HS2 Review Submission Doncaster Council and Rotherham Council
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Appendix 1: HS2 Review Submission Doncaster Council and Rotherham Council Introduction and Summary Doncaster Council and Rotherham Council support the Government’s objective to deliver improvements to the national railway network. We understand the economic and connectivity benefits that HS2 could provide across a wider geography, including the opportunity to increase capacity on the network for all users of the railway (logistics and passenger operations). However, we are very strongly opposed to the current plans for the eastern leg of Phase 2B from the West Midlands to Leeds. We believe that fundamental changes to Phase 2B are required. Rotherham Council has passed a cross-party motion calling on the Government to immediately abandon the eastern leg of HS2 between Birmingham and Leeds, if the route is not changed, and allocate the funding released to deliver essential local improvements in accordance with the Northern Powerhouse ambition. Doncaster Council has also passed a cross-party motion objecting to the current Phase 2B route. Both Rotherham Council and Doncaster Council remain of the opinion that a Meadowhall route alignment would be more economically, strategically and operationally advantageous than the current proposal. HS2 Phase 2B: West Midlands to Leeds The original Phase 2B route included a South Yorkshire hub station on the main line at Sheffield Meadowhall. The Local Authorities and Chambers of Commerce in Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham all supported the Meadowhall route. Sheffield Chamber also initially supported the Meadowhall announcement. Sheffield Council opposed the route in favour of a main line city centre station at Victoria (the other final shortlisted option).1 In 2016, Sir David Higgins announced a change to the route of HS2 through South Yorkshire. The HS2 line will move east with major impacts on communities in Rotherham and Doncaster. There will be no main line station in South Yorkshire. A spur onto the Midland Mainline in Derbyshire will allow ‘classic compatible’ trains to terminate at Sheffield Midland station. This route is not the preferred option of any Council or Chamber of Commerce in South Yorkshire. The 2016 route change has wide-ranging consequences for South Yorkshire and HS2 when compared to the original Meadowhall route. They include: Higher total costs Fewer trains and fewer seats Inferior connectivity and longer journey times Increased operational issues both on HS2 and the conventional network Fewer jobs created and lower GVA benefits Major residential demolitions and environmental impacts 1 Trains may continue north and re-join the main HS2 line on the border of West Yorkshire. These services are in the HS2 Indicative Train Service Specification (ITSS). However, the cost of delivering this connectivity and providing HS2 services from Sheffield to Leeds and the North East is not included in the HS2 budget (the Northern Loop). These issues are explained in the following sections of this report. Increased Cost of the M18/Eastern Route When announcing the M18/Eastern route, Sir David Higgins claimed a cost saving of £1bn. However, the estimate did not include the following essential works required by HS2 to deliver its core ITSS2: Electrification of the Midland Main Line south of Sheffield to enable services from London Remodelling of Sheffield Midland Station Signalling upgrades Delivery of the Northern Loop to provide HS2 services from Sheffield to Leeds/Newcastle The provision of new capacity and rolling stock (Tram Train) to maintain essential existing local services3 HS2 assumes that a number of these interventions will be delivered through other rail investment programmes. We believe the total cost of these engineering works is likely to approach or exceed £1bn. The HS2 estimate also failed to include “any further rolling stock costs that may be required – which may lead to an underestimation of the rolling stock needed”. The updated economic case expects that “a further two units of rolling stock are required over the Spending Review assumption for Birmingham to Leeds services to be routed via Sheffield”. 4 Furthermore, the operation of spur services will incur additional revenue costs of £1.7bn over the appraisal period.5 The option of a northern loop connection will incur operating costs estimated at approximately £0.2 billion.6 There is also a question raised around the potential franchising of these services and the impact that this may have on existing commitments. Because the Sheffield spur option fails to segregate high-speed services from existing services, HS2 contributes to capacity problems on the network in South Yorkshire. Without intervention, this could result in the loss of essential local services between Sheffield, Rotherham and Doncaster to make way for inter-city services. To maintain local stopping services, extension of the Tram-Train to Doncaster and Swinton is proposed.7 Delivery of the Northern Loop and extension of Tram-Train services require separate approval by Government. A business case for renewal of the Sheffield Supertram is also in development. This is an essential pre-requisite to extending Tram-Train services and is expected to require significant Government contributions.8 Again this is yet to be approved. The extension of Tram Train services in lieu of existing heavy rail services has unknown additional operational and maintenance cost implications for the Sheffield City Region. The 2017 economic case for HS2 states that the Preferred Route on the M18/Eastern corridor provides only “slightly higher BCRs, with a similar BCR spread”.9 However, as identified above these 2 findings are based on an incorrect cost model. A reassessment of the full cost of the spur option is required, including environmental mitigation on the northern loop. Demand HS2 Limited’s forecasts of demand for HS2 services in South Yorkshire estimate that the majority of demand will arise from the centre and south-west of Sheffield.10 This is based on existing demand patterns for long distance travel. However, demand is dependent upon the level of service. The current level of service in much of South Yorkshire is poor and demand is suppressed as a result. The flaw in the demand logic used by HS2 Ltd is illustrated by the current demand from Doncaster, where the level of service is very good. Doncaster satisfies a demand for four trains per hour to London. Using existing demand patterns, HS2 Ltd can only justify one train per hour from Sheffield Midland station, or a maximum of two. There is no logic to this given the difference in the population of the two areas. The Sheffield City Region Priority Growth Areas are predominantly located to the north and east of Sheffield City Centre (Figure 1). Most of these locations are better supported by the South Yorkshire hub option, with Meadowhall station located Figure 1: Sheffield City Region Priority Growth Areas within the nationally important Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District straddling Sheffield and Rotherham. Sir David Higgins recognised the flaws in the current route when he rejected it in 2014.11 “The third alternative we examined was a route which included a spur to Sheffield. This option considered a direct route via a spur terminating at Sheffield Midland station. While this provided limited benefits for the city centre market, it did not provide the connections and journey times necessary to serve the wider Sheffield city region effectively, particularly Rotherham and Barnsley.” To address this, Sir David Higgins recommended exploring the development of a mainline South Yorkshire Parkway Station. However, based on subsequent analysis, HS2 Ltd has not been able to identify a clear economic case for the inclusion of an additional parkway station on the HS2 mainline. The cost of a parkway station is expected to be well in excess of £300m.12 These flaws in connectivity cannot be resolved unless the Northern Powerhouse Rail project through South Yorkshire is fully funded by Government, including the proposed development of new mainline stations in Rotherham and the Dearne Valley, and improvements in services to Barnsley town centre.13 3 Journey Times, Frequency, Connectivity and Seating Capacity The Sheffield Midland spur means it will be faster to travel by HS2 from London to Leeds (81 mins) and York (84 mins) than Sheffield (87 mins) despite their respective locations. Journey times to Sheffield on HS2 will be no quicker than the current fastest East Coast Main Line journey time to Doncaster. It would be faster to get to Sheffield city centre via Meadowhall than on the current spur route, with a choice of city centre destinations via the tram network. A comparison of the fastest estimated HS2 journey times to South Yorkshire is detailed in Table 1.14 Fastest Journey Time from London Service Sheffield Midland 87 min HS2 Spur Sheffield Meadowhall 68 mins HS2 Main Line Sheffield Midland via Meadowhall 78 mins HS2 Main Line Doncaster 87 mins Current via ECML Table 1: Comparison of Journey Times from London to South Yorkshire. HS2 Ltd claimed that the route change would benefit passengers north of Sheffield, however, journey times have since been revised. Estimated journey times from London to Leeds are now 81 minutes for both the Meadowhall and Midland Spur options.15 HS2 also claims a journey time from Birmingham City Centre to Leeds of 49 minutes. Although this could potentially be achieved using the main HS2 line, no such services are included in the core ITSS (Figure 2). Under the ITSS, journey times from Curzon Street to Leeds are likely to take around 79 minutes, due to use of the Sheffield loop.16 In reality, Leeds City Centre to Birmingham City Centre services would be faster on HS2 via a Manchester route (c. 67 mins).17 Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to fund a new Leeds to Manchester line, this raises questions about the current strategic and economic case for Phase 2B.