Meeting: Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Date/Time: Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 2.00 pm Location: Sparkenhoe Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield Contact: Mr. B. Holihead (Tel. 0116 3056339) Email: [email protected]
Membership
Mr. I. E. G. Bentley CC Mr. Max Hunt CC Mr. D. C. Bill MBE CC Mr. D. Jennings CC Mr. G. A. Boulter CC Mr. A. E. Pearson CC Mr. J. G. Coxon CC Mr. L. E. Yates CC Mr. S. J. Hampson CC
Please note: this meeting will be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s web site at http://www.leics.gov.uk/webcast – Notices will be on display at the meeting explaining the arrangements.
AGENDA
Item Report by
1. Appointment of Chairman.
To note that Mr. D. Jennings CC was nominated as Chairman elect to the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee at the Annual Meeting of the County Council held on 18 May 2016.
2. Election of Deputy Chairman.
3. Minutes of the meeting held on 7 April 2016. (Pages 5 - 10)
4. Question Time.
5. Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).
6. To advise of any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent elsewhere on the agenda.
Democratic Services ◦ Chief Executive’s Department ◦ Leicestershire County Council ◦ County Hall Glenfield ◦ Leicestershire ◦ LE3 8RA ◦ Tel: 0116 232 3232 ◦ Email: [email protected]
www.twitter.com/leicsdemocracy www.facebook.com/leicsdemocracy www.leics.gov.uk/local_democracy
7. Declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda.
8. Declarations of the Party Whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16.
9. Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 36.
10. Recycling and Household Waste Site Director of (Pages 11 - 48) Commissioning Options. Environment and Transport
11. Quarter 4 Performance Report. Chief Executive (Pages 49 - 56) and Director of Environment and Transport
12. Draft Rail Strategy for Leicester and Director of (Pages 57 - 128) Leicestershire. Environment and Transport
13. Leicester to Burton Railway Line. Director of (Pages 129 - 226) Environment and Transport
14. Final Report of the Scrutiny Review Panel on (Pages 227 - 276) the Market Harborough Line Speed Improvements.
A copy of the final report is attached for the Committee’s consideration before submission to the Cabinet for approval on the 17th June 2016.
15. Park and Ride Performance. Director of (Pages 277 - 288) Environment and Transport
16. Date of next meeting.
The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled to take place on Wednesday 7 September 2016 at 10.00am.
17. Any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent.
QUESTIONING BY MEMBERS OF OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Members serving on Overview and Scrutiny have a key role in providing constructive yet robust challenge to proposals put forward by the Cabinet and Officers. One of the most important skills is the ability to extract information by means of questions so that it can help inform comments and recommendations from Overview and Scrutiny bodies.
Members clearly cannot be expected to be experts in every topic under scrutiny and nor is there an expectation that they so be. Asking questions of ‘experts’ can be difficult and intimidating but often posing questions from a lay perspective would allow members to obtain a better perspective and understanding of the issue at hand.
Set out below are some key questions members may consider asking when considering reports on particular issues. The list of questions is not intended as a comprehensive list but as a general guide. Depending on the issue under consideration there may be specific questions members may wish to ask.
Key Questions:
Why are we doing this? Why do we have to offer this service? How does this fit in with the Council’s priorities? Which of our key partners are involved? Do they share the objectives and is the service to be joined up? Who is providing this service and why have we chosen this approach? What other options were considered and why were these discarded? Who has been consulted and what has the response been? How, if at all, have their views been taken into account in this proposal?
If it is a new service:
Who are the main beneficiaries of the service? (could be a particular group or an area) What difference will providing this service make to them – What will be different and how will we know if we have succeeded? How much will it cost and how is it to be funded? What are the risks to the successful delivery of the service?
If it is a reduction in an existing service:
Which groups are affected? Is the impact greater on any particular group and, if so, which group and what plans do you have to help mitigate the impact? When are the proposals to be implemented and do you have any transitional arrangements for those who will no longer receive the service? What savings do you expect to generate and what was expected in the budget? Are there any redundancies? What are the risks of not delivering as intended? If this happens, what contingency measures have you in place?
This page is intentionally left blank 5 Agenda Item 3
Minutes of a meeting of the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee held at County Hall, Glenfield on Thursday, 7 April 2016.
PRESENT
Mr. D. Jennings CC (in the Chair)
Mr. I. E. G. Bentley CC Mr. S. J. Hampson CC Mr. D. C. Bill MBE CC Mr. Max Hunt CC Mr. G. A. Boulter CC Mrs. J. Richards CC Mr. J. G. Coxon CC Mr. L. E. Yates CC
In attendance.
Mr. B. Pain CC, Cabinet Lead Member for Waste Management (minutes 57 - 59). Mrs. P. Posnett CC, Cabinet Lead Member for Environmental Matters (minutes 57 – 60).
50. Minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2016.
The minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2016 were taken as read, confirmed and signed.
51. Question Time.
The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 35.
52. Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).
Mr. M. Hunt CC asked the following questions under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5):-
i. “Would the Chair welcome the work to produce a Parking Policy currently being conducted by the County Council and outline the key milestones in the project, including the consultation stages?
ii. Would he ask the Director to include an appraisal of the use of Public Spaces Protection Orders, under the 2014 Act, to control dangerous parking, including where it relates to routes to schools and areas around school entrances.”
The Chairman replied as follows:-
i. “I welcome the work that is currently being undertaken by Environment and Transportation officers on the development of a County-Wide Parking Strategy. The first stage of this work includes a review of existing parking related policies as well as undertaking parking studies in the larger towns and urban areas of the county. The parking studies will initially concentrate on central Hinckley, Loughborough, Market Harborough, before moving on to other larger towns and urban areas in late summer. The findings of this study work will feed into the development of the parking strategy and associated schemes and it is currently
6
planned to consult on the new draft strategy and associated schemes starting in the summer of 2017.
ii. Public Spaces Protection Orders, under the 2014 Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 are a District Council power and not a power that can be exercised by the County Council. However, as part of this work to develop the County-Wide Parking Strategy officers will be consulting with District Councils and the potential use of Public Spaces Protection Orders in partnership with the Districts will be considered.”
53. To advise of any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent elsewhere on the agenda.
There were no urgent items for consideration.
54. Declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda.
The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.
No declarations were made.
55. Declarations of the Party Whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16.
There were no declarations of the party whip.
56. Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 36.
The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been received under Standing Order 36.
57. Environment and Transport Interim Commissioning Strategy.
The Committee received a report of the Director of Environment and Transport outlining the Environment and Transport Interim Commissioning Strategy. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 8’, is filed with these minutes.
In addition to the information contained in the report, the Committee was provided with a more detailed Capital Programme which would be considered by the Cabinet. A copy of the detailed Capital Programme is filed with these minutes.
In introducing the report the Director advised that the Interim Commissioning Strategy (herein referred to as 'the Strategy’) formed part of a Council-wide approach to evidence- based commissioning, and as a result all departments were required to produce a Commissioning Strategy.
The Strategy consolidated the key priorities of the previous Leicestershire Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) and the Environment Strategy. A final Commissioning Strategy would be produced by 2018 which would be developed following consultation with partners.
The Committee was advised that Appendix A to the Strategy contained a mistake on page 7. There would be work to develop an infrastructure package to support the
7
Loughborough Science and Enterprise Park and housing growth west of Loughborough and in Shepshed, and not at Junction 23a as referred to in the action plan. The final version of the Strategy would be amended to reflect this.
Arising from discussion the Committee raised the following points:-
(i). The current cooperation with the City and district council’s would continue irrespective of whether the proposed Combined Authority for Leicestershire was approved. The Strategy assumed that the Combined Authority would be approved by the Government and this would enable cooperation in a greater number of areas to the benefit of the sub-region;
(ii). Midlands Connect and the Midlands Engine provided additional opportunities to cooperate with other local authorities across the region on transport matters, not just within Leicestershire;
(iii). Concern was expressed over the removal of dry recycling waste credits for district councils. The Director advised that the district council’s had been consulted on the future provision of dry recycling waste credits, and any proposals to change these would not be implemented until 2018. The Lead Member for Waste Management advised the Committee of the huge financial challenges faced by the Department which made it necessary to explore income generation schemes such as this;
(iv). Concern was expressed about the potential introduction of charges for on-street parking. The Director, whilst noting the concerns, advised the Committee that it was important to have the full range of measures available to address the issue of on-street parking;
(v). The Strategy reflected current Government policy of reducing the revenue grant for the County Council but providing significant amounts of capital funding for local authorities for large projects. As such the Strategy contained a number of aspirational schemes which were subject to successful bids for funding, such as the Hinckley Zone Phase 4 project. Officers were praised for producing an ambitious list of aspirational projects;
(vi). It was suggested that the aspirations and commitments within the Strategy concerning sustainable travel across the County needed strengthening particularly in light of the recent publication of the Government’s Walking and Cycling Investment Strategy. The Committee was advised that as the Strategy had been produced before the Walking and Cycling Strategy had been published this had not been reflected in the Interim Commissioning Strategy. The Committee was also advised that all major schemes would now usually include provision for sustainable travel by introducing cycling or bus lanes;
(vii). Concern was expressed over the increasing development taking place across Leicestershire and the pressure this was already placing on infrastructure, particularly highways. The Director advised that it was inevitable that economic growth in the County would lead to more congestion on the roads. It was suggested that as congestion increased it could become a driver for residents and businesses to use more sustainable modes of transport. The Committee was further advised that as a statutory consultee, the Highways Authority would only be able to justify objecting to planning applications where it was expected that congestion could increase to “severe”, which was an extremely high threshold.
8
Any objection which was not evidence based would be the subject of a successful challenge with the likelihood that costs would be awarded against the Council.
RESOLVED:
a) That the contents of the Environment and Transport Interim Commissioning Strategy be noted;
b) That the comments of the Committee be forwarded to the Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on 19 April 2016.
58. Change to the order of business.
RESOLVED:
Having sought and obtained the consent of the Committee, the Chairman changed the order of business to that set out on the agenda.
59. Quarter 3 Performance Report.
The Committee received a report of the Chief Executive and Director of Environment and Transport outlining the latest quarterly performance of the Environment and Transport Department. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 10’, is filed with these minutes.
The Committee was advised that 10 performance indicators had shown improvement and 2 had declined. Of the 19 indicators with targets and available data, 12 were on target or targets had been met (green), five had an amber rating and two were rated red. The two ‘red’ rated indicators related to those killed or seriously injured on Leicestershire’s roads and the rate of recycling in non-operational County Council buildings. The Committee had previously received reports on how the Department was responding to these indicators.
RESOLVED:
That the quarter 3 performance of the Environment and Transport Department be noted.
60. Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
The Committee received a report of the Chief Executive outlining the draft Minerals and Waste Local Plan. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 9’, is filed with these minutes.
In introducing the report officers advised the Committee that there had been very little changes to the pre-submission draft from the version previously considered by the Committee. There had been some changes to the section regarding Shale Gas exploration as well as the location of waste sites which addressed the concerns raised in the earlier consultation. Officers were thanked for the training session organised for members at the end of 2015 to outline what Shale Gas was and the regulatory and operational process for extraction.
Concern was expressed over waste sites being located close to or in residential locations. Members suggested that the use of the word ‘in’ in relation to waste sites near to urban areas be removed from the policy. Officers advised that waste sites should be located in areas which were closer to where waste was produced, as this would
9
contribute to sustainable travel by reducing journey times. It was recognised that certain sites, such as landfill or composting sites were unlikely to be located in urban areas.
Whilst the maps identified several broad locations across Leicestershire where strategic waste facilities should be located including on the edge of the city boundary, officers advised that other waste sites could be located elsewhere in the county in line with the policies in the Plan and were not limited to the broad locations.
RESOLVED:
a) That the contents of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan pre-submission draft be noted;
b) That the Cabinet and County Council be advised of the Committee’s comments at their respective meetings on the 9 May and 29 June 2016.
61. Date of next meeting.
RESOLVED:
It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Thursday 9 June at 2.00pm.
2.00 - 3.20 pm CHAIRMAN 07 April 2016
This page is intentionally left blank 11 Agenda Item 10
CABINET – 17 JUNE 2016
RECYCLING AND HOUSEHOLD WASTE SITES - COMMISSIONING OPTIONS
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
PART A
Purpose of Report
1. The purpose of this report is to agree the future commissioning approach to delivering 13 of the 14 Recycling and Household Waste Sites (RHWS) in the County (the Service) in order to achieve savings from the RHWS delivery model as identified in the County Council's current Medium Term Financial Strategy 2016/17 to 2019/20 (MTFS). The new commissioning approach would take effect from the expiry of the current contract with Environmental Waste Controls PLC (EWC) which has been providing the services on behalf of the County Council. (The Whetstone RHWS and Waste Transfer Station and the operation of the Loughborough Waste Transfer Station are not included in this commissioning approach).
Recommendation
2. It is recommended that:-
a) The assessment of commissioning options for the Recycling and Household Waste Sites Service be noted;
b) The Recommended Option to insource the Service as detailed in paragraphs 48 to 53 of the report (Option B) be approved for implementation subject to the Director of Environment and Transport being satisfied that this is supported by an external review of assumptions and costings;
c) The Director of Environment and Transport following consultation with the Director of Law and Governance and the Director of Corporate Resources be authorised to determine the timetable and take all measures necessary to insource the Service;
d) It be noted that should there be a requirement for a further review of the Service to deliver the savings targets detailed in the Medium Term Financial Strategy, a further report will be submitted to the Cabinet in 2017;
e) The investment in vehicle purchases for the Service of £0.9m from the
12
anticipated 2016/17 MTFS underspend be approved.
Reasons for Recommendation
3. Implementation of the Recommended Option, B, will allow for the continued operation of the Service following the expiry of the current contract and will contribute to the overall MTFS savings for the Service.
Giving the Council more control over the Service will permit greater flexibility in its delivery both in response to future efficiencies and the changing needs and expectations of service users and, as costs are expected to be lower, will allow higher service levels to be maintained than if the Service was commissioned from the market.
The Recommended Option requires investment in the Council’s vehicle fleet of circa £0.9m in 2016/17.
Timetable for Decisions (including Scrutiny)
4. This report was considered by Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny on 9th June and its comments will be reported to the Cabinet.
5. It is considered that the Recommended Option could be implemented by 1 April 2017 at the earliest. It must be in place by 1 October 2017 as the maximum approved contract extension period is until 30 September 2017.
6. An external review of assumptions and costings for the implementation of the Recommended Option and a peer review by a neighbouring local authority will be undertaken in June 2016. If these do not support implementation of the Recommended Option a further report will be submitted to the Cabinet in September.
Policy Framework and Previous Decisions
7. The County Council has a statutory duty under Section 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) to provide places at which persons resident in its area may deposit their household waste free of charge.
8. In April 2006, the Cabinet approved the award of the existing contract to EWC for undertaking certain management and haulage duties at 13 RHWS. On 18 November 2015, the Cabinet authorised changes to the operation of the Service (paragraph 26 below refers), and approved an extension to the contract to EWC allow enable this and for the Director of Environment and Transport to conduct a thorough review of future delivery options. The Recommended Option must be implemented before the end of the extension period.
13
9. On 18th February 2016, the County Council approved the MTFS, including planned savings of £400,000 from a review of the RHWS delivery model which is considered in this report.
10. In line with the County Council’s Commissioning and Procurement Strategy adopted by the Cabinet in November 2014, a service needs to “Challenge and Review delivery (‘make, shift, buy, share, stop’)” before procuring in order to determine the most effective commissioning approach.
Resource Implications
11. Table one below shows the actual budget for the Service in 2015/16 together with the budget forecasts (assuming no change to service delivery) for 2016/17 and 2017/18. The table also shows the forecast expenditure if the Recommended Option is implemented on 1 April 2017 and the forecast budget saving in 2017/18. Further detail is included in Part B of this report.
Table one 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 Item or year (actual (forecast (forecast expenditure) expenditure) expenditure)
Budget (Net after savings and inflation) for the £3,220,000 £3,130,000 £3,150,000 Service (13 RHWS and Loughborough WTS)*
Recommended Option B Insourcing except for N/A N/A £2,900,000 Bulk haulage #
Forecast saving from insourcing – revised N/A N/A £250,000 service delivery model^
Notes.* This includes staffing, haulage of waste, maintenance and utilities and excludes project costs and treatment and disposal costs etc. # Bulk haulage is the haulage of transferred waste in 44 tonne articulated vehicles. ^ There is a further saving of £40,000 expected to be delivered in 2018/19 taking the total saving to £290,000.
12. These savings are based on an assumption that vehicle purchase costs will be spread over their useful life. In reality, there would be a need to invest in the fleet up front which would require an initial investment of around £900,000 in 2016/17. It is recommended that the additional investment is funded from the anticipated 2016/17 MTFS underspend for the Environment and Transport Department. Early indications are that there will be an underspend on the 2016/17 budget, including an element of the £8m contingency for efficiency savings which at this stage is unlikely to be required. A detailed report on the 2016/17 MTFS monitoring position will be presented to the Cabinet in September for consideration.
13. The Director of Corporate Resources and the Director of Law and Governance have been consulted on the contents of this report.
14
Circulation under the Local Issues Alert Procedure
None.
Officers to Contact
Joanna Guyll, Assistant Director Environment Environment and Transport Department Tel: 0116 3058101 E-mail: [email protected]
Nigel Shilton, Head of Service, Design and Delivery Environment and Transport Department Tel: 0116 3056833 E-mail: [email protected]
15
PART B
Background
Current Service Provision and Background
14. The County Council currently provides 14 RHWS and two Waste Transfer Stations (“WTSs”) at Loughborough and Whetstone.
15. The County Council has two contracts in place for the management and operation of the RHWS. SUEZ Recycling and Recovery Limited (formerly known as SITA UK Limited) in conjunction with the County Council operate the Whetstone RHWS and WTS. A second contract is with EWC for the management and operation of the other 13 RHWS and the Loughborough WTS (“the Service”).
16. The County Council owns the freehold of all the RHWS and most of the assets used in delivery of the Service. It directly undertakes the maintenance of the RHWS and the assets and it is responsible for the Environmental Permits and discharge consents etc. required to run the Service. The majority of waste containers used on site and the fixed compaction equipment are also owned by the County Council.
17. Between 2009/10 and 2014/15, savings of over £800,000 per annum were achieved from within the budgets for the RHWS and WTSs. These savings have been achieved from a combination of measures including reduced opening times, contract management efficiencies, and the re-tendering of the contract to manage and operate the Whetstone site.
Summary of Current and Proposed Savings
18. On 18th November 2015, the Cabinet approved a reduction in summer opening hours and the introduction of charging and changes to the RHWS permit scheme to deliver savings from April 2016. At that meeting the Cabinet noted the need for savings from revising the delivery model, and this has been confirmed in the current MTFS. This report is focusing on the revised delivery model and delivering the £400,000 saving identified in the MTFS for 2018/19 shown in Table two below.
Table two 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Measure Savings Savings Savings Changes to RHWS operations (reduced opening times, efficiencies and charging £520,000 £655,000 £670,000 including changes to third party recycling and reuse credits)
Efficiency saving from revised RHWS £0 £0 £400,000 delivery model (ET15 SR)
Total cumulative saving compared to £520,000 £655,000 £1,070,000 2015/16
16
Scope
19. The scope of these proposals covers the management and operation (including associated haulage of waste materials) provided by EWC at 13 of the 14 RHWS and Loughborough WTS.
20. The Whetstone RHWS and WTS are the biggest waste sites that the County Council provides. The Whetstone RHWS accepts over 20% of the waste residents bring in to all the RHWSs in the County. Given the scale of this operation and that it is under a separate contract it has not been included in the project scope as it would increase the project resources required, level of risk, and reduce deliverability within MTFS timescales. Therefore at this stage, it is proposed that Whetstone RHWS and WTS will continue to be operated under the separate contract with SUEZ Recycling and Recovery Limited.
21. Options B and C exclude direct operation of bulk haulage of waste from Loughborough WTS as it is undertaken using 44 tonne articulated Heavy Goods Vehicles and the County Council would not have the quantity of work and experience to operate this element effectively. The same costs for bulk haulage are assumed for all three options. A separate contracted provider for bulk haulage would still be required for Options B and C.
Summary of RHWS Commissioning Options
22. In line with the Council’s Commissioning and Procurement Strategy, a range of commissioning Options for future RHWS service provision have been considered. These have been evaluated on the basis that the current level of service provision will be maintained from the EWC contract to a newly commissioned Service.
23. The Options are as follows:-
Option A – Procurement of a new contract – This is the re-procurement of the Service from the market. Option B – Insourcing (except for bulk haulage of waste) - Allow the contract to expire and insource the Service, taking on full responsibility for operating it. Option C – Insourcing (except for all waste haulage) – Allow the contract to expire and insource the operation of the 13 RHWS and WTS, but re- procure all haulage elements of the Service as a separate contract.
Further details of these Options are outlined below, and a comparative qualitative analysis is included as Appendix A.
Option A – Procurement of a new contract
24. Option A is to re-procure the Service that is currently contracted to EWC.
25. The key benefit of Option A is that the Environment and Transport Department is currently set up to manage a contracted Service and has experience of this. The Department has an understanding of the external market in the waste sector, and it is less likely that significant issues will arise from re-procurement than insourcing.
17
The perceived level of risk in progressing this Option is lower than for Options B and C.
26. The contract with EWC has been in place since July 2006. Over the contract term, the economy, legislative environment, and the market for waste have seen significant changes.
27. An incentive mechanism in the current contract allows the external provider to keep income from recycled material, but as the prices for these materials have fallen significantly this is no longer such an attractive incentive to service providers. The view that suppliers are now not willing to take recycling market value risk has been confirmed in soft market testing. Six meetings were held with waste companies last year to understand market requirements, appetite and positions.
28. The living wage rise and progressive increases to £9 per hour by 2020 have been factored into all Options. The introduction of the living wage and the shift in position on recycling income are the main factors driving cost increases in the market.
29. It is considered that any re-procured contract would need to be for a term of at least seven years to achieve reasonable value for money, due to the investment required and the expected life and depreciation of assets involved in delivering the Service.
Option B – Insourcing (except for bulk haulage of waste)
30. Option B is to insource the Service after the current contract with EWC expires, this would be between 1 April 2017 and 1 October 2017. The County Council would be solely responsible for the staffing and operation of the 13 RHWS operated by EWC, along with the operation of the Loughborough WTS and associated haulage activities (see paragraph 21 above regarding bulk haulage). Employees would transfer to the Council from EWC when the contract expires, and there may be a transfer of plant and equipment not already owned by the Council.
31. An insourced Service would be under the Council’s direct control. This would make it easier to implement further variations to the Service in order to deliver savings and respond quickly to legislative changes or customer need as there would be no need to negotiate with an external provider. It should allow greater visibility on costs and the true cost of running each RHWS would be clear.
32. This approach has been successfully employed in recent years by other local authorities. For example, Warwickshire County Council and North Lincolnshire Council have recently insourced their RHWS services, and Lincolnshire County Council has insourced the operation of its WTS. Having control of associated assets such as sites, containers and environmental permits is a positive factor in determining to insource.
33. The Service has not been under direct operation of the Council for over twenty-five years so there is a higher level of risk associated with insourcing. The current team is primarily set up to manage contracts, and does not have the necessary organisational structure or capacity to manage and run an in-house Service. This risk should be mitigated through the transfer of EWC employees to the Council, and learning from and working closely with other teams in the Department that operate their own functions directly. Discussions have been held with the Council’s Driver and Vehicle Management Team to confirm the feasibility of being able to undertake
18
the management and maintenance of vehicles under its Operating Licence (“O- Licence”).
34. Insourcing would bring some additional operational for the Council. Key concerns regarding RHWS operation such as health and safety on site, legislative requirements for operating a fleet of vehicles and day-to-day supervision of a workforce would all become the Council’s sole responsibility.
35. To facilitate insourcing the Service, the current Environment and Transport Department’s organisational structure would need to be reviewed to ensure that it is set up to efficiently and effectively manage the Service if it transferred to the Council’s control.
Option C – Insourcing (except for haulage of waste)
36. Option C is to insource the Service, but to re-procure the haulage element as a separate contract with an external provider. This would require elements of work from both Option A (procurement exercise) and Option B (insourcing and subsequent review).
37. By re-procuring the haulage element, the Council would not need to operate a vehicle fleet and risks in doing so (such as legislative O-Licence issues, vehicle maintenance or driver training) would be transferred to an external provider. The Department currently operates haulage contracts for certain materials, and is therefore set up to absorb the management of a new haulage contract with little change required.
38. It is expected that a re-procured haulage element would be more expensive than an in-house haulage operation. As noted in paragraph 33, the County Council already has the necessary infrastructure to manage a vehicle fleet for the Service that meets legislative requirements, including a suitable O-Licence, driver training programmes and an in-house maintenance function.
Financial Analysis and Assumptions
39. A detailed financial analysis of each Option has been undertaken, involving stakeholders from the Department, Commissioning and Procurement Support, Corporate Finance and Human Resources, with support from the Transformation Unit.
40. The approach to each Option has been deliberately conservative, and each Option has been costed with estimated contingencies and sensitivities to account for key potential risks.
41. In line with the conservative approach, costings for each Option have included the maximum liability for contractual staffing elements. This covers the potential for full uptake of the pension scheme and peak resource levels at the top of the relevant pay grades, including the introduction of the Living Wage as described in paragraph 28.
42. In considering insourcing the Service, a number of broad assumptions have been made:-
19
That the Service can be insourced by April 2017 at the earliest within legislative requirements, such as TUPE (relating to the transfer of staff); That the Service will continue to operate at the current level of service provision; That the financial analysis is fit-for-purpose and external review will support this.
The financial analysis of each considered commissioning Option is based on a mixture of actual data and a range of assumptions, where actual costs are not available.
43. The recycling market is at its lowest level for over ten years; assumptions are based on the current market rates with a gradual increase from 2018/19. A summary of the key assumptions made in the financial analysis are included in Appendix B.
44. The findings of the financial analysis are summarised in Table three below. Option B (insourcing) would deliver the highest level of saving at £290,000 in 2018/19. Option A (re-procurement) is the most expensive, and is expected to cost £130,000 more than the current Service in 2017/18.
Table three
Item Option A Option B Option C
Re-procurement Insourcing Insource operation
Re-procure haulage
Budget 2017/18 £3,150,000 £3,150,000 £3,150,000
Modelled Cost £3,280,000 £2,900,000 £3,080,000
- Of which £80,000 £200,000 £200,000 Contingency
Estimated Saving (£130,000) £250,000 £70,000 2017/18
Estimated Saving £0 £40,000 £40,000 2018/19
Total Saving Forecast (£130,000) £290,000 £110,000
Savings Gap over (£530,000) (£110,000) (£290,000) MTFS Target of £400,000
45. Contingency sums have been included in the analysis for expected risks arising. These sums are more likely to be required in the first year of the re-commissioned Service. As contingency sums are included in the overall cost of each Option in financial analysis, any un-used contingency may be delivered as an additional saving.
20
46. An internal validation of the financial analysis has taken place, involving stakeholders from the relevant corporate functions and managers within the Department.
47. As described in paragraph 6, an external review is underway to verify the key assumptions and costings. If the Director of Environment and Transport considers that the findings of this external review do not support the implementation of the Recommended Option, the matter will be referred back to the Cabinet.
Recommended Option
48. Option B (insourcing) is the Recommended Option for implementation. The need to deliver savings as set out in the MTFS means that Option B, with the early potential for savings delivery, is the most attractive. It is expected that this would deliver a total of £290,000 savings against the £400,000 MTFS target from April 2018.
49. In addition to the cashable savings expected, there is a further element of non- cashable cost avoidance of £130,000 in 2017/18 through not re-procuring the Service as in Option A.
50. Additional savings may be delivered if contingency sums are not used or if the recycling market improves.
51. It is expected that direct control of the RHWS operation will best enable the Department to deliver the remainder of the £400,000 MTFS target, as it would not be necessary negotiate and agree changes with an external provider.
52. There is a higher level of risk associated with Option B than with Options A or C. A risk assessment has been completed and proposed high-level mitigating actions identified to address these, details of which are included in Appendix C. All cost estimates are based on the assumption of no changes to the existing level of service to the public such as number of sites, staffing levels and opening hours etc.
53. Subject to the Cabinet’s approval of the Recommended Option, further discussions will be entered into with EWC concerning the insourcing of the Service to ensure a managed transition and as little impact on service users as is possible.
Funding Savings Gap
54. Financial analysis indicates that none of the proposed Options will deliver the entirety of the £400,000 MTFS savings target from April 2018. Assuming that Option B is progressed and delivers a saving of £290,000, there remains a shortfall of £110,000. If Option A is chosen, the Department will need to identify a further £530,000 from April 2018 (taking into account the additional estimated £130,000 cost that would arise from re-procuring the existing Service).
55. It is proposed that the remaining savings will be achieved through further reviews of the Service, reports on which will be submitted to the Cabinet at a later date.
21
Risks
56. A greater level of risk is associated with insourcing the Service. The key risks identified for this commissioning Option are that:
a. The Environment Branch does not have the capacity or all of the skills to run an in-house RHWS Service, including aspects such as health and safety of employees and service users at RHWS; b. The financial analysis and assumptions made when considering insourcing the Service are materially incorrect; c. Unexpected issues may arise upon transfer that prevents the Service continuing to be delivered in an effective manner.
The impact of these risks (if materialised) may vary. These risks are evaluated and mitigating measures detailed in Appendix C.
57. Insourcing the Service means that the County Council would be the sole provider of the Service, and would assume the risks currently managed by EWC. Without an external provider, there is no transfer or sharing of these risks.
58. Lower level operational risks will continue to be monitored and managed throughout the insourcing process in line with the Council’s risk management policy.
Equality and Human Rights Implications
59. There are no discernible issues arising from this report. An Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment screening was undertaken and it determined that further investigation into the impacts of the proposed decision was not required (refer to Appendix D).
Background Papers
Report to the Cabinet – 18 November 2015 ‘Recycling and Household Waste Sites in Leicestershire – Proposed Changes and Third Sector Recycling Credits’ http://ow.ly/8lyS300zrxN
Report to the County Council – 18 February 2016 ‘Medium Term Financial Strategy 2015/16 – 2018/19’ http://ow.ly/vp0w300zrGn
Appendices
Appendix A - Comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each Option Appendix B - Key assumptions made in financial analysis of Options Appendix C - Department-Level Risk Assessment for Insourcing the Service Appendix D EHRIA screening document
This page is intentionally left blank Appendix A – Comparative analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each Option
Option B Option C Service delivery Option A Insourcing except for bulk Insourcing except for waste Model Option Re-procure the Service haulage haulage
Easy to align with County Council policies and priorities Easy to align with County Council policies and priorities External provider potentially has Direct control
greater bargaining power for the sale 23 More flexibility to add, remove or re- Direct control of recyclable material purpose vehicles in an in-house fleet Procurement cost savings Some transfer of financial risk to the Strengths Procurement cost savings external provider No profit margin on Service No profit margin on Service and Competitive tender process can Expansion/greater resilience of the haulage increase quality and cost existing DLO within the Department effectiveness Expansion/greater resilience of the (but less than for Option B) existing DLO within the Department No long term commitment No long term commitment
Risk and cost issues of introducing Weaknesses Harder to implement performance Harder to implement performance new materials or services related pay related pay Option B Option C Service delivery Option A Insourcing except for bulk Insourcing except for waste Model Option Re-procure the Service haulage haulage
Service provided is only as good as Requires up-front capital investment Requires some on-going investment the contract and documents used for vehicles Potential pension on-cost The larger the external provider, the Potential pension on-cost implications of employing staff under implications of employing staff under County Council terms and conditions less influence the County Council County Council terms and conditions may have over the delivery of the Additional contract interface with Service Less flexibility to fully utilise container hauliers and the County temporary staff through agencies or Council Potential lack of interest from the zero hour contracts market leading to lack of competition Less flexibility to fully utilise and higher prices temporary staff through agencies or zero hour contracts High level of resources and time 24 required for re-procurement
There is far more flexibility for Increased flexibility for introducing Access to markets for new materials introducing new materials for new materials for recycling at the recycling at the RHWSs and RHWSs and developing the Service External providers can have in- developing the Service house expertise in the running of Opportunities facilities and knowledge of best County Council can retain 100% of County Council can retain 100% of practice the income from sale of materials as the income from sale of materials as card, scrap etc. should values card, scrap etc. should values Could have synergies with the other improve from their current low levels improve from their current low levels commercial operations of the external provider Option B Option C Service delivery Option A Insourcing except for bulk Insourcing except for waste Model Option Re-procure the Service haulage haulage
Can make it easier for the County to Can make it easier for the County to for engage with the community and for engage with the community and access volunteers access volunteers
Generates internal expertise and Generates internal expertise and knowledge base knowledge base
Easier to enable alternative funding Easier to enable alternative funding and joint working opportunities and joint working opportunities
Has synergies with existing Driver & 25 Vehicle Management team for cost effective management and maintenance
External provider could go into receivership leaving the County Council with no service provider Potentially limited access to Potentially limited access to materials markets and lower priority materials markets and lower priority Restricted by contract terms Threats for processors for processors established at the start of the contract County Council carries financial and County Council carries financial and commercial risks commercial risks Risk transfer by the County Council is costed into bidders submissions
This page is intentionally left blank 27
Appendix B - Key assumptions made in financial analysis of Options
Analysis Area Assumptions
Project Setup That project work would take place in 2016/17 for implementation of the chosen commissioing option for Service on 1st April 2017.
Project Staffing That professional support will be available to the project from the relevant corporate functions, such as Finance, HR, Commissioning & Procurement Support, Legal Services, Property and the Transformation Unit.
Project Costs That the project costs of re-procurement would be higher than to insource, with the inclusion of a contingency for ESPO costs if required to support a procurement exercise.
Operations That Options B & C model staffing resource based on a transfer to Staffing County Council terms and conditions.
That all staffing costs would be calculated at top of the relevant grades, using full on-costs (assuming 100% pension take up etc.).
That staffing would be based on being fully resourced, calculating the total hours all RHWS are open annually, allowing for holidays / sickness / training and other elements such as overtime.
That numbers of staff at each RHWS will remain as current, including the additional resource implemented with the introduction of charging on-site.
That current EWC salaries be estimated based on the knowledge of the Department in the absence of actual data.
That EWC’s Finance Director, Operations Director and Admin at their main office would not be spending 100% on the contract with the County Council and would not transfer to LCC employment.
Implementation of the Living Wage be reflected in all Options, including Option A (insourcing).
Other That EWC’s current recycling bonus would cease if the Service is Operations insourced. Staffing That a contingency is to be included for staff bonuses, as it is unknown at this point if the EWC staff bonus scheme is contractual or discretionary.
28
Analysis Area Assumptions
Operational That for Option A 20% be added to the current EWC management Running Costs fee to reflect the changed market, based on the knowledge of the Department and advice were sought from Finance.
That the Options include an annual 5% inflation for haulage fuel costs.
That all utilities, maintenance and repair costs are accounted for including those currently paid by LCC.
That vehicle fleet purchase costs are apportioned over the expected life of the vehicle.
That fleet management and maintenance can be undertaken by the Driver & Vehicle Management team in the Department.
That for an in-house vehicle fleet, the Roll On-Roll Off vehicles and the Loading Shovels have an expected 10 year life, and vans have an expected 8 year lifespan.
Costs are included for Options B & C for additional management of Health & Safety.
Income Assume that the external provider would only retain 25% of the recycling income under Option A.This is to reflect the change in appetite by contractors for retaining 100% of the risk around volatility of the recyclate market.
Assume that the Department receives 100% of income for Options B & C.
Forecast income from the introduction of charging is included in analysis.
For all Options, materials prices are at bottom of market and will stay at current levels in 2017/18, with gradual increase from 2018/19.
That re-use and any related income is specifically out of scope and not included in analysis.
Appendix C: Department-Level Risk Assessment for Insourcing the Service
Risk Potential Impacts Initial Risk Existing and/or Proposed Mitigating Residual risk Score Measures (after (before mitigation) mitigation) The Environment Mismanagement or failure to meet Impact: 4 Engagement with EWC to better Impact: 4 & Transport legislative requirements such as (High) understand relevant issues before (High) Department does environmental protection or health transfer not have the & safety: Likelihood: 4 Management review to develop Likelihood: 2 capacity or skills Major injury or death (Probable / appropriate structure (Unlikely) and capability to Likely)
Environmental 29 run an in-house Transfer in of EWC staff and inclusion contamination Service, as it is in management review Score: 8 currently set up to Reputational impact Score: 16 Opportunity to learn lessons from other primarily manage Prosecution Local Authorities contracts Opportunity to learn lessons from other Service unable to be provided to areas of the Environment & Transport the public e.g. one more site are Department who currently operate in- closed house services Cost of support from corporate services (such as Health & Safety) included in analysis to review all existing procedures Risk Potential Impacts Initial Risk Existing and/or Proposed Mitigating Residual risk Score Measures (after (before mitigation) mitigation) Financial analysis At least £290,000 of savings Impact: 3 Corporate financial analysis used Impact: 3 assumptions are not delivered as planned (Medium) Conservative estimates used in (Medium) incorrect resulting Costs higher than anticipated modelling (i.e. top of grade, 100% all savings not Likelihood: 4 pension take up, resource at peak Likelihood: 2 being realised (Probable / levels – 100%) (Unlikely) during Likely) implementation Inclusion of contingencies and sensitivities in analysis to mitigate risk Score: 6 of assumptions Score: 12 Process assured by Corporate Finance and other stakeholders Internal validation and Finance sign-off 30 External review exercise Unexpected issues RHWS closures and the Impact: 3 Early engagement with EWC on all Impact: 3 (High) may arise upon Service is not provided at one (High) aspects of the Service to transfer, transfer that or more sites including site operations, staff, vehicle Likelihood: 2 prevent the service Not meeting statutory duty Likelihood: 3 fleet, haulage and contracts for (Unlikely) continuing to be materials More resources or support (Possible) delivered, for Contingencies built into financial required to resolve unexpected Score: 6 example. issues analysis with haulage or issues Score: 9 equipment Detailed risk identification and planning for prevention of potential issues to be regularly updated Able to re-procure the service at any time Risk Potential Impacts Initial Risk Existing and/or Proposed Mitigating Residual risk Score Measures (after (before mitigation) mitigation) Savings are lower Savings target of £290,000 Impact: 3 Project governance and change control Impact: 3 than expected and only partially delivered as (Medium) to monitor progress (Medium) MTFS target may planned Financial analysis to be updated as not be fully Service needs to find any Likelihood: 3 actual data is received Likelihood: 2 delivered shortfall in savings from other (Possible) Service considering optimisation to (Unlikely) areas or in different ways deliver remainder of savings Increased resource Score: 9 Emerging opportunities to be captured Score: 6 requirement to develop plans to and passed to the service if identified deliver shortfall in savings by the project 31 External review exercise HR challenges Project delayed and staff not Impact: 4 Legal Services to assure the process Impact: 3 from transferring transferred to provide the (High) and set out each parties responsibilities (High) staff or Trade Service for the County Council st TUPE legislation to be followed with Unions may delay on 1 April 2017 Likelihood: 2 HR assurance or stop the Likelihood: 2 Legal processes (employment (Unlikely) Early engagement with EWC, directly (Unlikely) process, and result tribunals etc.) in legal processes with EWC staff and Trade Unions as Financial and reputational appropriate Score: 8 Score: 6 impact HR support to anticipate any emerging issues Project management to identify and escalate any issues as required Political approval given for further extensions to September 2017 latest to manage any unforeseen delays Risk Potential Impacts Initial Risk Existing and/or Proposed Mitigating Residual risk Score Measures (after (before mitigation) mitigation) Project is Project delayed and savings Impact: 4 Transformation Unit, HR, Finance, Impact: 4 (High) dependent on not realised (High) Commissioning Support and Fleet securing corporate Relevant professional advice, already working on the project to this Likelihood: 1 resources to guidance or assurance not Likelihood: 2 point. (Very support delivery, given and leads to an increase (Unlikely) Transformation Unit Design Authority rare/unlikely) which may not be in current risk profile or new process to provide added emphasis available risks emerging and secure support from corporate Score: 8 Score: 4 functions Early engagement with services that are required later in the process (i.e. Fleet, Legal, Property) to ensure the
project is on their work programme(s) 32 Project management to identify emerging resource issues and raise with governance as required That the process EWC contract extension Impact: 2 Project management and governance Impact: 2 (Low) takes longer than Costs increase and savings (Low) to monitor progress against plan, expected and delivery is delayed highlighting risks, issues and Likelihood: 2 exceeds the Likelihood: 3 exceptions as required for resolution (Possible) current end date of Uncertainty as communications will have had earlier dates (Possible) Political approval given for further the EWC contract extensions to September 2017 latest (31st March 2017) Lack of contractor buy in Score: 4 resulting in a reduction of Score: 6 Ongoing engagement with EWC regarding the proposed insourcing service levels process
33
Equality & Human Rights Impact Assessment (EHRIA)
This Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment (EHRIA) will enable you to assess the new, proposed or significantly changed policy/ practice/ procedure/ function/ service** for equality and human rights implications.
Undertaking this assessment will help you to identify whether or not this policy/ practice/ procedure/ function/ service** may have an adverse impact on a particular community or group of people. It will ultimately ensure that as an Authority we do not discriminate and we are able to promote equality, diversity and human rights.
Before completing this form please refer to the EHRIA guidance, for further information about undertaking and completing the assessment. For further advice and guidance, please contact your Departmental Equalities Group or [email protected]
**Please note: The term ‘policy’ will be used throughout this assessment as shorthand for policy, practice, procedure, function or service.
Key Details
Name of policy being assessed: Recycling and Household Waste Sites - Commissioning Options
Department and section: Environment and Transport / Environment Branch
Name of lead officer/ job title and Head of Service – Design & Delivery, others completing this assessment: Environment & Waste Management
Contact telephone numbers: 0116 3056833
Name of officer/s responsible for Assistant Director – Environment & Waste implementing this policy: Management
Head of Service – Design & Delivery, Environment & Waste Management
Head of Service – Policy & Strategy, Environment & Waste Management
Date EHRIA assessment started: 26/05/2016
Date EHRIA assessment completed: TBC
1
34
Section 1: Defining the policy
Section 1: Defining the policy You should begin this assessment by defining and outlining the scope of this policy. You should consider the impact or likely impact of the policy in relation to all areas of equality, diversity and human rights, as outlined in Leicestershire County Council’s Equality Strategy.
1 What is new or changed in this policy? What has changed and why?
The proposed change is to in-source the operation of 13 Recycling & Household Waste Sites (RHWS) and one Waste Transfer Station (WTS) when the contract with the current provider (EWC ltd.) expires at the end of March 2017.
The proposed change will not affect the level of service provision to residents.
2 Does this relate to any other policy within your department, the Council or with other partner organisations? If yes, please reference the relevant policy or EHRIA. If unknown, further investigation may be required.
This policy relates to the Leicestershire Municipal Waste Management Strategy and Leicestershire County Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy 2016.
However it does not propose any changes to the above policy or strategy.
3 Who are the people/ groups (target groups) affected and what is the intended change or outcome for them?
RHWS are provided for residents of Leicestershire. As this change does not propose to change the level of service available to residents (either in terms of the times that RHWS facilities are available or the types of material that they accept), there should be no impact on residents from the proposed change.
There will be an impact on EWC employees who, where eligible under TUPE legislation, will transfer to Leicestershire County Council employment and receive the protection afforded to them under the TUPE legislation. This legislation would apply to any new provider taking over the operation of the RHWSs (except for EWC).
The Department may need to change the way it is organised in order to put in place an efficient and effective structure to manage the service. This could affect staff members transferring under TUPE and current employees.
4 Will this policy meet the Equality Act 2010 requirements to have due regard to the need to meet any of the following aspects? (Please tick and explain how) 2
35
Yes No How? Eliminate unlawful Service provision to the public and discrimination, communications on-site (signage, site harassment and rules etc.) remain unaffected by this victimisation change.
Ensure that all relevant legislation and County Council policies are followed should we transfer eligible employees to Leicestershire County Council employment and are applied following any transfer.
The County Council policies relating to the Equality Act 2010 meet all the necessary requirements.
Advance equality As above. of opportunity
between different
groups
Foster good As above. relations between different groups
Section 2: Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment (EHRIA) Screening
Section 2: Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment Screening The purpose of this section of the assessment is to help you decide if a full EHRIA is required.
If you have already identified that a full EHRIA is needed for this policy/ practice/ procedure/ function/ service, either via service planning processes or other means, then please go straight to Section 3 on Page 7 of this document.
Section 2 A: Research and Consultation 5. Have the target groups been consulted about the Yes No* following? a) their current needs and aspirations and what is
important to them;
3
36
b) any potential impact of this change on them (positive and negative, intended and unintended);
c) potential barriers they may face
6. If the target groups have not been consulted directly, have representatives been consulted or research
explored (e.g. Equality Mapping)?
7. Have other stakeholder groups/ secondary groups (e.g. carers of service users) been explored in terms of potential unintended impacts?
8. *If you answered 'no' to the question above, please use the space below to outline what consultation you are planning to undertake, or why you do not consider it to be necessary.
The target group assumed to be primarily affected are staff employed by EWC Ltd. Should insourcing progress; consultation will follow as part of the TUPE process.
Residents have not been consulted directly on this proposed change as there are no changes to the level of service provision.
Section 2 B: Monitoring Impact 9. Are there systems set up to: Yes No
a) monitor impact (positive and negative, intended and unintended) for different groups;
b) enable open feedback and suggestions from different communities Note: If no to Question 8, you will need to ensure that monitoring systems are established to check for impact on the protected characteristics. Section 2 C: Potential Impact 10. Use the table below to specify if any individuals or community groups who identify with any of the ‘protected characteristics’ may potentially be affected by this policy and describe any positive and negative impacts, including any barriers.
Yes No Comments
Age
Disability
4
37
Gender Reassignment
Marriage and Civil Partnership
Pregnancy and Maternity
Race
Religion or Belief
Sex
Sexual Orientation
Other groups e.g. rural isolation,
deprivation, health inequality, carers, asylum seeker and refugee communities, looked after children, deprived or disadvantaged communities
Community Cohesion
11. Are the human rights of individuals potentially affected by this proposal? Could there be an impact on human rights for any of the protected characteristics? (Please tick)
Explain why you consider that any particular article in the Human Rights Act may apply to your policy/ practice/ function or procedure and how the human rights of individuals are likely to be affected below: [NB. Include positive and negative impacts as well as barriers in benefiting from the above proposal]
Yes No Comments
Part 1: The Convention- Rights and Freedoms
Article 2: Right to life
5
38
Article 3: Right not to be tortured or treated in an inhuman or degrading way Article 4: Right not to be subjected to slavery/ forced labour Article 5: Right to liberty and security Article 6: Right to a fair trial Article 7: No punishment without law Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life Article 9: Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion Article 10: Right to freedom of expression Article 11: Right to freedom of assembly and association Article 12: Right to marry Article 14: Right not to be discriminated against
Part 2: The First Protocol
Article 1: Protection of property/ peaceful enjoyment Article 2: Right to education
Article 3: Right to free elections Section 2 D: Decision 12. Is there evidence or any other reason to Yes No Unknown suggest that: a) this policy could have a different
affect or adverse impact on any section of the community; b) any section of the community may face barriers in benefiting from the proposal 13. Based on the answers to the questions above, what is the likely impact of this policy
6
39
No Impact Positive Impact Neutral Impact Negative Impact or Impact Unknown
Note: If the decision is ‘Negative Impact’ or ‘Impact Not Known’ an EHRIA Report is required. 14. Is an EHRIA report required? Yes No
Section 2: Completion of EHRIA Screening
Upon completion of the screening section of this assessment, you should have identified whether an EHRIA Report is requried for further investigation of the impacts of this policy.
Option 1: If you identified that an EHRIA Report is required, continue to Section 3 on Page 7 of this document to complete.
Option 2: If there are no equality, diversity or human rights impacts identified and an EHRIA report is not required, continue to Section 4 on Page 14 of this document to complete.
Section 3: Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment (EHRIA) Report
Section 3: Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment Report
This part of the assessment will help you to think thoroughly about the impact of this policy and to critically examine whether it is likely to have a positive or negative impact on different groups within our diverse community. It is also to identify any barriers that may detrimentally affect under-represented communities or groups, who may be disadvantaged by the way in which we carry out our business.
Using the information gathered either within the EHRIA Screening or independently of this process, this EHRIA Report should be used to consider the impact or likely impact of the policy in relation to all areas of equality, diversity and human rights as outlined in Leicestershire County Council’s Equality Strategy.
Section 3 A: Research and Consultation When considering the target groups it is important to think about whether new data 7
40 needs to be collected or whether there is any existing research that can be utilised.
15. Based on the gaps identified either in the EHRIA Screening or independently of this process, how have you now explored the following and what does this information/data tell you about each of the diverse groups?
a) current needs and aspirations and what is important to individuals and community groups (including human rights);
b) likely impacts (positive and negative, intended and unintended) to individuals and community groups (including human rights);
c) likely barriers that individuals and community groups may face (including human rights)
16. Is any further research, data collection or evidence required to fill any gaps in your understanding of the potential or known affects of the policy on target groups?
When considering who is affected by this proposed policy, it is important to think about consulting with and involving a range of service users, staff or other stakeholders who may be affected as part of the proposal.
17. Based on the gaps identified either in the EHRIA Screening or independently of this process, how have you further consulted with those affected on the likely impact and what does this consultation tell you about each of the diverse groups?
8
41
18. Is any further consultation required to fill any gaps in your understanding of the potential or known effects of the policy on target groups?
Section 3 B: Recognised Impact 19. Based on any evidence and findings, use the table below to specify if any individuals or community groups who identify with any ‘protected characteristics’ are likely be affected by this policy. Describe any positive and negative impacts, including what barriers these individuals or groups may face.
Comments
Age
Disability
Gender Reassignment
Marriage and Civil Partnership
9
42
Pregnancy and Maternity
Race
Religion or Belief
Sex
Sexual Orientation
Other groups e.g. rural isolation, deprivation, health inequality, carers, asylum seeker and refugee communities, looked after children, deprived or disadvantaged communities
Community Cohesion
20. Based on any evidence and findings, use the table below to specify if any particular Articles in the Human Rights Act are likely apply to your policy. Are the human rights of any individuals or community groups affected by this proposal? Is there an impact on human rights for any of the protected characteristics?
Comments
Part 1: The Convention- Rights and Freedoms
Article 2: Right to life
Article 3: Right not to be tortured or treated in an inhuman or degrading way Article 4: Right not to be subjected to slavery/ forced labour Article 5: Right to liberty and 10
43
security Article 6: Right to a fair trial
Article 7: No punishment without law Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life Article 9: Right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion Article 10: Right to freedom of expression Article 11: Right to freedom of assembly and association Article 12: Right to marry
Article 14: Right not to be discriminated against
Part 2: The First Protocol
Article 1: Protection of property/ peaceful enjoyment
Article 2: Right to education
Article 3: Right to free elections
Section 3 C: Mitigating and Assessing the Impact Taking into account the research, data, consultation and information you have reviewed and/or carried out as part of this EHRIA, it is now essential to assess the impact of the policy.
21. If you consider there to be actual or potential adverse impact or discrimination, please outline this below. State whether it is justifiable or legitimate and give reasons.
N.B. i) If you have identified adverse impact or discrimination that is illegal, you are required 11
44 to take action to remedy this immediately. ii) If you have identified adverse impact or discrimination that is justifiable or legitimate, you will need to consider what actions can be taken to mitigate its effect on those groups of people. 22. Where there are potential barriers, negative impacts identified and/or barriers or impacts are unknown, please outline how you propose to minimise all negative impact or discrimination.
a) include any relevant research and consultations findings which highlight the best way in which to minimise negative impact or discrimination
b) consider what barriers you can remove, whether reasonable adjustments may be necessary, and how any unmet needs that you have identified can be addressed
c) if you are not addressing any negative impacts (including human rights) or potential barriers identified for a particular group, please explain why
Section 3 D: Making a decision 23. Summarise your findings and give an overview as to whether the policy will meet Leicestershire County Council’s responsibilities in relation to equality, diversity, community cohesion and human rights.
Section 3 E: Monitoring, evaluation & review of your policy 24. Are there processes in place to review the findings of this EHRIA and make appropriate changes? In particular, how will you monitor potential barriers and any positive/ negative impact?
12
45
25. How will the recommendations of this assessment be built into wider planning and review processes? e.g. policy reviews, annual plans and use of performance management systems
13
Section 3: F: Equality and human rights improvement plan
Please list all the equality objectives, actions and targets that result from the Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment (EHRIA) (continue on separate sheets as necessary). These now need to be included in the relevant service plan for mainstreaming and performance management purposes.
Equality Objective Action Target Officer Responsible By when
46
14
47
Section 4: Sign off and scrutiny
Upon completion, the Lead Officer completing this assessment is required to sign the document in the section below.
It is required that this Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment (EHRIA) is scrutinised by your Departmental Equalities Group and signed off by the Chair of the Group.
Once scrutiny and sign off has taken place, a depersonalised version of this EHRIA should be published on Leicestershire County Council’s website. Please send a copy of this form to [email protected], Members Secretariat, in the Chief Executive’s department for publishing.
Section 4 A: Sign Off and Scrutiny
Confirm, as appropriate, which elements of the EHRIA have been completed and are required for sign off and scrutiny.
Equality and Human Rights Assessment Screening x
Equality and Human Rights Assessment Report
1st Authorised Signature (EHRIA Lead Officer): ………Nigel Shilton……………
Date: ………26/05/2016………………….
2nd Authorised Signature (DEG Chair): ………………Alex Scott………………………….
Date: …………XX/XX/2016……………
15
This page is intentionally left blank 49 Agenda Item 11
ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - 9 JUNE 2016
JOINT REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
QUARTER 4 2015/16 PERFORMANCE REPORT
Purpose of Report
1. The purpose of this report is to present the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee with an update on the performance of the Environment and Transport Department at the end of quarter 4 of 2015/16.
Policy Framework and Previous Decisions
2. Environment and Transport Department performance is reported on a quarterly basis to the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee. In May 2014, the Council agreed a new Strategic Plan to 2018, including a range of new priorities and supporting indicators and targets to form the basis for future performance management. These are included within the Departmental Interim Commissioning Strategy.
Background
3. The report includes performance commentary on the Department’s key priorities as contained in the County Council’s Strategic Plan, derived from the Local Transport Plan (LTP 3), the Leicestershire Environment Strategy, and the Leicestershire Municipal Waste Strategy.
4. The performance dashboard (attached as an appendix to this report) is based on the key performance measures of the Environment and Transport Department for 2015/16, which are included in the Council’s Strategic Plan. The measures included are a mixture of national and locally-developed performance measures.
Red, Amber, Green (RAG) Rating of Performance
5. The determination of RAG ratings in this report is based upon a common approach to RAG ratings for corporate performance reporting to Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny Committees. The RAG ratings are based on performance towards the Strategic Plan targets for 2018 unless shorter-term or longer-term targets have been included in the plan, such as those relating to the Environment Strategy.
6. The RAG rating is a forward-looking indicator to prompt appropriate action; therefore, these definitions are firstly based around the action that is required.
50
GREEN - No action required. This would normally be triggered when a performance indicator is currently meeting its target or on track to meet the target. As such no significant issues are being flagged up and actions to progress performance are in place.
AMBER - Light touch monitoring required. This would normally be triggered by a combination of the following:- Performance is currently not meeting the target or set to miss the target by a narrow margin; There are a set of actions in place that are expected to result in performance coming closer to meeting the target by the end of the target or reporting period; There may be associated issues, risks and actions to be addressed to ensure performance progresses.
RED - Close monitoring or significant action required. This would normally be triggered by a combination of the following:- Performance is currently not meeting the target or set to miss the target by a significant amount; Actions in place are not believed to be enough to bring performance fully back on track before the end of the target or reporting period; The issue requires further attention or action.
7. The RAG ratings are assessed and determined by the Corporate Performance and Business Intelligence team working with, but independent to the Department. Ensuring an impartial evaluation of the evidence which provides a level of assurance and confidence in the findings.
8. Following a previous meeting of the Environment & Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee, where an indicator is rated ‘Red’ it will be standard practice for a more detailed report on that area of performance to be scheduled for a future meeting of this Committee. The performance indicators rated as “red” for this performance report have already been reported on at a previous meeting of the committee.
Performance Update
9. The performance dashboard provides an overview of Environment and Transport Performance. In summary, of the 20 indicators, 7 have been updated this quarter. Improvement or deterioration in performance is indicated by the direction of the arrows on the dashboard: 3 show improvement and 4 have declined.
10. Of the 19 indicators with targets and available data, 11 are on target or targets have been met (green), 6 have an amber rating and 2 are rated red. The commentary below explains the latest performance figures and the associated risks and issues regarding the 7 performance indicators that have been updated.
51
Sustainable waste management
11. The proportion of household waste sent for reuse, recycling or composting was 50.4% for the 12 months to December 2015. This represents a slight increase compared with the previous quarter but remains on track for the interim target of 50% for this year.
12. There was an increase in the amount of total household waste per household reported this quarter. Although the rate of 1,107 kilograms remains close to its interim target, overall it is currently not on track, resulting in an amber rating.
Reducing the Council’s environmental impact
13. The most recent data from quarter 3 showed that two of the three measures with updated information within this outcome were on track. These included tonnes of waste produced from internal sites and office paper purchased.
14. The internal recycling rate for the County Council however was not on track. Although the recycling rate at County Hall is very good (around 80%), other County Council buildings, particularly those with community use, are only achieving recycling rates of around 40-50%. Work is underway to visit these buildings and to work with staff to address this.
Reducing carbon emissions
15. The Council’s carbon emissions from LCC buildings and total business miles claimed are on schedule to meet their interim targets with the final position to be stated within the annual review over the summer period.
16. The Council’s carbon emissions from LCC street lighting and traffic signs is not currently on schedule to meet its interim target due to delays in commencing implementation of this initiative. The LED street lighting project continues to progress however, and will deliver the long-term target for street lighting and traffic signs and contribute to the long-term target for the Council as a whole.
Making roads safer
17. The provisional year-end figures for total road casualties in Leicestershire are lower than last year. Reported road casualties for 2015 shows that there were 147 fewer reported road casualties on all roads in Leicestershire compared to the same period last year and 8 fewer people killed or seriously injured (KSI) in road traffic collisions.
18. These provisional figures are expected to rise as final numbers are confirmed by Leicestershire Police.
19. Total road casualties continue their decline over the long term. The current total casualty number is 1,768, provisionally the lowest for a number of years but is marginally above the trajectory required to meet the challenging long term Strategic Plan target of fewer than 1,494.
52
20. In 2015 the number of people killed or seriously injured (242) is lower than the previous year (250) although it is still off-track for the longer-term target of fewer than 167.
21. A report regarding the figures for road casualties and the numbers of people killed and seriously injured in road traffic collisions was previously brought to the committee in September 2015.
A good level of highways maintenance
22. Road condition in Leicestershire remains good with only 2% of the classified road network that is maintained by the local authority requiring consideration of structural maintenance. Leicestershire has the second highest satisfaction with the condition of roads compared with other County authorities, as measured by the National Highways and Transport survey 2015.
Implement strategic transport Improvements and reduce congestion
23. As previously reported, up to date data for the average speeds performance measure of congestion is not yet available. However, national statistics published last year show a continued decrease in average speeds nationally, which has been attributed in part to increased traffic and intermittent periods of high rainfall.
Increase sustainable travel
24. Bus patronage has not been updated since quarter 2 due to issues regarding data provision. However, the latest available forecast remains on track to meet the interim target and longer term targets in the Council’s Strategic Plan.
25. As previously reported significant work has been undertaken to update operator and service information to enable monitoring of the performance measure relating to increasing people’s use of the breadth of sustainable travel modes. A baseline for this measure will be calculated following the end of this year to allow future performance reporting.
Recommendations
26. The Committee is asked to note the update of the Environment and Transport Department performance at the end of quarter 4 of 2015/16.
Background papers
Leicestershire County Council Strategic Plan 2014 - 2018 http://www.leics.gov.uk/our_priorities_and_objectives.htm
Circulation under Local Issues Alert Procedure
None
53
Officers to Contact
Phil Crossland, Director, Environment & Transport Department. Tel: 0116 305 7000 Email: [email protected]
Nicola Truslove, Business Partner, Performance & Business Intelligence Tel: 0116 305 8302 Email: [email protected]
Appendices
Appendix A – Environment and Transport Department performance dashboard for quarter 4, 2015/16
Equalities and Human Rights Implications
There are no specific equal opportunities implications to note as part of this performance report. This page is intentionally left blank Appendix A. Scrutiny Report – Environment & Waste KEY: Directional Arrows show direction of travel from the previous Environment & Waste Performance FY2015/16 Q4 data reported ( = improving performance, = declining performance, = no change) Environment Strategic Plan Indicators Current Strategic Plan Interim Target Outcome Supporting Indicators Latest Data Direction of Trend / Chart Target* Target RAG Travel
Oct 2014 - % of local authority collected waste landfilled Decrease* 30% 28.4% G Sep 2015 LOW
% of household waste sent by local authorities across Sustainable waste Jan 2015 - Leicestershire for reuse, recycling, composting etc. (former Increase* 50% 50.4% G management Dec 2015 NI192)
Jan 2015 - Total household waste per household (kg) Decrease* <1104 1107 A Dec 2015 LOW
Tonnes of waste produced from LCC sites (non-operational) Q3 Decrease <791 541 LOW G (Rolling 12 month total) 2015/16 55 Reduce the Council's % waste recycled from LCC sites (non-operational) (Running Q3 70% 65% 57.4% R environmental impact rate over past 12 months) 2015/16
Q3 Office paper Purchased (,000's A4 sheets equivalent) 16,651 18,078 7,901 G 2015/16 LOW
Total CO2 emissions from LCC operations (excluding 23,455 27,719 29,020 2014/15 LOW A schools) (tonnes) (-34%) (-20%) (ANNUAL)
7,383 Q3 Carbon emissions from LCC buildings (tonnes) 8781 7,718 LOW G (-34%) 2015/16
Reduce carbon CO2 emissions from LCC street lighting & traffic signs 10,305 Q3 13091 13,721 LOW A emissions (tonnes) (-34%) 2015/16
Energy consumption per m2 in LCC buildings (kwh/m2) Decrease* 192.2 2014/15 LOW A
6,591 Q3 Total Business miles claimed (‘000s of miles) 7194 6,667 LOW G (-40%) 2015/16
* target to be set Appendix A continued - Scrutiny Report - Transport
KEY: Directional Arrows show direction of travel from the previous Transport Performance FY2015/16 Q4 data reported ( = improving performance, = declining performance, = no change) Transport Strategic Plan Indicators Strategic Current Target Outcome Supporting Indicators Plan Interim Target Latest Data Direction Trend / Chart RAG Target of Travel
Total casualties on our roads <1494 Jan 15 - <1734 2015/16 1768* LOW A (Reduce by 40% compared to 2005-2009 average) (-40%) Dec 15 Making roads safer Number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads <167 Jan 15 - <185 2015/16 242* LOW R (Reduce by 40% compared to 2005-2009 average) (-40%) Dec 15
% of the classified road network (A, B and C class roads) where structural maintenance should be considered 5-6% 6% 2015/16 2% 2015/16 G LOW 56 (SCANNER)
Good level of highway Overall satisfaction with the condition of highways (NHT Top 35% 2015/16 38.4% 2015 G maintenance satisfaction survey) Quartile
% Priority 1 & 2 routes gritted when required 100% 100% 2015/16 100% 2015/16 G
Total CO2 emissions in the local authority area originating from <1860 <1860 2015/16 1835 2013 LOW G Strategic transport road transport (DECC) (kilotonnes) improvements and reducing congestion Average vehicle speeds during the weekday morning peak (7am-10am) on locally managed ‘A’ roads in Leicestershire 29.4 30.85 2015/16 29.9 2013/14 A (mph)
% increase in sustainable travel modes (walk, cycle, public Increase Under development transport) Increase sustainable travel Oct 14 - Local bus passenger journeys originating in the authority area 13.6m 13.5m 2015/16 13.35m G Sep 15
* 12-month figures based upon latest reported data - in-year data is subject to change until final confirmed data for full year. 57 Agenda Item 12
ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 9 JUNE 2016
DEVELOPMENT OF A RAIL STRATEGY FOR LEICESTER AND LEICESTERSHIRE
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
Purpose of the Report
1. The purpose of this report is to: a. present the outcomes of joint work undertaken by Leicestershire County Council, Leicester City Council and the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP) to develop a rail strategy for Leicester and Leicestershire (including HS2); b. explain the Authority’s revised position on the HS2 eastern leg; and c. seek the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s views on the draft Strategy.
Policy Framework and Previous Decisions
2. The third Leicestershire Local Transport Plan (LTP3), which was approved by the County Council in March 2011, contains six strategic transport goals. Goal 1 is to have a transport system that supports a prosperous economy and provides successfully for population growth.
3. On 20 February 2013, the County Council resolved to express its concerns about the direct impact of the initial preferred line of the HS2 route on the proposed Strategic Rail Freight Interchange adjacent to East Midlands Airport. However, this concern was subsequently overcome by a proposed redesign and extension of a tunnel shown underneath the airport in the initial line (the Government has yet to confirm and publish the ‘final’ route of the eastern leg. Paragraph 21 provides further information).
4. In November 2013, the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered a draft response to the Government’s HS2 Phase 2 route consultation. The Committee raised significant concerns about the proposals, which were subsequently reported to the Cabinet.
5. The Cabinet considered the County Council’s formal response to the Government’s HS2 Phase 2 route consultation in January 2014. The response:
expressed an in principle position that an HS2 Station at Derby (as opposed to Toton) would be preferable, requiring the re-routeing of the line of HS2 away from Leicestershire as a consequence; and included a significant number of detailed comments, including comments relating to the potential impacts on local communities and the environment of the route through North West Leicestershire.
58
6. The Enabling Growth Action Plan, approved by the Cabinet in March 2015, identified the development of a rail strategy as a priority for the County Council.
7. The LTP3 Implementation Plan (2015/16) contained an action to take forward work to develop a rail strategy. The Implementation Plan was approved by the Cabinet in March 2015, providing clarity for the Environment and Transport Department and the public, following significant changes to funding.
8. On 1 March 2016 the Cabinet considered a report on the development of a rail strategy for Leicester and Leicestershire. The resolutions included approval to undertake an engagement exercise on the draft Strategy, following which a final version of the Strategy would be submitted to the Cabinet for approval, prior to its adoption by the County Council as a formal Policy Document. The resolution also adopted the Authority’s revised position on HS2.
Background
Economic and strategic planning context
9. As set out in its Strategic Economic Plan (SEP), the LLEP has significant economic growth ambitions. The SEP recognises the importance of the distribution sector to the area’s economy (including the proposed East Midlands Gateway Strategic Rail Freight Interchange).
10. Together, the County and City Councils and the seven district councils are working to prepare a Strategic Growth Plan, seeking to identify the strategic approach to accommodating the area’s future growth needs to 2050.
11. The economic value of effective rail connectivity is now widely acknowledged and has been demonstrated comprehensively by work undertaken by Network Rail and HS2 Ltd. Evidence has demonstrated that the shortening of journey times and direct services between key cities is vital to support growth, as highlighted by the work undertaken to develop the draft Strategy. In addition to this, the effective and efficient movement of freight by rail is also vital to the area’s economy.
12. Despite having generally very good strategic road connectivity, Leicester and Leicestershire have relatively poor rail connectivity. Whilst the passenger service to London is frequent from Leicester, the rail connectivity to other regional and national centres of economic activity, such as Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, is weak.
Classic Rail Context (the conventional rail network)
13. Rail privatisation in the mid-1990s saw a radical change to the way that the rail industry in Great Britain was operated and funded. From a nationalised industry, it became a complex interaction of public and private bodies, structured around a competition and regulation model. Key bodies include:
Department for Transport (DfT): amongst other things, it sets strategic policy direction and funding levels for the railways and procures rail franchises and projects. Office of Rail and Road (ORR): an independent body (working within the framework set by the DfT), which, amongst other things, regulates Network Rail’s activities and funding requirements.
59
Network Rail (NR): it owns, operates and manages the main rail network in Great Britain, including the setting of timetables. Its role is not just to ensure that train operating companies have safe and efficient access to the existing network, but to plan for the future development of the network. Train Operating Companies (TOCs) & Freight Operating Companies (FOCs): private companies, TOCs (e.g. East Midlands Trains) bid to the DfT for franchises to run specific routes for a set period of time. In running those services, TOCs lease trains from rolling stock companies and pay track access charges to NR, from whom they also lease and manage stations. FOCs operate in a broadly similar way, although there is no franchising process involved.
14. It is expected that rail passenger numbers will continue to grow as they have done since 1994, putting ever increasing pressures on rail capacity (line and train). In its East Midlands Route Study, Network Rail is forecasting increases in overall passenger numbers of between 30% and 40% by 2023 and between 50% to over 100% by 2043.
15. There has also been a very significant increase in rail freight traffic. In recent years 8% to 9 % of freight moved in Great Britain has been moved by rail, adding further to the capacity pressures on the country’s rail network.
16. In response to these pressures, significant investments have already been made to upgrade the country’s rail network, including locally the work to upgrade the line via Melton Mowbray to Hinckley to accommodate larger freight containers (delivered through the Strategic Freight Network Fund). In the short to medium term, further investments are planned, including electrifying and straightening the Midland Main Line. The line via Melton Mowbray and Hinckley could also potentially be electrified to enable the more efficient movement of freight (with passenger traffic benefits as well).
17. The rail industry is moving towards a longer-term approach to future planning, with Network Rail now undertaking studies that look out to 2043. A further significant change is that these studies are increasingly starting with focusing on what type of rail network and services the country needs to achieve its economic growth potential, rather than simply on seeking to identify what network and services can be made available.
HS2 context
18. The Chancellor’s 2015 Autumn Statement confirmed the Government’s commitment to the delivery of HS2.
19. When the project was first announced the greatest focus of interest was on the proposed speed of the trains. However, far greater emphasis is now being placed on the need for HS2 to help to meet future rail capacity needs. Taking the Midlands Main Line as an example, Table 1 below highlights that even with the HS2 eastern leg in operation, passenger figures at key stations in Leicester and Leicestershire are estimated to be above current usage levels. Without the additional capacity that HS2 would provide, it is very likely that in future passengers attempting to board trains in Leicestershire would increasingly experience levels of overcrowding experienced currently at stations further to the south (e.g. at Kettering and Wellingborough).
60
Station Passengers per day 2014 2043 NO 2043 WITH HS2 eastern leg HS2 eastern leg Loughborough 1,900 4,100 (+116%) 2,300 (+20%) Leicester 7,500 16,100 (+115%) 9,200 (+22%) Market Harborough 1,250 2,660 (+112%) 1,800 (+43%)
Table 1: Example of Forecast Future Rail Demand
20. Construction of HS2 is planned in phases. Phase 1 from London to Birmingham is scheduled to open in 2026. The Phase 2 works will deliver two separate routes. The western leg will run via Crewe to Manchester; as announced by the Government in November 2015. The section of that leg as far as Crewe is now due for completion in 2027 (six years earlier than originally planned), with the remainder of the western leg due to open in 2033.
21. It is currently understood that the eastern leg of HS2 (to Leeds) will also be completed by 2033. The previously published consultation route passed through, but did not directly serve, Leicestershire, but the final route of the eastern leg has yet to be confirmed. However, the Government has confirmed that Toton will be the location for the East Midland Hub Station, meaning that the eastern leg will inevitably have to pass through the County.
22. In the light of this and also of the now identified potentially significant economic benefits that an HS2 eastern leg routed via Toton could bring to Leicester and Leicestershire (see paragraph 32 below), it is considered that it is no longer valid for the County Council to continue to press for an alternative HS2 station in Derby (as per the position adopted by the Cabinet in January 2014). The Authority has therefore adopted a revised formal position, one that supports the HS2 East Midlands Hub Station being located at Toton and accepts in principle the routeing of the eastern leg through Leicestershire.
23. It is important, however that government and others work constructively to:
a. make the decision on the final alignment of the route quickly, so as to remove uncertainty for individuals, communities and business along the route and to enable prompt engagement by HS2 Ltd with them about potential compensatory measures; b. ensure that the design of the station (including its track layout) provides for, and must not fetter, the identified economic opportunities for Leicester and Leicestershire. This is covered in more detail in paragraph 33 of this report. c. ensure the route includes a tunnel under the East Midlands Airport and the (now approved) East Midlands Gateway Strategic Rail Freight Interchange, so as to minimise the impacts of HS2 on that part of Leicestershire d. ensure the impacts on local communities and the environment, as set out in the County Council’s formal response to the Government’s HS2 Phase 2 (as detailed in the report to Cabinet in January 2014) are satisfactorily addressed.
61
The need for a Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
24. Whilst the LTP3 strategy has proven to be effective in many respects in enabling growth, it has little focus on rail. Given the economic importance of effective rail connectivity; the complexity of the rail industry; HS2; and the long term planning approach now being adopted, it is important for Leicester and Leicestershire to be as best placed as is possible to seek to secure future investments in the area’s rail network and services. Otherwise, the area could find itself at significant economic disadvantage in comparison to other parts of the country.
25. Having an adopted Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy in place will help Authorities in the area to be best placed to seek to maximise rail’s ability to support economic and housing growth; to engage with and influence the classic rail industry at this, a pivotal moment, in planning the services that are needed over the next 30 years and the infrastructure required to support them; and will strengthen the authorities’ position in engaging in the planning for HS2 Phase 2.
Proposals / Options
Overview of the draft rail strategy
General
26. A copy of the complete draft strategy is attached at appendix A. It has been prepared by a firm of specialist rail consultants.
27. The draft strategy takes an evidential approach, focusing primarily on economic benefits (which remain a key driver for the United Kingdom Government’s infrastructure investment decisions). A computer model was used to test the potential Gross Value Added (GVA) uplift that could be achieved through new and enhanced services providing improved rail connectivity between Leicester and Leicestershire and other cities elsewhere in the country.
28. The draft strategy identifies four key priorities for Leicester and Leicestershire:
1. To maximise the benefit from the Midland Main Line services (MML)
29. Following last year’s ‘pause’, the recently announced plans include a phased electrification through Leicestershire in the period 2019-23. Maximising the benefits means:
using the opportunity from the later implementation of electrification to put in at the same time the capacity needed for Leicester and Leicestershire’s long term growth as a part of the project. (This includes work identified already by Network Rail to support rail services in the longer term, including 4 tracking between Syston and Wigston, additional platforms at Leicester, and grade separation of North-South and East-West traffic flows through the Leicester area.) securing the journey time improvements to achieve a sub-60 minute journey time between Leicester and London on non-stop services, including the works in the vicinity of Market Harborough Station. A Scrutiny Review Panel was established to consider the Market Harborough proposals in detail, the outcomes of which will be considered by the Committee and by the Cabinet.
62
ensuring that new rolling stock of appropriate quality is procured for the electric services.
30. It is estimated that enhanced MML services could generate around £7m GVA per annum to the area’s economy. Conversely, any proposed diminution of the service – e.g. slower journey times – could cost the area’s economy around £4m per annum. It is therefore important that the Authority continues to work with Leicester City Council and other partners to ensure that services on the MML post HS2 remain fast and frequent.
2. To achieve the best result from the implementation of HS2 Phase 2
31. Work undertaken to develop the draft Strategy has shown that there is the potential for the HS2 project to deliver significant economic benefits for Leicester and Leicestershire (see paragraph 32). Achieving the best result means:
ensuring that the perceived risk of lengthening journey times between Leicestershire and London does not occur. The perceived risk arises because existing Midland Main Line trains are projected to lose nearly half of their passengers to HS2. However, forecast growth in passengers will mean that existing levels of demand will be exceeded even with HS2. Nevertheless, Leicester and Leicestershire should seek assurances from the Secretary of State that Leicester’s fast services will be protected. securing through ‘classic compatible’ direct services from Leicester to destinations in the north via HS2 (these are trains that are designed to operate on the classic rail network but also at high speed over HS2 lines, meaning that they are able to operate direct services between cities operating over both types of network). The journey time reductions available are substantial (up to an hour on many station pairings). It is recognised that Leicester and Leicestershire in themselves may not justify the business case for these services, but if services are provided through Leicester from key economic development areas in the South Midlands and Thames Valley, the proposition is substantially strengthened, especially if alliances with other LEPs and Local Authorities can be achieved, including with Transport for the North, creating a “string of pearls” (a route of directly linked cities).
32. It is estimated that the benefits to the area’s economy of direct services from Leicester to other cities via HS2 lines could be around £40m GVA per annum.
33. In order for these opportunities to be realisable in practice, it is essential that the HS2 proposals:
provide for direct rail connectivity between the Midland Main Line and the HS2 eastern leg, such that ‘classic compatible’ trains can operate directly from stations in Leicestershire, via Toton to/from destinations in Northern England (e.g. Leeds and Newcastle); and; include the necessary platform capacity and track layout to enable direct Leicestershire-Northern England train services to operate through Toton, without detriment to the wider operation of the HS2 network or to the disbenefit of services to other places in the East Midlands.
3. To improve radically direct fast connectivity to key regional and national destinations
63
34. As noted, Leicester and Leicestershire have poor rail connectivity. The computer model used to test potential GVA identifies priorities for development. Using this prioritisation, radically improving connectivity means:
faster journeys to London and Birmingham. new direct services to Coventry, the Thames Valley (e.g. Reading), Manchester and West Yorkshire.
35. Some examples of the estimated potential GVA benefits of direct connectivity include:
to Swindon and Bristol = around £20m GVA per annum; and to Manchester = around £9m GVA per annum.
36. Economic benefits will not only accrue to Leicester and Leicestershire, but to other destinations along these routes as well (e.g. Reading would experience uplift in GVA as a result of having significantly enhanced rail connectivity to the East Midlands). The importance of this is that these connectivity enhancements become of not just regional importance, but of national significance as well, strengthening the authority’s position in any future negotiations with Government about rail infrastructure investment.
4. To ensure that rail access and development are planned together
37. As rail continues to play an increasingly important role, access to the rail network will become correspondingly more important. As passenger numbers increase, with corresponding increased numbers of journeys to/from stations, road congestion around urban central stations will increase and rail car parks will become full. Ensuring joined-up planning means:
better spatial and transport planning around stations, and some intervention to increase railway car parking within the limits imposed by the siting of the stations. planning new development with access to the rail network as a key consideration. identifying potential new strategic access points to the rail network. This could involve long term consideration of “Parkway” sites.
Leicester to Burton railway line
38. The draft rail strategy makes reference to the potential for reopening the Leicester to Burton freight railway line to passenger traffic. It raises a number of issues about the state of the existing track and the potential cost of reintroducing passenger services, and shows that in economic (GVA) terms the proposal performs poorly against other potential new passenger service options.
39. However, in conjunction with the draft strategy’s development, a separate study (jointly funded with North West Leicestershire District Council) has been undertaken to consider the case for reopening the line to passenger services. The outcome of this study will be reported to the Cabinet on 17 June 2016.
64
Strategy Implementation
40. The draft strategy contains an action plan to deliver the draft strategy’s priorities. In the vast majority of cases the developments outlined in the draft strategy require the County and City Councils to act in a facilitating and lobbying role, rather than as direct funder or promoter of schemes. Partnerships are vital for making long term development happen, and require the County and City Councils to bring together for each project the support of LEPs (including elsewhere along relevant rail corridors) and devolved bodies, HS2 Ltd, Network Rail and the Department for Transport. There is a need for Leicester and Leicestershire stakeholders to be active in political lobbying and rail industry development work.
41. Work to develop the Strategic Growth Plan should provide opportunities to explore how best to coordinate future land-use and rail planning.
Consultation
42. An engagement exercise on the draft Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy is taking place. The purpose of this engagement is to gain views on the draft rail strategy, to help develop the final strategy and to enable the draft strategy to start to be used as a lobbying tool.
43. Given the nature and intended purpose of the rail strategy, which is to act as a lobbying tool for future rail investment to support Leicester and Leicestershire’s economy, the primary focus of engagement will be with the Department for Transport, Network Rail, HS2 Ltd, other key rail industry bodies, local businesses and neighbouring authorities. As part of this engagement the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee is being asked for its views.
44. The document is also available for comment, via the County Council website by the ‘general public’ (see: http://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/have-your-say/current- consultations/leicester-leicestershire-rail-strategy) and a dedicated email address has been created for this purpose.
45. The outcome of this engagement exercise will be reported to the Cabinet later in 2016.
Resource Implications
46. Work to develop the draft rail strategy has so far cost around £40,000. This has been split between the County Council, City Council and LLEP. County Council funds have been found from within existing budgets.
47. It will be necessary to engage ongoing specialist consultancy support to ensure that maximum benefits can be gained from engagement with the rail industry and from the Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy.
48. This will be funded from the Environment and Transport Department’s scheme development resources, although discussions are ongoing with the LLEP and Leicester City Council to secure future joint funding for this.
49. Going forward the majority of actions required to implement the draft strategy require the County and City Councils to act in a facilitating and lobbying role, rather than as direct funder or promoter of schemes.
65
50. The Director of Corporate Resources and the County Solicitor have been consulted on the contents of this report.
Timetable for Decisions
51. It is important that development and adoption of the strategy as County Council policy is progressed expeditiously. This is so that it is available in a timely fashion to inform discussions with the Department for Transport, Network Rail, HS2 Ltd and other bodies about the future rail network and services serving Leicester and Leicestershire.
52. Following the engagement exercise and further development of the draft strategy the final version will be reported to the Cabinet later in 2016.
Conclusions
53. To enable work to finalise the Strategy to be progressed the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee is asked to:
a) Note and comment on the contents and key priorities of the draft Rail Strategy to allow officers to include Environment and Transport’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee views in the final strategy report back to the Cabinet; b) note that the work undertaken in preparing the draft rail strategy has highlighted economic benefits that would arise from the implementation of eastern leg of HS2 with the East Midlands Hub station being located at Toton; c) note that the Authority now supports, in principle, the eastern leg of HS2, subject to the Government confirming the route as quickly as possible to give certainty to residents and businesses.
Background Papers
Cabinet – 19 April 2016 - interim E&T Commissioning Strategy http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135&MId=4601&Ver=4
Cabinet – 1 March 2016 – Development of a rail strategy for Leicester and Leicestershire http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135&MId=4600&Ver=4
Cabinet – 16 March 2015 - Enabling Growth Plan http://politics.leics.gov.uk/Published/C00000135/M00004360/AI00043150/$6EnablingGrowthPlan.docA.p s.pdf
Cabinet – 15 January 2014 - High Speed Rail (HS2) Phase 2: West Midlands to Leeds HS2 Consultation: Proposed Response on Implications for Leicestershire http://politics.leics.gov.uk/Published/C00000135/M00003986/AI00036653/$5HS2.docA.ps.pdf
Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee minutes – 28 November 2013 - High Speed Rail (HS2) Consultation: Proposed Response on Implications for Leicestershire http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1044&MId=3889&Ver=4
66
County Council minutes – 20 February 2013 – High Speed Rail (HS2) http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=134&MId=3720&Ver=4
Cabinet report – 8 March 2011 - Third Local Transport Plan (LPT3) (2011-2026) http://politics.leics.gov.uk/Published/C00000135/M00003122/AI00027790/$CLTP3.doc.pdf
Cabinet report – 8 September 2009 - Leicester to Burton Railway Line http://politics.leics.gov.uk/Published/C00000135/M00002687/AI00023103/$FLeicestertoBurtonRailwayLin e.doc.pdf
Circulation under the Local Issues Alert Procedure
None.
Officer to Contact
Phil Crossland - Director Environment and Transport Tel: (0116) 305 7000 Email: [email protected]
Ann Carruthers – Assistant Director Environment and Transport Tel: (0116) 305 7966 Email: [email protected]
List of Appendices
Appendix A - draft Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Impact Assessments
Equality and Human Rights Implications
54. The proposals contained in the draft Rail Strategy are aimed at facilitating strategic growth to meet the social and economic needs of the residents of Leicester and Leicestershire. No detailed assessment has been done at this early stage, but as and when any rail schemes are taken forward the County Council will seek to work with Network Rail (and any other relevant bodies) to ensure that any necessary Equality and Human Rights Impact Assessment are completed.
Environmental Implications
55. None arising from this report. As and when any rail schemes are taken forward the County Council will seek to work with Network Rail (and any other relevant bodies) to ensure that any necessary Environmental Impact Assessments are completed.
67
Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
March 2016 www.slcrail.com
1 | P a g e
68 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
CONTENTS
Executive Summary
1. The Commission 2. Context 2.1 The Political Context 2.2 The Rail Industry Context 2.3 Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Economic Plan 3. The Industry Planning Process 3.1 The Long Term Plan 3.2 Indicative Train Service Specifications 4 Methodology 4.1 General Principles 4.2 Gross Value Added (GVA) Modelling 5. Leicestershire’s Rail Network 5.1 The Current Network 5.2 Passenger Services 5.3 Freight Services 5.4 Network Capacity 6. Planned Enhancements 6.1 Midland Main Line 6.2 East Midlands Gateway Strategic Freight Interchange 6.3 East West Rail 6.4 High Speed 2 7. GVA Study Results 8. Leicester to London 8.1 Enhanced Conventional Services 8.2 The Effects of HS2 on Leicester – London services 9. Train Service Options 9.1 To Leeds and North East England via HS2 9.2 To Swindon and Bristol 9.3 To the Thames Valley 9.4 To Manchester 9.5 To Leeds and North East England via the Conventional Network 9.6 To the Sussex Coast and/or Sevenoaks 9.7 To Norwich 9.8 To Burton-upon-Trent 10. “Making it Happen” 7.1 Next Steps 7.2 Opportunities to Influence
Appendix A. Summary of Train Service Options Appendix B. Assessment of Economic Impact of Rail Service Options (separate supporting report incorporating the detailed GVA analysis.)
2 | P a g e
69 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Commission
SLC Rail was commissioned in May 2015 to prepare a rail strategy for Leicester and Leicestershire. The context is that:
• Leicester and Leicestershire are targeting significant economic and housing growth • The rail industry is at a pivotal moment in planning the services that are needed over the next 30 years and the infrastructure required to support them • Planning for the second phase of HS2, through North West Leicestershire, Toton and to the north is now advancing.
The value of rail in support of economic development is now widely acknowledged, as a consequence of the fact that rail usage has doubled over the 20 years since 1994. New services have been provided to accommodate this growth, and the rail network is largely full because of this. Planning for new services has a long gestation, and the infrastructure required for them is expensive. Choices have to be made over what can be afforded and in what order, and Leicester and Leicestershire must identify a clear set of priorities with which to lobby decision makers and funders, and generate a commonality of interest between stakeholders.
Context
Leicester and Leicestershire have relatively poor rail connectivity compared with similar areas. Whilst the service to London is frequent from Leicester, the strategic connectivity to regional and national centres of economic activity is weak. Fast and frequent regional and national rail links are increasingly important for business connectivity as well as for travel to work and leisure journeys. The importance of business to business connectivity has been demonstrated comprehensively in work undertaken by Network Rail (Market Studies 2013) and by HS2 Limited (“Rebalancing Britain” – October 2014). The shortening of journey times and direct services between key cities and towns is vital to support economic growth.
Priorities
The priorities for Leicester and Leicestershire are:
1) To maximise the benefit from the Midland Main Line services . The recently announced plans include a phased electrification through Leicestershire in the period 2019-23. Maximising the benefit means:
• Using the opportunity from the later implementation of electrification to put in at the same time the capacity needed for Leicester and Leicestershire’s long term growth as part of the project. This includes work identified already by Network Rail to support rail services in the longer term, including line straightening at Market Harborough, 4- tracking between Syston and Wigston, additional platforms at Leicester, and grade separation of North-South and East-West traffic flows through the Leicester area. • Securing the journey time improvements to achieve a sub-60 minute journey time between Leicester and London on non-stop services • Ensuring that new high quality rolling stock is procured for the electric services
3 | P a g e
70 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
• Ensuring there is capacity for strategic freight services in support of the region’s logistics industry
2) To achieve the best result from the implementation of HS2 Phase 2 . The proposed route will run through the north western part of Leicestershire, with the nearest stations being Birmingham Interchange (near the NEC) and East Midlands Interchange at Toton. The delivery of this project will result in fast services from Sheffield and parts of the Nottingham/Derby area to London and the north. Achieving the best result means:
• Ensuring that the risk of lengthening journey times between Leicestershire and London does not occur. The risk arises because existing Midland Main Line trains are projected to lose nearly half of their passengers to HS2 on the opening of phase 2 in 2033. However, forecast growth in passengers will mean that existing levels of demand on the Midland Mainline at that time will be exceeded even with HS2. Nevertheless, Leicester and Leicestershire should seek assurances from the Secretary of State that Leicester’s fast services will be protected. • Securing through “classic compatible” direct services from Leicester to destinations in the north via a link to HS2 at Toton. The journey time reductions would be substantial e.g. up to an hour between Leicester and Leeds. There is a strong economic case to be made, particularly if services are provided through Leicester from key economic development areas in the South Midlands and Thames Valley. Building an alliance with other LEPs, Local Authorities and Transport for the North would help to create a “string of pearls” and a substantially strengthened economic case.
3) To radically improve direct fast connectivity to key regional and national destinations . There is a strong economic case to radically improve Leicester and Leicestershire rail connectivity. SLC Rail used a model that tested and prioritised the potential GVA uplift that could be achieved through new and enhanced services. Using this prioritisation, radically improving connectivity means:
• New direct service to Coventry • Faster journeys to Birmingham • New direct services to the Thames Valley, Manchester and West Yorkshire • Reduced east-west journey times to Stanstead Airport
4) To ensure that rail access and economic development are planned together . Leicester and Leicestershire are just starting to prepare a Strategic Growth Plan. This will seek to identify where future growth will be accommodated and what transport infrastructure is required to support it. Ensuring joined-up planning means:
• Better spatial and transport planning around rail stations, and some intervention to increase railway car parking within the limits imposed by the siting of the stations. • Planning new development with access to the rail network where possible. • Identifying potential new strategic access points to the rail network. This could involve long term consideration of “Parkway” sites.
4 | P a g e
71 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Action Plan
Most of the developments outlined in this strategy will require Leicester and Leicestershire to act in a facilitating and lobbying role, rather than as direct funder or promoter of schemes. Partnerships are vital for making long term development happen, and require Leicester and Leicestershire to bring together for each project the support of LEPs and devolved bodies, HS2 Ltd, Network Rail and the Department for Transport. There is a need for Leicester and Leicestershire stakeholders to be active in political lobbying and rail industry development work .
The outline action plan is shown below.
Outcome Actions by Leicester, Leicestershire & Funding Potential Date LLEP
MML Lobbying to ensure that line speed CP5/6 delivery plan 2023,but key Improvements improvements and electrification are elements before delivered and that associated capacity works and new rolling stock are included in the scope.
HS2 Seek assurance from SoS based on National Need to include in evidence for no future reduction in 2016 HS2 London journey times. Undertake further announcement joint work to enforce benefits of northbound classic compatible services. Further analysis needed before lobbying for a physical connection between the MML and HS2 at Toton
New service to Currently led by CWLEP. Join in project Growth funding bid 2019 Coventry (Nuckle 3.1). Requires £40m investment at through Midlands Nuneaton. Funding assembly is key. Connect/LEPs
New service to Key is alliance with Transport for the CP6 delivery of 2020 Manchester North to present case to DfT. Need to Hope Valley works. include in specification for new EMT Inclusion in EMT re- franchise. Key constraint is Hope Valley franchising spec.
Birmingham Project being led by Midlands Connect. CP6 delivery plan 2022 journey times Active involvement for lobbying.
New service to Led by DfT. East West Rail project being Completion of CP5 2022 Thames Valley delivered, but Bletchley-Bedford section works Oxford- will be in CP6. Key is presentation of Bletchey. Inclusion investment case to DfT and NR. Bletchley-Bedford in CP6.
New service to As per Manchester. Key constraint is north Inclusion of works 2024 Leeds of Sheffield. north of Sheffield in CP6
5 | P a g e
72 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
1
THE COMMISSION
6 | P a g e
73 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
SLC Rail was commissioned in May 2015 by the Leicestershire County Council along with Leicester City Council and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP) to assess the adequacy of rail industry plans to support the economic development of the county and city as set out in the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP). This analysis was to identify priorities for rail service development and associated infrastructure investment that would be needed to support the SEP, including the following specific objectives:
• Develop a rail strategy to support Leicester and Leicestershire’s economic growth out to 2043 • Maximise the benefits to Leicester and Leicestershire to be gained from enhancement of the Midland Main Line to London • Maximise the potential of HS2 and mitigate adverse impacts • Place the study in the context of wider regional and national connectivity to support: • New jobs • Business to business connectivity • New housing and economically active citizens • Influence the rail industry with regard to the prioritisation of key rail enhancements
The remainder of the report is divided into the following sections, describing:
Section 2 The political and industrial context within which decisions on the plan must be taken.
Section 3 The Rail Industry Planning Process
Section 4 The methodology employed in undertaking the commission and writing the report
Section 5 Leicestershire’s rail network, including current services and capacity constraints
Section 6 Enhancements to the rail network planned in the near to medium future
Section 7 The results of the Gross Value Added (GVA) study
Section 8 Enhancements to the Leicester – London service and the longer-term effects of HS2
Section 9 Options for Enhanced Train Services
Section 10 Next steps and opportunities to influence government
7 | P a g e
74 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
2
CONTEXT
8 | P a g e
75 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
2.1 The Political Context
The Government is moving toward increasing regional devolution, including transport planning. For example, a new “West Midlands” rail franchise has been proposed (either as a stand-alone entity or as a business unit within a re-let “London Midland” franchise), and it is intended that significant elements of this franchise will be specified locally. In addition, the role of regional bodies such as Local Enterprise Partnerships and Local Authorities in sponsoring and funding rail improvements is increasing through the use of Regional Growth Funds and mechanisms such as Prudential Borrowing.
In July 2015 the Government announced a review of Network Rail’s spending plans for the remainder of the Control Period 5 (2014 to 2019), headed by its new Chairman, Peter Hendy; along with a further review concerning financing of the rail industry, headed by Nicola Shaw, Chief Executive of “High Speed 1” (the Channel Tunnel Rail Link). These reviews were prompted by increasing concerns over delays and projected overspends on some of the large schemes committed within Network Rail’s funding settlement, and some, including electrification of the Midland Main Line, were put “on pause” until the review was completed. A new plan for electrification was announced in September 2015, with project phasing and delayed outputs.
Also in September 2015, Nicola Shaw stated that extensive restructuring of Network Rail, including privatisation of all or part of the organisation, “could not be ruled out”. The report is due to be completed before the 2016 Budget, but until details of the likely direction the review is taking emerge, the effects of any recommendations it might make on future investment plans cannot be assessed. However, it is possible that many of Network Rail’s current powers and responsibilities could be devolved to other bodies as shown below:
9 | P a g e
76 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
2.2 The Rail Industry Context
The national rail network supports productivity and economic activity by:
• Facilitating travel to and from work • Providing businesses with access to larger and more specialised labour markets • Improving contacts between businesses
It is widely accepted that journey times between cities can be directly correlated to economic development, and here rail transport can show distinct advantages for centre-to-centre journeys compared to other modes such as road, where the use of congested local and trunk networks is often unavoidable, and air, which requires additional time for travel to and from airports and is, in any case, often not a feasible option for short-to-medium distances. However, notwithstanding the advantages rail often offers in providing direct access between population centres, the creation of easily accessible out-of-town transport hubs offering easy interchange between modes has also been shown to act as a catalyst for new development and economic activity.
Since 1994 the number of passengers using the railway has doubled, as demonstrated by the graph below.
Although there is no clear consensus either within or outside the rail industry about the underlying reasons behind this significant increase in demand, there are clearly important macro-economic drivers at work in addition to the actions that the industry has taken to market and promote rail travel. Factors might include:
• Despite the recession, there has been an overall increase in economic prosperity and consumer spending. • Following a decade in which there was little motorway investment, no major motorways have actually been built since the M6 Toll Road in 2003.
10 | P a g e
77 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
• Road congestion, particularly in and around urban areas, combined with the difficulty and cost of parking, have combined to make rail a more attractive option for regular commuting into cities and major towns. • Until 2009, average earnings were going up faster than commuter fares, which from privatisation until 2004 were pegged to annual increases of RPI minus 1%. However, this trend has been reversed in more recent years, as a result of government policy to reduce public subsidy in favour of funding a higher proportion of industry costs through farebox revenue. • House price increases and widening regional variations in average property prices mean that it is often economically sensible for people to live in a cheaper location and commute to work. • Faster average train speeds have progressively resulted in reduced journey times, meaning that the distance over which commuting is viable has continued to increase, a trend that has been evident since at least the 1960’s. • There has been substantial growth in both the student population and the elderly since the early 1990s, both groups who might, for various reasons, be more inclined to use public rather than private transport. • Train frequencies have generally increased, with regular-interval “clockface” timetable patterns on nearly all major routes. Through journey opportunities have improved. • Standards of customer service, and the customer’s perception of the rail industry generally, has improved.
Although significant sums have been invested by Network Rail over the last 15 years to increase the capacity and capability of the network, and similar investment has been made by Leasing Companies and Train Operators in rolling stock, parts of the rail network are now operating, to all intents and purposes, at or near full capacity. Except at the margins, the introduction of any new train service will almost certainly require investment in additional infrastructure and rolling stock to support it.
The prospect of continuing expansion of demand for rail services, driven by economic growth of the sort envisaged in the LEP SEP over the coming decades, has led to the establishment of an industry “Long Term Planning Process” (LTPP), managed by Network Rail, but with wide involvement from industry and economic stakeholders. The intention is that this process will set out “choices for funders” (the principal but by no means only one being Central Government) for potential inclusion in Network Rail’s funding settlements for future 5-year Control Periods (in particular the forthcoming Control Period 6 between 2019 and 2024) and in associated franchise specifications for Train Operators.
For its size, Leicestershire has a relatively low density of rail routes, and connectivity to and from the region is therefore poor compared to other regions of similar size and importance. The LLEP recognises that improving rail links both within and, particularly, outside the region is likely to generate significant economic growth and can, therefore, play a significant role in meeting the targets set out in the SEP.
However, the rail network in the region is already largely used to or near its maximum theoretical capacity, and it is also recognised that substantial investment will be required to provide the additional capability (passenger and freight) that will be needed to enable the introduction of new and improved services, not only to meet Leicestershire’s own requirements, but also national strategic needs. In developing train service options and plans for investment in the network, therefore, due attention needs to be given to how they fit in to a wider national context, in order to facilitate lobbying and bidding at the appropriate level of government.
11 | P a g e
78 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
2.3 Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Economic Plan
The Leicester and Leicestershire economy has an estimated gross value of £19.4bn per annum, and supports about 33,000 trading businesses providing some 435,000 jobs. The area possesses valuable economic assets, including the largest distribution park in Europe, the UK’s second largest freight airport and a growing manufacturing sector, while its central location provides good access to other parts of the country.
The Leicestershire Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) covering the years 2014 to 2020 was submitted to Central Government in March 2014. The stated aims of the plan to 2020 are to:
• Create 19,000 of the 45,000 new jobs planned in the long-term • Lever £2.5bn of private investment and • Increase Gross Value Added (GVA) by £4bn from £19bn to £23bn.
by means of integrating the previously published European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF), City Deal and Growth Deal Strategies and leverage of new funding.
The major risks to the region’s economy are identified as:
• A lack of suitable undeveloped land for further expansion in the logistics and manufacturing sectors. • Poor quality public realm and derelict sites requiring land assembly and infrastructure. • Inadequate transport infrastructure causing congestion and resulting in increased business costs. • Lack of support for the 70% of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) that have growth plans • Lack of skills in key sectors • The low numbers of young people choosing Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) careers.
Highlights of the SEP include:
Leicester Launchpad - provides a major development and growth opportunity for Leicester focussed on the Waterside and Abbey Meadows regeneration areas and the city centre. This ‘Strategic Regeneration Area’ delivers substantial housing, commercial and leisure/cultural developments on a cluster of development sites and creates 6,000 jobs.
East Midlands Gateway Strategic Freight Interchange - a 250 acre distribution and logistics development alongside East Midlands Airport and the M1, with a rail terminal providing up to 6 million sq. ft. of large scale warehousing to establish the UK’s largest multi modal hub creating over 7,000 new jobs.
Loughborough University Science & Enterprise Parks (LUSEP) - an exceptional opportunity to develop an internationally significant centre for knowledge based employment. The Park is already one of the largest developments of its kind and will provide as many as 4,000 additional jobs and lever private investment of up to £200m.
MIRA Technology Park Enterprise Zone - MIRA Technology Park is the LLEP’s Enterprise Zone and will provide 1.75 million sq. ft. high quality R&D space on an 80 hectare estate, making it the largest
12 | P a g e
79 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
transport sector R&D technology park in Europe. It will create over 2,000 direct high value jobs and over 3,000 indirect jobs
Other proposals include measures to support innovation by providing direct funding and economic intelligence to businesses and using City Deal and European Structural and Investment Funding (ESIF) to improve skills and training.
13 | P a g e
80 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
3
THE INDUSTRY PLANNING PROCESS
14 | P a g e
81 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
3.1 The Long Term Plan
Following the publication by Network Rail of market studies in 2013, a series of regional and route based studies into long-term investment requirements is now underway. The East Midlands Route Study was published in draft for consultation in February 2015, and the West Midlands Study is currently being developed. In addition, further studies relevant to this report now in progress include:
• Midlands Connect – a grouping of transport authorities across the Midlands – has also produced important material, including a technical report from Atkins entitled “Economic Impact Study” – May 2015. Work is now moving towards more detailed work on specific corridors, including those directly affecting Leicestershire. • The East West Rail Consortium, in partnership with Network Rail, is undertaking development work on options for the proposed new railway between Bedford and Cambridge. The first phase of this work, undertaken by Atkins Consulting, looked at priority origin and destination locations across the South Midlands (“East West Rail Central Section – Conditional Outputs Statement” - August 2014), and the second phase of this work is looking at how the strategic business case for the line can be enhanced by using the East West route to provide through services not currently possible on the existing network. This includes potential direct trains from the East Midlands to the Thames Valley, South Coast or West Country via Leicester and either Bedford and Bletchley or Coventry and Banbury. • Work undertaken by SLC Rail to develop rail strategies for Warwickshire, Coventry and Leicestershire.
These studies look forward as far as 2043, and are intended to show a long term strategic direction, as well as to identify “options for funders” for schemes in Network Rail’s Control Period 6 (2019-24). “Indicative Train Service Specifications” for a number of main routes are already in circulation.
There is therefore a substantial body of work being undertaken, some of which inevitably reflects local agendas, but most of which is remarkably consistent both in terms of the conclusions being drawn, and in reflecting a desire to capitalise on the opportunity the railway presents to support economic growth. We have sought to ensure that the outcomes identified in this report are, as far as possible, consistent with the conclusions that have either been drawn or are emerging in these other reports, as well as providing an evidence base that Leicestershire stakeholders can use to influence decision makers, including funding bodies.
3.2 Indicative Train Service Specifications
Through the route planning process Network Rail has developed a series of line maps showing a possible level of train service in 2043. There are two important points to note about these diagrams:
• The delivery of enhanced train services is a matter for funders and for the specification of future franchises. That is why there is no ITSS for earlier years. • The driver for additional train services shown on the 2043 ITSS is not just demand growth, but, more importantly, regional and national connectivity improvements that are forecast to be required. This is an important distinction.
15 | P a g e
82 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
• These factors mean that prioritisation for the improved connectivity lies not with Network Rail or indeed principally with the rail industry, but with funders. New connectivity plans that have a business case can be implemented when the time is right for funders and the main issue is about the prioritisation and funding assembly, once Network Rail has delivered the necessary Network capacity improvements. Of course not all capacity schemes have to be funded through the Network Rail Periodic Review process, but schemes likely to have a major impact on capacity will generally be delivered as part of resignalling schemes.
However, if Network Rail’s infrastructure capacity schemes are “enablers” to allow future enhanced connectivity, it is important for the LEP to lobby for inclusion of valuable schemes in the CP6 settlement.
16 | P a g e
83 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
4
Methodology
17 | P a g e
84 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
4.1 General Principles
In undertaking this commission, SLC has:
• Engaged with Network Rail’s long term planning process • Held discussions with other industry parties including the DfT and East Midlands Trains • Supported the work of Midlands Connect (MC) which has been looking on a corridor basis at the transport needs across the East and West Midlands • Undertaken its own analysis of the adequacy of the rail network to support LEP’s requirements • Specified various potential train service options and commissioned GVA analysis of their potential to support economic growth
The study included the following stages:
• Research including review of documentation • Industry engagement, including discussions and correspondence with relevant contacts in Network Rail and the Department for Transport • Formulating options • GVA analysis (see below) • Capacity analysis • Development of Strategy • Alignment with other Local Authority and LEP studies
Background research has been undertaken using, inter alia, the following documents:
• Network Rail East Midlands Strategic Business Plan for CP5 • Network Rail Enhancements Delivery Plan for CP5 • Network Rail East Midlands Route Study 2015 • Network Rail Yorkshire and Humberside Route Utilisation Strategy 2009 • Network Rail Freight Route Utilisation Strategy 2007 • Network Rail Network Specifications East Midlands (“Meeting the Demand for Rail”), 2012 • ATOC Rolling Stock Requirements 2014-2019 • Department for Transport Long Term Passenger Rolling Stock Strategy 2014 • Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Economic Plan 2014-2020 • AECOM report on Leicester – Burton passenger rail service (for Leicester City Council, Leicestershire County Council and North West Leicestershire District Council) 2015 • East Midlands Gateway – Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd. website • Roxhill Development Consent Order application documents 2014 • Department for Transport Draft National Policy Statement for National Networks 2015 • Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station - E.On website • Network Rail London North Eastern Route Sectional Appendix • East West Rail – Network Rail and EWR Consortium websites
18 | P a g e
85 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
4.2 Gross Value Added (GVA) Modelling
Gross Value Added (GVA) modelling has been used to assess the value of the various rail service options identified.
The model used for this analysis combines metrics of economic activity and project growth with train service enhancements based on improvements to generalised journey time (frequency x journey time). Direct train services score much higher than services that require a change of train, because interchange results in a time penalty which may be significant. The model then derives a GVA value for the enhanced business-to-business activity that would be generated by the new services. The model also produces a forecast for the number of additional jobs created, for example:
19 | P a g e
86 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
A sample output is shown below for the Leicester to Reading leg of the above.
Leicester and Annual GVA £m Comment
Kettering 0.3 Increased frequency from 1 to 2 trains per hour
Bedford 0.3 Increased frequency from 1 to 2 trains per hour
Milton Keynes 1.1 Journey time 53 mins (current 1h 26 including change)
Bicester 0.4 Journey time 1h 5 mins (current 2h 27 including 2 changes) Oxford 4.6 Journey time 1h 18 mins (current 2h 23 including 1 change) Didcot 0.6 Journey time 1h 35 mins (current 2h 44 including 2 changes) Reading 2.5 Journey time 1h 49 mins (current 2h 50 including 1 change) TOTAL 9.6
20 | P a g e
87 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
5
LEICESTERSHIRE’S RAIL NETWORK
21 | P a g e
88 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
5.1 The Current Network
The Midland Main Line (MML) linking London (St Pancras), Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield runs south-to-north through the county, with stations at Market Harborough, Leicester, Syston, Sileby, Barrow-upon-Soar and Loughborough. There is also an east-west main line, running from Birmingham through Nuneaton and Leicester, and then onwards to Peterborough and East Anglia, with stations at Narborough, South Wigston, Melton Mowbray and Oakham.
Two freight routes lie partly within Leicestershire. The first links the MML at Knighton Junction (approximately 2 miles south of Leicester) with Burton upon Trent via Coalville, and is used mainly for aggregates traffic from Bardon Hill Quarries. Since the closure of Drakelow Power Station, the western section of this line between Bardon Hill and Burton sees very little traffic. The other freight line is in the east of the county, running from Kettering via Corby to Manton junction, south of Oakham, and forming part of a loop line running parallel to the MML between Kettering and Syston, avoiding Leicester.
5.2 Passenger Services
Services on the MML are operated by East Midlands Trains using 9-car class 254 High Speed Trains (HSTs) and Class 222 “Meridian” Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) in 4-, 5- and 7-car formations. The HSTs are concentrated mainly on the London – Nottingham services. East Midlands Trains also operates the Leicester – Lincoln service, mainly with class 153 single-car DMUs.
Cross Country Trains operates both the Local Birmingham – Leicester and Birmingham – Stanstead Airport service, using Class 170 DMUs in 2- or 3-car formations although longer trains formed of two units coupled in multiple are diagrammed on certain peak hour services.
Standard off-peak service patterns at the county stations are:
Leicester 2 (non-stop) trains per hour between London and Sheffield via Derby. 2 (semi-fast) trains per hour between London and Nottingham. 1 train per hour between Birmingham and Peterborough, Cambridge and Stanstead Airport. 1 train per hour between Birmingham and Leicester. 1 train per hour between Leicester and Lincoln via Nottingham.
Market Harborough 2 trains per hour between London and Nottingham.
Syston, Sileby and Barrow-on-Soar 1 train per hour between Leicester and Lincoln (some extended to Sleaford) via Nottingham.
Loughborough 1 train per hour between London and Sheffield via Derby. 1 train per hour between London and Nottingham. 1 train per hour between Leicester and Lincoln (some extended to Sleaford) via Nottingham.
Narborough and South Wigston 1 Train per hour between Birmingham and Leicester via Nuneaton.
22 | P a g e
89 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Melton Mowbray and Oakham 1 train per hour between Birmingham and Stansted Airport via Peterborough and Cambridge.
These service patterns may be varied during peak hours, with some additional trains on certain routes.
5.3 Freight Services
Freight traffic is, by its nature, often unpredictable compared to the relative certainties of timetabled passenger services. Although many freight flows do establish themselves over a period of years, tonnages, times and even origin and destination points can vary at short notice, and individual flows may have limited lifespans as the demands of the market change. This pattern has been particularly prevalent since privatisation of the rail freight sector, as operators have changed their marketing and operating practices to enable them to compete more effectively with other modes of transport.
Routes through the East Midlands are vital freight arteries, and the all the main lines are designated as part of the Strategic Freight Network. While the predominant flows are along the Birmingham – Derby and Midland Main Lines, the cross country route between Nuneaton, Leicester and Peterborough is gaining increased importance following completion of works to increase the loading gauge to allow the passage of larger containers.
There are a number of sites generating rail freight traffic in the area:
• Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station and British Gypsum plant, near Trent • Mountsorrel aggregates depot • Stud Farm Quarry, Stanton-under-Bardon • Bardon Hill Quarry, near Coalville • Corby Metals Terminal • Ketton Cement Works
The East Midlands rail network is used by a variety of different market sectors.
Maritime intermodal, consisting of container traffic to and from ports, primarily Southampton and Felixstowe, and the Channel Tunnel. Although much traffic from Felixstowe to the Midlands and North West England travels via London and the West Coast Main Line, an increasing volume is being routed via Peterborough and Leicester to join the West Coast Main Line at Nuneaton, or onwards via Water Orton to terminals in the West Midlands. Locally, there is an intermodal terminal at Burton- on-Trent which receives traffic from Southampton on a weekly basis, which is routed, along with longer-distance intermodal traffic, via Oxford, Birmingham and Derby.
Works to increase Loading Gauge clearances are being undertaken between Birmingham and Derby, and onwards to Doncaster via the Erewash Valley. This will enable deep sea 9’ 6” high containers to be routed from Southampton via the West Midlands to Yorkshire without the need for special wagons, generating significant intermodal growth on this corridor, as well as opening up opportunities for routing traffic between Felixstowe and the north of England via Toton and the Midland Main Line rather than the West Coast.
23 | P a g e
90 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Other Loading Gauge improvements are planned on the Midland Main Line north of Bedford in parallel with the electrification programme. Once the East West Rail link from Oxford to Bedford is fully operational at the end of Control Period 6 in 2023, this will facilitate the routing of intermodal traffic from Southampton to Yorkshire and the north East via Bedford and Corby, rather than via the West Midlands.
Finally, Loading Gauge enhancements on the Derby to Stoke-on-Trent are being considered, offering another alternative route for container traffic between Felixstowe and the Manchester area.
In all cases, it is likely that other works on the wider network will be needed to fully exploit the opportunities offered by these enhancements around the East Midlands.
Domestic intermodal , consisting mainly of the movement of containerised consumer goods within the UK. Again, the primary focus for this traffic is the West Coast Main Line, but some does pass along the Birmingham – Derby – Erewash Valley route in the course of journeys to and from the North East and Scotland, and further growth in the market can be expected as new intermodal terminals, such as the one proposed at Castle Donington, are opened.
Coal. The pattern of coal flows nationally is inextricably linked to the demands of electricity generation, and is currently based mainly on foreign imports through ports such as Immingham. Coal-fired power stations are progressively being closed, but in 2014 the major power station at Ratcliffe-on-Soar, owned and operated by E.On, was fitted with catalytic reduction equipment to make it compliant with strict new emission regulations, securing the long-term future of both the station and the rail-borne coal flows from the east coast which fuel it.
In the interests of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases, some coal powered stations have been converted to burn biofuels. Biofuel has up to half the mass of coal, and this has led to an increase in the number of trains per day serving the converted stations. Although E.On has no current plans to convert Ratcliffe-on Soar to biofuel operation, this cannot be ruled out in the long- term as emission regulations become more demanding, and, if it happens, would almost certainly result in an increase in the number of rail movements into and out of the site.
Cement. The long-established works at Ketton is now owned by Hanson, part of the Heidelberg Group, and produces around 10% of the UK’s requirement for Portland Cement. Although much of the site’s production is transported by road, daily trains are run mainly via the Midland Main Line to the North London terminal at Kings Cross, and occasionally to other sites elsewhere in the country. The proposed south-to-north chord at Manton Junction would allow these trains to be routed directly towards London via Corby, freeing capacity in the Leicester area and opening up additional opportunities to expand rail-borne traffic from this location.
Aggregates flows are highly dependent on the health of the construction industry, and peaks in demand tend to be linked with large infrastructure projects or major commercial developments. There are a large number of quarries in the East Midlands, and, with demand centred very largely on South East England at the present time, the Midland Main Line is likely to continue as a major artery for stone traffic from the Buxton area, Bardon Hill, Stud Farm and other locations. At the southern end of the Midland Main Line, a loop is being provided at Sundon near Harlington (Bedfordshire) to facilitate the operation of longer and heavier aggregates trains from Derbyshire and Leicestershire to the London area.
Many coal-fired stations, including Ratcliffe-on-Soar, are fitted with flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) equipment, which uses limestone to reduce Sulphur Dioxide emissions. Both limestone and the
24 | P a g e
91 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
gypsum produced as a by-product of the process are ideal bulk traffics for rail, and there are regular flows between the limestone quarries around Buxton and Ratcliffe-on-Soar, which will continue for the foreseeable future.
Gypsum. British Gypsum has established a plant at Ratcliffe-on-Soar to manufacture plasterboard using gypsum produced at the power station, but there is also some rail-borne gypsum traffic from the station to other manufacturing sites around the country.
Iron Ore is imported in considerable quantities through Immingham, and conveyed by rail through the East Midlands to steel works at Rotherham, the West Midlands and South Wales. Cutbacks in steel production at some major sites have recently been announced, allegedly as a result of the availability of cheap Chinese steel on European markets, and this will inevitably result in reduced demand for ore and therefore a reduction in the number of trains needed to move it from the ports.
Metals. The metals terminal at Corby receives daily services from South Wales, and finished steel from plants at Rotherham, Scunthorpe, North East England, the West Midlands and South Wales to various destinations passes along the East Midlands network daily. After a period of decline, scrap metal movements to recycling plants have shown some growth in recent years.
National Delivery Service . Although not strictly a commercial freight operation, Network Rail’s National Delivery Service (NDS), which supplies materials and equipment in connection with railway engineering and construction projects, operates a significant number of trains on the network, and needs to be taken into account when planning future capacity improvements.
5.4 Network Capacity
Analysis undertaken by Network Rail and the Train Operators has indicated that little spare capacity is available on the Midland Main Line. Although, in practical terms, rail capacity is notoriously difficult to measure, depending as it does on a range of variable factors such as signalling design and location, variations in line speeds, and the mixture of rolling stock used on the route and their relative performance characteristics, it is generally accepted that only one additional train path (“the sixth path” as it is often referred to) is available for use between London and Leicester.
How this path should be allocated will be the subject of many conflicting demands and interests. The value to local economic growth and sustainability of good quality connectivity to London is widely recognised, but it may be that in certain circumstances a case can be made that use of spare capacity for other purposes will produce a better return in terms of value added.
There appear to be opportunities to increase capacity on the Midland Main Line above the six trains per hour by investing in additional infrastructure. Until the late 1970’s, the route was four-tracked throughout between London and Kettering, albeit mainly with fast passenger lines paralleled by goods lines to accommodate the heavy coal traffic from Nottinghamshire to London. The reduction in freight traffic from the 1960s onwards, resulted in the progressive removal of one of the goods lines leaving only three tracks over large sections of the route. Reinstatement of the fourth running line for mixed (passenger and freight) use would not be particularly difficult, and would release capacity on the existing fast lines for use by additional through services.
The installation of advanced transmission-based signalling systems similar in principle to those in use on certain intensively-worked urban rail systems and high speed main lines (the so-called “Digital Railway”) has been proposed in certain quarters as a means of increasing capacity. These systems
25 | P a g e
92 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
automatically regulate the intervals between trains running along the same line of route depending upon their relative speeds, making the most efficient use of the space available while preserving safe braking distances. In practice, the systems currently in use are mainly installed on relatively simple routes (whether high-speed main lines or low-speed urban systems such as the Docklands Light Railway) where all trains have very similar, if not always identical, speed, acceleration and braking characteristics. Much development work remains to be done to enable the technology to be used on intensively-used mixed-traffic railways like the UK network, where there are wide variations in the characteristics of the rolling stock. Nevertheless, in the longer-term, advanced signalling technology is likely to be developed to a point that will result in capacity improvements on conventional main lines such as the Midland.
Whatever spare capacity actually exists on the Midland Main Line, there are significant constraints at St. Pancras station itself which will directly influence how many additional services can be accommodated. The four platforms available following conversion of the station into St. Pancras International are already heavily occupied, and finding space to accommodate even one additional train per hour is likely to be difficult. Although each platform is capable of accommodating two 4- or 5-car trains, the use of long Class 222, HST or “InterCity Express” (IEP) type units will require exclusive occupation of a platform.
Nevertheless, Network Rail’s various plans and proposals for upgrading the Midland Main Line described in Section 4.3 below do include a number of projects designed to increase capacity on the route which, if implemented, would allow enhancements in the number of trains that could be reliably accommodated.
26 | P a g e
93 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
6
PLANNED ENHANCEMENTS
27 | P a g e
94 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
6.1 Midland Main Line
Network Rail’s Delivery Plan for Control Period 5 includes a number of projects affecting the Midland Main Line which are committed for completion in 2014-19, while the draft East Midlands Route Study, issued for consultation in January 2015, contains proposals to accommodate growth up to 2043, which may be adopted for delivery in future Control Periods. Long-term proposals for locations north of Chesterfield are covered in the Yorkshire and Humber Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS), which was issued in 2009 and covers the period to 2039. It is likely that this latter document will be superseded by a further Route Study in due course.
Network Rail also published a Freight Route Study in 2007, covering the national network. The Birmingham to Peterborough line was identified as a key element of the strategy, requiring increased capacity through Leicester, and remodelling of the junctions at Wigston and Syston.
The various proposals for enhancements on the Midland Main Line contained in these document include:
Committed in Control Period 5
• Electrification at 25Kv ac overhead: • Bedford to Nottingham via Leicester • Kettering to Corby • Trent Junction to Sheffield via Derby • Removal of temporary and permanent speed restrictions at various locations through the track renewals programme. • Platform lengthening up to 260m at Market Harborough station. Being considered for Control Period 6
• Grade separation at Wigston North Junction. • Four-tracking Wigston North Junction to Syston Junction. • Double tracking Syston South Junction to Syston East Junction. • Platform lengthening up to 260m at Leicester station. • New through platform 6 on east side and new bay platform 5 at north end at Leicester station. • Resignalling between Kettering and Syston Junction to accommodate improved headways of between 5 and 3½ minutes. • Platform lengthening up to 260m at Loughborough station.
Being considered for future Control Periods beyond 2024
• Four-tracking Kettering to Wigston North Junction. • High Speed Junction with South Leicestershire line at Kilby Bridge • Four-tracking Oakham to Langham Junction. • New south-to-east chord at Manton Junction to allow through running Corby – Peterborough . • Remodelling at Trent Junction (including grade separation) to segregate conflicting traffic flows.
28 | P a g e
95 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Other potential enhancements not currently being considered in long-term planning
• Further electrification: • Corby to Syston Junction • Trent Junction to Chesterfield via Erewash Valley • Nottingham to Trowell Junction • Sheffield to Doncaster and Leeds • Chesterfield to Rotherham via Beighton • Beighton to Sheffield • Easing curves through Market Harborough to increase line speeds • Redoubling, Kettering to Corby • Remodelling at Mountsorrel Aggregates Terminal to eliminate conflicting movements. In June 2015, the government announced a temporary pause in parts of Network Rail’s investment programme for CP5, including Midland Main Line electrification, pending a review of budgets and delivery resources. On 30 September 2015, work on Midland Main Line electrification was resumed, but with revised timescales now including Bedford to Kettering and Corby by 2019 and Kettering to Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield by 2023. 6.2 East Midlands Gateway Strategic Freight Interchange
“East Midlands Gateway” is a multimodal freight interchange proposed by a private developer, Roxhill (Kegworth) Limited, located on a site between Castle Donington and Kegworth, and adjacent to both East Midlands Airport and Junction 24 on the M1 Motorway. Designed as a “Strategic Rail Freight Interchange” in accordance with the Government’s draft Policy Statement on National Networks published in December 2013, the facility includes rail-connected warehousing and container handling facilities directly linked to the road and rail networks and the airport, with provision to accommodate on-site manufacturing and processing activities in the future. Up to 7,000 new permanent jobs are expected be directly created once the facility is fully operational, in addition to more transient employment during the construction phases 1.
The proposal is also designated as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), and, as such, was the subject of a Development Consent Order submitted to the National Infrastructure Directorate of the Planning Inspectorate on 29 August 2014. The Inspectorates report of recommendation for the application was issued to the Secretary of State on 12 October 2015, and the deadline for the Secretary of State’s decision has been confirmed as 12 January 2016 2. The specification for the development includes:
A rail freight terminal designed to accommodate up to 16 intermodal trains per day (presumably including both inwards and outwards movements), each up to 775 metres long; Container storage and HGV parking; Up to 557,414 square metres of rail-served warehousing and ancillary service buildings;
1 Eastmidlandsgateway.co.uk 2 Infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/east-midlands/east-midlands-gateway-rail-freight- interchange
29 | P a g e
96 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
A new branch line connecting the terminal to the Sheet Stores Junction (Trent) to Stenson Junction freight railway, with a west-facing junction located just north of Hemington. New and improved road infrastructure connecting the site to the M1 Motorway, A6, A50 and A453 trunk roads and East Midlands Airport; Alterations to public rights of way and the creation of new publicly accessible landscaped open areas; Bus interchange facilities to provide links to local communities.
The alignment of HS2 is proposed to run in tunnel beneath East Midlands Airport before emerging to cut across part of the East Midlands Gateway site on its way to the East Midlands Interchange station at Toton. It is understood that Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd. and HS2 Ltd. have jointly established that the projects are compatible, and further discussions are planned as more detailed plans are developed. However, a physical connection between the terminal and HS2 is not contemplated.
Network Rail is aware of the Gateway development, and it is referred to in the 2012 East Midlands Network Specification, but so far, little development of a train service specification has taken place. Although it will undoubtedly take some years for the planned maximum capacity of 16 trains per day to be reached, no stated assumptions have been made by the developers about likely origin and destination points, routeing, daily tonnages or times of operations. It is therefore difficult to draw
30 | P a g e
97 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
firm conclusions at this stage about the effect of the terminal on the local rail network, or any enhancements that might be required to accommodate the new traffic arising from it.
The main maritime intermodal flows conveying imported and exported goods in containers are to and from Southampton and to and from the east coast ports, particularly Felixstowe. The preferred route for trains between East Midlands Gateway and the south coast would probably be via Burton on Trent and Birmingham, but parts of this route are already oversubscribed and, in the longer-term, it may be necessary to consider the use of the Midland Main Line to Bedford and thence via East West to Oxford as an alternative. This would require spare or additional capacity not only on the Midland Main Line itself, but possibly enhancement of the Burton – Leicester route, which, although under-used west of Bardon Hill, is subject to relatively low maximum speeds and limited signalling capacity.
Given the lack of a direct connection from the new branch towards Trent, routing of traffic bound for the east coast ports is more problematical. The quickest and least disruptive solution might be to reverse trains at Burton on Trent, then retrace their route back to Trent, before proceeding via Loughborough, Oakham and Peterborough to Felixstowe. The only alternative if reversal is to be avoided would be a rather roundabout route via Tamworth, Walsall, Coventry and the West Coast and North London lines. In the very-long term, East West Rail Central section might offer an alternative provided a north-to-east connection was installed at Bedford.
Domestic flows are harder to predict, as there are multitude of potential destinations, but, again, the lack of a direct connection towards the east, and then north, appears to be a handicap. The potential that East Midlands Airport might offer for import/export traffic conveyed by rail is also an unknown factor as no similar freight terminal in such close proximity to a major international airport exists elsewhere in the UK.
Finally, the ability to exploit opportunities for new flows to and from the terminal will, as always, be dependent on the availability of spare capacity at numerous points elsewhere on the national network, and the relative value and priority of the various traffics competing to use it.
It is clear that, assuming East Midlands Gateway receives approval from the Secretary of State, significant further work will need to be done to identify potential traffic flows, establish how they might realistically be exploited, and examine what further enhancement of both the local and national rail network will be required to accommodate them in the longer-term.
6.3 East West Rail
The East West Rail (EWR) project is a proposal, originally promoted by a Consortium of Local Authorities and other organisations, to create a new orbital main line between Oxford and East Anglia. The EWR Consortium’s primary objective was to create improved transport links in support of economic regeneration and growth, particularly around Milton Keynes, Bedford and Aylesbury Vale, but it was also recognised that, by providing a direct link between the principal radial main lines from London, the route had potential to create and exploit new passenger and freight markets.
The project was divided into three phases:
31 | P a g e
98 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
“Western Section” Upgrading the existing route between Oxford and Claydon (Bucks) Upgrading the existing route between Aylesbury and Claydon Reopening the disused route between Claydon and Bletchley Upgrading the existing route between Bletchley and Bedford
“Central Section” Creating a new link between Bedford and Cambridge, by means of reopening closed railways, constructing entirely new lines, or a combination of both.
“Eastern Section” Upgrading existing railways in East Anglia to provide additional capacity and improved capability between Cambridge and the East Coast.
The Western Section was adopted by the Department for Transport (DfT) as a committed scheme in the High Level Output Statement (HLOS) for Railway Control Period 5 (CP5) in 2014 – 2019.
The route between Oxford and Bicester also forms an integral part of the “Evergreen 3 Phase 2” project to provide a new service between London (Marylebone) and Oxford via High Wycombe. Delivery of this project by 2016 is a Chiltern Railways Franchise Commitment, and it was recognised that economies could be obtained by constructing the additional infrastructure required for later introduction of EWR services as part of the Chiltern project. The decision was therefore taken to undertake additional works, including double track throughout and enhanced signalling capacity, funded from the East West Rail budget, as part of the Chiltern project.
Western Section is, therefore, now being designed and constructed by Network Rail in two phases:
• Phase 1a Bicester to Oxford Parkway • Phase 1b Oxford Parkway to Oxford • Phase 2 Bicester and Aylesbury to Milton Keynes and Bedford
Phase 1a opened on 26 October 2015 with the introduction of a half-hourly service between London Marylebone and Oxford Parkway. Extension of this service to Oxford under Phase 1b is planned for Spring 2016, although continuing uncertainties connected with resignalling of the Oxford area mean that at the time of writing a firm date has not been set. The new Oxford – Milton Keynes, Oxford – Bedford and Aylesbury – Milton Keynes services will follow by the end of Control Period 5 in March 2019.
Because of the volume of work required to upgrade the line, and the issues still to be resolved regarding the final route of the Central section, it will not be possible to complete enhancement of the Bletchley – Bedford section (including electrification) until Control Period 6 in 2019 – 2024.
While some spare capacity is available between Bletchley and Bedford on the current infrastructure, the introduction of through services to and from the Midland Main Line before upgrading is completed in 2023-4 is unlikely because:
1. The current connection between the Midland Main Line and the East West route at Bedford is unsuitable for regular through services, having a very low speed restriction both at Bedford Midland station itself, and along the sharply-curved single line through Bedford St. Johns station, which severely restricts capacity and would import a high degree of performance risk to both East West and Midland Main Line services. Improvements to the
32 | P a g e
99 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
connection are possible, but the future route of the Central section east of Bedford is at a very early stage of development, and a number of options are still being considered, some of which involve a completely new alignment, independent of the present route via Bedford St. Johns. While this offers opportunities to radically improve the connection between the Midland Main Line and East West Rail and eliminate the problems described above, clearly no commitments can be made until a final route for Central section is selected.
2. The Bedford – Bletchley route is currently very much a secondary line, with basic (although quite modern) signalling, a relatively low maximum line speed of 60mph and other restrictions such as a large number of level crossings. Although acceptable for an interim Oxford – Bedford service pending further enhancement, these restrictions would adversely affect long-distance cross-country services through extended journey times, even if spare capacity was available to accommodate them.
Opening of the Western section will provide a direct link between the Midland, West Coast and Great Western Main Lines, offering new opportunities for through journeys between the East Midlands and Oxford, the Thames Valley, the West Country and the South Coast, which are currently only available with a change of train en route.
The East West Rail Consortium, the DfT and Network Rail are collaborating to develop options for the Central and Eastern Sections, with a view to assessing works for potential inclusion as committed schemes in Control Period 6 and beyond.
33 | P a g e
100 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
6.4 High Speed 2
Construction of HS2 is planned in two phases, the first from London to Crewe opening in 2027 (revised plans published late 2015 amended Phase 1 from Birmingham to Crewe). The Phase 2 works, due for completion in 2033, will deliver two separate routes north of Birmingham, one via Crewe to Manchester, the other to Leeds.
Source: HS2 Ltd
The eastern leg of HS2 to Leeds does not directly serve Leicestershire, but a “hub” station serving the East Midlands region is planned at Toton, on the site of the former marshalling yards, where HS2 will run parallel to the existing Erewash Valley line. The site is within 2Km of Junction 25 on the M1
34 | P a g e
101 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
motorway, and, in addition to extensive car parking facilities, various forms of public transport links from the station to both Derby and Nottingham city centres have been proposed, including:
• Heavy Rail services running on existing and new formations between Nottingham and Derby stations. • “Tram Train” type operations over existing and new railway formations, extended into Nottingham city centre via the tram (NET) network, and possibly to Derby via new street routes. • Extension of the Nottingham tram system to Toton over new segregated and street routes. • New technology – monorail or maglev for example. • Guided busways. • Conventional buses, perhaps operating on segregated rights of way.
A similar regional station serving Sheffield, Rotherham and Doncaster is planned at Meadowhall, which is already linked to centres of population via the Sheffield Supertram and heavy rail networks. However, a sizable body of opinion, including factions in Sheffield City Council, is pressing the case for the HS2 station to be located nearer Sheffield city centre in order to improve direct access to the shopping and business districts and widen the range of rail interchange options available.
Leeds station will be located within the city just south of Leeds City station, to which it would be connected by dedicated pedestrian walkways. The line will then be inked to the conventional network to allow HS2 services to be extended to York and North-East England.
It has recently been suggested that a junction between the Erewash Valley and HS2 lines at Toton should be added to allow through running from Leicester or points further south via the High Speed network to Leeds and the North-East. While this does not feature in HS2’s current plans, the project is still at an early enough stage of development to allow it to be incorporated if a sufficiently robust case can be made for doing so.
35 | P a g e
102 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
7
GVA Study Results
36 | P a g e
103 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
The current pattern of connectivity based on direct train services from Leicester is illustrated below.
Key:
SCOT Scotland NEW Newcastle LDS Leeds SHEF Sheffield LIV Liverpool MAN Manchester NOTT Nottingham LEI Leicester WAL Walsall BHM Birmingham KETT Kettering COR Corby PET Peterborough NOR Norwich NORT Northampton WELL Wellingborough SW South West TV Thames Valley LON London CAM Cambridge STA Stansted SCOA South Coast SUSS Sussex NE North East
While the city and the county as a whole derives considerable value from the frequent services to London, Nottingham, Derby and South Yorkshire, Leicester has relatively poor connectivity compared to cities of equivalent size and importance, and direct links to other major centres can be expected to provide additional economic benefits.
37 | P a g e
104 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Services to some destinations, such as Leeds, North-East England and Scotland, could, subject to spare capacity and rolling stock being available, be provided over the existing rail network. Other links would require upgrading of the network to provide the necessary capacity and capability. In this context, the construction of the new East West Rail route between Bedford and Oxford via Bletchley and Banbury, due to open in stages during Control Periods 5 and 6, will provide a direct route from the East Midlands to the Thames Valley, South Coast and South West England, avoiding the need to change trains en-route and offering more competitive journey times. Similar benefits might also be derived from upgrading the Oxford – Leamington – Coventry route, including works at Nuneaton to segregate east-west traffic from the West Coast Main Line, which is currently being considered for implementation in Control Period 6.
The opening of the second phase of High Speed 2 northwards from Birmingham to Leeds, planned in 2033, also offers potential for improving connectivity to and from Leicester in the long-term. The project includes an East Midlands station at Toton, with dedicated fixed links to Derby and Nottingham, but the location also offers the opportunity for a direct rail connection to Leicester via an interchange station located on the adjacent Erewash Valley Main Line. A junction between the conventional and High Speed networks at this point has also been suggested to enable through services from the Midland Main Line to run to Sheffield, Leeds and the North East via HS2 with significantly reduced journey times. However, this link does not currently feature in HS2’s plans.
The study has identified eleven potential destinations for additional direct services from Leicester:
Destination GVA Sheffield, Leeds and North East England (direct services via HS2) 40.9 Swindon and Bristol (via East West Rail) 19.5 Sheffield, Leeds and North East England (via HS2 with change of train at To ton) 17.4 Thames Valley (via Coventry / Leamington) 14.9 Thames Valley (via East West Rail) 13.4 Manchester 9.1 Enhanced service to London 6.9 Leeds and North East England (via conventional network) 6.4 Sussex Coast and/or Sevenoaks via Thameslink 4. 0 Norwich 1.5 Burton -upon -Trent 0.34
The options offering potential GVA benefits of over £10million per annum are shown in green on the diagram below. The remainder, returning a potential GVA of under £10million per annum, are shown in yellow.
38 | P a g e
105 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Key:
SCOT Scotland NEW Newcastle LDS Leeds SHEF Sheffield LIV Liverpool MAN Manchester NOTT Nottingham LEI Leicester WAL Walsall BHM Birmingham KETT Kettering COR Corby PET Peterborough NOR Norwich NORT Northampton WELL Wellingborough SW South West TV Thames Valley LON London CAM Cambridge STA Stansted SCOA South Coast SUSS Sussex NE North East
These conclusions are consistent with similar analysis undertaken in connection with Strategic Economic Plans in Warwickshire, Coventry and Northamptonshire, with the regional investigations conducted by “Midlands Connect” and with the studies being undertaken by Network Rail’s Long- Term Planning Process. In particular, there is a high degree of correlation between the various studies in relation to:
• East Midlands to the Thames Valley • Leicester to Coventry (The “M69 corridor”) • South and East Midlands and areas included in the “Northern Powerhouse” area
39 | P a g e
106 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Key:
SCOT Scotland NEW Newcastle LDS Leeds SHEF Sheffield LIV Liverpool MAN Manchester NOTT Nottingham LEI Leicester WAL Walsall BHM Birmingham KETT Kettering COR Corby PET Peterborough NOR Norwich NORT Northampton WELL Wellingborough SW South West TV Thames Valley LON London CAM Cambridge STA Stansted SCOA South Coast SUSS Sussex NE North East
40 | P a g e
107 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
8
LEICESTER TO LONDON
41 | P a g e
108 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
A key priority is to maximise the benefits from the Midland Main Line, and in particular electrification. Although line speed improvements did not yield the highest Gross Value Added in the study undertaken, this is because the Leicester - London service is already frequent. However, the evident importance of direct links to London led to a need to identify the opportunities for improving the Leicester – London service and secondly, to examine the potential effects of HS2 on the service.
8.1 Enhanced Conventional Services
GVA £6.9m p.a.
The use of the so-called “sixth path” on the Midland Main Line south of Leicester to provide an additional service to London is an option offering obvious benefits, particularly to Leicester where five trains per hour would be available. The principal competing proposal for the use of the spare path is a second train per hour to Corby, which of course would not serve Leicester unless extended via Oakham and Melton Mowbray, which itself would not offer competitive through journey times and would be of limited direct benefit to the city.
There do not appear to be any insurmountable difficulties associated with introduction of a new London – Leicester service, although, as noted above, there are significant issues associated with platform capacity at St. Pancras, particularly if the additional service is one that would require the use of long trains of more than 5 vehicles.
The additional London service would be compatible with the proposals for new services to Manchester, Leeds and Burton-upon-Trent, to which the trains could be extended. However, current plans to electrify the Midland Main Line only as far as Sheffield (and the lack of firm plans to electrify the Hope Valley and Leicester – Burton lines) would mean incurring significant expense for further electrification, or the use of diesel or bi-modal (electro-diesel) rolling stock, which might cause operational and logistical difficulties for the train operators.
If only one additional path is in fact available between Leicester and London, then the additional London train would not be compatible with routing Bristol or Thames Valley services via Bedford and East West Rail, and an informed decision about the best use of the spare capacity available would have to be made.
Other enhancements, as listed in Section 4.3 above, which also contribute towards maximising the benefits to be derived from enhanced services to London are planned during CP5 and beyond.
8.2 The effects of HS2 on Leicester – London services
Concern has been expressed in Leicester, as in other locations at similar distances from London which will not be directly connected to the High Speed network, that the quality of conventional services will be diluted by the transfer of much of the long-distance market to HS2. It is feared that the market on the conventional network will become more outer-suburban in nature, resulting in more intermediate stops and longer journey times to and from the capital. It has been estimated that each additional call made between Leicester and St. Pancras would adversely affect Leicester’s economy by some £4m GVA, or about £1m per minute.
While experience in France, where the so-called “classic” network has in some areas seen a decline following the expansion of the Lignes à Grande Vitesse, is sometimes cited as evidence of the
42 | P a g e
109 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
adverse effect of High Speed networks, it is difficult to accurately predict how HS2 will impact on the existing rail system in Britain. Development of the northern section of HS2 is still at a very early stage and many uncertainties regarding the exact route and station locations, let alone details of the timetable, will remain for some time to come. However, the plans and assumptions by government and HS2 Ltd. that underlie the High Speed proposals do enable some conclusions to be surmised.
The Department for Transport has a stated objective that “all places (not directly served by HS2) which currently have direct London services will retain a broadly comparable service” after the opening of the high speed network. While “broadly comparable” is not expressly defined, the intention is clearly that there should be no material diminution in the quality of services to and from London in terms of frequency and journey time. Indeed, Coventry, which has expressed concerns about the impact of High Speed services from Birmingham on the appeal of the city to potential investors, has already obtained an undertaking to this effect from the Secretary of State, and there is no reason that Leicester should not seek similar assurances.
Current industry planning assumes that the growth in demand for rail passenger services seen over the last 15-20 years will continue; indeed this assumption underpins the case for building HS2, which is predicated mainly on the need to provide additional national rail capacity to accommodate growth, rather than the sole objective of securing shorter journey times.
Demand for services on the conventional network is, therefore, expected continue to grow over the next 20 years. When HS2 is completed in 2033, passengers from Nottingham, Derby and north thereof are expected to transfer to the new services, freeing capacity from Leicester and south thereof to accommodate further expansion in demand, as shown below.
Passengers Leaving Leicester on London Services
Source: SLC using HS2/NR forecasts
43 | P a g e
110 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Peak Hour (08.00 to 09.00) Passengers on MML Trains Arriving at St Pancras Source: Network Rail
The projections indicate that the Midland Main Line will be running at or near capacity even after the introduction of the “sixth train” in 2019 until the opening of HS2 in 2033, when some spare capacity will be freed up to accommodate further growth over the following 10 years. However, the nature of the demand from Leicester, for fast, frequent services reaching London in 60 minutes or less, will not change – the advantage brought by HS2 is that trains arriving from further north will have more space to accommodate Leicester passengers.
Non-stop services from Leicester are still likely to be required in order to meet the demand for sub- 60 minute journey times, as well as additional services calling at locations further south. The forecast service requirement in 2043 (see diagram below) shows 6 long distance trains per hour between London St. Pancras and Leicester (extended to Nottingham, Derby and Manchester), plus the extension of Thameslink services, providing direct, albeit slower, services to central London and onwards to Sussex and the south coast.
44 | P a g e
111 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Estimated Train Service Requirement for 2043 with HS2
Source: Network Rail
Main line services shown in red
Thameslink services shown in green
45 | P a g e
112 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
9
TRAIN SERVICE OPTIONS
46 | P a g e
113 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
9.1 To Leeds and North East England via HS2
Via interchange at Toton
GVA £17.4m p.a.
Although Leicestershire is not served directly by the proposed HS2 route, the proximity of the Toton Interchange offers opportunities to take advantage of the benefits the high speed line will bring.
Journeys between Leicester and Leeds, York and North East England currently involve a change of train to Cross-Country or local services, at either Derby or Sheffield. Passengers using High Speed services from Toton northwards would save time, although HS2 would only be used for part of the journey, and a change of train would, of course, still be required. Nevertheless, analysis indicates that an estimated GVA of £17.4m p.a. would result.
No regular passenger services from Leicester are currently routed via the proposed interchange station site on the Erewash Valley line, but the base position being examined by Network Rail and HS2 is for a twice hourly shuttle between Leicester, Loughborough and Toton. In addition, however, services to the Toton might be provided by diversion of one or more of the three hourly Leicester – Nottingham services. This would require new infrastructure at Toton to allow through running from the south to the east via the new station. However, such infrastructure will also be needed to provide a rail-based fixed link between Toton and Nottingham. One of the half-hourly London – Sheffield trains might also be diverted via the Erewash Valley, with the half-hourly frequency between Leicester and Derby being maintained by means of a new service, perhaps running to Manchester.
Direct services
GVA £40.9m p.a.
Construction of a physical link between the Erewash Valley and HS2 lines at Toton would allow through running from Leicester and points further south via the High Speed network to Leeds and the North-East. As there would be no point in extending trains from London, because they would clearly offer no advantage over through HS2 services from Euston, these would be new services, most likely originating from the Thames Valley, South Coast or West Country and running via the new East West Rail link to Bedford in order to maximise the potential benefits to other locations on the Midland Main Line. Potential service patterns are shown below, with estimated journey time savings compared to existing arrangements.
47 | P a g e
114 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Journey Rail Now* Car now (AA) Direct train HS2 Leicester to Leeds 2h 04m 1h 52m 1h 06m Leicester to Newcastle 3h 27m 3h 22m 2h 20m Southampton to Leeds 4h 47m 4h 22m 3h 52m Kettering to Newcastle 4h 02m 3h 52m 2h 45m Oxford to York 3h 26m 3h 34m 2h 32m Cambridge to Sheffield 2h 55m 2h 42m 1h 50m
Although the High Speed network would again be used for only a proportion of the journey, the estimated time savings, together with the elimination of the need to change trains, would make rail a more attractive option than it is at present for journeys to Leeds and north thereof.
The GVA analysis identifies this option as having by far the highest added value, at £40.9m per annum, of all the potential enhancements tested. However, this must be set against the costs involved, including the cost of the junction itself and the need for additional high-speed rolling stock, which would be operating at conventional speeds for much of its working day.
Such a junction does not currently feature in HS2’s plans for the network, and initial analysis indicates that the cost would be in the order of £20million. Based on the current notional timetables being used for planning and development purposes, it is estimated that there would be capacity on HS2 north of Toton for an additional four trains per hour in each direction. However, it should be borne in mind that there will be competition for the use of this spare capacity by potential new
48 | P a g e
115 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
services from other locations directly or indirectly linked by HS2. Further discussions with organisations such as “Transport for the North”, who are known to be actively looking at options for how spare HS2 capacity might be exploited, would be beneficial in formulating a coherent case for prioritising the opportunities arising from more integration between the High Speed and conventional networks.
It is estimated that approximately 800 passengers per day from Leicester and Loughborough might use through services to the North-East via HS2, but this would be nowhere near sufficient to underwrite the costs involved, and the wider benefits gained from other locations along the lines of route (the so-called “String of Pearls” effect) would need to be investigated and established in order to make a sound case for investment to the Government and HS2 Ltd. Studies would need to include an understanding of the pattern of services required to exploit the potential market, how that pattern fits with both the proposed HS2 and Midland Main Line timetables, the availability of the necessary capacity on the wider conventional and high speed networks, and any technical issues that may arise relating to the design and operation of the rolling stock.
9.2 To Swindon and Bristol
GVA £19.5m p.a.
Services to Swindon and Bristol (and possibly onwards to the West Country) would be routed via the Midland Main Line, East West Rail Western section and the Great Western Main Line, potentially serving: • Bedford • Bletchley • Bicester • Oxford • Didcot • Swindon • Bath • Bristol
Clearly, completion of the East West Rail (EWR) “Western Section” throughout between Oxford and Bedford, currently planned for the end of CP6 in 2024, is a prerequisite for introduction of these services.
Capacity issues would also affect the Midland Main Line between Kettering and Bedford, where informed opinion states that only one additional main-line path is available (although accurately determining railway capacity, dependent as it is on a number of variable parameters including track layout, signalling design, line speeds, rolling stock performance, stopping patterns etc. is notoriously difficult). However many spare paths are actually available, there will, as discussed elsewhere, be competing views on the best use to which they can be put.
There are also separate issues regarding capacity at Oxford (which would, at east to some extent, be addressed in the large-scale redevelopment at Oxford station proposed in Control Period 6 and beyond, and on the Great Western Main Line both between Oxford and Didcot and west thereof towards Swindon. A stop at Didcot could be achieved with the current station layout at the expense of a time-consuming reversal, or new platforms would be required on the west curve connecting the Oxford route with the Main Line towards the west.
49 | P a g e
116 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Electrification throughout between the East Midlands and Bristol would be desirable, though not necessarily essential, and in fact current plans would deliver the works required, though not necessarily to a common timescale. 9.3 To the Thames Valley
GVA (via Coventry and Leamington) £14.7m p.a. GVA (via East West Rail) £13.4m p.a.
Direct services to Reading could be routed via Coventry or East West Rail, potentially serving:
1. Via Coventry: • Nuneaton • Coventry • Leamington Spa • Banbury • Oxford • Didcot • Reading 2. Via East West Rail: • Bedford • Bletchley • Bicester • Oxford • Didcot • Reading
Capacity between Leicester and Nuneaton is probably sufficient to accommodate an hourly interval service, but crossing the West Coast Main Line at Nuneaton would be a major problem, and would probably require construction of a segregated route directly connecting the Leicester and Coventry lines via an underpass, which would preclude a stop at Nuneaton. In any case, if Nuneaton was to be served, reversal in the station would be necessary.
Similar issues arise at Coventry, where very limited capacity is available on the Birmingham Main Line to allow trains to cross between the Nuneaton and Leamington routes on the level. it is unlikely that space could be found to provide a grade-separated connection between these routes without major engineering works involving significant amounts of land take.
As it is unlikely that either the DfT or the Cross Country operator would contemplate diverting South Coast – Manchester services back on to the Warwick route to Birmingham to release capacity, further double-tracking of the Coventry – Leamington route would be required in addition to the works now being undertaken to facilitate an increase in cross-country train paths.
Informed opinion holds that the “Cherwell Valley” route between Leamington and Didcot is currently operating at or near full capacity, largely due to its use as a major freight artery between the South Coast and West Midlands. Opening of the East West Rail Western Section will provide an alternative route for freight which might release capacity on the Cherwell Valley, but again, there will be competing demands for the spare paths.
50 | P a g e
117 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Routing the Thames Valley services via East West Rail results in a slightly lower GVA, and is subject to the same comments and provisos as detailed above in section 9.2, except that a call at Didcot could be accommodated on the existing infrastructure. However, it can reasonably be expected that some capacity would be available on the four-track section east of Didcot, particularly following completion of the recent major works in and around Reading.
Although Reading is a significant revenue-generating destination in its own right, completion of the “Western Link” into Heathrow Airport from the Great Western Main Line at Langley, currently planned in 2021, would offer the possibility of extending services directly into the airport. However, it is not yet clear whether the new route, which was originally conceived as a purely local link accommodating services to and from Reading only, will be suitable to accommodate long-distance trains. If, in fact, the specification for the works do permit such use, there would clearly be fierce competition for the best use of the link, with many different UK regions having expressed interest in direct services.
9.4 To Manchester
GVA £9.1m p.a.
Although Nottingham enjoys regular services to Manchester via Chesterfield and Sheffield, the remainder of the East Midlands including Leicester and Derby lost their direct links with the virtual withdrawal of services between London St. Pancras and Manchester following completion of the West Coast electrification from Euston in 1966-7. The direct main line between Matlock and Chinley via Bakewell closed in 1968, leaving the (very) few remaining through services running via the longer Hope Valley route until they were finally withdrawn in the early 1980s.
Given the size of the populations at both ends of this route, the economic importance of both Leicester and Manchester, and the relatively poor quality of road links compared to, say, the M1 corridor, it can be reasonably expected that there is a suppressed rail market that could be unlocked by the introduction of direct services.
Trains could be routed directly via the south junction at Dore and the Hope Valley route, which was used during the temporary “Project Rio” services operated during the West Coast Route modernisation project. Alternatively, they could reverse at Sheffield, at the cost of a time penalty, but providing access to a larger market. The service could serve:
• Loughborough • East Midlands Parkway • Derby • Sheffield (with reversal and time penalty) • Stockport • Manchester Piccadilly
Capacity on the Hope Valley is at a premium following frequency improvements in recent years, and the continuing heavy freight traffic from the quarries at Buxton and the cement works at Hope. However, capacity improvements are planned under the “Northern Hub” project in Control Period 5, which should ease the situation. Options for providing the service include a new dedicated Leicester – Manchester service, or use of the sixth path on the Midland Main Line to provide through trains from London.
51 | P a g e
118 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
A more radical solution, to secure faster and more competitive journey times, would be reopening of the closed former main line from Matlock through Bakewell to Chinley, where the present main line from Sheffield to Stockport would be joined. Reopening has been considered a number of times since the route was closed in 1968, and at one time it was included in Derbyshire’s long-term transport plan. However, while previous studies indicate that reopening is technically feasible, the work would be very expensive and would be likely to attract opposition given the line’s position in the heart of the national park, and the use of large parts as a cycle and foot path in which substantial sums have already been invested. It is not considered that this is a realistic option, particularly if based solely on the benefits of an East Midlands – Manchester passenger service. However, in the long-term, it is, perhaps, possible a case might be made on the basis of the line’s contribution to a much wider national strategy for improving passenger and freight connectivity and capacity.
9.5 To Leeds and North East England via conventional network
GVA £6.4m p.a.
The potential for through services to Leeds and the North East has been discussed previously in connection with the use of HS2, and much the same conclusions apply to services routed via the existing conventional network. However, due to the extended journey times, the GVA is substantially reduced compared with routing via the high-speed line.
Extension of one of the existing hourly London – Sheffield services to Leeds is an obvious solution, albeit at the cost of additional train sets. Alternatively, subject to the comments above regarding extension of electrification, the additional London service or one of the new Bristol / Thames Valley trains might be extended to Leeds or through to the North East.
The value of these services would clearly be affected once journeys via the high-speed network became available following the opening of HS2 in 2033. Any prior introduction of through services to the North East would need to take into account the risk that they could have a limited life of perhaps 10-15 years, although demand could be built up during this period, forming a proven customer base upon which to build further growth once HS2 was open.
9.6 To the Sussex Coast and/or Sevenoaks via Thameslink
GVA £4.0m p.a.
Another potential use for any additional spare capacity on the Midland Main Line could be extension of Thameslink services to Leicester to provide through cross-London links to Gatwick Airport and Brighton, or to Sevenoaks. This would also give Leicester a fifth train to London per hour, with some potential advantages to passengers travelling to the City (Farringdon, Blackfriars or London Bridge) who would be saved a change onto London Underground or Thameslink on arrival.
The main objections to this proposal centre on the extended journey time compared to an “Inter City” type operation, and the use of suburban rolling stock which is often perceived as inferior to the existing or next-generation long-distance trains. It is very unlikely that the future Thameslink operator would contemplate the use of dedicated low-density stock specifically for services north of Bedford to Leicester and Corby, particularly in view of the intense utilisation of the Thameslink fleet that is required to make the operation viable.
52 | P a g e
119 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
However, Network Rail’s projected train service pattern for 2043 (see Section 8.2 above) does include provision for one Thameslink service per hour to Leicester and one per hour to Corby. While journey times from Leicester and Market Harborough are unlikely to be competitive compared to the fast services to St. Pancras, some passengers travelling to destinations in Sussex and Kent might be attracted by the avoidance of the need to cross between London termini.
9.7 To Norwich
GVA £1.5m p.a.
An additional service from Birmingham to Norwich via Leicester and Peterborough would be relatively straightforward to implement, albeit at the expense of additional rolling stock. Assuming that the existing hourly Birmingham – Leicester local service serving Hinkley, Narborough and South Wigston remained, the extra train would provide a third Birmingham – Leicester service per hour as well as increasing frequency at Melton Mowbray and Oakham to half-hourly.
Extension of the local Birmingham – Leicester service to Norwich (or diversion of the existing Stansted Airport service and extension of the local train to Stansted in substitution) would reduce the need for additional stock, but would result in one or other of these long-distance services having additional stops and longer journey times compared to the existing fast service. Whichever way it might be provided, capacity between Leicester, Nuneaton and Birmingham would not seem to be an issue, although platforms at Birmingham New Street are already at something of a premium.
9.8 To Burton-upon-Trent
GVA £0.34m p.a.
Passenger services between Leicester and Burton-on-Trent were withdrawn on 7 September 1964, since when the line has been maintained and operated as a freight route. Closure of the collieries along the line, and the subsequent decommissioning of Drakelow Power Station in March 2003, resulted in the cessation of coal traffic, leaving only the flow of aggregates from Bardon Hill and Stud Farm Quarries. As most of this traffic passes via Knighton and the Midland Main Line, the section between Bardon Hill and Burton-on-Trent is now relatively lightly used.
The route has long been subject to significant problems associated with subsidence, which has resulted in the imposition of numerous Temporary Speed Restrictions (TSRs) and the need for frequent remedial work to the track. Some years ago, in order to enable a less onerous maintenance regime to be implemented, the maximum permissible speed was reduced to 45mph, but about 4¾ miles is currently permanently restricted to no more than 20mph. In addition, the “Up” (or eastbound) line is restricted to 25mph over about 2 miles between Castle Gresley and Hicks Lodge, while the adjacent “Down” (Westbound) line remains at 45mph, due to embankment subsidence on one side of the formation.
These low speeds would be inappropriate for a passenger service as they would result in long and therefore uncompetitive journey times. While the geometry of the track remains suitable for higher speeds up to 60mph, and probably more on certain sections, significant remedial work would be required to counteract the effects of existing subsidence and ensure the long-term stability of the underlying formation before maximum speeds could be safely raised. If such works were not carried
53 | P a g e
120 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
out, significant risks of temporary speed restrictions would remain, resulting in unreliable services which would not be attractive to passengers.
Although the current maintenance regime is appropriate to the heavy, but low-speed, traffic now carried, it is also likely that significant track renewal would be required, as it has not been maintained to the full standards suitable for higher speeds for many years.
Signalling on the route consists of traditional mechanical equipment controlled from three manual signalboxes at Bardon Hill, Mantle Lane and Moira West. Although perfectly suitable for passenger operation, the long block sections between the signalboxes restrict capacity, and additional signalling would be required to reliably accommodate a frequent, regular-interval passenger service in addition to the current freight flows. As noted in section 6.2 above, opening of the planned East Midlands Gateway freight terminal might result in increased use of the Leicester – Burton route for intermodal trains, which would also require additional capacity. To ensure long-term viability, comprehensive resignalling controlled from the East Midlands Signalling Centre would need to be seriously considered.
Eleven level crossings have been identified (previous experience elsewhere indicates that there are probably also other rights of way which have fallen into disuse or otherwise been overlooked), all of which will require risk assessment to determine the safety implications of increased line speeds. Depending on the outcome of these investigations, remedial work to eliminate the crossings or upgrade them to higher safety standards would almost certainly be required. Under current rules, all infrastructure, including earthworks and structures, will need to be assessed to ensure compatibility with standards for higher speed, which may also result in the need for additional remedial work, for example, increasing clearances through overbridges.
The removal of the east-to-north connection at Knighton Junction many years ago severed the direct link to and from Leicester station. The former alignment has been sold and extensively redeveloped, meaning reinstatement would be very expensive. New legal powers would also be required through the Transport & Works Act or Development Consent Order process. The alternative of reversing trains at Knighton South would not only further extend journey times, but would require additional infrastructure, with new legal powers if construction was required outside the current Limits of Deviation.
In summary, the reinstatement of passenger services between Leicester and Burton is technically feasible, but, in view of the current status and condition of the route, further investigative work will be required, including
• Detailed ground condition surveys to determine the extent of remedial works likely to be needed to stabilise the formation • Other surveys to establish the suitability of the infrastructure to reliably accommodate the more intensive service levels • A better definition of the market to be served and a clear understanding of the type of service required to exploit it (e.g. how many stations at what locations, minimum journey times required, origin and destination etc.)
Further investigation work is underway separate from this report.
54 | P a g e
121 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
10
“MAKING IT HAPPEN”
55 | P a g e
122 Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
10.1 Next Steps
The investment that will be required to improve and expand the network in order to facilitate the introduction of new services is of benefit not just to Leicestershire, but also to the country as a whole. Evidence-based lobbying of Central Government with the objective of restarting paused projects such as Midland Main Line electrification, and to make the case for including projects currently being considered in the settlements for CP6 and beyond, will be essential if the necessary enhancements are to be delivered. It is important to ensure that there is compatibility and commonality of purpose between the various Authorities and their Strategic Plans, so that a clear and compelling case is made to Central Government supporting the proposals and demonstrating the strategic benefits to be derived from them.
Steps to be taken to start the process include:
• Workshops with Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Coventry and (potentially) other Authorities to establish common objectives and formulate a consistent and coherent approach for influencing Government and Network Rail decisions. • Discussions with Network Rail and the Department for Transport regarding the conclusions from the various Strategic Plans, the priorities identified by the Authorities and the practicalities involved in developing and implementing the necessary enhancements required to deliver them. • Discussions with Network rail and HS2 Ltd. regarding the relationship of the Strategic Plan objectives with HS2, and the opportunities for HS2 to provide at least some of the solutions to deliver them.
10.2 Opportunities to influence
There are a number of key milestones over the next twelve months which offer opportunities to influence Government and Network Rail decisions:
Priority Timetable
West Midlands Route Study Dec 2 015 draft HS2 Study on Toton Connectivity Dec 2015 Post -HS2 Timetable Work (“Capacity Plus”) Jan 2016 draft West Midlands ITT issued Jul 2016 West Coast ITT issued Nov 2016 East Midlands ITT issued Dec 2016 Initial Industry Plan Sep 2016 Cross Country ITT issued Sep 2018
56 | P a g e
Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Appendix 1. Summary of Train Service Options
Destination Estimated Output Improvements Required Current Status GVA (£m p.a) Sheffield, Leeds 40.9 Direct services via HS2 Junction between conventional network Junction between networks not currently and North East and HS2 at Toton. being considered by HS2 or Network Rail, England Rolling stock compatible with both but would seem to be physically possible. conventional and High Speed networks. Rolling stock will be compatible with both networks as HS2 services to Newcastle are planned. Swindon and 19.5 Hourly service via East West Rail (Bedford Additional capacity at Leicester station. Additional capacity at Leicester proposed Bristol – Oxford) Additional capacity on MML between for CP6.
Kettering and Bedford. Capacity and capability improvements and 123 Completion of East West Rail (EWR) electrification on MML included in “Western Section” between Oxford and Network Rail’s plans for Control Period 5 Bedford, including improved connections (2014-19) or identified as potential between EWR and MML. candidate schemes for Control Period 6 Additional capacity at Oxford. (2019-24), but are currently “on hold” Electrification of MML, EWR and Great pending review. Western Main Line (GWML). Oxford – Bletchley reopening and electrification currently in development phase for opening in 2019. Bletchley – Bedford upgrading and electrification proposed for CP6, but at relatively early stage. No firm proposals regarding improved connections at Bedford yet developed.
57 | P a g e
Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Destination Estimated Output Improvements Required Current Status GVA (£m p.a.) Sheffield, Leeds 17.4 Conventional rail link to interchange Construction of interchange station at Interchange facilities at Toton planned as and North East station at Toton, thence via HS2 services. Toton. part of fixed links to Derby and England Additional or diverted train services to Nottingham, but not clear whether this provide link between Leicester and Toton. includes suitable facilities to enable interchange with trains on Erewash Valley line. Thames Valley 14.7 Hourly service via Coventry - Leamington Additional capacity at Leicester. Additional capacity at Leicester proposed Grade-separation of routes at Nuneaton for CP6. to avoid conflict with West Coast Main Capacity improvements and electrification Line. on GWML have been included in Network Additional capacity at Coventry, Rail’s plans for Control Period 5 (2014-19), particularly new platform if services are but are currently “on hold” pending terminating. review. Oxford – Coventry electrification proposed Additional capacity at Oxford. 124 Electrification Leicester to Oxford via as part of “Electric Spine” project for Leicester and Great Western Main Line implementation in CP5 or CP6, but priority (GWML). against other phases of this project unclear. Remodelling of Oxford station proposed for CP6.
58 | P a g e
Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Destination Estimated Output Improvements Required Current Status GVA (£m p.a.) Thames Valley 13.4 Hourly service via East West Rail (Bedford Additional capacity at Leicester station. Additional capacity at Leicester proposed – Oxford) Additional capacity on MML between for CP6. Kettering and Bedford. Capacity and capability improvements and Completion of East West Rail (EWR) electrification on MML included in “Western Section” between Oxford and Network Rail’s plans for Control Period 5 Bedford, including improved connections (2014-19) or identified as potential between EWR and MML. candidate schemes for Control Period 6 Additional capacity at Oxford. (2019-24), but are currently “on hold” Electrification of MML, EWR and Great pending review. Western Main Line (GWML). Oxford – Bletchley reopening and electrification currently in development phase for opening in 2019. Bletchley – Bedford upgrading and 125 electrification proposed for CP6, but at relatively early stage. No firm proposals regarding improved connections at Bedford yet developed. Manchester 9.1 At least hourly, either new local service, Additional capacity at Leicester. Additional capacity at Leicester proposed new London service or by extension of Remodelling and resignalling at Derby to for CP6. MML electrification to Sheffield is existing London – Sheffield service). provide additional capacity. in Network Rail’s CP5 plans, but currently May be routed direct via Dore South Electrification of MML. “on hold” pending review. curve, via Sheffield, or via reopening of Resignalling and improvements on Hope Derby resignalling is in CP5 plan, and Matlock – Chinley line. Valley line (Dore to Chinley) or reopening further remodelling proposed for CP6. of Matlock – Chinley route to provide Capacity improvements (but not full additional capacity. resignalling) on Hope Valley route Electrification of route to Chinley and included in “Northern Hub” project in CP5. Chinley to Hazel Grove, unless bi-modal Electrification of Hope Valley being (electro-diesel) traction provided, or examined in Network Rail South Yorkshire service is diesel-operated as local Leicester Route Study. – Manchester. Reopening Matlock – Chinley not currently proposed. Previous studies indicate would not be straightforward project.
59 | P a g e
Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Destination Estimated Output Improvements Required Current Status GVA (£m p.a.) London 6.9 Sub-60 minute journey time. Increased maximum line speed south of Capacity and capability improvements and At least one additional train per hour. Leicester. electrification on MML included in Electrification of MML. Network Rail’s plans for Control Period 5 (2014-19) or identified as potential candidate schemes for Control Period 6 (2019-24), but are currently “on hold” pending review. Leeds and North 6.4 At least hourly, either new local service, Additional capacity at Leicester. Additional capacity at Leicester proposed East England new London service or by extension of Remodelling and resignalling at Derby to for CP6. existing London – Sheffield service). provide additional capacity. MML electrification to Sheffield is in May be routed via Derby, Nottingham or Electrification of Erewash Valley route if Network Rail’s CP5 plans, but currently Toton. service routed via Nottingham or Toton “on hold” pending review. 126 Extension of MML electrification north of Derby resignalling is in CP5 plan, and Sheffield to East Coast Main Line, unless further remodelling proposed for CP6. bi-modal (electro-diesel) traction Electrification from Sheffield to East Coast provided, or service is diesel-operated as Main Line via both Doncaster and Leeds local Leicester – Leeds - Newcastle. being considered, but no firm proposals at present regarding implementation dates. Sussex via 4.0 Extension of some Thameslink services to Electrification of MML. Capacity and capability improvements and Thameslink Leicester to provide cross-London through Additional rolling stock, to long-distance electrification on MML included in trains to Gatwick Airport, Brighton and/or standards & specification (potential use of Network Rail’s plans for Control Period 5 Sevenoaks. existing Thameslink commuter-type stock (2014-19) or identified as potential is considered undesirable in view of candidate schemes for Control Period 6 distances involved). (2019-24), but are currently “on hold” pending review. New Thameslink stock on order, but is of high-density layout and may be unsuitable for Leicester services.
60 | P a g e
Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy
Destinat ion Estimated Output Improvements Required Current Status GVA (£m p.a.) Norwich 1.5 Additional hourly service, giving improved Additional capacity at Leicester. Additional capacity at Leicester proposed half-hourly frequency to Melton Mowbray, for CP6. Oakham and Peterborough. Burton-upon- 0.34 Hourly or half-hourly Leicester – Burton Rebuilding Leicester – Burton freight line No detailed investigative work currently in Trent service, either new local service or new to full passenger standards. Potential progress or planned. London service. works include resignalling, increased GVA value identified appears unlikely to maximum line speed, re-doubling parts of support major investment required. existing single line and new stations at least at larger centres of population. Reinstatement of north curve at Knighton Junction likely to be required if journey times are to be competitive. Extensive earthworks likely to be required 127 in view of known sub-structure problems on the route.
61 | P a g e
This page is intentionally left blank 129 Agenda Item 13
CABINET – 17 JUNE 2016
LEICESTER TO BURTON RAILWAY LINE
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
PART A Purpose of the Report
1. The purpose of this report is to present to the Cabinet the outcomes of the latest study work, jointly commissioned by the County Council and North West Leicestershire District Council, to investigate the case for the reintroduction of passenger services on the Leicester to Burton Railway Line (L-B Line) and to recommend the Cabinet to confirm the County Council’s position in light of the findings of this.
Recommendation
2. It is recommended that:
(a) The Cabinet notes the overall findings of the latest study work concerning the reintroduction of a passenger service on the Leicester to Burton railway line, with particular reference to the following key findings:
(i) It would represent poor value for money; (ii) The capital and revenue costs are of a scale such that they could not be afforded by the County Council or a combination of local authorities; (iii) There is no prospect of developing a strong business case to secure funding from central government; (iv) There is no realistic prospect of Network Rail or HS2 Ltd. funding the capital costs nor of the future operating costs being absorbed into a future rail franchise;
(b) In the light of the findings of the latest study work, the County Council should undertake no further investigatory work on the proposal at this time.
Reason for Recommendations
3. The recent publication of the draft Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy has only served to heighten interest amongst the general public, local elected representatives and many other stakeholders about the proposal of reopening the L-B Line to passenger traffic. Thus, it is important that the County Council confirms its position on the proposal in light of the findings of the latest study work.
130
Timetable for Decisions (including Scrutiny)
4. This report was considered by the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 9th June 2016 and its comments will be reported to the Cabinet.
Policy Framework and Previous Decisions
5. In September 2009, the Cabinet considered the findings of a study, commissioned by the County Council, into the possible reintroduction of passenger services to the L-B Line. The Cabinet agreed the County Council’s position as one of accepting that the reintroduction of passenger services was a valid long-term aspiration, but that no further action be taken by the Council for the time being, in view of the likely financial impacts.
6. The third Leicestershire Local Transport Plan (LTP3), approved by the County Council in March 2011, contains six strategic transport goals. Goal 1 is to have a transport system that supports a prosperous economy and provides successfully for population growth.
7. On 1st March 2016, the Cabinet considered the outcomes of work undertaken to develop a draft rail strategy for Leicester and Leicestershire (including HS2), noting that the work to reinvestigate the potential reopening of the L-B Line to passenger traffic was still ongoing and that a separate report would be brought to the Cabinet once this work had been completed.
8. The Environment and Transport Interim Commissioning Strategy, approved by the Cabinet on 19th April 2016, contains an action to use the Rail Strategy to influence Network Rail’s programmes including consideration of reopening the L-B Line to passenger services.
Resource Implications
9. The study work has been jointly funded by the County Council (from within existing budgets), North West Leicestershire District Council, and the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP) at a total cost of £55,000.
10. The capital and ongoing revenue support costs for reopening the L-B Line to passenger traffic would be of such a scale that they could not be met by the County Council or a combination of local authorities. Such costs would need to be met by central government through the submission of a robust business case demonstrating sound value for money in terms of transport economics and wider economic benefits. The study has identified that such a business case could not be produced.
11. The Director of Corporate Resources and the Director of Law and Governance have been consulted on the content of this report.
Circulation under the Local Issues Alert Procedure
12. A copy of this report has been circulated to all Members in North West
131
Leicestershire District and those Members in Hinckley and Bosworth and Blaby Districts where the Leicester to Burton railway line either runs through or immediately borders their electoral division.
Officers to Contact
Phil Crossland, Director Environment and Transport Tel: (0116) 305 7000 Email: [email protected]
Ann Carruthers, Assistant Director for Highways and Transport Environment and Transport Department Tel: 0116 305 7966 Email: [email protected]
132
PART B
Background
13. Since the L-B Line closed to passenger services in 1964 it has operated and been maintained as freight only. As shown at Appendix A1, it passes through Coalville and Ashby-de-la-Zouch and close to Swadlincote (in Derbyshire). It is subject to major subsidence problems, which have resulted in the imposition of numerous speed restrictions; the maximum permissible speed is 45mph, but certain sections of track are currently permanently limited to no more than 20mph.
14. Such low speeds are not appropriate for passenger services as they result in long and uncompetitive journey times. Significant remedial works would be required before speeds could be raised, as would changes to signalling to reliably accommodate a frequent, regular-interval passenger service, along with possible works to level crossings (of which 11 have been identified along the route) and increased clearances through overbridges. Lastly, it would be necessary to reinstate the east-to-north connection to the Midland Main Line at Knighton Junction south of Leicester Station (see Appendix A2). The former alignment has been sold and redeveloped.
15. The 2009 study concluded that the cost of upgrading would be around £55 million (including optimism bias1). Overall, the scheme achieved a Benefit Cost Ratio – BCR – (the criteria by which major transport infrastructure projects are considered by the Department for Transport) of 0.4, which is categorised as ‘poor’. It also concluded that there would be a need for an operating subsidy of £4 million per year.
16. In September 2009 the Cabinet decided that the County Council should take no further action in respect of the line’s reopening to passenger traffic. However, since then the landscape – in respect of the rail industry, political attitudes towards rail and the rail scheme appraisal processes – has changed markedly. Today, there is arguably a more pro-rail agenda, reflected in moves towards a devolution of rail powers (e.g. in Northern England), HS2 proposals, and changes to Network Rail’s planning process away from analysing what can be done with existing capacity to a more customer-orientated analysis of future requirements through to 2043.
17. In the light of the changed landscape and of ongoing public, political and stake- holder interest, the County Council and North West Leicestershire District Council jointly commissioned a new study to reinvestigate the case for the line’s reopening to passengers. Led by consultants AECOM it has used the Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model (LLITM) and other modelling tools. The findings are summarised below and at Appendix B. A full copy of AECOM’s report is attached at Appendix C. The results have been peer reviewed by consultants SLC, who prepared the draft Rail Strategy.
2015/16 Study Findings
18. The study report explains that results are sensitive to particular assumptions (high- lighted in this report) and that the current LLITM version is limited for the purposes used. Nevertheless, officers are confident that the latest findings provide a firm foundation on which to base recommendations to the Cabinet.
1 Costs of public sector schemes have historically been under-estimated. Thus, HM Treasury requires 'optimism bias’ to be added to the estimated costs of major infrastructure projects. 133
Initially tested Local and Strategic Options
19. The 2015/6 study work initially considered:
Local Option: Leicester – Burton (similar to 2009 study): Hourly service calling at Swadlincote, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Coalville, Leicester Forest East (LFE) and Leicester Western Park (LWP). 2-car train with line speeds increased to 45 mph where currently less than this; and
Strategic Option: London - Burton via Leicester: Hourly service calling at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Coalville and LWP. 4-car train and line speeds increased to 45 mph where currently less than this. (This option was considered in light of the capacity opportunities offered by the proposed Midland Main Line improvements and HS2.)
20. Simulations were undertaken to estimate likely journey times and Tables 1a and 1b summarise the results.
Station Distance Local Option Strategic Option (miles) Arr (min) Dep (min) Arr (min) Dep (Min) Leicester 0 0 0 LWP 4.0 8 8.5 -(a) -(a) LFE 5.6 11 12 10(a) 11.5(a) Coalville 16.1 27 27.5 26 27.5 Ashby 23.5 38 39 38 39.5 Swadlincote 26.1 43.5 44 - - Burton 30.9 52 50.5
Table 1a: Journey times Leicester to Burton
Station Distance Local Option Strategic Option (miles) Arr (min) Dep (min) Arr (min) Dep (Min) Burton 0 0 0 Swadlincote 4.8 8 8.5 - - Ashby 7.4 13 14 11.5 13 Coalville 14.7 24.5 25 23.5 25 LFE 25.2 39.5 40.5 39.5(a) 41(a) LWP 26.9 43.5 44 -(a) -(a) Leicester 30.9 52 50.5 (a) Initially LFE was chosen as the station for the Strategic Option (rather than LWP). Subsequently, as the demand forecasts emerged, the decision was taken to swap these stations in this option. This did not alter the conclusions of the study. Table 1b: Journey times Burton to Leicester
21. End-to-end journey times range between 50 to 52 minutes and Table 2 compares travel times to/from Burton and Coalville to Leicester by different travel modes:
134
Journey Time by Mode (mins) Rail Bus(a) Car(b) Local Strategic Leicester to Burton(c) 52 50.5 na 64 Leicester to Burton(c) 52 50.5 na 48 Leicester - Coalville 27 26 43 26.5 Coalville - Leicester 27 25.5 50 26.5 Sources (a): ARRIVA service 29x timetable (accessed 29/04/16) (b): AA Route Planner, free flow (off-peak) time (accessed 29/04/16) (c): Via M1/A50/A38 Table 2: Comparative journey times
22. The Local and Strategic rail option offer journey times that are comparable with the free flow time by car and are significantly quicker than travel by bus. (At peak traffic times the comparison with the time taken by car would be even more favourable.) In reality these journey times would be unlikely to be attractive to car drivers but there would be a significant likelihood of passengers swapping from bus to rail.
23. The study also looked at estimated passenger flows. Table 3 shows the forecast levels for 2016 (assumed opening year) and 2031 (15 years after opening). To put these figures into context, the total number of journeys (i.e. effectively single journeys multiplied by two) to and from Mansfield Station was 538,000 in 2015.
Option Annual single journeys 2016 2031 Local 364,374 535,237 Strategic 301,894 443,785
Table 3: Forecast annual single journeys initial options
24. It can be seen from Tables 1a to 3 that whilst the Strategic Option gives marginally quicker journeys, as a result of stopping at two fewer stations, it attracts fewer passengers than the Local Option. This is because passenger numbers generated by onward linkages to London are insufficient to off-set the impacts of fewer stops.
25. Given the lower levels of estimated passenger usage, the Strategic Option is forecast to provide less transport benefits than the initially tested Local Option. Further, its revenue generation (fare income) would also be less, whilst its operating cost would be significantly higher than the Local Option, because of the need to use a train-set that is of a suitable standard to operate an ‘intercity’ service.
26. Thus it has not been possible to generate a positive BCR for the Strategic Option. The Strategic Option performs worse than the service option that was considered in the 2009 study work2 (which had a BCR of 0.4) and would be assessed by the Department for Transport (DfT) as offering poor value for money.
27. Consequently, no further work was undertaken on the Strategic Option. There is no prospect of making a strong transport business case nor is it likely to be an option that would appeal commercially to train operating companies.
28. A further complication would be that a service to London via the L-B Line would
2 Hourly service serving Bede Island; LFE; Kirby Muxloe; Coalville; Ashby; Moira; and Castle Gresley. 135
have to be operated using a diesel powered train-set, which would operate via the electrified Midland Main Line post-2023. This would add to train operator’s costs, i.e. the need to retain a diesel ‘intercity’ fleet of train sets operating over an otherwise electrified route.
29. On the face of it, the outcomes for the initially tested Local Option appear to be more favourable, it proving possible to generate a positive BCR. However, this has only been achieved by assuming capital costs of a magnitude significantly less than the forecast cost range for the scheme. In practice, the initially tested Local Option also has a poor BCR, i.e. is poor value for money. Table 4 summaries the findings.
BCR value Assumed capital cost Forecast capital Percentage to achieve BCR(a) cost range difference(c) 1.0 £22.9m £100m - £120m +480% 1.5 £8.9m +1236% (a) Including optimism bias and 35% mode transfer from car (b) Assuming mid-point of cost range Table 4: Comparison of BCR vs. forecast capital costs initial Local Option
30. The capital cost range for the scheme is considerably higher than estimated in 2009 (around £55m). There are several key reasons for this, including:
the pricing of major rail schemes has become more risk averse in recent years; the most recent estimate is based on a more thorough understanding of the state of the route (including discussions with Network Rail); and construction inflation since 2009.
31. The latest costings have been informally peer reviewed by SLC Rail, Network Rail and East Midlands Trains and benchmarked against recently completed/proposed rail projects to ensure that they are realistic. Recent examples are given in Table 5.
Scheme Length Cost Total Per mile Borders Rail 30 miles £294million £9.8million Kettering to Corby 7 miles £110million £15.7million track rehabilitation Sharnbrook to 16 miles £197 million £12.3million Kettering additional line Leicester to Burton 31 miles £100 - £175 million(a) £3.2 to £5.6million (a) Depending on option Table 5: Capital cost benchmarks
32. In respect of the revenue cost, the initially tested Local Option is forecast to require a subsidy (i.e. difference between fare revenue and operating costs), of between £1.7m to £2.2m per annum. Whilst this is less than that estimated for the service option tested in 2009 (annual subsidy of around £4m per annum), it is nevertheless in excess of what the County Council could afford to fund (or any other authority in Leicestershire) given the severe pressures on local authority budgets.
33. Notwithstanding the findings in respect of the initial Local Option’s poor value for
136
money and the ‘unaffordable’ revenue costs, to ensure a thorough analysis of the proposal to reopen the line to passenger traffic was undertaken additional Local Service Options have been explored. The intention was to understand whether increases in service frequency and/or line speed might be sufficient to increase the potential attractiveness of the service and in turn increase levels of transport benefits and fare revenue.
Further Local Options tested
34. Three further Local Service Options were examined, all based on the same rolling stock assumptions (i.e. a 2-car train). These were as follows:
Local Service Option with 2 trains per hour at 45mph Local Service Option with 1 train per hour at a maximum 75 mph Local Service Option with 2 trains per hour at a maximum of 75 mph
35. Increasing the line speed to a maximum of 75 mph reduces the end-to-end journey time by 10 minutes to around 42 minutes in both directions. Journey times Leicester to Coalville are reduced to 22 minutes. With reference to Table 2, this is a saving of 10 minutes Burton to Leicester and 5 minutes from Coalville to Leicester in comparison with the initial Local Option, and makes the travel time more competitive against the same journey by car or by bus.
36. In respect of the estimated passenger flows that the further Local Service Options might attract, these are set out in Table 6.
Option Annual single journeys 2016 2031 Local Option with 2 trains per hour 45mph 563,617 828,517 Local Option with 1 train per hour 75 mph 447,596 657,965 Local Option with 2 trains per hour 75mph 645,718 949,205
Table 6: Forecast annual single journeys further Local Options
37. The prospect of increasing the line speed to 75mph, thus reducing the overall journey time, and increasing service frequency do have a significant impact on estimated levels of passenger usage in comparison to the initially tested Local Option, with estimated increases of between 23% and 77% dependent on the Service Option.
38. Despite these forecasted increases, none of the further Local Options tested generate a sufficiently stronger BCR; each represent poor value for money in DfT business case terms. Increasing the line speed to 75mph and/or adding an additional train increases the estimated capital costs of the scheme; for example, this includes further work to the track and signals to enable higher speed running or additional passing loops to provide for two trains to pass. Table 7 summarises the position.
137
BCR value Assumed capital cost Forecast capital Percentage to achieve BCR(a) cost range difference(c) Local 2 trains per hour 45 mph 1.0 £20.6m £110m to £130m +583% 1.5 £0.0m(c) - Local 1 train per hour 75 mph 1.0 £37.9m £140m to £160m +396% 1.5 £21.0m +714% Local 2 trains per hour 75mph 1.0 £47.2m £155m to £175m +350% 1.5 £19.0m +868% (a) Including optimism bias and assuming 35% mode transfer from car (b) Assuming mid-point of cost range (c) In other words, the scheme cost would need to be zero in order to achieve a BCR of 1.5 Table 7: Comparison of BCR vs. forecast capital costs further Local Option
39. In respect of the revenue costs, each of the further Local Options tested is forecast still to require a subsidy of between £1.3m and £4.2m dependent on the option.
40. The latest study has also analysed the potential increase in the number of house- holds required in order to generate sufficient passengers to remove the need for a subsidy; all Local Options have been analysed. For reference, this demand has been converted into an estimated number of additional households and Journeys required in the study corridor. The results are show in Table 8.
Option Number of Number of Additional Additional households(a) Journeys Initial option Local Option 1 train per hour 45mph 178,000 – 845,000 – 191,000 900,000 Further options Local Option with 2 trains per hour 45mph 245,000 – 1,800,000 – 258,000 1,890,000 Local Option with 1 train per hour 75 mph 126,000 – 730,000 – 138,000 800,000 Local Option with 2 trains per hour 45mph 196,000 – 1,645,000 – 208,000 1,745,000 (a) Data suggests around 60,000 current households within the corridor Table 8: Estimate of additional households and journeys required to eliminate subsidy
41. The figures quoted in Table 8 are based on the assumption of achieving a zero subsidy in year one of a passenger service operation. The latest study report shows that the level of subsidy required deceases over time and thus so does the level of additional households and journeys required to breakeven. So, at ten years after opening the number of additional households reduces to a range of 62,000 to 206,000 and additional journeys to a range of 360,000 to 1,505,000, dependent on the Local Service option.
42. Whichever time period is considered, however, there are at present no plans that would envisage anything like the scale of housing development that would be
138
required within North West Leicestershire, or in other districts along the line, to achieve such scales of household increases necessary to eliminate the need to subsidise this operation.
Wider Economic Benefits
43. In addition to the traditional way of appraising a transport project the Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy looked at the wider economic benefits of rail options for Leicestershire in terms of Gross Value Added. The study identified that the potential economic benefits to Leicestershire of rail connectivity between Leicester and Burton are £0.34m pa which over a 60-year project life would have a present value of circa £8.5m. As such it would not be an attractive proposition for the Government to invest in excess of £100 million for such a limited economic benefit.
Alternative non-train (heavy rail) options
44. A ‘tram-train’ has been suggested as a cheaper alternative to conventional heavy rail services. The real advantage of tram-train lies in combining an ability to run relatively long distances on conventional rail networks at speeds commensurate with attractive and viable journey times. Whilst the costs of upgrading the L-B Line and the operating costs could potentially be less than a heavy rail, if the strengths of tram-train operation are to be exploited, then it would need to enter town and city centres via street and/or reserved track running.
45. While this would provide an attractive service, for example giving direct access to the commercial heart of Leicester City Centre from the station, a key question is whether the additional generated revenue would cover the base cost of building a Leicester city tramway from scratch. The same question would arise in respect of extension into Burton and/or other centres of population along the route.
46. If tram-train was ever to be considered as an option, the L–B Line would cease to be a straightforward rail passenger service reintroduction project, and would become a much wider light rail network project in its own right, with all the attendant costs and complexities that this would involve.
Conclusions
47. There has for some time been considerable interest from the general public, local elected representatives, business representatives and other stakeholders in the proposal to reopen the L-B Line to passenger traffic. This has been heightened by the recent publication of the draft Leicester and Leicestershire Rail Strategy.
48. The findings of the original 2009 study demonstrated that there was no apparent business case for the L-B Line’s reopening to passenger traffic.
49. The latest study work has thoroughly re-examined the potential case for the line’s reopening. It has gone well beyond the scope of the 2009 work by exploring both Strategic and Local service options (5 options in total); looking at differing levels of train operating speeds and numbers of trains per hour and the likely scale of households that would be required along the line’s route for a passenger service to operate without revenue support.
139
50. The findings confirm and reinforce the findings of the 2009 study. For all options tested, the estimated capital and revenue costs associated with the line’s reopening are well beyond those that could be afforded by the County Council or any other local authority (or combination thereof).
51. There is no case to be made either in DfT business case terms or economic growth terms, with all options representing poor value for money. A Single Local Growth Fund bid would also be unsuccessful, not least because for a project of this size the LLEP’s assurance framework reflects the DfT’s business case approach. In addition, in the light of the findings of this latest work (completed after publication of the Environment and Transport Interim Commissioning Strategy3), there is no realistic prospect of Network Rail or HS2 Ltd funding the capital costs nor of the future operating costs being absorbed into a future rail franchise
52. Notwithstanding the findings of the latest study work, it should be noted that AECOM’s report concludes with a suggestion that further investigatory work may be beneficial to robustly support decisions relating to the progress of the scheme; AECOM cite that use of the updated version of LLITM (which should become available later this year) may result in higher forecast demand (and thus benefits), and that a bottom-up costing exercise may reduce the capital costs.
53. However, officers are of the view that there would be little to be gained by doing this. Passenger demand levels would have to increase markedly to achieve a breakeven operating position. Even if that were to be the case, the capital costings have already been informally peer reviewed and benchmarked, and shown to be considerably below those for recently completed/proposed rail projects.
54. Thus, whilst it is recognised that there are those who might still aspire to see the L- B Line reopened to passenger traffic, the evidence suggests that it would not be productive for the County Council to undertake further investigatory work on the proposal at this time.
55. Should there be any significant change in circumstances that might affect the conclusions reached here further reports will be made to the Cabinet as appropriate.
Equality and Human Rights Implications
56. There are no equality and human rights implications arising from the recommendations in this report. The reopening of the L-B Line to passenger traffic could potentially help to meet the social and economic needs of residents of settlements along the route. However, no detailed assessment has been done at this time, and this would only be necessary should the proposal have a significant chance of ever being realised in practice.
Background Papers
Report to the Cabinet - 8 September 2009 “Leicester to Burton Railway Line” http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135&MId=2687&Ver=4
3 The Environment and Transport Interim Commissioning Strategy contains an action to use the Rail Strategy to influence Network Rail’s programmes including consideration of reopening the L-B Line to
passenger services. 140
Report to the County Council – 23 March 2011 “Final Draft Local Transport Plan (LPT3) Proposals (2011-2026)” http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=134&MId=3057&Ver=4
Report to the Cabinet – 1 March 2016 “Development of a Rail Strategy for Leicester and Leicestershire” http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135&MId=4600&Ver=4
Report to the Cabinet – 19 April 2016 “Environment and Transport Interim Commissioning Strategy” http://politics.leics.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=135&MId=4601&Ver=4
Appendices
Appendix A1 and A2 Route of Leicester to Burton Railway Line Appendix B Summary of ‘break even’ position Appendix C AECOM Leicester – Burton Rail Passenger Service Final Report
141 Appendix A(i)
This page is intentionally left blank 143 Appendix A(ii)
This page is intentionally left blank 145 Appendix B
Leicester to Burton rail passenger service – 2016 report Summary of ‘break even’ position
Options Scheme Predicted Max. Increase ‘Break even’ on Revenue 2016 capital in cost annual costs to demand Est. Est. demand achieve required additional additional (single BCR1 to households journeys journeys) achieve required in (breakeven) Required in BCR1 year 1 (2020) year 1 (2020)
Strategic
Option: Data not 301,894 Data not Data not Data not Data not Hourly available available available Available Available service 4-car train See See See See See paragraphs paragraphs paragraphs paragraphs paragraphs 45mph 25 and 26 25 and 26 of 25 and 26 25 and 26 of 25 and 26 of of this this report of this this report this report report report
Local £100m 178,000 845,000 364,374 £22.9m +79% 1tph to to to 45mph £120m 191,000 900,000
Local £110m 245,000 1,800,000 2tph to 563,617 £20.6m +59% to to 45mph £130m 258,000 1,890,000
Local £140m 126,000 730,000 1tph to 447,596 £37.9m +84% to to 75mph £160m 138,000 800,000
Local £155m 196,000 1,645,000 2tph to 645,718 £47.2m +49% to to 75mph £175m 208,000 1,745,000
This page is intentionally left blank 147 Leicestershire County Council May 2016 and North West Leicestershire District Council
Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger Service Final Report
148
Prepared by: ...... Checked by: ...... Alda Metrass Caroline Moore Senior Consultant Associate Director Caroline Moore Associate Director
Approved by: ...... Andy J Coates Regional Director
Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger Service
Rev No Comments Date 1 Working draft 15 June 2015 2 Draft 25th August 2015 3 Inclusion of additional options 15th September 2015 4 Inclusion of wider benefit analysis – Draft Final Report 6th October 2015 5 Final report including client comments 9th May 2016 6 Final Report with addition of passenger numbers to Table 6.5 18th May 2016
AECOM House, 63-77 Victoria Street, St Albans, Hertfordshire AL1 3ER Telephone: 01727 53 5000 Website: http://www.aecom.com
Job No 60430416 Date Created October 2015
This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited for the sole use of our client (the “Client”) and in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM Limited and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM Limited, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM Limited.
149
Table of Contents
1 Background ...... 5 1.1 Introduction ...... 5 1.2 Client Requirement ...... 6 1.3 Deliverables ...... 6 1.4 Additional Analysis...... 6 1.5 Report and Business Case Structure ...... 6 2 Review of Previous Studies ...... 9 2.1 Introduction ...... 9 2.2 Review of the Scott Wilson Report ...... 9 3 Option Definition and Specification...... 14 3.1 Introduction ...... 14 3.2 Approach to Defining Options ...... 14 3.3 Outline of Proposed Schemes ...... 15 3.4 Local Service Option ...... 16 3.5 Strategic Service Option ...... 18 3.6 Run Time Analysis ...... 21 3.7 Additional Options...... 27 4 Scheme Costs ...... 33 4.1 Context ...... 33 4.2 Operating Costs ...... 33 4.3 Additional Options...... 35 4.4 Additional Work – Generation of High Level Capital Costs ...... 35 5 Demand Modelling ...... 39 5.1 Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model (LLITM) ...... 39 5.2 Modelling Constraints – LLITM v5.2 ...... 40 5.3 Model Outputs ...... 40 5.4 Scheme Revenue Forecasts ...... 46 5.5 Additional Options...... 47 5.6 Taking the Scheme Appraisal Forward: Modelling Limitations and Resolutions ...... 49 6 Scheme Appraisal ...... 52 6.1 Overview ...... 52 6.2 Demand and Revenue Inputs ...... 52 6.3 Mode Transfer Benefits ...... 53 6.4 User Time Benefits ...... 53 6.5 Costs and Optimism Bias ...... 54 6.6 Appraisal Outputs ...... 54 6.7 Additional Options - Appraisal Outputs ...... 55 6.8 GVA Outputs ...... 56 6.9 Analysis of the Appraisal Outputs ...... 57 6.10 Subsidy Requirements ...... 59 7 Conclusions and Next Steps ...... 63 7.1 Introduction ...... 63 7.2 Approach and Findings ...... 63 7.3 Emerging Scheme Business Case ...... 67 7.4 Conclusions ...... 69 Appendix A: Tables ...... 71
150
Executive Summary
AECOM was commissioned by Leicestershire County Council (LsCC) and North West Leicestershire District Council (NWLDC) to revisit the business case for the re-introduction of rail passenger services along the Leicester to Burton-upon-Trent Line, which is currently a freight only operation. In carrying out this study, two service concepts for the route were identified, a “Local Service” running between Leicester and Burton serving a number of intermediate stations and a “Strategic Service” which would connect Burton and a smaller number of intermediate stations, directly with London via Leicester. As the work progressed, additional tests were specified as variants of the Local Option to test the effects of increased line speed and service frequency to inform the ongoing progression of the scheme. Methodology A series of workstreams were identified in order to develop the study methodology. A timetabling exercise identified the end-to-end journey times and operational and infrastructure requirements for each service option. This informed the operating cost model, developed based on a combination of data from East Midlands Trains and our own industry knowledge. The resultant costs benchmarked well against other studies. The fact that the proposed rail passenger service would be serving completely new markets meant that existing standard rail industry demand forecasting tools were inappropriate and therefore a more bespoke model was required. Use was therefore made of the Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model (LLITM). However, it has to be acknowledged that use of the current version of this model contained a number of forecasting constraints, many of which will be resolved or improved in the next version of the LLITM model which is due to be completed in 2016. As a result, some caution needed to be applied when interpreting the demand and revenue results, which might be considered to be understated. A bespoke appraisal model was developed in line with current WebTAG appraisal guidance, which incorporates the outputs from the LLITM model and the operating cost model. This generated the benefits for each of the scheme options, and ‘reverse engineered’ the level of capital costs that could be accommodated for each option in order to generate milestone Benefit Cost Ratios (BCRs). These were subsequently compared to high level indicative capital costs that were developed later during the study. Results The LLITM model forecast annual rail demand for two forecast years across all options appraised, as presented in the table below. Analysis of the results demonstrates the increases in demand attributable to improved service provision.
151
Number End-to-end Annual Demand Service Option of Journey (single journeys) Pattern Stations Time 2016 2031 5 1 tph / 45 mph 52 mins 364,374 535,237 5 1 tph / 75 mph 43 mins 447,596 657,965 Local 5 2 tph / 45 mph 52 mins 563,617 828,517 5 2 tph / 75 mph 43 mins 645,718 949,205 Strategic 3 1 tph / 45 mph 51 mins 301,894 443,785
The forecasts associated with the Strategic Option are slightly lower than for the equivalent Local Option, indicating that the removal of two stations has a greater negative impact on demand than the increased demand of providing a through service to London. The operating costs for the Strategic Option however were some 87% higher than for the equivalent Local Option. Therefore, it was considered extremely unlikely that an appropriate business case could be identified for the Strategic Option and therefore the study then focused on the development of the Local Option around different potential service patterns. The graph below summarises the emerging business case position for each version of the Local Option and milestone BCR, in terms of the anticipated range of capital cost budget available in order to generate that BCR (red lines) and also the estimated high level capital cost estimate (brown boxes).
Capex Estimate
Capex Estimate
Capex Estimate Capex Estimate
152
For example, in order to obtain a BCR of 1.5 for the 75mph/1tph option, the capital cost would have to be between £20m and £45m. However, the initial high level capital cost estimation for this option is between £140m and £160m. Based on the indicative capital costs outlined above, the annual demand forecasts would have to increase by circa 50% for the 2tph options and 80% for the 1 tph options to achieve a breakeven BCR of 1.0, and essentially double for a BCR of 1.5. Our appraisal analysis has also provided an initial indication of the likely levels of ongoing annual revenue support that may be required, which is estimated to be £1.5m to £2m per annum for the hourly service pattern options (and nearer to £2m+ in the initial three years). Where the service frequency is doubled the revenue support would be in the region of £4m per annum. Wider economic benefits (GVA impacts) have also been determined for the four Local Option variants. The annual GVA values are estimated to be between £0.3m and £1.0m per annum depending on the service pattern. Conclusions The findings from this study suggest that the level of benefits that could be generated by the scheme will not be enough to cover the costs of the scheme in order to produce a positive business case. The gap between the benefits and costs becomes even greater when considering key ‘milestone’ BCRs. It should, however, be noted that this conclusion is based on a set of demand forecasts which we consider may well be understating the levels of demand for the scheme. In addition, the capital costs are based on an initial high level costing exercise that has been quickly undertaken for the purposes of informing this study. Therefore, whilst it could be concluded that the increase in demand (and thus benefits) that would be required in order to generate a BCR over 1.5 would need to be significant and is unlikely to be realistically achievable, further work may be beneficial to robustly support decisions relating to the progress of the scheme. In particular, use of the updated LLITM model may generate additional demand and a detailed bottom-up costing exercise may reduce the capital costs (and possibly reduce the use of a 66% optimism bias factor too). For example, an increase in demand of around 40% to 50% coupled with a reduction in the capital costs of 40% to 50% could get close to achieving a BCR of around 1.5.
153
1 Background
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger154 Service – Final Report 5
1 Background
1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 The Leicester-Burton line is currently a freight-only line that passes through the towns of Coalville and Ashby-de-la-Zouch and passes close to Swadlincote. The proposal is to introduce rail passenger services on this route and therefore a business case is required. 1.1.2 Following discussions with Leicestershire County Council (LsCC) and North West Leicestershire District Council (NWLDC), it has become apparent that there is an immediate requirement to revisit the business case for a new rail passenger service on the Leicester- Burton line. The Councils acknowledged the requirement to develop the business case for the scheme in line with DfT guidance1, but confirmed that there were pressing political reasons to firstly understand what the emerging economic business case might be specifically for the new rail service. 1.1.3 It is over six years since the previous business case was developed and the rail industry, political landscapes and rail scheme appraisal processes have changed considerably since then. There is arguably a more pro-rail agenda today, reflected in the early moves towards a devolution of rail powers in the North of England and in the West Midlands, development of HS2 in the longer term and the change in direction of Network Rail’s planning process away from analysing what can be done with existing capacity to a more customer-orientated analysis of future requirements through to 2043. 1.1.4 The key objectives of this study are: To identify the scale of the potential business case for re-opening the Leicester-Burton line to rail passenger services; To test two differing service concepts for the route, firstly the concept of a local service running between Leicester and Burton serving a number of intermediate stations and secondly a strategic service which would connect Burton, and a smaller number of intermediate stations, with London via Leicester; and The outcome of this work will inform LsCC and NWLDC in ongoing discussions within local and regional government, such as Midlands Connect, and also with rail industry stakeholders, such as with Network Rail (East Midlands Route Study) and HS2. 1.1.5 The timescales to produce a new business case for the rail scheme were challenging and therefore the methodology applied made best use of available data and modelling tools. This has been achieved, although it is set out where this presents constraints in terms of the level of forecasting/appraisal accuracy. 1.1.6 It is also worth noting that this study does not develop a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), as the development of capital costs is not included in the scope2. However, an alternative approach has been adopted to undertake a ‘reverse engineered’ appraisal, whereby the level of capital cost required in order to generate milestone BCRs (such as 1.5 and 2.0) would be identified.
1 Our first proposal submitted to LsCC set out the methodology to develop the Strategic Outline Business Case for the scheme in line with DfT appraisal guidance. This rightly focusses on the ‘Strategic Case’ for the scheme, something that might be better informed once the parallel Leicestershire Rail Strategy study has been progressed. 2 Although subsequent analysis requested by the Client during the study was undertaken to identify high-level capital costs in order to inform the ongoing scheme development discussions.
AECOM Leicester - Burton155 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 6
1.2 Client Requirement 1.2.1 AECOM has been appointed by LsCC and NWLDC to carry out a re-appraisal of a new rail passenger service between Leicester and Burton-upon-Trent based on the following core tasks: Confirming scope and objectives; Reviewing previous work; Defining and confirming rail service options; Preparing and running the Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model (LLITM) in order to generate demand forecasts; Developing scheme operating costs; Developing a scheme appraisal model; and Reporting.
1.3 Deliverables 1.3.1 The key deliverable is a demand and appraisal report, which sets out the inputs, assumptions, outcomes, conclusions and caveats associated with the work undertaken.
1.4 Additional Analysis 1.4.1 Following on from the original scope of work, additional analysis was identified through ongoing discussions with the Client during the study to test further enhanced options with the objective of maximising the potential benefits through enhanced service provision. New tests were therefore undertaken which examined increased frequency, an increase in assumed line speeds and a combination of the two. The results from this additional analysis have been incorporated into this Report accordingly. 1.4.2 In addition, during the course of this study, and following discussion with the client, it was agreed that AECOM would undertake a high-level costing exercise based on the emerging infrastructure requirements identified via the train planning exercise. The need for this additional work became apparent in order to inform the ongoing debate around whether the scheme as a whole is likely to be able to generate a sufficiently robust business case and is therefore worth pursuing.
1.5 Report and Business Case Structure 1.5.1 The remainder of the report is structured as follows: Chapter 2 presents a review of the previous work summarising the study undertaken by Scott Wilson3 in 2009 in order to better understand how each of the core components of
3 Ivanhoe Line Stage II Scheme Re-Appraisal Final Report, Scott Wilson, April 2009
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger156 Service – Final Report 7
the business case were developed. This helped inform the current study and served as a useful benchmark. Chapter 3 summarises the assumptions underpinning the specification of the options and the timetabling analysis which has been undertaken. Chapter 4 sets out the scheme costs, including the development of the operating cost model, input data and assumptions. Chapter 5 describes the LLITM modelling which has been undertaken. This includes a summary and discussion of the outputs of the modelling. Chapter 6 sets out the inputs, assumptions and results of the scheme appraisal. Chapter 7 presents the conclusions and next steps.
157
2 Review of Previous Studies
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger158 Service – Final Report 9
2 Review of Previous Studies
2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 The purpose of this chapter is to review the previous work undertaken by Scott Wilson4 in order to better understand how each of the core components of the business case, i.e. demand, revenue, economic benefits, operating costs and capital costs were developed. The report by Scott Wilson contains the most immediately relevant material and its review helped inform the current study and served as a useful benchmark. 2.1.2 The Scott Wilson report estimated a demand5 of circa 350,000 single journeys per annum, which contributed to a BCR (Benefit Cost Ratio) of 0.4. The Scott Wilson report calculated that between 500,000 and 600,000 journeys might be required in order to generate a ‘breakeven’ BCR (i.e. a BCR of 1.0), given their assumptions around the costs. 2.1.3 ATOC (Association of Train Operating Companies) undertook a high level analysis of potential new rail schemes across the UK in 20096, one of which was a new rail service between Burton and Leicester. The demand forecasting was at a very high level (trip rates applied to populations), but the exercise served to demonstrate that a positive business case (in this case a BCR of 1.3 was quoted for the scheme) might be achievable.
2.2 Review of the Scott Wilson Report Option Specification 2.2.1 The study analysed the impact of an hourly service running between Leicester and Burton as part of an extended Lincoln to Leicester service which also covers the Ivanhoe Stage I stations between Loughborough and Leicester. The assumed service was a local stopping service that would run for sixteen hours per day, six days per week, from Monday to Saturday. It would serve seven new stations between Leicester and Burton: These are Bede Island; Leicester Forest East; Kirby Muxloe; Coalville; Ashby-de-la-Zouch; Moira; and Castle Gresley. Planned Development 2.2.2 Scott Wilson took into account planned and committed developments along the corridor. At the time, exact details of these developments were unavailable, but broad indications of new dwellings located in the area were provided by the client. For forecasting demand from new development, the study only took into account development that had, at that time, an approximate location. The assumption was made that two thirds of the housing allocation would be located within the defined station catchment areas. 2.2.3 The study also considered that all the planned development would be completed by the time the scheme was assumed to open, i.e. full realisation would be achieved by 2015.
4 Ivanhoe Line Stage II Scheme Re-Appraisal Final Report, Scott Wilson, April 2009 5 Base year demand generated by the intermediate stations in 2008 6 “Connecting Communities – Expanding Access to the Rail Network”, ATOC June 2009
AECOM Leicester - Burton159 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 10
Demand Estimation 2.2.4 Scott Wilson estimated the annual demand using a multi-variable regression trip rate model sourced from the Scottish Strategic Rail Study (SSRS). The model, which is not specifically focused on any given spatial area, had been used by Scott Wilson on several pre-feasibility stages of railway appraisals to provide a high-level demand forecast. 2.2.5 For demographic data, Scott Wilson used data from the latest available Census at the time of the study. 2001 Census data for the economically active population was used and growthed to 2008 on the basis of employment forecasts. 2.2.6 The catchment area used for the modelling considers two radii 0.8 and 2.8km from the station. Scott Wilson acknowledges that these might be considered relatively tight and that larger catchment areas have been used in other railway patronage studies. 2.2.7 Base year patronage for the line was estimated by adding demand from existing populations to demand from a proportion of the planned development with an assigned location. 2.2.8 Scott Wilson estimated a base year patronage of 174,000 journeys generated in total by the intermediate stations, which translates into 350,000 single journeys per year7. Applying their assumed growth (circa 3% per annum) leads to the base demand of 549,000 in 2026 quoted in Table 14.7 in their report. 2.2.9 Tourist demand was not included in the appraisal, although it was calculated that this could potentially account for more than 16,000 trips per year. It was however noted that much of this demand could be expected on non-service days, as most tourists are likely to visit the area during weekends and the option appraised by Scott Wilson did not include a Sunday service. Revenues 2.2.10 Revenues were estimated using average fares from existing published information. Applying this to the assumed average distance travelled by the forecast journeys resulted in an average fare of £3.65 per journey, leading to a base year forecast annual revenue of £635,000 per annum for the line8. Annual Passenger Growth 2.2.11 Scott Wilson estimated annual passenger growth using historic passenger flow data associated with Leicester Station (2001/02 to 2003/04), sourced from the MOIRA model9. These data showed an average growth of 9% per annum for Leicester station. However, on the basis that Leicester has a larger catchment and different demographics, Scott Wilson erred on the side of caution and used 3% growth per annum for patronage on the line.
7 It is not made clear in the report whether the estimated demand does in fact represent a two-way journey. This is the conclusion we have reached from reviewing the analysis. It is therefore assumed every journey generated makes a return journey 8 It is not made clear in the report whether the average fare calculated represents a single or return fare. The application of this fare to the forecast demand might lead us to conclude that it is assumed to be an average return fare, although one could consider this to be a low value for a return fare. 9 MOIRA is a rail industry tool which provides revenue, mileage and journeys by service group and ticket type and can be used to model, via the application of standard rail industry demand elasticities, the effects of timetable changes on each of these.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger160 Service – Final Report 11
Passenger Distribution 2.2.12 The report derived passenger distribution from Census Journey-To-Work data. 2.2.13 The estimated demand from each of the stations was assigned to the above distribution to obtain the pattern of movements through the study area. These were then converted to vehicle movements and, finally, annual vehicle kilometres of travel and vehicle hours of time saved were estimated. These were subsequently used to estimate vehicle operating cost (VOC) savings and decongestion benefits, using WebTAG values. 2.2.14 This approach might be considered to have produced conservative economic benefits as the average delays applied were sourced from a study which was outdated and no growth rates appear to have been applied to the value of decongestion benefits into the future. Operations 2.2.15 The Scott Wilson report acknowledged that the Knighton Chord, south of Leicester, would be essential. The reinstatement of Knighton Chord would require changes to the existing signalling and that the main constraints on capacity could potentially exist at Derby and Leicester. 2.2.16 The scheme assumed an estimated end-to-end travel time of 55 minutes between Leicester and Burton-upon-Trent assuming 7 intermediate stations and line speeds raised to 45 mph where current speeds are less than this. 2.2.17 For an hourly service interval, the study estimated that the minimum number of train sets required to deliver the service would be 3. This number could be reduced to 2 by extending the Lincoln to Leicester service on to Burton and thus avoiding turnaround time at Leicester. This was deemed to be the most cost effective way of providing the service. Operating and Capital Costs 2.2.18 Scott Wilson estimated total annual operating costs of £3.5m. In the appraisal, this increased to £4.9m with optimism bias10 applied. For the capital cost estimate, Scott Wilson reviewed the 1997 Leicestershire County Council report and then adjusted this to reflect their scheme specification in order to generate an estimated capital cost of £33.1m (in 2008 prices). This estimation included the reinstatement of trackwork including the Knighton Chord and double track as far as Bede Island and between Coalville and Lounge Junction as well as seven new stations and the upgrading of over 8km of track to ensure 45mph operation.
10 Optimism bias is a factor applied to capital costs in line with Government appraisal guidance. It addresses uncertainty and possible evidence for optimism in scheme cost determination, with higher factors applied at earlier stages of a project, when a project is less developed and refined.
AECOM Leicester - Burton161 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 12
Economic Analysis 2.2.19 Scott Wilson developed a Restricted Cost Benefit Analysis (RCBA) based on a spreadsheet model. In terms of benefits, only those relating to direct rail revenues, road decongestion and vehicle operating cost savings were calculated. This means that benefits relating to user time savings, modal shift (safety and environmental) were not calculated. On the costs side, indirect taxation impacts and renewals and replacement costs don’t appear to have been incorporated into the RCBA. 2.2.20 Scott Wilson assumed that capital costs would be partly covered by developers that would potentially contribute towards capital costs with approximately £200,000 per year for a 10-year period around the construction phase. 2.2.21 Results from the RCBA indicated that the scheme delivers poor value for money and it is unable to cover its operating costs without subsidy. A negative Net Present Value (NPV) of - £71m and a Benefit Cost Ratio of 0.40 were estimated for the scheme. 2.2.22 The report suggested that a full CBA could yield more positive benefits such as modal shift, road safety benefits and wider economic benefits. On the other hand, a more detailed and wide ranging analysis of costs, particularly capital costs, could potentially mitigate the very low BCR to some extent. In order to test for these hypotheses, the report recommended that a multi-modal modelling exercise and full Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) appraisal is carried out. 2.2.23 The economic analysis examined further the impact of diverting a greater proportion of the planned housing growth in Leicestershire to locations within the new station catchments along the line. In order to conduct this analysis, Scott Wilson created several scenarios bounded by different development assumptions. 2.2.24 Scott Wilson re-calculated the RCBA for 10% to 66% of this planned development being realised within the proposed station catchments. The upper development limit was the only one which could deliver a BCR above 1 if costs excluded optimism bias. When costs are adjusted for optimism bias, the estimated value of the BCR was 0.70 (with 66% planned development located within the station catchments). What can be inferred from this analysis was that a breakeven (in BCR terms) demand would require between 500,000 and 600,000 single journeys (base year), which could not realistically be achieved as it would be unlikely that there would be enough land available to accommodate the required level of additional housing.
162
3 Option Definition and Specification
AECOM Leicester - Burton163 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 14
3 Option Definition and Specification
3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 One of the initial tasks was the definition and specification of the options to appraise. This section documents the approach to undertaking this, the schemes which have been assessed and the analysis of run times and anticipated infrastructure requirements11. 3.1.2 It is important to note that at this stage of the analysis, the key objective of the study was to establish whether it is likely that a business case can be made for a Leicester Burton rail passenger service, and therefore two broad rail service concepts were defined. 3.1.3 These two service concepts were identified as a ‘Local Option’ and a ‘Strategic Option’, and the development of these is documented in this Chapter. As part of further refinement, a number of additional options were developed based on the Local Option and including higher frequencies, higher speeds and a combination of speed and frequency increases. These are documented in Section 3.7.
3.2 Approach to Defining Options 3.2.1 Two initial core rail service option concepts were discussed with the client, both of which needed to be analysed: a local service between Burton and Leicester, calling at a number of new stations en route. a more strategic service with a limited number of stops linking Burton with Leicester and onto London. 3.2.2 The detail associated with each of them needed to consider the following points and be finalised and confirmed with the client: station-to-station journey times, which were dictated by the assumed line speeds; service frequency levels, whether they should be hourly or half-hourly, taking into consideration what could be accommodated by the existing infrastructure; the number of new stations, which was determined by a review of the previous Scott Wilson study coupled with the latest growth plans for the corridor to assist in defining where the new stations might be located; start and end points for the service, for example whether services travel beyond Burton to Derby and whether the service could be linked to the existing Lincoln-Nottingham-Leicester service, etc. 3.2.3 Clearly, therefore, a number of variant sub-options around these two broad service pattern concepts were possible. However, there was a requirement to keep these to a manageable level in order to achieve the study timescales.
11 Noting that the generation of capital costs was not part of the original study remit
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger164 Service – Final Report 15
3.3 Outline of Proposed Schemes 3.3.1 The figure below shows the rail alignment between Leicester and Burton-upon-Trent, which is currently used for freight. This shows the proposed location of stations for passenger rail services for the local and strategic rail services, each of which is discussed in more detail below. The Scott Wilson study12 identified seven stations between Leicester and Burton. However, after considering these in relation to the location of existing population and planned growth in the corridor, with one eye on maintaining a competitive rail journey time, it was considered that five stations would be appropriate as a starting point for the local option. Figure 3.1: Leicester Burton Rail Alignment
12 Ivanhoe Line Stage II Scheme Re-Appraisal Final Report, Scott Wilson, April 2009
AECOM Leicester - Burton165 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 16
3.3.2 In terms of defining the options to test, it was important to understand what the future ‘base’ situation will be, and how the strategic service option in particular, can be accommodated. Whilst it was recognised that this study is testing the concepts of local and strategic services, it is important to reflect options which have some basis in reality. The key relevant known facts relating to rail in the future include: At the initial stage of this study, during option definition, Midland Main Line (MML) electrification was committed and scheduled to start running in 2019. This would remove diesel services between London and Leicester and therefore the service options took this into account. However, during the course of the analysis, the electrification of the MML has been paused by the DfT. This has now been re-instated, albeit with phased delivery and longer timescales. It is likely that additional capacity will be provided through Leicester before electrification, including two more platforms proposed at Leicester Station, which will ease termination of trains at Leicester, dependent upon delivery of Network Rail’s proposed Leicester capacity improvements. However the East Midlands Route Study suggests 6 fast trains per hour (tph) and 2 stopping tph between Leicester and London will use this additional capacity in the longer term. The East Midlands Trains franchise process will begin in early 2016, and the new franchise is expected to start in October 2017. The existing Leicester signalling was re-controlled from Derby a few years ago but this did not affect trackside functionality. However, the re-signalling needed before electrification would allow the best opportunity to incorporate layout changes. 3.3.3 The above issues have positive and negative effects on the possibility of a London service. It is plausible to imagine having extra London trains after re-signalling and electrification remove some of the capacity constraints, especially as Leicester does not benefit from HS2. However, as these will be electric trains, there would be the need to electrify the Leicester-Burton line, use dual mode trains or continue to run diesels on some London services.
3.4 Local Service Option 3.4.1 An hourly service between Leicester and Burton-upon-Trent has been assumed, mainly as this has been the core proposition for the previous studies undertaken and its implementation would be less constrained by the infrastructure (sections of single track) and rolling stock (availability) limitations that exist. A half-hourly frequency in the peaks has been considered as a sensitivity test, and is documented in Section 3.7.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger166 Service – Final Report 17
3.4.2 Intermediate stations have been assumed at: Swadlincote: Located at Castle Gresley where the A444 crosses the line. This is not ideally located for serving Swadlincote, so may have to be marketed as a park and ride site. Ashby-de-la-Zouch: Located at the site of the old station in central Ashby. Coalville: Located just south of the level crossing on Hotel Street. Leicester Forest East: Located where Station Road crosses the line. This is located to serve proposed major development in the area as well as Kirby Muxloe and Kirby Fields, and Leicester Western Park: Located where the line crosses the Leicester ring road (A563). Locations closer to central Leicester were considered, but these become less attractive locations when compared to the alternative bus and walk options available. 3.4.3 A station at Moira, serving the National Forest Centre, was initially considered, but rejected. This was a station proposed in the previous Scott Wilson study but the demand forecasts were poor. In our view, there is a balance to be struck in developing a business case for a scheme between accessibility to rail services and attractive journey times. In this case, it was felt that an additional station close to Swadlincote runs the danger of contributing to a poorer overall business case for the scheme and that the case for this station should be separately justified if desired. 3.4.4 It is noted that a significant proportion of the current alignment is single track (circa 55% of the route). This is not a constraint necessarily at the Leicester end, especially if the train terminates there, but may be more of an issue towards the centre of the line. High level train service planning and the determination of potential run times which has been undertaken as part of this study is reported in section 3.6 and considers the infrastructure requirements to achieve a given level of service. For the journey time determination the same working assumption is assumed as used previously – namely that existing line speeds are used wherever possible, but where this is less than 45mph then the line speed is assumed to be raised to 45mph. In terms of the Knighton Curve, the radius was determined and a maximum speed of 20 mph was assumed. 3.4.5 The operation of class 156 (2-car) rolling stock has been assumed, an example of which is shown to the right. These are currently in operation with East Midlands Trains and operate their local services across their network. 3.4.6 There is an allowance for one freight path per hour irrespective of direction in the assumptions. It is recognised that, given the number of current freight services on the line, as set out in paragraph 3.6.14, this is likely to be an over provision. Nonetheless, this assumption has been retained for planning purposes.
AECOM Leicester - Burton167 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 18
3.4.7 A final consideration is station capacity. At Leicester, it has been assumed that there would be no issues relating to platform availability, either by combining with other services or assuming additional station capacity. However, potential operational conflicts arising at Burton-upon- Trent station are foreseen, as it only has two through platforms13. For the purposes of testing the concept of a local service option, it has been assumed that the services could be accommodated (this may require the re-instatement of the south-facing bay platform in practice). Local Service Option Provision of an hourly service between Leicester and Burton-upon-Trent, calling at intermediate stations at Swadlincote, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Coalville, Leicester Forest East and Leicester Western Park. Class 156 (2-car) rolling stock and line speeds to 45 mph where they are currently less than this.
3.5 Strategic Service Option 3.5.1 The Strategic Option has been designed to provide a guide as to the potential viability of a longer distance service option linking Burton to London via Leicester. As with the local service definition, an hourly service has been assumed. For this option, the assumed number of stations en route has been reduced compared to the local service option, recognising that this is a more strategic option but at the same time still acknowledging there is a key role for the service to serve local journeys into Leicester. Therefore, the Strategic Option was assumed to call at three stations, namely Ashby-de-la-Zouch (Swadlincote being dropped on the basis that demand from Swadlincote might consider using Ashby, given the relatively poor location of Swadlincote station), Coalville and Leicester Western Park (on the basis that one station in the western Leicester area is retained). 3.5.2 Whilst the specification for the Local Service Option was reasonably straight forward (and compares to work done in previous appraisals), a viable Strategic Service Option presented more difficulties in terms of specification. The starting position was to consider a number of options, some more viable than others, and these are summarised below:
13 However, the previous Scott Wilson study did not appear to acknowledge this as a potential operating constraint.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger168 Service – Final Report 19
Table 3.1: Strategic Service Options Strategic Description For Against Service Option
1 New hourly Would be a fifth train per hour Potential capacity issues for this service diesel from Leicester to London and at the moment on the MML (the view is it service would generate significant ‘could’ be squeezed in), but potential train Burton- benefits particularly between path once MML electrified Leicester- Leicester and London which Would mean diesel operation under the London are not necessarily related with wires once MML electrified Burton-Leicester Additional operating costs incurred to Network Rail Route Study has London identified need for additional capacity to cater for demand in Would require the use of MOIRA to model the future the benefits between Leicester and London Requires reversal at Leicester
2 Split and No additional train path Would mean that one MML service join at required between London and remains diesel operated north and south Leicester, Leicester of Leicester once MML electrified (could using an be a wider MML capacity impact?) Lowest additional operating existing costs of these options Ability to split and join at Leicester Leicester- (performance impacts)? London Would not require any MOIRA service modelling Outside of the peaks, no MML services are currently operated by two trains joined
together
3 Leicester to Avoids capacity issues on Requires reversal at Burton London via MML Would require a new curve at Whitacre Burton and Quicker journey time from Junction or Tamworth Nuneaton Burton to London? (alternative Unlikely that journey times would be route Burton to Nuneaton benefits attractive (i.e. people would probably avoiding (new direct service) interchange at Leicester anyway)? MML Capacity issues on WCML south of issues) Nuneaton (and between Burton and Nuneaton?) Introduces diesel mileage under wires on WCML Would require us to use MOIRA to model the benefits between Nuneaton and London
AECOM Leicester - Burton169 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 20
3.5.3 The East Midlands Route Study suggests that a sixth train per hour on the MML will be required to support growth in Northamptonshire, particularly Wellingborough and Kettering. At the moment, this is identified as a Corby service, therefore providing 2 tph London to Corby. Option 1 in the table above essentially suggests that this service operates to Burton via Leicester instead, thus still serving the Northamptonshire towns (apart from Corby). Some initial high level operational analysis suggests that this service could be squeezed in, but that more detailed train service planning (outside the scope of this study) would be required in order to establish this more thoroughly. 3.5.4 This would have to assume diesel operation as the assumption is that the Leicester-Burton corridor would not be electrified14. In practice, therefore, it has been assumed that this service would be operated by a 4-car class 222, an example of which is shown to the right, which in turn means that longer platforms will have to be assumed at the proposed stations between Burton and Leicester (compared to the Local Service Option). 3.5.5 It was considered that Option 3 in the table above could be discounted because it does not provide an attractive service proposition and has no real operational benefits. 3.5.6 For modelling and appraising the Strategic Service Option the following was assumed: To determine the demand/revenue and benefits associated with this option generated specifically between Burton and Leicester only. Compared to the Local Service Option therefore, the differences will be related to providing a direct service to London (and other stations south of Leicester) from Burton and the intermediate stations, plus the impacts of calling at fewer stations between Burton and Leicester. To model the incremental operating costs of providing the service between Burton and Leicester only. 3.5.7 The modelling and appraisal of this option has NOT therefore assumed the following: The net benefits/costs of diverting this train at Kettering from Corby to Leicester (assuming Option 1 in the table above). The net benefits/costs of this service remaining a diesel operation on the MML (assuming either Option 1 or 2 in the table above). 3.5.8 In terms of journey times, this option assumed the same line speeds as per the Local Service Option. However, with two fewer stations there will be a small reduction in the end-to-end journey time between Burton and Leicester.
14 There would be the possibility of using bi-mode trains at some point in the future – as planned to become operational on the East Coast Main Line (IEPs). However, this remains a possibility only at this stage and thus we have not proposed modelling this specifically.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger170 Service – Final Report 21
Strategic Service Option Provision of an hourly service between London and Burton-upon-Trent via Leicester calling at intermediate stations at Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Coalville and Leicester Western Park. To be operated by a 4-car class 222 trainset that continues to London by either operating as a sixth train on the MML or by splitting/joining at Leicester. Either way, a diesel service would need to be operated on the MML. For the purposes of this appraisal exercise, only costs and benefits generated between Burton-upon-Trent and Leicester have been included.
3.6 Run Time Analysis 3.6.1 This section discusses the options for an hourly passenger service between Leicester and Burton-on-Trent. The proposed rail service would operate on the Midland Main Line between Leicester and Knighton Junction (LN3201), freight line between Knighton Junction and Leicester Junction (LN3525) and Birmingham to Derby Cross Country route between Leicester Junction and Burton-on-Trent (LN3501). A new curve north of Knighton Junction would be required to link Leicester station with the freight only line. 3.6.2 The core timetables tested were: The initial Local Service between Leicester and Burton-on-Trent running at current speeds; The initial Local Service between Leicester and Burton-on-Trent running at 45mph on the renovated freight line;15 The initial Strategic Service between Leicester and Burton-on-Trent running at 45mph on the renovated freight line. 3.6.3 It was assumed that the strategic service will call at new stations at Leicester Forest East16, Coalville and Ashby-de-la-Zouch, with the local service also stopping at Leicester Western Park and Swadlincote. 3.6.4 It was assumed that class 156 trains will be deployed for the Local Service Option and class 222 units for the Strategic Option. The local alternative was tested for existing line speeds and rehabilitation to 45 mph, whilst the strategic service was only modelled for the improved line speed. Dwell times at intermediate stations were assumed to alternate between 30 and 60 seconds for the local service, and 90 seconds for the strategic service, due to the slow door operation of Class 222 trains.
15 About 25% of the line (track miles) is currently 20mph running. The assumption has been, based on previous studies undertaken, that the 20mph sections would be rehabilitated to 45 mph running in line with the rest of the route. 16 Initially Leicester Forest East was chosen as the station for the strategic service to call at (rather than Leicester Western Park). This was therefore the assumption made at the study’s train planning stage. Subsequently, as the demand forecasts emerged, the decision was taken to swap these stations in this option. This did not alter the conclusions from the train planning exercise.
AECOM Leicester - Burton171 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 22
3.6.5 This analysis did not undertake any investigation into the work needed to upgrade the track, signalling and structures on the line to be capable of accommodating 45 mph running. Analysis of the track curvature evidenced that the line’s geometry does not constrain maximum speeds under that threshold, with potential requirements to adjust the track’s cant in some instances. Links with the Midland Mainline (Leicester) and Cross Country line (Burton-upon-Trent) are assumed to be limited to 20 mph (new junction) and 15 mph (existing junction) respectively. The new curve south of Leicester is considered to have an approximate radius of 225 metres with a maximum cant of 100 mm and 20 mph junctions. 3.6.6 In total, 27.1km of the route was identified for potential increasing line speeds to 45mph (56% of the route). 3.6.7 Run time simulations have been performed using ARTEM, an AECOM tool developed to model unconstrained rail journey times. This tool has been successfully applied across a significant number of Network Rail projects. The analysis presented in this section is based on information included in Network Rail’s Working Timetables, Sectional Appendices, Timetable Planning Rules and Five Mile Plans. 3.6.8 Run time simulations have been performed to estimate unconstrained station to station timings for each option, engineering allowances of 30 seconds at each main line junction have been added to the journey times in all cases. Table 3.2 below shows simulation times for the down services, Leicester to Burton-on-Trent. Table 3.2: Down Timings Local service Local service Strategic service
Current sp., Cl156 45 mph, Cl156 45 mph, Cl222 arr dep arr dep arr dep Station Distance from LEI (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) Leicester 0 mi / 0 km 0 0 0 Leicester 4.0 mi / 6.4 km 8 8.5 8 8.5 - - Western Park Leicester 5.6 mi / 9.0 km 11 12 11 12 10 11.5 Forest East Coalville 16.1 mi / 26.0 km 30 30.5 27 27.5 26 27.5 Ashby-de-la- 23.5 mi / 37.8 km 44 45 38 39 38 39.5 Zouch Swadlincote 26.1 mi / 42.0 km 51 51.5 43.5 44 - - Burton-on-Trent 30.9 mi / 49.7 km 59.5 52 50.5
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger172 Service – Final Report 23
3.6.9 Table 3.3 summarises the results for the up simulations, from Burton-on-Trent to Leicester. Table 3.3: Up Timings Local service Local service Strategic service
Current sp., Cl156 45 mph, Cl156 45 mph, Cl222 Distance from arr dep arr dep arr dep Station BUT (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) Burton-on- 0 mi / 0 km 0 0 0 Trent Swadlincote 4.8 mi / 7.7 km 8 8.5 8 8.5 - - Ashby-de-la- 7.4 mi / 11.8 km 15 16 13 14 11.5 13 Zouch Coalville 14.7 mi / 23.7 km 30 33.5 24.5 25 23.5 25 Leicester 25.2 mi / 40.6 km 51.5 52.5 39.5 40.5 39.5 41 Forest East Leicester 26.9 mi / 43.2 km 55.5 56 43.5 44 - - Western Park Leicester 30.9 mi / 49.7 km 63.5 52 50.5
3.6.10 The run time simulations indicate that it would take 60 minutes (down) and 64 minutes (up) for a class 156 to run between Leicester and Burton today. Improving the line speeds to 45 mph would reduce these run times to 52 minutes (both directions)17. The use of class 222s and removal of two stations further reduces the end-to-end run time to 50.5 minutes (both directions). 3.6.11 Line capacity analysis has been undertaken to identify rolling stock requirements by option and assess the need for passing loops or additional infrastructure. Whilst both main line sections at each end are double track, the goods line has 26 km (16.1 miles) and 21.4 km (13.3 miles) of single and double track lines respectively. Line headways have been extracted from Network Rail’s Timetable Planning Rules (where no information is available, a five minute headway has been assumed). 3.6.12 Main line capacity has not been considered as the freight line is the main objective of this analysis. Leicester to Burton-on-Trent passenger trains have been assumed to take available paths on the Midland and Cross Country routes. 3.6.13 Level crossing operational impacts have not been investigated, as the small number of trains operating on the line (up to 3 tph in total) would generate minor delays at level crossings. These have been considered acceptable for the characteristics of roads crossing the rail track at grade.
17 This benchmarks well against the Scott Wilson timings of 55 minutes with 7 stations.
AECOM Leicester - Burton173 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 24
3.6.14 Since typically between seven and thirteen freight trains operate on the goods line from 06:00 to 23:0018, a two-hourly freight service frequency (0.5tph) in each direction was considered sufficient for the freight movement requirements. Freight journey times were extracted from the Working Timetable (WTT), noting that pathing allowances needed to be revisited for combined freight/passenger operation. For the 45mph alternative it was assumed that freight trains will require an additional 15% time to cover the route compared to the non-stop class 156 journey time. Goods trains were considered to operate between Knighton Junction (Leicester) and Leicester Junction (Burton) only. 3.6.15 Figures 3.2 to 3.4 below show traingraphs for the identified scenarios consisting of one path an hour and direction for passenger services and 0.5 freight trains an hour and direction. This information is also presented in Table 3.4. Present day speeds on the freight line underpin the requirement for three passenger train units leading to poor turnaround times at Burton-on- Trent. Improving the line speed enables cutting the rolling stock requirement to two units, whilst optimising turnaround time and therefore reducing platform time requirement. It is estimated that an eight minute turnaround time at each end will be adequate to operate this service if the line is rehabilitated to 45mph. However this is towards the minimum for reliable operation with two train sets, so the operating costs of this option are sensitive to journey time. Table 3.4: Train Graph Analysis by Scenario Strategic Local service Local service service Parameter Current speed 45 mph 45 mph Class 156 Class 156 Class 222 Passenger units 3 2 2 needed Freight loops 2 or 3 1 or 2 1 or 2 Burton-on-Trent 52 min 8 min 9.5 min turnaround time Leicester turnaround 6 min 8 min 9.5 min time
18 Source: Network Rail’s Working Timetable (WTT) and analysis of actual trains that have operated
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger174 Service – Final Report 25
Figure 3.2: Train Graph Local Service (Current Line Speed) 19
Figure 3.3: Train Graph Local Service (Rehabilitated Line Speeds)
19 It has been assumed that up freight trains can be speeded up removing the need for a passing loop between Western Park and Knighton Junction
AECOM Leicester - Burton175 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 26
Figure 3.4: Train Graph Strategic Service(Rehabilitated Line Speeds)
3.6.16 Analysis of train paths demonstrates that it is possible to run the proposed passenger service without the requirement to re-double any existing single track sections. Therefore single platform stations could be assumed at Leicester Forest East and Leicester Western Park, whilst two platform stations would be required at Swadlincote, Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Coalville. 3.6.17 Leicester station currently has four platforms, with additional platforms under consideration albeit east of the existing tracks. The reduced usage of platform four confirms its potential to serve the local passenger service. It may be possible to divide it into two sections 4a and 4b for the Burton-on-Trent and Lincoln terminating local trains by adjusting the track’s signalling. In the case where the strategic service is taken forward it is envisaged that no additional platforms will be needed to accommodate this service. 3.6.18 Platform space at Burton-on-Trent is constrained as there are currently only two through platforms. If the freight line is not rehabilitated a dedicated south facing bay platform would be necessary for the new passenger train. If the line is upgraded to 45mph circulation, then the turnaround of the service at one of the two through platforms (requiring 8 to 10 minutes) would be very restricted20 and therefore it is our view that a new south facing bay platform is desirable in all cases. The site of the former south facing bay platform has not been altered substantially since closure, except for infilling to platform level. Therefore construction of a new platform for 2-car class 156 trains at the station seems feasible, with further platform lengthening needed for a 4-car train.
20 Initial analysis suggests a maximum 15 minute window between trains at any point in the hour on one of the through platforms at Burton (current 2015 timetable).
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger176 Service – Final Report 27
3.6.19 Freight paths have been adjusted to maximise the use of existing loops, although detailed engineering inspection would be required to confirm that the infrastructure is adequate to cater for freight services using some of these loops that exist. In the current speeds option, loops for overtaking goods trains would be needed at Bagworth Junction and Mantle Lane SB and also somewhere between Western Park Station and Knighton Junction (however it is felt that freight trains operating in the up direction could be accelerated removing the need for the latter passing loop). For the 45mph options, two passing loops at Mantle Lane SB should be brought into service (they exist, but might require refurbishment/upgrading to cater for the traffic) to accommodate two freight trains per hour (one in each direction), whilst a single loop would be suitable to accommodate one freight train hour (irrespective of direction).
3.7 Additional Options 3.7.1 Following the reporting of the two core options described above, two potential service improvements were identified with the client for further consideration with a view to maximising benefits and improving the scheme’s business case. These were: Maximum 75 mph operation on the line: This has used ARTEM to determine the maximum possible line speeds by section of line, up to a maximum of 75 mph. This analysis takes into consideration limitations relating to curvature, gradient and number of stations served. Doubling the service frequency to 2 tph: This has used ARTEM to identify potential impacts on journey times and to identify where possible additional infrastructure would be required (eg: further passing loops). 3.7.2 Taking the considerations above and based on the Local Service Option – which was generating a better appraisal result than the Strategic Option (refer to Section 6.6) – and using the same rolling stock assumptions, a further three options were therefore identified: Local Service Option with maximum 75 mph Local Service Option with 2 tph Local Service Option with 75 mph and 2 tph 3.7.3 The outputs from the run time analysis of the higher speed (maximum 75 mph) are presented in Tables 3.5 and 3.6.
AECOM Leicester - Burton177 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 28
Table 3.5: Down Timings – Higher Speed Local service Local service Local service
Current sp., Cl156 45 mph, Cl156 75 mph, Cl156 arr dep arr dep arr dep Station Distance from LEI (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) Leicester 0 mi / 0 km 0 0 0 Leicester 4.0 mi / 6.4 km 8 8.5 8 8.5 7 7.5 Western Park Leicester Forest 5.6 mi / 9.0 km 11 12 11 12 10.5 11.5 East Coalville 16.1 mi / 26.0 km 30 30.5 27 27.5 22 22.5 Ashby-de-la- 23.5 mi / 37.8 km 44 45 38 39 31 32 Zouch Swadlincote 26.1 mi / 42.0 km 51 51.5 43.5 44 35.5 36 Burton-on-Trent 30.9 mi / 49.7 km 59.5 52 42.5 Note: the additional analyses have focused on the Local Option only and no assessment has been made of a 75mph Strategic Option.
Table 3.6: Up Timings – Higher Speed Local service Local service Local service
Current sp., Cl156 45 mph, Cl156 75 mph, Cl156 Distance from arr dep arr dep arr dep Station BUT (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) (min) Burton-on-Trent 0 mi / 0 km 0 0 0 Swadlincote 4.8 mi / 7.7 km 8 8.5 8 8.5 6.5 7 Ashby-de-la- 7.4 mi / 11.8 km 15 16 13 14 11 12 Zouch Coalville 14.7 mi / 23.7 km 30 33.5 24.5 25 20 20.5 Leicester Forest 25.2 mi / 40.6 km 51.5 52.5 39.5 40.5 31 32 East Leicester 26.9 mi / 43.2 km 55.5 56 43.5 44 35 35.5 Western Park Leicester 30.9 mi / 49.7 km 63.5 52 42.5
Note: the additional analyses have focused on the Local Option only and no assessment has been made of a 75mph Strategic Option. 3.7.4 A further 9.5 minutes can be shaved off the end-to-end journey time, compared to the 45mph option, by improving line speeds up to a maximum of 75mph. Coalville to Leicester would become 22 minutes, compared to 30 minutes with no line speed improvements and 27 minutes if line speeds are brought up to 45mph.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger178 Service – Final Report 29
3.7.5 In determining the journey times, the maximum theoretical speed on each section has been calculated (up to a maximum 75mph) according to the track geometry and service stopping patterns. It is however assumed that the existing mainline infrastructure at either end of the route would not need to be upgraded to allow higher speeds since there is limited scope to reduce running times there. Overall the track geometry does not significantly constrain running speeds. The slowest sections are the transitions from double to single track and vice versa where trains are slowed down to between 50 and 60 mph. No track realignment has been considered. It should also be noted that no cant21 information is available between Lounge Junction and Knighton West Junction. In this case, a 50mm cant for curves in this section has been assumed, which is the average cant between Leicester Junction and Lounge Junction. 3.7.6 In total, 46.8km of the route (98%) was identified for line speed improvements up to a maximum 75mph. In most cases this was to 60/65mph, with just one four mile section (between Forest East and Coalville) identified for potential 75mph running. 3.7.7 A graphing exercise has been undertaken for each of the additional options so that the likely additional infrastructure requirements could be identified. The consequent train graphs are presented in Figures 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7: 45 mph - 2tph: This requires the use of the existing siding at Mantle Lane – which is the same as per the 1tph option, but also requires approximately 4.5 km of line doubling around Forest East, and therefore a two platform station at Forest East. A total of four Class 156 trains are required. 75 mph - 1tph: In this option the faster journey times removes the requirement to bring the sidings at Mantle Lane into use. As per the 1tph 45mph option, a total of two Class 156 trains are required. 75 mph - 2tph: This requires the use of the existing siding at Mantle Lane and a new freight loop west of Forest East. Around 1 to 2 km of line doubling is also required east of Western Park. A total of four Class 156 trains are required.
21 The cant of a railway track is the difference in elevation (height) between the two rails, usually where a banked curve is provided, which will allow higher speeds to be achieved than if the curve was flat.
AECOM Leicester - Burton179 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 30
Figure 3.5: Train Graph Local Service- 2 Trains Per Hour
Figure 3.6: Train Graph Local Service- Maximum 75 mph
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger180 Service – Final Report 31
Figure 3.7: Train Graph Local Service- Maximum 75 mph and 2 Trains per Hour
181
4 Scheme Costs
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger182 Service – Final Report 33
4 Scheme Costs
4.1 Context 4.1.1 This section sets out the assumptions and forecasts relating to operating costs which have been included in the appraisal. For the avoidance of doubt, this appraisal study did not initially include the development of capital costs. The approach has therefore been to undertake a ‘reverse engineered’ appraisal, whereby the level of capital cost required (and taking into account an appropriate allowance for associated renewals and replacement costs22) in order to generate milestone BCRs (such as 1.0 (i.e. ‘breakeven’) and 1.5) has been identified. 4.1.2 However, during the course of this study, and following discussion with the client, it was agreed that AECOM would undertake a high-level costing exercise based on the emerging infrastructure requirements identified via the train planning exercise (Chapter 3). The need for this additional work became apparent in order to inform the ongoing debate around whether the scheme as a whole is likely to be able to generate a sufficiently robust business case and is therefore worth pursuing.
4.2 Operating Costs 4.2.1 The operating costs include a number of factors. Whilst some of these costs are fixed e.g. station asset/lease charges, others will be based on number of vehicles required and mileage operated in terms of fuel usage and staffing requirements. 4.2.2 Operating costs are developed by applying standard unit cost rates to changes in vehicle miles and to changes in the number of vehicles required. Both of these have been calculated based on the option specification (Chapter 3) and base timetables developed for each option. 4.2.3 East Midlands Trains (EMT) were approached on the basis that they might be able to provide some of the unit cost rates which are particularly relevant to this study. Whilst some data was forthcoming within the timescales, AECOM used information from their own database of rail operating costs to supplement data provided by EMT. The operating cost model therefore took account of: Annual rolling stock lease costs; Rolling stock Network Rail costs (track access, capacity charges); Rolling stock fuel costs; Rolling stock maintenance costs; On train staff costs; Station operating costs; and Other costs (an allowance is made to cover other ongoing costs that are incurred, such as British Transport Police costs and ATOC23 charges).
22 Renewal and replacement costs relate to those costs incurred during the appraisal period (60 years) for the scheme which are not ongoing operating costs. This would include, for example, the replacement of track once it has reached its life expectancy. 23 Association of Train Operating Companies
AECOM Leicester - Burton183 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 34
4.2.4 The new stations on the line were assumed to be unstaffed stations with the basic facilities. On this basis, the station operating costs were assumed to be £50,000 per annum (which includes the Long Term Charge imposed by Network Rail). 4.2.5 A bespoke operating cost model was developed which is able to derive the operating costs for each of the local and strategic options defined in Chapter 3. This is based on DfT’s WebTAG guidance, which is the industry standard guidance for modelling and appraisal, and assumes a 60 year appraisal period, price base of 2010, optimism bias and discount rates as specified in WebTAG. An opening year of 2020 was assumed. 4.2.6 The latest appraisal guidance requires assumptions to be made around the cost of rolling stock leasing, including when new rolling is assumed to replace existing rolling stock, with subsequent increases in costs (and lowering of maintenance costs). 4.2.7 The options tested have been based on the assumption of a seventeen hour day of operation, Monday to Saturday, running at a frequency of 1 train per hour, and assuming 2-car class 156 trains for the Local Option and 4-car class 222 trains for the Strategic Option. No Sunday service has been assumed (as per the previous work by Scott Wilson). 4.2.8 The total additional vehicle miles24 that have been derived from the modelling are: 655,588 vehicle miles for the Local Option 1,311,176 vehicle miles for the Strategic Option 4.2.9 The resultant annual operating costs in 2010 prices are: £3.1m for the Local Option (£73.1m over the 60 year appraisal period, with discounting etc. applied) £5.8m for the Strategic Option (£122.6m over the 60 year appraisal period, with discounting etc. applied) 4.2.10 The Strategic Option costs over 80% more to operate than the Local Option between Burton- upon-Trent and Leicester. This reflects the use of 4 car class 222s as opposed to 2 car class 156s. 4.2.11 The operating costs for the Local Option have been benchmarked against those derived in similar studies where new rail services have been introduced. This benchmarking shows that, given differences in scheme length, there is a lot of compatibility with the annual operating cost derived for this option. In particular, benchmarking of this against the previous Scott Wilson study demonstrated that the output from the current model is very similar to that derived by Scott Wilson previously (£3.1m). This benchmarking has given a degree of assurance that the operating costs are of the right order of magnitude.
24 Vehicle miles relates to the number of vehicles multiplied by miles travelled, and is an input to the operating cost model as this is one element upon which costs are dependent e.g. the derivation of fuel costs depends upon vehicle miles
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger184 Service – Final Report 35
4.3 Additional Options 4.3.1 Two potential service improvements were identified with the client for further consideration with a view to maximising benefits and improving the scheme’s business case. These were: Maximum 75 mph operation on the line; and Doubling the service frequency to 2 tph. 4.3.2 Increasing the line speeds has no impact on the operating costs as the train graphing exercise has demonstrated that the same number of trains are required to operate the service. 4.3.3 Doubling the service frequency clearly will have an impact on operating costs and doubles the amount of rolling stock required to operate the service. Therefore, the annual operating costs for a 2tph operation is estimated to be £5.7m for the Local Option (2010 prices). The doubling of service frequency does not result in a doubling of the total operating costs, as there are some costs which do not vary in response to service frequency (eg: station operating costs).
4.4 Additional Work – Generation of High Level Capital Costs 4.4.1 Paragraph 2.2.19 set out the capital costs assumed by Scott Wilson in their 2009 report. Essentially, this estimate was a re-work of an earlier capital cost estimate from the late 1990s (Leicestershire County Council report, 1997) and then adjusted this to reflect their scheme specification in order to generate an estimated capital cost of £33.1m (in 2008 prices). This estimation included the reinstatement of trackwork including the Knighton Chord and double track as far as Bede Island and between Coalville and Lounge Junction as well as seven new stations and the upgrading of over 8km of track to ensure 45mph operation. 4.4.2 The basis for this cost estimate is now out of date and will not reflect current engineering and costing practices. In addition, the emerging infrastructure requirements for the scheme are likely to differ from that assumed previously. However, to undertake a fresh, detailed, bottom- up engineering costing exercise would require considerable resources/budget, outwith the scope of this study. However, during the course of this study, and following discussion with the client, it was agreed that AECOM would undertake a high-level costing exercise based on the emerging infrastructure requirements identified via the train planning exercise. The need for this additional work became apparent in order to inform the ongoing debate around whether the scheme as a whole is likely to be able to generate a sufficiently robust business case and is therefore worth pursuing. 4.4.3 The train planning exercise discussed in Chapter 3 identified the following core infrastructure requirements across the four service options developed:
AECOM Leicester - Burton185 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 36
Table 4.1: Emerging Infrastructure Requirements
Infrastructure Scheme Option (note: all variants of the ‘Local Option’)
Option 1 Option 3 Option 2 Option 4 1tph/45mph 1tph/75mph 2tph/45mph 2tph/75mph
Knighton Chord
Re-instated bay platform at Burton-on-Trent
Mantle Lane siding extended and refurbished
Line re-doubling: 4.5km near Forest East
Line re-doubling: 1.5km near Western Park
New freight loop west of Forest East
Line speed improvements to 45mph (total 27.1 route km)
Line speed improvements up to 75mph (total 46.8 route km)
5 new stations
Re-signalling
Review of structures
Review of level crossings
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger186 Service – Final Report 37
4.4.4 The findings from the high level capital cost assessment are presented in Table 4.2. They are based on the physical infrastructure requirements identified above and also include standard costs to deliver these infrastructure improvements covering elements such as Network Rail and contractor costs, design costs, preliminaries, testing, possessions, Train Operating Company (TOC) compensation and project management (in total these can constitute circa 35% to 40% of the total costs). 4.4.5 It should be noted that a number of elements are excluded from this cost estimation. These include location specific issues (e.g. dealing with subsidence), any work that may be required at Leicester station, land and property, depots and stabling and any changes to signalling on the existing main lines. The cost of the new stations assumes they are basic with limited facilities and exclude any land and property costs, on the basis that everything can be contained within the cartilage of the railway. Table 4.2: High Level Capital Costs (Q3 2015 Prices)
Option Description Range of Potential Capital Cost
1 1tph/45mph £100m to £120m
2 2tph/45mph £110m to £130m
3 1tph/75mph £140m to £160m
4 2tph/75mph £155m to £175m
The above values do not include contingency/risk or optimism bias
4.4.6 This cost assessment has been carried out to provide a high level indication of capital costs for each option to establish the likelihood of the scheme generating a sufficiently robust business case. It was a desk top study which has been completed without any detailed surveying of the route that would identify the full extent of track rehabilitation required or other location specific elements which may have a capital cost implication. As such, it relies on a number of assumptions, and therefore, the costs outlined above should not be taken as definitive costs.
187
5 Demand Modelling
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger188 Service – Final Report 39
5 Demand Modelling
5.1 Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model (LLITM) 5.1.1 As there is currently no rail service using this line then the use of standard rail demand forecasting tools, such as MOIRA, are not possible in this case25. It has therefore been necessary to consider a bespoke demand forecasting tool and in this case the Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model (LLITM) was available to use. The current working version of LLITM is version 5.2 and in the timescales available this has been used. It should, however, be noted that it is currently being updated, with a revised version expected in 2016. 5.1.2 The LLITM transport and land-use modelling suite was originally developed in 2008/9, and has been extensively used by LCC and others to help understand and predict travel patterns, land- use developments, and transport schemes across the County. Incremental updates to this model have taken the final version to LLITM 5.2 at the time of writing. 5.1.3 A new model suite, LLITM 2014, is currently being developed, incorporating up-to-date data and enhancements to the original LLITM methodology, to be used in future work. However, this version of the model has not been available for use in this current appraisal. 5.1.4 LLITM consists of three types of model, each developed separately using consistent principles and assumptions, before being combined into an integrated modelling system. These model types are as follows: highway and public transport assignment models, developed by AECOM; a land-use model, known as ‘DELTA’, developed by David Simmonds Consultancy; and a transport demand model, developed by AECOM. 5.1.5 Base year demand (2014) has been developed for highway, public transport and active modes, covering the whole country, with increasing detail and accuracy for areas close to the core study area of Leicester and Leicestershire. 5.1.6 The base year networks contain a representation of the supply of transport for highway and public transport users. The networks also cover the whole country with all roads of county and town-specific importance within Leicester and Leicestershire and surroundings, and skeletal detail outside the study area, but with sufficient detail to estimate travel costs for long-distance trips. 5.1.7 The LLITM model has been run for: three time periods (AM peak, Interpeak and PM peak); two future years (2016 and 2031)26; and three scenarios (base, Option 1 (Local) and Option 2 (Strategic)).
25 Although it may be appropriate to consider using MOIRA where the scheme might impact on existing rail flows (either north of Burton (e.g. Burton to Derby) or south of Leicester (e.g. Leicester to London). 26 It should be noted that these are the modelled years in the LLITM model. They do not coincide with the proposed scheme opening year of 2020 and therefore the demand has to be interpolated between 2016 and 2031. This provides the demand levels in 2020 and subsequent years.
AECOM Leicester - Burton189 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 40
5.1.8 The rail scenarios were coded into the model based on the option definition discussed in Chapter 3. 5.2 Modelling Constraints – LLITM v5.2 5.2.1 It should be noted that there are a number of constraints associated with the use of version 5.2 of the model which will have an impact on the rail scheme’s appraisal as previously discussed with LCC: The zone containing Burton-on-Trent is large and also encompasses Stafford and Stoke. Splitting the zone was not possible in time constraints for this work, although it will be done for the next version of LLITM. An interim approach was agreed to manipulate the zone centroid connector27 to feed Burton-on-Trent, in order to attempt to provide a better representation of the demand relating specifically to/from Burton. LLITM v5.2 currently contains no bus demand outside Leicestershire at all, meaning there would be no bus demand outside the county that could potentially switch to rail. Bus demand between Burton and Leicestershire has been estimated for the LLITM 2014 model, currently in development, using ticket sales data, and has been transferred into LLITM v5.2 for this particular work. LLITM forecasts an understatement of rail passenger growth (relating to multi-modal logit models in general). This understatement originates from the National Trip End Model (NTEM)28 trip rates that drive the LLITM trip-ends, and is a known issue in the rail demand forecasting industry. The trip-ends used in this process have, nevertheless, been reviewed in the study corridor (Ashby/Coalville) in order to ensure that the latest housing growth estimates are represented (for trip distribution purposes). Therefore, growth in rail demand has been applied outside the model, assuming a 47% growth between 2016 and 2031, based on growth forecast data in Network Rail’s East Midlands (Draft) Route Study, and taking into consideration any change in distribution between 2016 and 2031 (based on development estimates in the corridor). 5.2.2 Section 5.6 summarises the modelling limitations and discusses how these might be resolved should the scheme be taken forward..
5.3 Model Outputs 5.3.1 The LLITM model has been run for the defined option scenarios, with the resultant forecast annual passengers for the scheme presented in the table below for both the Local and Strategic options.
27 Centroid connectors are used in modelling to connect the centre of a zone (centroid), either centre of gravity or geographical centre to the highway or public transport network. They generally represent access modes, such as walk, cycle or kiss and ride. 28 This model is a standard tool which is developed and maintained by DfT
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger190 Service – Final Report 41
Table 5.1: Annual Single Journeys
Scheme Annual Single Journeys
2016 Local 364,374
2016 Strategic 301,894
2031 Local 535,237
2031 Strategic 443,785
5.3.2 The model is predicting over 350,000 journeys in 2016 for the Local Option, increasing to 535,000 journeys by 2031. The forecasts associated with the Strategic Option are slightly lower, indicating that the removal of two stations has a greater negative impact on demand than the increased demand of providing a through service to London. However, the uncertainties in the modelling discussed previously are such that at this stage, the modelling should not be considered as necessarily ruling out the Strategic Option. 5.3.3 The table below presents the forecast annual station entries and exits for stations on the Leicester to Burton line for both the Local and Strategic options in 2016 and 2031. What is evident from the station entries and exits table is the fact that the vast majority of passengers are using the stations at the Burton end of the line (Swadlincote, Ashby and Coalville in the local option, Ashby and Coalville in the strategic option.) Table 5.2: Annual Station Entries and Exits Annual Station Entries and Exits 2016 Local 2016 Strategic 2031 Local 2031 Strategic Swadlincote 87,325 24% - 0% 111,606 20% - 0% Ashby 140,371 38% 166,699 56% 191,083 35% 221,680 50% Coalville 99,289 27% 100,669 34% 148,141 27% 146,073 33% Forest East 18,549 5% - 0% 28,846 5% - 0% Western Park 24,398 7% 28,459 10% 67,765 12% 73,321 17% Note: these figures represent station entries and exits for the line excluding Leicester and Burton-upon-Trent stations, whereas those in Table 5.1 represent total annual single journeys on the line including these two stations 5.3.4 The high usage forecast at Ashby, relative to Coalville and Swadlincote, seems to be partly down to some travellers from the north of Swadlincote taking a bus to Ashby to catch the train to Burton, even in the Local Option where Swadlincote has its own station, albeit this is located to the southern periphery of the settlement. In general, internal buses in Swadlincote have not been coded and therefore the bus services between Swadlincote and Ashby are better than internal buses. The LLITM model update will address this partly by having many travellers use car to get to the station. Any follow up work could look to code any missing bus services around Swadlincote and Burton to improve routing in this area.
AECOM Leicester - Burton191 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 42
5.3.5 When comparing the differences between Local and Strategic Options, Ashby is shown to have a greater demand growth than Coalville. The reason for this is that, in the Strategic Option, some of the demand from Swadlincote is switching to Ashby. Clearly this will have local implications on the road network . .Whilst the mode shift transfer between rail and car is modelled in LLITM, car access to/ egress from stations is not explicitly modelled, and so people driving from Swadlincote to Ashby station to pick up a train are not modelled on the road network. 5.3.6 In terms of station usage, the suburban Leicester stations (Leicester Forest East & Leicester Western Park) generate a relatively low level of demand compared to the stations at the northern end of the line. This is related to the nature of the LLITM model assignment, which is ‘all-or-nothing’. Therefore, because bus services in this part of Leicester run frequently and pick up and set down in multiple places, coupled with the rail station in Leicester being located a 15 minute walk from the shopping centre, then bus is significantly more attractive to rail. In the LLITM model update, there will be a sub-mode choice model between rail and bus, which will remove this ‘all-or-nothing’ assignment process and therefore more realistically allocate demand between these modes for these journeys. This would also enable an assessment of any risks associated with the transfer of passengers from bus to rail in respect of ongoing bus service viabaility. Relative zone size also needs to be considered when interpreting these outputs. For example, Burton is one zone and Swadlincote is only two or three zones and therefore the walk times for rail and bus users are effectively the same, as the zones only have one load point, which is effectively both the bus stop and rail station. Conversely in Leicester, the zone sizes are small, so that the increase in walk time for most people in using rail is fully captured. In almost all the zones one has to walk further to the rail station than to pick up the bus which is usually close – which is the correct representation. 5.3.7 It is noted that by 2031, Leicester Western Park shows a large increase relative to Leicester Forest East, despite Leicester Forest East being on the periphery of the major development at Lubbesthorpe. The reasons for this relate to the configuration of the local road network, which effectively leads to Leicester Western Park, despite the proximity of Leicester Forest East, which would be accessed by driving round local residential streets. In reality, people in the north west of the development would possibly use a station at Leicester Forest East, although they would probably be a minority. Given this, it might be considered that one Leicester suburban station could be advocated, at Western Park, which could be a Leicester ’gateway’ station on the A563 ring road. However, as only an hourly service is being proposed in both Options 1 and 2, our view is that this could not be considered as a potential ‘Parkway’ or ‘Park & Ride’ station.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger192 Service – Final Report 43
5.3.8 Table 5.3 presents the top 10 flows forecast to use the line for each option in 2016 and in 2031. Table 5.3: Top 10 Flows 2016 and 2031 (Annual Single Journeys) Top 10 Flows Local 2016 Top 10 Flows Strategic 2016 Ashby to Burton 57,221 Ashby to Burton 64,368 Burton to Ashby 39,494 Burton to Ashby 42,028 Burton to Swadlincote 27,310 Leicester to Coalville 27,439 Swadlincote to Burton 25,778 Coalville to Leicester 24,519 Coalville to Leicester 23,961 Other south to Ashby 14,382 Leicester to Coalville 22,883 Burton to Coalville 14,215 Ashby to Other south 15,449 Coalville to Burton 13,804 Burton to Coalville 13,980 Ashby to Other south 12,305 Coalville to Burton 13,611 Other south to Western Park 10,544 Other south to Swadlincote 13,250 Western Park to Other south 8,401 Top 10 Flows Local 2031 Top 10 Flows Strategic 2031 Ashby to Burton 74,297 Ashby to Burton 81,477 Burton to Ashby 50,106 Burton to Ashby 51,611 Burton to Swadlincote 37,451 Leicester to Coalville 38,641 Swadlincote to Burton 36,042 Coalville to Leicester 35,884 Coalville to Leicester 36,129 Ashby to Other south 34,227 Leicester to Coalville 33,617 Other south to Western Park 32,935 Ashby to Other south 21,430 Western Park to Other south 23,776 Burton to Coalville 17,631 Other south to Ashby 19,737 Coalville to Burton 17,970 Coalville to Burton 17,664 Other south to Swadlincote 15,335 Burton to Coalville 17,366 Note: Other south relates to flows which originate or terminate from origins and destinations to the south of Leicester.
5.3.9 This indicates that the larger flows are being predicted to/from Burton – which we discuss in more depth below. Not surprisingly, the Strategic Option produces a greater volume of journeys to/from ‘other’ stations south of Leicester – reflecting the fact that there are through trains to London in this option. 5.3.10 A key observation to be made about the model forecasts is that there is generally substantially higher usage of the scheme being predicted in the northwest (e.g. Burton-Ashby) than in the southeast (e.g. Leicester-Leicester Forest East). Given that Leicester has a much higher population, this is perhaps unexpected.
AECOM Leicester - Burton193 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 44
5.3.11 There are a number of reasons behind this forecast: The current bus services between the west of Leicester and the centre are generally good, as discussed above, with a headway29 of around 5 minutes and 25 minute travel times. The proposed rail service with a 60 minute headway and 11 minute travel time, does not compare very well with this. On the other hand, bus services between Burton and Ashby currently take 45 minutes and are every 20 minutes, while the rail service would take only 14 minutes with a 60 minute headway, which looks very good by comparison. This pattern is generally true for other movements; bus service provision is relatively better by comparison with proposed rail in the south than in the north. The model tends to exaggerate this effect due to its “all-or-nothing” nature, however: a movement will either use bus or rail; in the current LLITM it cannot divide partly into bus users and partly into rail. A second issue relates to the walk times from Leicester and Burton railway stations to attraction sites. Burton station is more central than Leicester’s, being within a 10 minute walk of most of the town centre and less than 5 minutes from much of it. Leicester railway station is to the south-east, around 15 minutes walk from the main shopping centre and a similar distance from the hospital. The bus services set down much closer to most of the sites passengers wish to travel to. This issue is exacerbated beyond reality in the model due to the first issue outlined above, however. The coarser zone and network detail in Burton is such that the bus and rail services essentially stop in the same place. In Leicester, however, the detailed zoning allows the correct walk times to be modelled, penalising the new rail service relative to bus. A third consideration relates to how access times to stations on the line are modelled in the current version of the LLITM. The current assignment process will only represent access times (to rail) that relate to walking or bus. This will therefore penalise those stations where one might expect a greater proportion of local car-based access due to the distribution of local population (e.g. at Coalville – where a significant proportion of the local station catchment is located in places beyond a reasonable walking distance (e.g. Whitwick), or Swadlincote – where the location of the station dictates the use of non-walk modes for a considerable part of the town). The next version of the model will remove this modelling constraint so that rail access times are more realistic from all station catchment zones. A final consideration for demand to and from Leicester is journey distances. Burton is within a 25 minute train ride of Swadlincote, Ashby and Coalville, while Leicester is within this range only for Coalville. The Leicester to Western Park/ Leicester Forest East movement is very little used in the model due to the superior bus routes, so there is far less population within a short travel time of Leicester than there is of Burton.
29 Headway is the time between one vehicle and the next. For example, if a service operates with a frequency of 12 tph, then the headway is considered to be 5 minutes.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger194 Service – Final Report 45
5.3.12 It is considered, therefore, that usage of the scheme in the south is almost certainly understated in the model, largely due to the all-or-nothing nature of the assignment and treatment of the rail movement strictly as an alternative to bus. However, usage of the scheme in the north may be slightly overstated in the model, again due to the all-or-nothing nature of the assignment (some of these passengers may in fact continue to use buses), although this is not thought to be of a larger scale than the understatement in the south. 5.3.13 The Leicester Western Park / Leicester Forest East to Leicester movement is little used, as discussed above. It may be noted that Leicester Western Park/Forest East to London (other stations) is significantly more heavily used; this is because these passengers are not penalised by being taken to Leicester railway station (unlike most passengers destined for central Leicester) as the railway station is where they need to be to continue their journey. This in itself is reasonable. 5.3.14 It may also be noted that there is some asymmetry by direction for certain movements. This relates in most cases to relatively small differences in journey time between the outbound and return directions being sufficient to move a significant number of passengers from bus to rail due to the all-or-nothing nature of the assignment. 5.3.15 Table 5.4 below presents the overall breakdown of movements being forecast by the modelling for both options and forecast years. Table 5.4: Breakdown of Movements 2016 Local 2016 Strategic % Trips % Trips Proportion local internal 5% 16,419 3% 9,227 Proportion internal to/from Burton 49% 178,925 45% 135,852 Proportion internal to/from Leicester 18% 67,231 22% 67,287 Proportion Leics-Burton 2% 7,680 4% 11,166 Total proportion internal 74% 270,255 74% 223,533 Proportion other south 21% 78,059 21% 62,958 Proportion other north 4% 16,059 5% 15,403 Total proportion other 26% 94,119 26% 78,362 100% 364,374 100% 301,894
2031 Local 2031 Strategic % Trips % Trips Proportion local internal 5% 27,101 3% 14,768 Proportion internal to/from Burton 44% 236,487 38% 170,719 Proportion internal to/from Leicester 18% 96,904 21% 95,377 Proportion Leics-Burton 2% 9,991 3% 12,225 Total proportion internal 69% 370,484 66% 293,089 Proportion other south 29% 153,275 32% 140,769 Proportion other north 2% 11,871 2% 9,926 Total proportion other 31% 165,146 34% 150,695 100% 535,630 100% 443,785
AECOM Leicester - Burton195 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 46
5.3.16 Flows to/from Burton account for a significant majority of the demand being forecast. This proportion is lower in the Strategic Option as the marginally faster journey times into Leicester and, by 2031, the greater attraction of through services to London, generate proportionally more journeys in that direction. Whilst 3 in 4 journeys are ‘internal’ to the scheme in both options in 2016, this reduces to circa 1 in 3 journeys by 2031.
5.4 Scheme Revenue Forecasts 5.4.1 Scheme revenue has been estimated using the modelled fare functions for bus and rail (which are functions of in-vehicle distance), and modelled public transport journeys. 5.4.2 The functions used are those defined in the LLITM model and are presented below. This represents average one-way fare actually paid, including the effects of return tickets, season tickets, concessions, railcards and advance tickets. Figure 5.1: Fare Functions in LLITM
25
20
15
Rail 10 Bus
5 Fare (£, (£, Fare 2010 prices, 2008 values) 0 0 50 100 150 200 Journey Distance (km)
5.4.3 Table 5.5 presents the additional rail revenue generated by the scheme. It should be noted that these represent the overall net incremental impact on rail revenue forecast by the model. Table 5.5: Annual Scheme Revenue Impacts, £000s Rail 2016 2031 Local 863 1,693 Strategic 644 1,370
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger196 Service – Final Report 47
5.5 Additional Options 5.5.1 Following the reporting of the two core options described above, two potential service improvements were identified with the client for further consideration with a view to maximising benefits and improving the scheme’s business case. These were: Maximum 75 mph operation on the line; and Doubling the service frequency to 2 tph. Therefore, a further three options were identified: Local Option 1 with maximum 75 mph; Local Option 1 with 2 tph; and Local Option 1 with both 75 mph and 2 tph 5.5.2 The LLITM model was run for the three additional options. The LLITM model has not undergone any further enhancement and therefore these results are comparable with those presented earlier in this section, with the same model caveats applying. Table 5.6 presents the forecast annual passengers for the scheme for all versions of the ‘Local Option’. Table 5.6: Annual Single Journeys
Scheme Year Annual Single Percentage Difference Journeys from Core Local Option
Local (1 tph 45 mph) 2016 364,374 -
Local (2 tph 45 mph) 2016 563,617 +55%
Local (1 tph 75 mph) 2016 447,596 +23%
Local (2 tph 75 mph) 2016 645,718 +77%
Local (1 tph 45 mph) 2031 535,237 -
Local (2 tph 45 mph) 2031 828,517 +55%
Local (1 tph 75 mph) 2031 657,965 +23%
Local (2 tph 75 mph) 2031 949,205 +77%
AECOM Leicester - Burton197 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 48
5.5.3 Doubling the service frequency increases demand by just over 50%. This is a greater increase compared to what might be expected if we were to use PDFH elasticities to measure such an impact30. However, the level of change in this case (i.e. a generalised journey time change of over 20%) would be considered at the limit of what PDFH should be used for. For some flows, it should also be considered that the flows are starting from a very low absolute base value (just one or two journeys in a given time period). 5.5.4 The line speed improvements reduce the end-to-end journey time by circa 17% and this translates into a 23% increase in demand across the corridor. 5.5.5 Combining the two interventions results in an increase in demand of 77% compared to the original Local Option. 5.5.6 Table 5.7 presents the annual station entry and exit figures for intermediate stations on the Leicester to Burton line for each of the additional options in 2016 and 2031. The core Local Option is also included for reference. Table 5.7: Annual Station Entries and Exists Annual Station Entries and Exits (Local Option) 2016 1tph 45mph 2016 2tph 45mph 2016 1tph 75mph 2016 2tph 75mph Swadlincote 87,325 24% 118,891 21% 92,604 21% 122,847 19% Ashby 140,371 38% 212,129 37% 178,760 40% 228,620 35% Coalville 99,289 27% 144,480 25% 126,010 28% 180,541 28% Forest East 18,549 5% 45,307 8% 23,571 5% 54,446 8% Western Park 24,398 7% 48,059 8% 27,355 6% 58,137 9%
Annual Station Entries and Exits (Local Option) 2031 1tph 45mph 2031 2tph 45mph 2031 1tph 75mph 2031 2tph 75mph Swadlincote 111,606 20% 155,352 18% 122,617 18% 152,574 17% Ashby 191,083 35% 287,718 34% 243,058 36% 290,475 32% Coalville 148,141 27% 227,358 27% 194,246 29% 265,748 29% Forest East 28,846 5% 69,465 8% 38,035 6% 78,533 9% Western Park 67,765 12% 111,333 13% 74,703 11% 119,317 13%
5.5.7 The table shows that all intermediate stations show an increase in annual entries and exits in each option, and again, the increases are most pronounced when both the speed and frequency enhancements are incorporated. Two particular trends are worth highlighting:
30 Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH) provides industry standard guidance relating to demand elasticities (the rate of change of one variable in response to a change in another, for example the effects on demand of increasing service frequency).
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger198 Service – Final Report 49
The line speed improvements increase the share of demand using Coalville (and to a lesser extent Ashby) stations, as well as absolute patronage using these stations. This reflects the reduction in journey time between Coalville and Leicester from 27 minutes to 22 minutes (nearly 20% reduction); and Doubling the service frequency doubles demand at both Forest East and Western Park stations. The rail ‘offer’ becomes relatively more attractive compared to the public transport alternatives at these locations, where high frequency bus services compete with the train. 5.5.8 Table 5.8 presents the additional rail revenue generated by each of the schemes. It should be noted that these represent the overall net incremental impact on rail revenue forecast by the model. The incremental effect of the schemes again shows a similar pattern to that evident in other outputs, with the greatest effect due to the combined speed and frequency increases. Table 5.8: Annual Scheme Revenue Impacts, £000s
Rail 2016 2031 Local 1 tph 45 mph 863 1,693 Local 2 tph 45 mph 1,239 2,443 Local 1 tph 75 mph 1,075 2,188 Local 2 tph 75 mph 1,477 2,869
5.6 Taking the Scheme Appraisal Forward: Modelling Limitations and Resolutions 5.6.1 The overall modelled level of patronage presented in this Chapter appears plausible, although arguably erring on the conservative side. However, there are a number of issues in the more detailed breakdown of demand that are worth discussing. We have noted above where we consider the forecasts might be understated, and there may be one or two specifics where demand is arguably overstated. Much of this relates to weaknesses in the model for the purpose of modelling the Leicester-Burton rail link, noted at the inception of this work, and summarised below, arranged broadly in order of importance:
AECOM Leicester - Burton199 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 50
LLITM is a model of Leicester and Leicestershire. It does not cover Burton-upon-Trent or Swadlincote in the same detail. In particular, the Burton-upon-Trent zone is very large (it includes Stoke-on-Trent), bus services not entering Leicestershire are not coded in the model and Swadlincote is modelled by only two zones. Although the key problem here of the large Burton zone has been compensated for by careful use of centroid connectors, there are still routeing issues around and between Burton and Swadlincote, an overstatement of the difficulty of travelling between Burton and Swadlincote by bus, and no detailed modelling of differential walk distances for rail and bus travel in Burton and Swadlincote. The LLITM 2014 model will include a much smaller zone for Burton (still a single zone), more detailed zoning for Swadlincote and more network detail around the area. It will not model any more bus services; it is recommended that additional bus service coding be considered should the scheme be modelled in LLITM 2014. LLITM does not model mode choice between bus and rail. It simply uses an all-or-nothing assignment routeing to determine which public transport route has the lowest average perceived cost. This is a fairly crude method, and not ideal for modelling a scheme likely to attract significant demand from bus to rail. In addition, LLITM does not model fares at an assignment level, meaning fares are not taken account of in the choice between bus and rail. Despite being a tour-based model, the current LLITM does not enforce outbound and return journeys using the same public-transport sub-mode (bus or rail). The LLITM 2014 model will include a full bus versus rail mode choice, taking account of fares, and allowing demand to be split between modes based on preference rather than all being allocated to one or the other. This would address all of these issues. LLITM uses an incremental mode choice model to calculate relative usage of car and public transport. This means that any demand for travel that might use the new Leicester- Burton link will be proportional (all other things being equal) to the existing level of public transport demand for that movement. In the case of the new stations, this means existing bus demand. For some of the longer movements (e.g. Ashby to Leicester), this methodology is probably not very accurate, as the existing bus demand will be very low, and the existing rail demand will be zero. The Burton-Leicester movement itself has existing rail demand and thus should be reasonably well modelled. The LLITM 2014 model will be unchanged in this respect. LLITM, in common with all multi-modal transport models, forecasts generally very low rail growth over time, much lower than has been observed in recent years in reality. This will necessitate an external adjustment to future year predicted rail demand – as has been adopted in this case. Some assumptions in the LLITM 2014 model are likely to result in increased rail growth; the bus versus rail model will properly capture the effect of increasing bus fares, while the rail fare growth assumptions are likely to be lower in LLITM 2014 than in the current LLITM. However, we would still expect the predicted growth to be too low.
200
6 Scheme Appraisal
AECOM Leicester - Burton201 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 52
6 Scheme Appraisal
6.1 Overview 6.1.1 A bespoke appraisal model has been developed to convert the LLITM outputs into the transport benefits, including user time savings, decongestion benefits and environmental benefits. The appraisal model also processes the operating costs and undertakes the ‘reverse appraisal’ in order to determine what level of capital cost31 can be accommodated for milestone Benefit Cost Ratios (BCRs). This chapter describes the inputs assumptions and outcome of the appraisal for each of the options. 6.1.2 The appraisal has been undertaken in line with the latest WebTAG guidance. A 60 year appraisal period has been used from an assumed opening year of 2020, using a discount rate of 3.5% for the first thirty years and 3.0% for the remainder of the appraisal period. WebTAG data has been used to define discount rates, GDP deflators, price base, Value of Time (VoT) and VoT growth. PDFH (Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook) data has been used to split benefits between the three journey purposes in the appraisal (commuting, business and other). 6.1.3 During the course of this study, and following discussion with the client, it was agreed that AECOM would undertake additional scheme appraisal to assess further potential service patterns that may generate higher levels of benefits and to undertake a high-level costing exercise based on the emerging infrastructure requirements identified via the train planning exercise. The need for this additional work became apparent in order to inform the ongoing debate around whether the scheme as a whole is likely to be able to generate a sufficiently robust business case and is therefore worth pursuing.
6.2 Demand and Revenue Inputs 6.2.1 Demand and revenue estimates were provided by the LLITM model for 2016 and 2031. Appropriate factors were used to combine the separate AM peak, Interpeak and PM peak models into an annualised value. These factors take account of peak hour and interpeak demand and factor this up to include off-peak and weekend demand in order to generate an overall annual value. The growth was assumed to be linear between 2016 and 2031 and was extrapolated to 2035, beyond which no further growth was assumed (in line with WebTAG guidance). 6.2.2 A demand ramp-up profile was assumed across the first three years of operation in line with PDFH guidance (70% in year 1, 85% in year 2 and 95% in year 3). The ramp-up profile reflects the fact that demand for a new service will not materialise immediately, but will take some time to build up once knowledge of the service is acquired.
31 For the avoidance of doubt, capital costs in this case are defined as being the costs pre application of any optimism bias and without any uplift for risk.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger202 Service – Final Report 53
6.3 Mode Transfer Benefits 6.3.1 A number of benefits are a direct function of the levels of mode transfer estimated to come from car, including decongestion benefits, environmental benefits and accident savings. These can be calculated by applying standard WebTAG rates to the forecast reduction in car kilometres. 6.3.2 The effect of rail patronage increase on car journey kilometres has not been taken directly from the LLITM model. Although the model does forecast a reduction in car kilometres in general in the Burton-Leicester scheme tests, it is considered that the convergence32 of the model is not currently sufficient to make this estimate reliable (although the rail forecasts themselves are considered well-converged and stable). Accordingly, an external estimate of the impact of the schemes on car has been made. 6.3.3 The reduction in car kilometres has been calculated in the appraisal by assuming a proportion of rail demand is transferred from car. For the purposes of this appraisal a figure of 35% mode transfer from car has been assumed. Evidence across a number of appropriate sources suggest that this value can be as much as 50% to 60%, although in this case a more conservative value has been chosen based on relevant evidence from a similar study recently undertaken by the consultants elsewhere. For each movement, distances from the AA route planner have been applied to this forecast mode transfer, followed by a conversion into car vehicle kilometres by applying an average car occupancy of 1.34 in 2016 and 1.32 in 2031 (source: WebTAG).
6.4 User Time Benefits 6.4.1 Providing a direct rail passenger link between Leicester and Burton will result in savings in travel time. As there is currently no rail service in the study corridor (effectively rail is a ‘new mode’) then it was not possible to calculate user time savings in the conventional way in line with WebTAG guidance. In such circumstances, the guidance suggests that user time savings should be derived through the application of a more complex approach called numerical integration. This, however, requires a number of intermediate model runs for which the study timescales did not allow. 6.4.2 Consequently user time savings presented in this scheme appraisal have been determined at the higher level for the public transport mode as a whole. The main disadvantage of the approach taken is that it precludes the presentation of rail benefits as distinct from bus ones, although the overall benefit should be well estimated (given bus costs have not changed in the tests).
32 Model convergence relates to how a model performs iteration-by-iteration in terms of changes from the previous iteration. The better the convergence, the less change there is between iterations and the more robust the results. In a fully converged, stable model, there will be negligible or no change between results from one iteration to the next.
AECOM Leicester - Burton203 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 54
6.5 Costs and Optimism Bias 6.5.1 The operating costs for each option have been sourced from the operating cost model discussed in Chapter 4 and imported into the appraisal model. These are already discounted and have a ‘pre-feasibility’ level of optimism bias applied in line with WebTAG guidance. 6.5.2 The appraisal model has been set up to include capital costs, although these have not directly been calculated as part of this work. Optimism bias has been applied to these costs in accordance with Green Book Guidance, with optimism bias during this stage set at 66.0% for the capital costs. 6.5.3 An allowance for ongoing renewal costs is generated from the capital costs by assuming a proportion of the set capital costs per annum. 6.5.4 In order to ‘reverse engineer’ the scheme appraisal, the appraisal model allowed the user to define a level of capital cost in order to determine what the resultant BCR might be. This allowed the level of capital cost to generate milestone BCRs to be identified.
6.6 Appraisal Outputs 6.6.1 The level of capital cost required to generate milestone BCRs has been identified for each option and is presented in turn below. The work initially considered BCR thresholds of 1.5 and 1.0 (breakeven), but subsequent analysis also considered a BCR threshold of 2.0. 6.6.2 For the Local Option (Option 1), the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) tables are presented in Appendix A and summarised below: To obtain a BCR of 1.5, the capital costs would need to be no more than £8.9m, which increases to £13.6m if the 66% optimism bias is removed. To obtain a BCR of 1.0 (breakeven), the capital costs would need to be no more than £22.9m, which increases to £34.7m if the 66% optimism bias is removed. For comparative purposes, the Scott Wilson study generated a BCR of 0.6 with capital costs of £33m without optimism bias and 0.4 with 66% optimism bias. 6.6.3 The above figures are based on the assumption of 35% mode transfer from car. This was an arguably cautious assumption made in the light of recent experience of modelling a similar rail scheme elsewhere in the UK. As a sensitivity test, if this is increased to 50%, the resultant outcome for Option 1 becomes: For a BCR of 1.5, the capital costs (including renewals) would need to be no more than £19.7m, which increases to £29.8m if the 66% optimism bias is removed. For a BCR of 1.0, the capital costs (including renewals) would need to be no more than £38.9m, which increases to £59.0m if the 66% optimism bias is removed.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger204 Service – Final Report 55
6.6.4 A further sensitivity has been undertaken to determine what impact a 20% increase in demand might have on the scheme appraisal for Option 133. For a BCR of 1.5, the capital cost allowance increases to £18.9m (with optimism bias). Therefore, a 20% increase in demand has added circa £10m of capital cost. 6.6.5 This demonstrates the level of sensitivity of the appraisal results to changes in the input assumptions. Bearing in mind the caveats around the use of arguably conservative appraisal inputs – including potential forecast demand levels, then it becomes apparent that capital cost allowance values greater than £30m might be expected to be achievable in order to generate a positive business case (ie: BCR >1.0) for the scheme (Local Option (Option 1)). 6.6.6 For the Strategic Option (Option 2) the position is less encouraging. A negative Net Present Value (NPV), where the Present Value Costs (PVC) are greater than the Present Value Benefits (PVB) is achieved, even with zero capital costs, because: The total value of the benefits (PVB) in Option 2 is circa 10% less than in Option 1; Revenue in Option 2 is 20% less than in Option 1; and Operating costs in Option 2 are 68% higher than in Option 1 – this is the key reason and relates to the fact that Option 2 assumes 4-car operation and class 222 rolling stock. 6.6.7 Option 2 does not include benefits/costs between Leicester and London.
6.7 Additional Options - Appraisal Outputs 6.7.1 Following the reporting of the two core options described above, two potential service improvements were identified with the client for further consideration with a view to maximising benefits and improving the scheme’s business case. These were: Maximum 75 mph operation on the line; and Doubling the service frequency to 2 tph.
Therefore, a further three options were identified: Local Option 1 with maximum 75 mph; Local Option 1 with 2 tph; and Local Option 1 with 75 mph and 2 tph
33 Note that this was undertaken on the final TEE table only by factoring up the appropriate appraisal elements.
AECOM Leicester - Burton205 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 56
6.7.2 Table 6.1 summarises the appraisal findings for the additional options. Table 6.1: Available Capital Cost Budget for Given BCRs
Option BCR = 1.0 BCR = 1.5
Local 1 tph 45 mph £22.9m £8.9m
Local 2 tph 45 mph £20.6m £0.0m
Local 1 tph 75 mph £37.9m £21.0m
Local 2 tph 75 mph £47.2m £19.0m
Note that these capital costs are exclusive of Optimism Bias. Optimism Bias of 66% is applied to these in the appraisal process to achieve the target BCRs. 6.7.3 The additional operating costs associated with doubling the service frequency results in this option not producing an improved business case. However, the line speed improvements do increase the amount of capital cost budget that can be accommodated, even more so when combined with the service frequency improvements. It should, however, be noted that the 75mph line speed improvement options are likely to require additional capital costs compared to the 45mph line speed options.
6.8 GVA Outputs 6.8.1 Further appraisal work has been undertaken by SLC and JMP to establish the wider economic benefits to the County in terms of GVA for each of the options. This has made use of a land use model developed by SLC/JMP and used for the rail strategy development work being undertaken by SLC for LCC, which determines the effect on economic productivity of changes to rail services. The model is consistent with Network Rail’s approach to wider economic benefits and has been developed specifically to derive the benefits of rail service development on the wider economy. Table 6.2 presents the outputs from this model. The analysis indicates that the higher line speed options might produce additional GVA benefits of between £0.75m and £1m per annum. The slower timetables are estimated to produce GVA benefits of between £0.3m and £0.6m per annum. It should be noted that these figures indicate a general quantum of GVA which could be achieved, under each of the Local Options.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger206 Service – Final Report 57
Table 6.2: GVA for the Local Options
Option GVA per annum (2021 prices) 30 years discounted* GVA
Local 1 tph 45 mph £298,400 £3,900,000
Local 2 tph 45 mph £541,400 £7,100,000
Local 1 tph 75 mph £747,300 £9,700,000
Local 2 tph 75 mph £990,300 £12,900,000 * Discounted to 2010 For the avoidance of doubt, the GVA benefits are not included in the calculation of BCRs
6.9 Analysis of the Appraisal Outputs 6.9.1 During the course of this study it became apparent that there was a need for additional work in order to inform the ongoing debate around whether the scheme as a whole is likely to be able to generate a sufficiently robust business case and is therefore worth pursuing. Therefore a number of service pattern variants (all based on the Local Option) have been modelled and appraised. The outcome from this work has been reported above, indicating the level of capital cost budget likely to be available in order to generate milestone BCRs. In addition, a high-level capital costing exercise has been undertaken. It is therefore possible to bring these together to provide an indication of the emerging business case for the scheme that can then contribute to the ongoing debate. 6.9.2 In bringing this together, both the modelling constraints discussed earlier in this report and the fact that the capital costs have been developed to a high-level only, need to be acknowledged. We have, however, in this analysis attempted to take these into account where we can. 6.9.3 Figure 6.1 sets out, for each option and milestone BCR, what the anticipated range of capital cost budget might be. In order to produce this range, we have considered the existing modelling constraints discussed earlier in this report and taken a 20% increase in demand and increase in the levels of mode transfer from car to 50% to produce an upper end estimate34. The lower end estimates are those reported above. At the request of the client we have also added the range for a milestone BCR of 2.0.
34 The definition of this upper end estimate is purely arbitrary but serves a useful purpose to demonstrate the likely scale of benefits that in our view might be achievable. The reasons why we might consider the need to define an upper limit based on these factors are evidenced in paragraphs 5.3.12 and 6.3.3.
AECOM Leicester - Burton207 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 58
Figure 6.1: Capital Cost Budgets by Option and BCR Target
6.9.4 Based on the analysis presented in Figure 6.1, if the capital costs for the scheme exceed (circa) £110m then it is less likely that the scheme would be able to generate a positive business case. In order to generate a BCR of 2.0 or more, the capital costs should not be greater than circa £40m. Clearly there is variation by option to also consider, with those options with the higher line speeds (up to 75mph) generating the greater scope for accommodating more capital costs (although these options will require more capital costs than the 45mph options). 6.9.5 Indicative capital costs estimated from a high level costing assessment were presented in Table 4.2: Local Option 45mph/1tph: £100m to £120m; Local Option 45mph/2tph: £110m to £130m; Local Option 75mph/1tph: £140m to £160m; Local Option 75mph/2tph: £155m to £175m.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger208 Service – Final Report 59
These are high level estimates developed in order to allow us to establish whether there is an emerging business case for reintroduction of rail passenger services on the Leicester to Burton line. The range of potential costs indicated exceed the available capital cost budgets set out in Figure 6.1 across all options and target BCRs. 6.9.6 Based on the indicative capital costs outlined above, it is possible to determine what percentage increase in the demand forecasts would be necessary in order to generate milestone BCRs (the capital cost budget ranges presented in Figure 6.1 assumed a 20% demand uplift). The outcome of this exercise is presented in Table 6.3. Table 6.3: Anticipated Increase in Demand
Option BCR=1.0 BCR=1.5 BCR=2.0
1tph/45mph +79% +136% +181%
2tph/45mph +59% +111% +152%
1tph/75mph +84% +142% +187%
2tph/75mph +49% +100% +141%
The mid-point of the capital cost ranges (Table 4.2) has been assumed
6.9.7 The table shows that to achieve a breakeven BCR of 1.0, the demand forecasts would have to increase by circa 50% for the 2tph options and 80% for the 1 tph options. To achieve a BCR of 1.5 the demand forecasts would essentially have to double. With reference to Table 5.6, in practice this would mean the number of journeys increasing to 860,000 (1tph/45mph, 2016) or to 1,291,000 (2tph/75mph, 2016). Paragraph 2.2.25 stated that the Scott Wilson report had determined that between 500,000 and 600,000 single journeys (base year) would be required to breakeven (i.e. BCR of 1.0). This analysis is now saying that this figure is nearer to between 800,000 and 900,000 journeys, given the higher capital cost estimates.
6.10 Subsidy Requirements 6.10.1 We have extended our appraisal analysis to include a financial appraisal to provide some initial indication of the likely levels of annual revenue support (franchise subsidy impact) that may be required. If net incremental operating costs are greater than the net incremental revenue, then there is a requirement for subsidy, which is normally administered via the Franchise Agreement. The subsidy can be justified if the scheme as a whole can demonstrate a positive economic business case.
AECOM Leicester - Burton209 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 60
6.10.2 It should be noted that this financial appraisal indicates the performance of the scheme measured at ‘rail UK’ level. Given that subsidy is normally paid via the relevant franchise, the individual Train operating Company (TOC) – in this case likely to be East Midlands Trains – will also be interested in the relative costs and revenues associated with their flows. Whilst all the additional operating costs would fall to East Midlands Trains, not all the additional revenue will necessarily fall to them (e.g. a Coalville to Manchester journey would generate a proportion of additional revenue to other TOCs). 6.10.3 Table 6.4 sets out the anticipated level of additional revenue support likely to be required at the ‘rail UK’ level. Again, we have presented a range based on upper and lower limit assumptions as outlined above. We have presented the average annual values for the first three years (of interest to scheme promoters who normally have to bear the additional support required for rail schemes over the first three years) and for the first 10 years. Table 6.4: Average Subsidy per Annum
Option Average annual subsidy requirement
Over first 3 years Over first 10 years
1tph/45mph £2.0m to £2.2m £1.7m to £2.0m
2tph/45mph £4.1m to £4.4m £3.8m to £4.2m
1tph/75mph £1.7m to £1.9m £1.3m to £1.6m
2tph/75mph £3.8m to £4.1m £3.4m to £3.8m
6.10.4 The net additional revenue support is estimated to lie between £1.5m and £2m per annum for the hourly service pattern options (and nearer to £2m+ in the initial three years). Those options where the service frequency is doubled may require additional revenue support in the region of £4m per annum. 6.10.5 Additional analysis has been undertaken to derive the potential increase in the number of households in the study corridor that would be required in order to generate sufficient rail demand to remove the need for the subsidy identified in Table 6.4, i.e. converting the subsidy requirements into ‘number of households’. This has been carried out using a number of assumptions as set out below. 6.10.6 The process adopted was to convert the subsidy requirement into demand based on the average fare paid per journey. This value could be established by year and by option from the model outputs. An average rail trip rate per household value was determined based on the number of households in the corridor and the forecast rail demand for 2016 (adjusted to allow for inbound demand). The application of this trip rate to the identified demand allowed us to identify the potential number of additional households required to eliminate the calculated subsidy, as shown in Table 6.5. The additional demand required is also included in Table 6.5.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger210 Service – Final Report 61
Table 6.5: Estimate of Additional Households and Journeys Required in Rail Corridor to Eliminate Subsidy (000’s)
Option Number of households and journeys (000’s)
In Year 1 (2020) In Year 5 (2024) In Year 10 (2029)
1tph/45mph Households 178 - 191 121 - 141 117 - 139
Journeys 845 – 900 575 – 665 555 – 655
2tph/45mph Households 245 – 258 184 – 203 184 – 206
Journeys 1,800 – 1,890 1,345 – 1,485 1,345 – 1,505
1tph/75mph Households 126 – 138 70 – 89 62 – 84
Journeys 730 – 800 405 – 520 360 – 485
2tph/75mph Households 196 – 208 138 – 158 137 – 159
Journeys 1,645 – 1,745 1,160 – 1,320 1,150 – 1,330
6.10.7 These values require some caution in terms of their interpretation. The range presented by option is the upper and lower limits as discussed above. Subsidy tends to reduce over time as demand (and thus revenue) increases due to initial ramp-up and then growth (although there are circumstances where subsidy can increase as well, for example when operating costs increase due to the introduction of new rolling stock). Thus in broad terms the number of additional households required to cover the subsidy tends to reduce over time. However the actual demand growth in the corridor will reflect some growth in population in the corridor plus changes in the propensity to travel and therefore the results presented in Table 6.5 need to be viewed as indicative values over and above the impacts of forecast growth in the corridor.
211
7 Conclusions and Next Steps
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger212 Service – Final Report 63
7 Conclusions and Next Steps
7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 AECOM was commissioned by Leicestershire County Council (LsCC) and North West Leicestershire District Council (NWLDC) to revisit the business case for the introduction of rail passenger services along the Leicester Burton Line, which is currently freight only. The key objective was to test two concept options, which were defined and agreed with the client as follows: a Local Option running hourly between Burton and Leicester calling at intermediate stations at Swadlincote, Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Coalville, Leicester Forest East and Leicester Western Park, operated by 2-car class 156 rolling stock; and a Strategic Option running hourly from Burton to London via Leicester, calling at Ashby-de- la-Zouch, Coalville and Leicester Western Park, operated by 4-car class 222 rolling stock. 7.1.2 The original analysis was expanded to appraise a number of sub-options based around the defined Local Option – variations on service frequency (half-hourly) and journey time (line speeds).
7.2 Approach and Findings 7.2.1 A timetabling exercise was undertaken (Chapter 3) which assumed an operational speed of 45 mph or (maximum) 75 mph, except where the infrastructure limits the maximum speed, and an hourly or half-hourly rail passenger service, with an allowance for 0.5 freight trains per hour in each direction. The 45 mph speed assumption was consistent with previous work undertaken by Scott Wilson in 2009. The timetabling exercise identified the following in terms of operating the service and associated infrastructure requirements: An hourly service between Leicester and Burton can be operated by two trainsets. A half- hourly service would require four trainsets; End-to-end journey times of between 50.5 and 52 minutes can be achieved with a 45 mph railway. This reduces to 42.5 minutes if line speeds are increased above 45 mph to a maximum of 75 mph (in reality infrastructure and operational constraints result in line speeds increasing to circa 60/65 mph in most cases); Circa 50% of the line would need to be upgraded to 45 mph line speeds (45 mph scenario). Virtually the whole line could be upgraded to line speeds greater than 45 mph (75 mph scenario); The Knighton Curve would be required to join the line to the Midland Main Line; New stations would need to be constructed in line with the option specification; No additional track would be required in a 75 mph scenario with one train per hour. For all other scenarios a passing loop for freight trains would be required at Mantle Lane Signal Box. Going to two trains per hour would require further re-doubling of track in the western fringes of Leicester; and A re-instated south facing bay platform at Burton station would be desirable.
AECOM Leicester - Burton213 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 64
7.2.2 An operating cost model has been developed, based on a combination of data supplied by East Midlands Trains where available, and our own industry knowledge, as documented in Section 4.2. It has been assumed that the service would operate for 17 hours per day, Monday to Saturday, but no Sunday service. Given these assumptions, the total annual operating costs were calculated to be: £3.1m for the hourly Local Option and £5.7m for the half-hourly Local Option (2 car cl156); and £5.8m for the hourly Strategic Option (4 car cl222). These costs benchmark well against other studies. 7.2.3 As the rail passenger service in the study corridor is completely new, rail industry standard tools which would normally be used to model a rail scheme could not be used. Instead, use was made of the Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model (LLITM), as detailed in Chapter 5. However, it has to be acknowledged that use of the current version of the model contains a number of caveats, many of which will be resolved or improved in the next version of the LLITM model which is being developed and expected in 2016. As a result, the demand and revenue that has been forecast in this case might be considered to be understated. 7.2.4 The LLITM model has forecast the following 2016 annual demand (single journeys) for the options appraised: Local Option: 364,374 Strategic Option: 301,894 (both hourly service pattern and 45 mph line speeds)
7.2.5 Forecast demand for 2031 has also been estimated by taking the forecasts for that year from LLITM, which therefore incorporates any re-distributional impacts relating to demand associated with planned new development in the corridor between Leicester and Burton-upon- Trent, It should be noted that, whilst the LLITM model covers Leicestershire, the modelling of specific developments extends beyond the Leicestershire boundary. Therefore LLITM includes assumptions about development along the whole corridor, including that part which lies outside Leicestershire.. These forecasts are then control totalling the subsequent growth from 2016 in line with Network Rail’s growth forecasts contained in their East Midlands Route Study. As a result of this, the 2031 annual demand was estimated to be: Local Option: 535,237 Strategic Option: 443,785 (both hourly service pattern and 45 mph line speeds)
7.2.6 These demand forecasts are of the same order of magnitude as those forecast by Scott Wilson in their previous study in 2009.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger214 Service – Final Report 65
7.2.7 The demand forecasting undertaken would appear to suggest (subject to the modelling caveats highlighted elsewhere) that it would be more beneficial to concentrate on serving the key local movements in the corridor than to provide a more ‘strategic’ option serving less stations. The evidence might also suggest that one station located at the ring road (Leicester Western Park) might suffice in terms of catering for the demand in the western Leicester suburbs. 7.2.8 Further sub-options based on the Local Option were modelled. The demand forecasts are summarised below. Reducing the end-to-end journey time by circa 10 minutes has the potential to increase demand by 23%. Doubling the service frequency increases demand by over 50%. Table 7.1: Local Option Demand
Local Option Annual Demand (single journeys)
2016 2031
1 tph / 45 mph 364,374 535,237
1 tph / 75 mph 447,596 657,965
2 tph / 45 mph 563,617 828,517
2 tph / 75 mph 645,718 949,205
7.2.9 The outputs from the LLITM model and the operating cost model have been brought together in a bespoke appraisal model that has been developed in line with the most up-to-date WebTAG appraisal guidance. This model has generated the benefits for the scheme and identified what level of capital costs can be accommodated for each option in order to generate a milestone BCR such as 2.0 or 1.5 and a ‘breakeven’ BCR of 1.0, as no capital cost data was available initially.
AECOM Leicester - Burton215 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 66
7.2.10 For the Local Option (Option 1), the estimated capital cost budget is: Table 7.2: Local Option Capital Cost Budgets for a Given BCR
Local Option Capital Cost Budget for Milestone BCR of…
BCR 1.0 BCR 1.5 BCR 2.0
1 tph / 45 mph £22.9m £8.9m £1.9m
1 tph / 75 mph £37.9m £21.0m £12.5m
2 tph / 45 mph £20.6m £0.0m £0.0m
2 tph / 75 mph £47.2m £19.0m £4.7m
7.2.11 For comparative purposes, the Scott Wilson study demonstrated a BCR of 0.4 with capital costs of £33m. If the same costs of £33m are incorporated into our own appraisal model then the BCR generated now becomes 0.835. 7.2.12 For the Strategic Option (Option 2) the position is less encouraging. A negative Net Present Value (NPV), where the Present Value Costs (PVC) are greater than the Present Value Benefits (PVB) is achieved, even with zero capital costs, mainly due to the fact that operating costs are significantly higher in this option. 7.2.13 We extended our analysis to include a financial appraisal to provide some initial indication of the likely levels of annual revenue support (franchise subsidy impact) that may be required (Table 6.4). If net incremental operating costs are greater than the net incremental revenue, then there is a requirement for subsidy, which is normally administered via the Franchise Agreement. The subsidy can be justified if the scheme as a whole can demonstrate a positive economic business case. The net additional revenue support36 is estimated to lie between £1.5m and £2m per annum for the hourly service pattern options (and nearer to £2m+ in the initial three years). Those options where the service frequency is doubled may require additional revenue support in the region of £4m per annum.
35 For the like-for-like service pattern – 1 tph / 45 mph 36 It should be noted that this financial appraisal indicates the performance of the scheme measured at ‘rail UK’ level. Given that subsidy is normally paid via the relevant franchise, the individual Train operating Company (TOC) – in this case likely to be East Midlands Trains – will also be interested in the relative costs and revenues associated with their flows. Whilst all the additional operating costs would fall to East Midlands Trains, not all the additional revenue will necessarily fall to them.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger216 Service – Final Report 67
7.2.14 Further analysis has been undertaken to establish the number of additional households which would be required to remove the need for subsidy The analysis shows for year 1 (2020), that up to 138,000 additional households may be required for the hourly 75 mph service, rising to 258,000 households for the half hourly 45 mph service. In general terms, the level of subsidy reduces over time and hence the number of households which would negate the need for subsidy will also reduce. By year 10 (2029) up to 83,000 additional households may be required for the hourly 75 mph service, rising to 205,000 households for the half hourly 45 mph service. 7.2.15 Wider economic benefits (GVA impacts) have also been determined for the four Local Option variants (Table 6.2). The annual GVA values are estimated to be between £0.3m and £1.0m per annum depending on the service pattern.
7.3 Emerging Scheme Business Case 7.3.1 During the course of this study it became apparent that there was a need for additional work in order to inform the ongoing debate around whether the scheme as a whole is likely to be able to generate a sufficiently robust business case and is therefore worth pursuing. Therefore a number of service pattern variants (all based on the Local Option) were modelled and, in addition, a high-level capital costing exercise was undertaken. It is therefore possible to bring these together to provide an indication of the emerging business case for the scheme that can then contribute to the ongoing debate. 7.3.2 In bringing this together, both the modelling constraints discussed earlier in this report and the fact that the capital costs have been developed to a high-level only, need to be acknowledged. We have, however, in this analysis attempted to take these into account where we can by determining a range for the likely capital cost budget by option and milestone BCR. 7.3.3 Figure 7.1 sets out, for each option and milestone BCR, what the anticipated range of capital cost budget might be and compares it to the estimated high level capital costs.
AECOM Leicester - Burton217 Rail Passenger Service – Final Report 68
Figure 7.1: Capital Cost Budgets and Capital Cost Estimates by Option and BCR Target
Capex Estimate Capex Estimate
Capex Estimate Capex Estimate
7.3.4 Based on the analysis summarised and presented in Figure 7.1, the estimated capital costs for each option (the brown boxes) are an order of magnitude greater than the anticipated available capital cost budget (the red lines) given the level of benefits being forecast. 7.3.5 Based on the indicative capital costs outlined above, it is possible to determine what percentage increase in the demand forecasts would be necessary in order to generate milestone BCRs (the capital cost budget ranges presented in Figure 7.1 assumed a 20% demand uplift). To achieve a breakeven BCR of 1.0, the annual demand forecasts would have to increase by circa 50% for the 2tph options and 80% for the 1 tph options. To achieve a BCR of 1.5 the annual demand forecasts would essentially have to double. In practice this would mean the number of single journeys increasing to 860,000 (1tph/45mph, 2016) or to 1,291,000 (2tph/75mph, 2016). By way of comparison, Scott Wilson stated in their report that between 500,000 and 600,000 single journeys (base year) would be required to breakeven (i.e. BCR of 1.0). This analysis is now saying that this figure is nearer to between 800,000 and 900,000 journeys, given the higher capital cost estimates.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger218 Service – Final Report 69
7.4 Conclusions 7.4.1 The findings from this study suggest that the level of benefits that could be generated by the scheme will not be enough to cover the costs of the scheme in order to produce a positive business case. The gap between the benefits and costs becomes even greater when considering key ‘milestone’ BCRs such as 1.5 or 2.0. 7.4.2 It should, however, be noted that this conclusion is based on a set of demand forecasts which we consider may well be understating the levels of demand for the scheme. In addition, the capital costs are based on an initial high level costing exercise that has been quickly undertaken for the purposes of informing this study. 7.4.3 Therefore, whilst it could be concluded that the increase in demand (and thus benefits) that would be required in order to generate a BCR over 1.5 would need to be significant and is unlikely to be realistically achievable, further work may be beneficial to robustly support decisions relating to the progress of the scheme. In particular, use of the updated LLITM model may generate additional demand and a detailed bottom-up costing exercise may reduce the capital costs (and possibly reduce the use of a 66% optimism bias factor too). For example, an increase in demand of circa 40% to 50% coupled with a reduction in the capital costs of circa 40% to 50% could get close to achieving a BCR of around 1.5.
219
Appendix A: Tables
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger Service – Draft Final report
Appendix A: Tables
220
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger Service – Draft Final report
Table A.1: TEE Table Local Option 1 tph 45 mph (BCR of 1.5) Economic Efficiency of the Transport System (TEE) BUS and Non-business: Commuting ALL MODES ROAD COACH RAIL OTHER User benefits TOTAL Private Cars and LGVs Passengers Passengers Travel time £48,003 £40,704 £7,299 Vehicle operating costs £0 User charges £0 During Construction & Maintenance £0 NET NON-BUSINESS BENEFITS: COMMUTING £48,003 (1a) £40,704.4 £0 £7,299 £0
BUS and OTHER Non-business: Other ALL MODES ROAD COACH RAIL User benefits TOTAL Private Cars and LGVs Passengers Passengers Travel time £21,367 £18,433 £2,934 Vehicle operating costs £0 User charges £0 During Construction & Maintenance £0 NET NON-BUSINESS BENEFITS: OTHER £21,367 (1b) £18,433 £0 £2,934 £0
Business
Business 221 Goods Cars & User benefits Vehicles LGVs Passengers Freight Passengers Travel time £6,951 £3,775 £3,176 Vehicle operating costs £0 User charges £0 During Construction & Maintenance £0 Subtotal £6,951 (2) £0 £3,775 £0 £0 £3,176 £0 Private sector provider impacts Freight Passengers Revenue £38,182 £38,182 Operating costs -£73,102 -£73,102 Investment costs £0 Grant/subsidy £0 Revenue Transfer £34,920 £34,920 Subtotal £0 (3) £0 £0 £0 £0 Other business impacts Developer contributions £0 (4) NET BUSINESS IMPACT £6,951 (5) = (2) + (3) + (4)
TOTAL Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits (TEE) £76,321 (6) = (1a) + (1b) + (5) Notes: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers. All entries are discounted present values, in 2010 prices and values
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger Service – Draft Final report
Table A.2: Public Accounts (PA) Table Local Option 1 tph 45 mph (BCR of 1.5)
Public Accounts (PA) Table ALL MODES ROAD BUS and COACH RAIL OTHER Local Government Funding TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE Revenue £0 Operating Costs £73,102 Investment Costs £16,115 Developer and Other Contributions £0 Grant/Subsidy Payments £0 NET IMPACT £0 (7) £0 £0 £0 £0
Central Government Funding: Transport Revenue -£38,182 -£38,182 Operating costs £73,102 £73,102 Investment Costs £15,752 -£363 £16,115 Developer and Other Contributions £0 Grant/Subsidy Payments £0 £0 £0 NET IMPACT £50,672 (8) -£363 £0 £0 £51,035
Central Government Funding: Non-Transport Indirect Tax Revenues £7,220 (9) £2,972 £4,248
TOTALS Broad Transport Budget £50,672 (10) = (7) + (8) 222 Wider Public Finances £7,220 (11) = (9)
Notes: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and ‘Developer and Other Contributions' appear as negative numbers. All entries are discounted present values in 2010 prices and values.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger Service – Draft Final report
Table A.3: Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits Table Local Option 1 tph 45 mph (BCR of 1.5) Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits
Noise £386 (12) Local Air Quality £0 (13) Greenhouse Gases £1,637 (14) Journey Quality (15) Physical Activity (16) Accidents £4,746 (17) Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) £48,003 (1a) Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) £21,367 (1b) Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers £6,951 (5) Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) -£7,220 - (11) - sign changed from PA table, as PA table represents costs, not benefits
Present Value of Benefits (see notes) (PVB) £75,870 (PVB) = (12) + (13) + (14) + (15) + (16) + (17) + (1a) + (1b) + (5) - (11)
Broad Transport Budget £50,672 (10)
Present Value of Costs (see notes) (PVC) £50,672 (PVC) = (10)
OVERALL IMPACTS
Net Present Value (NPV) £25,199 NPV=PVB-PVC 223 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.5 BCR=PVB/PVC
Note : This table includes costs and benefits which are regularly or occasionally presented in monetised form in transport appraisals, together with some where monetisation is in prospect. There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of which cannot be presented in monetised form. Where this is the case, the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good measure of value for money and should not be used as the sole basis for decisions.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger Service – Draft Final report
Table A.4: TEE Table Local Option 1 tph 45 mph (BCR of 1.0) Economic Efficiency of the Transport System (TEE) BUS and Non-business: Commuting ALL MODES ROAD COACH RAIL OTHER User benefits TOTAL Private Cars and LGVs Passengers Passengers Travel time £48,003 £40,704 £7,299 Vehicle operating costs £0 User charges £0 During Construction & Maintenance £0 NET NON-BUSINESS BENEFITS: COMMUTING £48,003 (1a) £40,704.4 £0 £7,299 £0
BUS and OTHER Non-business: Other ALL MODES ROAD COACH RAIL User benefits TOTAL Private Cars and LGVs Passengers Passengers Travel time £21,367 £18,433 £2,934 Vehicle operating costs £0 User charges £0 During Construction & Maintenance £0 NET NON-BUSINESS BENEFITS: OTHER £21,367 (1b) £18,433 £0 £2,934 £0
Business
Business 224 Goods Cars & User benefits Vehicles LGVs Passengers Freight Passengers Travel time £6,951 £3,775 £3,176 Vehicle operating costs £0 User charges £0 During Construction & Maintenance £0 Subtotal £6,951 (2) £0 £3,775 £0 £0 £3,176 £0 Private sector provider impacts Freight Passengers Revenue £38,182 £38,182 Operating costs -£73,102 -£73,102 Investment costs £0 Grant/subsidy £0 Revenue Transfer £34,920 £34,920 Subtotal £0 (3) £0 £0 £0 £0 Other business impacts Developer contributions £0 (4) NET BUSINESS IMPACT £6,951 (5) = (2) + (3) + (4)
TOTAL Present Value of Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits (TEE) £76,321 (6) = (1a) + (1b) + (5) Notes: Benefits appear as positive numbers, while costs appear as negative numbers. All entries are discounted present values, in 2010 prices and values
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger Service – Draft Final report
Table A.5: Public Accounts (PA) Table Local Option 1 tph 45 mph (BCR of 1.0)
Public Accounts (PA) Table ALL MODES ROAD BUS and COACH RAIL OTHER Local Government Funding TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE Revenue £0 Operating Costs £73,102 Investment Costs £41,232 Developer and Other Contributions £0 Grant/Subsidy Payments £0 NET IMPACT £0 (7) £0 £0 £0 £0
Central Government Funding: Transport Revenue -£38,182 -£38,182 Operating costs £73,102 £73,102 Investment Costs £40,869 -£363 £41,232 Developer and Other Contributions £0 Grant/Subsidy Payments £0 £0 £0 NET IMPACT £75,789 (8) -£363 £0 £0 £76,152
Central Government Funding: Non-Transport Indirect Tax Revenues £7,220 (9) £2,972 £4,248 225 TOTALS Broad Transport Budget £75,789 (10) = (7) + (8) Wider Public Finances £7,220 (11) = (9)
Notes: Costs appear as positive numbers, while revenues and ‘Developer and Other Contributions' appear as negative numbers. All entries are discounted present values in 2010 prices and values.
AECOM Leicester - Burton Rail Passenger Service – Draft Final report
Table A.6: Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits Table Local Option 1 tph 45 mph (BCR of 1.0) Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits
Noise £386 (12) Local Air Quality £0 (13) Greenhouse Gases £1,637 (14) Journey Quality (15) Physical Activity (16) Accidents £4,746 (17) Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Commuting) £48,003 (1a) Economic Efficiency: Consumer Users (Other) £21,367 (1b) Economic Efficiency: Business Users and Providers £6,951 (5) Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) -£7,220 - (11) - sign changed from PA table, as PA table represents costs, not benefits
Present Value of Benefits (see notes) (PVB) £75,870 (PVB) = (12) + (13) + (14) + (15) + (16) + (17) + (1a) + (1b) + (5) - (11)
Broad Transport Budget £75,789 (10)
Present Value of Costs (see notes) (PVC) £75,789 (PVC) = (10)
OVERALL IMPACTS Net Present Value (NPV) £81 NPV=PVB-PVC Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.0 BCR=PVB/PVC 226
Note : This table includes costs and benefits which are regularly or occasionally presented in monetised form in transport appraisals, together with some where monetisation is in prospect. There may also be other significant costs and benefits, some of which cannot be presented in monetised form. Where this is the case, the analysis presented above does NOT provide a good measure of value for money and should not be used as the sole basis for decisions.
227 Agenda Item 14
A Scrutiny Review Panel on: Market Harborough Line Speed Improvements
Final Report of the Panel May 2016 228
Foreword by the Chairman
“The proposals put forward by Network Rail to increase the line speed at Market Harborough, and across the Midland Mainline, provide a valuable opportunity for economic growth in the region. It is also an opportunity for Leicestershire County Council to work in partnership with Network Rail to provide better station facilities in Market Harborough and to improve local infrastructure to allow better access to the station.
Throughout the relatively short duration of this Panel we have heard from a number of stakeholders and it is very clear that these proposals are widely supported by local residents and users of the Midland Mainline. The Panel very quickly became aware of the benefits this will bring to the area and as such we strongly support the proposals.
I would not only like to thank the Panel members for their contribution to the Review, but also Network Rail and East Midlands Trains for the extensive information provided on the proposals and support they provided to us on our site visit to the station. I would also like to thank Harborough District Council for contributing to the Panel and hosting us after the site visit, and the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP), local user groups and elected members who all gave evidence to the Panel in a constructive and positive manner.
I hope you enjoy reading this report and that you find it an interesting precis of our Review. Our recommendations are included at the front of this report for ease of reference and our wider deliberations follow.”
David Jennings CC, Chairman of the Panel County Councillor for the Cosby & Countesthorpe division [email protected]
1
229 Recommendations of the Panel
The Panel wishes to make the following recommendations to the Cabinet:-
General
(a) That, in view of the substantial resultant benefits to the local and county economy, the proposals to improve the line speed at Market Harborough be welcomed;
(b) That the proposals to improve the station facilities, particularly in respect of disabled access and car and cycle parking facilities, be welcomed;
Funding Gap
(c) That there is recognition that, without addressing the £9.3 million funding gap, there is a danger that the project may not go ahead as planned and accordingly that officers be asked to press the case for full funding with partners and Central Government to ensure this project progresses and that local councils across the region who stand to benefit from the line speed improvements or station improvements be asked to make a local contribution to reduce this gap;
Easy and Sustainable Access
(d) That Network Rail’s proposals to improve car parking capacity at the station be welcomed, and that officers be asked to progress discussions to ensure a good quality and quantity of bicycle storage and undercover cycle parking facilities at the station are included;
(e) That officers be asked to consult with local bus companies to encourage bus services that currently terminate in the Town Centre to terminate at the train station where this is commercially viable;
(f) That, subject to (e) above, the County Council as the Highways Authority be encouraged look at ways in which sustainable transport access at the station could be improved;
Rights of Way and Planning
(g) That the Local Planning Authority seek to maximise the commercial and economic opportunities arising from the proposed investment in this project;
(h) That, in view of the significant associated costs of building a bridge, officers be encouraged to explore diverting the public right of way A46, off Langton Road. Great Bowden, and possible other additional non-motorised user routes from the north into the station;
(i) That officers at the County Council be asked to explore innovative solutions in tackling the current car parking issues on residential streets adjacent to the Station in a way that avoids disruption to local residents insofar as this is possible;
(j) That the significant role the County Council and the local planning authority would need to play in ensuring that any planning permissions for works associated with proposals are granted swiftly in order to avoid any undue delays to the project be recognised;
(k) That the County Council be asked to do all within its means to ensure that S106 contributions as part of future development in the area be focused towards providing a good level of pedestrian, cycle and highway access to the Station;
Miscellaneous
(l) That officers approach Network Rail with a view to ensuring that consideration be given to the donation of any surplus railway line to heritage railways such as The Great Central;
(m) That the active volunteer-base at the Station was and would remain an essential asset, ensuring the station remained an attractive and valuable asset to the local community;
(n) That officers provide panel members with regular progress updates following Network Rails project steering group meetings.
2
230
Scope of the Review
1. The Panel was established as a ‘One-Day’ Review Panel in February 2016 with the purpose of gaining a better understanding of the proposed line improvements through Market Harborough and any associated potential improvements to the station facilities. In considering the proposals the Panel would need to understand the following issues:-
(i) How a £9.3 million funding gap might be addressed;
(ii) The arrangements for the construction and communication of the scheme to the public ;
(iii) Traffic impact and use of alternative transport provision available during the works;
(iv) How disruption to highways and rail users could be minimised.
2. The Panel met in total on four occasions with its main evidence gathering session taking place on the 18 March. It took evidence directly from relevant organisations and stakeholders (detailed in paragraph 5 below). As part of the evidence gathering session, members of the Panel undertook a site visit to Market Harborough Railway Station in order to visualise how the proposed improvements would affect the station and consider whether any changes might be required. Following the site visit, the Panel resumed its meeting at the Harborough District Council offices.
Membership of the Panel
3. The following five members were appointed to serve on the Panel:-
David Jennings CC Bill Liquorish CC Christine Radford CC
Jeffrey Kaufman CC Max Hunt CC
4. Mr Jennings CC was elected as Chairman of the Panel. 3
231
Stakeholders consulted
5. Members of the public were invited to contribute to the Review via a press release issued prior to the start of the Panel’s business. No submissions were received. Interest groups including all those highlighted below were individually invited to take part in the Panel’s Review. The Panel is grateful to the following who all contributed to its work:
Kevin Newman Network Rail Alexandra McMillan Lisa Angus East Midlands Trains Blake Pain CC Leader of Harborough District Council Sarah Hill CC Local County and District Councillor Andy Rose Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP) Christopher Groome Leicestershire and Northamptonshire Rail Action Committee Steve Jones Harborough Rail Users Group Stephen Pointer Harborough District Council Phil Crossland Leicestershire County Council
Background
6. In 2011 Network Rail announced that the Midland Mainline would be electrified, in the hope that this could be achieved by ‘the end of the decade’. Since then a number of other proposals have been developed, including straightening the line in a number of areas and undertaking other journey time, performance and capacity improvements. The section of the line running through Market Harborough has been included in these proposals. The improvements to the Midland Mainline form part of a £38 billion package of improvements to the UK rail network.
7. The Midland Mainline project has been split into two ‘key stages’. The first stage, which includes the improvements to Market Harborough, is scheduled for completion by December 2019. This will include increasing freight services, restructuring the timetable and reducing journey times. In addition to this, the line will be electrified between London to Kettering. The second stage scheduled for completion by December 2023 will electrify the rest of the line up to Sheffield and develop a fully electric fleet for Midland Mainline trains. As such any work taking place on the line at Market Harborough will be built towards the specification required to electrify the lines.
8. The necessity for this Review was further enforced by the development of a Rail Strategy for Leicester and Leicestershire which was approved for consultation by Cabinet on the 1st March 2016. The draft Rail Strategy contains four key priorities, one of which is the need to maximise the benefits from the Midland Mainline.
4
9. Network Rail has publicised its general proposals for the straightening of the line and improvements at Market Harborough station. At present, the line speed going through Market Harborough is one of the slowest in the UK with speeds of around 60mph, and as such there is a considerable business case for straightening the line. The general proposals indicate that the line will be straightened in the station area itself and to the north of the station. Figure 1 below demonstrates what the new straightened line (in red) would look like compared to the current line (in green). Figure 2 provides further detail on the changes to the line going through the station area.
10. Network Rail has previously confirmed that it will also be lengthening the platform at Market Harborough. Currently passengers have to move to the front of the train in order to get onto the platform. The lengthening of the line to accommodate 240m trains will make the service much more accessible for passengers. 232
Figure 1. Old (green) and new (red) railway line through Market Harborough
5
233
Figure 2. Proposals for the new line through the station area
11. At the time of the Panel’s first meeting it was unclear what Network Rail had specifically planned for the station facilities other than improving disabled access to all stations across the UK under its “Access For All” Programme.
12. The proposals for the line and station facilities were clarified by Network Rail at the Panel’s evidence gathering session on 18 March (the details of the proposals are appended to this Final Report for completion).
6
234
Project Funding
13. Prior to the commencement of the Review it was known that there was a funding gap of £9.3 million which could have a significant impact on whether the improvements went ahead or the extent to which the improvements would be made. As indicated below, the Local Enterprise Partnerships - D2N2 (derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire), SCR (Sheffield City Region) and the LLEP - had already committed a combined total of £13 million to the project.
Funding Source Total (£m) Network Rail - Discretionary Fund 0.1 Network Rail - Journey Improvement 19.0 Network Rail - Access for All Fund 2.4 Network Rail - Train Lengthening 2.3 Network Rail Total 23.8
Local Enterprise Partnership Funding Total 13.0 Total funding Committed 36.8 Expected Project cost 46.1 Funding Shortfall -9.3 Project Cost and Funding
14. The Panel was pleased to learn of a boost for the project from the Government when the Chancellor in his March 2016 budget statement announced that the project would receive £1 million of additional funding to enable parking improvements at the Station.
15. The Panel noted that, as part of the proposals, Network Rail had built in a contingency fund of around £9 million. Large scale projects such as this were required to build in significant contingencies to cover unknown factors, which inevitably emerge as scheme development progresses. The Panel noted that it would not be possible to utilise the contingency sum to fill the funding gap.
Findings from the Review
16. The findings from the Panel’s deliberations are set out below under the following key headings:
(A) Funding (B) Line Improvements (C) Station Facilities (D) Wider Highways Improvements (E) Consultation and Communication
(A) Funding
17. As referenced in paragraph 13 the £9.3 million funding gap for the project was considered to be a significant concern. Without the gap being filled, it would not be possible for Network Rail to carry out all of the necessary improvements. The
7
235 Panel queried a number of options for filling this gap including:
Reducing the amount of work required (for instance, could a public right of way be extinguished rather than diverted);
Press the case for partners, such as the LEPs, to contribute further towards the project beyond the £13 million that had already been committed; and
Press the case with central government for additional funding.
18. The Panel ultimately came to the view that in order for the improvements to go ahead it would be necessary to seek a contribution from councils adjoined to Market Harborough that stood to benefit from the project. It was felt that this approach of identifying some local funding towards closing the gap would place the project on a better financial footing from which a reduced funding gap could hopefully be addressed via Central Government.
(B) Line Improvements
19. Network Rail outlined to the Panel what the new, straighter line would look like (as referenced in Figures 1 and 2), how much time this will save when taking into account the straightening works across the Midland Mainline, and what effect this could have on the local area. The Panel also heard, from both Network Rail and the Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership, how this could benefit the area in terms of economic growth.
20. Market Harborough is already a “commuter town” for those working in London and this has contributed to house price rises in the area. An expansion of the facilities at the Station would unlock further opportunities for the local area. It would be important that the Local Planning Authority sought to maximise the commercial and economic opportunities that would stem from this project.
21. Not only would there be benefits to the City and County from being within an hour’s distance from London, but also to the wider region including the North Northamptonshire area. This was viewed as being significant as a means of marketing the area to businesses.
A train pulling into Platform 2 at Market Harborough Station. 8
236 22. Those travelling by train through Market Harborough currently suffer one of the slowest line speeds in the UK due to the curvature of the line. Trains are required to slow down to just 60mph through the station. Whilst a slight bend in the track would remain as part of the works, a straighter line would allow trains to travel up to 90mph through the area. This, along with other line speed improvement along the Midland Mainline would contribute towards overall journey time savings of between 5.0 to 6.5 minutes between Market Harborough, Leicester and Loughborough and 0.5 minutes between Leicester and London St. Pancras. It is estimated by the Department for Transport that each additional minute of journey time can cost the economy approximately £133 million per minute. It is important to note that if the proposals are only seen in terms of the link between Market Harborough and London, the improvements to journey times could be perceived as being relatively insignificant. However the Panel was keen to consider the work within the context of wider performance improvement and straightening work across the entire Midland Mainline as the economic potential to be unlocked from this was significant.
23. In considering these broader economic benefits, it was assumed that the majority of passengers travelled from Market Harborough to London. However the Panel was surprised to learn that there was a 50/50 split between North and Southbound journeys. This further emphasised the need to view this benefits of this project beyond merely the “London commute”.
24. The line improvements themselves would involve the installation of a brand new line as improving the existing line was not considered to be feasible. As such, the Panel noted that disruption to rail passengers during the work should be minor with the most significant disruption taking place when the new line was connected to the portions of existing line. As this was largely a brand new line, with the potential for reconstructing some highways and public rights of way to accommodate it, the Panel acknowledged that this created an opportunity for Network Rail to modernise the line in anticipation of the electrification project which it was hoped would follow. This would then have the double benefit of a straighter, faster track with faster trains running on it.
25. The Panel did raise with Network Rail the potential for using the leftover railway line as a freight loop. However, as Market Harborough is located in a valley, a freight train would struggle to move out of Market Harborough once it had stopped. Accordingly, members suggested that Network Rail could explore potentially donating any surplus railway track to the local heritage railway lines such as the Great Central Railway.
26. There are a number of considerations for the new line, including the issues pertaining to public rights of way which are outlined in paragraph 35. Changing the current land use of the ‘pony paddock’ (owned by Network Rail) to the north of Market Harborough, and other public rights of way considerations will require Network Rail to consider as early as possible the planning applications required for the works to proceed. The planning authority and the County Council would have a role to play in ensuring this did not result in undue delays to the project.
9
237 (C) Station Facilities
27. As a result of the work to the platforms and the tracks there was a clear opportunity to extensively develop the station facilities which were badly in need of improvement. There was broad acknowledgement amongst the Panel and stakeholders that the disabled facilities at the station were inadequate. The Panel was reassured that a number of the project proposals included the introduction of new and better facilities which would be much more accessible by those with mobility impediments.
28. One of the key improvements needed was the passenger platform to be lengthened. At present when trains are stopping at Market Harborough passengers are required to move to the front of the train in order to disembark. However by extending the platforms this would allow longer trains to stop at the station without any inconvenience to passengers. Furthermore, the platform improvements would also aim to decrease the distance between the train and the platform in order to improve access. The Panel also felt that the lack of covered platform was unfortunate and that there was an opportunity to rectify this as part of the proposals.
29. Research undertaken suggested that 58% of those using the station travelled to it by car. This perhaps reflects the wide rural catchment of this particular station. As use of the rail network is forecast to significantly increase in the coming years, the Government’s announcement of £1 million for increasing the number of car parking spaces at the station was welcomed. As a result of this, the Panel noted that Network Rail was looking to increase capacity from 300 to over 500 spaces. However the Panel also recognised that provision for secure and covered cycle storage and parking, such as canopies, was important in encouraging sustainable travel to the station.
30. In addition to the increase in car parking capacity, the Panel was of the view that access to the station via bus would be crucial. The Panel felt that Network Rail 10
238 should consider creating sufficient space in the car park at the station frontage to enable buses to turn around after having terminated at the station. It was clear that further work would be required of the County Council in partnership with local bus companies to ensure these were feasible prior to taking these matters further with Network Rail.
31. The Panel was pleased to note that Network Rail was hoping to include a number of other improvements to the station, including the introduction of a shelter and ticket machines on both sides of the track.
The exposed platforms at Market Harborough Railway Station.
32. It became very clear during the Review from all stakeholders the Panel met with that the current station building is a treasured community asset with a strong volunteer-base maintaining the aesthetics of the building. As a result of this Network Rail had agreed not to make changes to the building’s external appearance and would instead consider only the potential to improve its internal facilities.
The interior and exterior appearance of Market Harborough Railway Station.
11
239 (D) Wider Highways Improvements
33. Both the Leader of Harborough District Council, Councillor Blake Pain and the local member Dr. Sarah Hill CC made it clear to the Panel that there were a number of issues around parking which would need to be tackled. The Panel noted that there have been numerous complaints regarding commuters using the nearby residential streets for parking in the absence of sufficient parking provision at the station. Whilst it was hoped that the increased car parking capacity would tackle this issue, it would be important for the County Council to look into innovative parking enforcement solutions in the residential areas surrounding the station in order to mitigate any ongoing issues. It was hoped that this could be achieved in a way which would not adversely affect homeowners with parking permits.
34. It was made clear to the Panel that, arising from the 3,500 increase in dwellings in the town’s local plan, usage of the train service from Market Harborough was projected to increase and, as noted previously, the improved facilities would make the town an even more attractive commuter area for those travelling north and south. Owing to this ongoing and forecast development, the Panel suggested that officers should look to using Section 106 contributions from developers for the development of cycle lanes to the station. The Panel also stressed the need to look into improving access to the station by sustainable means such as bus and cycle. Should officers be successful in pressing the case with Network Rail for a bus stop within the car park, works would be required on the local highway to improve bus access.
35. There are a number of public rights of way which would be affected by the new line. These can be seen in more detail in Appendix A. Network Rail has proposed that three bridges along the line would need to be completely reconstructed to allow for the electrification work to proceed. Network Rail has investigated the current usage of footpath A46 (currently an underpass) in Great Bowden and believe that, owing to its relatively low usage, the part of this route going under the railway could be extinguished and pedestrians diverted. Approximately £1 million could be saved from extinguishing part of this route under the railway and diverting pedestrians rather than building a replacement route(that would have to be a bridge) through this area. The Panel is of the view that, in order to keep the project on track and on budget, where a more pragmatic solution can be found attempts should be made to avoid works such as this.
12
240
Footpath A46, under the Midland Mainline, to be considered for diversion.
(E) Consultation and Communication
36. Network Rail has already undertaken a consultation exercise with the residents of Market Harborough by briefing the local members and holding an open day on 27 February (in the town’s Market Hall) for the public which broadly outlined the proposals. The Panel was pleased to see that the decision not to alter the current station building was as a result of a public desire for the building to be retained as an attractive local asset to the community.
37. Network Rail is planning to continue to update local residents and users on the proposals, including a second open day event which is to be held in the Autumn. Once the plans had been finalised, the proposals would be published on the Network Rail website and local residents affected by the work would be updated on a regular basis particularly where it had the potential to cause disruption.
38. As with any planning applications and public right of way diversions, these would be subject to the usual consultation exercises and were subject to any comments from local residents and groups. The usual risk of objections to a planning application therefore applies to these proposals.
13
241 Project Timeline
Recommendations of the Panel
39. The Panel wishes to make the following recommendations to the Cabinet:-
General
(a) That, in view of the substantial resultant benefits to the local and county economy, the proposals to improve the line speed at Market Harborough be welcomed;
(b) That the proposals to improve the station facilities, particularly in respect of disabled access and car and cycle parking facilities, be welcomed;
Funding Gap
(c) That there is recognition that, without addressing the £9.3 million funding gap, there is a danger that the project may not go ahead as planned and accordingly that officers be asked to press the case for full funding with partners and Central Government to ensure this project progresses and that local councils across the region who stand to benefit from the line speed improvements or station improvements be asked to make a local contribution to reduce this gap;
Easy and Sustainable Access
(d) That Network Rail’s proposals to improve car parking capacity at the station be welcomed, and that officers be asked to progress discussions to ensure that a good quality and quantity of bicycle storage and undercover cycle parking facilities at the station are included;
(e) That officers be asked to consult with local bus companies to encourage bus services that currently terminate in the Town Centre to terminate at the train station where this is commercially viable;
14
242 (f) That, subject to (e) above, the County Council as the Highways Authority be encouraged look at ways in which sustainable transport access at the station could be improved;
Rights of Way and Planning
(g) That the Local Planning Authority seek to maximise the commercial and economic opportunities arising from the proposed investment in this project;
(h) That, in view of the significant associated costs of building a bridge, officers be encouraged to explore diverting the public right of way A46, off Langton Road. Great Bowden, and possible other additional non-motorised user routes from the north into the station;
(i) That officers at the County Council be asked to explore innovative solutions in tackling the current car parking issues on residential streets adjacent to the Station in a way that avoids disruption to local residents insofar as this is possible;
(j) That the significant role the County Council and the local planning authority would need to play in ensuring that any planning permissions for works associated with proposals are granted swiftly in order to avoid any undue delays to the project be recognised;
(k) That the County Council be asked to do all within its means to ensure that S106 contributions as part of future development in the area be focused towards providing a good level of pedestrian, cycle and highway access to the Station;
Miscellaneous
(l) That officers approach Network Rail with a view to ensuring that consideration be given to the donation of any surplus railway line to heritage railways such as The Great Central;
(m) That the active volunteer-base at the Station was and would remain an essential asset, ensuring the station remained an attractive and valuable asset to the local community;
(n) That officers provide panel members with regular progress updates following Network Rails project steering group meetings.
Timetable for Decisions
40. Following approval by the Scrutiny Review Panel, the Final Report will be submitted to the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 9 June and then the Cabinet at its meeting on 17 June. In accordance with standard practice, the Chairman of the Panel will represent the matter at the Cabinet meeting with support from officers.
15
243 Background papers
Statement submitted by the Leicestershire and Northamptonshire Rail Action Committee, 18th March 2016. http://politics.leics.gov.uk/documents/s117610/LANRAC%20Submission.pdf
Statement submitted by the Harborough Rail Users Group, 18th March 2016. http://ow.ly/4nmsj8
Minutes of the Panel meeting held on 18th March 2016. http://ow.ly/4nmsqb
Report to Cabinet 1st March 2016, ‘Development of a Rail Strategy for Leicester and Leicestershire’. http://ow.ly/4npIMp
Circulation under the Local Issue Alerts Procedure
Dr. S. Hill CC Mr. B. L. Pain CC
Officers to Contact:
Ben Holihead, Committee Officer Tel: 0116 305 6339 Email: [email protected]
Sam Weston, Principal Committee Officer Tel: 0116 305 6226 Email: [email protected]
Phil Crossland, Director of Environment and Transport Tel: 0116 305 7000 Email: [email protected]
Appendix
Appendix A – Line Speed Improvement Summary Appendix B - Midland Mainline Electrification Programme Appendix C - Line Speed and Station Improvements Summary
Equalities and Human Rights Implications
41. The station improvements are intended to provide better access for those with mobility impediments to both sides of the station, and as such will have a positive contribution to Equalities and Human Rights.
16
This page is intentionally left blank THE MARKET HARBOROUGH LINE SPEED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The Project Why we are doing the project Summary of the benefits • Network Rail is straightening the • This enhancement project is part • Faster trains – resulting from track to enable the line speed to be of a wider Midland Main Line the line speed increase increased through the Market Upgrade Programme that will • Journey time improvement Harborough area deliver capacity and journey time when combined with the wider • The track realignment allows for new improvements, alongside Midland Main line upgrade station facilities – which will include: electrification, to benefit programme - Better access for people with passengers • Improved safety – reducing mobility issues • The Market Harborough Line gap between platforms and - Longer platforms Speed Improvement Project is trains, as well as removing the - Wider car park spaces part of the £38 billion investment barrow crossing - Additional car parking (subject programme taking place across to funding) the UK rail network • Improved car parking and - Improved road access to the access • This investment represents the 245 station largest modernisation of the • Longer platforms which can Timing railways since Victorian times and accommodate longer trains • Construction will take place from late will provide reliable, efficient and more passengers 2017 until 2019 (subject to transport infrastructure for the agreement of final work schedule) future • Work will be phased to minimise the disruption to station users
/ This page is intentionally left blank Midland Main Line Electrification programme 247
KEY MMLe — Midland Main Line Red poten al loca on of Hs2 Brown Leicester to Burton Line Purple West Coast Main Line Green Birmingham to Rugby Black other lines Yellow diamonds Junc ons POST HENDY REVIEW—UPDATE The Hendy Enhancements delivery plan update (Jan 2016)
Electrification of the Midland Main Line has resumed under plans announced as part of Sir Peter Hendy’s work to reset Network Rail’s upgrade programme. Work on electrifying the Midland Main Line, the vital long-distance corridor that serves the UK’s industrial heartland, will continue alongside the line-speed and capacity improvement works that were already in hand.
Electrification of the line north of Bedford to Kettering and Corby is scheduled to be completed by 2019, and the line north of Kettering to Leicester, Derby/Nottingham and Sheffield by 2023. Outputs The Midland Main line Electrification Programme known as the MMLe is split into two key output dates, the first running from 2014-2019 (known as CP5) and the second, 2019-2023 (CP6). There are a number of sub projects running under the main MMLe programme which are delivering various improvements in the Leicestershire area. Each sub project has dependencies with each other to enable the full ES001- Midland Main Line electrification programme to be achieved A number of interfaces and assumptions link to these programmes and their sub projects will affect Leicestershire.
ES001A- Leicester Capacity The proposed 4 tracking between Syston and Wigston is located under sub project ES001A - Leicester Capacity which can be found on page 27 of Network Rails enhancements delivery plan . The project seeks to deliver a number of capacity enhancements along the Midland Main Line corridor including grade separation (a potential fly under) at MML Wigston junction, new 4 track provision between Wigston and Leicester to enable the separation of the up and down fast and slow lines. This in turn will allow for a new slow line platform to be installed at Leicester Station and new up and slow lines between Humberstone Road and Syston Junction. These works will also look at improved capacity in the Syston area, details of which are yet to be detailed and confirmed. These works are linked with the
EM001- long distance high speed services train lengthening project ; the removal of trackside vegetation removal will be carried out / signalling 248 changes / new footbridges and platform extensions will be undertaken along the length of the route with phase 1 being from Bedford to Market Harborough from 2019 and phase 2 -Loughborough to Sheffield from 2023. These works are linked with PJIF funded ES003K- Market Harborough- line speed improvements ; this sub project seeks to deliver realignment of the track through Market Harborough, station alterations and associated infrastructure changes to improve line speeds and passenger journeys. Critical Interdependencies include the Little Bowden level crossing closure with diversion of the existing right of way over a new footbridge. Each project will be considered “under development” up to the single option stage known as Grip 3. Until this stage is reached, uncertainty over scope and timescales for delivery is likely, all sub projects being determined both in delivery and budget by the completion of any dependant sub projects, although not mutually inclusive.
The Hendy Enhancements delivery plan update can be viewed by following the link h ps://www.networkrail.co.uk/Hendy-review MARKET HARBOROUGH LINE SPEED IMPROVEMENTS HARBOROUGH STATION
RED = Proposed line of new track To st Marys Road / Town Centre Green Dashed– exis ng track Lines to be removed
NORTH Pink = Proposed car park Exis ng sta on access Green—Network Rail land ownership
A
HARBOROUGH 249 Rockingham road Gt B owd TRAIN STATION en R Road bridge oad Li le Bowden
To Great Bowden
Poten al access loca on (A)
Poten al access
d a loca on (B) o R
g n i r e
e K Poten al access loca on (C)
A G o re Ri s ve Lan rsi de e
Riverside industrial estate
This plan is not to scale and is for iden fica on purposes only
To A6 Harborough bypass Improved sta on facili es and enhanced car park with improved access Removal of engineering sidings
Longer pla orms
Staged construc on Great Bowden Village — Proposed Bridge and rail track works
To B6047 NORTH
PROPOSALS Bridge ID: SPC3/28D Main Street overbridge
Works to: Station road bridge, Footbridge & Main Street Proposal : reconstruct Sta on ID: SPC53/28F Sta on road overbridge bridge Proposal : reconstruct Line side vegetation clearance. New track alignment through Pony Paddock (terminating ex- isting lease as NR land) Likely to have minor change to Public Rights of Way (permanent diversion order to be submitted)
SUBJECT TO ALTERATION
Bridge ID: SPC3/28E Footbridge / Main Street PROW A49 Proposal : reconstruct Li le Bo wde n rd
New track line
Exis ng rail lin New track line e to be re moved
Exis ng rail line
to be removed 250
e s lo c Sta y on rr Ro e ad B d oa n R gto Lan
Great Bowden
This plan is not to scale and is for iden fica on purposes only The Green Great Bowden Village — Proposed Bridge and rail track works on Network Rail owned paddock land off Langton Road
NORTH Proposal : Not known at this me
Change of use to operational railway (Pony Paddocks)
Bridge ID: SPC3/28C foot / road bridge UB- Langton Road with right of way Proposal : Not known at this me 251
Proposed new track line
Paddocks land requiring planning permission Main Street Bridge ID: SPC3/28A underbridge
Dis man tled Langton Road railw ay line Bridge ID: SPC3/28B Skew Bridge
This plan is not to scale and is for iden fica on purposes only Great Bowden Village — Proposed Bridge and rail track works on Network Rail owned paddock land off Langton Road 2
A6 Harborough NORTH Bypass to Kibworth
Bridge ID: SPC3/28 A6 Harborough Bypass
Change of use to opera onal PROPOSAL: Raise parapets only ne railway ack li ew tr sed n Propo
To Thorpe Langton Proposal : Not known at this me L 252 angton R ne oad ck li g tra s n Exi oad n R gto Lan To Great Bowden Bridge ID: SPC3/28A - CHATERS CATTLE Dis BRIDGE with PROW BOAT A47 man tled rai lway PROPOSAL: reconstruct line This plan is not to scale and is for iden fica on purposes only
A6 Harborough Bypass to Market Harborough Overview plan 253
Harborough Council: Leicestershire County Council
Environmental screening to inform decision on Environmental Impact Assessment Diversion order for Public Rights of Way (temp & permanent) Car Park planning application
Prior approval of new station & footbridge Highway authority:
Change of use to operational railway (Pony Paddock) Highway approval for new station access route
Part 8 notification for permitted development Change to bridges
Listed building consent
Update on Bridge enhancements (phase 1) The following bridges were previously identified and committed in the Midland Mainline Electrification programme as requiring enhancement works. Following the unpausing of the electrification and Hendy review in September 2015, Network rail is currently in the progress of replanning the programme and as yet has not yet been able to provide LCC with a new programme timetable for the delivery of these phase 1 works. Other bridges in Leicestershire were also identified as requiring works but as they remain uncommitted .
Name of Structure Post Highways Planning Description of Liability / Property ELR ID Consents Proposal structure Class code Authority Authority Structure Issues
Charnwood Lattice two span NR owned & Under Hill SPC Leicestershire 49 LE127LP Borough skewed maintained for public N/A Reconstruction to 5100mm Footbridge 5 County Council Bridge Council footbridge footpath rights.
Charnwood Approach arches NR owned & Humble Lane SPC Leicestershire Overbridge 44 LE74US Borough and two span maintained for public N/A Reconstruction to 5175mm 5 County Council Bridge Council steel flat deck highway rights.
Charnwood NR owned & SPC Leicestershire Two span Overbridge 43 LE74UZ Borough maintained for public N/A Reconstruction to 5175mm Syston Road 5 County Council wrought Iron deck Council highway rights.
Jack existing flat deck and Charnwood Two brick arch & NR owned & Meadow SPC Leicestershire reconstruct central Arch with a flat 78 LE111LE Borough New concrete maintained for public N/A Overbridge 5 County Council deck to match jacked structure, side Lane Council deck highway rights. arch to remain.
Charnwood NR owned & Barkby SPC Leicestershire Two span Overbridge 29 LE48GT Borough maintained for public N/A Reconstruction to 5175mm 5 County Council concrete flat deck Thorpe Lane Council highway rights.
Charnwood NR owned & SPC Leicestershire Two span Overbridge 30 LE72BA Borough maintained for public N/A Reconstruction to 5175mm Barkby Lane 5 County Council concrete flat deck Council highway rights.
Charnwood NR owned & Jack existing flat deck and Nottingham SPC LE111H Leicestershire Brick arch & New 75 Borough maintained for public N/A reconstruct arch with a flat deck to Overbridge 5 W County Council concrete deck Road A60 Council highway rights. match jacked structure. 254
NR owned & SPC LE167H Leicestershire Harborough Three span brick maintained for a Byway 28 N/A Reconstruction to 5100mm Chaters Overbridge 3 S County Council District Council arch Open to All Traffic BOAT
Grammar NR owned & SPC Leicestershire Harborough Three span brick Conservation Reconstruction with flat deck to Overbridge 18 LE89JB maintained for public School 3 County Council District Council arch Area 5175mm Bridge footpath rights.
Oadby and NR owned & Taylors SPC LE182Q Leicestershire Wigston Overbridge 3 Single span deck maintained for private N/A Jack existing structure to 5175mm 3 T County Council Borough Lodge vehicular rights. Council Location of bridges and junctions affected by the Midland Main Line Electrification programme North of Leicester
not iden fied 255
(Iden fied in Leicester Capacity)
KEY Blue Circle — Bridges iden fied in the MMLe programme as requiring works Dashed orange circles Syston Junc ons and sta on Wigston Junc on and Wigston Fly under loca on (Iden fied in Leicester Capacity ES001A) Dashed orange Length of track involved in the Leicestershire capacity project WIGSTON Bridge iden fica on FLY UNDER Blue wording Commi ed works phase 1 (Iden fied in Black wording uncommi ed works Leicester Capacity) Location of bridges and junctions affected by the Midland Main Line Electrification programme North of Leicester
Iden fied in CROFT SIDINGS Leicester Capacity not iden fied
KEY Blue Circle — Bridges iden fied in the MMLe Phase 1 programme as requiring works
Dashed orange Cro sidings 256 circles orange oval Market Harborough line speed Iden fied in improvements project MHLSI (ES001A) Yellow line Track works outside of county south of Leicestershire to be completed in key output 1 2014-2019 Bridge iden fica on Blue wording Commi ed works phase 1 Black wording uncommi ed works Market Harborough Station
Linespeed and Station Improvements 257
Kevin Newman – Senior Commercial Scheme Sponsor – Network Rail Lisa Angus – Head of Estates & Major Projects – East Midlands Trains
18-Mar-16 / Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Midland Mainline Programme 258 3. The Project 4. Timeline 5. EMT view 6. Cost & Funding 7. Next steps
18-Mar-16 / 2. The Midland Mainline Programme 259 The context for the project
18-Mar-16 / MML Programme – Key Benefits MML Programme
Key Output 1 Key Output 2 December 2019 Timetable December 2023 Timetable Electrify to Kettering / Corby Electrify to Leicester, Nottingham, Faster Journey Times (Nottingham Derby and Sheffield 260 Sheffield – London) Full Electric Fleet for London Capacity for 6th train – (Kettering Trains to London) and additional freight Completion of Journey time services. works Timetable Restructured Stabling/Servicing for new electric stock at Kettering*
Fast Line OLE south of Bedford – 125mph Gauge Clearance of the route to W12/W7/W6a
/ MML Programme – Key Outputs
Key Key Output 1 Output 2 OLE to OLE to Sheffield Thameslink Corby & Nottingham (Sept 19) (Sept 23) Key Outputs
May 18 Dec 18 Dec 19 Dec 23 WTT WTT
WTT WTT 261
GTR 20tph GTR 24tph Market • 6tph Harborough • Journey Project times • Derby EM - New remodelled EM - New Rolling Rolling Stock Stock for for Sheffield GTR –New Corby &Nottingham Rolling services services Stock
/ 5 MML Programme : Major projects
Derby North PJIF Electrification Bedford – Sheffield journey time and performance capacity, journey time and performance improvements improvements Derby Recontrol • Corby: December 2019 • Sheffield: December 2023
Derby Station remodelling journey time and performance Longer trains (route) improvements Capacity improvement, enabling longer trains 262
Leicester South Kettering to Corby freight and passenger capacity journey time and performance improvements
Market Harborough Kettering Stabling Facility journey time, station and performance improvements
Electrification South of Bedford Bedford to Kettering (incl. in MMLe) capacity, journey time and reduced operating Adjustment of OLE costs 3. The Project 263 line speed and station improvements What is the project? . Two Main Areas of work Station Area Old Junction (North) Area 264
North
8 22-Mar-16 1. Station Area
Creating… Works Outlined… 265 • New track through Platform 1 • Improved linespeed and part of existing car park • New car park facility on the East • removal of existing platform & side of the station, remodelled facilities West side • Removal of sidings • New station facilities • New longer platforms • platforms long enough for 240m • Greater Access for all facilities trains created • increased station use by all • new signalling groups 2. Old Junction (North) Area 266
Works Outlined… • Works to: Station road bridge, Footbridge & Main Street bridge • lineside vegetation clearance • new track Creating… • new signalling • Improved linespeed • new points • ready for electrification area • some Rights of Way works Station Area - aerial photo 267 Line Speed Profile Comparisons
Up Fast (to London) 120 110 100 90 80
Velocity (mph) 70 60 50 81.98 82.48 82.98 83.48 83.98 84.48 84.98
Mileage (Decimal) 268 Existing (Sectional Appendix LN3201 Seq. 027 - 20/02/2016) Proposed
1 2 Line Speed Profile Comparisons
Down Fast (to Leicester i.e. North)
120 110
100 90 80
Velocity (mph) 70 60 50 81.98 82.48 82.98 83.48 83.98 84.48 84.98 Mileage (Decimal) Existing (Sectional Appendix LN3201 Seq. 027 - 20/02/2016) Proposed 269
1 3 3. The Project Timeline 270 latest update Projected Project Timelines
• Progress to date has been funded by Network Rail (see next slide) • Further progress will require additional funding from other parties. • Linear Programme displayed but will be more flexible • Project nearing Option Selection milestone (July 2016)
2016 2017 2018 2019
Option Funding Detailed Design Construction In service Selection Approval Design 271
Planning Process Possible Advanced Phased delivery of commences Construction works scheme benefits
Asset Surveys & Consultation
Sidings removed – New car Park – build new track & platforms – join old and new track
18-Mar-16 / East Midlands Trains View
Key Facts about our Station
• Station Footfall - 862,000 PA, with a 50/50 split on North and Southbound Journeys
• Average Ticket Price - £17.30
• Number of season ticket journeys – 312,000 PA
• Sales are made predominantly via the Booking Office – 70% 272 • The Car Park is full most days, especially the beginning and end of the week
/ East Midlands Trains View
The Benefits of the Project
• An Enhanced Customer Experience for our customers
Improved step free access Improved Stepping Distance between Platform Edge and the Train Improved Car Parking Facilities
- Reduce on-street parking in nearby residential roads 273 Station Building Refurbishment Reduction to the overall journey time (the door-to-door travel time) The 'gateway effect’
/ Cost and funding
Funding Source Committed So far Future Funding Total Comments Network Rail - Discretionary Fund 0.1 0.0 0.1 Project start costs Network Rail - Journey Improvement Fund 6.2 12.8 19.0 Network Rail - Access For All Fund 0.0 2.4 2.4 Improved access for all Network Rail - Train Lengthening (LDHSS) 0.0 2.3 2.3 Longer platforms Network Rail - Total 6.3 17.5 23.8 LEP funding - Total 0.0 13.0 13.0 assumed
Total Funding Committed 6.3 30.5 36.8 274 Current Project AFC 46.1 GRIP2 estimate Funding Shortfall -9.3
• Current Committed Funding completes GRIP3 – design approvals • Any further works will require funding confirmed and agreed • Funding shortfall identified for 12 months+ • LEPs (LLEP, D2N2, SCR) made aware of the issue and have been asked to seek additional funding.
18-Mar-16 / Next Steps
Network Rail will develop a communications plan in close consultation with East Midlands Trains and the LCC/MHDC communications teams that utilises a variety of channels to keep stakeholders and residents informed - including:
• Further public information/drop–in events (the next of which will take place this Autumn)
• A dedicated page for the project on networkrail.co.uk explaining its key elements and containing up to date information/timings concerning events and work delivery 275
• We will also use social media and letter drops to nearby residents most affected by works to advise people of planned work and any disruptive/ noisy works
• Press notices/news releases will also be distributed to the local media promoting public events, giving advice (e.g. changes affecting station users during work) & marking milestones (start of work, completion of key elements)
/ 19 Thank you for your attention 276
18-Mar-16 / 277 Agenda Item 15
ENVRONMENT AND TRANSPORT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
9 JUNE 2016
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT
LEICESTER PARK AND RIDE SERVICE PERFORMANCE
Purpose
1. To update the Committee on the operational performance of the Park and Ride services across Leicestershire. The report also advises of the actions being taken throughout 2016 to increase the number of passengers using the service.
Background
2. Leicester has three park and ride sites with services operating every 15 minutes between 7.00am and 7.00pm to the city centre between Monday and Saturday, and additional services on Sundays in December as detailed below. The cost of the provision of the service is shared on a 50:50 basis with Leicester City Council. The County Council is responsible for the bus service operation; whilst the City Council is responsible for site management including security.
3. Key facts for each site are provided below.
Meynells Gorse at Leicester Forest East – service 103 520 available parking spaces Opened 1997 Operated by Roberts High concessionary pass use Stops at St. Nicholas Circle
Enderby – service 203 1000 available parking spaces Opened November 2009 Operated by Roberts Stops at the Leicester Royal Infirmary, De Montfort University, St. Nicholas Circle and Grove Park Spare parking capacity is provided to Grove Park Businesses under the Enderby Employers Parking Scheme (EEPS)
Birstall – service 303 1000 available parking spaces Opened July 2011 278
Operated by Roberts Stops at Abbey Lane (for the National Space Centre), Haymarket and Causeway Lane
4. A new bus service contract started on Monday 15th February 2016. The service is operated by Roberts with 8 buses and on retender reduced costs as the vehicle requirement was reduced from 9½ buses to 8 buses.
Current financial performance
5. The current performance has improved over previous years’ performance. However usage at Meynells Gorse has reduced as a result of no longer serving the Clock Tower with the stop at the Haymarket relocated to St. Nicholas Circle. The service frequency has also been consolidated to operate at a consistent 15 minutes frequency across the day rather than every 12 minutes in the peak time Monday to Friday and on Saturdays.
6. Various changes to how the service has been provided and the impact on revenue are illustrated in Appendix A.
7. Service costs for the operation of the park and ride, including site costs are detailed below in Table 1 for 2014/15 and 2015/16 along with a forecast of costs for 2016/17. The forecast for 2016/17 assumes no changes to fares as a result of various additional promotions but assumes growth at 5%.
Table 1 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/17
(actual) (actual) (forecast) Total on bus revenue (total farebox + £741,969 £818,477 £859,401 concessionary fares/reimbursements) Long term saver ticket £34,575 £36,268 £36,000 sales Employers Parking £210,221 £212,225 £210,000 Scheme adjusted income Birstall Section 106* £67,196 £73,016 £0 Other income £3,726 £4,000 Total income £1,053,961 £1,143,712 £1,109,401
Bus costs** £1,127,728 £1,112,105 £1,002,753 Site costs*** £464,194 £498,159 £505,000 Other costs (marketing) £31,140 £45,000 Total costs £1,591,922 £1,651,404 £1,552,753
Total Subsidy (between £537,961 £507,692 £443,352 the authorities) Subsidy for £280,660 £265,636 £233,343 Leicestershire County 279
Council**** Subsidy for Leicester £257,302 £242,056 £210,009 City Council
* The 5 year Section 106 payments will end in financial year 2015/16 ** The Park & Ride bus costs will reduce in 2016/17 due to the retendering of the service in February 2016, resulting in a reduction in the vehicle resource from 9½ vehicles to 8. The above figure for 2106/17 includes an estimate for Christmas services. *** The Park & Ride Security contract will go out to tender in the coming months which could result in a change in the forecast costs. **** The EEPS income is shared equally between the City and the County. However, the County’s share is reduced by 20% to provide a grant fund for Grove Park employers to provide sustainable transport initiatives to reduce reliance on single car travel. This can include grants for bike racks, support for home working and encouragement to car share.
8. Total income has increased from 2014/15 to 2015/16 by 10.1%, and costs have increased by 3.7%, resulting in a decrease in the overall subsidy of 8.8%. A certain amount of this can be attributed to increased awareness of the services as a result of the reinterment of King Richard III in March 2015 and the Rugby World Cup. In addition to this, the change to the Enderby route to serve the Leicester Royal Infirmary and De Montfort University has attracted more regular users to the service.
Revenue per passenger analysis
9. In 2014/15, the revenue on the services was £741,969.10 and the breakdown of revenue per site is shown below. Note that the Passenger journeys figure does not take account of long term saver ticket use, due to the way the figures are calculated.
Table 2 2014/15 103 203 303 Other Total income On bus revenue £245,063 £291,488 £205,418 £311,992 £1,053,961 Passenger 301,561 334,869 253,130 889,560 journeys* Revenue per £0.81 £0.87 £0.81 £1.18 passenger journey Gross cost per £1.79 passenger journey Net cost per £0.60 passenger journey
280
Table 3 2015/16 103 203 303 Other Total income On bus revenue £256,076 £336,654 £225,746 £325,234 £1,143,710 Passenger 295,293 385,317 267,522 948,132 journeys* Revenue per £0.87 £0.87 £0.84 £1.21 passenger journey Gross cost per £1.74 passenger journey Net cost per £0.54 passenger journey
* Each rerun journey is two passenger journeys. Group tickets are estimated at 5.4 passenger journeys per ticket.
10. Table 4 below estimates the net cost per passenger of the park and ride service for 2016/17 assuming varying rates of passenger growth.
Table 4 2016/17 Forecast 2015/16 2016/17 2016/17 2016/17 (assuming 0% (assuming 5% (assuming increase in increase in 10% increase farebox farebox in farebox revenue) revenue) revenue) Total Income £1,143,712 £1,109,401* £1,200,898* £1,258,083* Total 948,132 948,132 995,539 1,042,945 passenger journeys Total costs £1,651,404 £1,507,753** £1,507,753** £1,507,753** Gross cost £1.74 £1.59 £1.51 £1.45 per passenger journey Net cost per £0.54 £0.42 £0.31 £0.24 passenger journey
* End of section 106 revenue contribution from Hallam Fields development with final annual £50,000 contribution in 2015/16. ** Includes estimates for Christmas operation and football rugby home game support.
Current figures and statistics
11. The number of days of service per year (including Sunday enhancements in December) is 311. The average number of passengers per day is provided 281
below in Table 5 and the total passenger journey numbers are set out in Appendix B.
Table 5 Current average number of passenger journeys/day 2014/15 2,860 2015/16 3,049 % increase 6.6%
12. As evidenced from Appendix A, the most popular service is from Enderby, however Birstall is seeing steady, consistent increases since it opened in July 2011.
13. The total number of passenger journeys across all three services has increased from 2014/15 to 2015/16 by 6.6%. This breaks down by site as follows: 14. Meynell’s Gorse 2.1% decrease Enderby 15.1% increase Birstall 5.7% increase
15. The introduction of the stop at the Leicester Royal Infirmary on the Enderby service in September 2014 has boosted the increase in passengers of that service however the opening of the new multi storey car park at the hospital in February 2016 may have an impact on usage. This will be monitored moving forward.
Service promotion and offers
16. A level of promotional activity is undertaken to encourage new users and reward existing users for the park and ride services. Offer redemptions in 2015 were:
Free Travel Tuesdays (January 2015): 1,327 special tickets sold to 675 people Saver tickets (March 2015): 719 special tickets sold to 405 people Catch the Bus week (June 2015): 69 special tickets sold to 67 people Free Travel Thursdays (September 2015): 1,072 redemptions
Concessionary Passenger Journeys
17. The concessionary travel day ticket was introduced from January 2015 following a public consultation. This was designed to reduce the overall cost of the operation by reducing the make-up of concessionary fares from other budgets in both councils.
18. Concessionary travel usage has remained the same for the time of year despite some consultation responses around the implementation of a charge 282
suggesting that pass holders would stop using the service. The level of charge is £1.00 per day for pass holders which is considered good value when balanced against the costs of driving into and parking in the city centre.
Further work for 2016/17 to increase passenger usage
19. Further processes to increase awareness and usage of the park and ride under development are:
a) Summer 2016 onwards: It is proposed that over the coming year specific ticketing initiatives will be considered for piloting on the service aimed at providing benefits to users while also seeking to reduce the subsidy to park and ride. b) Autumn 2016: A review of general fare levels as fares have remained at similar levels since 2009 with a day ticket costing £3.00 and a group ticket for up to five passengers costing £3.50. c) Ongoing: Further promotional work using electronic media such as e-mail and social media and non-electronic promotion where identified. d) Autumn/Winter 2016: A review of the new timetables introduced in February 2016
20. Continued work with the City Council is planned to identify cost reductions for site operation where possible. The bus operation has been recently retendered with resultant yearly savings of £123,000 against the previous costs of operation due to a reduction in vehicle resource.
283
21. The City Council has undertaken a Managed Review of Park and Ride operations and the shared vision of both councils is to deliver a small surplus by 2019/20. The managed review, supported by both councils, has delivered changes in routes, frequencies and concessionary fare charges mentioned above.
Conclusions
22. Park and ride usage is increasing steadily at between 5% and 10% per annum. Park and ride provides an alternative to driving all the way into the city centre without the inconvenience of finding parking and is one of the ways to reduce congestion and improve air quality on the road network, along with other sustainable modes of transport.
23. Further interventions and promotions are planned in 2016/17 to reduce the subsidy paid for the operation of the service.
Recommendation
24. That the Committee note the financial position and the usage figures associated with the operation of the park and ride service and the aspiration to see the service into a small surplus by 2019/20.
Circulation under local issues alert procedure
None.
Officers to Contact
Phil Crossland, Director of Environment and Transport Tel: 0116 305 7000 E-mail: [email protected]
Ann Carruthers, Assistant Director Highways and Transportation Tel: 0116 305 7966 E-mail: [email protected]
Tony Kirk, Head of Service – Transport Operations Tel: 0116 305 6270 E-mail: [email protected]
Equalities and Human Rights implications
25. The park and ride services can be used by disabled and concessionary pass holders. Disabled parking spaces are provided at all three sites and wheelchair spaces are provide on the buses operating the service. Raised kerbs are provided at the park and rides sites and in the city centre to provide easy access. This page is intentionally left blank APPENDIX A
285 This page is intentionally left blank APPENDIX B
287 This page is intentionally left blank