the interchange. This will enhance the existing cycleway and pedestrian facilities already provided at this busy interchange. The carriageway width of the central island will be strip widened over certain lengths as will the A444 north and southbound and B4113 Coventry Road southbound approach to the roundabout to provide additional running lanes. The approach roads, circulatory carriageway of the roundabout and all exit roads will be completely resurfaced on completion and new lane markings applied.

Figure 30 Griff Roundabout Signalisation Scheme

5.4.2 2016 Public Transport Network Changes

Network Rail has recently completed the West Coast Main Line Upgrade which has resulted in the London – Coventry – Birmingham International – Birmingham New Street service increasing from two to three trains per hour. This has also resulted in an adjustment to the stopping pattern of local / regional services including introduction of new Class 350 electric trains on the Northampton – Coventry – Birmingham services. The timetable changes were incorporated into the public transport Do-minimum models.

In addition between spring 2008 and spring 2009 a number of bus service timetable changes occurred. The north – south corridor changes were incorporated in the model for the following services;

• Service 12 • Service 19 • Service 22 (Amalgamated with Service 737 timetable)

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 29 of 134

• Service 48 • Service 56 • Service 57 • Service 540 • Service 701 • Service 778 • New Service 85 – Operating between Coventry rail station and Walsgrave Hospital every 30 mins; and • Removal of Service 737.

These were relatively minor but included an improvement to the Stagecoach 56 / 57 services (termed Matrix) which run between Coventry and Nuneaton, including a slight service level increase. The new timetables were imported into the Do-minimum models from ‘atcocif’ files which contain the detailed timetables. The Coventry 2012 changes were coded into the Public Transport model including;

• Alteration of routes through the closure of Broadgate, and; • Alteration of the ring road crossing between the station and the City Centre. As the base model did not include a sub-way penalty it was assumed that the at- grade pedestrian crossing would be ‘no worse’ than the existing connection.

5.4.3 2031 Do-Minimum Network Changes

In addition to the 2016 model changes a number of highway network changes were introduced associated with forecast developments to 2031;

• Walsgrave Hospital (Housing) – New access road coded and zone connectors adjusted accordingly. A46 roundabout signalised.

Figure 31 Walsgrave Hospital Development Scheme Plan

• City Centre peak trip matrices capped at 2016 levels to take account of restricted car parking supply and park and ride strategy implementation. Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 30 of 134

• Paragon Park – access roads including link between Foleshill Road and Stoney Stanton road and new junctions.

Figure 32 Paragon Park Scheme

In addition, to resolve forecast highway model congestion problems in the peak periods three general highway schemes were implemented;

• TollBar End Junction Improvement (A45 / A46 junction to the south of Coventry). This had previously been included within the 2016 do-minimum network but latest Highways Agency advice suggested ‘not before 2015’. However, the 2031 highway model showed significant traffic congestion in this area so the scheme was assumed to be provided before 2031.

• M6 Active Traffic Management – the M6 west of Junction 2 was over capacity in the 2031 model and it was therefore assumed that the west midlands ATM area might reasonably be expected to be extended to Junction 2. The capacity was increased to 4 lanes each way and speed reduced to 60mph in the peaks.

• A444 North – South Road completion – the 2031 models showed significant overloading of the A46 and parallel roads in east Coventry and spare capacity on the southern sections of the A444. This scheme was introduced to resolve the network modelling issues and 2031 model convergence problems (see below).

(a) A45 / A46 Tollbar End Scheme

This is a Highways Agency scheme to provide relief from this congestion, improve journey times and reduce driver frustration by improving the capacity of the Tollbar End roundabout and the A45 Stonebridge Highway, benefiting both local and strategic road needs. A public inquiry into the scheme was held in 2010. The main proposals are:

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 31 of 134

• Providing a two-lane dual-carriageway underpass link between the A46 Coventry Eastern Bypass and the A45 Stonebridge Highway. The scheme will also enlarge the roundabout and improve all the existing accesses.

• The existing A45 Stonebridge Highway will be widened to a three-lane dual- carriageway between the new Tollbar End junction and Stivichall junction. This will improve capacity and allow traffic to manoeuvre safely into the required lane on approach to the junctions.

• To improve access to local businesses and Coventry Airport by changing the junction of Siskin Drive and Rowley Road from a roundabout to a traffic light controlled junction.

• Traffic lights will be erected on each entry arm to the new Tollbar End roundabout. The signals will be connected to those at the Siskin Drive / Rowley Road junction and timings will be controlled so that they provide maximum efficiency in allowing traffic through the area.

• New sign gantries will be erected, and the lane markings will be repainted to improve the northbound A46 approach to Stivichall junction. The existing road signs in this area of the Scheme will also be improved.

• To improve pedestrian access around Tollbar End roundabout and create a new footpath / cycleway along the southern side of the A45, linking the two junctions together. Figure 33 Tollbar End Junction Improvement

.

5.4.4 Future Transport Network Conditions

Application of the do-minimum matrices to the do-minimum transport networks reveals the patterns of travel and underlying network conditions. Figure 34 shows the loaded highway network in 2016 and 2031 in the morning peak. This reveals the high flows on the strategic highway network – particularly the M6 and A46 but also the relatively high flows on the A444 between Nuneaton in the north and Coventry City Centre.

Figure 35 shows the corresponding loaded bus network in 2031 in the morning peak. The diagram omits the high east west rail flows that would otherwise dominate the picture. The diagram reveals the radial pattern of bus flows concentrated in Coventry City. There are significant east – west flows within the City and significant north – south corridor flows.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 32 of 134

Figure 34 2016 AM Peak Highway Network Flows

Figure 35 2031 AM Peak Public Transport (Bus) Network Flows

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 33 of 134

Figure 36 shows forecast AM Peak highway stress links defined by the volume to capacity ratio. The diagram shows capacity problems in Nuneaton Centre, on the A45, at Walsgrave Hospital, on the Coventry Ring Road and on the A46 and M6 and their approaches. In the corridor between Coventry and Nuneaton the B4114 Foleshill Road is expected to be unreliable in Coventry, several other local roads are expected to experience significant delays including the A444 north and south of the M6 junction.

Figure 36 2016 AM Peak Highway Network Stress Links

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 34 of 134

5.4.5 Do-something Network Adjustments

The timetable assumptions for the Preferred Scheme were taken from the results of the timetable modelling (using RailSYS) undertaken for Centro in September 2009. Table 6 summarises the half-hourly timetable which takes account of the interaction with rail freight services on the line and the interactions with other services at Nuneaton.

Provision of a bay platform at Coventry Station will remove the need for southbound trains to wait for, typically, 5 minutes to access the platform. This negates the journey time penalty of calling at two new stations. Detailed timetable planning work suggests the end to end journey times will reduce from 24 minutes to 21 minutes southbound and will increase slightly from 18 minutes to 20 minutes northbound

The ‘with fares’ public transport model run assumed specified point to point fares, based on the existing fares between stations. The modelling assumes fares growth of +3% over RPI for three years (2012 – 2014) and +1% over RPI for all other years. The 2016 fares matrix input to the assignment models and used to calculate revenues are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 2016 Fares Matrix

Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Nuneaton Coventry £1.80 £3.20 £4.00 £4.30 Arena £1.80 £3.00 £3.80 £4.10 Bedworth £3.20 £3.00 £2.40 £2.70 Bermuda £4.00 £3.80 £2.40 £1.90 Nuneaton £4.30 £4.10 £2.70 £1.90

The new stations are coded into the model as new nodes in the network (involving splitting the existing rail line links) and coding the walk accesses to existing zones and bus stops in the vicinity. Additional connectors from the zones within one km radius of the station were introduced into the future year networks.

The zone centroids are readjusted only to zones where new developments are to be built. The Bermuda Park Industrial Estate zone is an example where these zone centroids were adjusted due to additional number of houses built. Figures 12-17 show the coding of the new stations at Coventry Arena and Bermuda Park.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 35 of 134

Table 6 Preferred Scheme Timetable (Half-hourly)

Station Nuneaton 0537 0614 0639 0707 0737 0807 0837 0907 0937 1007 Bermuda 0541 0618 0643 0711 0741 0811 0841 0911 0941 1011 Bedworth 0544 0621 0646 0714 0744 0814 0844 0914 0944 1014 Arena 0550 0627 0652 0720 0750 0820 0850 0920 0950 1020 Coventry 0558 0635 0700 0728 0758 0828 0858 0928 0958 1028

Coventry 0540 0610 0640 0710 0740 0810 0840 0910 0940 1010 Arena 0547 0621 0647 0717 0747 0817 0847 0917 0947 1017 Bedworth 0552 0626 0652 0722 0752 0822 0852 0922 0952 1022 Bermuda 0556 0630 0656 0726 0756 0826 0856 0926 0956 1026 Nuneaton 0600 0634 0700 0730 0800 0830 0900 0930 1000 1030 Station Nuneaton 1045 1108 1207 1239 1307 1337 1407 1437 1507 1537 Bermuda 1049 1112 1211 1243 1311 1341 1411 1441 1511 1541 Bedworth 1052 1115 1214 1246 1314 1344 1414 1444 1514 1544 Arena 1058 1121 1220 1252 1320 1350 1420 1450 1520 1550 Coventry 1106 1129 1228 1300 1328 1358 1428 1458 1528 1558

Coventry 1043 1111 1140 1206 1240 1310 1340 1410 1440 1510 Arena 1050 1118 1147 1213 1247 1317 1347 1417 1447 1517 Bedworth 1055 1123 1152 1218 1252 1322 1352 1422 1452 1522 Bermuda 1059 1127 1156 1222 1256 1326 1356 1426 1456 1526 Nuneaton 1103 1131 1200 1226 1300 1330 1400 1430 1500 1530 Station Nuneaton 1607 1639 1707 1737 1807 1837 1907 1937 2007 2037 Bermuda 1611 1643 1711 1741 1811 1841 1911 1941 2011 2041 Bedworth 1614 1646 1714 1744 1814 1907 1914 1944 2014 2044 Arena 1620 1652 1720 1750 1820 1850 1920 1950 2020 2050 Coventry 1628 1700 1728 1758 1828 1858 1928 1958 2028 2058

Coventry 1540 1610 1640 1710 1740 1810 1840 1910 1940 2010 Arena 1547 1617 1647 1717 1747 1817 1847 1917 1947 2017 Bedworth 1552 1622 1652 1722 1752 1822 1852 1922 1952 2022 Bermuda 1556 1626 1656 1726 1756 1826 1856 1926 1956 2026 Nuneaton 1600 1630 1700 1730 1800 1830 1900 1930 2000 2030 Station Nuneaton 2107 2137 2207 2237 2307 Bermuda 2111 2141 2211 2241 2311 Bedworth 2114 2144 2214 2244 2314 Arena 2120 2150 2220 2250 2320 Coventry 2128 2158 2228 2258 2328

Coventry 2040 2110 2140 2210 2240 2310 Arena 2047 2117 2147 2217 2247 2317 Bedworth 2052 2122 2152 2222 2252 2322 Bermuda 2056 2126 2156 2226 2256 2326 Nuneaton 2100 2130 2200 2230 2300 2330 Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 36 of 134

Figure 37 Coventry Arena Station Model Coding

Figure 38 Walk Links within one km radius of Coventry Arena Station

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 37 of 134

Figure 39 Comparison of 2008 Base and Do Something Network at Coventry Arena Station

2008 Base Do Something Network

Figure 40 Bermuda Park Station Model Coding

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 38 of 134

Figure 41 Walk Links within one km radius of Bermuda Park Station

Figure 42 Comparison of 2008 Base and Do Something Network at Bermuda Park Station

2008 Base Do Something Network

5.5 Future Year Forecasting Assumptions

5.5.1 Highway Assignment Parameters

The 2016 and 2031 generalised cost of the individual purposes is calculated by combining time and distance, using weightings derived from Values of Time and Operating Costs (TAG Unit 3.5.6) based on 2002 prices. Tables 9 and 10 present the generalised cost weightings for the respective years as Generalised time per second (Gsec/sec) and Generalised time per metre (Gsec/metre). Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 39 of 134

Table 7 2016 Generalised cost weightings

Journey AM IP PM Purpose/ Gsec /sec Gsec /metre Gsec /sec Gsec /metre Gsec /sec Gsec /metre Car work 1.00 0.0090 1.00 0.0096 1.00 0.0108 Car commuting 1.00 0.0217 1.00 0.0196 1.00 0.0213 Car other 1.00 0.0171 1.00 0.0153 1.00 0.0160 LGV work 1.00 0.0246 1.00 0.0235 1.00 0.0246 LGV non work 1.00 0.0207 1.00 0.0181 1.00 0.0207 HGVs 1.00 0.0985 1.00 0.0824 1.00 0.0985

Table 8 2031 Generalised cost weightings inter peak

Journey AM IP PM Purpose/ Gsec /sec Gsec /metre Gsec /sec Gsec /metre Gsec /sec Gsec /metre Car work 1.00 0.0063 1.00 0.0070 1.00 0.0076 Car commuting 1.00 0.0124 1.00 0.0106 1.00 0.0115 Car other 1.00 0.0100 1.00 0.0090 1.00 0.0093 LGV work 1.00 0.0196 1.00 0.0186 1.00 0.0196 LGV non work 1.00 0.0179 1.00 0.0156 1.00 0.0179 HGVs 1.00 0.0785 1.00 0.0656 1.00 0.0785

5.5.2 PT Assignment Parameters

The values of time (VOT’s) of the PT assignment parameter are increased utilising the Non-Work VOT growth rate from Webtag 3.5.6. Table 9 below summarises the VOTs of the respective future years in pence per minute.

Table 9 PT Assignment Parameter Value of Times

Year AM/PM (P/ Minute) IP (P/Minute) 2008 3.20 1.67 2016 3.64 1.90 2031 4.45 2.32

5.5.3 Mode Choice Parameters

The mode choice values of time are also updated for the respective future year scenarios. These VOT’s are derived from the respective purpose values weighted by the recommended VOT increased in WebTAG. Tables 8 and 9 summarise the VOT’s used in the mode choice model.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 40 of 134

Table 10 2016 Mode Choice VOT parameters

Type Year AM (P/ Minute) IP (P/Minute) PM (P/Minute) Car Business 44.67 45.43 45.35 Availability Commute 10.91 10.89 10.95 Type Year Others 9.42 9.39 9.38 No Car Business 22.78 12.73 23.13 Availability Commute 5.57 3.05 5.58 Others 4.80 2.63 4.78

Table 11 2031 Mode Choice VOT parameters

Type Year AM (P/ Minute) IP (P/Minute) PM (P/Minute) Car Business 59.82 60.99 60.94 Availability Commute 14.56 14.59 14.63 Type Others 12.24 12.21 12.18 Year No Car Business 30.51 17.09 31.08 Availability Commute 7.43 4.09 7.46 Others 6.24 3.42 6.21

5.6 2031 Model Convergence Issue

The choice model used for the scheme appraisal contains mode choice and frequency parameters and has a convergence criteria parameter of 1% to ensure robust results are produced. Problems were experienced with the Do-minimum and Do-Something 2031 modelling due to a lack of convergence of the choice model (within a limit set of 100 iterations) and the length of time taken to run the model (20 hours). As a result an alternative approach was investigated to produce the appraisal results for the scheme.

As the public transport model cost matrices are fixed the lack of convergence related to the change in ‘costs’ coming from successive iterations of the highway model. The 2031 highway model contained a small number of key developments with overall demand in each time period controlled to Tempro forecasts (v6.2). The 2016 highway model, through congested in the AM and PM peaks, converged after around 20 iterations of the choice model. The 2031 models with significant development and background traffic growth were severely congested in the peak periods and also showed significant congestion in the interpeak.

Examination of the highway network volume / capacity plots revealed significant peak capacity problems, especially in the PM peak and some problems related to the scale of developments added to the models. As a result additional highway network alterations were made using information supplied in support of planning applications.

In addition, it was decided to constrain the growth in peak car trips into and out of Coventry City Centre to 2016 levels, reflecting the policy to provide additional access through further bus park and ride provision.

These changes failed to resolve the problems and volume / capacity plots revealed problems on the strategic highway network – particularly the M6, the A46 / A45 Coventry eastern / Southern bypass and on the parallel roads in East Coventry. It was decided to cap through trips on the motorways at 2016 levels and to introduce the 3 highway measures into the 2031 do-minimum network previously described;

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 41 of 134

However, whilst successive iterations of the model reduced to close to the convergence criteria, the choice model failed to converge.

In assessing the highway capacity issues it became clear that the problems in the highway model were in parts of the network away from the Coventry – Nuneaton. Examine the traffic changes taking place between the two iterations of the model close to Choice model convergence revealed switching between parallel roads into Coventry from the south, from the east and from the west and also between rat-runs in northwest Coventry. However, little switching was occurring in the North – South corridor where the scheme is proposed.

In addition, analysis of the convergence statistics (shown in Figure 43) revealed that the model convergence statistic was almost met after around 13 iterations and then oscillated between that value and 0.5% above.

The models were applied to the scheme for 2 scenarios - the first minimum achieved and the next iteration and the results compared to establish how robust the demand for the Coventry – Nuneaton line was if the first minimum convergence was selected for the appraisal.

For the Do-minimum and Do-Something scenarios the results of the 13th and 14th iterations of the model produced identical flows on the Coventry – Nuneaton line in all time periods and for individual flows between stations.

Table 12 shows the TUBA results4 with 2016 and 2031 future years added for successive iterations. The results are almost identical – within 0.0059%.

Table 12 TUBA results for Successive Iterations (£000’s)

13th Iteration 14th Iteration Purpose Fares No-Fares Fares No-Fares Commuting 1471 2149 1471 2149 Others 3833 7350 3833 7350 Business 849 1335 850 1335

Total 6153 10834 6154 10834

It was concluded that use of the first minimum convergence level for the appraisal of 2031 results for the scheme would produce robust results and this approach was adopted for the scheme appraisal.

4 Note: not the final preferred scheme TUBA results. Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 42 of 134

Figure 43 2031 Do-minimum Choice Model Convergence results

2031 DM run 0.025

0.024

0.023

0.022

0.021

0.02

0.019

0.018

0.017

0.016

0.015

0.014

0.013

0.012 Convergence

0.011

0.01

0.009

0.008

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0 0 102030405060708090100

Iterations

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 43 of 134

6 DEMAND AND REVENUE FORECASTS

6.1 Introduction

The demand and revenue forecasts were derived for three specific markets – average weekday passenger forecasts from the multi-modal transport models (adjusted to exclude ‘external’ trips), long distance passenger forecasts outside the transport models area and events passenger forecasts related to Coventry Arena to include significant periodic events (but not stadium events) that would not have been covered by the surveys and counts underlying the basis of the transport models.

6.2 Annualisation Factors

The public transport model uses 2-hour peak and inter-peak matrices and the Choice / Tuba models produce results in 1-hour peak and inter-peak periods (with the PT matrices halved to create the one hour matrices).

12 hour figures were created by adding the AM peak and PM Peak matrices and adding the interpeak figures multiplied by 4. The 12 hour figures were factored to 18 hours, to reflect the operating hours of the train services, using a factors of 1.197 derived from analysis of Centro’s Rail Counts for Coventry Station.

The annualisation factors are based on the following assumptions;

• 365 days per year, comprising; ƒ 52 Saturdays ƒ 52 Sundays ƒ 5 Bank Holidays ƒ 3 no-traffic bank holidays

• Weekdays 253 • Saturdays / bank holidays = 57 • Sundays 52

The interpeak model forecasts are factored to represent weekend flows. This is considered appropriate as a result of interpeak traffic containing low proportions of business and commuting trips.

The Saturday figures were assumed as a factor of the inter-peak weekday figures with the ‘peak hours’ factored using a value of 1.41 derived from Centro Rail Counts, producing the 12 hour figure

The Sunday factor was produced as a proportion of Saturday passengers using a value of 0.69 derived from the MOIRA data inspector. It was noted that the timetable will not be significantly altered on a Sunday but a substantial proportion of the additional demand on the service will result from the new stations. Coupled with the advice contained in the MOIRA model, specifically that; “the surveys used to split ticket allocations to Weekday / Saturdays and Sundays were commissioned for ORCATS, but are now getting out of date. In particular, it is felt that the MOIRA proportion of journeys made on Sunday (on especially short distance flows) is too small, given the greater number and variety of shopping/leisure activities that have become available over the past 5-10 years.”

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 44 of 134

The resulting annual expansion factors are shown in Table 13. The factors differ for application to PT model outputs and for processing in TUBA as the former uses 2-hour matrices and the latter 1 hour matrices. The aggregate inter-peak factor of 384 days includes the factoring for Saturdays and Sundays and Saturday peak hours.

Table 13 Annualisation Factors

Model Period Expansion 18 hour Annual Annual to 12 hour expansion Expansion Expansion factor Factor PT Factor TUBA model AM Peak 1 1.197 253 606 Inter-peak 4 1.197 384 3678 PM Peak 1 1.197 253 606

There has been no adjustment in the annualisation factors to account for different journey purposes at the weekends – favouring the use of inter-peak which contains times with similar journey purposes as would be expected on the weekend and therefore passengers with a similar value of time.

Table 14 shows the existing journey purposes of public transport users in the study area, derived from the 2008 public transport surveys. This survey data was the primary input to the public transport model matrices. As can be seen, company business trips are a very low proportion in all periods and commuting trips are below 10% of inter peak trips. It is therefore considered reasonable to utilise the inter-peak to reflect Saturday and Sunday users.

Table 14 Public Transport Journey Purposed by Time Period (2008)

Time Period Purpose Origin Destination Home 75.8% 30.3% Work 11.4% 42.0% Shopping 4.9% 5.1% AM Education 2.4% 10.6% Social / Leisure 1.8% 4.5% Personal Business 3.6% 7.2% Company Business 0.2% 0.4% Home 21.9% 35.5% Work 9.8% 8.7% Shopping 44.9% 33.7% IP Education 6.2% 2.9% Social / Leisure 6.3% 7.3% Personal Business 10.6% 11.4% Company Business 0.3% 0.4% Home 10.1% 43.4% Work 37.6% 23.2% Shopping 26.1% 17.2% PM Education 11.4% 3.6% Social / Leisure 7.0% 6.3% Personal Business 7.6% 6.1% Company Business 0.1% 0.2%

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 45 of 134

6.3 Base and Do-minimum Model Passenger Forecasts

The average weekday passenger forecasts are derived from the Visum transport models by time period for ‘with fares’ and ‘no-fares’ produced by the Choice Model.

Tables 15 and 16 show the Base 2008 model passenger journeys for the AM peak, Inter-peak and PM peak periods and combined and factored through to annual flows.

Table 15 2008 Weekday Additional Passenger Forecasts (2-hour periods)

To AM Peak Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Nuneaton Total Coventry 0 0 6 0 28 34 Arena 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bedworth 11 0 0 0 13 24 From From Bermuda 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nuneaton 69 0 1 0 0 70 Total 80 0 7 0 41 128

To Inter-Peak Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Nuneaton Total Coventry 0 0 3 0 51 54 Arena 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bedworth 2 0 0 0 3 5 From From Bermuda 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nuneaton 53 0 3 0 0 56 Total 55 0 6 0 54 115

To PM Peak Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Nuneaton Total Coventry 0 0 16 0 82 98 Arena 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bedworth 10 0 0 0 3 13 From From Bermuda 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nuneaton 42 0 3 0 0 45 Total 52 0 19 0 85 156

Table 16 2008 Base Annual Passenger Forecast

To Annual Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Nuneaton Total Coventry 0 0 12,180 0 127,105 139,285 Arena 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bedworth 10,038 0 0 0 10,363 20,400

From From Bermuda 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nuneaton 131,086 0 6,729 0 0 137,815 Total 141,124 0 18,908 0 137,468 297,500

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 46 of 134

Tables 17 and 18 show the 2016 do-minimum model forecast passenger journeys for the AM peak, Inter-peak and PM peak periods and combined and factored through to annual flows. It is noted that some flows have reduced, which is likely to be due to the fares increase on rail compared to bus in the models. Overall patronage on the rail line is forecast to grow by around 1,100 trips on an average weekday and around 336k trips per annum.

The increase from 2008 to 2016 is 13%, approximately 1.6% growth per annum, which is conservative compared to recent background rail passenger growth in the West Midlands as shown in Table 19.

Table 17 2016 Do-Minimum Weekday Passenger Forecasts (2-hour periods)

To AM Peak Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Nuneaton Total Coventry 0 0 13 0 27 40 Arena 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bedworth 21 0 0 0 11 32 From From Bermuda 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nuneaton 91 0 1 0 0 92 Total 112 0 14 0 38 164

To Inter-Peak Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Nuneaton Total Coventry 0 0 10 0 40 50 Arena 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bedworth 11 0 0 0 9 20 From From Bermuda 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nuneaton 40 0 10 0 0 50 Total 51 0 20 0 49 120

To PM Peak Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Nuneaton Total Coventry 0 0 24 0 111 135 Arena 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bedworth 23 0 0 0 5 28 From From Bermuda 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nuneaton 49 0 6 0 0 55 Total 72 0 30 0 116 218

Table 18 2016 Do Minimum Annual Passenger Forecast

To Annual Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Nuneaton Total Coventry 0 0 29,596 0 115,355 144,951 Arena 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bedworth 33,555 0 0 0 21,397 54,952

From From Bermuda 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nuneaton 115,961 0 20,511 0 0 136,471 Total 149,515 0 48,267 0 136,752 336,347

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 47 of 134

Table 19 Historical West Midlands Rail Patronage Growth

Year 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 Patronage (m) 29.3 30.9 32.8 35.5 37.6 40.0 % Change per 6.9 5.5 6.1 8.2 5.9 6.4 annum

The rail line / service under-performs in terms of transport in the corridor. The rail service with less than 1 train per hour is paralleled by a high capacity dual-carriageway and a single carriageway old road and by bus services operating at 8 buses per hour in the north of the corridor and 32 buses per hour in Coventry to the south (on the Foleshill Rd + Lockhurst Lane). As a result passengers are not choosing to use rail for local trips in the corridor and are more likely to use rail only for longer journeys. The net result of this is a low existing rail mode share.

6.4 Do – Something Model Forecasts

The do-something passenger forecasts include the application of the assignment / choice models and the addition of long distance trips and event trips.

6.4.1 Long Distance Passenger Forecasts

(a) Existing stations

To assess the impact of the scheme on longer distance journeys the MOIRA model was applied using the half-hourly service timetable for weekdays and Saturdays. The forecast demand was analysed to extract the ‘within line’ and ‘beyond’ line data. ‘Within line’ being trips between Coventry and Nuneaton, Nuneaton – Bedworth and Bedworth – Coventry. The MOIRA model produced the forecast additional revenue and other key benefits shown in Table 20.

Table 20 MOIRA Model Forecasts of Long Distance Impacts

Additional Journeys Additional Revenue Additional Miles User Benefits (time savings) 4,589 £28,227 139,882 £91,121 of which £3,180 relates to ‘switchers’

The data suggests that the longer distance trips increasing as a result of the improved network connectivity have average revenues of £6.15 and average journey distances of 30.5 miles.

There is a danger of double counting the longer distance rail journeys with the data in the transport models. Analysis of the passengers interchanging to other rail services in the Visum models (i.e. travelling outside the core modelled area) revealed relatively small additional trips in the demand forecasts. A factor of 17.8% was calculated through select link analysis in the Visum Public Transport Model with the results and applied to the Visum demand and revenue forecasts to remove the double counting.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 48 of 134

(b) New Stations

Additional demand and revenue has been forecast for the longer distance demand generated by the two new stations based on the MOIRA model forecasts for Bedworth Station.

The VISUM model is calibrated on the boarding and alighting counts and on train loads so it includes Bedworth’s existing long distance trips. Similarly, for base year trips from the vicinity of the new stations (who would currently access the rail network at Coventry or Nuneaton stations) the model includes the rail element of the journey (and the bus element if they access the station by bus). However, there is the potential for an increase in long distance rail trips as a result of the improved accessibility provided by the new stations.

The models were assessed in terms of the base split between internal and external trips for Bedworth and in terms of the (MOIRA estimated) change in long distance trips resulting from the scheme, taking account of the revised (VISUM model estimated) in- corridor demand as a result of the frequency increase.

Table 21 Bedworth Existing and Future Long Distance Trips

Bedworth Existing Existing Revised Revised 2tph 2tph Journeys Revenue Journeys Revenue Additional Additional Journeys Revenue Internal 57% 21% 90% 63% Long 43% 79% 10% 37% +1.0% +2.5% Distance

At present almost half of Bedworth demand and three quarters of revenue is long distance traffic (highlighting the low level of internal traffic due to the poor level of service). The detailed mode choice modelling of the impact of the enhanced service increases the relative proportion of local traffic, while the MOIRA modelling estimates lower increases in long distance traffic and revenue. This implies a revised share of just 10% of Bedworth journeys being long distance, and just over a third of the revenue. The net additional long distance trips represent 1.0% of the new journeys from Bedworth, and 2.5% of the new revenue.

In factoring Bermuda and Arena station demands and revenue care must be taken not to double count existing trips which are already included in the calibrated base model. On this basis, only the net increase in long distance trips and revenue identified at Bedworth is used for the proxy estimate for the new stations. The table below shows the implied additional demand and revenue.

Table 22 Forecast Long Distance Trips for New Stations

New Stations 2016 Base Journeys Additional Journeys New Journeys Bermuda Park 77k 1.7k 79k Coventry Arena 348k 4.4k 352k

Assuming the same average yield as Bedworth long distance journeys (£5.50 per journey at 2009 prices), these additional journeys add £38k p.a. revenue (2009 prices).

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 49 of 134

6.4.2 Coventry Arena Weekday Events Passenger Forecasts

The Coventry Arena bookings for 2008 / 09 were analysed to estimate the potential additional passengers and revenues for the scheme. Table 23 shows the number of visitors in different bands reflecting different trip purposes within the Arena complex including use of the stadium, the conference halls, etc.

The table also shows which flows are considered outside the model and could be expected to arrive by rail on days with a normal service and which would be outside the transport models. The events which would require a strengthened service are also shown and are excluded from the analysis.

The modelling of events trips therefore involved;

• Exclusion of small scale events / meetings and visitors which are assumed as captured by the transport models (up to 1,500 attendees);

• Inclusion of medium scale events – conferences and exhibitions between 1,500 and 4,400 attendees, and;

• Exclusion of very large events and matches / concerts in the stadium (8,000 attendees +) which would require train strengthening to cope with the forecast demands.

As a result the business case assumptions are consistent – i.e. excluding both the costs and benefits of strengthened train services to provide for the major events.

It was assumed that around 10% of passengers attending the medium sized events would use rail – within the range shown for a number of other comparator locations.

Table 23 Events Traffic Forecast

Visitor size Number of occasions Assumed rail capture Football Matches 25 Requires strengthened train (32,000) Other sporting events 3 Requires strengthened train (32,000) Concerts (40,000) 6 Requires strengthened train 10,000 3 Requires strengthened train 8,000 1 Requires strengthened train 4,400 1 440 4,000 5 2,000 3,500 1 350 1,500 – 3,500 40 7,906 (calculated from bookings) 1,000 – 1,500 39 Assumed within Transport Models 1 – 1,000 4516 Assumed within Transport Models

This results in a forecast of 10,696 trips per annum (21,392 journeys). The journeys to events are assumed to be a mix of short and longer distance trips. Application of an average of the long distance and short distance fares (£3.56 per journey at 2009 prices) results in a forecast income of £76.2k (2009 prices) per annum. User benefits are assumed at half the average rate for long distance passengers derived from MOIRA, producing an estimated value of £216,805 per annum in 2009. The event trips are assumed to grow at 1% per annum through the appraisal.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 50 of 134

6.4.3 Combined Do – Something Passenger Forecasts

The 2016 Do-Something VISUM model (Corridor) demand forecasts are shown in Table 24 for each time period. The figures shown exclude the growth in through trips north of Nuneaton and south of Coventry.

Table 24 2016 Do Something Weekday Passenger Forecast (2-hour periods)

To AM Peak Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Nuneaton Total Coventry 0 31 12 1 32 76 Arena 21 0 2 2 6 31 Bedworth 38 2 0 27 11 78

From From Bermuda 25 0 0 0 21 46 Nuneaton 96 2 1 45 0 144 Total 180 35 15 75 70 375

To Inter Peak Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Nuneaton Total Coventry 0 34 10 4 65 113 Arena 36 0 4 3 11 54 Bedworth 18 4 0 5 12 39

From From Bermuda 3 4 2 0 14 23 Nuneaton 49 24 6 5 0 84 Total 106 66 22 17 102 313

To PM Peak Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Nuneaton Total Coventry 0 119 30 16 127 292 Arena 38 0 2 1 4 45 Bedworth 32 1 0 1 9 43

From From Bermuda 6 2 0 0 9 17 Nuneaton 66 14 10 10 0 100 Total 142 136 42 28 149 497

The extra trips resulting from the frequency enhancement and new stations within the corridor are an increase of 211 trips in the AM peak, 279 trips in the PM peak and 193 in the 2-hour interpeak periods. These trips result from forecast transfers from bus in the PT assignment model, modal switch from car in the choice model and the generated demand from the frequency / distribution parameter in the choice model which reflects the change in accessibility brought by the scheme.

The incremental additional long distance rail trips (MOIRA) and additional captured Coventry Arena events trips are forecast for the whole year. These can be attributed to station – station flows through the following assumptions; (1) that the through trips board and alight at both Coventry and Nuneaton to interchange, and (2) that events trips are distributed 66% south and 34% north.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 51 of 134

In Table 25 we have factored the VISUM model demand data (within Corridor) to annual demands. In Table 26 the long distance trips and additional Arena event trips are shown5. In Table 27 the Visum corridor model and long distance and event trips are combined to provide the annual demand forecast.

Table 25 2016 Do-Something Visum Model Annual Passenger Forecast

To Annual Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Nuneaton Total Coventry 0 107,955 31,110 12,505 167,691 319,260 Arena 84,074 0 8,568 6,426 23,258 122,326 Bedworth 54,302 8,265 0 17,675 28,126 108,367

From From Bermuda 14,905 7,962 3,678 0 34,832 61,378 Nuneaton 139,175 48,983 14,366 25,852 0 228,375 Total 292,456 173,164 57,721 62,457 253,907 839,706

Table 26 2016 Long Distance and Arena Event Trips

To Annual Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Nuneaton Total Coventry 0 9,439 544 689 3,970 14,642 Arena 9,439 0 0 0 4,863 14,302 Bedworth 544 0 0 0 280 825

From From Bermuda 689 0 0 0 355 1,043 Nuneaton 3,970 4,863 280 355 0 9,468 Total 14,642 14,302 825 1,043 9,468 40,280

Table 27 2016 Combined Annual Passenger Forecast

To Annual Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Nuneaton Total Coventry 0 117,394 31,654 13,193 171,661 333,903 Arena 93,514 0 8,568 6,426 28,121 136,628 Bedworth 54,846 8,265 0 17,675 28,406 109,192

From From Bermuda 15,594 7,962 3,678 0 35,187 62,421 Nuneaton 143,144 53,846 14,646 26,206 0 237,843 Total 307,098 187,467 58,546 63,500 263,375 879,986

Table 28 shows the additional rail demand resulting from the scheme totalling over £0.5m almost a doubling of demand. This also shows that there is a forecast reduction in trips from Nuneaton to Bedworth as a result of the scheme. This was tracked back to the Visum Public Transport Model and related to a small number of trips interchanging at Arena station instead of Bedworth station as a result of the change in connectivity. This may partly be a result of the timetable modelling within the Visum model which assesses actual timetable connections and is therefore reliant on the final timetable assumptions for the scheme and bus services. However, this does not affect the overall additional demand and revenue forecast.

5 Note that the appraisal includes a relatively small segment of the event trip market and specifically excludes stadium events including football matches. Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 52 of 134

Table 28 2016 Additional Annual Passenger Forecast (DS – DM)

To Annual Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Nuneaton Total Coventry 0 117,394 2,059 13,193 56,306 188,952 Arena 93,514 0 8,568 6,426 28,121 136,628 Bedworth 21,292 8,265 0 17,675 7,009 54,240

From From Bermuda 15,594 7,962 3,678 0 35,187 62,421 Nuneaton 27,184 53,846 -5,865 26,206 0 101,372 Total 157,583 187,467 8,440 63,500 126,623 543,613

The differences between directions and between absolute and percentage changes in individual flows relates to a wide range of factors imbedded in the models including;

• Differences between the public transport timetables between the different time periods. Some peak only bus services operate north south in the corridor and there are some off-peak only buses operating in Coventry connecting to suburban demand generators.

• The distribution of passenger origins and destinations in the different matrices. For example people may not board and alight buses at the same stops / zone – especially in Coventry City Centre.

• The detailed differences in the timetables (VISUM is a timetable based model) including differences in northbound and southbound journey times and differences in connections times for onward journeys – especially in Coventry.

• The increased journey time northbound and decreased journey time southbound resulting from the scheme.

• Greater levels of traffic congestion in the peak period models and the relative levels of car trips to transfer to the rail service at different locations through the corridor.

Further analysis of the demand sources within the VISUM / CUBE assignment / choice models reveals that;

• 72% of the new rail trips derive from the Public Transport model (ie: bus transfer); • 21% comes from the Choice model, and; • 7% comes from the MOIRA model and Arena Events trips.

In addition;

• The majority of new public transport demand forecast by the Choice model is forecast by the frequency parameter (reflecting the change in accessibility) (55%) this equates to 12% of additional demand, and; • 45% comes from the mode choice parameter (10% of additional demand).

It should be noted however, that the appraisal does not include specific forecasts for park and ride at Coventry Arena and Bermuda stations and as a result probably under- represents the potential for modal shift (and further non-user decongestion benefits in the economic appraisal).

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 53 of 134

7 ANALYSIS OF PASSENGER DEMAND

7.1 Summary Annual Demand Forecasts

Table 29 provides a broad breakdown of the incremental passenger demand forecasts by station (including long distance flows, but with Coventry Arena medium size event traffic shown separately).

Table 29 Summary Annual Demand Forecast

Station Journeys p.a. (k) Additional Nuneaton 114 (21%) Bermuda Park 63 (12%) Additional Bedworth 31 (6%) Coventry Arena 162 (30%) Additional Coventry 173 (32%) Total 543

7.2 Comparison of New Station Flows with Existing Stations

The annual demand forecasts for the new stations, and revised forecast for Bedworth Station have been compared with a number of existing stations. Table 30 shows the results of the comparison including the annual passenger figures and key information relevant to the consideration of ‘reasonableness’ of the forecasts underlying the business case. The majority of the demand figures for the comparator stations come from the MOIRA model, however, it should be noted that MOIRA can under-represent flows where there is a significant use of pre-paid tickets such as within the Centro area.

Bedworth’s forecast represents an increase of around 37% as a result of the more than doubling of the service frequency and new travel opportunities to the new stations on the line.

It is noted that Bermuda Park figures compare well with the revised forecast for Bedworth, the nearest local station and with a similar level of service to the same destinations. Both Bermuda Park and revised Bedworth flows are significantly lower than Canley and Tile Hill which are Coventry Stations with the same service frequency and close to Coventry but with lower journey times to both Coventry and Birmingham and journeys to Birmingham are direct.

The Bedworth and Bermuda Park figures are similar to Henley in Arden a similar journey time to Birmingham though the frequency at Henley in Arden is lower but has a direct service to Birmingham.

The figures for Coventry Arena exclude the major stadium events and it is difficult to find suitable comparator stations in the local area. Perry Barr which serves a district centre has higher flows but is closer to Birmingham. Tame Bridge is a parkway station, rather remote from housing, but has a higher frequency and short journey time to Birmingham. Hednesford has the same frequency and more remote from Birmingham but is directly connected.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 54 of 134

Table 30 Comparison of Demand Forecasts with Existing Stations

Station Annual Train Frequency Journey time to key Passengers destination New / revised Stations Bermuda Park 62,900 Half hourly Coventry 17 mins Birmingham 42 mins Bedworth 83,900 Half hourly Coventry 14 mins Birmingham 39 mins Coventry Arena 162,000 Half hourly Coventry 8 mins Birmingham 33 mins

Existing Stations Coleshill Parkway 104,532 Half Hourly Birmingham 13 mins Canley 105,408 Half Hourly Coventry 3 mins Birmingham 28 mins Tilehill 166,224 Half Hourly Coventry 5 mins Birmingham 21 mins Henley in Arden 67,233 Hourly Birmingham 35 mins Average West Midlands 211,966 - - (Centro Footfall Data)

Perry Barr 195,014 Half Hourly Birmingham 13 mins Tame Bridge 206,621 4 tph Birmingham 17 mins Hednesford (Centro 204,300 Half Hourly Walsall 18 mins Footfall Data) Birmingham 42 mins

Horwich Parkway 204,022 Half Hourly Manchester 30 mins Rogerstone 101,349 Hourly Cardiff 26 mins Heath (high level + low 354,707 6tph Cardiff 10 mins level) MetroCentre 190,286 Half Hourly Newcastle 11 mins

Further a field, Horwich Parkway as it is a parkway station with nearby retail development and higher flows. It has a similar level of service but directly connected to Manchester. Cardiff is a similar sized City to Coventry and Heath is close to the City Centre but has a higher level of service and residential catchment. Rogerstone is a new station on the Ebbw Vale line with an hourly service to Cardiff and further away. The Metrocentre in Newcastle (also a medium sized City) serves a retail park.

7.3 Impact on Mode Shares

7.3.1 Corridor Mode Shares

Table 31 shows the Public Transport mode shares in the AM peak in the corridor for the base, do-minimum and do-something scenarios based on the screen-lines shown in Figure 44. Whereas the AM peak bus mode share in the corridor is reasonably high at between 12% in Coventry and 5% in Nuneaton and Bedworth, the rail mode share is only between 0.1% and 1.4% of all journeys.

Doubling the rail service frequency and providing the two new stations on the line represents a tremendous change in the opportunities to travel by rail and the relative attractiveness of the train against bus. Whilst the demand forecasts represent a two fold increase over base rail demand the resultant public transport and rail mode shares for the corridor are realistic. In particular rail is forecast to have grown to between 0.4% and 2.4% of trips.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 55 of 134

Table 31 Mode Share Analysis - Screenlines

Direc Screenline * Person Trips Mode Split (%) tion Car PT Bus Train Car PT Bus Train 2008 AM BASE NB Cov to Cov. N 13,925 1,597 1,575 21 89.7% 10.3% 10.1% 0.1% Cov N to Bed 5,081 162 140 21 96.9% 3.1% 2.7% 0.4% Bed. to Nun 3,565 159 133 26 95.7% 4.3% 3.6% 0.7% SB Nun. to Bed 2,974 208 164 43 93.5% 6.5% 5.2% 1.4% Bed to Cov. N 5,912 350 299 50 94.4% 5.6% 4.8% 0.8% Cov. N to Cov. 20,056 2,783 2,732 50 87.8% 12.2% 12.0% 0.2% 2016 DM NB Cov to Cov. N 14,261 1,754 1,729 25 89.0% 11.0% 10.8% 0.2% Cov N to Bed 5,072 186 160 25 96.5% 3.5% 3.1% 0.5% Bed. to Nun 3,844 304 281 24 92.7% 7.3% 6.8% 0.6% SB Nun. to Bed 3,126 237 179 58 93.0% 7.0% 5.3% 1.7% Bed to Cov. N 5,250 372 301 71 93.4% 6.6% 5.3% 1.3% Cov. N to Cov. 20,097 3,179 3,108 71 86.3% 13.7% 13.4% 0.3% 2016 DS 2tph NB Cov to Cov. N 14,228 1,773 1,703 70 88.9% 11.1% 10.6% 0.4% Cov N to Bed 5,072 199 150 49 96.2% 3.8% 2.8% 0.9% Bed. to Nun 3,843 315 256 59 92.4% 7.6% 6.2% 1.4% SB Nun. to Bed 3,127 241 159 82 92.8% 7.2% 4.7% 2.4% Bed to Cov. N 5,246 382 273 109 93.2% 6.8% 4.9% 1.9% Cov. N to Cov. 20,100 3,192 3,063 129 86.3% 13.7% 13.2% 0.6% * Screenline Names: Cov = Coventry Cov N = Coventry North Bed = Bedworth Nun = Nuneaton

7.3.2 Catchment Mode Shares

Figure 45 shows the defined catchment area of Coventry Arena Station and the zones included in the analysis of the change of mode within the station catchment. There is no forecast change to the mode share of car trips (79.6%) and the mode share of rail rises from zero to 1.3% as a result of the scheme. Bus mode shares fall from 20.4% to 19.2%. The higher rail mode share for individual zones within the catchment is 3.9%.

Figure 46 shows the defined catchment area of Bermuda Park Station and the zones included in the analysis of the change of mode within the station catchment. There is no forecast change to the mode share of car trips (85.6%) and the mode share of rail rises from zero to 1.4% as a result of the scheme. Bus mode shares fall from 14.4% to 13.0%. The higher rail mode share for individual zones within the catchment is 2.9%.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 56 of 134

Figure 44 Screenlines for Mode Share Analysis

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 57 of 134

Figure 45 Coventry Arena Station Catchment

Figure 46 Bermuda Park Station Catchment

DM DS Zone Car Bus Train Car Bus Train 12082 96.1% 3.9% 0.0% 96.1% 3.9% 0.0% 20722 94.1% 5.9% 0.0% 94.1% 5.9% 0.0% 20741 95.3% 4.7% 0.0% 95.3% 4.2% 0.5% 20742 92.1% 7.9% 0.0% 92.1% 7.8% 0.1% 20743 94.9% 5.1% 0.0% 94.9% 4.7% 0.4% 20751 86.0% 14.0% 0.0% 85.8% 12.6% 1.7% 20752 82.6% 17.4% 0.0% 82.6% 13.5% 3.9% 20753 84.0% 16.0% 0.0% 84.0% 12.8% 3.1% 20931 75.0% 25.0% 0.0% 74.9% 21.7% 3.4% 20932 91.9% 8.1% 0.0% 91.9% 7.7% 0.4% 20941 94.7% 5.3% 0.0% 94.8% 5.2% 0.0% 20942 84.8% 15.2% 0.0% 84.8% 15.2% 0.0% 20945 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 98.0% 2.0% 21111 40.1% 59.9% 0.0% 39.9% 56.5% 3.6% 21112 66.8% 33.2% 0.0% 66.8% 31.4% 1.8% 21113 82.9% 17.1% 0.0% 82.9% 15.6% 1.5% 21114 98.0% 2.0% 0.0% 98.0% 1.9% 0.2% 21121 73.5% 26.5% 0.0% 73.5% 26.5% 0.0% Overall 89.6% 10.4% 0.0% 89.6% 9.9% 0.6%

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 58 of 134

7.4 Explanation of the Rail Demand Increase

The rail line / service under-performs in terms of transport in the corridor. The rail service with less than 1 train per hour is paralleled by a high capacity dual-carriageway and a single carriageway old road and by bus services operating at 8 buses per hour in the north of the corridor and 32 buses per hour in Coventry to the south (on the Foleshill Rd + Lockhurst Lane).

As a result passengers are not choosing to use rail for local trips in the corridor and are more likely to use rail only for longer journeys. The net result of this is a low existing rail mode share.

Figures 4 and 5 show the zones where the new rail trips in the VISUM PT model are coming from. The immediate catchments around the new stations (and improved Bedworth Station) are identifiable in the figures and the diagrams shows the importance of connectivity between bus and rail in the network for improving access to a large parts of Coventry both for passenger origins and destinations.

Other key factors related to the scale of change of rail demand to note are;

• The scheme increases the number of stations in the corridor from 3 to 5 – significantly increasing the accessibility of rail in the corridor;

• The scheme improves connectivity between Coventry and Leicester (and other key centres) these represent two of the largest cities in the Midlands;

• All stations serve a range of development types including housing, offices and commercial developments creating trips in all directions throughout the corridor;

• The business case is based on an assessment of the certainty of development included for each station;

ƒ Coventry – substantial mixed use developments in the city centre with parking restraint leading to increased public transport demand - Severn Trent Water new City Centre headquarters (1,400 jobs) was occupied in Autumn 2010 resulting in substantial increase in park and ride use and consequent expansion of park and ride capacity. The Friargate development around the station has outline planning consent and the developers undertook public consultation in November 2010. Recently completed Ikea City Centre store and regeneration of the shopping centre planned.

ƒ Coventry Arena – existing stadium and leisure complex / conference centre with an estimated 3.5m visitors per year and Arena Park retail complex with planning application for expansion in the direction of the proposed station under determination by the Council.

ƒ Bedworth – Sustainable housing expansion proposed and nearby district centre where Tesco are redeveloping their town centre store.

ƒ Bermuda – recently completed housing and commercial developments including Holland and Barratt headquarters 35,000 sq ft three storey offices and further developments planned.

ƒ Nuneaton – existing town centre with substantial housing and likely location for further sustainable housing extensions around the existing built-up area.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 59 of 134

7.4.1 Revenue Forecasts

The fare levels for journeys to and from the new stations are set within the existing fare structure for journeys between the existing stations on the line. The forecast income that the operators receive needs to take into account the levels of discount on some tickets (eg: returns and season tickets) and how that varies by time period. We calibrated the assumed discount by time period using the do-minimum flows to reproduce the average fare produced for the ‘within line’ trips in MOIRA (see below) of £1.98 per journey. The resultant discounts were; 40% in AM and PM peaks and 50% in the Inter-peak.

(a) Additional Revenues

In addition to the forecast fares revenue from the transport models the business case includes additional revenues resulting from car park revenues and retail income through additional passengers passing through the stations.

Car Park Revenues

Car parking rates per journey were estimated for Coventry and Nuneaton stations based on the car park size and annual (outbound) flow data for each station – this was applied to the forecast additional demands for longer distance travel at Coventry and Nuneaton, including all ‘external’ flows (estimated using MOIRA) and half of the AM peak Coventry – Nuneaton end-to-end traffic. This gave forecasts of about 0.2k and 0.8k additional cars parked per year at Coventry and Nuneaton stations respectively. Revenues were based on the existing peak and off peak charges6 (assuming 58% peak and 42% off peak arrivals) – giving a total of around £73k per year at the two stations. A further £9k of revenue from the parking at Coventry Arena is also included.

Retail Income

Additional retail income is assumed for additional rail passengers using Coventry and Nuneaton stations and assuming an average spend per person of £0.25 and an assumed rental income to the station owner of 5% of turnover. The resultant forecasts are £2.7k at Coventry and £2.0k at Nuneaton.

The resultant forecast of additional revenue resulting from the transport models for the preferred scheme is £637,745 in 2002 prices in 2014.

6 Coventry £8 peak and £4 off peak, Nuneaton £6 peak and £3.50 off peak. Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 60 of 134

8 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

8.1 Introduction

The preferred option involves creation of a bay platform at the West end of Platform 1 at Coventry Station, a new two-platform station at Coventry Arena and a new two- platform station at Bermuda Park. The platforms at Coventry Station and Coventry Arena will be 6-car length and a cross-over is to be installed at Coventry Arena to enable longer trains to be operated between the City Centre and Coventry Arena on major event days.

At Bermuda Park the platforms will be 3-car length and the existing platforms at Bedworth station will be extended to accommodate 3-car trains. At the new stations the platforms will be equipped with waiting shelters, cycle shelters / lockers, ticket vending machines, timetable display boards, CCTV, next train indicators, PA systems, lighting, passenger help points, clock, station signs and road signage.

The new stations will be unstaffed, though passive provision is being made for a future booking office at Coventry Arena.

30 car park spaces will be created alongside St George’s Way at Bermuda Park. There is ample available car parking in the vicinity of Coventry Arena Station and ongoing negotiations with Coventry Arena are taking place to secure, at least, enough car parking to provide for those who wish to arrive by car from the station catchment area.

The transport models are based on average weekday conditions and therefore exclude the demand (and costs) associated with provision for major events at Coventry Arena, eg: football matches and Concerts in the Stadium. As the benefits associated with those events are not included the economic appraisal of the scheme is presented without the costs associated with the major events, specifically the longer platform provisions and turn-back at Arena.

Previous scheme appraisals have assisted in the determination of the preferred scheme, both in terms of the number of stations and in terms of the frequency. The business case is presented based on a half – hourly service and the ‘next best alternative’ is also assessed – the infrastructure without the timetable improvements, as this might be a fall-back position if the DfT and scheme promoters cannot support the subsidy requirements in the future.

8.2 Capital Costs

The estimated capital costs for the scheme come from the GRIP4 review undertaken in 2011 and are shown in Tables 34. The costs exclude elements of the scheme related to cope with the major stadium events at Ricoh Arena, as the models exclude the benefits of major events.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 61 of 134

Table 32 Capital Costs (1st Quarter 2011)

Element Cost Bay Platform at Coventry Station (including trackworks) £9,493,641 New Bermuda Park Station £3,030,902 Extension of Bedworth Station £1,085,297 New Coventry Arena Station £2,992,581 Project Management and Supervision £640,793 Total £17,243,214

It is assumed that the scheme can be constructed in 2012/13 and 2013/14 and operational in 2014.

8.3 Operating Costs

The preferred option involves increasing the service timetable from less than hourly to a standard pattern half-hourly timetable. The operating and maintenance costs have been estimated in conjunction with London Midland train operating company through estimation of the costs relating to the existing service and for the half-hourly service.

Since the submission of the business case for the scheme for Programme Entry in 2010 there has been a change to the base rolling stock assumptions due to revisions to the HLOS process. There is no longer a commitment to replacing the existing Class 153 single car unit with a 2-car Class 150 train. The incremental additional operating costs have been adjusted accordingly (Table 33) and are significantly higher than in 2010. An allowance of 6% has been included for additional overheads and operating margin.

Table 33 Annual Additional Operating Costs (1st Quarter 2011)

Element Cost Annual Lease Cost £308,023 Rolling Stock Mtce / Cleaning £53,360 Fuel £189,640 Variable Track Access Charge £19,164 Driver £204,000 Conductor £120,000 Capacity Charge weekdays £49,096 Capacity Charge weekends £7,716 Additional Station Operating costs £100,000 Overheads and Operators Margin £64,333 Total £1,136,548

8.4 User Benefits

8.4.1 Weekday Public Transport User Benefits

The user time savings have been calculated through the TUBA model. The model processes skimmed passenger generalised time matrices and passenger matrices output from the Visum Models (after the application of the choice model) for the base year, do-minimum and do-something scenarios. The TUBA model parameters were set in accordance with the appraisal spreadsheet assumptions and the annualisation factors previously specified. Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 62 of 134

The TUBA model outputs present value benefits. For the estimation of the impact of the assumed demand / revenue ramp up annual benefit forecasts were output from the TUBA model for the initial years. The ramp up factor is applied to the new public transport users, the proportion of new users was calculated through comparison of the difference between line users from the public transport model forecast (pre-choice model) and post choice model forecast.

The TUBA model analysis excluded movements / trips to external zones and also a small number of zone – zone pairs flagged up by the TUBA model as illogical results. The model was applied to the with-fares and no-fares model results and combined in the economic appraisal spreadsheet. The model was applied to the preferred scheme and the Next Best alternative scheme. The User Benefits forecast are shown in Table 34.

Table 34 User Benefits Weekday Trips

Option Market Segments Time Saving Benefits £(k) (PV) Preferred Scheme With Fares – Consumers (commuting) £1,015 With Fares – Consumers (others) £2,701 With Fares - Business £724 No Fares – Consumers (commuting) £1,720 No Fares – Consumers (others) £5,579 No Fares – Business £1,274

Total £13,013 Next Best Alternative With Fares – Consumers (commuting) £363 With Fares – Consumers (others) £923 With Fares - Business £260 No Fares – Consumers (commuting) £455 No Fares – Consumers (others) £1,186 No Fares – Business £312

Total £3,499

Tables 35 and 36 show the time benefits and monetised time benefits categorised by the size of the time savings. This shows that the appraisal takes into account both the positive and negative changes and that the benefits tend to be over 5 minutes per passenger indicating significant benefits compared to highway schemes. The negative impacts result from changes in the connection times bought by the revised timetable but are outweighed 4 to 1 by those benefiting from the scheme.

Table 35 Time Benefits by Size of Time Saving (‘000s of person hours)

Purpose Year -5 to -2 -2 to 0 0 to 2 2 to 5 < -5 mins mins mins mins mins > 5 mins Business 2016 0 0 0 0 0 3 Business 2031 0 0 0 0 0 3 Business Total -33 -9 -4 13 31 168 Commuting 2016 -4 -1 0 1 4 22 Commuting 2031 -4 -1 0 1 4 20 Commuting Total -255 -54 -29 79 227 1260 Other 2016 -16 -5 -2 7 17 72 Other 2031 -15 -5 -2 7 16 69 Other Total -893 -302 -130 446 940 4138

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 63 of 134

Table 36 Monetised Time Benefits by Size of Time Saving (£k)

Purpose Year -5 to -2 -2 to 0 0 to 2 2 to 5 < -5 mins mins mins mins mins > 5 mins Business 2016 -11 -2 -1 4 10 52 Business 2031 -8 -2 -1 3 7 38 Business Total -401 -101 -50 149 382 2018 Commuting 2016 -16 -3 -1 5 14 77 Commuting 2031 -11 -2 -1 4 10 54 Commuting Total -567 -121 -64 175 504 2806 Other 2016 -49 -17 -7 25 52 226 Other 2031 -34 -12 -5 17 35 157 Other Total -1761 -593 -255 880 1854 8157

8.4.2 Electronic copies of TUBA files

The TUBA output files are provided as Appendix 14 of the submission. These contain a number of non-serious warnings related to do minimum (DM) to do something (DS) scenario travel time ratio. There are few warnings related to ratio being lower than the limit which indicates that travel time in DS has increased. Study of these warnings show that though the percentage increase in time is high the actual difference in value is around 1 minute and is related to trips which have changed their mode to travel to save on fare in DS. For example, some trips between Cheylesmore and south of Arena in DS use train and walk rest of the distance instead of two bus trips as in DM to save on fare which leads to increase in journey time and higher DM to DS ratio. However as the number of such trips is very less this is considered acceptable.

The other set of warnings are related to DM to DS travel time ratio being higher than the limit, which means the journey time in DS has reduced considerably. These warning include trips to and between Coventry (388) and Nuneaton (389) railway stations, locations around Nuneaton and Bedworth (69, 70, 89, 93 and 100) and some locations in Coventry around Arena, Holbrook, Foleshill and Cheylesmore. These are the locations where the largest changes would be expected.

8.4.3 Long Distance and Events Traffic User Benefits

The MOIRA model produces user time savings benefits for long distance trips to/from existing stations – detailed in 20.

To estimate the user benefits for the long distance trips for the new stations we have used the MOIRA model average benefit for Bedworth long distance journeys (£1.79 per journey in 2009 prices). This was applied to all long distance journeys to/from Bermuda Park and Coventry Arena (i.e. 10% of journeys, not just the 1% net increase in long distance journeys) – generating an additional benefit of £117k per annum.

The Bedworth long distance journeys benefits rate was also applied to the events traffic to estimate the user benefits – generating an additional benefit of £32k per annum.

8.4.4 Performance Benefits

The timetable modelling work undertaken for Centro in November 2009 revealed that the bay platform with the half hourly service in place will result in an average performance benefit at Coventry Station of six seconds.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 64 of 134

The passengers receiving this benefit are those boarding and alighting at Coventry Station - 4,665,501 according to Centro’s 2007 / 08 data based on rail passenger counts – and through trips – approximately 6.8m per annum according to MOIRA data inspector analysis. The performance benefits calculation take account of the perceived weight related to delays (3 times actual times lost / saved according to PDFH) and application of a value of time of £7.47 per hour (in 2002 prices) based on WebTAG unit 3.5.6 assuming average journey purpose split for rail passengers.

The analysis reveals a performance benefit of the preferred scheme of £427,962 per annum. Whilst this benefit could also lead to some increased rail patronage and revenue on the other services through Coventry Station, this has not been included with should be noted as a cautious assumption.

Within the economic appraisal the benefits are assumed to grow in line with Centro’s rail passenger demand model (average West Midlands Rates). This model is being used in the ongoing West Midlands and Chilterns RUS study the growth factors are 2009 - 2.9%, 2010 - 2.6%, 2011 – 2.9%, 2012 – 2.6%, 2013 – 2.7%, 2014 – 2.3%, 2015 to 2019 – 1.7%, 2020 to 2024 – 1.3% and 2025 on – 1.2%. The value of time is also assumed to rise in line with WebTAG unit 3.5.6.

8.4.5 Physical Fitness Benefits

The benefits of improved physical fitness on mortality are likely to be significant where significant levels of mode shift are expected7. Table 37 shows the calculation of the reduced mortality benefits based on the appraisal guidance / values. The full rate of benefit is included assuming an average walk of 10 minutes to / from Coventry City Centre and eight minutes to and from origin stations on the line.

In addition to reducing the impact to relate to assumed commuters we have also assumed that 15% would still use their car to access the station. This is considered a cautious approach as some other users might gain partial benefit and some abstractions from current park and ride at other stations could walk to the station and gain a partial benefit. On the other hand some car commuters may have a significant walk from their car park to their final destination in Coventry City Centre.

Table 37 Benefits of Increased Physical Activity (Mortality Benefits)

Element Value Total new public transport journeys per annum diverted from car 36k Total trips per day* 58 Assumed Frequent / regular users (41%) 29 Mean proportion of England and Wales population aged 15 -64 who die 0.00235 each year from all causes (source. ONS, 2007) Expected deaths in population 0.0679 Relative risk reduction (Copenhagen factor) (28%) 0.01901 Cost of Life (source: DfT, 2002 cost at 2002 prices) £1,215,000 Reduced mortality benefits per annum £23.1k

7 TAG Unit 3.3.12, The Physical Fitness Sub-Objective, DfT April 2009. Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 65 of 134

The estimate of reduced absenteeism benefits are based on the DfT Guidance on the Appraisal of Walking and Cycling Schemes which assume that for each employee who takes up physical exercise for 30 minutes a day for five days a week as a result of a walking of cycling intervention the annual benefit to employers is likely to be (on average) as least 0.4 days gross salary costs. The gross salary cost in DfT guidance8 is £26.73 per hour in 2002 prices and values.

Table 38 shows the estimated calculation of the estimated employees receiving the benefit and the application of the factor to derive the employers benefits.

Table 38 Estimation of Reduced Absenteeism Benefits

Element Value Rate (days per employee) 0.4 Assumed day 8 hours Assumed Hours 3.2 per employee Working Time Value £26.73 per hour Value per employee £85.54 Relevant Journeys (assuming 250 working days per year) 17 persons per day Reduced Absenteeism benefits per annum £1.5k

8.5 Non – User and External Benefits

The following wider economic benefits have been calculated for the appraisal;

• External – non-user benefits relating to;

• Traffic decongestion time saving benefits – as a result of the additional rail traffic resulting from the frequency enhancement and the new station some of which will have transferred from making journeys by private car;

• Infrastructure maintenance cost savings as a result of the reduction of traffic on the highway network;

• Accident Savings – resulting from a reduction in trips on the highway as a result of the mode shift to rail, and;

• Environment benefits attributed to improved local air quality and reduced greenhouse gasses relating to the mode switch to rail.

• Rail Safety Benefits (costs) - resulting from the increased use of rail, and;

• Indirect costs to Government as a result of lost revenue from fuel taxes.

The application of the transport models including the Choice Model containing combined frequency / distribution parameters and mode choice parameters, failed to produce acceptable quantification of non-user traffic congestion benefits. This was concluded to be due to;

8 Webtag Unit 3.5.6, Values of Time and Operating Costs, July2008 Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 66 of 134

• The relatively small number of highway transfer trips forecast by the models – outweighed by the additional public transport users forecast by the frequency element of the model; • The element of trip generation by the frequency / distribution element of the choice model resulting in refilling the highway network, and; • The overall ‘noise’ in the congested highway models resulting in counter-intuitive results in some time periods/ scenarios in the two forecast years.

However, it is recognised that there must be benefits attributable to;

• The transfers from the highway to rail as a result of the improved accessibility, and / or; • The additional trips generated – suggesting increased work, business and retail trips which would result in increased employment / reduced unemployment and benefits payments, additional business journeys suggesting increased productivity and additional retail sales.

It was therefore considered appropriate to utilise the DfT’s Guidance on Rail Appraisal External Costs of Car Use (WebTAG unit 3.13.2, April 2007) – particularly as the guidance is suitable for schemes below £25m. However, the inputs to the analyses were derived from the transport models. This required a run of the choice models without the frequency / distribution function to determine the modal switch and assignment to the PT models. (This process also enabled the frequency element of the demand forecasts to be estimated for the calculation of new users for the determination of the ramp up factor for benefits and revenues in the appraisal spreadsheet.)

The estimated car transfer trips were grown in line with the expansion factors previously detailed.

8.5.1 Non User Benefits

The non-user benefits have been assessed using the DfT Guidance on Rail Appraisal: External Costs of Car Use and associated spreadsheets. This procedure produced recommended values for Congestion, infrastructure, accident, local air quality and greenhouse gases benefits resulting from the assumed transfer of trips from car for 2008 and 2025.

The appraisal is based on the car transfers from the transport models for the internal trips within the modelled area. For processing the Long Distance trips and Events trips the appraisal assumed car transfers of 44% of these new rail demands (based on WebTAG unit 3.13.2) and a car occupancy factor of 1.2 to derive the net change in car trips. It was assumed that the within corridor trips removed have an average distance of 8km and the longer distance trips have an average distance of 50.6km (based on the MOIRA model outputs).

The rates used and values derived for the external impacts took account of the different congestion conditions experienced in the corridor and outside the urban area for longer distance trips. The MOIRA flows for the top 80% of long distance journeys were analysed to determine the lengths of urban and rural motorway and urban and rural A- roads that would be used and the averages computed. The external costs of ca use rates were computed for the different road types and a weighted average factor derived for 2010 and 2025 taking account of the proportion of within corridor and longer journeys forecast for the scheme.

Table 39 shows the resultant rates and computed benefits.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 67 of 134

Table 39 External Costs of Car Use (Non-user benefits) rates / values.

Marginal External Cost Rate p/pass Rate p/pass Value (£) Value (£) car unit 2010 car unit 2025 2010 2025 Congestion (including MPA 18.70 22.33 £118,819 £184,850 factor) Infrastructure 0.05 0.05 £336 £438 Accident 2.92 3.55 £18,579 £29,408 Local Air Quality 0.91 0.73 £5,775 £6,006 Noise 0.22 0.27 £1,411 £2,234

The appraisal of the within corridor decongestion benefits utilised the ‘West Midlands conurbation’ assumptions. Coventry is part of the West Midlands, though it lies to the east of the main conurbation. The Coventry – Bedworth – Nuneaton corridor is part of the Coventry / Warwickshire sub-region and reflects conurbation characteristics. The ‘DaSTS Improving Connectivity in the Coventry North South Corridor Study’ reported that 80% of residents work in the corridor showing it to be self-contained.

The free flow highway speed in the corridor is 311 mph (as forecast by the model) and the 2008 AM peak speed is 21.2 mph. The delays in the morning peak are 32% of the journey time as a result of the highly congested highway network.

Table 40 shows the increase in highway delays in the future year models showing an 8% increase to 2016 but no further increase to 2031. This may result from the 2031 modelling assumptions which included capping demand to / from Coventry City Centre and completion of the A444 north-south road which benefits the south end of the corridor.

Table 40 Forecast increase in Highway Delays (Southbound)

From To Base (s) 2016 DM (s) 2031 DM (s) Nuneaton Town Centre Bermuda 150 165 173 Bermuda Bedworth 18 31 32 Bedworth Arena 111 110 114 Arena Coventry City Centre 240 256 243 Total 519 562 562 % increase base to 2016 8.3% % increase base to 2031 8.3% % increase 2016 to 2031 0.0%

Figure 47 shows the locations of congested highway network in the AM peak 2016 do- minimum model. This shows that the almost continuous urban area between Coventry and Nuneaton experiences similar congestion levels throughout the corridor and thereby displays conditions experienced elsewhere in the West Midlands conurbation.

Congestion relief resulting from the Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade is likely to be relatively high (relative to the actual number of trips forecast to transfer from road), as the transferred trips are concentrated on a small number of destinations. Access to those destinations are particularly congested (e.g. Coventry City Centre). The effect of a small level of transfers is therefore likely to be magnified.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 68 of 134

Figure 47 2016 AM Do Minimum Peak Highway Volume / Capacity

In addition it should be noted that our Do-Minimum and Do-Something highway networks include the Highways Agency’s Toll Bar End scheme (in 2031) which relieves congestion on the A45 / A46 junction and the A444 north south road and M6 ATM extension to junction 2. These schemes have not received funding approval and if they do not go ahead there will be additional traffic congestion throughout the network.

8.5.2 Highway Model noise

The application of the transport models failed to produce acceptable quantification of non-user traffic congestion benefits due to;

• The relatively small number of highway transfer trips forecast by the models – outweighed by the additional public transport users forecast by the frequency element of the model; • The element of trip generation by the frequency / distribution element of the choice model resulting in refilling the highway network, and; • The overall ‘noise’ in the congested highway models resulting in counter-intuitive results in some time periods/ scenarios in the two forecast years.

The very small forecast net reduction in highway trips forecast by the demand model (including the backfilling of transferred trips arising from the frequency model) was actually smaller than the tolerance allowed in our highway network assignment convergence target – leading to unreliable results when comparing the do-minimum and do-something final highway assignments

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 69 of 134

8.5.3 Greenhouse Gases Impact (Carbon)

The DfT has recently issued revised guidance on the appraisal of greenhouse gases impacts including revised figures for the value of carbon reduction. The forecast reductions in carbon emissions as a result of the reduction in car trips due to modal switch to rail are shown in Table 41 along with the forecast of increased Carbon resulting from operating the additional trains.

The figures for rail derive from the Rail Emission Model9 for a Class 150 3-car train adjusted by 2/3rds for the proposed 2 car train. It should be noted that the emissions model assumed a station spacing of 16km whereas the Coventry – Nuneaton Line has an average station spacing of 3.7km. The emissions are likely to be underestimated for this scheme.

The low transfer of car trips to the line results in the carbon impacts being outweighed by the carbon emissions for the additional train in service. The passenger growth and growth in the value of carbon over time results in the net carbon impact remaining around the same value until the demand cap, after which it increases. Table 41 Greenhouse Gases Impact Calculations

Element Value Units Reduced Carbon Net Change in Carkm 729,124 Car kms Average emissions 246 g / km CO2 per km10 CO2 reduction 156 Tonnes Carbon reduction 42.6 Tonnes

Increased Carbon 3 car Class 150 CO2 3202 g/km emissions rate Assumed 2 car C150 2135 g/km emissions rate Additional rail miles 82,368 Miles p.a. Additional kms p.a. 131,789 km Additional Carbon p.a. 76.7 Tonnes

Net reduction in -34.1 Tonnes Carbon p.a Value of Carbon per £156.52 2002 prices Tonne Value of reduced -£5,339 carbon per annum

It is likely that there will be an increased likelihood that future passengers will have otherwise used cars so the future impact could be underestimated.

Rail Safety Benefits (Costs)

The scheme appraisal takes account of the saving in road accidents as a result of reduced highway traffic (see above) and the increase in rail accidents as a result of increased rail use.

9 Rail Emission Model, AEA Technology, November 2001 10 Based on DMRB Volume 11 Section 3, UK transport emissions 1999 and 1999 vehicle kms. Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 70 of 134

8.5.4 Indirect Tax Cost to Government

The transfer of journeys from the private car to rail results in a loss of government revenue as a result of the reduction in fuel sales and the resulting reduction in fuel tax income. For this appraisal the value of this factor was estimated using the DfT Guidance on Rail Appraisal: External Costs of Car Use (Transport Analysis Guidance Unit 3.13.2, April 2007) spreadsheet which suggested values of 3.7p / car km in 2008 and 2.7p / car km in 2025 (which incorporates the DfT’s assumption that vehicles become more fuel efficient over time). While the use of this spreadsheet value in this context does not strictly follow Transport Appraisal Guidance, this represents a suitable simplified approach for this scheme.

8.6 Economic Appraisal

8.6.1 Economic Appraisal Assumptions

The economic appraisal brings together the demand and revenue forecasts, scheme capital and operating costs, user and non-user benefits.

As the majority of benefits relate to rail passengers the economic appraisal has been undertaken in accordance with the Guidance on Rail Appraisal. Key assumptions were;

• 2002 price base and 2002 prices, deflating costs and revenues using RPI factors;

• Discounted over 60 years of operation from 2014 to a 2002 base assuming a discount rate of 3.5% from 2002 to 2040 and 3.0% for the remaining years;

• Assuming value of time growth in accordance with appraisal guidance;

• Interpolation of the growth in external costs of car use (non-user benefits) between the forecasts for 2010 and 2025 with rail passenger demand growth and value of time growth thereafter;

• Application of the 20.9% market price adjustment factor to the Capital Costs, Operating Costs and Revenues, and to User Benefits;

• Optimism bias of 40% applied to Capital Costs – in accordance with WebTAG 3.13.2 Guidance for Rail Appraisal;

• Optimism bias of 1% p.a. above inflation applied to non vehicle lease costs element of the operating costs throughout the appraisal – in accordance with WebTAG 3.13.2;

• Growth in rail fares of RPI +1% with a revenue elasticity of 0.4 to determine revenue growth, and;

• Ramp up of demand, revenue and benefits assuming 50% in year one and 80% in year two of operation.

8.6.2 Growth Assumptions

Within the economic appraisal user benefits are grown over time in TUBA based on the 2016 and 2031 model results. Other revenues and benefits outside the main forecasting models are assumed to grow in line with Centro’s rail passenger demand model (average West Midlands Rates). This model was used in the West Midlands and Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 71 of 134

Chilterns RUS which has recently been published for consultation and is therefore the best estimate accepted by the rail industry.

The Centro Rail Demand Forecasting Model (2009) employed ticket sales data coupled with Centro survey data to address Centrocard / season ticket allocation issues and developed forecasts based on committed schemes and included the following key exogenous growth drivers;

• Employment; • Population; • GDP (per capita); • Private transport costs; • Other public transport costs, availability and quality; • Other destination services: airport; education; etc. • Public attitudes e.g. environment.

That study used regression analysis to calibrate the best fit model of rail demand to demand drivers. The resultant growth factors are;

• 2009: 2.9%, • 2010: 2.6%, • 2011: 2.9%, • 2012: 2.6%, • 2013: 2.7%, • 2014: 2.3%, • 2015 to 2019: 1.7% p.a., • 2020 to 2024: 1.3% p.a., and • 2025 on: 1.2% p.a.

The growth appears cautious given that the Coventry – Nuneaton service experienced 10.5% growth between 2008 and 2009.

The value of time is also assumed to rise in line with WebTAG unit 3.5.6.

8.6.3 Demand Build Up

Ramp up factors were applied for demand, revenue and benefits attributable to new public transport users (i.e. those derived by the demand model attributable to modal switch and (proxy) trip frequency / redistribution effects). The factors assumed for these users were 50% in year one and 80% in year two of operation. However, no ramp-up was assumed for reassignment effects from existing public transport users (mainly bus) - these were assumed to transfer from the start of the new service.

As the majority of users of the scheme are forecast to be existing public transport users, the overall weighted average ramp-up factors for all new rail users were calculated and applied as follows;

• • 0.812113 in year 1, and; • • 0.924845 in year 2.

8.6.4 Application of Market Price Factor to User Benefits

Market price adjustment factors were applied to the capital costs, operating costs and user benefits in accordance with WebTAG. In particular, we included a factor of 5% of business users in the application of the MPA factor to user benefits. This reflects the

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 72 of 134

relatively low level of business use on local public transport services and is considered cautious in relation to this scheme.

8.6.5 Cost Benefit Analysis Results

The value for money assessment based on the benefit – cost ratio (BCR) as specified in the Guidance on Rail Appraisal (section 3.10.1) is summarised in Table 42.

The BCR is the Present Value of the Benefits (PVB) divided by the Present Value of the Costs (PVC) where;

• PVB = Net private revenues – private costs + subsidies + grants + user benefits + non user benefits and; • PVC = cost to government

Table 42 Economic Appraisal – Preferred Scheme

Element Present Values Capital Costs £19.2m Revenues £20.1m Net Operating and maintenance costs £20.3m Subsidies / grants £0.2m Present Value Benefits (PVB) £57.1m Present Value Costs (PVC) £19.9m Net Present Value (NPV) £37.3m Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.9

The Tables summarising the economic efficiency, public accounts and analysis of monetised costs and benefits are provided in Appendix 3.6.

8.7 Next Best Alternative

The next best alternative is defined as the preferred scheme without the frequency increase. The appraisal is based on the same modelling approach as the preferred scheme with the following changes in the demand and revenue forecasting and economic appraisal;

• Reduced operating costs to station operating costs only (£151k per annum); • Exclusion of long distance passengers, revenue and benefits for existing stations; • Reduction of event traffic demand assuming 5% capture rate; • Removal of double counting factor; • Revised transport model outputs and TUBA results, etc.

The resultant cost benefit results are shown in Table 43.

Table 43 Economic Appraisal – Next Best Alternative

Element Present Values Capital Costs £19.2m Revenues £9.1m Net Operating and maintenance costs £3.3m Subsidies / grants £0.0m Present Value Benefits (PVB) £39.8m Present Value Costs (PVC) £19.5m

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 73 of 134

Net Present Value (NPV) £20.3m Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.0

8.8 Low Cost Alternative

The Low Cost Alternative (LCA) is defined as the preferred scheme without the frequency increase and without the provision of the bay platform at Coventry Station. The appraisal is based on the same modelling approach as for the next best scheme option with the following additional changes;

• Reduced Capital Costs to £11m in 2008 prices (excluding scheme development costs); • Removal of performance benefits.

The resultant cost benefit results are shown in Table 44.

Table 44 Economic Appraisal – Low Cost Alternative

Element Present Values Capital Costs £14.7m Revenues £9.1m Net Operating and maintenance costs £3.3m Subsidies / grants £0.0m Present Value Benefits (PVB) £21.0m Present Value Costs (PVC) £15.0m Net Present Value (NPV) £6.0m Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.4

8.9 Wider Economic Impacts

8.9.1 Introduction

WebTAG identifies four types of wider impacts;

• Agglomeration impacts – These are likely to be significant as the Coventry – Nuneaton rail upgrade scheme will improve accessibility between two significant urban areas and between new and existing stations in the urban area. The scheme is wholly within the ‘core’ functional urban regions defined by the DfT and also benefits areas in the hinterland of the FUR’s, In Figure 48 the Core and Hinterland zones of the corridor are shown in blue and red respectively;

• Labour Supply Impacts – These are likely to be relevant through the change in accessibility brought between residential and employment areas by the scheme;

• Output Change – There benefits are likely to be relatively small as business use of rail is relatively low and highway congestion relief limited (and difficult to forecast accurately with the congested highway model), and;

• Move to more productive jobs – requires a Land Use Transport Interaction (LUTI) Model which is not available. It assumes movement of businesses as a result of changed accessibility or of residents.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 74 of 134

Figure 48 Functional Urban Area Coventry / Nuneaton and Bedworth

Table 45 shows the assessment of the issues in calculating the benefits against the checklist in the WebTAG guidance. Table 45 Checklist for Wider Impacts Assessment

Issue Assessment Geographical extent of Model Reasonably good in terms of reflecting locations with and without significant change in accessibility. Completeness of Data Both Highway and Public Transport models available. The current public transport model outputs to TUBA are not split by journey purpose but journey purpose matrices are available to provide the splits from the analysis of the original survey data. The highway model may not produce reliable journey time savings, but the data from the highway model can be input and held constant in the scenarios to derive the benefits from public transport accessibility change. Employment Data This data is provided by the DfT for use in the WITA model Scale of Issues Agglomeration +ve change and significant Labour Supply +ve change and significant Output change +ve small impact Move to more productive jobs X (no LUTI model) Spatial Considerations The greatest changes in accessibility occur between Coventry and Nuneaton centres and between the new stations and Coventry and Nuneaton. The areas of benefit are identified in need of regeneration. The issues are likely to persist as there is a lack of any other transport measures proposed in the corridor and increasing traffic congestion.

The quantification of the wider economic benefits has been undertaken through the application of the WITA model (Beta version 1.1). The application of the model involved;

• Setting up the correspondence files between the Model Zones, LAD zones and WITA assessment zones. • Adjusting the TUBA input files to split public transport journey purpose and producing corresponding highway files for input to WITA.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 75 of 134

• Adjusting the TUBA Scheme file and TUBA Economics file as appropriate for the split matrices, highway matrices and zoning. • Converting the highway and PT commuting Origin Destination matrices by peak period to 18 hr Production Attraction matrices and aggregating them and scaling the matrix to match the employment data. • Running the data check program and processing errors. • Running the WITA program and reviewing the outputs to ensure that they are sensible and realistic in terms of the location of impacts and scale of impacts.

8.9.2 WITA Application Assumptions

Following assumptions were made to code the WITA deck. These assumptions are based on the data availability and shortfalls of beta version of WITA.

• TUBA version v1.7 is used as WITA is incompatible with TUBAv1.8. However value of time (VOT) change has been updated in the TUBA economic file to take into account the effects of economic downturn.

• LAD economic, employment data and GDP values in the global data file have been updated in accordance to DATA set v2.2. But as WITA does not support negative GDP values, zero growth has been considered for years 2008 and 2009.

• It is assumed that there are no changes taking place in the highway model demand; hence the demand in each scenario and year remains the same. This assumption relates to the unreliability of the highway model to forecast the non- user benefits resulting from a relatively small forecast transfer to rail but large ‘noise’ in the future year congested assignment model.

• As a LUTI model is not available, labour market impacts from the move to more/less productive jobs remains zero.

8.9.3 Zone Correspondence

A zoning system which equates the highway and public transport (PT) model and WITA model to the local authority district (LAD) zones has been developed. The correspondence between the three models works by providing two zone correspondence files; the first file specifies the equivalence between the transport model and WITA zones and the second specifies WITA and LAD zone correspondence.

The study area of PT model is more widespread than the highway model and the models don’t have same boundaries for some peripheral zones. To develop the equivalence between the three models correspondence between the highway and PT transport model zones was initially developed. With the help of GIS tools (MapInfo), the study area common to both models was identified; intersection of both the zoning systems leaves 313 internal transport model zones, shown in Figure 49.

The second step was to ensure that the WITA zones follow the LAD boundaries; as the zones in Rugby, Solihull and Warwick do not capture the entire LAD zone, it was consider inappropriate to include them in the WITA zoning system. Figure 50 shows the resultant correspondence with the grey portion defining the study area for the WITA model. There are 297 zones left in transport model.

The final WITA study area correspondence comprises of zones which fall within Coventry and Nuneaton and Bedworth LAD boundaries as shown in Figure 51. Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 76 of 134

Figure 49 Transport Model Zone Correspondence

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 77 of 134

Figure 50 WITA Zone Correspondence

Figure 51 WITA Local Authority District Zones

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 78 of 134

8.9.4 Wita Model results

The Wita model outputs a summary of all four wider impacts for each modelled year and the full appraisal period which is shown in Table 46. All the values in the table are in thousands and discounted to 2002 in 2002 prices.

Table 46 Quantified Wider Economic Benefits (£k PV).

Benefit 2016 2031 Appraisal Period Agglomeration – Manufacturing £10 £3 £216 Agglomeration - Construction £3 £1 £61 Agglomeration – Consumer Services £14 £3 £250 Agglomeration – Producer Services £34 £9 £712 Agglomeration - Total £62 £16 £1,239 Labour Supply Impact £5 £8 £299 Increased Output in Imperfectly Competitive Market £170 The Move to more/less productive jobs £0 £0 £0 Total Wider Economic Benefits £67 £24 £1,708

8.9.5 Wider Economic Benefits Impact of Appraisal Results

The impact of the addition of £1.7m (present value) of wider economic benefits to the economic appraisal of the scheme is shown in Table 47. The result is a lifting of the Benefit Cost Ratio by around 0.1.

Table 47 Economic Appraisal with Wider Economic Benefits

DfT WebTAG DfT WebTAG Scheme Scheme Compliant Case compliant case Sponsors Case Sponsors Case plus wider plus wider benefits benefits PVB £40.0m £41.7m £40.7m £42.4m PVC £17.2m £17.2m £16.4m £16.4m NPV £22.8m £24.5m £24.3m £26.0m BCR 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

8.9.6 Conclusion

The Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade scheme will result in significant agglomeration benefits of £1.2m (in present values) resulting from the improved accessibility between Coventry and Nuneaton and locations in-between. The other quantified benefits are £0.3m Labour Supply Impact and £0.2m increased output in imperfectly competitive markets.

No quantification of the move to more productive jobs was included due to the absence of a land use / transport model for the corridor. However, this would be a key benefit of the scheme which improves connectivity between areas of deprivation in the

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 79 of 134

regeneration zone in the corridor and training and employment opportunities in Coventry and further a field.

The inclusion of quantified wider economic benefits with the scheme appraisal has a small positive impact on the value for money assessment.

8.10 Sensitivity Tests

8.10.1 Historic Senstivity Test Results

In 2010 a number of sensitivity tests were completed for the scheme presented for Programme Entry. Some of these results are reproduced in Table 48 where they have not been undertaken for the latest business case. The tests included 10% change around the base assumptions. A test of reducing demand and associated revenues and benefits for the scheme was undertaken to establish the sensitivity to rail demand assumptions. It was estimated that a reduction of the forecast rail demand to two thirds of the base forecasts would produce a BCR of 2.0.

Table 48 Sensitivity analysis results

Test BCR Base 3.5

Capital Costs +10% 3.3 Operating Costs + 10% 3.2 New rolling stock operating costs 3.2 Events traffic with inclusion of 1,000 – 1,500 event numbers 3.9 No event traffic 2.4 Rail Fare Increase +10% 2.7 Bus Fare Increase +10% 3.8 Interchange Penalty assumption reduced from 10 to 8 mins 3.5 Fuel Price Increase +10% 3.5 Fuel Price Decrease -10% 3.5 Values of Time (Rail in-vehicle time weight increase to 0.85) 3.5

8.10.2 New Sensitivity Test Results

The Major Scheme Business Cases: Value for Money Guidance for Development Pool Schemes issued by the DfT in May 2011 detailed the requirements for high and low demand scenarios as follows;

• High Demand: +2.5% for forecasts from the model base year, rising with the square root of the number of years to +15% for forecasts 36 years ahead. For other modes a similar methodology should be employed with the +2.5% replaced as follows: bus travel +1/5%; rail travel +2.0%.

• Low Demand: -2.5% for forecasts from the model base year, rising with the square root of the number of years to -15% fro forecasts 36 years ahead. For other modes a similar methodology should be employed with the -2.5% replaced as follows: bus travel -1.5%; rail travel -2.0%.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 80 of 134

Tables 1 and 2 show the calculated factors for highway, bus and rail for the model years used in the appraisal of this scheme. These have been calculated from the base year of 2008.

Table 49 Calculation of High Growth Test Factors

Mode Factor Applied to 2016 Applied to 2031 8 years 23 years Highway 0.025 0.0707 0.1199 Bus 0.015 0.0424 0.0719 Rail 0.02 0.0566 0.0959 Growth Factors Highway 1.071 1.120 Bus 1.042 1.072 Rail 1.057 1.096

Table 50 Calculation of Low Growth Test Factors

Mode Factor Applied to 2016 Applied to 2031 8 years 23 years Highway -0.025 -0.0707 -0.1199 Bus -0.015 -0.0424 -0.0719 Rail -0.02 -0.0566 -0.0959 Growth Factors Highway 0.929 0.880 Bus 0.958 0.928 Rail 0.943 0.904

The Coventry / Nuneaton transport models contain a separate highway network, enabling the highway factor to be applied to the three time period matrices (AM peak, Inter-peak and PM Peak). The Public Transport models contain combined bus / rail trip matrices – dominated by bus. The bus growth factors were applied to these matrices.

The resultant demand forecasts for the rail scheme are input to an economic appraisal spreadsheet model which contains rail demand growth factors.The rail growth factors were applied directly to the scheme demand , revenue and benefits forecasts within that model.

No reduced development test was undertaken. The review of the developments revealed that excluding the least certain developments would only remove trips in zones peripheral to the scheme. This highlights the fact that for a variety of reasons only developments that are committed and near certain have been included in the vicinity of the scheme.

Table 51 shows the results of sensitivity tests undertaken on the preferred scheme.

The tests show a strong benefit cost ratio event if all scheme costs are included (including elements for major stadium events) and under low economic growth scenarios. A significant increase in the value for money of the scheme results from the high economic growth and structural change scenarios (additional 2% per annum for 10 years).

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 81 of 134

Table 51 Sensitivity Test Results

Test BCR Preferred Scheme 2.5

Plus wider economic benefits 2.6 Full Scheme Costs (+£2.9m) 2.2 High Growth 3.1 Low Growth 2.1 Walk Link to Coventry Station 2.6 Structure Change @ 2% 3.0 Reduced Operating Cost by 1 3.2 vehicle Including Strategic Park and 2.8 Ride at Coventry Arena

The appraisal assumes operating costs associated with provision of two 2-car Class 150 trains replacing a single car Class 153 unit. However, the existing train service is experiencing significant demand growth which, if sustained, will result in the peak train service being significantly crowded by the time the scheme opens and around the time of the next franchise. The DfT might therefore need to pick up the costs of providing a longer train to meet background demand growth. A sensitivity test reducing operating costs by one third for vehicle related elements would lift the BCR to 3.2, this was the assumption in the programme entry submission in March 2010.

Reducing the penalty associate with crossing the ring road from the station to the city centre by 15 seconds and including strategic park and ride at Coventry Arena (without additional capital or operating costs) have a positive impact on the BCR for the scheme.

8.10.3 Distribution Sensitivity Test

The scheme appraisal has employed a Choice model containing Frequency and Moda Choice elements but lacks a redistribution element required for full VDM modelling. The objective of this test was to investigate the outcomes using a trip distribution model to determine what scale of impact this modelling element would have on the scheme appraisal.

The sensitivity test was carried out using the distribution element of the Stage 4 Choice models under development for Coventry, an incremental PA based hierarchical variable demand model. The other choice variables mechanism was switched off in the sensitivity test to observe the impacts of the trip distribution mechanism only.

The scenarios selected for the test were the 2016 Do Minimum (DM) as the base and Do Something Preferred Option (DS) as the future year scenario. The only input difference between the two scenarios was the cost inputs of the PT models with and without the scheme. The highway model 2016 DM matrices were entered for both the DM and DS scenarios to minimise the impact of that element of the model. The model was run for a single iteration.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 82 of 134

The PT trip matrices due to trip distribution model were tabulated by subtracting the PT model run outputs to the pre VDM matrices. These matrices were later imported into the PT model and assigned with assignment parameters in favour of rail rather than the bus services, to present the trip distribution model impacts due to the rail scheme. This is necessary to overcome the multi-routing within the PT model. Note that only the positive trips were assigned in the network.

Figure 52 shows the trip distribution model impacts in the PT AM peak model. From the figure it can be concluded that there is an incremental small change in the network. There was a slight positive impact on the rail corridor and on integrated bus services in the network. The highest load is 6 trips in the southbound direction and 1 trip in the northbound direction along the Coventry to Nuneaton Line. However there were minimal impacts in the Inter Peak as shown in Figure 53.

From the results it can be concluded that the trip distribution model has minimal impacts with the Coventry to Nuneaton Rail Scheme. The highest loads coming from the redistributed trips along the line were 7 trips in both directions in the AM peak. This is a similar level to the Choice model Mode Choice results in the AM peak but much lower in the interpeak.

The redistribution of trip ends as a result in changes in accessibility could lead to increase demand and revenues on the rail line in the order of 0.5% but would produce no change in User or Non-user benefits.

Overall it can be concluded that the distribution model would produce a very slightly positive impact on the economic appraisal of the scheme.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 83 of 134

Figure 52 Trip Distribution Model Impact in the AM Peak.

Figure 53 Trip Distribution Model Impact in the Inter Peak.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 84 of 134

9 NATA ASSESSMENT

9.1 Introduction

This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Transport Appraisal Guidance for Major Schemes11 and includes;

• A quantified Value for Money (VfM) assessment and;

• Presentation of other non-quantified matters that are required to be taken into account.

The basis of the assessment is consistent with the New Approach to Appraisal (NATA) embodied within the Green Book, Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government and Transport Policy, including the ‘New Deal for Transport, Better for Everyone’, and DfT Guidance for Rail Schemes. The appraisal covers the five criteria with an appropriate amount of technical evidence;

• Environment – 10 sub-objectives including noise, atmospheric pollution, impacts on countryside, wildlife, ancient monuments and historic buildings;

• Safety – reducing accidents and improving security;

• Economy – economic efficiency, reliability and wider economic impacts;

• Accessibility – ability for people to reach different locations and facilities by different modes, and;

• Integration – transport interchange and integration with government policies.

The appraisal has utilised available data and information to quantify impacts where possible and has undertaken qualitative assessment elsewhere. The quantified assessment concentrates on the most important impacts. The appraisal of the scheme is described below and summarised in the Appraisal Summary Table (AST) in Appendix 3.6 along with other NATA worksheets.

9.2 Environment

9.2.1 Introduction

The Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade scheme involves improving the frequency of service between Coventry, Bedworth and Nuneaton and provision of two new stations at Coventry Arena and Bermuda Park. Infrastructure works include the provision of; new platforms at the new stations; extending the platforms at Bedworth station to accommodate 3-car trains, and; provision of a bay platform at Coventry Station in the land currently occupied by rail sidings to the west of Platform 1.

11 Guidance for Local Authorities seeking Government funding for major transport schemes, DfT, September 2007, and related DfT Transport Appraisal Guidance. Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 85 of 134

This outline environmental assessment has been produced to inform the Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) submission for the project, based on available information. The key background document input to the assessment is the GRIP Stage 3 report produced for Network Rail in September 2008 and an ecology survey undertaken in February 2010.

The environmental assessment is presented in line with the New Approach to Appraisal (NATA) within the WebTAG guidance.

9.2.2 Noise

There is likely to be an increase in the operational noise arising from the scheme due to the proposed increase in rail traffic. At existing stations and between stations along the line the increase from approximately hourly to half hourly during the day will have a minimal impact as rail noise is not a serious issue. There will be little impact on evening / overnight noise levels. At new stations at Coventry Arena and Bermuda Park the deceleration and acceleration of trains would present a more significant change in noise levels, however, there a no identified residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the stations.

During operation there will be a reduction in traffic on the A444 and B4113 between Nuneaton and Coventry due to transfer of car trips to rail. However, the forecast of car trip transfers are relatively modest and therefore noise level changes are likely to be insignificant.

During construction there are likely to be construction related noise impacts for locations in close proximity to the works at Bermuda Park, Coventry Arena, Bedworth and Coventry Stations. There are few residential properties in the immediate vicinity of Coventry, Coventry Arena and Bermuda Park Stations. Any impact at Bedworth station will be assessed as part of the detailed Environmental Appraisal to be undertaken at a later stage.

9.2.3 Local Air Quality / Greenhouse Gasses

Table 52 shows the calculated annual reduction in pollutant emissions resulting from the reduction in car use forecast as a result of the expected mode switch to rail as a result of the scheme. However, the carbon impacts are likely to be outweighed by the increase emissions resulting from the additional train in service.

Table 52 Estimated Reduced Pollutant Emissions

Pollutant Reduction Tonnes per annum

Carbon Monoxide 4.49 Nitrogen Dioxide 0.97 Non Methane Hydrocarbons 0.65 Particulates 0.04 Carbon Dioxide 156.24

The important pollutants in local air quality impact assessment are Nitrogen Dioxide and Particulates.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 86 of 134

9.2.4 Landscape / townscape

(a) Coventry Station

The railway and platforms are located below the level of Warwick Road and much of the surrounding area. The works will be located on the existing rail sidings and car park works above platform level limited to a waiting facility and lighting. This will be alongside the car park with lighting already in place. There is no identifiable significant impact on landscape / townscape.

(b) Coventry Arena New Station and Crossover

At Coventry Arena the railway is level with the surrounding areas. The surrounding landscape is of large car parks and a large modern stadium and open unused ground prepared for development probably of a significant scale. The platforms and passenger facilities will be a ground level and fenced off and accessed via an existing underpass. The waiting shelters, lighting and other facilities will be in keeping with the surrounding landscape. There is therefore no significant visual impact and an insignificant impact on Landscape / townscape.

In the longer term the station could aid further regeneration and development between the railway and Foleshill District Centre which could improve the townscape.

(c) Bedworth Station

At Bedworth Station the railway lies in cutting with significant visual screening by trees at the edge of the railway and alongside the existing access. The longer platforms would be at railway level therefore no identifiable impact on landscape / townscape.

(d) Bermuda Park New Station

At Bermuda Park the railway lies on an embankment with relatively modern commercial premises to the west and open landscape to the immediate east with houses in the distance. The platforms and facilities will be at a high level – though access will be via existing under-bridge minimising the visual impact above the railway level.

The creation of passenger waiting facilities and lighting on the platforms would create some visual impact on the residential area but as this is some way from the site this is not considered a significant detriment to the landscape / townscape of the area.

9.2.5 Biodiversity

The biodiversity impacts have been informed from a site visit by two Jacobs’ staff, an Associate Member of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management and a Landscape Architect. As the survey was an assessment of potential constraints and restricted to publicly accessible land, it did not follow the standard procedure for Phase one habitat surveys (Joint Nature Conservation Committee 2000).

The work was undertaken to identify suitable habitats for any protected species, (as defined by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations 1994 (as amended) and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992), that may present a constraint to vegetation removal, site stripping and development.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 87 of 134

During the surveys particular attention was given to the potential for breeding birds, evidence of badgers (new setts, scrapes, latrines, pathways etc.) and the suitability of existing ponds to support amphibians, in particular great crested newts (GCN) as well as water voles.

The study included on site observations, analysis of aerial photographs to establish habitat diversity within the immediate area of the sites and reference to the Local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAP) for ‘Nuneaton and Bedworth’ as well as those for ‘Warwickshire, Coventry and Solihull’.

(a) Coventry Station

The site forms the western edge of Coventry station, inclusive of the north of Spencer Park and the A429 to the east. The northern boundary of the survey area encompasses existing retail parking and the western boundary is predominantly formed by residential properties. With the exception of trackside and embankment vegetation the site mainly consists of hard surfacing and rail facilities. The northern edge of Spencer Park and adjacent school is dominated by a line of mature Limes (Tilia spp) and London Planes (Platanus hispanica). The rest of the park is set to amenity grass.

Coventry station is located centrally to the city and is surrounded by industry, retail and residential land use and many roads. Connections with open spaces are limited to intensively maintained parks of open aspect. Habitat within this survey area is limited to track side vegetation and mature trees in adjacent land.

It is unlikely but not impossible that bats will use the existing tracks as a linear corridor along which to travel. Some of the trackside trees could be of suitable age and condition to support a bat roost however; it was not possible to assess this at the time of the survey due to limited access. The line of Limes and London Planes along the northern edge of Spencer Park are of a suitable age to support bats but appear to be in good condition, with a low incidence of limb damage, cracks or de-laminating bark. The existing bridge over the rail tracks (A429) and new footbridge appear to provide a very poor roosting area for bats. It is possible that bats are present within the A429 bridge but this would require a further assessment if works were to be undertaken in this area. Anticipated constraint level, Negligible/Low.

Due to the location of the site and the lack of surrounding habitat it is thought that the potential for badgers is Negligible.

Railway lines and embankments can provide suitable habitat for reptiles and are effective corridors along which species can travel. The existing trackside area and embankments are quite extensive, with large areas of brambles with clear spaces for basking. Further to this, approximately 500m to the east of the station is a large allotment area directly adjacent to the railway tracks. Areas such as this could provide suitable reptile habitat for egg laying and hibernacula. Its proximity to the tracks would enable and encourage species distribution within this area. The potential for reptiles is Low/Medium.

The site has potential for nesting birds within trackside vegetation. Any works within this area would need to consider the potential presence of nesting birds. Anticipated constraint level, Medium/High.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 88 of 134

With regards to any clearance of vegetation, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) all wild birds, their nests and eggs are protected. As such vegetation stripping and tree works should be conducted outside of the bird nesting season, which is typically regarded as March – August inclusive. Where this is not possible, works should be carried out following a close inspection for nesting birds by a qualified and experienced ecologist.

The impacts on birds can be managed through the construction phase and the overall impact is therefore considered to be minimal.

(b) Coventry Arena New Station and Crossover

The site is located to the south east of the Arena and is adjacent to a large shopping complex. The location is part of existing railway lines and located within an area of intense development, with new retail units and large areas of car parking covering much of the surrounding area. To the north east is a large block of derelict land which is establishing patchy areas of rough grassland and tall ruderals. The proposed station location appears on what is currently a series of underpasses and drains, passing directly under the railway line.

The site has undergone extensive new development and is heavily affected by existing high levels of human activity. There is limited habitat within any of the areas with the exception of trackside vegetation which is restricted to scattered semi-mature trees, predominantly pioneer species such as Downy birch (Betula pubescens) as well as blocks of bramble and rank grass.

In terms of habitat for protected species, there is limited potential across all three areas. The existing drain provides no wetland habitat.

It is possible that the track provides a linear feature along which bats will travel and forage, however, it is thought that due to the age and condition of the trees in this area the potential for bat roosts is Negligible/Low. The underpasses are recent additions and are of modern construction with limited potential for bats. Anticipated constraint level, Negligible.

Parts of the existing embankment show signs of rabbit activity but there were no indications of badger movement or digging. These locations are isolated and provide little suitable habitat for badgers within 500m of there location. The surrounding area is predominantly residential and commercial with some blocks of parkland such as those found at Longford Park and Alderman’s Green to the east, both of which are separated from the site by development and most significantly the Oxford canal. Potential for badgers therefore is Negligible.

Railway lines and embankments can provide suitable habitat for reptiles and are effective corridors along which species can travel. The area around the site is not ideal for reptiles and there are few variations in habitat within close proximity to the site. Anticipated constraint level, Low.

In terms of nesting birds the site has potential for nesting birds within trackside vegetation. Any works within this area would need to consider the potential presence of nesting birds. The potential constraint of nesting birds being present on site is Medium/High.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 89 of 134

With regards to any clearance of vegetation, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) all wild birds, their nests and eggs are protected. As such vegetation stripping and tree works should be conducted outside of the bird nesting season, which is typically regarded as March – August inclusive. Where this is not possible, works should be carried out following a close inspection for nesting birds by a qualified and experienced ecologist.

As the impact on birds can be managed through the construction phase the overall impact is minimal.

(c) Bedworth Station

The site is located centrally to the town of Bedworth. The site is an existing, active railway station comprising two platforms, north and south bound. Land adjacent to the site is predominantly residential in nature with housing backing directly on to the station and tracks. To the south of the main platform runs King Street, orientated east-west through the site. To the north of the site, located adjacent to the south bound track, is a large playing field.

The site is surrounded on all sides by existing human activity, with an extensive built environment on all sides. There are no direct connections with surrounding countryside or existing habitats other than along the track itself.

Aerial photographs indicate derelict land approximately 800m to the north of the site, farm land 1km to the east and the ‘Miners Welfare Park’ approximately 300m to the south. In terms of the areas to the north and south of the station it is possible that some degree of species migration along the railway line may occur, however, it is unlikely that any movement of species has occurred from the farmland to the east due to the fragmentation by roads and housing separating the two areas.

Planting within the immediate vicinity of the platforms is predominantly ornamental, with blocks of shrubs and a thin canopy of trees above. Trees present are large standards or semi-mature and in good condition. Trackside vegetation was predominantly dense blocks of bramble with some self-set trees along the fence line. It was noted that along the south bound track, south of Kings Street, an area of what appeared to be Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica) had established. This will need addressing if development is to be undertaken within this area. In terms of protected species the potential is limited within this area.

It is possible that the track provides a linear feature along which bats will travel and forage, however, it is thought that due to the age and condition of the trees in this area the potential for bat roosts is Low. No assessment of the bridge was possible. Depending on the works intended it may be advisable to conduct a visual inspection of this structure. Similarly where access to trees along the track was not possible there may be potential for bat presence. Anticipated constraint level, Low/Medium.

Due to the location of the site, being set within an existing townscape it is not thought that badgers would be present. Anticipated constraint level, Negligible/Low.

Railway lines and embankments can provide suitable habitat for reptiles and are effective corridors along which species can travel. The area around the site is not ideal for reptiles and there are few variations in habitat within close proximity to the site. Anticipated constraint level, Low.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 90 of 134

In terms of nesting birds the site has great potential due to the density of vegetation and tree cover adjacent to the track. A large number of birds were noted within both native and ornamental trackside vegetation. Any works within this area would need to consider the potential presence of nesting birds. The potential constraint from nesting birds is High.

Further details of the proposed scheme are required to enable a more thorough assessment of potential impacts and ecological constraints. With regards to any clearance of vegetation, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) all wild birds, their nests and eggs are protected. As such, vegetation stripping and tree works should be conducted outside of the bird nesting season, which is typically regarded as March – August inclusive. Where this is not possible, works should be carried out following a close inspection for nesting birds by a qualified and experienced ecologist.

As the impact in Birds can be managed through the construction phase the overall impact is considered to be slightly adverse.

(d) Bermuda Park New Station

The site sits on the edge of a large industrial area and is bisected by both the existing railway line and the road along its western edge. The area surveyed as part of this assessment had a small foot print with limited habitat diversity.

The embankments running north-south along the railway lines eastern edge are heavily vegetated with willow (Salix spp), hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), elder (Sambucus nigra) with some areas of gorse (Ulex europaeus) developing. Tree cover is generally semi-mature oaks (Quercus spp) and ash (Fraxinus excelsior).

It is possible that existing lines of vegetation along embankments provide linear features along which bats will travel and forage, however, it is thought that due to the age and condition of the trees in this area the potential for bat roosts is Low. Similarly, the existing bridge provides limited roost potential being predominantly of steel construction with only a single skin of timber between the tracks and the underside of the bridge; the potential constraint is Low.

In terms of other protected species, the embankments would provide suitable habitat for badger’s but no signs of badger activity or setts was recorded within the areas accessed during this survey. Some signs of rabbit activity were recorded along the southern embankment. It is thought the potential for badgers is Low.

Rubble mounds, rabbit warrens and exposed roots found along the embankment would provide suitable hibernacula for reptiles. Also exposed areas and the open grassland to the south east would provide suitable reptile habitat in the wider landscape context. It is often the case that railway embankments provide corridors in which species can travel, and reptiles are often found in these locations. For this reason it is feasible that reptiles could be using the site or land directly adjacent to it. The potential constraint therefore would be Medium.

In terms of nesting birds the site has great potential due to the density of vegetation and tree cover adjacent to the track. Any works within this area would need to consider the potential presence of nesting birds. Potential for nesting birds is High.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 91 of 134

The site has no open areas of water within its boundary, however there is a large drain located along the western edge of St Georges way which runs from a large lake approximately 500m to the west. It is not believed that the works proposed would impact upon this wetland habitat. With regards to GCN, guidance states that they may travel up to 500m from water over the course of a year and spend much of their time foraging on land. As such consideration should be given for all areas within 500m of this water body, in which area the site would fall.

It is not thought that the pond/drain is likely to harbour GCN due to the likely presence of fish. The ponds do however provide suitable deep areas of water, marginal vegetation and bank side habitat to support a GCN population. Potential is therefore Low/Medium.

Only one body of water is located within the vicinity of the site and that is to the west of St Georges Way. The habitat is suitable in places for water voles though it would appear that the southern bank and bank top of the drain has recently been cleared. As the site will not directly impact upon the wetland area (to be confirmed) there should be no direct impact upon any water vole population within this area. The potential constraint from water voles is Negligible/Low.

Further details of the proposed scheme are required to enable a more thorough assessment of potential impacts and ecological constraints. Future works should approach vegetation clearance with caution. Works should stop immediately and an appropriately licensed ecologist should be contacted if any holes or openings are thought to be that of a badger sett.

With regards to any clearance of vegetation, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) all wild birds, their nests and eggs are protected. As such, vegetation stripping and tree works should be conducted outside of the bird nesting season, which is typically regarded as March – August inclusive. Where this is not possible, works should be carried out following a close inspection for nesting birds by a qualified and experienced ecologist. Vegetation stripping should be carried out immediately after any such survey with an ecologist in attendance.

As there impact on birds can be managed through the construction programme the impact is considered slightly adverse.

9.2.6 Soil

This desk study assessment undertaken within the GRIP Stage 3 work made use of available information.

(a) Coventry Station

Information from published sources and historical records indicate that the ground conditions on site are generally expected to comprise a large thickness of Made Ground underlain by the Allesley Member of the Salop Formation. Historic Ordnance Survey Mapping indicates that, since mapping was initiated, the site has previously been used as Railway sidings.

Contamination risks to construction personnel may be moderate as a result of close contact with made ground during the construction works. Mitigation measures will be required during construction, in particular appropriate PPE should be worn by personnel on site.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 92 of 134

(b) Coventry Arena New Station and Crossover

Information from published sources and historical records indicate that the ground conditions are generally expected to comprise Made Ground underlain by Alluvium in the south of the site in turn underlain by the Whitacre Member, comprising interbedded mudstones and sandstones with a weathered profile which will affect the strength of the deposit.

Historic Ordnance Survey Mapping indicates that the land immediately to the east and west of the railway was the site of Coventry Corporation (locally ‘Foleshill’) Gas Works. Historical borehole logs from the 1980s record that contamination was encountered during ground investigation the site. Although the site appears to have been remediated in the 1990s to allow the redevelopment of the adjacent site for the Ricoh Arena (Stadium) and Arena Park (Tesco) the extent of remediation is unknown and it is possible that contamination has migrated off site onto the proposed developments site.

Contamination risks to construction personnel may be high as a result of close contact with Made Ground, potential contaminants in the ground and exposure to the ground during the construction works.

(c) Bedworth Station

Information from published sources indicates that the geology of the site comprises Thrussington Till underlain by Pennine Middle Coal Measures Formation. A fault crosses the south of the site trending north-west to south-east.

Historical Ordnance Survey Mapping indicates that a railway has been present on site prior to the first map of 1888. Old Coal Shafts were noted within the general area between 1888 -1938 but disappeared from later mapping. Brickworks developed immediately east of the site between 1888 and 1904 and were demolished by 1925.

The remaining pits associated with the brickworks were utilised as landfill sites between 1938 and 1986. Gasworks were located between 1888 and 1986 200m south- east of the site, but were redeveloped by 1986 into the Bedworth Christian Centre.

A Coal Authority Report obtained as part of the desk study indicated that the site was within an area of coal mining and within a likely zone of influence from the workings of one seam of coal at 50m depth and one seam of ironstone at 90m depth. However, the report indicates that any ground movement caused by these coal working should have stopped by now.

The report also indicates that the site is in an area where the Coal Authority believes that coal at or close to the surface may have been worked some time in the past, which could give rise to a risk of uncharted shallow coal working and the risk of ground instability. Ground investigation to 30m below ground level at this site should be carried out to assess this risk further.

Within or within 20m of the site boundary defined by the Coal Authority, there are 13 recorded mine shaft entries. Of particular note is the shaft reference 436287-022 which is indicated by the Coal Authority map within the railway boundary approximately 110m north of the end of the existing Platform 1 (west). The Coal Authority has no records of the treatment details for this shaft.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 93 of 134

The Coal Authority generally discourages construction works whether temporary or permanent over, or in the immediate vicinity of abandoned shafts, even when securely plugged and capped. The minimum distance for siting structures from open or poorly filled shafts can depend upon depth of the superficial deposits, the depth to which the shaft intersects the rock head subtended by an angle of 45o and the geotechnical properties of the soil / rocks present. Typically if an untreated shaft is indicated to be located nearer to the proposed works than approximately 20m, it would be prudent to positively locate the mineshaft via a mining ground investigation; and stabilise the shaft by infilling and concrete capping to minimise the risk of collapse and damage to the new platform extensions and rail infrastructure.

The Coal Authority should be consulted before any intrusive works are undertaken. Contamination risks to construction personnel may be moderate as a result of close contact with Made Ground during the construction works. Mitigation measures will be required during construction, in particular appropriate PPE should be worn by personnel on site.

(d) Bermuda Park New Station

The ground conditions are likely to comprise Made Ground / fill due to its location on the railway embankment, underlain by alluvium. The solid deposits are indicated to mainly comprise the Pennine Lower Coal Measures Formation with the Outwoods Shale to the north-east and the Midlands Minor Intrusive Suite in the southeast. This site has the possible presence of shallow coal seams.

Historical Ordnance Survey Mapping indicates that a railway has been present on both sites prior to the first map of 1888. The area to the west of the sites has been extensively quarried and upon closure the quarries were converted to landfill sites. The landfill sites immediately adjacent are now closed and the top is vegetated. Immediately north of the site the Griff Arm of the Coventry Canal was present but following the demise of coal mining and quarrying in the area it was infilled.

At the site no coal workings were recorded (Coal Authority Report, 2008) but there is a possibility of shallow coal seams being present, which could give rise to a risk of uncharted shallow coal working and the risk of ground instability. Ground investigation to 30m below ground level at this site should be carried out to assess this risk further. Any intrusive works such as ground investigation may need to be carried out under licence to the Coal Authority.

Contamination risks to construction personnel may be moderate as a result of close contact with Made Ground during the construction works. Mitigation measures will be required during construction, in particular appropriate PPE should be worn by personnel on site.

9.2.7 Heritage

Coventry Station is a listed building but the scheme proposed will not affect the structure and is separated from the existing station buildings by Warwick Road bridge. No listed buildings or other heritage designations are likely to be affected by the proposals. The nature and scale of the project is unlikely to have any direct impacts on archaeological resources. This will be confirmed through the full environmental appraisal to be undertaken at a later stage.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 94 of 134

9.2.8 Water Environment

This desk study assessment undertaken within the GRIP Stage 3 work made use of available information.

(a) Coventry Station

Information from published sources and historical records indicate that the ground conditions on site are generally expected to comprise a large thickness of Made Ground underlain by the Allesley Member of the Salop Formation. The Allesley Member comprises interbedded mudstones and sandstones, and may have a weathered profile which will affect the strength of the deposit.

The Allesley Member is classified as a minor aquifer by the Environment Agency and due to its interbedded nature may contain perched water tables. The nearest surface water feature to the site is the Sherbourne Brook / River Sherbourne located approximately 300m north of the site. Historic Ordnance Survey Mapping indicates that, since mapping was initiated, the site has previously been used as Railway sidings.

Risks to controlled waters are assumed to be low, but depend on the presence of contamination from on and off-site sources and the volume and mobility of groundwater which will require assessment during further ground investigation.

(b) Coventry Arena

Information from published sources and historical records indicate that the ground conditions are generally expected to comprise Made Ground underlain by Alluvium in the south of the site in turn underlain by the Whitacre Member, comprising interbedded mudstones and sandstones with a weathered profile which will affect the strength of the deposit.

The Whitacre Member is classified as a minor aquifer by the Environment Agency and due to its interbedded nature may contain perched water tables. Historical borehole records indicate that there is potential the ground water level will be high at the site.

The nearest surface water feature to the sites comprises Hall Brook which runs in an open culvert immediately south of the site, adjacent to the pedestrian route beneath the underpass. The rest of the brook’s course is in culvert by a pipe beneath ground level. The Coventry Canal runs north-south approximately 200m east of the site.

Contamination risks to groundwater may be high as a result of close contact with Made Ground, potential contaminants in the ground and exposure to the ground during the construction works. Risks of groundwater contamination may be significant if permeable granular drift deposits and sandstone underlie contaminated Made Ground. Piling could also create a preferential pathway allowing the migration of contaminants into the underlying minor aquifer.

Mitigation measures will be required during construction, in particular appropriate PPE should be worn by personnel on site and the site investigated further to identify potential contaminants. Risks to final end users and surface waters may be moderate and depend upon the proximity of receptors and the permeability of the underlying formation. Risks depend upon the presence of contamination from on and off-site sources and the volume and mobility of groundwater.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 95 of 134

Coal Authority Reports indicate that the sites are unlikely to be affected by coal mining. It is recommended a specialist contractor undertakes an unexploded ordnance desk study as it is generally known that Coventry city was heavily bombed during WWII.

(c) Bedworth

Information from published sources indicates that the geology of the site comprises Thrussington Till underlain by Pennine Middle Coal Measures Formation. A fault crosses the south of the site trending north-west to south-east. The Pennine Middle Coal Measures Formation is classified as a minor aquifer by the Environment Agency and due to its interbedded nature may contain perched water tables.

The nearest surface water feature to the site is the Coventry Canal located approximately 750m east of the site running north-south.

Rsks to controlled waters are assumed to be moderate, because of close proximity to landfill, a former gasworks site and a fuel station. Risks depend upon the presence of contamination from on and off-site sources and the volume and mobility of groundwater which will require assessment during further ground investigation.

(d) Bermuda Park

The ground conditions are likely to comprise Made Ground / fill due to its location on the railway embankment, underlain by alluvium. The solid deposits are indicated to mainly comprise the Pennine Lower Coal Measures Formation with the Outwoods Shale to the north-east and the Midlands Minor Intrusive Suite in the southeast.

This site has the possible presence of shallow coal seams. The Pennine Lower Coal Measures Formation is classified as minor aquifers by the Environment Agency and due to its interbedded nature may contain perched water tables.

The nearest surface water feature to the sites comprises the remnants of the Griff Arm of the Coventry Canal in an open culvert approximately 50m west the site. Griff Brook is also located 300m east of the site.

Risks to controlled waters are assumed to be moderate, due to the proximity of former landfill sites. Risks depend upon the presence of contamination from on and off-site sources and the volume and mobility of groundwater which will require assessment during further ground investigation.

9.2.9 Physical Fitness

The key factor in the assessment of physical fitness is encouraging people to walk for 30 minutes per day. Many passengers who choose to use rail instead of driving to their destination would have walked to and from the stations at both ends of their journeys. From the assessment of the assumed modal split we have estimated that around 80 persons per day would gain this health related benefit. The quantified mortality and absenteeism benefits are included within the economic appraisal.

Overall this is a significantly beneficial impact.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 96 of 134

9.2.10 Journey Ambience

The Transport Appraisal Guidance for the assessment of this objective focuses on measures under the control of network providers and operators;

• Traveller Care • Travellers’ Views, and • Traveller Stress

(a) Traveller Care

The guidance notes that improvement to stations is covered by the Interchange objective and the measure of this objective is therefore on vehicles and covers cleanliness, facilities, information and environment. Whilst the scheme will provide a higher frequency of service the vehicles could be similar to the present rolling stock or significantly improved in terms of age, capacity and layout depending on the availability of rolling stock and delivery plan.

(b) Travellers’ Views

This relates to the attractiveness of the general travelling environment. The railway provides views of attractive wooded areas away from the highway corridor and a different landscape / townscape. The new stations and increased frequency will enable a greater proportion of the population to experience these views.

The two new stations at Coventry Arena and Bermuda Park plus improvements at Coventry Station and Bedworth Stations will provide improved views of the local area for users and some non-users.

(c) Traveller Stress

This relates to the mental and physiological effects including frustration, fear of potential accidents and route uncertainty.

The scheme will;

• Provide a bay platform at Coventry Station which will enable trains to access the platform in parallel to movements on the main line – significantly reducing waiting time to access the station and significantly reducing passenger frustration. The quantified economic benefit of this is included within the economic appraisal.

• The scheme will increase the frequency of service which will greatly improve passenger frustration when a service is missed or cancelled – halving the additional waiting time. This is currently considered a major deterrent to use of the existing train service. Within an urban area passengers expect a higher level of service than is currently provided.

• Rail is the safest mode of travel in the corridor and the stations will be provided with security facilities to enhance passenger perceptions.

• The improvement of the rail offer will improve passenger route certainty – compared to bus services. Enhancing this asset will maximise the advantage rail has in terms of passenger confidence.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 97 of 134

Table 53 summarises the journey ambience impacts and, coupled with the estimated passenger numbers involved, leads to an assessment of the benefit of the preferred option as being significantly beneficial.

Table 53 Journey Ambience Impact Worksheet – Preferred Option

Factor Sub-Factor Better Neutral Worse Traveller Care Cleanliness 9 Facilities 9 Information 9 Environment 9 Travellers’ Views - 9 Traveller Stress Frustration 9 Fear of potential accidents 9 Route Uncertainty 9

9.3 Safety

There are two sub-headings to consider under this objective; accidents and; security.

9.3.1 Accidents

The increase in rail use forecast to result from the scheme will lead to a transfer of trips from the highway network and a consequent reduction in the incidence of road traffic accidents. The value of these is included within the non-user benefits of the economic appraisal with a value of £17k per annum in 2008 and £27k in 2025. However, within the economic appraisal these benefits are partly offset by the increase in rail use with a value of £0.7k per year initially but rising in line with passenger growth assumptions.

The value for reduced highway accidents may be cautious as it assumes people transfer from the A444, a relatively safe road and makes little allowance for the transfer from other urban roads in Nuneaton, Bedworth and Coventry and from rural roads in the vicinity of the rail corridor.

Overall there is considered to be a slight benefit.

9.3.2 Security

This objective relates to personal security. Figure 54 below shows the transport appraisal guidance security indicators for public transport passengers12. The scheme has not been designed in detail but it is assumed it will score;

• High in terms of site perimeters, entries and exits at Bermuda Park Station, Coventry Arena Station and the Bay Platform at Coventry Station;

• High in terms of formal surveillance including CCTV;

• High in terms of informal surveillance – as the stations (especially Coventry and Coventry Arena) are in locations with significant activity and the new stations are to be located in areas at or slightly higher than the surrounding providing visibility;

12 TAG Unit 3.4.2, The Security Sub-objective, DfT June 2003 Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 98 of 134

• Moderate in terms of landscaping – dependent on detailed design;

• High in terms of lighting and visibility which will be included in the detailed design, and;

• High in terms of emergency call facilities – to be built into the scheme.

The effect on existing users (as well as new users) of the train service will be positive as there will be an increase in the number of people using the existing stations, resulting in an improvement in perceived security at lower usage times of the day.

Overall the scheme is assumed to have a moderate benefit.

Figure 54 Security Indicators for Public Transport Passengers

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 99 of 134

9.4 Economy

There are three sub-objectives to consider, transport economic efficiency, reliability and wider economic impacts;

9.4.1 Transport Economic Efficiency

The Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade Scheme is estimated to cost £20.2m at Q3 2008 prices including 20% risk / contingency. The additional operating and maintenance costs for the half-hourly service frequency are estimated at £932k per year.

The technical assessment forecast increase use of rail and a range of user and non user benefits associated with;

• Improved access between Coventry and Nuneaton and places in between;

• Improved access to Coventry Arena for accessing events;

• Improved connections to longer distance services to the North and South;

• Improved connection via the Coventry – Nuneaton line;

• User time savings;

• User benefits related to improved physical activity levels;

• Wider rail user benefits as a result of service performance improvements;

• Non-user benefits as a result of removal of over 600k carkms from the highway network per annum leading to benefits in terms of;

• Traffic decongestion – time savings; • Reduced accidents (offset by increase rail accidents); • Improved local air quality; • Reduced greenhouse gas emissions; • Reduced traffic noise, and; • Reduced highway infrastructure maintenance.

The quantified economic appraisal revealed a Benefit to Cost Ratio of 2.9 which suggests that the scheme represents good value for money and passes the DfT’s requirements for scheme investment.

9.4.2 Reliability

The scheme will have a significant positive impact on rail reliability and a slight positive impact on highway reliability as a result of transferring car trips to rail in the corridor. The significant impact on rail passengers results from the removal of the existing Coventry – Nuneaton service from Platforms 1 and 2 at Coventry station (onto the Bay Platform) – increasing the flexibility for alternative platform allocations at the station.

The quantification of the benefits revealed a six seconds average benefit for each passenger passing through Coventry Station which results in the inclusion of a present value benefit of almost £19m within the economic appraisal.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 100 of 134

9.4.3 Wider Economic Impacts

This scheme is intended to stimulate economic activity within a defined regeneration / growth area by improving access to jobs and by generating new jobs through improving accessibility. The preparation of a detailed Economic Impact Report (EIR) was beyond the resources of the study and considered inappropriate at this stage of development of the scheme. However, a scoping of the key issues is presented.

The scheme will contribute to jobs arising as a result of the improved travel conditions through opening up accessibility to land for development within the immediate catchment of the existing and new stations. Particularly;

• Friargate development at Coventry Station. The Coventry LDF proposes substantial growth in employment to 2026, 50% of which will be in the City Centre and the largest part of the office growth will be provided by the Friargate development;

• Coventry Arena is an expanding conference and event facility and Foleshill District Centre is an expanding retail facility – both will benefit from the improved rail accessibility;

• Bermuda Park is a location for further housing and employment growth in the future. The new station will provide improved accessibility and may also be used by people accessing George Elliot Hospital.

Figure 55 shows the change in public transport accessibility that the scheme brings to Coventry City Centre. The city centre is the focus of employment and retail growth in the region. Improving access to the city from North Coventry, Bedworth and Nuneaton will encourage people from current areas of high unemployment to access jobs in the City Centre.

Figure 55 Change in Accessibility to Coventry City Centre before after

Figure 56 shows the change in accessibility the scheme brings to Coventry Arena. The scheme significantly improves accessibility to large areas of North Coventry, Bedworth and Nuneaton, Including significant change in accessibility to / from the City Centre.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 101 of 134

Figure 56 Change in Accessibility to Coventry Arena. Before After

Figure 57 shows the change in accessibility to Bedworth Station which receives an enhanced frequency, the change in accessibility is between Bedworth and Coventry – especially to the west of the city as a result of interchange with other rail services.

Figure 57 Change in Accessibility to Bedworth Station Before After

Figure 58 shows the change in accessibility to Bermuda Park. Improved access to the rail network brings significant accessibility benefits throughout the study area.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 102 of 134

Figure 58 Change in Accessibility to Bermuda Park Before After

Figure 59 shows the change in accessibility to Nuneaton centre is particularly noticeable in Coventry City.

Figure 59 Change in Accessibility to Nuneaton Before After

9.5 Accessibility

There are three aspects to consider – option values, severance and access to the transport system;

9.5.1 Option Values

Figure 60 shows the 800m and 2km catchments for the stations. Our analysis of the station catchment information takes account of the overlap between the station catchments show in the diagram. The analysis of 2001 Census data is shown in Table 54.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 103 of 134

Figure 60 800m and 2km Station Catchments

Table 54 Station Catchment Population (2001 Census)

Station Population Population Population % 800m 800m – 2km within 2km unemployed Coventry Arena 7,396 43,455 50,851 9% Bedworth 5,857 15,361 21,218 5% Bermuda Park 2,850 12,903 15,753 5%

This analysis shows that over 15,000 people in the vicinity of Bedworth station will have an improved service to Coventry and Nuneaton and over 70,000 more people in the corridor will have direct access to rail through the provision of the new stations. In addition there are significant numbers of people out of work in the vicinity of the stations, especially Coventry Arena.

The scheme significantly improves the option of travelling by rail in the corridor and beyond.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 104 of 134

9.5.2 Severance

Table 55 shows the assessment of the severance issues at the 4 locations where there will be infrastructure works along the line. At each location the stations will make use of existing accesses across the railway. As a result there is a neutral impact.

Table 55 Accessibility – Severance Worksheet

Change in Population Affected Severance Coventry Station Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Park Large negative Moderate negative Slight negative Neutral 9 9 9 9 Slight positive Moderate positive Large positive

9.5.3 Access to the Transport System

The measurement of the change in access to the transport system is defined as non car owning households living within 800m (2km in rural areas) of stations and without alternative public transport provision. Figure 60 shows the catchment analysis undertaken to assess the 2001 census data for the new stations at Coventry Arena and Bermuda Park and Table 56 shows the impact on non-car owning household.

Table 56 New Station Catchments Proportion of non-car owning households

Station % non car owning % non car owning % No Car households within households between Households within 800m 800m and 2km 2km Coventry Arena 39% 37% 37% Bermuda Park 37% 23% 26%

The census data reveals that over a third of households within 800m of the two new stations have no car and that over a quarter of households within 2km of Bermuda Station have no car.

There is an extensive bus network in the vicinity of Coventry Arena with relatively high service frequencies. There are frequent north / south bus services serving parts of the catchment in the vicinity of Bermuda Park station.

The scheme significantly improves access to the transport system.

9.6 Integration

This objective has three sub-objectives – interchange; land-use policies and proposals, and; wider Government Policy such as environmental sustainability, health and rural policy.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 105 of 134

9.6.1 Interchange

Improving interchange is a major factor in achieving a truly integrated transport system – a key objective of UK transport policy. This qualitative assessment of the interchange sub-objective has been undertaken in line with the latest transport appraisal guidance (Webtag unit 3.7.1). The guidance lists a series of passenger indicators and standards which are summarised in Table 57 below in terms of the existing situation and that resulting from the scheme for each station along the line.

There will be significant improvement on interchange quality especially for passengers using the new stations and connecting with other transport services principally at Coventry and Nuneaton.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 106 of 134

Table 57 Assessment of Change in Passenger Interchange

Passenger Interchange Indicator Existing Situation With Coventry – Nuneaton Scheme Coventry Station (Bay Platform) Waiting Environment High High Level of facilities High High Level of Information High High Visible staff presence High High Physical linkage for next stage of journey Moderate High Connection time and risk of missing a Moderate High connection

Coventry Arena new station Waiting Environment - Moderate Level of facilities - Moderate Level of Information - Moderate Visible staff presence - Low Physical linkage for next stage of journey - Moderate Connection time and risk of missing a - Moderate connection

Bedworth Station Waiting Environment Moderate Moderate Level of facilities Moderate Moderate Level of Information Moderate Moderate Visible staff presence Low Low Physical linkage for next stage of journey Moderate Moderate Connection time and risk of missing a Low Moderate connection

Bermuda Park New Station Waiting Environment - Moderate Level of facilities - Moderate Level of Information - Moderate Visible staff presence - Low Physical linkage for next stage of journey - Moderate Connection time and risk of missing a - Moderate connection

Nuneaton Station Waiting Environment High High Level of facilities High High Level of Information High High Visible staff presence High High Physical linkage for next stage of journey High High Connection time and risk of missing a Moderate Moderate / High connection

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 107 of 134

9.6.2 Land-use Policy

The qualitative assessment is undertaken against the local, regional and national policies in terms of the number of policies supported compared to those that would be adversely affected.

(a) National Policies

National policies are presented in the latest Government report on transport following the Stern and Eddington reviews of the climate change and economic issues for the uk. Delivering a Sustainable Transport System outlines the Government’s goals for the transport system to;

• Support national economic competitiveness and growth, by delivering reliable and efficient transport networks;

• Reduce transport’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, with the desired outcome of tacking climate change;

• Contribute to better safety, security and health and longer life expectancy by reducing the risk of death, injury or illness arising from transport and by promoting travel modes that are beneficial to health;

• Promote greater equality of opportunity for all citizens, with the desired outcome of achieving a fairer society; and

• Improve the quality of life for transport users and non-transport users, and to promote a healthy natural environment.

The appraisal has shown that the ‘Connecting Telford’ scheme is supportive of most of these objectives and is neutral in terms of promoting equality of opportunity.

(b) Regional Policies

Regional policies are contained within the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) and Regional Economic Strategy (RES). The main emphasis of these documents relate to the regeneration of the major urban areas within the West Midlands with specific agenda’s related to sub-areas including the Coventry – Nuneaton regeneration corridor and Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire High Technology Corridor.

In the Major Urban Areas the economies were based on primary production and manufacturing industries and require transformation to knowledge economies which high technology manufacturing and service industries. High Technology Corridors have been defined to focus new development, taking account of the link between higher education and employment opportunity.

The scheme will improve north-south connectivity within the major urban area between Coventry and Nuneaton and is therefore complementary to the economic strategy.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 108 of 134

The Regional Transport Strategy encourages the use of public transport, walking and cycling over the use of the private car within the major urban areas. There are specific policies to encourage the use of rail and bus, to develop park and ride and to encourage sustainable travel through behaviour change measures such as travel plans. The scheme will encourage public transport (specifically rail) use and therefore contribute to the achievement of the desired outcomes of the RTS by making sustainable transport choices more likely.

(c) Local Policies

Local Policies are contained in the Coventry LDF, Warwickshire LTP, etc and were described more fully in the Strategic Case. The Scheme is complementary to local transport and economic development policy.

9.6.3 Other Government Policies

Table 58 shows the assessment of the contribution of the scheme to other government policies. A number of wider policies will be supported by the scheme – particularly through improved accessibility to jobs, services and training in the corridor.

Table 58 Integration – Other Government Policy Worksheet

Government Department Policies Helped Policies Hindered Department of Environment - - Food and Rural Affairs Cabinet Office - - Department for Culture, Encouraging take-up of - Media and Sport sport, and spectator visits to Sports; Ministry of Defence - - Department for Education Improved access to schools and Employment and further education establishments – encouraged take-up of training. Homes and Communities Improved accessibility within Agency regeneration area. Foreign and Commonwealth - - Office Department of Health Increased rail use increases physical fitness and reduces call on health service resources. Home Office - - Department for International - - Development Department of Works and Improved labour market - Pensions accessibility assisting regeneration. Her Majesty’s Treasury - Investment costs

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 109 of 134

9.7 Supporting Analysis

9.7.1 Distribution and Equity

The preferred scheme will improve accessibility within the Coventry – Nuneaton Corridor. Analysis of socio-economic issues in the Strategic Case showed than the corridor has high levels of unemployment, poor levels of educational achievement and relatively low incomes. There are high levels of non-car ownership in the corridor, limiting job search areas due to inaccessibility.

The scheme will therefore have significant positive distribution and equity impacts, in line with regional policy, by improving access by public transport to jobs, services and training in the corridor and beyond.

9.7.2 Affordability

The Strategic Case revealed the comparison of the preferred scheme against other options, showing it to be the cheapest and most affordable scheme for improving accessibility in the corridor.

The scheme has been prioritised for investment within the West Midlands Regional Funding Allocation advice to government and funding allocated for the infrastructure investment required.

Centro has offered to provide short term revenue subsidy funding through the West Midlands Integrated Transport Authority, for the three years prior to the renewal of the London Midland Franchise, at which point the service would be expected to be built into the franchise, with onward support by the Department for Transport.

The scheme is therefore considered affordable.

9.7.3 Practicality and Public Acceptability

The preferred scheme has been the subject of a number of studies over the last ten years culminating in GRIP level 3 design which has confirmed the practicality of the timetable assumed and the practicality of the infrastructure works proposed.

The scheme has been represented in Local Transport Plan 2 and 3 public consultations and more recently stakeholder consultation related to the scheme design and development stages and Major Scheme Business Case development.

The scheme is both practical and well supported.

9.7.4 Contribution to 10 year plan targets

N/A

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 110 of 134

10 CONCLUSIONS

10.1 Appraisal Summary

The completed Appraisal Summary Table (AST) is enclosed in Appendix B, utilising the quantified information as well as the informed qualitative assessment of the scheme. There are significant wider social, economic and environmental benefits resulting from the scheme that are outside the quantified central case economic appraisal.

10.2 Value for Money

In determining the business case for the schemes account was taken of the DfT’s guidance13 on value for money for transport schemes. Specifically most schemes with a quantified benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 2.0 or above will be supported, some schemes with BCR between 1.5 and 2.0 will be supported and few schemes with BCR below 1.5 would be supported.

However, where a scheme has significant non-monetised benefits, such as providing economic regeneration benefits to an assisted area, the BCR and funding decision can be raised by one category - i.e.: a scheme with BCR above 1.5 would be likely to be supported subject to available funds.

The appraisal has shown that the scheme contributes to the regional economic and spatial strategy and the Coventry City Centre development strategy. It can be concluded that the Benefit Cost Ratio lies significantly above 2.0 suggesting that the scheme will be supported.

13 Guidance on Value for Money: Explanatory Note, DfT, 15.12.04 Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 111 of 134

APPENDIX A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS

Table 59 Development Sites Developm ent Residenti units al Employm ent (jobs) Residenti al (sqm) Retail/leis (sqm) ure Business (sqm) Hotel (rooms) Car park (sqm) Coventry City Paragon Park ? ? 13900 B1 0 ? complete 2012- 450 Business 2015 Park 32500 GFA Swanswell 1000 ? ? 26715 209446 ? ? completions with 15 years Arena Park 2 0 300 0 9755 0 0 46 spaces complete within 3 years Blue Ribbon 0 300- 0 6460 9357 72 462 Park 450 spaces Currently under construction Completion within 5 years. Royal Mail and Lidl now complete New Deals for 1600 ? ? ? ? ? ? Communities Demolitions underway First units completed 2010/11 Complete by 2031 Ansty Business ? ? ? ? 140,000 ? ? Park under construction Walsgrave Around ? ? ? ? ? ? Hospital 500-900 Housing complete within 5 – 10 years Binley District 42 ? ? up to ? 0 360 Centre 18000 spaces complete within sqm 5 years GFA

Stoke Village 169 ? ? ? ? ? ? fully complete complet by 2024 ed 1050 further New Century 365 18000 95000 ? B1, B2 & 112 ? Park site site B8 33141 beds Residential area area GIA Complete within for 5 years schoo l Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 112 of 134

Developm ent Residenti units al Employm ent (jobs) Residenti al (sqm) Retail/leis (sqm) ure Business (sqm) Hotel (rooms) Car park (sqm) remainder within 10 years EAST OF 0 250 0 0 B1/ B2 / ? Orchard Retail B8 Park 274000 Royal Mail site area Complete Ryton on 3000 111480 Dunsmore Whitley 0 2000 0 0 102200 0 3012 Business Park site area Spaces Phase 1 complete all complete within 5 years Incinerator 0 ? 0 0 0 0 ? Complete by 2015 -2020 Parkside 44 0 ? 0 0 0 ? Complete Severn Trent 0 3500 0 0 7376 0 600 (St. Martins) Complete University of ? ? 140000 ? ? ? ? Warwick under construction Cannon Park ? ? up to ? ? 1120 Complete within 72 12,000 10 years GFA Banner Brook 500 ? ? 1500 0 0 0 Park complete within 10 years Dunlop Site 132 0 ? 0 3000 0 ? Complete within 5 years Central Upto ? ? Up to ? ? ? Shopping Area 700 90,000 includin GFA g parts of swansw ell , friargate and Belgrad e plaza Friargate 400 15000 ? 13517 125000 120 ? sqm GFA Coventry University Coventry Uny ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Matths and Eng Block and Student services, under construction Belgrade Plaza 64 ? ? 15404 0 126 1275 First 2 phases sqm beds completed – GFA Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 113 of 134

Developm ent Residenti units al Employm ent (jobs) Residenti al (sqm) Retail/leis (sqm) ure Business (sqm) Hotel (rooms) Car park (sqm) complete within 5 years Axa 37 ? ? 200 2800 ? 50-80 expired planning permission no longer valid Browns Lane 172 2400 6ha ? 89000 site ? 1375 Under area spaces construction Complete within 10 years MCD Butts 550 ? 2732 8130 sqm 100 528 College 424 sqm GFA Redevelopment. GFA First phase completed, second phase under construction Royal Mail 0 500 - 0 12000 0 0 585 Bishop St 1000 sqm planning GFA application decided May 2011 Evening 145 plus 246 0 Up to Up to 700 Up to Approx Telegraph student 1500 sqm GFA 250 300 building accomo sqm bedroo corporation st to dation GFA ms be determined May 2011 Former Accordis Up to Site Foleshill Rd 400 Canley 700 ? ? ? ? ? ? Regeneration area

Developm ent Residenti units al Employm ent (jobs) Residenti al (sqm) Retail/leis (sqm) ure Business (sqm) Hotel (rooms) Car park (sqm) Warwickshire Land South of Bedworth 500 Road and North West of Coventry Road, Bulkington Land North of Church Lane, off Weddington Road 450 Land East of Plough Hill Lane, Galley Common 250 Land East of St Nicholas Park Drive 1,000 Land East of Eastboro Way 500 Land South of School Lane, Exhall 300 Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 114 of 134

Developm ent Residenti units al Employm ent (jobs) Residenti al (sqm) Retail/leis (sqm) ure Business (sqm) Hotel (rooms) Car park (sqm) Judkins Quarry 1,500 Camp Hill Phase 3 615 Nuneaton town centre 100 Bedworth town centre 100 Camp Hill Phase 2 155 Walsingham Drive 385 Bermuda park housing 66 Holland and Barrett offices 3071 Bermuda (B1a) Bermuda Park 3000 Lidl supermarket 1063sq m Stephenson Road, Exhall 1,000 Exhall Road, Keresley 136

Midland Quarry, off Tuttle 153 Hill St Mary’s Road, Nuneaton 60 Queens Road, Nuneaton 118 Nuneaton Bus Station** ASDA** Tesco/Bedworth** Sainsbury’s** Faultlands Farm East, 250,000 North of Gipsy Lane * 1,000 Sq m Goodyers End, West and East of Bowling Green Lane * 1,000 Arbury Estate, west of 1,000 300,000 Bermuda * Sq m Bedworth Woodlands * 1,000 Weston Wood, south of 1,000 Marston Lane * Neal’s Green/ 500 200,000 Woodshire’s Green * Sq m Former Foundry Site, 75 Leamington Spa Land at Station Approach 150 Leamington Spa Land at South Sydeham 200 and East of Whitnash Woodside Farm Whitnash 250 Europa Way Warwick 1250 Windfall and small sites 2575 Lower Heathcote Farm 2500 Thickthorn 800 Warwickshire College, 300 Leamington Spa Fingham/Gibbet Hill 3500 Gateway Rugby – Sustainable Urban 360,000 extension 1300 1800 B2, B8

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 115 of 134

Developm ent Residenti units al Employm ent (jobs) Residenti al (sqm) Retail/leis (sqm) ure Business (sqm) Hotel (rooms) Car park (sqm) 2800 600,000 B1, B2, BT Mast site* 4180 B8 250,000 B1, B2, Alwyn Road* 1360 B8 Former Cattle Market site* 210 Calverston Road* 197 Leicester Rd/ Old Leicester Rd* 46 Former Willan works* 328 Former WCC depot Dunchurch* 43 Bilton Grange School* 135 Parkfield Road* 111 Hilmorton Road* 40 Coton East Extension* 1529 Bilton Fields* 364 Cawston South Extension 498 Former Warwickshire College site 168

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 116 of 134

Table 60 Model Year Assumptions

Planning Core Input Authority Uncertainty Comment Strategy Year Factors affecting underlying demand CCC Addressed applying 2016, 2031 Default demographic, the recommended economic and More than range around the behavioural likely TEMPRO central case assumptions. forecast. CCC More than Change of timing and 2031 Paragon Park likely mix of land use CCC Various proposals to 2031 More than Swanswell be delivered at likely different times CCC Planning application 2016, 2031 submitted. Considered Arena Park 2 Near certain necessary for Policy S3. CCC First 2 phases 2016, 2031 Blue Ribbon Park Near certain complete rest has planning permission CCC First dwellings 2031 completed 2011 more New Deals for More than under construction and Communities likely demolition continuing. Long term scheme. CCC More than 2031 Orchard Retail Park Land identified in LDF. likely RBC Planning application 2016, 2031 More than Ryton submitted. Availability Zone A likely advertised in 2031 Zone B CCC No information DROP Airport available . CCC More than 2016, 2031 Whitley Business Park Phase 1 complete. likely CCC No information DROP Incinerator Hypothetical available. CCC More than 2016, 2031 Parkside Complete likely Severn Trent (St. CCC 2016, 2031 Near certain Complete Martins) CCC masterplan approved 2016, 2031 Reasonably University of Warwick first stages under foreseeable construction CCC More than 2016, 2031 Cannon Park permission in place likely CCC first phase completed, 2016, 2031 local centre completed, Banner Brook Park Near certain remainder has permission CCC More than Planning permission 2016, 2031 Dunlop Site likely recently renewed. CCC masterplanning DROP Central Shopping Area Hypothetical underway CCC More than Planning permission 2016, 2031 Friargate likely approved. CCC More than first phases under 2016, 2031 Coventry University Likely construction CCC Expected to complete 2016, 2031 Belgrade Plaza Near certain within 5 years. Axa (No. 1 Bishops CCC Planning permission Drop unllikely Place) expired

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 117 of 134

CCC Planning permission 2016, 2031 Browns Lane Near Certain and under construction. MCD Butts College CCC 2016,2031 Near certain Under Construction Redevelopment RBC Phase 1 due to 2016, 2031 Ansty Business Park Near certain complete. Walsgrave Hospital CCC 2016, 2031 Near Certain Compete 5 to 10 years Housing CCC Expected completion 2016, 2031 Binley District Centre Near certain within 5 years CCC first phase complete, 2016, 2031 More than Stoke Village remainder under likely construction CCC Planning permission – 2016, 2031 More than New Century Park expected completion likely within 5 years Evening Telegraph CCC More than To be determined in 2016, 2031 building corporation st likely May 2011 Former Accordis site CCC More than 2016, 2031 Advanced Pre-App Foleshill Rd likely Canley Regeneration CCC More than 2016, + 2031 Permission Granted area likely CCC Application to be 2016, + 2031 Royal Mail Bishop St Near Certain determined June 2011 Warwickshire Sites Land South of NBBC Likely to be part of DROP Bedworth Road and preferred Spatial Reasonably North West of Strategy but Council foreseeable Coventry Road, has yet to finalise this Bulkingon NBBC Likely to be part of DROP Land North of Reasonably preferred Spatial Church Lane, off foreseeable Strategy but Council Weddington Road has yet to finalise this NBBC Likely to be part of DROP Land East of Plough Reasonably preferred Spatial Hill Lane, Galley foreseeable Strategy but Council Common has yet to finalise this NBBC Likely to be part of DROP Reasonably preferred Spatial Land East of St foreseeable Strategy but Council Nicholas Park Drive has yet to finalise this NBBC Likely to be part of DROP Reasonably preferred Spatial Land East of foreseeable Strategy but Council Eastboro Way has yet to finalise this NBBC Likely to be part of DROP Reasonably preferred Spatial Land South of foreseeable Strategy but Council School Lane, Exhall has yet to finalise this NBBC Reasonably Assumed during Plan 2031 Judkins Quarry foreseeable period NBBC More than New Planning 2031 Camp Hill Phase 3 likely Application submitted Nuneaton town NBBC Reasonably Assumed during Plan DROP centre foreseeable period Bedworth town NBBC Reasonably Assumed during Plan DROP centre foreseeable period Camp Hill Phase 2 NBBC Near certain Under Construction 2016, 2031 Walsingham Drive NBBC Certain Under Construction 2016, 2031 Bermuda park housing NBBC Certain Under Construction 2016, 2031 Holland and Barrett NBBC More than 2016, 2031 Approved offices Bermuda (B1a) Likely

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 118 of 134

Bermuda Park NBBC Allocation confirmed in 2016, 2031 More than vicinity of proposed Likely station Lidl supermarket NBBC More than Committed 2016, 2031 likely Development Stephenson Road, NBBC Reasonably Option being DROP Exhall foreseeable considered by Council Exhall Road, Keresley NBBC Near certain Construction underway 2016, 2031 Midland Quarry, off NBBC 2016, 2031 Near certain Application granted Tuttle Hill St Mary’s Road, NBBC Construction about to 2016, 2031 Near certain Nuneaton commence Queens Road, NBBC 2016, 2031 Near certain Under Construction Nuneaton Nuneaton Bus NBBC DROP Hypothetical Not yet committed Station** ASDA** NBBC Reasonably DROP Not yet committed foreseeable Tesco/Bedworth** NBBC Reasonably DROP Not yet committed foreseeable Sainsbury’s** NBBC Reasonably DROP Not yet committed foreseeable NBBC Hypothetical Likely to be part of Optimistic preferred Spatial Scenario Faultlands Farm Strategy but Council East, has yet to finalise this NBBC Hypothetical Likely to be part of Optimistic preferred Spatial Scenario Strategy but Council Goodyers End has yet to finalise this Arbury Estate, west of NBBC Hypothetical Likely to be part of Optimistic Bermuda preferred Spatial Scenario Strategy but Council has yet to finalise this Bedworth Woodlands NBBC Hypothetical Likely to be part of 2016, 2031 preferred Spatial Strategy but Council has yet to finalise this Weston Wood, south NBBC Hypothetical Likely to be part of Optimistic of Marston Lane preferred Spatial Scenario Strategy but Council has yet to finalise this Neal’s Green/ NBBC Hypothetical Likely to be part of Optimistic Woodshire’s Green preferred Spatial Scenario Strategy but Council has yet to finalise this RBC 540 units by Gateway Rugby Reasonably LDF Core Strategy Site 2061, full by foreseeable 2031 RBC 550 units by Reasonably LDF Core Strategy Site 2016, full by foreseeable BT Mast site* 2031 RBC Option for DROP Hypothetical Alwyn Road* Development Former Cattle RBC Under Construction 2016, 2031 Near certain Market site* @ RBC More than Planning Application 2016, 2031 Calverston Road* likely registered @ Leicester Rd/ Old RBC Planning Permission 2016, 2031 Near certain Leicester Rd* granted @ Former Willan RBC Nearly complete 2016, 2031 Near certain works* @ Former WCC depot RBC Reasonably Option for 2016, 2031 Dunchurch* foreseeable Development @

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 119 of 134

RBC Proposed removal of 135 units by More than 0.2Ha threshold for 2031 Bilton Grange likely Main Rural School* Settlements RBC Nearly complete 2016, 2031 Near certain Parkfield Road* @ RBC Development 2016, 2031 Near certain Hilmorton Road* completed @ RBC Planning Application DROP Coton East Hypothetical refused – inquiry Extension* awaited RBC Option for DROP Hypothetical Bilton Fields* Development Cawston South RBC Option for DROP Hypothetical Extension Development Former RBC 2016, 2031 More than Planning application Warwickshire @ likely imminent College site,Rugby Former Foundry Site, WDC Brownfield site 2016, 2031 Reasonably Leamington Spa awaiting foreseeable redevelopment Station Approach WDC Brownfield site 2016, 2031 Reasonably Leamington Spa awaiting foreseeable redevelopment Land at South WDC Potential option to DROP Sydeham and East of Hypothetical meet long term future Whitnash housing needs Woodside Farm WDC Potential option to DROP Whitnash Hypothetical meet long term future housing needs Europa Way Warwick WDC Potential option to DROP meet long term future Hypothetical housing and employment needs Lower Heathcote Farm WDC Potential option to DROP meet long term future Hypothetical housing and employment needs Windfall and small WDC Likely to come forward 2031 Reasonably sites on brownfield sites in foreseeable the urban areas Thickthorn WDC Potential option to DROP meet long term future Hypothetical housing and employment needs Warwickshire College, WDC Potential option to DROP Leamington Spa Hypothetical meet long term future housing needs WDC Potential option to DROP meet long term future Hypothetical housing and Fingham/Gibbet Hill employment needs

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 120 of 134

APPENDIX B APPRAISAL SUMMARY TABLE (AST)

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 121 of 134

Appraisal Summary Table Date produced: 18 8 2011 Contact:

Name of scheme: Coventry - Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade Name Jessica Pope Description of scheme: Construction of two new stations at Coventry Arena and Bermuda Park and a bay platform at Coventry Station to serve the proposed increase of services Organisation Coventry CC frequency to half-hourly. Role Promoter Impacts Summary of key impacts Assessment Quantitative Qualitative Monetary Distributional £(NPV) 7-pt scale/ vulnerable grp Business users & transport Increased use of rail and reduced car use and traffic congestion, improved accessibility to Value of journey time changes(£) 5.9m +3 low income groups, providers Coventry City Centre, Nuneaton, Coventry Arena, Bedworth and Bermuda Park. Net journey time changes (£) Substantial +3 non car owners, +3 £5.9m people with disabilities 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min Beneficial

Economy 99k 281k 1617k Reliability impact on Business Removal of Coventry - Nuneaton services from main Coventry Station platforms benefits Substantial users performance of through rail services including Birmingham - London services 6 seconds benefit per through passenger journey £1.1m Beneficial

Regeneration Improved accesibility to / from and within Coventry - Nuneaton Regeneration Zone. Improved Moderate Around 388 extra jobs in 2026 - access to employment and inceased employment Beneficial Wider Impacts Significant Agglomeration benefits and labour supply impacts and slight increased outputs Agglomeration benefits £1.2m PV, Labour Supply Impact Moderate £1.7m £0.3m PV, Increased Output £0.2m PV Beneficial Noise Construction Minimal, operational benefit reduced traffic, disbenefit rail frequency N/A Neutral £0.1m - Air Quality Improvements due to modal split - N/A Slight Beneficial £0.2m

Greenhouse gases Reduced CO2 emission levels due to Modal Shift, increase due to additional rail vehicle Change in non-traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) - Slight Adverse - Change in traded carbon over 60y (CO2e) - Landscape No significant impact - works contained within rail corridor, mainly urban area Environmental N/A Neutral -

Townscape No significant impact N/A Neutral - Heritage of Historic resources No significant impact, bay platform works won't impact on Coventry Station listed structure N/A Neutral - Biodiversity Platform construction impacts on wooded areas at Bermuda Park and Bedworth N/A Slight Adverse - Water Environment Platfforms increase run-off but to be managed, construction impact to be managed N/A Slight Adverse - Commuting and Other users Increased use of rail and reduced car use and traffic congestion, improved accessibility to Value of journey time changes(£) 32.5m +3 low income groups, Coventry City Centre, Nuneaton, Coventry Arena, Bedworth and Bermuda Park. Net journey time changes (£) Substantial +3 non car owners, +3 £32.5m people with disabilities Social Social 0 to 2min 2 to 5min > 5min Beneficial 736k 1644k 8635k Reliability impact on Removal of Coventry - Nuneaton services from main Coventry Station platforms benefits Substantial 6 seconds benefit per through passenger journey £13.0m Commuting and Other users performance of through rail services including Birmingham - London services Beneficial Physical activity Increase due to increased rail use (accessing stations by walking and cycling) 35 people benefiting, 0.02 less deaths Slight Beneficial £0.5m

Journey quality Significant improvement in terms of traveller stress Significant - - Beneficial Accidents Road accidents reduced through modal shift partly offset by increased rail use and rail accident - risk - Slight Beneficial £0.9m Security The new stations will be provided with lighting, CCTV and passenger help points significantly Significant - - - improving security for journeys by rail in North Coventry and Bermuda Beneficial Access to services Two new stations greatly enhances access to rail services. Improved level of service enhances Moderate +3 people with - - journey opportunities Beneficial disabilities Affordability Required ongoing subsidy Subsidy reduces from 27p to 1p per passenger journey Slight Adverse - - Severance No Impact - Neutral - - Option values Improved choice of rail use from North Coventry, Bedworth and Bermuda Park - Slight Beneficial -

c Cost to Broad Transport

bli Budget £16.4m u P

Accounts Indirect Tax Revenues £0.6m

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 122 of 134

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 123 of 134

APPENDIX C TEE, AMCB AND PA TABLES

Preferred Scheme – Sponsors Case

Option - Preferred Scheme (Half Hourly Plus 2 new stations) (without Events related capital costs) Table 1: Economic Efficiency of Transport System (revenues are scored as positives, costs as negatives) All Modes Road Bus & Coach Rail Total Rail Rail Cars, LGVs Company Other and goods Walk and A e.g. NR e.g. Total vehicles Passengers Passengers Cycle TOC/FOC Consumers - Commuting User benefits - travel time saving 8,068,498 1,023,608 7,044,890 7,044,890 - Vehicle opcost - - - user charges - - - during construction & maintenance - - Net Consumer Benefits (1a) 8,068,498 1,023,608 7,044,890 7,044,890 - Consumers - Other User Benefits - travel time saving 24,426,750 3,098,894 21,327,856 21,327,856 - Vehicle opcost - - - user charges - - - during construction & maintenance - - Net Consumer Benefits (1b) 24,426,750 3,098,894 - 21,327,856 - 21,327,856

Business User benefits - Travel time 5,894,281 747,777 5,146,504 5,146,504 - Vehicle opcost - - - Reduced absenteeism 34,683 34,683 - user charges - - - during construction & maintenance - - Net Business User Benefits (2) 5,928,964 747,777 - 5,146,504 34,683 - 5,146,504

Private sector provider impact - revenue 20,872,845 20,872,845 20,872,845 - opcost- 22,217,566 - 22,217,566 -22,217,566 - investment cost - - - grant/subsidy 1,344,721 1,344,721 1,344,721 - revenue transfer - - Sub total (3) ------

Other impacts - Developer contribution (4) - - -

Net business impact (5 = 2+3+4) 5,928,964 747,777 - 5,146,504 34,683

Total, PV of transport econ eff. Benefits (6 = 1a + 1b + 5) 38,424,213

Option - Preferred Scheme (Half Hourly Plus 2 new stations) (without Events related capital costs) Table 2 Public Accounts (costs should be recorded as a positive number, surpluses as a negative one) Walk and All Modes Road Bus & Coach Rail Cycle Total nfrastructure Local Government funding - Direct Revenue - - Operating costs - - Investment costs- 13,396 -13,396 - Developer and other contributions - - Grant/Subsidy (k)* - - Revenue transfer - Net (7) - 13,396 - 13,396 - -

Central Government funding: Transport - Direct Revenue - - Operating costs - - Investment costs* 12,972,607 12,972,607 - Developer and other contributions - - Grant/Subsidy (k)* 1,344,721 1,344,721 - Indirect Tax Revenues - Revenue transfer - Net (8) 14,317,329 - - 14,317,329

Central Government Funding: Non-Transport Indirect tax Revenues (9) 570,605 570,605

Totals Broad Transport Budget (10 = 7 + 8) 14,303,933

Wider Public Finances (11 = 9) 570,605

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 124 of 134

Option - Preferred Scheme (Half Hourly Plus 2 new stations) (without Events related capital costs) Table 3: Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) Walk and Total Road Bus & Coach Rail Cycle Noise 68,342 68342 Local air quality 183,747 183747 Greenhouse gases- 36,681 -36681 Journey ambience (incl. rolling stock quality, and in vehicle crowding) - Accidents (incl. safety) 880,006 899754 -19748 Physical Fitness 552,289 552289 Economic Efficiency: Consumers Users (Commuting) (1a) 8,068,498 1023608 7044890 Economic Efficiency: Consumers Users (Other) (1b) 24,426,750 3,098,894 - 21,327,856 Economic Efficiency: Business users and providers (5) 5,928,964 747,777 - 5,146,504 34683 Wider Public Finances (indirect Taxation Revenues (-11)- 570,605 Reliability (incl. performance & reliability) 14,085,745 Option values - Interchange (station quality and crowding) -

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) (sum all benefits - 11) 53,587,057

Broad Transport Budget (10) 14,303,933

Present Value of Costs (PVC) (10) 14,303,933

Overall Impacts Net Present Value (NPV) 39,283,124 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 3.75

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 125 of 134

Preferred Scheme – WebTAG Compliant Case (demand Capped 2026)

Option - Preferred Scheme (Half Hourly Plus 2 new stations) (without Events related capital costs) (2026 cap) Table 1: Economic Efficiency of Transport System (revenues are scored as positives, costs as negatives) All Modes Road Bus & Coach Rail Total Rail Rail Cars, LGVs Company Other and goods Walk and A e.g. NR e.g. Total vehicles Passengers Passengers Cycle TOC/FOC Consumers - Commuting User benefits - travel time saving 7,879,663 983,402 6,896,260 6,896,260 - Vehicle opcost - - - user charges - - - during construction & maintenance - - Net Consumer Benefits (1a) 7,879,663 983,402 6,896,260 6,896,260 - Consumers - Other User Benefits - travel time saving 23,855,067 2,977,174 20,877,893 20,877,893 - Vehicle opcost - - - user charges - - - during construction & maintenance - - Net Consumer Benefits (1b) 23,855,067 2,977,174 - 20,877,893 - 20,877,893

Business User benefits - Travel time 5,756,331 718,405 5,037,926 5,037,926 - Vehicle opcost - - - Reduced absenteeism 33,505 33,505 - user charges - - - during construction & maintenance - - Net Business User Benefits (2) 5,789,836 718,405 - 5,037,926 33,505 - 5,037,926

Private sector provider impact - revenue 20,200,225 20,200,225 20,200,225 - opcost- 22,217,566 - 22,217,566 -22,217,566 - investment cost - - - grant/subsidy 2,017,341 2,017,341 2,017,341 - revenue transfer - - Sub total (3) ------

Other impacts - Developer contribution (4) - - -

Net business impact (5 = 2+3+4) 5,789,836 718,405 - 5,037,926 33,505

Total, PV of transport econ eff. Benefits (6 = 1a + 1b + 5) 37,524,566

Option - Preferred Scheme (Half Hourly Plus 2 new stations) (without Events related capital costs) (2026 cap) Table 2 Public Accounts (costs should be recorded as a positive number, surpluses as a negative one) Walk and All Modes Road Bus & Coach Rail Cycle Total nfrastructure Local Government funding - Direct Revenue - - Operating costs - - Investment costs- 12,870 -12,870 - Developer and other contributions - - Grant/Subsidy (k)* - - Revenue transfer - Net (7) - 12,870 - 12,870 - -

Central Government funding: Transport - Direct Revenue - - Operating costs - - Investment costs* 12,972,607 12,972,607 - Developer and other contributions - - Grant/Subsidy (k)* 2,017,341 2,017,341 - Indirect Tax Revenues - Revenue transfer - Net (8) 14,989,948 - - 14,989,948

Central Government Funding: Non-Transport Indirect tax Revenues (9) 551,655 551,655

Totals Broad Transport Budget (10 = 7 + 8) 14,977,079

Wider Public Finances (11 = 9) 551,655

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 126 of 134

Option - Preferred Scheme (Half Hourly Plus 2 new stations) (without Events related capital costs) (2026 cap) Table 3: Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) Walk and Total Road Bus & Coach Rail Cycle Noise 65,658 65658 Local air quality 176,530 176530 Greenhouse gases- 60,268 -60268 Journey ambience (incl. rolling stock quality, and in vehicle crowding) - Accidents (incl. safety) 845,336 864413 -19077 Physical Fitness 533,524 533524 Economic Efficiency: Consumers Users (Commuting) (1a) 7,879,663 983402 6896260 Economic Efficiency: Consumers Users (Other) (1b) 23,855,067 2,977,174 - 20,877,893 Economic Efficiency: Business users and providers (5) 5,789,836 718,405 - 5,037,926 33505 Wider Public Finances (indirect Taxation Revenues (-11)- 551,655 Reliability (incl. performance & reliability) 14,085,745 Option values - Interchange (station quality and crowding) -

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) (sum all benefits - 11) 52,619,436

Broad Transport Budget (10) 14,977,079

Present Value of Costs (PVC) (10) 14,977,079

Overall Impacts Net Present Value (NPV) 37,642,357 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 3.51

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 127 of 134

APPENDIX D APPRAISAL COST SUMMARY SHEET

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 128 of 134

APPENDIX E AFFORDABILITY AND FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 129 of 134

APPENDIX F OTHER NATA WORKSHEETS

Worksheets relating to Environment Noise, Local Air Quality, greenhouse gases, Landscape, Townscape, Heritage of Historic Resources, Biodiversity and Water Environment to be provided at CA Stage when Environmental Assessment undertaken.

Physical Fitness calculations are included in the report, utilising more recent and more detailed guidance than the worksheet.

Journey Ambience Impact Worksheet – Preferred Option

Factor Sub-Factor Better Neutral Worse Traveller Care Cleanliness 9 Facilities 9 Information 9 Environment 9 Travellers’ Views - 9 Traveller Stress Frustration 9 Fear of potential accidents 9 Route Uncertainty 9

Assessment of Security Sub-objective Security Indicator Relative importance Without strategy With strategy (High/Medium/Low) (Poor/Moderate/ (Poor/Moderate/ High) High) Site perimeters, High Poor High entrances and exits Formal surveillance High Poor High Informal surveillance Medium Poor High Landscaping Low Poor Moderate Lighting and visibility High Poor High Emergency call High Poor High

755,000 users affected per annum – large positive

Appraisal of Wider Economic Impacts to be undertaken at CA Stage.

Accessibility – Severance Worksheet

Change in Population Affected Severance Coventry Station Coventry Arena Bedworth Bermuda Park Large negative Moderate negative Slight negative Neutral 9 9 9 9 Slight positive Moderate positive Large positive

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 130 of 134

Assessment of Change in Passenger Interchange

Passenger Interchange Indicator Existing Situation With Coventry – Nuneaton Scheme Coventry Station (Bay Platform) Waiting Environment High High Level of facilities High High Level of Information High High Visible staff presence High High Physical linkage for next stage of journey Moderate High Connection time and risk of missing a Moderate High connection

Coventry Arena new station Waiting Environment - Moderate Level of facilities - Moderate Level of Information - Moderate Visible staff presence - Low Physical linkage for next stage of journey - Moderate Connection time and risk of missing a - Moderate connection

Bedworth Station Waiting Environment Moderate Moderate Level of facilities Moderate Moderate Level of Information Moderate Moderate Visible staff presence Low Low Physical linkage for next stage of journey Moderate Moderate Connection time and risk of missing a Low Moderate connection

Bermuda Park New Station Waiting Environment - Moderate Level of facilities - Moderate Level of Information - Moderate Visible staff presence - Low Physical linkage for next stage of journey - Moderate Connection time and risk of missing a - Moderate connection

Nuneaton Station Waiting Environment High High Level of facilities High High Level of Information High High Visible staff presence High High Physical linkage for next stage of journey High High Connection time and risk of missing a Moderate Moderate / High connection

Integration with Land-use policy is included within the Strategic Case.

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 131 of 134

Integration – Other Government Policy Worksheet

Government Department Policies Helped Policies Hindered Department of Environment - - Food and Rural Affairs Cabinet Office - - Department for Culture, Encouraging take-up of - Media and Sport sport, and spectator visits to Sports; Ministry of Defence - - Department for Education Improved access to schools and Employment and further education establishments – encouraged take-up of training. Homes and Communities Improved accessibility within Agency regeneration area. Foreign and Commonwealth - - Office Department of Health Increased rail use increases physical fitness and reduces call on health service resources. Home Office - - Department for International - - Development Department of Works and Improved labour market - Pensions accessibility assisting regeneration. Her Majesty’s Treasury - Investment costs

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 132 of 134

APPENDIX G DESIRE LINE DIAGRAMS

Highway Commuting Trips from Arena AM peak

Highway Commuting trips from Nuneaton AM Peak

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 133 of 134

Public Transport Commuting Trips From Arena

Public Transport Commuting Trips from Nuneaton

Coventry – Nuneaton Rail Line Upgrade MSBC, Value for Money Case 2011 Page 134 of 134