Calderdale Metropolitan Borough

Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

121525-56/PIR Draft | 20 June 2012

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party.

Job number 121525-56

Ove Arup & Partners Ltd Admiral House Rose Wharf 78 East Street Leeds LS9 8EE United Kingdom www.arup.com

Document Verification

Job title Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Job number 121525-56 Document title Updated Project Inception Reports File reference

Document ref 121525 -56/PIR Revision Date Filename 2012 -06-19_HipperholmePIR.docx Draft 19 June Description 2012

Prepared by Checked by Approved by H Cottrell, I Mobbs, Name Iain Mobbs K Robinson Signature

Filename Description

Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name

Signature

Filename Description

Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name

Signature

Filename Description

Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name

Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document 

121525-56/PIR | Draft | 20 June 2012 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

Contents

Page

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Context for the Study 1 1.3 Objectives 4 1.4 Structure of the Document 5

2 Project Inception Report - Hipperholme 6 2.1 Description of the Station and its Location 6 2.2 Assessment of Alternative Options 7 2.3 Demand and Revenue Forecasts 8 2.4 Sensitivity Tests 14 2.5 Transport Needs Statement 15 2.6 Site Suitability 17 2.7 Railway Planning Context 18 2.8 Scheme Costs 19 2.9 Appraisal 20 2.10 Economic Appraisal Sensitivity Tests 23 2.11 Funding 24 2.12 Impacts on Wider Objectives 25 2.13 Summary of the Main Conclusions 26

3 Updated Elland Project Inception Report 27 3.1 Context 27 3.2 Main Conclusions from the Previous PIR 27 3.3 Updating the Demand and Revenue Forecasts 28 3.4 Operational Planning Issues 29 3.5 Review of Capital Costs 31 3.6 Station Access Issues 31 3.7 Implications for the Business Case 31 3.8 Updated Conclusions 32

4 Stakeholder Consultation 33

121525-56/PIR | Draft | 20 June 2012 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

1 Introduction

1.1 Background Arup was appointed by Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council to prepare a Project Inception Report (PIR) for the proposed railway station at Hipperholme, as well as updating an earlier study for Elland. Each station forms an important component supporting the plan-led growth proposals for the District. The capacity constraints affecting the road network in Calderdale means rail must play a wider role to support plan-led growth. The limitations affecting the road network reinforce the importance of promoting public transport solutions to facilitate future housing and employment growth. The continuation of current travel patterns will simply exacerbate the existing congestion problems, and could mean growth becomes stifled. Measures to encourage alternative, more sustainable travel choices is therefore essential, by ensuring current and future land use is aligned with public transport networks. The delivery of selected new stations will help to improve access to the rail network, since there are a number of limitations affecting the current stations. The new residential development and other land use proposals adjacent to Hipperholme would supplement the existing catchment that could be served by rail:  About 800 new dwellings;  3,500 sq m of office space;  A 60 bed hotel and associated public house;  Other uses including a District Centre and community amenities. The housing and office development could generate new rail trips, but the ancillary uses are likely to have a limited impact. Secondly, some housing growth is expected to be delivered adjacent to Elland, although this node is also expected to support additional employment too. Seven development sites have been identified by Calderdale Council and these will act as a focus for regeneration and economic growth in the town.

1.2 Context for the Study

1.2.1 Northern Timetable Changes A number of studies have recently been undertaken to examine the current issues affecting the Calder Valley Line. These include consultancy studies examining the potential role for new stations and various timetable changes. In response to the initial findings, Northern introduced a revised timetable in December 2008 which included an hourly semi-fast service between Leeds and Manchester Victoria and featured a journey time between Bradford Interchange and Manchester of about 60 minutes.

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 1 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

1.2.2 Other Station Aspirations Despite the timetable changes, the end-to-end speeds remain uncompetitive versus other rail corridors, so the inclusion of extra stops at this station will only exacerbate this constraint. West Yorkshire PTE has provisionally allocated funding for a new halt at Low Moor, south of Bradford Interchange as part of the Local Transport Plan 3 funding allocation.

1.2.3 Arup Baseline Study Although the December 2008 timetable changes delivered some incremental enhancements, these failed to adequately address two important issues. It did not provide a framework to transform strategic connectivity linking the main population centres with the principal employment centres. Secondly, the scope for implementing new stations remained relatively limited. A baseline report was prepared examining current network performance which highlighted a number of limitations:  Slow journey times to Leeds compared with other corridors;  Confused service pattern with very limited ‘express’ trains;  Evidence of suppressed demand from several stations;  Self-contained nature of the timetable;  Peak overcrowding affecting trains to both Leeds and Manchester;  Poor quality rolling stock;  Inconvenient pattern of departures from certain stations;  Poor modal integration and insufficient car parking. In response to these issues, a framework to address the existing timetable constraints was identified as a first phase. These timetable changes should help to provide a more effective framework to deliver new stations which would be progressed as the second phase.

1.2.4 Transforming the Calder Valley Line In response to the employment growth that has been realised in Leeds and Manchester along with the aspirations to support development proposals in a sustainable manner, a restructured timetable for the Calder Valley Line has been developed in conjunction with rail industry stakeholders. This approach complements the emerging proposals for the Northern Hub, with the framework helping to improve connectivity between the main catchments. It also recognises the importance of the growth that is forecast by the Route Utilisation Strategies. The outputs from this study will help to identify possible improvements which could be incorporated into the forthcoming Northern Rail Franchise consultation. There are several main themes underpinning the future Calder Valley Line timetable which were developed collaboratively with stakeholders including Metro, Transport for Greater Manchester, the Districts served by the corridor, Northern and Network Rail. The themes included:  Introduction of a restructured timetable possibly featuring:

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 2 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

 2tph between Leeds and Manchester Victoria calling at New Pudsey, Bradford Interchange, Halifax, Hebden Bridge, Todmorden and Rochdale;  2tph between Leeds and Halifax calling at Bramley, New Pudsey and Bradford Interchange, with 1tph extended to Huddersfield calling additionally at Brighouse;  1tph between Leeds and Manchester Victoria calling at Dewsbury, Brighouse, Sowerby Bridge, Mytholmroyd, Hebden Bridge, Todmorden, Walsden (peak only), Littleborough, Smithy Bridge, Rochdale and Mills Hill;  1tph between Leeds and Manchester Victoria calling at New Pudsey, Bradford Interchange, Halifax, Sowerby Bridge, Mytholmroyd, Hebden Bridge, Todmorden, Walsden, Littleborough, Smithy Bridge and Rochdale;  1tph between Leeds and Blackpool North calling at New Pudsey, Bradford Interchange, Halifax, Sowerby Bridge, Hebden Bridge, Burnley Manchester Road, Accrington, Blackburn, Preston and Poulton-le-Fylde;  2tph between Manchester Victoria and Rochdale calling at Moston, Mills Hill and Castleton, with 1tph extended to Burnley Manchester Road and East Lancashire stations via Littleborough and Todmorden;  The Blackpool North trains could be extended beyond Leeds to York if other operational constraints east of Leeds are addressed;  Furthermore, trains will be extended beyond Manchester Victoria to serve a range of destinations including Manchester Airport, Warrington Bank Quay / Chester, and Wigan / stations in East Lancashire. Platform availability constraints affecting Manchester Victoria will mean terminating trains will need to be linked to become through services.  Procurement of the required additional rolling stock, plus refurbishment of existing units to address service quality. This should be included in the forthcoming Northern franchise renewal;  Station access improvements to enhance bus, cycling and walking links, as well as increasing parking availability;  Improve bus-rail integration (in partnership with stakeholders);  Infrastructure upgrades, for example, station capacity at Leeds, signalling improvements and line speed increases, with the latter potentially funded by the Northern Hub;  Future electrification of the route as a medium to longer term aspiration, once the rail market has increased in response to the above changes;  Potential delivery of new stations, subject to satisfactory business cases.

1.2.5 Role for New Stations As noted earlier, Metro continues to develop proposals for a new station at Low Moor, south of Bradford Interchange. The interface with this scheme will be taken into account when developing the proposals for the two schemes in Calderdale. Stakeholders have identified aspirations for two new stations in Calderdale which could be supported by the timetable changes. Extra stations can enhance

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 3 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

accessibility to the network, helping to attract wholly new travel markets by rail and may reduce access times for existing passengers. However, the implications of new stations needs to be carefully considered, since the extended journey times can have a detrimental impact for longer distance passengers. The two proposed stations at Hipperholme and Elland would be served by:  Hipperholme: the feasibility of revising the new stopping services from Huddersfield / Halifax to Leeds via New Pudsey (2tph) to call additionally at the new station will be examined;  Elland: the feasibility of revising the service via Brighouse towards Leeds / Manchester Victoria (1tph) plus the stopping service from Huddersfield via Halifax to Leeds (1tph) to call additionally at Elland will be examined. A future standard hour timetable has been developed for the Calder Valley Line. The proposed departure times for the stopping trains that are assumed to call at Hipperholme adopt a broadly clockface pattern and this will be beneficial for passengers. Capacity constraints on the network, together with the need to adopt broadly clockface timings elsewhere (for example, the intermediate stations between Sowerby Bridge and Manchester, and the stopping trains via Bramley) mean the timings from Brighouse and hence Elland are not evenly spaced. This issue will be considered in more detail in Chapter 3.

1.3 Objectives

1.3.1 Study Objectives The objectives of this study include:  Provide Network Rail with the initial information required to inform a GRIP 1 study to assess whether the proposed new stations at Hipperholme and Elland are feasible from an operational and commercial perspective;  Provide Calderdale Council with robust evidence to inform their decision making on land allocations within their Local Development Framework, and determine whether the construction of new stations at Hipperholme and Elland is worthwhile;  Influence the emerging Rail Plan 7 being prepared by Metro which forms part of the Local Transport Plan 3. Metro has identified a range of possible improvements for the Calder Valley Line, based on the proposals set out above. The potential for the new stations at Elland and Hipperholme has now been included in the latest Rail Plan 7 (May 2012), with the findings from this report could help to reinforce the case for their development.

1.3.2 Overarching Objectives The previous Arup studies which examined timetable options for the Calder Valley Line defined a series of overarching objectives, and these should be applied to this assessment of new station proposals. Promoting economic growth, safety and quality of the environment, equality of opportunity and reducing carbon emissions forms the overarching objectives. More detailed sub-objectives have also been defined.

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 4 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

Table 1.1: Summary of the Overarching Objectives

Overarching Objectives Sub-objectives Improve journey time reliability/resiliency Support economic growth Improve access to labour markets Support housing growth Encourage more physically active travel Safety and quality of the Improve safety – perceived and accident risks environment Improve the journey experience for passengers Cutting gap in economic growth rates Equality of opportunity Social inclusion Reduce carbon emissions Cut transport impacts on the environment

1.4 Structure of the Document The remainder of the report follows the recommended structure as outlined by Network Rail’s guidance to scheme promoters when preparing a Project Inception Report. This means the document can be easily circulated as a standalone document based on the analysis presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 presents our updated analysis for the new station at Elland based on the earlier work compiled by Metro’s consultants. The conclusions of our discussion with Network Rail to explore the business case for both new stations are shown in Chapter 4.

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 5 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

2 Project Inception Report - Hipperholme

2.1 Description of the Station and its Location A new station in Hipperholme is proposed to support the growth demands for the housing and employment market in the area. The future development proposals will require additional transport capacity. The station will increase capacity for new trips to and from the area particularly as access to Halifax and surrounding stations in east Calderdale is restricted. The proposed station site location will be situated on the former site which closed in 1953. The station location is situated on the western side of Hipperholme village centre, bound by Station Road to the west and Tanhouse Hill to the north, as indicated in Figure 2.1. The western portal of Hipperholme Tunnel is located at the eastern end of the station site. Figure 2.1: Location of Hipperholme Station Site

To M62 (A58)

To Halifax (A58)

Hipperholme junction Proposed station site

Note: Proposed station site based on Arup assumption. Hipperholme Masterplan1, is an emerging plan which includes development land in the southern part of Hipperholme covering an area straddling Brighouse Road (A644). The Masterplan is being led by two land developers and is expected to include:  About 830 dwellings;  Business units accommodating office space of approximately 3,500sq m;  A 60 bed hotel and associated public house;  District centre, including retail uses;

1 Hipperholme Brighouse Road Masterplan Strategy: A presentation to Clugston Developments, City Land Developments Ltd, Crosslee, Strata, The Harris Partnership, 2009

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 6 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

 Community amenities, including, restaurant, library, dentists, crèche. It is proposed that a new station located in Hipperholme on the Calder Valley Line will provide an attractive public transport option for people living or working in Hipperholme. In addition, the station could attract some journeys from existing residents living in Hipperholme or the surrounding catchment, rather than driving to central Leeds and Bradford. Bus access to the station needs to play an integral role to provide local connections, since a significant increase in car-based traffic would exacerbate the existing congestion problems affecting Hipperholme.

2.2 Assessment of Alternative Options The format of the Network Rail Project Inception Report requires the suitability of different options to be assessed. A series of alternative options have therefore been considered prior to evaluating the performance of the new railway station:  Do nothing: there is a strong likelihood that additional trip generation from new development in Hipperholme could exacerbate existing traffic congestion problems at the junction between Leeds Road/Halifax Road (A58), Denholme Gate Road/Brighouse Road (A644) and Wakefield Road (A649). The area is not currently designated within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), but if congestion worsens as a result of further traffic congestion, this could potentially become an issue near to the junction. Extra car trips using the network throughout the day, but especially during the peak periods, would also have a detrimental impact on journey time reliability for other car drivers, and the quality of local amenity;  Improved bus services: There are currently six bus services which operate via Hipperholme close to the proposed development sites serving Bradford, Brighouse, Halifax and Leeds. Whilst an improved bus service could potentially improve local accessibility to the station, the road network is already relatively congested leading to slow journey times. As noted above, buses have an important role helping to improve local connectivity, with the layout of the road network acting as a useful hub for the wider public transport network. However, buses are unlikely to provide competitive journey times versus other modes to the major employment destinations including Leeds and Bradford. The lack of bus services between the bus and railway stations in Halifax exacerbates the constraints affecting access to current railway stations;  Expansion of existing parking facilities at adjacent stations: the nearest existing stations (Halifax and Brighouse) are about three miles away. There is very limited potential to expand car parking at Halifax station (currently 32 spaces) using land immediately adjacent to the station. Brighouse station currently has 65 spaces and there is potential to provide a further 32 spaces. However, the expansion of this car park could simply encourage new car trips to be generated which would not provide sustainable transport solutions for Hipperholme.

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 7 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

2.3 Demand and Revenue Forecasts

2.3.1 Demand Segments Four potential travel markets have been identified which represent wholly new demand:  Rail journeys associated with the proposed housing in the Hipperholme Masterplan (Segment 1);  Rail journeys associated with the proposed office development in the Hipperholme Masterplan (Segment 2);  Car trips from the Hipperholme catchment to central Bradford and Leeds. Hipperholme station could encourage some users to switch to car or bus as the access mode and then transfer to rail (Segment 3);  Car trips originating from the catchment close to Hipperholme station to central Bradford and Leeds. The railway station could encourage some users to switch to walk to Hipperholme station and then transfer to rail to complete their journey (Segment 4). Additionally, the proposed Hipperholme Station could abstract some trips from nearby stations. The impact of passengers transferring is examined separately to avoid potential double counting.

2.3.2 Underlying Assumptions To calculate annual demand and revenue, several assumptions have been applied:  the number of daily trips identified for each demand segment has been factored to an annual number of journeys based on separate annualisation factors. Annualisation factors of 260 have been applied to segments 2, 3 and 4 since these are mainly linked to commuting flows, with a factor of 312 applied to segment 1 to uplift daily demand (including some weekend demand);  revenue has been estimated using observed yields for journeys from Halifax to a sub-set of stations (Bradford, Leeds and local stations, segments 3 and 4), or trips from Halifax to all destinations for segments 1 and 2.

New Housing – Segment 1 The potential trip rate associated with the proposed housing development at the Hipperholme Masterplan site2 has been reviewed using a number of sources. The Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook includes a range of scenarios, but this information is relatively out of date (2002 data). As a result, we have compared a number of trip rates from stations on the Calder Valley Line with other examples across West Yorkshire. One of the main conclusions emerging from Table 2.1 is the difference in trip rates for selected stations on the Calder Valley Line versus other routes. The relatively poor rail service from Brighouse, coupled with the limited parking availability noted earlier is clearly suppressing overall demand.

2 It should be noted that the exact number of proposed dwellings at the Hipperholme site may be subject to change in the future as emerging plans are developed.

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 8 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

As a result, the trip rate for Sowerby Bridge has been used as a proxy for Hipperholme. The former station has 2tph, although the future timetable for Hipperholme may offer more evenly spaced departures compared with Sowerby Bridge. Whilst the estimated trip rate for Sowerby Bridge is about 100 journeys per day per 1,000 people, the rates for Garforth and Bingley are significantly higher. The timetable limitations currently affecting the Calder Valley Line covering frequency, average speed and competitiveness versus other modes noted earlier have contributed to this outcome. Rail offers a faster, more convenient journey time from Garforth or Bingley versus other modes, and thus explains the higher trip rate per person. Table 2.1: Estimated Person Trip Rates from New Housing Development

Average Daily Trips per Rail Station Population Annual Rail Trips 1,000 Population Brighouse 32,000 223,186 22 Garforth 15,400 675,966 140 Sowerby Bridge 10,000 298,254 96 Bingley 20,000 1,154,644 185

Source: Arup calculation, Source: Office of Rail Regulation, (annual rail trips) It is assumed that all proposed new housing will be occupied. The population of the development has been estimated based on the average number of occupants per dwelling, derived from Census data for the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward. No uplift has been applied to represent demand from a distance beyond 2km from the site since other travel markets will be considered separately to avoid potential double counting. Table 2.2 represents a summary of the estimated number of rail journeys. It is estimated that 200 daily single trips are forecast from proposed housing at the Hipperholme Masterplan site. If the trip rate achieved was comparable to the results for Bingley and Garforth, the total number of new journeys would be significantly higher. Table 2.2: Estimated Rail Journeys from New Housing in Hipperholme

Methodology Hipperholme Masterplan Number of Dwellings 832 (a) % Occupancy Assumed 100% (b) Occupants per Dwelling 2.4 (c) Population 1,997 (a) x (b) x (c) Daily Trip Rate (trips per resident) 0.100 (d) Daily Trips 200 (a) x (b) x (c) x (d) Annual Trips 62,300 Annualisation (x 312)

Source: Arup calculation, TRICS. Notes: Daily trip totals rounded to nearest whole number

Office Development – Segment 2 Trip generation associated with the proposed office space on the Hipperholme Masterplan has been estimated using person trip rates derived from the TRICS

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 9 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

database3. The number of rail journeys has been estimated by applying the rail mode share4 (based upon the mode share for the Town ward in Halifax as a proxy) to estimate the number of rail trips. Based on this methodology, approximately 9 rail journeys would be generated per day in each direction by the Hipperholme Masterplan office development. Table 2.3 presents a summary of this analysis for the relatively small travel market. Table 2.3: Estimated Rail Journeys Associated with Office Development at Hipperholme

Methodology Hipperholme Masterplan Office GFA 40,009 sq ft Office GFA 3,717 sq m Number of Person Trips 673 24hr total Rail Mode Share 2.7% Town ward (Halifax station as proxy) Daily Trips (each direction) 9 24hr total Annual Trips (both 4,698 ‘Daily trips’ x Annualisation (x 260) directions)

Source: Arup calculation, TRICS. Notes: Daily trip totals rounded to nearest whole number

Strategic Park and Ride to Bradford and Leeds – Segment 3 In addition to rail trips generated by the new development, there is potential for the new station to attract other journeys which are currently made by other modes, principally car. The construction of a new railway station could help to encourage mode transfer, especially given the lack of car parking available at Halifax. Some journeys originating from places close to Hipperholme with destinations in the major employment centres at Bradford or Leeds city centres are completed by road using the A58 / A641 or A58 / M62 / M621. Journey to Work Census data from 20015 was used to identify the in-scope car trips. The wards in Calderdale identified as ‘in-scope’ took account of the other stations in the District which would be more convenient for car drivers. Wards in the eastern part of Calderdale were considered as in-scope including Halifax, since the minimal parking facilities available at the latter station have suppressed demand. In contrast, trips from wards adjacent to Walsden, Todmorden, Hebden Bridge, Mytholmroyd and Sowerby Bridge were not included as ‘in-scope’ since the parking facilities are less constrained. The potential mode transfer from existing car trips to rail was calculated using a forecasting model. The overall journey time for each travel choice is calculated and the percentage switching to rail. Table 2.4 identifies the in-scope flows which exceed 50 trips per day to ensure the most significant flows were examined, along with the calculated mode share and estimated number of trips. There is a strong focus towards Bradford for the journey to work flows in contrast with the number of trips to Leeds. It is important to highlight the totals shown in

3 TRICS® 2012(a)v6.9.2 (March 2012) 4 Office for National Statistics, Method of Travel to Work - Resident Population (UV39), Apr01 5 The 2001 Census Journey to Work dataset, whilst 10 years old, is the most accurate and detailed dataset for trip origins and destinations available for the study area. However, there may be scope to update this source in due course, once the 2011 Census data is released later this year.

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 10 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

Table 2.4 do not include off-peak demand and this means the overall size of the market is under-represented. Table 2.4: Strategic Park and Ride

Northowram Hipperholme Warley St John's Northowram Hipperholme In scope Skircoat and Shelf to and Lightcliffe to to and Shelf to and Lightcliffe Journey Route to Leeds Bradford to Bradford Bradford Bradford Leeds to Leeds

In-scope Car Driver Trips 462 224 60 57 85 105 69 (Daily)

Park and Ride 8% 11% 14% 6% 10% 4% 4% Mode Share

Park and Ride Trips (daily, 37 18** 8 3 8 4** 3 each direction)

Park and Ride Trips (Annual, 19,240 9,490 4,160 1,560 4,160 1,898 1,560 both directions)

Source: Arup calculation using Journey to Work Data. Park and ride mode share presented to the nearest whole number. ** Excludes trips that are included in Segment 4 to avoid double counting. Segment 4 uses the in-scope rail transfer journeys that adjacent to the proposed station on foot. Journeys from the Hipperholme and Lightcliffe ward from Segment 3 are excluded. Table 2.5 summarises the analysis, highlighting that the proposed Hipperholme railway station would cumulatively attract 81 daily one-way park and ride trips to Bradford and Leeds, resulting in 42,000 journeys per annum, assuming an annualisation factor of 260. The results shown in Table 2.4 are under-estimated, since there is potential to encourage all in-scope journeys to rail, rather than flows which generate more than 50 trips per day. The inclusion of these other in-scope journeys could mean the total trips by this sector increases by around 40%. Table 2.5: Summary of Park and Ride Journeys

To Bradford To Leeds Total

In-scope Car Driver Trips (Daily) 803 259 1,062 Park and Ride Trips (daily, each 66 15 81 direction) Park and Ride Trips (Annual, both 34,450 7,618 42,068 directions)

Source: Arup calculation using Journey to Work Data and Park and Ride model. Park and ride total presented to the nearest whole number

Mode Transfer from Walk in Catchment Originating from Hipperholme – Segment 4 Some existing car drivers from Hipperholme will transfer to rail as a result of the new station, and the short access distance could mean these users walk to the

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 11 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

station rather than driving. This in-scope walk-in catchment applies to residents within an 800m radius of the station. Part of the in-scope car journeys from Hipperholme and Lightcliffe to Bradford (224 trips) and Leeds (105 trips) respectively, is shown within Segment 3. However, the about 27% of the population for these wards is assumed to be in-scope for walking trips, rather than driving. Table 2.6 summarises the estimated walk-in trips, which account for a further 4,200 journeys per annum annually to Hipperholme railway station with destinations in Bradford and Leeds, compared with Segment 3. Table 2.6: Summary of Walk in Journeys to Bradford and Leeds

To Bradford To Leeds Total

Hipperholme and Lightcliffe Ward Car Driver to 25 5 30 Rail Transfer, Park and Ride, Trips (Daily) Hipperholme Walk In and Ride Trips (800m 7 1 8 catchment from station) (Daily, each direction) Walk in and Ride Trips (Annual, both 3,510 702 4,212 directions)

Source: Arup calculation using data from the 2001 Census.

2.3.3 Abstraction from Halifax It is likely that Hipperholme will abstract demand and revenue from nearby stations, especially from Halifax. However, this does not lead to an overall loss of passengers for the railway. Arup has estimated the total number of abstracted passengers travelling from Hipperholme rather than Halifax is about 228,500 passengers per annum. This estimate takes account of the existing usage of Halifax and the assumed distribution of passengers using the station, particularly journeys originating from Town, Hipperholme and Lightcliffe, plus Northowram and Shelf. Passengers from Hipperholme will pay a different fare to that currently paid at other stations. For example, some passengers between Halifax and Leeds will pay a slightly lower fare when boarding at Hipperholme, although this will be offset by some trips from Halifax to Manchester diverting to the new station and paying a higher price for their ticket. The net change in revenue is marginal.

2.3.4 Revenue Yields Revenue yields form an important part of the overall business case, since they determine how much each passenger will pay to travel and these vary depending on the ultimate destination. Arup has calculated average revenue yields using existing MOIRA data. The average fare yield assumed for segments 1 and 2 is £4.48 which includes a small percentage of longer distance journeys based on the results for Halifax. The revenue yields for Segments 3 and 4 is £1.91. This is based on yields to Bradford and Leeds is based on shorter distance commuting trips.

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 12 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

2.3.5 Summary of the Demand and Revenue Forecasts Using the assumptions and the methodology outlined in the previous sections, a new station at Hipperholme could generate around 113,000 new journeys per annum, with a further 228,500 trips abstracted from other stations. The annual incremental revenue is about £390,000. The estimated demand and revenue generated by each segment is summarised in Table 2.7. A railway station at Hipperholme would have a catchment that overlaps with some with existing stations, so some demand will be abstracted and this will not be new revenue for the rail industry. Table 2.7: Summary of Demand and Revenue Forecasts

Demand Segment Annual Journeys Annual Revenue (£) 1 Housing Development 62,300 279,178 2 Office Development 4,698 21,051 3 Strategic Park and Ride 42,068 80,160 4 Walk In Mode Transfer 4,212 8,026 Total (New Demand) 113,278 388,414 Abstraction 228,498 Total (inc. Abstraction) 341,776

Source: Arup calculation This is a relatively cautious forecast, since there are a number of potential upsides:  Higher trip rate per passenger generated from the new housing in response to an improved service;  Inclusion of off-peak park and ride demand to Bradford and Leeds;  Inclusion of total peak park and ride demand, instead of just focussing on the busiest flows;  Higher mode transfer from car to rail, if bus routes serving Hipperholme are restructured and the land use patterns are complementary.

2.3.6 Rolling Stock Requirements The likely train loadings resulting from Hipperholme station is an important consideration, although this needs to be examined in two phases. As noted in Chapter 1, it is assumed the existing Calder Valley Line timetable will be revised to feature a revised, clock-facing service pattern. As a result, the passenger loading patterns will require further analysis to ensure individual trains are not overcrowded. The impact of the new demand from Hipperholme needs to be overlaid onto these assumptions to understand the overall loading patterns. The new timetable serving Hipperholme would include 2tph as follows:  an hourly Halifax to Leeds service via Bradford Interchange, New Pudsey and Bramley;  an hourly Huddersfield to Leeds service via Brighouse, Halifax, Bradford Interchange, New Pudsey and Bramley.

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 13 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

Both services would call additionally at Hipperholme. The wider Calder Valley Line timetable would provide a framework to enable the two hourly services to operate about 30 minutes apart to ensure trains are evenly spaced for passengers. It is envisaged that the majority of passengers boarding at Hipperholme will not experience any overcrowding. Most of the passengers using these services are expected to board at stations east of Hipperholme towards Leeds. The separation of the timetable into ‘local’ and ‘longer’ distance services should help to ensure services are more evenly loaded. The forecast increase in demand from Hipperholme will also help to reinforce the case for wider improvements to the Calder Valley Line timetable. The timetable changes will necessitate attracting extra passengers to the route, so identifying new travel markets to help achieve this objective will be important. These additional trips will help to strengthen the case for the wider timetable changes.

2.4 Sensitivity Tests

2.4.1 Summary of Results A number of additional sensitivity tests have been identified to assess the impact of future scenarios and to examine the resiliency of the overall business case. Three sensitivity tests have been conducted:  Sensitivity Test 1: a higher number of new dwellings on site (with an increase to 1,200 homes);  Sensitivity Test 2: worsening highway congestion (extended car journey times by 15 minutes to Bradford and Leeds);  Sensitivity Test 3: higher fuel costs (increased to 175p per litre, representing an increase of 30%). The results of each sensitivity test are shown in Table 2.8. The change in annual journeys and annual revenue are discussed below. Table 2.8 Results of the Sensitivity Tests

Total Annual Annual Trips: Total Annual Annual Revenue: Journeys: (excl. Difference vs. Revenue (£, excl. Difference vs. abstraction) Core Scenario abstraction) Core Scenario (£) Core Scenario 113,278 388,414 Sensitivity Test 1 140,834 +27,556 511,897 +123,483 Sensitivity Test 2 164,758 +51,480 486,508 +98,094 Sensitivity Test 3 121,078 +7,800 403,277 +14,863

Source: Arup calculation

2.4.2 Higher Number of Dwellings A sensitivity test has been conducted to examine the impact of increasing the number of dwellings from 830 to 1,200. The results show that with the extra dwellings, the number of daily trips will increase by 88 trips per day, from 200 to

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 14 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

288 single trips. These additional houses would generate an additional £123,000 revenue per annum.

2.4.3 Worsening Highway Congestion A sensitivity test has been conducted to investigate the impact of increasing car journey times to Bradford and Leeds by 15 minutes. This increase in journey times will make rail more competitive for trips which originate from existing nearby housing developments. This sensitivity test generates an additional 47,000 park and ride trips per annum, plus a further 4,500 trips over the same period from existing local housing in Hipperholme. The extra 51,500 journeys are expected to generate an additional £100,000 revenue.

2.4.4 Increased Fuel Costs A sensitivity test modelling the impact of a 30% increase in fuel costs has been conducted, rising from £1.35 per litre to £1.75. Increased fuel costs will reduce the attractiveness of driving, boosting the number of people using rail. This increase will generate about 7,800 additional rail trips per year from Hipperholme, and around £15,000 extra revenue.

2.5 Transport Needs Statement

2.5.1 Trip Generation from New Development The proposed Hipperholme Masterplan will support the delivery of employment and housing land. The proposed location for Hipperholme railway station is adjacent to the north western boundary of the development site which is expected to comprise 830 dwellings, about 3,500 sq m of business use office space and other ancillary facilities (including a hotel, district centre and community amenities). If a new railway station was constructed, it could generate about 113,000 new trips per annum. The inclusion of abstracted trips from other stations represents a further 228,500 trips per day. This is an important benefit given the accessibility affecting the adjacent stations which would help to release suppressed demand from other locations. There are opportunities to boost this total, particularly if timetable improvements helped to stimulate a higher rail trip rate. Secondly, the promotion of sustainable land use patterns including improved bus services should help to encourage increased public transport usage. If there was no rail choice available, the number of car trips would inevitably increase, exacerbating existing congestion problems in Hipperholme.

2.5.2 Accessibility Constraints Access to the nearest railway stations surrounding Hipperholme is extremely limited. With the availability of parking spaces at railway stations representing one of the factors which influence the travel choice to complete a journey, this shortage represents an important barrier to encourage rail use. As noted earlier, there are just 32 car parking spaces at Halifax railway station, whilst Brighouse has just 65. Monitoring studies conducted by Metro have highlighted that both

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 15 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

station car parks are full before the end of the AM peak period. Halifax is a particularly extreme example, with surveys highlighting that the spaces are occupied by 7am. The parking constraints at stations are exacerbated by the lack of connectivity between the majority of bus services to / from Halifax bus and railway stations. With the majority of passengers required to walk, this is a further issue restricting access to the network.

2.5.3 Attractiveness of Alternative Modes The attractiveness of alternative public transport adjacent to the site to provide access to the major employment destinations is limited when compared with other modes. There are five regular and one infrequent bus services via Hipperholme (total of 7 buses per hour). Two buses operate via the north – south A644 Brighouse Road. The other four routes operate east – west via Halifax Road/Leeds Road (A58) and Wakefield Road (A649). Table 2.9 presents the bus routes via Hipperholme. Table 2.9 Bus services operating through Hipperholme

Nearest stop from Service Frequency (per hour) Service proposed Service Route type Hipperholme Mon to Sat Evenings and Masterplan site Daytime Sun (mins) Norwood Green – 550 metres (Halifax Mon, Wed, Infrequent 226 Hipperholme - Halifax Road) Fri only Halifax – Cleckheaton – 550 metres (Halifax Regular 255 1 1 Leeds Road) Halifax – Hipperholme - 150 metres Regular 548 2 1 Brighouse (Brighouse Road) Halifax – Brighouse - 150 metres Regular 549 2 1 Huddersfield (Brighouse Road) Rastrick – Hipperholme 500 metres Regular 570 1 - – Bradford (Wakefield Road) Halifax – Brighouse - 500 metres Regular 571 1 1 Bradford (Wakefield Road)

Source: Arup analysis Although buses via Hipperholme provide connections to Bradford, Brighouse, Halifax and Leeds, these routes are affected by a number of limitations. They operate at relatively low frequencies and offer slow journey times compared with other modes. As a result, a significant proportion of the trips generated from the new development are likely to be car-related which would exacerbate existing congestion issues. If a new station is not delivered which stimulates some mode transfer, the likelihood of realising housing and employment growth targets may be restricted, given the lack of opportunities to encourage sustainable journeys patterns.

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 16 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

2.6 Site Suitability

2.6.1 Access by Car Highway access to the station would be provided via Watergate (one way only) or Tanhouse Hill onto Station Road. Car drivers making longer trips would use the A58 Halifax Road which links to the A644 Brighouse Road or the A649 Wakefield Road at Hipperholme crossroads. There are two main issues influencing the suitability of the site in terms of highway access. The first relates to access issues immediately surrounding the site. For example, the current topography would create some safety issues for cars entering / leaving the station car park. Watergate is a steep one way road, with limited access from the A58. Furthermore, Tanhouse Hill is also relatively steep, with parked cars on both sides. The absence of traffic signals at this junction with the A58, coupled with the volume of traffic using main east – west route will create difficulties for car drivers. Whilst there is a plot of land to the west of Station Road which could be converted to a car park via a builder’s yard, this road is also relatively narrow and offers poor visibility when entering and leaving the proposed site, whilst some of the land may need to be compulsorily purchased. The second main issue to be addressed is the resulting traffic congestion from the complex A644, A58 and A649 junction to the east of the junction with Tanhouse Hill. The convergence of traffic at this junction already creates significant delays, especially during the peak periods and lengthy queues were observed even during weekday afternoons. Superimposing new traffic onto the network could exacerbate these existing constraints and lead to deteriorating delays for existing traffic. The accessibility to the proposed Hipperholme station will require further, more detailed analysis to determine the wider impacts. Arup has previously provided advice to Calderdale Council which examined a range of innovative solutions to address the capacity bottlenecks at Hipperholme Crossroads. The specific proposals to address this constraint need to be considered in conjunction with the additional traffic which is likely to be generated to / from the new station and the potential further requirements to alleviate these issues.

2.6.2 Access by Bus As noted earlier, there is a relatively high frequency bus network converging at Hipperholme, with convenient stops adjacent to the proposed station. These should provide convenient access to the new railway station. Whilst the distances are relatively short, the topography may discourage some mobility impaired passengers from transferring between bus and rail in this location, and hence adversely affect the forecasts shown in Table 2.7. This issue would be a particular issue when transferring from rail to bus, given the uphill walk to be completed.

2.6.3 Access for Pedestrians There are a number of residential catchments close to the station, including some recently completed dwellings on Halifax Old Road. These would be immediately adjacent to the station. For the remainder of the Hipperholme catchment, the topographical issues highlighted above will also be relevant.

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 17 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

2.7 Railway Planning Context

2.7.1 Overview of the Current Service Pattern The progress to develop Low Moor station is more advanced compared with Hipperholme, so there is a strong likelihood that the former station will be delivered in advance of the latter. As a result, network signalling improvements between Bradford and Halifax would be required if both stations were delivered.

2.7.2 Station Location As noted earlier, the former station at Hipperholme was located close to the western portal of Hipperholme tunnel between Bradford Mill Lane Junction and Halifax. The former station location was at approximately 34 miles and this has been used in the analysis. Line speed at this location is 55 mph. It is assumed that twin 97m platforms would be constructed which would allow four 23m units to serve the station. It is envisaged the station would be unstaffed, which reflects the likely footfall. A waiting shelter, lighting, passenger information and a help point would be provided. A car park would also be provided, although its size should be dependent on the resulting impact of trip generation on the surrounding road network. The station would be located on a gradient of 1:200 which is steeper than the current standard that indicates sites need to be on a gradient of 1 in 500 or less. Whilst some existing stations are located on gradients steeper than this, Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate may object to this proposal on safety grounds. As a result, specific permission would need to be sought to reinstate a station in this location. Since it is relatively unlikely that Hipperholme would be used as a terminus station, permission to construct a new station in this location should be forthcoming if the necessary mitigating measures were delivered. There have been a number of stations constructed on comparable gradients and these should be quoted to reinforce the case for Hipperholme.

2.7.3 Proposed Service Pattern The feasibility of serving Hipperholme has been examined based on the future timetable scenario with a standard hourly pattern as set out in Chapter 1. It is assumed 2tph between Leeds and Halifax calling at Bramley, New Pudsey and Bradford Interchange would be revised to call additionally at Hipperholme, with 1tph extended to Huddersfield. The following timings are proposed:

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 18 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

Timings Station To Leeds From Leeds Halifax xx.40 ½ xx.38 xx.11 ½ x1.08 Hipperholme xx.45 xx.15 x1.04 ½ xx.34 ½ a xx.56 ½ xx.26 ½ xx.53 xx.23 Bradford Interchange d xx.59 ½ xx.29 ½ xx.50 xx.20

New Pudsey x1.08 xx.38 xx.42 xx.12 Bramley x1.12 xx.42 xx.37 ½ xx.07 ½ Leeds x1.20 ½ xx.50 ½ xx.30 xx.00

2.7.4 Interface with Alternative Station Proposals The half hourly shuttle services are able to call additionally at Hipperholme in each direction, but they would not be able to also serve Low Moor too without impacting on following services. To overcome this constraint, three possible issues were considered:  the signalling improvements identified as part of the wider main Calder Valley Line report would be required. This is a £10m scheme which would deliver wider benefits for the route;  if the route is electrified, the improved performance offered by the electric units would avoid this issue, since trains would be able to accelerate / decelerate more effectively;  the scope to retime trains to / from Leeds was considered, but the timing of other services using the C and D Lines towards Wakefield inhibits the opportunities to achieve these outcomes. Some of these changes may be achievable as part of timetable revisions delivered as part of the Trans Pennine Electrification, although further infrastructure interventions may be required. Secondly, the existing signalling systems would need to be modified to support both proposed stations. The layover time at Halifax exceeds 30 minutes and hence the rolling stock deployment is relatively inefficient, although this issue occurs regardless of the extra stops at Hipperholme or Low Moor. A third platform at Halifax will also be required to ensure robust operation – again, this will be required regardless of the construction of the proposed new stations.

2.8 Scheme Costs

2.8.1 Capital Costs for the Rail Station Capital costs for the proposed new station have been estimated using comparable estimates for the other new schemes due to be delivered in the West Yorkshire

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 19 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

area6. Detailed station cost estimates prepared for Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge by consultants working for Network Rail and Metro have been used as a proxy for Hipperholme. Estimates presented in terms of Q1 2011 outputs have been collated for the two stations, with a simple average taken. Optimism bias has been calculated separately for the other station. Instead of the usual 66% optimism bias for a scheme at this stage of development, a Quantified Risk Assessment has been completed to estimate the revised allowance which reflects a more detailed understanding of the issues. These indicative scheme costs mean the estimate for Hipperholme is £8.566m. However, there may be two other factors which may affect this estimate:  the works needed to construct the station given the electrified route between Leeds and Shipley would not be relevant for the Calder Valley Line (potential cost reduction);  the costs that could be incurred by securing access to the site, in terms of compensating the existing land owner (potential cost increase) .

2.8.2 Station Operating Costs The annual station operating costs and Long Term Station Charge have been estimated at £100,000. This value has been informed by previous studies. It is assumed that the station would be unstaffed and this is consistent with other stations attracting similar forecast patronage. Operating costs include maintenance, utilities, lease costs for the land and maintenance / renewal charges. Both cost assumptions have been included in the economic appraisal which follows in section 2.9.

2.9 Appraisal

2.9.1 Methodology Based on the forecast demand and revenue associated with the station and estimated capital and operating costs, a financial and economic appraisal has been undertaken. In accordance with WebTag guidance, the appraisal has been calculated over a 60 year period, with prices discounted to a 2002 base. Benefits are discounted at 3.5% per annum for the first 30 years of the appraisal, and 3.0% per annum thereafter. Adjustment factors have been used to profile the spending profile of the capital costs across two years, with an indicative construction profile of 25% in year 1 and 75% in year 2.

2.9.2 Journey Time Changes for Existing and New Passengers The impact of journey time changes has been identified based on a comparison for each travel market. The journey time savings are then multiplied by a weighted Value of Time (VoT), expressed in 2002 market prices for commuting, work and other journey purposes. The weighted average was calculated using the journey purpose splits presented in the WebTag guidance.

6 Metro’s Best and Final Offer for the Apperley Bridge and Kirkstall Forge scheme costs

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 20 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

Table 2.10 sets out a summary of the changes in journey times for each demand segment, and then converted to a monetary value using standard value of time parameters. Benefits for new passengers are halved in accordance with standard economic theory, although the full journey time benefits for passengers abstracted from Halifax to the new station are assumed. The proposals would also result in an additional station stop between Halifax and Bradford, leading to increased journey times for existing passengers. These journey time benefits for new passengers are sufficient to offset the extended timings for existing passengers, and thus equate to an estimated monetary value of £17.230m over the appraisal period. The journey time dis-benefits for existing passengers have also been included. Of the 2.41m passengers per annum between Halifax and Bradford, it is assumed that 10% of trips from Halifax will choose the stopping trains towards Leeds. This lower percentage takes account of the stopping service which will inevitably attract slightly fewer longer distance passengers from Halifax, given the extended journey times. Table 2.10: Summary of Journey Time Changes

Journey Time (mins) Annual Total Annual Journey Time Demand Segment Car / 8 Trips Benefit (mins) 7 Rail Change PT

Housing Development 22 15 7 62,300 444,286

Office Development 22 15 7 4,698 33,501 Strategic P&R (car and walkers) – 25 15 10 37,960 379,600 To Bradford Strategic P&R (car and walkers) – 35 35 1 8,320 4,160 To Leeds Total Impact (New Users, rule 430,774 of half) Abstraction from Halifax 10 228,498 2,284,981

Total Impact (New Users) inc. 2,715,755 Abstraction Total Impact (Existing Users) (482,000)

Net Journey Time Impact 2,233,754

2.9.3 Highway Decongestion Highway decongestion benefits have been estimated for each travel market based on the distance by car removed from the network. This distance was multiplied by the number of forecast trips to calculate the car kilometres removed from the highway network, resulting in about £7.271m of benefits over the 60 year appraisal period.

7 Estimated current timing 8 Estimated future timing

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 21 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

2.9.4 Accident Benefits Accident reduction benefits have been calculated based on the number of car kilometres removed from the network with other parameters applied, in accordance with WebTAG guidance. The forecast discounted accident benefit is around £0.175m over the 60 year appraisal period.

2.9.5 Financial and Economic Appraisal An economic Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) has been calculated based on the trip generation identified in section 2.3. The following provides some context to explain the Benefit Cost Ratios:  BCR < 1: poor value for money, and projects would not be recommended for funding;  BCR between 1 and 1.5: low value for money, and projects would generally not be accepted for funding;  BCR between 1.5 and 2: medium value for money if the BCR is between 1.5 and 2, with some projects accepted for funding;  BCR > 2: high value for money, with projects accepted for funding. The results of the appraisal indicate the economic BCR is strong, with an output of 3.878 for the core scenario. The journey time benefits for new users are the main contributory factor for the positive economic performance for the proposed station. Whilst the additional stop at Hipperholme would extend journey times between Halifax and Bradford for some existing rail passengers and would lead to a negative impact, this is offset by the positive impact from journey time savings for new passengers which offer shorter journey times compared with other modes. Table 2.11 presents the financial and economic appraisal results for the proposed Hipperholme station. Table 2.11: Financial and Economic Appraisal

Attribute Result (£m) Operating costs 1.738 Discounted Capital Costs 7.021 Costs Total Costs 8.759 Revenue Benefit 9.292 Journey Time Savings Benefit 17.230 Discounted Decongestion Benefits 7.271 Benefits Accident Reduction Benefits 0.175 Total Benefits 33.967 Summary Economic BCR 3.878

Source: Arup calculation

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 22 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

2.10 Economic Appraisal Sensitivity Tests The impact of alternative parameters was examined by three sensitivity tests:  Higher number of dwellings (up to 1,200 new houses rather than 830);  Worsening congestion (additional 15 minutes journey time to Leeds and Bradford);  Rising fuel costs (fuel costs increase from £1.35 / litre to £1.75 / litre).

2.10.1 Higher Number of Dwellings Table 2.12 shows the impact of increasing the number of dwellings on the economic appraisal versus the core scenario. This shows that the extra 370 dwellings generate a higher number of trips, resulting in a higher economic Benefit Cost Ratio. The ratio increases to 4.5 compared with 3.88 for the core scenario. The total discounted revenues increase by 34%, highlighting the importance of trip generation from the proposed new housing. Table 2.12 Economic Appraisal: Sensitivity Test with Higher Number of Dwellings

Core Scenario Sensitivity Test 1 Revenue (Present Value) £m 9.292 12.491 Operating costs (Present Value) £m 1.738 1.738 Difference 5.346 7.187 Total Discounted Benefits (Present Value) £m 33.967 39.438 Total Discounted Costs (Present Value) £m 8.759 8.759 Economic BCR 3.878 4.503

Source: Arup Economic Appraisal Model

2.10.2 Worsening Highway Congestion Increasing highway congestion improves the attractiveness of park and ride from Hipperholme. The financial impact of the more severe highway congestion is smaller compared with the sensitivity test presented above. The increased car travel time only represents one element of the overall journey. As a result, the revenue impact is smaller (20% increase) compared with the alternative development scenario featuring a higher number of houses (34% increase). However, the increased journey time savings that would be achieved are reflected in the societal transport benefits and this contributes to the higher Benefit Cost Ratio.

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 23 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

Table 2.13 Economic Appraisal: Sensitivity Test with Worsening Highway Congestion

Core Scenario Sensitivity Test 2 Revenue (Present Value) £m 9.292 10.974 Operating costs (Present Value) £m 1.738 1.738 Difference 5.346 6.314 Total Discounted Benefits £m 33.967 50.606 Total Discounted Costs £m 8.759 8.759 Economic BCR 3.878 5.778

Source: Arup Economic Appraisal Model

2.10.3 Increased Fuel Costs Table 2.14 shows the impact of rising car fuel costs on the appraisal. The higher motoring costs mean this mode becomes less attractive. This sensitivity test has the smallest impact compared with the above example, since the costs of motoring only account for a relatively small percentage of the total. Revenues increase by just 3%, whilst the Benefit Cost Ratio rises from 3.88 to 4.01. Table 2.13 Economic Appraisal: Sensitivity Test with Rising Fuel Costs

Core Scenario Sensitivity Test 3 Revenue (Present Value) £m 9.292 9.547 Operating costs (Present Value) £m 1.738 1.738 Financial BCR 5.346 5.493 Total Discounted Benefits £m 33.967 35.139 Total Discounted Costs £m 8.759 8.759 Economic BCR 3.878 4.012

Source: Arup Economic Appraisal Model

2.11 Funding There are several potential funding sources that could be secured to deliver the station and these are set out below.  Local Transport Plan (LTP): the estimated capital costs for the scheme are greater than £5m, which is over the current threshold for requiring local authorities to gain DfT approval for Major Scheme funding. However, the Government is currently proposing that from 2015 onwards, local transport bodies will decide for themselves how to spend all money on transport priorities, therefore there could be scope for funding via the local authority without the need for DfT approval as it would depend on the policy, and timescales, going forward. Therefore the scheme could possibly be funded from the Integrated Transport block allocation for West Yorkshire. The business case for the new station would need to be considered in conjunction with other proposals elsewhere in West Yorkshire;

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 24 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): funding is available for schemes to help unlock large housing development sites, enabling the acceleration of housing development and improving the sustainability of major housing growth. The regulations state when the combined impact of a number of developments creates the need for infrastructure, it may be reasonable for the associated developers’ contributions to be pooled, in order to allow the infrastructure to be secured in a fair and equitable way (paragraph B21). In addition paragraph B23 states that in cases where an item of infrastructure necessitated by the cumulative impact of a series of developments is provided by a local authority before all the developments have come forward, the later developers may still be required to contribute the relevant proportion of the costs;  Developer contributions: the results presented in Table 2.9 indicate the economic case for the new station is significantly improved if a third party funding contribution is realised. The proposed housing and office developments adjacent to the railway station could provide potential mechanisms to secure the funding. Contributions in the form of Section 106 Agreements have historically been an important source of funds, for local authorities. New regulations include limitations to Section106 agreements. Firstly, the advice in Circular 05/2005 will be enshrined in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (with effect from 6th April 2010) ensuring that Section 106 agreements are necessary, directly related and fair and reasonable in scale and kind to the development. Similar to the CIL, the Section 106 agreements have been reduced in scope;  Roof-tax: The feasibility of this mechanism has been examined for a number of growth areas in the South East and requires developers to pay the planning authority a tariff for each house to secure planning permission to fund transport infrastructure. A variable "roof tax" could be introduced, with different tariffs to suit local housing markets. This mechanism requires further analysis to assess its viability from the West Yorkshire context;  West Yorkshire Transport Fund: Metro, with support from other stakeholders, is examining the feasibility of securing a £1bn transport fund from a range of funding sources, including higher council tax levies. This total generated from this fund would primarily be focussed towards delivering major schemes, although there may be scope for including some smaller scale interventions since these could be delivered in a shorter timescale. Metro is currently finalising its forthcoming Local Transport Plan and there is a reference to the proposed new station at Hipperholme in the Rail Plan 7 strategy. This is an important step recognising the potential status of this station. The wider framework for the Calder Valley Line highlights the opportunity for a new station at Hipperholme, subject to business case, so the preparation of this submission is timely. Effective lobbying by Calderdale Council could help to raise the profile of this scheme. With consultation regarding the next Northern franchise due to commence shortly, this creates a timely opportunity for Calderdale to reinforce the importance of this proposal as an emerging priority.

2.12 Impacts on Wider Objectives The principal impact on wider objectives resulting from the proposed station would be a result of mode shift to rail for journeys associated with a variety of

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 25 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

market segments (as outlined in section 2.3), resulting in benefits related to congestion relief, minimising impacts on air quality and noise. The potential benefits have been partially quantified at this stage, with mode transfer from car to rail. This would generate modest benefits in terms of highway decongestion, accident reductions, faster journey times and environmental impacts. These impacts have been captured in the economic appraisal.

2.13 Summary of the Main Conclusions The convergence of several transport corridors means Hipperholme is already heavily congested and the delivery of further growth will exacerbate these constraints. The introduction of alternative travel choices is therefore essential to ensure growth can be delivered in a sustainable manner. Our analysis has demonstrated that a new railway station at Hipperholme would generate a positive economic business case, attracting about 113,000 new rail trips per annum, and £390,000 additional revenue. About 55% of these new journeys would be generated from the new housing, whilst a further 35% of this total represents mode transfer from existing car trips. The capital cost estimates for the new station appear reasonable when compared with other examples being developed elsewhere in West Yorkshire. However, this conclusion should be subject to further more detailed analysis as the scheme proposals are refined. The proposed revisions to the timetable will create a framework to provide 2tph stopping additionally at Hipperholme about 30 minutes apart. The current train loadings will be fundamentally revised if the proposed new timetable for the Calder Valley Line is introduced, but the inclusion of the new Hipperholme demand is unlikely to materially exacerbate the overcrowding. The demand analysis highlighted the important contribution of mode transfer trips as part of the overall total. However, the analysis has highlighted some constraints affecting station access to / from the site. The inclusion of additional traffic on the network will exacerbate the current congestion problems, so measures to mitigate these impacts must be considered as part of a wider package to address delays affecting the Hipperholme crossroads. Secondly, access from the main bus stops to the proposed bus station may prove challenging, especially for the mobility impaired and this could have a detrimental impact on the overall forecasts.

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 26 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

3 Updated Elland Project Inception Report

3.1 Context A Project Inception Report for a new station at Elland has been prepared by consultants on behalf of Metro. This PIR followed a high level assessment of the benefits and costs of potential new stations in the Leeds City Region that was conducted as part of a strategic review. It is expected that the station at Elland would serve a number of functions, including access to the adjacent residential catchment and the various employment sites. The patronage forecasts are not presented separately in terms of the number of trips generated from each market segment, but it is assumed that the former category is responsible for the majority of trips. The patronage forecasts could be supplemented by an uplift of 10% in demand from committed or aspirational developments. As noted in the PIR for Hipperholme, parking availability is severely limited, so the availability of up to 250 spaces could help to unlock this wider accessibility constraint. The proximity to the A629 and the A6025 ensures the station is attractive for strategic park and ride. This is an important feature, given the relatively slow bus routes serving Elland which restrict the attractiveness of public transport alternatives.

3.2 Main Conclusions from the Previous PIR The main issues emerging from the PIR include:  No specific operational issues affecting the Selby to Wakefield trains, since there are generous timings at selected junctions close to Elland. However, the timing of the Manchester Victoria to Leeds via Dewsbury service is constrained and the inclusion of an additional stop requires further analysis to confirm its feasibility;  The revised journey times did not affect turnaround times at the principal stations. It is assumed there are no specific rolling stock crowding issues as a result of the additional demand;  The majority (90%) of demand is generated from the existing catchment, with the committed development patterns responsible for a further 9% of the total. The aspirational schemes account for just 1%. The inclusion of park and ride (assuming 250 spaces are available) could generate a 33% increase in the total demand. This equates to about 120,000 journeys per annum, or 160,000 if the park and ride market is included;  The total incremental revenue is £400,000 (£525,000 per annum with park and ride), equating to an average yield for £3.30 per passenger per return journey;  The capital costs of £5.5m are derived from the estimates produced for Apperley Bridge and Kirkstall Forge. However, there is one important difference compared with these schemes on the Airedale Line, since it is understood a footbridge will not be required. It is assumed access via Lowfields Way will be used to provide links to the platforms;  The economic benefit cost ratio for the new station is 2.8, but this is predicated on the capital cost estimate which does not include a footbridge.

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 27 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

However, there is scope to strengthen the benefit cost ratio with the inclusion of park and ride demand;  The station appears to be financially viable, with the incremental revenues exceeding station operating costs and the Long Term Station charge.

3.3 Updating the Demand and Revenue Forecasts

3.3.1 Conclusions from the Previous PIR The previous business case indicated the new station could generate a financial surplus, with incremental revenues exceeding overall operating costs. This is an important conclusion, since a regular ongoing external funding source to offset this difference would otherwise be required. The demand forecasts presented in the previous Project Inception Report were based on outputs from a mode choice model. We have compared these results versus a trip rate model. This is a transparent, albeit relatively simplistic approach to help sense-check the previous outputs. Although the implied forecasts based on trip rates for Elland are higher compared with the current totals from neighbouring Brighouse, the increased availability of car parking at the former station will help to achieve the more optimistic forecasts. However, the timetable changes highlighted in Chapter 2 for the Calder Valley Line could deliver a significantly enhanced journey time to Leeds via Brighouse compared with the current timetable. This improvement would also benefit passengers from Elland, helping to generate even higher forecasts, strengthening the overall business case.

3.3.2 Impact of the Enhanced Timetable To estimate the potential change in demand that could be realised by the future timetable changes, we have compared the overall journey time for the current and proposed services, with the timings between Brighouse and Leeds used as a proxy. Furthermore, the proportion of trips from Brighouse towards Leeds was also calculated to understand the percentage of total demand that could benefit from this proposed journey time improvement. This analysis highlighted:  Current journey time from Brighouse to Leeds via Dewsbury is 34 minutes, and this will be reduced to 23 minutes if the improved timetable is delivered. This indicates demand to Leeds could increase by around 40-45% using the standard Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook forecasting methodology;  Since the demand forecasts for Elland do not illustrate the specific destinations of these rail trips, current journey patterns to / from Brighouse have been examined to understand the percentage of journeys that could be affected. This indicates that 50% of total trips from Brighouse have a destination in Leeds and would benefit from these improvements;  However, the percentage of uplift in trips that could be realised by the timetable improvements could be a pessimistic assumption. The transformational journey times realised from the timetable improvements could stimulate significantly higher levels of new demand (circa 80-100%) based on guidance presented in the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook;

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 28 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

 As a result of introducing the revised timetable, the number of annual trips to / from Elland could increase from 120,000 shown in the previous PIR to 169,400 – 240,000. The higher forecast shown represents a feasible target, given the transformational benefits that could be realised from the proposed timetable.

3.3.3 Revenue Yields It is worthwhile commenting on the average yield per passenger. The previous PIR assumed the yield was £3.30 based on a return journey. However, this assumption appears to significantly under-estimate the likely generation when compared with the current yield from Brighouse station (£3.64 per single journey). This implies the revenue forecasts shown in the previous PIR should be doubled, OR the number of journeys using the station will actually be double compared with the total shown in the previous PIR. This issue requires clarification from Metro and their consultants.

3.3.4 Impact on Train Loadings As noted in the Hipperholme PIR, the introduction of a revised timetable will fundamentally alter the pattern of train loadings. Ensuring the revised service pattern for the Calder Valley Line does not exacerbate existing overcrowding problems forms an important consideration that will require further analysis. Until this issue has been resolved, the impact of the additional demand from Elland on the overall boarding patterns is uncertain. However, it should be possible to manage this issue, by revising the stopping pattern of specific trains during the peak to minimise overcrowding. For example, the Dewsbury stops on the services via Brighouse to / from Leeds may be restricted in the high peak. Procuring additional rolling stock to alleviate potential overcrowding caused by new passengers does not form part of the business case.

3.4 Operational Planning Issues Elland station would be situated between Brighouse and Greetland Junction. The former station location was about 31 miles 61 chains and this has been used in the analysis. Line speed at this location is 60 mph and a three minute journey time increase has been assumed associated with acceleration / deceleration of trains, plus a half minute dwell time for the station stop. Two timetable options have been assessed:  the current timetable which features an hourly stopping service from the Calder Valley Line to Leeds via Dewsbury, plus the hourly stopping train from Huddersfield towards Leeds via Halifax;  the future timetable option which could include an hourly limited stopping service from the Calder Valley Line to Leeds via Dewsbury and the hourly stopping train from Huddersfield towards Leeds via Halifax.

3.4.1 Implications for the Current Timetable The Leeds to Huddersfield via Halifax service could be stopped additionally at Elland, although some extra pathing time would be required at Bradley Wood

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 29 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

Junction to avoid conflict with the Leeds to Manchester Victoria via Dewsbury services. In the opposite direction, the service can stop at Elland but would need to proceed rather than follow the Leeds to Manchester service from Bradley Junction and as a result incurs 6½ minutes pathing time at Dryclough Junction. This leads to an extended journey time. However, stopping the Leeds to Manchester Victoria via Brighouse additionally at Elland does not appear to be possible based on the current timings, since the service cannot run later towards Manchester without impacting on following services. Furthermore, it is not possible to start earlier from Leeds as it is slotted between the TransPennine Express services towards Manchester and has to wait at Milner Royd Junction for the following longer distance trains to pass.

3.4.2 Implications for the Future Timetable The feasibility of whether the stopping trains from Leeds to Huddersfield via Halifax can call additionally at Elland is broadly similar to the issues raised above. However, there is an important difference affecting the viability of modifying the Leeds to Manchester Victoria via Brighouse train in this option. There is more flexibility to modify these timings between Leeds and Milner Royd Junction. It will be possible to retime this service, so it can run earlier from Leeds and later into Leeds and therefore call additionally at Elland, thereby avoiding the conflicts with the Trans Pennine services. However, there is no scope to modify the timings of this service approaching Manchester. Connections between Huddersfield and stations in the Calder Valley will be improved as a result of these timetable changes. Table 3.1 presents the proposed timings to / from Elland. Timings are not clockface (similar to the current assumptions), but the significantly extended journey times for trains via Bradford Interchange (the departures to / from Huddersfield) mean this is not an attractive route for passengers to Leeds, hence there is effectively an hourly service available. Table 3.1: Summary of the Proposed Timings to / from Elland

Service From Huddersfield From Sowerby Bridge Elland xx.26 ½ xx.59 Leeds x1.20 ½ x1.29 ½ Service To Huddersfield To Sowerby Bridge Leeds xx.30 xx.07 Elland x1.15 xx.30 ½

3.4.3 Summary of the Operational Issues The implementation of the proposed Calder Valley Line timetable strongly influences the viability of this station. For example, unless the service between Leeds and Brighouse via Dewsbury is revised to adopt a limited calling pattern, there are a number of risks associated with the demand forecasts presented earlier. Demand to Leeds is likely to account for a significant percentage of the total rail market. Therefore, the inability of the stopping service via Dewsbury to call additionally at Elland would significantly affect the viability of the overall

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 30 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

business case. Journey times to Leeds via Halifax would be significantly longer, and this would have a detrimental impact on the viability of achieving the demand forecasts for this new station.

3.5 Review of Capital Costs The construction of the A629 bypass means there are a number of constraints which affect the opportunity to reinstate Elland station on its former site. An alternative site adjacent to Lowfields Way has been recommended instead. The proposed new station will be located on an embankment. The cost estimates include ramps that are compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act and provide a link down to Lowfields Way. The omission of a footbridge from the scheme capital costs based on these assumptions therefore appears to be reasonable. The capital cost estimates for Elland have been benchmarked based on the assumptions prepared for Apperley Bridge and Kirkstall Forge. There has been significant preparatory work to develop and refine the capital costs for these stations since they have reached a more advanced stage than other examples. For example, the inclusion of a Quantified Risk Assessment to understand the risks means a lower allowance for optimism bias has been assumed. Applying these costs as a proxy for Elland seems a reasonable starting point, although the assumptions may need to be refined in due course as the scheme progresses. Some of the costs identified for the two stations on the Airedale Line may not be relevant for Elland, for example, costs relating to the line electrification and hence they may be avoided.

3.6 Station Access Issues The proximity to the A629 Elland bypass means the station would benefit from convenient access to the wider highway network. There is a grade separate junction from the A629 onto Lowfields Way. Highway access to the station is extremely convenient, and this is in contrast to the issues highlighted earlier affecting the Hipperholme PIR.

3.7 Implications for the Business Case The previous PIR demonstrates there is a strong business case for the proposed station, with a Benefit Cost Ratio of about 2.8. This result is significantly higher than the threshold normally applied by the Department for Transport to assess the value for money. We have not been able to exactly replicate some of the totals produced by Metro’s consultants, possibly due to rounding in the calculation spreadsheet. As part of the updated PIR, we have identified opportunities that could potentially boost revenue, and hence some of the societal benefits. For example, the revised timetable will help to generate additional revenue, whilst some of the economic benefits would also be boosted. The summary economic appraisal table is shown in Table 3.1 which reinforces the conclusion that the station should generate an even stronger Benefit Cost Ratio if the revised timetable is introduced, assuming the wider societal impacts are adjusted in a similar pro-rata manner to the revenue improvements.

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 31 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

Table 3.2: Summary of Appraisal Results - Central Case (Present Value, £m)

Impact Previous PIR Updated Assumptions Discounted Costs (2002) Capital Costs 6.9 6.9 Indirect Tax Impacts 0.8 0.8 Net Cost to Government 7.7 7.7 Discounted Benefits (2002) Journey Time Impacts 11.3 13.6 Highway Decongestion 5.9 7.1 Operating Costs -1.8 -1.8 New Revenue 7.1 8.5 Accident Savings 0.4 0.5 Sub-total 22.9 27.9 Net Present Value (NPV) 15.2 20.1 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.8* 3.6

Sources, Previous PIR prepared for Elland, Arup calculations. BCR for PIR is assumed to be affected by rounding

3.8 Updated Conclusions The PIR previously prepared by consultants on behalf of Metro indicated that a new railway station at Elland would generate a positive economic case. We would endorse many of the conclusions presented in the submission, although it is acknowledged that proposed timetable revisions for the wider Calder Valley Line would further reinforce this conclusion. For example, the restructured timetable would help to reduce potential journey times between Elland and Leeds by over 10 minutes, further boosting the forecast demand. This change could boost patronage by at least 40% compared with the earlier PIR, especially if adequate parking spaces are provided given the strategic park and ride catchment that could be served. We would also support the high level assumptions underpinning the capital costs, although it is recognised that further analysis will be required as the scheme progresses to verify these outputs. There are two issues identified in the previous PIR which merit clarification. The first relates to the reliance on delivering the revised timetable to achieve the proposed benefits. Our analysis indicated there would be insufficient scope to modify the current timetable to call additionally at Elland if the stopping services between Leeds and Manchester Victoria via Brighouse were unchanged. This would have a serious impact on the viability of the new station, particularly as journey times to Leeds (expected to be the largest travel market) would be significantly longer if Elland passengers had to travel via Halifax. Secondly, the review of the PIR has identified an apparent anomaly in the number of passengers and / or revenue generated from the new station. It is recommended Metro’s consultants clarify this issue, since the implied revenue yield per passenger is significantly lower compared with the current average from Brighouse.

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 32 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX

Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council Hipperholme and Elland Railway Stations Updated Project Inception Reports

4 Stakeholder Consultation

To be completed

|Draft | 20 June 2012 Page 33 J:\121000\121525-00\121525-56 HIPPERHOLME PIR AND ELLAND PIR UPDATE\0 ARUP\0-11 TRANSPORTATION\0-11-8 REPORTS\2012-06-20_HIPPERHOLMEPIR.DOCX