Rail Link Study

Final Report

in association with Otley Rail Link Study

Final Report

in association with

Job number Prepared by Verified by Approved by Status Issue number Date D048006 SW / JCS FINAL 1 05/03/2004 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

Otley Rail Link Study Final Report

Contents

0 Executive summary...... 0 1 Introduction...... 2 2 Study approach...... 4 3 Infrastructure elements ...... 6 Permanent way and earthworks...... 6 Structures ...... 9 Station design...... 10 Electrification...... 12 Signalling ...... 12 Infrastructure costs...... 12 Summary...... 15 Pathing and scheduling issues...... 16 4 The screening framework ...... 19 Rail options ...... 19 Screening criteria...... 21 Assessment of all public transport options...... 25 5 Forecasts of passenger demand ...... 27 The trip rate model...... 27 Impact of lower level of service ...... 28 Alternative station locations...... 31 6 Appraisal of costs and benefits...... 32 Benefits...... 33 Costs...... 33 Appraisal results...... 35 7 Conclusion ...... 38 Viability of a rail link...... 38 Risks and uncertainties in the project ...... 39 Political feasibility ...... 39 The next steps...... 40

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

0 Executive summary

0.1 JMP Consultants was commissioned by Otley Town Council in October 2003 to investigate a range of options for rail reinstatement to Otley. In recent years the nearby Line has seen significant recent growth in patronage, and as the economy continues to expand, further growth is expected. The Council is concerned that rail isolation and traffic congestion will deny Otley the benefits of this economic growth, despite the popularity of the W9 bus service to . 0.2 This is a pre-feasibility study, outlining the issues to be considered in rail reinstatement. It has included an assessment of engineering feasibility, conducted by White Young Green; a screening of all the possible rail options to identify the most favourable option for detailed consideration; forecasting of likely passenger demand and revenue for an Otley service; and an appraisal of detailed costs and benefits over a thirty year operational period 0.3 The engineering feasibility study found a number of potential difficulties in the simple reinstatement of the permanent way. Between Menston and Otley some overbridges have been removed and their reinstatement is required to current highway regulations. This means that the track bed will have to be raised significantly over the A6038. 0.4 The A660 Otley Bypass also causes a number of difficulties. The feasibility concluded that it was possible to accommodate the railway alongside the bypass, provided that modifications were made to the overbridges and to part of the existing highway. A suitable site for a station was found, close to its original location, on the southern side of the bypass. 0.5 Between Otley and Arthington Junction greater problems were encountered. Firstly, a new tunnel or bridge would be required to overcome the A660 and Leeds Road roundabout at the eastern end of the bypass. More seriously, part of the track bed at Pool has been covered by 20 houses. There is no other realistic alignment for the railway, and acquiring the former track bed would be a costly and lengthy process. This indicates that the Menston to Otley option is much more feasible. 0.6 A further significant consideration is the availability of a path on the . The current service is operating close to capacity, and if the projected growth is achieved it is likely that one train per hour to/from Otley could be accommodated. A service of two trains per hour would require significant infrastructure modifications at locations on the Airedale and Wharfedale lines. 0.7 Consideration was also given to a possible extension to new gravel extraction pits to the east of Otley. An infrastructure cost of £13 million was estimated, in addition to the Menston to Otley link, implying that very significant levels of extraction would be needed to justify the expenditure. This seems unlikely given its proximity to Otley. 0.8 A wide range of public transport options were assessed, including diesel or electric operation, bus, car, and LRT use. It was concluded that the most sustainable option was an electric service from Otley through Menston to Leeds. The likely patronage of such a service was considered in detail.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 0 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

0.9 An analysis was made of possible station locations in Otley. When infrastructure constraints were combined with forecasts of likely patronage the optimum location was found to be close to its original site, albeit to the south of Otley bypass. 0.10 Potential car park sites for Otley station were identified on both sides of the bypass. The northern option is closer to the town centre, but would need the old access road to Burras Lane to be reopened. The southern option is further away from the town, but is closer to the station. It would however require the acquisition of some allotments. With either option easy public transport and disabled access could be developed from Birdcage Walk. 0.11 A standard trip rate model was used, utilising data from the 2001 Census to compare stations on the Wharfedale Line with Otley. Daily boardings were calculated, and were factored to service levels of one train and two trains per hour. Adjustments were made for Menston users that would switch to Otley, but also for the additional passengers picked up from Menston and . 0.12 In the appraisal of costs and benefits for the 30 year period from 2011 it was assumed that passenger numbers on the Wharfedale Line will continue to grow. The operating will grow in real terms. However, traffic levels will also grow, leading the rail service to accrue significant non-user benefits from reduced road congestion. All figures have had the standard discount figure of 3.5% applied to each year and are based to 2003. 0.13 The capital costs of the Menston to Otley option are estimated to be £20.5 million, though after the application of the above factors the present value of the capital cost is £14.7 million. Together with discounted operating costs of £22.6 million over 30 years, the present value of the total costs is £37.4 million. 0.14 With a service of one train per hour the revenue from train fares over 30 years will be £11.7 million; non-user benefits will be £13.3 million; and user benefits from reduced journey times will be £18.5 million. This gives a present value of benefits of £43.6 million. 0.15 The financial Net Present Value is -£25.7 million and the economic NPV is £6.2 million. This gives a cost/benefit ratio of 1.17. This means that the scheme generates economic benefits in excess of its costs. 0.16 Sensitivity testing was conducted to see how robust the analysis is. These looked at large changes in demand and capital costs. In the “downside” test, where demand is reduced by 20%, the ratio was 0.96. In the “upside” case, when demand was increased by 20%, a ratio of 1.37 resulted. 0.17 In conclusion it is considered that the Menston to Otley rail link, with direct electric services to Leeds, is a feasible and potentially economic prospect. This can be achieved through a one train per hour service. It is considered however that Otley to Arthington Junction is not viable, nor is a link to the potential gravel pits east of Otley. 0.18 This report is only the beginning of process towards rail reinstatement. A realistic timescale suggests that a 2011 opening is achievable. However, considerable political support and lobbying is now required, particularly given the current climate for funding rail schemes.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 1 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

1 Introduction

1.1 JMP Consultants, in association with White Young Green, was appointed in October 2003 by Otley Town Council, to conduct a pre-feasibility study of the potential reinstatement of a rail link to Otley. The town was rail-served until 1965, when its service fell victim to the . In recent years the nearby Wharfedale Line between Leeds and has seen substantial growth in patronage, bringing significant economic benefits to places along the line. There is concern that Otley’s lack of a rail service means that it misses out on this opportunity. With the continued growth of Leeds as an economic centre this situation will be exacerbated, with increasing traffic congestion making access to Leeds and more difficult. This report investigates potential options for rail reinstatement to Otley, assesses the likely passenger demand, and conducts a detailed evaluation of the costs and benefits. 1.2 Otley is the largest town in West without a rail service. Residents do have the opportunity to use the Wharfedale Line, through the bus link between Otley and Menston rail station (W9). The service is however subject to the vagaries of traffic congestion during the peak times, a problem that is likely to increase in forthcoming years. It also means that passengers have to wait at Menston station for a bus or rail connection. Therefore only the marginal benefits of a rail service are provided, compared with what could be achieved through a direct service to and from Otley. 1.3 There is evidence that Otley residents use the station in a “park and ride” fashion, illustrating further the potential for a direct service to Leeds and Bradford from Otley. There are also many people who drive the whole journey instead. Consequently there is more car traffic originating from Otley, on the A65 and A660, than there would be if a rail service was available. These are all important factors when assessing the merits of a potential rail service. 1.4 Travel patterns in the Leeds/Bradford to Otley corridor are far from static, with rail journeys on the Airedale and Wharfedale routes growing at around 10% a year. Further growth of between 60 and 70% is expected in the next ten years, subject to sufficient capacity being provided. Capacity problems are already being experienced on many peak time trains, and Menston station car park is now usually full before 8am on weekdays. Not only is the attractiveness of Menston station to Otley residents being eroded, but road traffic in the corridor will also continue to rise in the next few years. An Otley rail service would offer significant travel opportunities for Otley residents and also provide additional capacity on existing rail services. 1.5 Provision of a rail link to Otley could possibly bring other benefits. Proposals for increased gravel extraction east of Otley imply greater use of heavy good vehicles for transportation. This is a topical issue in the town, attracting much negative publicity. Much of this traffic could be removed if transport by rail were possible, though this would require rail infrastructure additional to the passenger service to be implemented.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 2 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

1.6 There are also aspirations to see the railway reconnected with the Line at Arthington. This could confer a range of strategic benefits, with the possibility for longer distance routeings to avoid the capacity bottleneck of Leeds Station. This would restore the position of Otley on a through route, though adding to the requirements for infrastructure provision. 1.7 Having outlined the context of the study, the fundamental requirement is to apply the standard criteria used in rail development studies objectively. This report investigates the economic case for the reintroduction of rail facilities to Otley through assessing the most feasible options in terms of implementation, patronage, and subsequent operation for passengers and freight. Consideration of these aspects will indicate the validity of rail services to Otley. 1.8 The study method is described in chapter two, with the discussion of the infrastructure, operational requirements and constraints in chapter three. In chapters four and five the public transport options for linking Otley with Leeds and Bradford are assessed, together with forecasts of likely patronage. The detailed calculations of costs and benefits are undertaken in chapter six. Finally, the conclusions and issues for further consideration are presented in chapter seven.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 3 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

2 Study approach

2.1 This chapter outlines the approach adopted for investigating rail reinstatement to Otley. It is important to recognise that the case must rest on the examination of established principles for rail reopenings. These are objective in nature and capable of being examined and compared with other schemes. The agencies who would be involved in the delivery of the railway, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), Metro and , will not entertain subjective judgements based on sentiment. It is important that the case is open to scrutiny by these agencies and other funding bodies. 2.2 The Consultant’s Brief, shown in Appendix E, prescribes a pre-feasibility assessment. To undertake this the study has adopted a rigorous approach, which comprises four essential components: · An assessment of the engineering and operational feasibility of installing new track, building/reopening new stations, and incorporating the new service on existing routes · Identification of all possible travel options, followed by a screening process to prioritise the most favourable options for detailed investigation · A forecast of the likely levels of patronage for the potential services, in terms of user numbers and revenue generation · An estimate of the scale of economic costs and benefit that services will bring Engineering feasibility 2.3 The engineering aspects of the study have been investigated by White Young Green. This included the feasibility of reinstating the rail link from Menston to Otley; a through line to Arthington Junction and reconnection with the Harrogate to Leeds line, an extension from Otley to incorporate a link to the gravel pits quarry area east of Otley; and the identification of suitable locations for a new station at Otley. The costs of these options are indicated. 2.4 The study also assesses whether it is possible to accommodate new services to and from Otley within the current rail network. Pathing and scheduling issues will be a critical determinant of what can be achieved for Otley. There are a number of constraints that may impinge on an Otley service. For instance, although the Leeds First project provided additional capacity at Leeds station, the continued growth in services may provide some constraints. Equally, the capacity of routes into Leeds station may also present problems. The screening framework 2.5 As with many other rail studies it is possible at the outset to identify a wide range of potential rail services, given different combinations of infrastructure and service provision. While there is no scope in this study to consider all options fully, it is likely that only some options will show good prospects. To identify the options to be examined in greater depth a screening framework was devised to enable a sift to be conducted. This identified the best options to take forward to the demand forecasting stage.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 4 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

Forecast of likely patronage 2.6 The demand forecasting stage provides a detailed indication of the likely patronage of new services, showing the number of people who will use the service. For validity it is based on established principles used in other rail studies. In this study “trip rate modelling” has been undertaken, which estimates the likely patronage in terms of number of trips made per head of catchment population, based on available Census data and comparisons with existing stations. From this it is possible to calculate the potential revenue of the service. Calculation of costs and benefits 2.7 The conclusions at each stage are brought together in chapter six in a detailed evaluation of costs and benefits. This addresses the capital costs of installing the infrastructure and the costs of operating the service. The benefits include the forecast revenue from the service, the benefits to users in terms of journey time savings, and the benefits to non users of “decongestion” of roads through shifting people to the rail service. These are all assessed over a 30 year period from opening, calculated in current prices. This will show, in terms of public expenditure, whether there is merit in considering the aspects further. 2.8 In undertaking all these activities it is important to recognise the time horizon of the study. It is inconceivable, even with very favourable reports at all stages, that a rail service could be in place before 2011. The assessment of costs and benefits, together with elements discussed in the following chapters are therefore considered with this in mind.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 5 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

3 Infrastructure elements

3.1 The engineering issues surrounding infrastructure provision are outlined in this chapter. This provides an estimate of potential capital costs, which can be used to determine the feasibility of various options. The work is based on site visits conducted during October 2003. The results presented are based on observations and considered engineering judgement. Land acquisition implications were not explicitly considered, which may affect the progress of works during the planning phase. 3.2 In considering the engineering feasibility the following issues have been addressed: · Permanent way and earthworks · Structures · Station design · Electrification · Signalling 3.3 These are the main elements to be addressed in reinstating a railway, whether on existing track bed or on new formation. These are discussed below. The options considered are shown in Figure 3.1. These include a connection from Menston to Otley, from Arthington Junction to Otley, a through route, and an extension to the potential gravel pits in Otley. 3.4 The detailed technical report is attached in Appendix A, with a selection of photographs from the route walk-through and technical drawings in Appendix B. The costs of the various options are shown in Tables 3.1 to 3.5.

Permanent way and earthworks 3.5 The option considered in most detail is a single-track extension from Menston to Otley. An extension to the proposed gravel pits east of Otley is also included, together with a line through Pool to connect with the . Menston Junction to Otley 3.6 The original Otley line left the Menston to Ilkley line at Menston Junction, north west of Menston station. While the original double width track bed for the Otley branch still exists, it is proposed that a single track junction is provided from the Up line to Leeds, with a crossover facility to enable trains to cross from the Down to Up line. 3.7 After Menston Junction the route descends at 1 in 60 and turns through almost 180 degrees on a tight bend before crossing the A65 approximately 0.5 miles from Menston Junction. The headroom clearance from the bridge to the A65 is estimated at 7.7 metres, well in excess of the 5.7 metres required by current highway standards. 3.8 From the A65 crossing the route runs parallel to the route of the Ilkley to Otley line. After the junction between the two routes the A6038 road crossing is reached. This is the central point of the extension and would ideally be the

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 6 05/03/04 Likelynew gravelworkings

A65road crossing A658road crossing

LikelyStationSite

MenstonJunction A6038road ArthingtonJunction LeedstoIlkleyline crossing HarrogatetoLeedsLine

BasedupontheOrdnanceSurveywiththepermissionofthe ControllerofHerMajesty'sStationeryOffice.CrownCopyrightReserved. SCALE:NottoScale

Minerva House Figure3.1OtleyRailLinkOptions East Parade Leeds LS1 5PS Tel: 0113 - 2444347 Fax: 0113 - 2423753 Email: [email protected] Website: www.jmp.co.uk JobNo. D48006 Figure3.1 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

location for a one kilometre passing loop. However, to obviate the requirement for a double track bridge crossing it is proposed to locate the loop between the A65 road crossing and the A6038 crossing. The track bed is wide enough for double track and a safe cess because this was the location of the former junction between the Menston-Otley and Ilkley-Otley routes. 3.9 As the two rail lines were at different levels some substantial infill and levelling works would be required. Furthermore, the section of route between the A65 and the A6038 would need to be raised by up to 1.5 metres higher than the original track bed to ensure that the A6038 could be crossed at current highway clearance standards. This fill material could be obtained from the excavations required on the A660(T) Otley bypass southern cuttings, as described later. 3.10 Shortly after the A6038 crossing there is a three arch over bridge that appears in good condition. However, vertical clearances at the bridge are limited and the level of the existing track bed may not be low enough to allow electrification clearances. Having crossed the A6038 at approximately 1.5 metres above the existing track bed the permanent way would descend back to the original level of the track bed. Further studies may reveal that this over bridge requires replacement if there is insufficient distance to achieve this. 3.11 From there the track bed is in good condition up to the point where it meets the A660(T) Otley bypass. Here the bypass has been partly constructed on the old track bed and it will be necessary to run the railway on a new line parallel to the road. The logical place is on the south side, where there is a heavily vegetated cutting slope, approximately 5 metres high. 3.12 The new railway would have to be cut into this cutting slope and be approximately level with the bypass. This is because of the clearance required by the over bridge carrying West Chevin Road over the Otley bypass. There is little scope for raising its level because of the need to access nearby housing, and it will be necessary to lay the new railway low enough to achieve electrification clearance (minimum 4.8 metres). Some form of barrier will be required between the road and the railway to meet safety requirements. 3.13 To cut the railway into the slope it will be necessary to construct a retaining wall about 4 metres high. As the railway line approaches the proposed station location the height of the wall can likely be reduced to 2.5 metres. The overall length of the track running parallel to the bypass is 600 metres, with the proposed station at approximately 2.4 miles from Menston Junction. Its location is shown in Figure 3.2, with the platform located to the left of the carriageway. Otley to Arthington Junction / Gravel pits extension 3.14 To extend the line through Otley towards Arthington Junction the permanent way could continue along the south side of the Otley bypass. Where the Otley bypass meets Leeds Road to the east of Otley the railway formerly passed through a short tunnel. To reinstate the permanent way a new route would need to descend steeply along the side of the bypass and then pass under the road junction in a new tunnel. This would clearly require expensive earthworks and bridgeworks.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 7 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

3.15 To reach the gravel pits an extension would still be required through Leeds Road to the east of Otley, where a connection could be made east of the tunnel.

Figure 3.2 Otley bypass (looking west)

3.16 East of Otley the route continues through open countryside onwards to Pool. At Pool village the route of the former line is obstructed by a development at Willow Court of approximately 20 houses, which extends for about 0.75 miles along the track bed. To facilitate the reinstatement of permanent way in this area there are two costly options: · A diversionary tunnel to the south of Pool village · Acquire, almost certainly by means of a compulsory purchase order, the 20 or so properties built on the old route to enable them to be demolished 3.17 Neither of these are easy or attractive options. If either course was taken there would inevitably need to be a Public Inquiry, thus adding to costs and timescales. The reinstatement of this section would be extremely costly and would have to deliver very significant benefits to justify its consideration. 3.18 One alternative might be to locate a Pool station on the west side of Old Pool Bank and run the line back through Otley. This would remove the need for significant bridge works and property disruption in Pool village, and undoubtedly be of lower cost. Again, however, this would need to be justified by significant benefits.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 8 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

Structures Bridges Menston to Otley 3.19 The principal over and under bridges on this section require considerable works to be undertaken. The proposals are shown in Appendix B. At the bridge crossing over the A65 at Bradford Road the abutments have been lowered and the embankment cut back. A single 50 metre span box girder type bridge would extend over both the A65 and the adjacent stream and Yorkshire Water site. The original abutments will not be required as part of the new works. The vertical clearance between the existing road and the underside of the proposed bridge will be approximately 7.7metres, which is well in excess of current highway clearance requirements. The approximate cost of the bridge construction is £3 million at current prices. 3.20 At the A6038 the former line crosses at an angle of approximately 45 degrees to the highway. The bridge deck was originally additionally supported on a central pillar located between the A6038 and Gill Beck. To reinstate the rail crossing a single 50 metre span box girder type deck would be required. The existing central pier, existing roadway retaining walls and culverts would not be incorporated into the bridge structure. Substantial earthworks modifications will be required to the approach embankments to raise the permanent way level by 1.5 metres to enable the bridge to meet current headroom standards. Bridge construction would cost approximately £3 million. 3.21 Approximately 0.2 miles east of the A6038 crossing there is a three arch stone over bridge, which may require reconstruction to accommodate over head electrification equipment. This is likely to cost £1.5 million to reconstruct. 3.22 Further problems are encountered at the Otley bypass. At the West Chevin Road bridge there is insufficient clearance between the abutment of the bridge and the edge of the highway to facilitate a new rail route. There are two options: either reduce the highway to two lanes; or rebuild the bridge to enable the southern abutment to be situated with sufficient clearance to enable a rail line to be installed between it and the highway. Either option would be costly and would need to take account of highway considerations. 3.23 The footbridge location at the original station has insufficient clearance to enable a railway line to be fitted in between the carriageway and the bridge southern support column. The footbridge would require to be refitted with a longer deck that could clear both the two lane bypass highway and a new railway line. Otley to Arthington Junction / Gravel pits extension 3.24 Proceeding eastwards from the proposed station site two further bridges would require reconstruction: one where East Chevin Road crosses the bypass and where a footbridge crosses over the bypass. The East Chevin Road Bridge has insufficient clearance to fit a new rail line in to the south of the bypass. The bridge would have to be rebuilt with a longer deck and a new southern abutment to facilitate the railway line. 3.25 The next significant requirement for a structure is at the roundabout forming the junction between the Otley bypass and Leeds Road. The railway formerly

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 9 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

proceeded through a short tunnel where the roundabout currently is located. There are two potential solutions at this site: either to form a tunnel under the existing roundabout or to gradually increase the level of the new rail line as it proceeds parallel to the Otley bypass so that a rail bridge could be formed over the roundabout. Both would be very expensive solutions. The most cost- effective solution is likely to be a re-instated tunnel, based on relative ground levels and reduced traffic disruption Retaining walls 3.26 There are no significant areas where retaining walls would be required along the route until the rail line approaches the Otley bypass. The bypass then runs along the route of the old railway in a cutting approximately five metres deep. The proposed rail route would run at road level and be cut into the southern cutting slope. Consequently a retaining wall would be required along the full length of the bypass up to the new station location of approximately 600metres in length and a height of up to four metres. 3.27 The only significant retaining wall works between Otley and Arthington Junction will be the extension of the bypass retaining wall for a further 700 metres towards the proposed Leeds Road tunnel.

Station design Menston 3.28 As there is little scope at Menston for the provision of a bay platform due to the close proximity of existing property, no modifications are proposed. Otley 3.29 At Otley the feasibility study has assumed an operational platform length of 160 metres in length. This would easily accommodate a 4 car Class 333 train set, or even two 3 car Class 333 car sets. A location for the station site has been identified adjacent and to the south of the route of the original railway within the Otley bypass southern cutting. 3.30 An alternative station location west of the bypass junction with the A6038 was considered due to the significantly reduced earthworks and bridge rebuilding requirement. However, this was eliminated due to the distance from Otley town centre and the likely unattractiveness to potential passengers. 3.31 The new station would have a single faced platform and would be located just to the west of the existing footbridge that crosses the bypass at the top of Station Road. This footbridge has an existing disabled access ramp at the northern access point, which would be retained. The location of a car park is rather more problematical and three options for the car park have been proposed. The crucial aspects are the interchange requirements for car parking, bus services and taxi waiting. The options are discussed below. Option 1 – northern car park 3.32 The car park would be sited to the north of the bypass within the bounds of the former railway yard. This would accommodate 121 parking spaces and six disabled spaces, in compliance with the SRA Code of Practice for Train and Station Services for Disabled Passengers. Bus and taxi waiting areas would be provided within this location. Vehicular access would be gained

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 10 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

from Station Road, with vehicles leaving to the east and exit on East Chevin Road via the existing lane. 3.33 Upon consideration of bus access to the station area it would be necessary for Station Road to become one-way to ensure safe bus access due it being narrow and having cars parked on both sides. It would also be possible for the one-way route to operate in the opposite direction if this was deemed the best solution. 3.34 This location gives easy access from the town centre for pedestrians and vehicles, including buses, which would require only minor rescheduling to facilitate calling at the station. This site would also require minimal earthworks because the area is already flat and level having been part of the original station yard. 3.35 The disadvantages of this location are that highway modifications would be required to Station Road to facilitate safe access for vehicles to the site. This would clearly affect the residents of Station Road as they would always have to exit via the station. It would also provide a significant increase in activity, with areas of congestion likely to arise in peak times. Option 2 – southern car park 3.36 A second car park option is sited to the south of the Otley bypass within the bounds of the existing allotments. This would give 226 parking spaces and six disabled spaces. To facilitate construction a section of the existing allotments would require to be purchased. A bus stop and taxi area is proposed on Birdcage Walk, to the west of the car park site, with a linking path to the station access path. Bus services from the town centre could be diverted along Birdcage Walk to stop additionally at this location. 3.37 The advantages of this location are that easy vehicle access from Birdcage Walk could be obtained, from both directions, without extensive modifications. A large car park could also be provided that is very close to the station. Pedestrian access will still be via the footbridge. Though a slightly longer walk, they would not have to negotiate the car park. This would also benefit residents in Station Road. 3.38 Extensive earthworks would however be required to level the allotment site. Buses would be required to divert down narrow Birdcage Walk to call at the station and a turnaround facility may need to be provided. Some modification of the junction between Birdcage Walk and East Chevin Road may be needed. Option 3 – extended northern car park, using Burras Lane for access 3.39 This option is similar to option 1 in that the car park is sited to the north of the bypass within the bounds of the former railway yard. For this option the car park has been extended as far westwards as possible towards Burras Lane. There would be easy access for pedestrians from the town centre via Station Road, though there would be no vehicular access. 3.40 Vehicular access for the new car park would be gained from Burras Lane and vehicles would proceed down a new one-way road to leave to the east and exit on to East Chevin Road via the existing lane, shown on photograph 25 in Appendix B. The car park would be separated from the bypass by a fence.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 11 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

3.41 Photograph 24 shows the extensive flat station yard area adjacent to the footbridge steps. The site would require minimal earthworks. This would allow around 160 normal parking spaces and six disabled spaces to be provided, in compliance with the SRA Code of Practice for Train and Station Services for Disabled Passengers. 3.42 A bus and taxi lay-by would be provided at the foot of the existing steps at the footbridge. Buses would require only minor rescheduling to facilitate calling at the station. 3.43 A disadvantage of this location is that to provide a single carriageway access from Burras Lane would leave insufficient width to provide two aisles of car parking. More spaces could be accommodated if the highway amendments for Option 1 were adopted. Pool 3.44 A proposed station at Pool discussed in section 3.15, would require a single face platform, identical to that proposed at Otley. The platform would be served by a DDA compliant ramp from the existing road and provided with a waiting shelter. Car parking provision cannot easily be provided at this location and there is insufficient road width to allow bus or taxi drop off facilities without substantial earthworks.

Electrification 3.42 The existing line from Menston to Ilkley is electrified utilising single cantilever masts. An extension from Menston Junction to Otley, including the passing loop, would be electrified using similar equipment, to enable existing services through Menston to be diverted to Otley. Further studies may reveal the requirement for a new feeder station, which has been included in the infrastructure costs.

Signalling 3.43 Both the new junction at Menston and the further connection to Otley would have to be provided with the same generation of signalling equipment as already exists in the area. Inserting the junction at Menston will also involve alterations to the existing equipment on the Down Line and Up Line, and the repositioning of four signals and corresponding track circuits. All the new equipment and alterations will need to be mirrored in the York Electronic Interlocking, both in terms of software and hardware.

Infrastructure costs 3.44 Having outlined the technical requirements for infrastructure, the primary consideration for feasibility will be determining how much the various elements will cost. The figures in Tables 3.1 to 3.5 indicate which options are likely to be viable. Prices are quoted in 2003 prices, though these are taken forward to the likely construction years in chapter six. Menston to Otley 3.45 The costs of reinstating a rail link to Otley via Menston and providing a terminus station in Otley is detailed in Table 3.1.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 12 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

Table 3.1 Infrastructure costs for Menston to Otley

Cost (£m) Permanent way Purchase and lay Track 0.9 Lay passing loop 0.3 5 no. turnouts 0.3 Switch heating and ancillaries 0.1

Earthworks Farm and property access diversions 0.3 Raising track bed 1.5m to cross A6038 0.07 Cut material from A660 (T) – 1 km to location of new station 0.15

Structures New bridge No. 1 over A65 3.0 New bridge No. 2 over A6038 3.0 Reconstructed three arch bridge no. 3 1.5 Reconstructed bypass bridge no. 5 2.0 Retaining wall (600m along Otley bypass) 0.9

Station Platform (160m single faced) 0.15 New DDA station ramp access and footpath refurbishments 0.15 Car parking (incl. taxi and bus stops) 0.4 Highway works 0.1

Electrification Overhead line equipment 2.0 New feeder station (if required) 4.0

Signalling and telecoms Equipment 0.8 SSI interface costs 0.4

TOTAL 20.52

Extension to Arthington Junction 3.46 The approximate additional costs of extending the line from Otley towards Arthington Junction are shown in Table 3.2. This would incur two significant infrastructure costs: a tunnel or a bridge at the roundabout at the eastern end of the bypass; and the need to overcome the housing development at Pool. A compulsory purchase order would need to be placed on the houses at Pool to enable the railway to be reinstated along its former alignment.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 13 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

Table 3.2 Additional costs of extension to Arthington Junction

Cost (£m) Purchase and lay track (3.5 miles) 1.3 Purchase and demolition of 20 properties in Pool 8 Construction of new footbridge over Otley bypass 0.5 Construction of new bridge to carry East Chevin Road 2.0 Extension of retaining wall (700m) 1 Earthworks 2 Tunnel under bypass eastern roundabout – single bore 8 Reconstruction of bridges10 and 11 1.5 TOTAL 24.3

3.47 If a station was implemented at the western edge of Pool, terminating the line from Menston, an overall saving of around £5 million could be made to the estimate in Table 3.2. This includes the cost savings of property purchase and additional track mileage, together with an additional station and electrification costs. For the entire route from Menston to Pool (west) a capital cost of £39.82 is estimated. Arthington Junction to Otley 3.48 If the rail link to Otley was to be via Arthington Junction instead of via Menston a number of items in Table 3.1 would still be incurred, such as the station costs and earthworks. The estimated cost is given in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Infrastructure costs for Arthington Junction to Otley

Cost (£m) Station Platform (160m single faced) 0.15 New DDA station ramp access and footpath refurbishments 0.15 Car parking (incl. taxi and bus stops) 0.4 Highway works 0.1

Signalling and telecoms Equipment 0.8 SSI interface costs 0.4

Permanent way Lay passing loop 0.3 5 no. turnouts 0.3 Switch heating and ancillaries 0.1

Earthworks Additional earthworks to passing loop 1.5

Additional cost of extension from Otley to Arthington Junction 24.3

TOTAL 28.5

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 14 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

Otley to Gravel Pits 3.49 The approximate additional costs of extending a Menston to Otley line beyond Otley and onwards towards the gravel pits is shown in Table 3.4.

Table 3.4 Additional costs for Otley to Gravel Pits

Cost (£m) Purchase and lay track (2 additional miles) 0.6 Construction of new footbridge over Otley bypass 0.5 Construction of new bridge to carry East Chevin Road 2.0 Earthworks 0.5 Tunnel under bypass eastern roundabout – single bore 8 Retaining wall extension (700m) 1 TOTAL 12.6

3.50 If an extension was considered from a Menston to Pool line to connect with the gravel pits freight link east of the bypass eastern roundabout tunnel, an overall saving of around £10 million could be made to the above estimate.

Summary 3.51 Tables 3.1 to 3.4 have laid out the detailed infrastructure cost for each option, taking account of passenger and freight operation. The summary in Table 3.5 indicates that the lowest cost option for accessing Otley is via Menston at £20.5 million, while the Arthington Junction option would cost £8 million more. A connection to Menston from Otley has been shown to be reasonably feasible in infrastructure terms. 3.52 The options that include access from Arthington Junction could turn out to cost considerably more due to the uncertainties associated with establishing a viable alignment in Pool. While this may in theory be achievable, the crucial issue is that the level of benefits to be gained would also have to be very much higher to validate the case for reinstatement. The option of running a line from Menston to a station to the west of Pool, including a station in Otley, is shown to be very costly. 3.53 The strong conclusion from Table 3.5 is that Menston to Otley should be the focus for detailed consideration, to assess whether indeed there is a viable level of benefit to be gained. The need to overcome the problems at the eastern end of the Otley bypass presents a very significant obstacle to the eastwards facing options. The total cost of £44.82 million for Menston to Arthington Junction would seem to rule out the restoration of the through route. The provision of additional access to the gravel pits would also seem to be questionable, at a cost of a further £12.6 million.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 15 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

Table 3.5 Summary of option costs

Option Cost (£m) Menston to Otley 20.52 Arthington Junction to Otley 28.50 Menston to Arthington Junction 44.82 Menston to Pool (west) 39.82 Otley to Pool 19.30 Otley to Gravel Pits 12.60 Gravel Pits Junction to Gravel Pit 2.6 Menston to Gravel Pits Junction 33.25 Arthington Junction to Gravel Pits Junction 38.05

Pathing and scheduling issues 3.45 Although Otley was originally accessed by railway from both Menston and Arthington Junction the analysis in the preceding section indicates that the Menston option is very much more viable. However, this brings into question whether there is enough capacity on the Wharfedale Line to accommodate Otley services. It cannot be assumed that there will be a reduction in existing services between Ilkley and Leeds/Bradford. In this section the potential operation of Otley services within the Wharfedale Line is considered. 3.46 The Wharfedale Line currently operates to a broadly half hourly service pattern, enhanced to three trains per hour in each direction at peak times. There is a largely “clockface” timetable in operation, which is important for passenger confidence. The services are predominantly operated by four car electric Class 333 units, on integrated diagrams that also cover the Airedale Lines. The routes are controlled from the York Interlocking Electronic Control Centre, permitting close headways between services. 3.47 There are 16 class 333 units providing the regular timetabled service, covering 14 diagrams. There are two spare sets for maintenance and breakdown cover. There is also a diesel diagram, though Metro has submitted a bid to the Strategic Rail Authority for six new Class 333 units. While three will be allocated to the Leeds to Doncaster service, the other three will be for Airedale/Wharfedale services. One will replace the diesel, with two being available for new services. 3.48 New stations are proposed at and . In 2002 consultants for Metro indicated that there was very little flexibility in the Airedale/Wharfedale timetable to accommodate these services. There is an apparently available extra peak period path from Ilkley. This can be utilised by the two new Class 333 units, allowing one or both of the new stations to be opened. These will make the timetable work with two new stations, but will not create any extra capacity – i.e. they will still have the same number of trains per hour operating on the Wharfedale Line. This would mean that an Otley service would require an additional unit.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 16 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

3.49 The “spare” peak period path on the Wharfedale Line could be used by an Otley service. While this would need further analysis to assess the risk of disruption to existing services, an hourly service to/from Otley appears to be feasible. A better than hourly service would require either the diversion of an Ilkley service to Otley, something that would be unacceptable in capacity and political terms, or potentially costly infrastructure work to increase capacity to five trains per hour in the peak. Capacity constraints 3.50 The Airedale/Wharfedale lines are currently operated to an intensive timetable. As indicated above there is just one spare peak period path available. While it has not been possible to quantify the extent of the capacity constraints, it is possible to identify the locations that impact on Airedale/Wharfedale services. 3.51 On Bradford services trains take nine minutes to travel between Shipley and Guiseley, including a station stop at . Most of this time is spent traversing the 3.4 miles single line between Junction and Dockfield Junction (Shipley). Trains on the current half-hourly service occupy the single track section for about 36 minutes in an hour. Though inserting an Otley train would increase occupancy to around 54 minutes in an hour, this would be too tight for operation as the gaps between trains would be of insufficient length. There is therefore no scope for inserting an additional hourly service and that restoration of double track would be needed to permit the operation of three trains an hour in each direction. 3.52 It is also seems that Shipley is a significant constraint to increased services. The number of Bradford and Ilkley movements across the presents pathing difficulties, while the single track western chord restricts station flexibility. 3.53 For Leeds services the single track section between Esholt Junction and Apperley Junction is less of a constraint than the single track between Esholt Junction and Shipley. It is 2.1 miles in length and is traversed by trains in about three minutes. It would be a constraint only if it proved impossible to construct a timetable that avoids trains crossing between Esholt Junction and Apperley Junction. 3.54 Line capacity between Apperley Junction and Wortley Junction (with the Harrogate Line in Leeds) handles a directional maximum of ten passenger trains in peak periods, six trains in each direction in the inter-peak period and also freight traffic (coal, stone and gypsum). Analysis of the public timetable suggests the minimum headway achieved is three to four minutes. Hence line capacity between Apperley Junction and the approaches to Leeds Station should not be a significant constraint. 3.55 Platform capacity at Leeds station has not been a significant constraint since completion of the Leeds First project. Line capacity on the western approaches to Leeds Station was increased substantially as part of the Leeds First project, though it remains a constraint because of the need to accommodate conflicting movements as trains cross from one line to another to access particular platforms or lines. 3.56 Detailed analysis of train diagrams, train paths, and platform utilisation at Leeds would be necessary to establish whether two timetable slots could be

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 17 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

achieved to and from Leeds and Bradford in peak hours. An important consideration is that at present a “clockface” timetable is in place. There is a danger that the inclusion of additional peak time services would disrupt this pattern. This is also without upgrading the signalling infrastructure, other than the new signalling required to control the junction to Otley. 3.57 The conclusion must be that in the short term it is possible to provide Otley with an hourly service to Leeds. To provide a two trains per hour service would require very significant expenditure on the Airedale and Wharfedale lines, perhaps in more than one location. Combining and dividing trains 3.58 Given the capacity constraints there other possibilities for configuring services to achieve greater capacity. The combining or dividing of trains during a journey is theoretically possible, though there are few locations remaining in the UK where this occurs, other than at major terminal stations. Several aspects militate against train splitting: platform staff are required at the station where trains are combined or split – imposing a substantial additional operating cost; and platforms at intermediate stations must be of sufficient length to accommodate combined trains. 3.59 The process also increases station dwell time by three to four minutes, which reduces line capacity because it takes trains longer to clear the station where trains are combined or split. It also presents an additional source of potential unreliability if a problem is encountered in coupling or uncoupling trains. In the context of a Wharfedale Line operating close capacity it is considered unlikely that Metro and the train operating company would support this approach. Providing longer trains 3.60 If train lengths are increased to provide additional capacity, all of the stations served must have platforms long enough to accommodate the longer trains. The only alternative is to adopt a “skip-stopping” strategy where longer trains do not call at stations with short platforms. This can cause confusion and frustration for users.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 18 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

4 The screening framework

4.1 The optimum service to Otley will be a combination both of the infrastructure that is implemented and the kind of service to passengers that can be operated. Having established in the previous chapter clear preferences in terms of infrastructure options, it is necessary to see whether a viable service can be provided. A wide range of service options can be contemplated, but it is not practical in this study to undertake a detailed cost and benefit appraisal for each one. A screening process has thus been adopted that evaluates all the rail options to identify the most promising to take forward. These will also be compared with other public transport travel options, both existing and potential, to determine which would best fulfil Otley’s objectives.

Rail options 4.2 In considering the case for returning the railway to Otley it is easy to generate a wide variety of rail options including shuttle and direct services, between Menston, Otley, Arthington and Leeds and Bradford, using the Wharfedale and Harrogate lines. While the main infrastructure options were discussed in Chapter 3, the full range of rail service options is shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Summary of rail service options

Rail line Option name Ref No. Wharfedale Line Menston-Otley diesel shuttle 1 Wharfedale Line Menston-Arthington diesel shuttle 2 Through Rail Service Otley to Leeds (diesel Wharfedale Line option) 3 Through Rail Service Otley to Bradford (diesel Wharfedale Line option) 3A Through Rail service Otley to Leeds (electric Wharfedale Line option) 4 Through Rail service Otley to Bradford Wharfedale Line (electric option) 4A Menston-Otley shuttle combined rail Wharfedale Line connection to gravel pits 5 Menston Arthington shuttle (diesel) passenger service combined with rail connection to Harrogate Line gravel pits 6 Harrogate Line Through Rail service Otley to Leeds (diesel) 7

Harrogate Line Through Rail service Otley to Bradford (diesel) 7A

4.3 While levels of traffic congestion are likely to grow in forthcoming years, it is important to recognise that these problems may not only be solved by a

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 19 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

heavy rail solution. Once the most viable rail option is identified it will be compared with other modal options to consider whether it is still justified. 4.4 Rail options considered in this study are based on the availability of a station in Otley. It is assumed that it is located approximately on its original site and the line follows its former course. The options assume services operating on the Harrogate and Wharfedale lines linking Otley with Leeds or Bradford.

Option 1 Menston – Otley diesel shuttle (Wharfedale Line) 4.5 A shuttle service operating between Otley and Menston would provide a quicker alternative to the car or bus in connecting potential users in Otley with rail services at Menston station. The infrastructure requirements (discussed in chapter three) would require significantly more capital outlay than other options discussed in this study, to accommodate the necessary modification to the track and station at Menston. As a diesel option, however, there would be less capital cost initially as no overhead line equipment would be required.

Option 2 Menston – Arthington diesel shuttle (Wharfedale Line) 4.6 This service would link the Harrogate and Wharfedale Lines on which rail journeys to Leeds and Bradford, as well as a range of other more long distance journeys, could be undertaken. The capital investment required would be significantly greater than just linking Otley with Menston, but greater benefits from accessing a wider range of routes could result, including some solutions to capacity problems on the Wharfedale Line. 4.7 The introduction of a new station at Arthington was considered in the Harrogate Line Route Strategy: a study completed in 2003 by Faber Maunsell for Metro, North Yorkshire County Council and of York Council. The report concluded that there was not enough patronage to warrant Arthington being pursued as a new station option.

Options 3, 3A, 4, and 4A Through Otley to Leeds/Bradford service – diesel and electric options (Wharfedale Line) 4.8 A service from Otley to Leeds or Bradford on the Wharfedale Line would provide a through service from Otley for rail users, thus removing the need for interchange at Menston. Journey times will be significantly reduced when compared with bus or car options for the Otley to Menston part of the journey. The frequency of a direct service is however likely to be limited due to line capacity constraints. The Wharfedale Line currently carries two trains per hour per direction and three trains in the morning peak, and is fairly close to capacity. 4.9 Electric trains will offer a quicker and more attractive journey than diesel trains. As almost all services on the Wharfedale and Airedale Lines are operated by electric trains there would be advantages of interoperability. An electrified service would require more infrastructure provision (overhead line equipment) on the Otley link than a diesel service, though the running costs would be significantly lower than for a diesel service.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 20 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

Options 5 and 6 Menston – Otley or Arthington Junction diesel shuttle, combined with rail connection to gravel pits 4.10 This would provide users with a range of rail services linking to local, regional and national rail routes. This scenario includes rail freight services that may run on either line. Significant capital cost outlay would be required in providing this option, including the construction of a new station at Otley and possibly at Arthington, the rebuilding of the existing track bed, which is particularly contentious between Otley and Arthington as a number of houses have been built on the track bed in Pool. 4.11 The movement of stone and gravel through Otley by heavy goods vehicles is an area of great concern to residents. If extraction pits east of Otley are opened up a rail connection would offer a viable, sustainable means of moving significant quantities of gravel around the town. This would require the building of a dedicated siding for freight trains, the purchase of freight wagons, significant wear and tear to rail infrastructure, therefore incurring higher capital costs and higher maintenance costs than solely running passenger services. There is also a strong likelihood that pathing and scheduling issues would limit the operation of freight services to night time, which would be unpopular with residents living close to the line.

Options 7 and 7A Through Menston – Arthington Junction diesel passenger service 4.12 The implications of running a through service from Otley via the Harrogate Line differ quite markedly from running a through service on the Wharfedale Line. Although the Harrogate Line may be able to offer more capacity in the operation of services, the journey time is longer. There are also significant infrastructure requirements, as outlined elsewhere.

Screening criteria 4.13 A systematic approach was adopted to assess the positive and negative attributes of these options to identify the best ones to take forward for appraisal. The screening framework imposed an evaluation process to scrutinise each option in terms of: likely passenger usage, operational and engineering feasibility of implementation and subsequent operation, and finally capital and operating cost. 4.14 Having identified the rail options a range of criteria was developed against which each could be scored. To bring everything to a common base a system of scoring has been developed to assist in the screening process, to permit the ranking of options. The detailed analysis and calculations for each option are contained in Appendix C. The following factors were assessed:

Demand · In vehicle time · Frequency · Interchange penalty · Access time

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 21 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

· Fares

Operational feasibility · Route capacity · Vehicle capacity · Freight capability

Engineering feasibility · Alignment feasibility · Station feasibility · Impact on Network Rail infrastructure

Cost and fundability · Alignment costs · Station costs · Rolling stock · Operating costs · Potential freight grants 4.15 These are discussed in detail below.

Demand 4.16 The demand analysis considers the service offered by each option and their appeal to users, and therefore the likely up take of this service. The components include in vehicle time, which represents only the time spent in vehicle rather than the total journey time. In determining the frequency penalty the lower the service frequency the higher the penalty as a low frequency service is less convenient and therefore less attractive. 4.17 The interchange penalty reflects the fact that people prefer not to have to interchange for another journey; as well as adding to the overall journey time it brings inconvenience to the user. Access time is the time spent travelling from the point of origin within Otley to the station or bus stop. Initial analysis of the 2001 Census shows a relationship between distance and transport use: a higher proportion of residents located in the west of Otley used Menston station than those located further away. The final variable considered is fares. As all the other components are measured in terms of minutes, this criterion uses a simple value of time factor to convert fare into equivalent minutes.

Operational feasibility 4.18 Route capacity concerns current capacity on the Harrogate and Wharfedale lines to accommodate additional services running into and out of Otley. An assessment of vehicle capacity is necessary as different service options offer different vehicle capacity. Freight capability looks at the ability of the network to incorporate freight services.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 22 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link Study – Final Report

Engineering feasibility 4.19 These aspects apply to rail infrastructure in terms of the track and station provision and the impact of these services on Network Rail. This analysis takes the findings of the engineering review and assigns scores to them. 4.20 Alignment feasibility and station feasibility draws on the findings of the engineering review and the infrastructure requirements of each option. The Impact on Network Rail infrastructure assesses the impact on the existing network and the capability in the local network to introduce capacity increases, on the Wharfedale, Airedale or Harrogate lines.

Cost and fundability 4.21 This final analysis considers the main aspects of costs incurred by the rail options in terms of the operating cost and the capital costs. Items include the alignment costs (structures and permanent way), stations, rolling stock leasing costs, and the operating costs of the service.

Results 4.22 The results of the screening framework from Appendix C have been converted into a 0-10 points scale for each attribute and are shown in Table 4.2. This shows clearly that the passenger options routed from Otley via Menston are the most attractive for services to Leeds and Bradford. The electric options have the highest scores, with the diesel options being around 10% less attractive. The diesel shuttle option to Menston is a further 10% worse and is thus not a particularly attractive option. 4.23 The options via Arthington Junction have much lower scores, reflecting the high capital costs and longer journey times involved. These options are not considered further in this report. Similarly, the options for serving the gravel pits also do not score highly, though again the Menston option is preferable.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 23 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link – Final Report

Table 4.2 Assessment of rail service options Rail options using Wharfedale Line Rail options using Harrogate Line 1 2 3 3A 4 4A 5 6 7 7A

rvice

Arthington Otley Diesel Otley Shuttle Arthington - - - -

ined with rail

Criteria Menston Shuttle Menston Diesel Shuttle Through Rail Service Otley to Leeds (diesel option) Through Rail Se Otley to Bradford (diesel option) Through Rail service Otley to Leeds (electric option) Through Rail service Otley to Bradford (electric option) Menston combined rail connection to gravel pits Menston shuttle (diesel) comb connection to gravel pits Harrogate Line Through Rail service Otley to Leeds (diesel) Harrogate Line Through Rail service Otley to Bradford (diesel) Demand In-vehicle time 6 4 8 8 10 10 6 4 5 5 Frequency penalty 8 8 6 6 6 6 8 7 6 6 Interchange penalty 4 4 10 10 10 10 4 4 10 10 Access time 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Fares 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 Sub-total 30 26 36 36 38 38 30 27 33 33 Operational Feasibility Route capacity 10 10 5 6 5 6 10 10 5 2 Vehicle capacity 4 4 8 8 10 10 4 4 8 8 Freight capacity NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 4 NA NA Interchange requirement 5 4 10 10 10 10 5 4 10 10 Sub-total 19 18 23 24 25 26 21 22 23 20 Engineering Feasibility Alignment feasibility 5 2 6 6 7 7 3 1 2 2 Station feasibility 6 4 6 6 6 3 1 2 4 4 Impact on network (rail) 7 5 2 2 4 4 3 2 2 2 Sub-total 18 11 14 14 17 17 9 4 8 8 Cost Alignment cost 6 3 10 10 8 8 4 2 4 4 Station costs 4 2 8 8 8 8 7 3 6 6 Rolling stock cost 7 7 4 4 4 4 4 7 7 8 Operating cost 6 5 4 4 8 8 10 4 4 2 Potential for freight grants NA NA NA NA NA NA 2 2 NA NA Sub-total 23 17 26 26 28 28 23 15 21 17 Total 90 72 99 100 108 109 83 68 85 78

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 24 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link –Final Report

Assessment of all public transport options 4.24 The next stage of the analysis compares the ‘best’ rail option against other public transport options to determine whether in the overall public transport context there is still justification for pursuing the case for reintroducing rail to Otley. To do this an identification was made of all the possible public transport options, involving either a single mode or combination of modes. These are discussed below.

Current W9 service to Menston Station (do minimum) 4.25 The do minimum scenario is the W9 service between Otley and Menston station, which connects with rail services to Leeds or Bradford. Analysis of 2001 Census data indicates that the highest proportions of residents in Otley using rail to get to work live in the west of the town and fairly close to Menston station, giving a short access time to the rail service. It is likely that the requirement to change from a bus to the train at Menston (the interchange penalty), and its dependence on prevailing traffic conditions, deters greater numbers from using the service. Looking to the future it is necessary to consider capacity issues on the trains and the impact of growing road congestion on the punctuality of the bus service.

Direct bus services 4.26 Direct bus services are available from Otley to Leeds (X84) and Bradford (652/3/4). They both operate at regular intervals, though the journey time is significantly longer than for the car/bus rail options.

Otley – Bodington (Supertram) – Leeds 4.27 It is planned that from 2007 the Leeds Supertram will be operating, with northern line 2 extending to Bodington on the A660 Otley Road. This will be attractive to Leeds for Otley residents with its associated park and ride facility. Tram services are expected to operate to a six minute headway and fares will be competitive with other public transport options. 4.28 The Bodington park and ride facility would be accessed by car or bus. Although Supertram will offer a fast and efficient means of access to Leeds city, Otley residents will still have to depend on road based transport to access it. Congestion is already significant on the A660 in the morning peak, which is likely to grow in forthcoming years, with or without Supertram.

Results 4.29 These options were assessed at an outline level against the Department for Transport’s five objectives in the New Approach to Appraisal assessment framework: · Environment · Safety · Economy · Accessibility · integration

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 25 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link –Final Report

4.30 A simple four point scale assessment of each option has been made and the results shown in Table 4.3. This indicates that the direct rail option performs well against the five criteria, offering worthwhile improvements over the current and proposed public transport alternatives and is therefore worth taking forward for further analysis.

Table 4.3 Assessment of options against key assessment criteria

Criteria Environment Safety Economy Accessibility Integration

Existing W9 +++ ++ ++ ++ +++ + Rail Proposed direct rail ++++ +++ +++ +++ ++++ option Direct bus ++ ++ + ++ +++ option Otley - Bodington- +++ ++ ++ + ++ Leeds Bus+LRT Otley - Bodington- ++ ++ ++ + ++ Leeds Car+LRT The rail option Rail provides Rail gives the Rail has a For policy scores highly the safest greatest higher integration a as it provides a travel option journey time compliance rail service is in non road as its accident savings. This with DDA line with based travel rate is implies regulations government alternative significantly increased than road and local with potential lower than accessibility based modes. policy on to achieve a road based to/from Otley Direct services sustainable high modal modes. and from Otley transport and switch away economic would not supporting the from car. regeneration need economy. potential. interchange.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 26 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link –Final Report

5 Forecasts of passenger demand

5.1 Having considered the infrastructure constraints and cost implications, and identified the optimum public transport option, the next step is to estimate the likely patronage. This will determine the revenue that will be raised, which will be of immediate concern to the train operator and to Metro. To assess this a forecast is made of potential demand through a conventional trip rate modelling approach. 5.2 The forecasts take as their starting point the findings from chapter three that infrastructure and scheduling aspects place significant constraints on the level of service that can be provided to/from Otley. Chapter four found that the most effective means of providing the service would be a through service from Otley to Leeds/Bradford operating on the Wharfedale Line, utilising electric trains. The trip rate model 5.3 Having reviewed the data sources available to this study a trip rate modelling approach to demand forecasting was adopted. This is a recognised method, developed and used by Leeds University’s Institute of Transport Studies (ITS) over the last twenty years. The model identifies the demand for a rail service by making comparisons with towns of a similar population size with a rail station, where trips are made to similar destinations. 5.4 The method is based on two variables: daily rail use and population size in two catchment areas adjacent to the station. The catchment areas developed by ITS for West Yorkshire have radii of 0.8km and 2km, which have been adopted for this study. [In this analysis the 2km catchment does not include the 0.8km catchment within it.] The 0.8km catchment typically picks up most of the users that access the station by walking, while the 2km catchment picks up a lower level of trip-making, usually relating to car users. 5.5 The information used in the trip rate analysis is derived from the 2001 Census. This gives data on population and rail commuting for “output areas”, which are based on population rather than geography. In Wharfedale the output areas contain roughly three hundred residents. To calculate the trip rate for a potential Otley station an average was taken of the trip rates at “comparator” stations on the Wharfedale Line: · Ilkley · · Burley-in-Wharfedale · Menston · Guiseley 5.6 It could be argued that this approach will provide a rather conservative estimate of patronage, as Otley is located at the end of the line. A large number of rural communities beyond the 2km catchment could find a station at Otley attractive. The same could also be said of Ilkley which is one of the stations used to derive the forecasts. The area covered by these catchments

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 27 05/03/04 0.8 _&_2km_buffers FINAL (2291x1621x16M jpeg) JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link –Final Report

is shown in Figure 5.1. From the census data for each comparator station the trip rate calculations for the 0.8km and 2km bands were derived:

a1 x b1 = 0.8km trip rate a2 x b2 = 2km trip rate c1 c2

where: a1 Daily boarding figure a2 Daily boarding figure b1 % of commuters within 0.8km b2 % of commuters within 2km c1 Population within 0.8km c2 Population within 2km 5.7 This gives a rate of 0.1 rail trips per head per day within the 0.8km catchment and 0.06 rail trips per head per day in the 2km catchment.

Estimated daily boardings 5.8 The trip rate calculation assumes the same level of service for the Otley service as applies to the Wharfedale Line. This is unlikely to be the case, at least initially, and with a reduced service there will be reduced patronage. The application of the trip rate to the Otley catchment areas gives a level of boardings unadjusted for reduced service level (Table 5.1). This shows that the number of people in Otley using the service if the railway had been in place in 2001 would be 943 per day.

Table 5.1 Expected boardings per day (unadjusted)

Expected total Population Trip rate daily boardings Otley 0 - 0.8km 4,875 0.1 487 Otley 0.8 – 2 km 7,596 0.06 456 Total 943

5.9 An important part of service evaluation is to define the peak vehicle requirement. The split between morning peak and the rest of the day was derived from forecasting work for West Yorkshire being developed by JMP in the “Case for Rail" project for the Passenger Transport Executive Group. These factors are shown in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 Morning peak and off peak boardings per day

Factor Boardings Morning peak 0.376 355 Rest of day 0.624 589 Total 943

Impact of lower level of service 5.10 The trip rates determined from comparator stations currently experience an off-peak service of two trains per hour (tph), rising to three tph in the peak.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 28 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link –Final Report

Chapter three indicated that it is unlikely that the same level of service could be provided to/from Otley and that the most immediately feasible option would to provide Otley with one service an hour to Leeds in each direction. Factors can be applied to derive the reduced patronage. An enhanced service of two trains per hour is also considered, although provision of this would give rise to significant capital costs. The detailed calculations of patronage for one train per hour are given in Appendix D Tables D1 to D10, while the figures for two trains per hour are shown in Tables D11 to D20. 5.11 The attractiveness of the reduced Otley service can be gauged by measuring the “generalised journey time” (GJT) of current Wharfedale services with the GJT of the proposed Otley services. The GJT is calculated by adding in vehicle time (IVT) to a frequency of service penalty. While the IVT will stay constant, the lower frequency of the Otley service will generate a higher frequency penalty. A higher GJT brings a reduction in the level of demand. A reduction factor must be applied to reflect the reduced service level. 5.12 The reduction is calculated using rail service demand elasticities. In the recognised rail industry forecasting approach the standard elasticity is 0.9, i.e. a 1% change in the generalised journey time (GJT) brings a -0.9% change in demand. However, this is only appropriate for marginal changes in the service. For a reduction from three trains per hour to one train per hour a higher elasticity figure of 1.5 has been adopted to reflect the larger impact on demand that might be expected. 5.13 The demand elasticity is applied to the difference in GJT. This produces a percentage decrease, which is applied to the boardings in table 5.2. The impact on boarding is indicated in Table 5.3. With one train per hour the total daily boarding is reduced by 327 people. The reduction is much less with two trains per hour.

Table 5.3 Reduction in daily boardings with reduced service level

One train per hour Two trains per hour reduction in reduction in change change boardings (%) boardings (%) Morning peak -43.6 -155 -12.7 -45 Rest of day -29.3 -172 0.0 0 Total -327 -45

Use of Menston station by Otley residents 5.14 A number of Otley residents are already using Menston station. For this analysis it is necessary to identify these users as it is likely that they would shift to using Otley and therefore would not be additional users of the service. The extent of this use can be derived from the 2001 Census Travel to Work statistics, which indicates that 124 Otley residents commute to work by rail. Although this does not explicitly allow for any non-commuting journeys by Otley residents via Menston station, the estimate is consistent with surveys at

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 29 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link –Final Report

Menston station by Metro that indicate around 80-100 daily users of Menston originate from Otley. 5.15 The daily total needs to be converted into peak and off peak figures. As the data is taken from travel to work statistics it is reasonable to assume that the majority would be commuting to work during the peak period on Monday to Friday. A peak and off peak split of 90% and 10% has been assumed on this basis. This gives the reduction shown in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Otley residents using Menston station

% Change in boardings Morning peak 90 -112 Rest of day 10 -12 Total -124

Additional rail users at Menston and Guiseley 5.16 Information on current levels of Wharfedale Line use provided by Metro indicates that all peak period Ilkley trains are full in the direction of peak flow, though there is some standing room left. However, predicted growth will take up all available train and line capacity over the next few years and platform lengthening to allow longer trains will be necessary if predicted growth is to be met. The addition of an Otley service to the Wharfedale Line would enable passengers at Menston and Guiseley to take advantage of extra services in the timetable. This would increase the passenger numbers using the Otley service, albeit not directly from Otley. 5.17 The impact on this can be calculated in a similar manner to the service level reduction factor in Table 5.3. As this is a more marginal improvement (from 3tph to 4tph in the peak and 2tph to 3tph off peak) the standard elasticity of - 0.9 has been used. In Table 5.5 the likely boarding figures for Menston and Guiseley are uplifted using the change in GJT calculation.

Table 5.5 Additional users at Menston and Guiseley

One train per hour Two trains per hour Increased Increased frequency change change frequency (%) (%) Menston am peak 10.5 23 20.1 44 Rest of day 16.4 59 28.7 104 Total 82 147

Guiseley am peak 11.9 41 23.1 80 Rest of day 18.4 105 32.5 186 Total 146 266

Total additional daily boardings 229 413

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 30 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link –Final Report

Adjusting patronage levels to opening year 5.18 The above stages in the calculation have estimated the daily boardings for 2001. To calculate the daily boardings for 2011, a likely date for opening, growth factors are required. It is not sufficient to assume that the level of growth will be the same each year. Use of the Wharfedale Line is growing significantly, but it is recognised that this cannot continue indefinitely. Growth factors have been derived from the ‘Case for Rail’ project, which in turn is based on a scenario forecasting model prepared for Metro in 2002. This broadly indicates annual growth of around 7% until 2009, 2.6% in 2010, and 1.9% thereafter. These assumptions are built into the forecasts shown in Appendix D. These forecasts form the basis for calculating the economic costs and benefits in the next chapter. Alternative station locations 5.19 In this report the main focus on a station for Otley is at its original location. In chapter three an alternative location was investigated to the west of Otley that was deemed infeasible from a physical point of view. Table 5.6 indicates that the level of patronage would be very similar to the proposed location. Another suggestion is to locate a station to the east of Otley near the junction between Leeds Road and the Otley bypass. This would serve the Cambridge Estate and also possible housing developments to the east of Otley. Without the development the patronage would be lower than the preferred location. A potential location was also identified to the west of Pool, though this would produce a low level of patronage.

Table 5.6 Patronage of alternative station locations

Potential station Forecast patronage Otley (original location) 943 Otley West 970 Otley Leeds Road 778 Pool West 295

5.20 Each calculation for Otley has been conducted on the basis of only one station being in operation. If there was more than one some abstraction of passengers would undoubtedly take place. The calculation for Pool West is in addition to Otley. Consideration of these locations must also include an evaluation of the capital costs of implementing the station. In this case the only realistic option is for a station in Otley close to its original location.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 31 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link –Final Report

6 Appraisal of costs and benefits

6.1 Having assessed the likely patronage of an Otley service, it is necessary to calculate the financial and economic benefits. This will address the fundamental question of whether the reinstatement of rail services to Otley is financially viable, or failing that, brings sufficient economic benefits to outweigh the costs. 6.2 To make this assessment a traditional cost benefit appraisal has been undertaken. This seeks to answer the question “Will the re-instatement of an Otley rail service be a sound public sector investment?” Benefits comprise the financial revenue from fares; benefits to the user in terms of time savings; and “decongestion” benefits to non-users as a consequence to travellers changing mode from road to rail. Thus economic benefits will accrue to both users and non users from a reinstated rail service to Otley. The costs comprise both the capital costs of installing the service as well as the costs of operating the service over the thirty year assessment period. 6.3 The key assumptions used in the appraisal of costs and benefits are shown in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Key assumptions used in the cost benefit appraisal

Appraisal parameter Value/range Scheme opening date 2011 Appraisal project life 30 years (until 2040) Discount rate 3.5% p.a. Demand post 2011 1.9% p.a. Income growth 2.0% p.a.

Annualisation factor Peak 260 Off-peak 336

Average fare per passenger Peak £2.65 Off-peak £2.00 Average trip length (return) 30 kilometres % new users switching from car 30%

Car occupancy Peak 1.2 Off-peak 1.6

Road Decongestion Benefits Peak 50 pence per pcu km Off-peak 12 pence per pcu km

Value of time Peak 12 pence per min Off-peak 13.3 pence per min Operating cost growth 1.5% pa

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 32 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link –Final Report

6.4 The detailed appraisals of costs and benefits are shown in Appendix D. The figures for the one train per hour option are shown in Tables D1 to D10, while for a two trains per hour service the figures are in Tables D11 to D20. The results are summarised below.

Benefits

Ticket revenues 6.4 To estimate ticket revenues an average fare for the peak and off peak periods has been derived from current day-return prices (£3.90 and £2.20 respectively) between Menston station and Leeds. These have been discounted to allow for use of concessionary fares and Metrocards etc, giving an average peak return fare of £2.65 and an off-peak equivalent of £2.00. 6.5 No growth has been applied to average ticket prices as these are assumed to remain constant in real terms. The year by year ticket revenues, between 2011 and 2040, are discounted back to 2001. These are totalled for the 30 year appraisal period to give the “net present value” of this revenue. This is shown in Table 6.2, indicating the value for one train and two trains per hour services. As would be expected the value of a two trains per hour service is significantly more than for a one train per hour service.

User and non user benefits 6.6 The benefits experienced by rail users are calculated from time savings multiplied by the value of time to produce a monetised figure. Non user benefits, road decongestion and accident savings, are experienced by people who do not use the railway. These are valued using the standard Department for Transport values shown in Table 6.1. 6.7 Table 6.2 shows the monetised values of the economic benefits that would be generated over the period from 2011 to 2040.

Table 6.2 Total benefits for operating period

Net Present Value (£000)

One train per hour Two trains per hour

Ticket revenue 11,724 19,760

User Benefits 18,489 28,888

Non-user benefits 13,347 25,100

Total 43,560 73,748

Costs

Capital costs 6.8 The total capital costs, outlined in chapter 3, were estimated at £21 million. These costs would be incurred over the period between now and 2011 as the

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 33 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link –Final Report

planning, design and actual construction of the station and associated infrastructure proceeded. The profile assumed is shown in Table 6.3, with the bulk of the expenditure over a three year period close to the opening year.

Table 6.3 Capital costs between 2006 and 2011

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Capital 800 800 1,000 5,900 6,020 6,000 20,520 Costs £000

6.9 These capital costs relate strictly to the provision of a one train per hour service. There are significant infrastructure problems to be overcome elsewhere on the Wharfedale and Airedale lines if a two trains per hour service to Otley is to be achieved. As the extent of these problems is largely unknown, no account has been made in the net present value of the capital costs shown in Table 6.3.

Table 6.4 Total capital costs

Net Present Value £(000) Capital Costs 14,745

Operating costs 6.12 While the capital costs will be one-off costs sustained before the service is operational, the operating costs will be ever-present throughout the thirty year assessment period. The basic components have been derived from previous studies of rail services in the West Yorkshire area and uses unit costs for train operation and lease costs for the rolling stock options. These are set out in Table 6.5. Operating cost estimates are increased year on year in real terms as historically costs have increased at beyond inflation.

Table 6.5 Unit operating and lease costs

Electric 4 Car Diesel 4 Car Diesel 2 Car (£) (£) (£)

Lease cost / train p.a. 480,000 400,000 200,000

Fuel cost per train mile 0.80 1.20 0.60

Maintenance cost per 1.40 1.80 0.90 train mile

Track access charge per 0.28 0.28 0.14 train mile Crew Costs per train mile 2.50 2.50 2.50

Total cost per train mile 4.98 5.78 4.14

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 34 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link –Final Report

6.13 The net present value of the operating costs for the two service options are shown in Table 6.6. As would be expected the operating costs for the two trains per hour service are much greater than for the one train per hour service, though some economy is possible given the greater flexibility in operation from using two train units.

Table 6.6 Total operating costs

Net Present Value £(000) One train per hour 22,645 Two trains per hour 36,886

Appraisal results 6.14 There are three main indicators of the financial and economic viability of an electric train service from Otley to Leeds. The financial Net Present Value compares the revenues and costs, looking purely at the financial elements of the equation. Where annual revenue is less than the annual operating cost the scheme would not make any contribution towards the capital costs and hence the financial NPV is negative. The economic Net Present Value includes the wider consideration of user and non-user benefits. Finally, the ratio between economic benefits and costs will show whether the scheme has a positive benefit. The results of the cost benefit analysis are shown in Table 6.7.

Table 6.7 Summary costs and benefits

Net Present Value £(million) One train per hour Two trains per hour Capital Costs -14.7 -14.7 Operating Costs -22.6 -36.9 Total Costs -37.4 -51.6

Revenue 11.7 19.8 Non-user Benefits 13.3 25.1 User Benefits 18.5 28.9 Total Benefits 43.6 73.7

Financial NPV -25.7 -31.9 Economic NPV 6.2 22.1 B/C ratio 1.17 1.43

6.16 The financial NPV for both service levels is very significantly negative. This is unsurprising and reflects the reality of all urban rail schemes in PTE areas where fares are kept low for policy reasons. However, when a wider consideration is made of economic benefits a positive NPV is returned. This

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 35 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link –Final Report

means that the benefit cost ratio will be positive. For the one train per hour service level the ratio is 1.17, i.e. the scheme would bring £1.17 of economic benefit for every £1 spent on it. 6.17 Table 6.7 indicates that the two trains per hour service level is much more costly, with the total costs increasing by a nearly a third over the one train per hour service level. In economic terms however, revenue increases by £8 million and the user and non user benefits increase significantly too. This gives a benefit cost ratio of 1.43. 6.18 Although this might suggest that a two trains per hour service is a better economic proposition, it does not take any account of the capital costs of providing extra capacity at crucial locations on the Airedale/Wharfedale lines to accommodate additional Otley services. This consideration is beyond the remit of this study, and therefore it is valid to identify the provision of rail services to Otley at the most efficient cost, which is represented by the one train per hour service level. It should be noted that the NPV of the two trains per hour option is around £16 million better than the one train per hour option. This gives an indication of the scale of cost increase that could be accommodated before the two trains per hour becomes the poorer investment. 6.19 To test how robust the assumptions made are for the one train per hour service level, sensitivity tests have been undertaken on some of the key inputs to the appraisal. This has been done by reducing or increasing capital costs and demand by 20% from the central values in the analysis. The impacts of these tests are shown in Table 6.8.

Table 6.8 Results of sensitivity tests

Net Present Value £(million) Capital Capital Central Cost + Cost - Demand Demand Estimate 20% 20% + 20% - 20%

Capital Costs -14.7 -17.6 -11.8 -14.7 -14.7 Operating Costs -22.6 -22.6 -22.6 -22.6 -22.6 Total Costs -37.4 -40.3 -34.4 -37.4 -37.4

Revenues 11.7 11.7 11.7 13.8 9.6 Non-user Benefits 13.3 13.3 13.3 16.2 10.5 User Benefits 18.5 18.5 18.5 21.2 15.8 Total Benefits 43.6 43.6 43.6 51.3 35.8

Financial NPV -25.7 -28.6 -22.7 -23.6 -27.8 Economic NPV 6.2 3.2 9.1 13.9 1.5 B/C ratio 1.17 1.08 1.26 1.37 0.96

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 36 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link –Final Report

6.20 The results show that the scheme remains robust to a 20% increase in costs, but becomes more marginal with a 20% reduction in demand. The ‘upside’ tests significantly improve the performance of the project.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 37 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link –Final Report

7 Conclusion

Viability of a rail link 7.1 This report has evaluated the salient factors concerning the reinstatement of a rail link to Otley. Due to the nature of the study much of the analysis has been cursory in nature, and a number of assumptions have had to be made during the process. Nevertheless, a conservative approach has been adopted to the evaluation of potential benefits, with the result that there appears to be a reasonable public sector value for money case for implementing a service from Otley to Leeds via Menston. 7.2 Of the benefits calculated only the direct economic benefits of reduced journey times and reduced congestion (the user and non user benefits) have been quantified. While wider economic and social inclusion benefits are thus not wholly captured in this analysis, it is clear that the rail link would provide a number of benefits: · Reductions in commuter car traffic out of Otley via the A65 and A660 · Modal shift from car to rail for visitors into Otley · Road decongestion, environmental pollution and road safety benefits · Growth in the number of visitors to Otley as a result of its improved accessibility by public transport 7.3 The study has also demonstrated that a service of one train per hour is feasible. It also shows that significant benefits would accrue from providing a two trains per hour service. However, it has not been possible to conduct a detailed analysis of capacity issues on the Airedale and Wharfedale Lines. The constraints are understood to be significant and potentially involve a large capital cost. Therefore this study is unable to support a service level greater than one train per hour. 7.4 One of the aims of the study was to investigate extending the line from Otley to Arthington to join up with the Harrogate Line. However, this would have much greater capital costs and was excluded from the full economic appraisal at an early stage. This is due not only to the physical constraints at the eastern end of the Otley bypass but also to the problems of finding an acceptable alignment that does not involve large scale property take or green-field development in Pool. The level of benefits that could be derived for implementing such a service would not even approach the level of capital costs incurred. 7.5 An analysis was also made of the viability of implementing rail freight facilities to gravel pits east of Otley. It was concluded that the volume of gravel required to be transported on the railway would have to be of a very significant scale to justify the additional capital costs involved. In addition the environmental costs of such a scale of gravel extraction may well be considered too high. As the additional capital costs would have a severe detrimental impact on the passenger rail service case the rail freight options were ruled out.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 38 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link –Final Report

Risks and uncertainties in the project 7.6 This study has identified the most viable rail options on which to base a case for reopening rail facilities at Otley and justifies a more in depth feasibility study. There are inevitably issues of risk and uncertainty that cannot be addressed in a short pre-feasibility study, but which must be considered in the next steps of the analysis of the scheme.

Construction and delivery risk 7.7 Chapter three detailed the infrastructure changes required to accommodate rail facilities connecting to the Wharfedale Line at Otley. A major issue brought to light by the investigation undertaken by White Young Green is the reinforcement and raising of existing structures and new bridge building. 7.8 The investigation also found that there are a number of accesses to properties which cross the existing track bed. These present significant risks to the planning of the project and would undoubtedly be complicated to resolve. 7.9 There are also issues to do with the choice of station location. The station design that includes car parking on the south side of the bypass requires the use of land that is currently allotments. Bringing this option to fruition may provoke conflict over landownership rights. 7.10 Finally, the complexity of the interface with Network Rail infrastructure should not be underestimated. Analysis to indicate the impact on signalling and more generally to ascertain whether there is sufficient line capacity to handle the Otley services and what the costs are of catering for additional services.

Demand side uncertainties 7.11 Preliminary investigations into demand have led to the conclusion that the most viable service frequency that can be offered at Otley, with any degree of certainty, is one train per hour. We have estimated, using traditional railway forecasting techniques, the impact of this relatively low level of service. However, it is necessary at the next stage of development that more in depth market research is undertaken to either confirm or refute this analysis, since this level of service is significantly poorer than that offered at other stations on the Wharfedale Line.

Political feasibility 7.12 To progress the Otley Rail Link a number of political factors must be taken into account with regard to the climate in which plans are introduced. During the Northern Rail Summit, held in Manchester in November 2003, the chairman of the SRA, Richard Bowker, made a strong statement that there is no money available from the SRA for schemes such as this. He has said that “There’s no case for reopening branch lines, extending services or replacing rolling stock prematurely”. This is clearly the position at the moment, though since the project is unlikely to come to fruition before 2011, political developments may occur in the interim. To achieve an implementation by 2011 political commitment will be required in the short to medium term to enable further work on the project to take place.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 39 05/03/04 JMP Consultants Ltd Otley Rail Link –Final Report

7.13 Furthermore, to secure approval and increase the chances of funding from the SRA, it is vital that the process of scheme development is not only compliant with Metro requirements, but that Metro actively supports the project. 7.14 Finally, a major component of bringing the Otley rail link into being is the fulfilment of the requirements of a Transport and Works Act application. This would require the production of detailed engineering studies and environmental impact assessments, in addition to gaining the mechanisms for obtaining powers for purchasing access rights to the track bed. This is by definition a time consuming and costly process, which can run to millions of pounds. 7.15 This means that a decision to progress this scheme would be a major decision for Otley Town Council and one that will require close cooperation with Metro, as they would be the key players in the development of this scheme.

The next steps 7.16 The next steps that must be taken by Otley Town Council are to: · Establish support from Metro · Establish political support, a meeting for which Otley Town Council has already arranged. · Encourage popular support 7.17 These steps must be undertaken over the next few months. Figure 7.1 outlines the necessary timescales and, steps involved in developing the rail scheme from this point onwards to implementation by 2011.

X:\Series 048\D048006 Otley Rail Link\Documents\Finrep.doc 40 05/03/04

Appendix A

Civil Engineering Report Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

OTLEY TOWN COUNCIL

OTLEY RAIL LINK FEASIBILITY ENGINEERING REPORT

ELR: TBA MILEAGE: TBA

O.S REF: TBA WYG REF: A017372/21/R/501

White Young Green Tel : 01904 632 312 2 St Martins Lane Fax : 01904 673 833 Micklegate York YO1 6LN PROJECT NO:A017372

ISSUE 1st 2nd DATE 05/12/03 11/2/04 PREPARED BY RC RC

CHECKED BY NDS NDS

APPROVED BY PK PK Form LWI-16 Rev Jan 95

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 1 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

AMENDMENT RECORD

This document will be updated when necessary by distribution of a complete replacement of the relevant section of the specification. Amended or additional parts of revised pages will be marked by a vertical black line in the right margin.

Issue Date Amendment Details

1 04/12/03 First Issue 2 11/02/04 Second Issue – Incroporating Amendments for new station Car Park Option (4.4 , 8.2, 10.4) , revised earthworks scope and Pool extension

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 2 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

CONTENTS PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION 4

2 PERMANENT WAY AND EARTHWORKS 5

2.1 Menston to Otley 5 2.2 Otley to Arthington Junction / Gravel Pits Extension 7

3 STRUCTURES 8

3.1 Bridges 8 3.2 Retaining Walls 9

4 STATION DESIGN 11

4.1 General 11 4.2 Car Park Option 1 12 4.3 Car Park Option 2 12 4.4 Car Park Option 3 13 4.5 Pool Extension 13

5 ELECTRIFICATION (OHLE) 14

6 SIGNALLING AND TELECOMMS 15

7 SERVICES 16

7.1 Services Search Results 16

8 PRICING 17

9 CONCLUSIONS 20

10 RECOMMENDATIONS 21

10.1 Permanent Way 21 10.2 Structures 21 10.3 Signalling and Telecomms 21 10.4 Overhead Line Electrification (OLE) 22 10.5 Station – Otley 22

APPENDIX A: SITE SURVEY - PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX B: OUTLINE SKETCHES

APPENDIX C: DRAWINGS

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 3 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

1 INTRODUCTION

As part of a project to examine the feasibility for reinstating the Otley Rail Link White Young Green have been commissioned to provide a report on the Engineering Issues associated with the project. The report has been divided in to the following engineering disciplines.

· Permanent Way and Earthworks · Structures · Station Design · Services

Site surveys were carried out during October 2003, key photographs obtained are contained within Appendix A of this report.

A brief summary of the Otley Rail Link Scheme is detailed below.

Otley Town Council wish to determine the requirement for and the feasibility of the reinstatement of the rail link to Otley. As part of the commission White Young Green shall also investigate suitable locations for a new station at Otley.

The railway line through Otley from Menston Junction to Arlington was closed in 1965 as part of the Beeching cuts. White Young Green have been asked to investigate the feasibility of reopening the rail link to Otley and to consider a through line to Arlington junction and reconnection with the Harrogate to Leeds line. White Young Green have also been requested to Investigate the extension of the new route to incorporate a link to the gravel pits quarry area located to the east of Otley town.

1.1 Executive Summary

The preferred option for the re-instatement of the rail link to Otley is to provide a single-track extension via Menston terminating at Otley and this has been examined in the most detail. Further extensions to the east of Otley would require extensive reconstruction of two further Otley bypass bridges and a complex civil engineering modifications at the far eastern bypass roundabout where a tunnel would be required to pass under the highway intersection.

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 4 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

2 PERMANENT WAY This section of the report describes the current condition of the track bed at key points along the route and then outlines the required works required at each of these to enable the construction of a new rail link.

The preferred option, which has been considered in most detail, is for a single-track extension from Menston to a terminal platform Otley with a passing loop of length 1 kilometre, ideally at the middle of the extension. The overall length of the extension from Menston Jn to the new platform at Otley is 2.4 miles. The proposed route indicating possible line speeds is shown on Otley Rail Link Sketch SK01.

2.1 Menston Jn to Otley

The original Otley line left the Menston to Ilkley line at Menston Jn, which is approximately 750 yards north west of Menston station. The original double width track bed for the Otley branch still exists, at Menston Junction, on a small embankment, approximately 3 metres high. Photograph 1 shows the location of the old junction and Photograph 2 shows Menston station looking west towards the junction site. It can also be seen from Photograph 2 that the provision of a bay platform at Menston for the Otley route would not be cost effective due to the location of existing property.

It is proposed that a single track junction would be provided from the Up line to Ilkley and a crossover facility would be provided to enable trains to cross from the Down to Up line. It is proposed that both crossover and turnout would be designed using either EV or RT60E turnouts to give a maximum speed through the junction of 40 mph. Vegetation removal would also clearly be required in the area of the junction. It should also be noted that a private property occupying the area adjacent to Menston Junction has a fenced garden encroaching on to the former rail route. The garden and its boundary would require modification prior to the reinstatement of the rail link.

After Menston junction the route turns through almost 180 degrees on a tight bend before crossing the A65 approximately 0.5 miles from Menston Junction at Moss Brook. This section is on an embankment which is in good condition as far as the A65 crossing, photograph 3.

Single track Permanent Way could readily be re-installed on this section. From initial investigations the radius of the curve between Menston Jn and the A65 is 300 metres which would give a line speed of 40 mph for this section with a cant of 100mm. At the A65 the track will cross the road on a new underbridge which will have a clearance of 7.7m to the road, well in excess of the 5.7 metres current highway standards. Photograph 4 shows that the bridge abutments have been lowered and the embankment cut back.

From the A65 crossing the former Menston to Otley route continues south eastwards in a straight line, just to the south and parallel to the route of the Ilkley to Otley until the former junction at Milner wood which is approximately a third of a mile after the A65 crossing. The track bed is on a split level embankment with the Menston to Otley track descending at a gradient of 1 in 70 to meet the almost level to Ilkley to Otley Line, photograph 5 shows the split level embankment. After the former junction between the two routes, approximately 0.9 miles from Menston Junction, the track bed then begins to level out slightly and continues through a short 0.3 miles long cutting and onwards on embankment towards the A6038 road crossing. At the end of the short cutting the track bed narrows due to the accumulation of tipped fill material, see photograph 6, whilst the embankment sections appear in good condition.

The central point of the proposed new 2.4 miles long extension is the A6038 road crossing. Ideally, the 1 kilometre passing loop would be centred at this location however to prevent the

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 5 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

requirement for a double track bridge crossing over the A6038 it is proposed to locate the loop between the A65 road crossing and the A6038 crossing, a distance of 1.1 kilometres. The track bed in this location is wide enough for double track and a safe cess because this was the location of the former junction between the Menston-Otley and Ilkley-Otley routes.

The passing loop would be static i.e. trains entering the loop would come to a stop whilst the single line was cleared. There is therefore no need for high-speed entry to the loop and the turnouts would be EV or RT60E suitable for 40 mph. Some substantial levelling works would be required where the two rail lines had been at different levels. It would be intended to raise the section of new route on the approach to the A6038 up to 1.5 metres higher than the original track bed to ensure that the A6038 could also be crossed at current highway clearance standards. Fill material could be obtained from material obtained from excavations required on the A660 (T) Otley bypass southern cuttings as described later.

A new bridge deck will be required for the A6038 crossing, as described within section 3.1 of this report. Following the crossing the trackbed continues descending at an average gradient of 1 in 200. After the crossing the track bed bends to the left, enters a cutting and runs parallel to the A6038, Bradford Road.

At a location approximately 0.2 miles from the A6038 crossing there is a three arch over bridge which appears in good condition and appears wide enough for double track, photographs 7 and 8. Vertical clearances at the bridge do appear to be limited and the level of the existing track bed may not be low enough to allow electrification clearances.

It is proposed that the new permanent way would cross the A6038 at approximately 1.5 metres above the existing track bed then descending back to the original level of the track bed. In order for the new railway to get down to the level of the old alignment and under the existing arch bridge over a distance of about 300 metres the track would need to be at a gradient of 1 in 100. Further studies may reveal that the over bridge would require to be replaced because there may be insufficient headroom for electrification clearance.

The track bed encounters an access road to Low Pasture Cottage, photograph 9, 0.3 miles from the A6038 crossing. This access road would require to be removed if the railway was to be reinstated therefore alternative access or a compulsory purchase order would be required.

Further east, there is a field access road, to a farmers field, which formerly crossed the track bed on an over bridge. The over bridge has been removed and the track bed has been filled in, photograph 10. The field access would need to be removed or a bridge provided at this point to facilitate installation of new permanent way.

The track bed is in good condition up to the point where is meets the A660 (T) Otley Bypass, approximately 1.9 miles from Menston Junction. At this point the A660(T) has been partly constructed on the line of the old track bed and so it will be necessary to run the new railway on a new line parallel to the A660 (T). The logical place to run the railway is to the south of the A660(T). The land to the south consists of a heavily vegetated cutting slope, approximately 5 metres high behind which is an unclassified road, Birdcage Walk, serving housing.

The new railway would have to be cut into this cutting slope. The railway would need to be approximately level with the road. This is because of the over bridge carrying the West Chevin Road over the Otley Bypass at approximately 1.9 miles from Menston junction. This bridge is described in more detail in section 3 of this report. It is likely that the bridge will need to be reconstructed however there is little scope for raising the level of the bridge because of access to nearby housing. It will therefore be necessary to lay the new railway low enough to achieve electrification clearance (minimum 4.8metres).

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 6 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

In order to cut the railway in to the slope it would be necessary to construct a retaining wall, adjacent to the West Chevin Road bridge and this wall may have to about 4 metres high. As the railway line approached the proposed station location the height of the wall can likely be reduced down to approximately 2.5 metres.

The overall length of the track running parallel to the A660 (T) is 600 metres with the proposed station at approximately 2.4 miles from Menston Junction.

2.2 Otley to Arthington Junction / Gravel Pits Extension

If the extension was to be continued through Otley towards Arthington Junction the permanent way could continue along the south side of the Otley bypass. This would require continuation of the proposed retaining wall for a further 700 metres towards Leeds Road. Two further bridges would require to be reconstructed; one where East Chevin road crosses the bypass 2.6 miles from Menston Junction and where a footbridge crosses over the Bypass about 2.8 miles from the junction. At 2.9 miles from Menston Junction the Otley Bypass , A660 (T) meets with the Leeds Road to the east of Otley. At this point the railway formerly passed through a short tunnel.

To reinstate permanent way under this road junction would require the new route to descend steeply along the side of the A660 (T) and then to pass under the road junction in a new tunnel which could be formed at this location. This would clearly require expensive earthworks and bridgeworks.

East of Otley the route continues through open countryside and passes through a series of short embankments and cuttings. The only crossings are at Cagey Hall Farm , which is approximately 4.15 from Menston Junction. The track bed then continues onwards to Pool, 5.1 miles from Menston Junction.

At Pool village the route of the former line is obstructed by a housing development of approximately 20 properties which extends for about 0.75 miles along the track bed. To facilitate the reinstatement of permanent way in this area there are several costly options:

1. A diversionary tunnel to the south of Pool village. 2. Place a compulsory purchase order on the 20 or so properties built on the old route in order to enable them to be demolished, see sketch 2.

From Pool village to the site of the former Arthington Junction the route runs on a shallow embankment for half a mile to the junction with the Leeds – Harrogate Line.

In summary, reinstatement of this section would be prohibitively expensive due to the need to cross a wide road junction and the encroachment of property boundaries along the route. A lower cost alternative would be to locate a station for Pool on the West side of Old Pool Bank Lane and avoid any bridge works or property disruption in Pool village.

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 7 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

3 STRUCTURES

3.1 Bridges

3.1.1 Menston to Otley

This section of the report details the condition of the principal over and under bridges on this section of the route and outlines the works required if the rail link to Menston is to be reinstated. The first bridge crossing, Br.1, encountered after the railway leaves the Menston to Ilkley line is over the A65 at Bradford Road. The abutments for this bridge appear to have been lowered and the embankment cut back, photographs 4 and 11. To enable the bridge crossing over the A65, at Br.1, to be reinstated new reinforced concrete bankseats, supported on piled foundations would be constructed to the ends of the existing embankments. A single 50 metre span box girder type bridge would extend between the backseats over both the A65 and the adjacent stream and Yorkshire Water site, see Drawing A017372/21/R/003. The original abutments will not be required as part of the new works. The vertical clearance between the existing road and the underside of the proposed bridge will be approximately 7.7metres, which is well in excess of current highway clearance requirements. The approximate cost of the bridge construction would be £3 million. At approximately 1 mile after Menston Junction the former line crosses the A6038 at an angle of approximately 45 degrees to the highway, photographs 12 and 13. The bridge deck for this crossing, Br.2, spanned the A6038 and Gill Beck and was additionally supported on a central pillar located adjacent to A6038, see photograph 14. In order to reinstate the rail crossing at Br.2 a single 50 metre span box girder type deck would extend over the A6038 and Gill Beck, see Drawing A017372/21/R/004. The existing central pier, existing roadway retaining walls and culverts would not be incorporated in to the bridge structure, photograph 15. The existing abutment and track bed levels indicate that the original bridge would have had restricted headroom. In order to construct the bridge to current headroom standards substantial earthworks modifications will be required to the approach embankments to raise the permanent way level. The clearance to the top of the existing abutment is approximately 4.2 metres, hence the approach embankments will need to be raised 1.5 metres to meet the necessary 5.7 metre minimum highway requirements. The approximate cost of the bridge construction would be £3 million.

At a location approximately 0.2 miles from the A6038 crossing there is a three arch stone over bridge, Br.3, which appears in good condition and is wide enough for double track, photographs 7 and 8. This bridge may require reconstruction to accommodate OHLE. This will be determined at outline design stage, but the cost of reconstruction will be included in the pricing build-up.

The next bridge is an over bridge, Br.4, which has been filled in to form a track providing access to a field, photograph 10 and 16. To facilitate the reinstatement of the rail link an alternative field access could be investigated from West Chevin Road or a new over bridge would be required to current railway group standards and to facilitate the provision of over head line equipment.

Bridge Br.5 is an over bridge which carries West Chevin road over the Otley bypass, A660 (T), photograph 17. The bypass at this point follows the route of the old railway line and the highway is three lanes at this point to facilitate a crawler lane for vehicles travelling east along the bypass. From investigation there is insufficient clearance between the abutment of the bridge and the edge of the highway to facilitate a new rail route. There are therefore two options for this bridge crossing; either reduce the highway to two lanes or to rebuild the bridge crossing with the southern abutment situated with sufficient clearance to enable a rail line to be installed between it and the highway.

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 8 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

Bridge Br.6 is an over bridge which carries a footway over the Otley Bypass, photograph 18. The footbridge is approximately at the location of the original station footbridge From site investigations there is insufficient clearance to enable a railway line to be fitted in between the road way and the bridge southern support column. In order to a facilitate the railway line the footbridge would require to be refitted with a longer deck which could clear both the two lane bypass highway and a new railway line at this point.

3.1.2 Otley to Arthington Junction Bridge Br. 7 carries Chevin Bottom Road over highway, photograph 19, again there is insufficient clearance to fit a new rail line in to the south of the existing bypass at this point. The bridge would have to be rebuilt with a longer deck and a new southern abutment to facilitate the railway line. Bridge Br. 8 carries footbridge over highway, photograph 20 again there is insufficient clearance to fit a new rail line in to the south of the existing bypass at this point. The bridge would have to be rebuilt with a longer deck and a new southern abutment to facilitate the railway line. The next significant requirement for a structure along the route is at Br. 9 on Sketch Otley, photographs 21 and 22. At this point the Railway formerly proceeded through a short tunnel; where currently there is a roundabout at the location which forms the junction between the A660 (T) Otley Bypass and Leeds Road from Otley. Evidence of the former tunnel is shown by photograph 23, showing the rear of the western tunnel mouth. There are two potential solutions at this site ; either to form a tunnel under the existing roundabout or to gradually increase the level of the new rail line as it proceeds parallel to the Otley bypass so that a rail bridge could be formed over the roundabout. Further east of Otley the next bridge location are over bridges , Br. 10 and Br. 11 which carry minor farm access routes over the route of the former railway. Both these structures would require to be rebuilt to modern gauging standards. One possible solution would be to eliminate one of the bridge crossings by accessing the eastern field building from Caley Hall farm road. The next bridge crossing, Br.12, is just to the west of Pool village and after this point there has been considerable re-development making reinstatement of a rail line very difficult. One possible consideration maybe that the line to Otley could be extended to the west of Pool and a station constructed to the west of the area of redevelopment. This would then provide a rail link to Leeds via Menston without the requirement for extensive civil / diversionary works at Pool.

3.2 Retaining Walls

3.2.1 Menston to Otley

There are no significant areas where retaining walls would be required along the route until the rail line approaches the route of the current Otley bypass, A660 (T). The bypass then runs for 1.5 kilometres along the route of the old railway in a cutting approximately 5 metres deep. The proposal as defined within the permanent way section of this report describes a proposed new route running to parallel and just to the south of the existing bypass. This new rail line would run on at road level and would have to be cut in to the southern cutting slope. As a consequence a retaining wall would be required along the length of the bypass up to the new station location of approximately 600 metres in length and a height of up to 4 metres.

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 9 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

3.2.2 Otley to Arthington Junction / Gravel Pits Extension

It is not anticipated that any significant retaining wall works would be required in this area, once the route has cleared the Otley Bypass. Here the proposed retaining wall will require extending a further 700 metres at a height of up to 4 metres.

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 10 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

4 STATION DESIGN

4.1 General

This element of the report considers the proposed new station at Otley.

For the feasibility study White Young Green have assumed that the operational platform length required for a new station would be 160 metres long, this would enable a train comprised of 2 number 3 car Class 333 car sets to be accommodated.

It is intended that the site of the new station would be adjacent and to the south of the route of the original Railway; one location for the station site has been proposed and two options for the car park have been proposed. A second station location option situated before the bypass junction with the A6038 was considered due to its significantly reduced earthworks and bridge rebuilding input, however this was eliminated due to the distance from Otley town centre.

It has been assumed that the station platform will be of concrete block wall construction with bitmac surfacing. The platform would be single faced within the Otley bypass southern cutting. The following equipment has been considered as part of the station: waiting shelter , CCTV equipment , train information systems, lighting, car parking, bus stop, taxi stop and disabled access. The station location is shown on Drawing A017372/21/R/001 and Drawing A017372/21/R/002

The proposed location of the station is just to the west of the existing footbridge which crosses the A660 (T) Otley bypass at the bottom of Otley Road. This footbridge has an existing disabled access ramp at the northern access point which would be retained. A new, DDA compliant, access ramp and stair would require to be constructed adjacent to the rear of the proposed station platform. The proposed new DDA compliant ramp down to the new station platform would have a maximum gradient of 1:20 and would have a change in direction every 6 metres In addition to these works the existing pathway from the footbridge to Birdcage walk would be refurbished and the entire route would be relit to current standards.

Option 1, 2 and 3 below describe the alternative car parking, bus stop and taxi waiting arrangements which have been proposed.

4.2 Option 1 – Northern Car Park (using Station Road for Access)

For this option the car park is sited to the north of the A660 (T) Otley bypass within the bounds of the former railway yard, see Drg A017372 /21/R/001. It is also proposed to provide bus and taxi waiting areas within this location. Photograph 24 shows the extensive flat station yard area adjacent to the footbridge steps. This would allow 121 normal parking spaces and 6 disabled spaces, in compliance with the SRA Code of Practice for Train and Station Services for Disabled Passengers.

Vehicular access for the new car park would be obtained from Station Road and vehicles would then leave to the east and exit on to Chevin bottom road via the existing lane, shown on photograph 25. Upon consideration of bus access to the station area it was decided that Station Road would require to become one-way to ensure safe bus access due it being narrow and having cars parked on both sides, photograph 26. It would also be possible for the one-way route to operate in the opposite direction if this was deemed the best solution after traffic studies were carried out.

It can be seen from the drawing that the proposal is for a roadway incorporating bus and taxi stops to the rear of the car park and separated from the car park with a fence. In order to provide a sufficient number of car park spaces a small area of allotment land will require to be purchased to form the lay -by for buses and taxis. Photograph 27 shows the area of the allotments, which

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 11 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

will require to be purchased to facilitate the bus and taxi lay-by. The existing, but apparently unused, coach park at the eastern end of the station yard shall be retained.

Advantages of this location are easy access from the town centre for pedestrians and vehicles, including buses which would require only minor rescheduling to facilitate calling at the station. This site would also require minimal earthworks because the area is already flat and level having been part of the original station yard, photographs 28 and 24.

Disadvantages of this location are the highway modifications which would be required to station road to facilitate safe access for vehicles to the site. This would clearly affect inhabitants of Station road as they would always have to exit via the station.

4.3 Option 2 – Southern Car Park

For this option the car park is sited to the south of the A660 (T) Otley bypass within the bounds of the existing allotments, see Drg A017372 /21/R/002. This would allow 226 normal parking spaces and 6 disabled spaces, in compliance with SRA Code of Practice for Train and Station Services for Disabled Passengers.

In order to facilitate the construction of the car park a section of the existing Allotment Gardens would require to be purchased from the existing landowner.

A bus stop and taxi area is proposed to be located on Birdcage Walk, to the west of the proposed car park site, Drg A017372/21/R/002. A lay-by style facility is proposed with a linking path to the station access path. Bus services from the town centre would require to be diverted along Birdcage walk in order to stop additionally at this location.

Advantages of this location are easy that easy vehicle access from Birdcage Walk could be obtained without extensive modifications.

Disadvantages of this location are that extensive earthwork would be required to level the allotment site and that buses would be required to be diverted down narrow Birdcage Walk to call at the station.

4.4 Option 3 – Northern Car Park (Extended Car Park using Burras Lane for Access)

This option is similar 1 in that the car park is sited to the north of the A660 (T) Otley bypass within the bounds of the former railway yard, see Drg A017372 /21/R/001A. For this option the car park has been extended as far westwards as possible towards Burras Lane.

For this option the vehicular access for the new car park would be obtained from Burras Lane Road and vehicles would then proceed down a new one-way carriageway to leave to the east and exit on to Chevin Bottom Road via the existing lane, shown on photograph 25.

A Bus and taxi waiting layby shall be provided at the foot of the existing stairs at the bottom of the footbridge. Photograph 24 shows the extensive flat station yard area adjacent to the footbridge steps. This would allow in the region of 160 normal parking spaces and 6 disabled spaces, in compliance with the SRA Code of Practice for Train and Station Services for Disabled Passengers.

The car park shall be accessed from the new single carriagway road as shown on drawing Drg A017372 /21/R/001A and will be separated from the road with a fence.

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 12 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

Advantages of this location are easy access from the town centre for pedestrians, including buses which would require only minor rescheduling to facilitate calling at the station. This site would also require minimal earthworks because the area is already flat and level having been part of the original station yard, photographs 28 and 24.

Disadvantages of this location are that in order to provide a single carriageway vehicle access from Burras Road means that there is insufficient width to provide two aisles of car parking. More spaces could be accommodated if the highway amendments for Option 1 were adopted.

4.5 Pool Extension

The proposed station at Pool discussed in section 3.1.2, would comprise of a single face platform, identical to that proposed at Otley. The platform would be served by a DDA compliant ramp from the existing road and provided with a waiting shelter. Car parking provision cannot easily be provided at this location and there is insufficient road width to allow bus or taxi drop off facilities without substantial earthworks.

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 13 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

5 ELECTRIFICATION (OHL)

The existing line from Menston to Ilkley is electrified utilising single cantilever masts.

It is proposed that the 2.4 mile long extension from Menston Junction to the new station at Otley, including the passing loop, would be electrified using similar equipment. This would enable existing services through Menston to be diverted to Otley.

An extension of services from Otley to Pool will require a further 2.6 miles of electrification

Further studies may reveal the requirement for a new feeder station and this has been included within the price.

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 14 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

6 SIGNALLING AND TELECOMS

6.1 Menston to Otley

The railway section between Apperley Junction and Ilkley is controlled in the York Interlocking Electronic Control Centre. It is equipped with coloured light signals with Train Protection Warning System (and Automatic Warning System), Track Circuits, Point Machines and Block Working System. Both the proposed new junction at Menston and the further connection to Otley have to be provided with the same generation of signalling equipment as the one already existing in the area.

The new signalling systems will comprise 9 signals, 5 point machines, track circuits for all the track length, one local signal box fitted with remote control, power supply and the connecting equipment. Inserting the junction will also involve alterations to the existing equipment on the Down Line and Up Line: repositioning of 4 signals and corresponding track circuits.

All the new equipment and alterations will need to be mirrored in the York Electronic Interlocking, both in terms of software and hardware.

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 15 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

7 SERVICES

7.1 Services Search Results

As part of this commission White Young Green contacted the services providers in the area surrounding the proposed new station and along the length of the Otley bypass. This was because this was the part of the existing rail route which had seen most alteration since closure. The following service providers were contacted:-

Yorkshire Water , Yorkshire Electricity, Fujistu Telecom, BT, NTL, Integrated Utility Services, Global Crossing, Transco, Coal Authority, Energis and Cable and Wireless.

Known services in the area from the above suppliers have been added to Otley station drawings A017372/21/R/001and A017372/21/R/002.

At the time of writing, 5-12-03, services records from Yorkshire Electricity and British Telecom have been received.

All the service information shall be forwarded to Otley Council when the remainder is received.

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 16 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

8 PRICING

8.1 Menston to Otley

The prices detailed below are for the preferred option of reinstating a Rail link to Otley via Menston and providing a terminus station at the site of the original station in Otley.

Permanent Way Cost (£m) Purchase and Lay Track (2.4 miles) 0.9 Lay Passing Loop 0.3 5 No. Turnouts 0.3 Switch Heating and Ancillaries 0.1

Earthworks Farm and Property access diversions 0.3 Increased track bed level between A65 and A6038 by up to 1.5m 0.07 Cut material from A660 (T) – 1 km to location of new station 0.15

Structures New Bridge No. 1 over A65 3.0 New Bridge No. 2 over A6038 3.0 Reconstructed Three Arch Bridge No. 3 1.5 Reconstructed Bypass Bridge No. 5 2.0 Retaining Wall (600m along A660(T)) 0.9

Station Platform (160m single faced) 0.15 New DDA Station Ramp Access and Footpath refurbishments 0.15 Car Parking (incl. Taxi and Bus stops) 0.4 Highway Works 0.1

OHLE OHL Equipment 2.0 New Feeder station – If required 4.0

SIGNALLING AND TELECOMS Equipment 0.8 SSI Interface Costs 0.4

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE FOR ENGINEERING WORKS £ 20.52m (Menston to Otley)

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 17 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

8.2 Otley to Arthington Junction

The following total summarises the approximate additional costs associated with extending the Otley rail link through Otley and onwards to Arthington Junction. For this exercise it has been assumed that a compulsory purchase order would be placed on the properties on Pool and the new railway would be reinstated along its former alignment.

The principal issues associated with this extension which have cost implications are detailed below.

Cost (£m) Lay and Purchase Track (3.5 additional miles) 1.3 Purchase and demolition of 20 properties in Pool 8 Construction of new Footbridge Over A660 (T) Otley Bypass 0.5 Construction of new Bridge to Carry Chevin Bottom Road 2.0 Extension of Retaining Wall (700m) 1.0 Earthworks 2 Tunnel under Bypass Eastern Roundabout – Single Bore 8 Reconstruction of Br 10 and 11 1.5 TOTAL COST OF EXTENSION TO OTLEY FROM ARTHINGTON £24.3 m

It can be seen that if an option were considered to provide a station at the western edge of Pool, and terminate the line from Menston at that point, then an overall saving of around £5 million could be made to the above estimate if the cost savings of property purchase and additional track mileage and additional station and electrification costs are included.

If this route were to be considered as a ‘stand alone’ option, ie as a rail link from Otley to Arthington instead of the Otley -Menston option the following items would have to be added in;

Cost (£m) Station Platform (160m single faced) 0.15 New DDA Station Ramp Access and Footpath refurbishments 0.15 Car Parking (incl. Taxi and Bus stops) 0.4 Highway Works 0.1

Earthworks To Passing Loop 1.5

SIGNALLING AND TELECOMS Equipment 0.8 SSI Interface Costs 0.4

Permanent Way Lay Passing Loop 0.3 5 No. Turnouts 0.3 Switch Heating and Ancillaries 0.1 ADDITIONAL COSTS £4.2m TOTAL COST FOR OTLEY TO ARTHINGTON £28.5m

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 18 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

8.3 Otley to Gravel Pits Junction

The following total summarises the approximate additional costs associated with extending the Otley rail link through Otley and onwards to Gravel Pits Junction.

The principal issues associated with this extension which have a cost implications are detailed below.

Cost (£m) Lay and Purchase Track (2 additional miles) 0.6 Construction of new Footbridge Over A660 (T) Otley Bypass 0.5 Construction of new Bridge to Carry Chevin Bottom Road 2.0 Earthworks 0.5 Tunnel under Bypass Eastern Roundabout – Single Bore 8 Extension of Retaining wall (700m) 1.0 TOTAL COST OF EXTENSION TO GRAVEL PITS FROM OTLEY £12.6 m

It can be seen that if an option were considered to provide the gravel pits freight link from a Menston to Pool extension via a new connection to the east of the proposed Bypass Eastern Roundabout tunnel, then an overall saving of around £10 million could be made to the above estimate.

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 19 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

9 CONCLUSIONS

The preferred option for the re-instatement of the rail link to Otley is to provide a single-track extension via Menston terminating at Otley and this has been examined in the most detail.

Further extensions to the east of Otley would require extensive reconstruction of two further Otley bypass bridges and complex civil engineering modifications at the far eastern A660 (T) Otley Bypass roundabout where a tunnel would be required to pass under the highway intersection.

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 20 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

10 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following are the principal recommendations associated with providing a new rail link from Menston to Otley.

10.1 Permanent Way - Menston to Otley

· Provide new EV 40 mph cross over and single lead turnout at the site of the old Menston junction on the Menston to Ilkley Line.

· Insert a 300m radius curve on the old embankment between Menston junction and the A65 crossing canted at 100mm for a line speed of 40 mph.

· After crossing the A65 new line to rise by approximately 1.5 metres higher than original track bed to enable crossing of A6038 at current highway standards.

· After A6038 line to descend to original track bed level and to follow original route until the A660 (T) Otley Bypass.

· New line to be run along the south side of the A660 (T) , existing southern cutting slope to be cut and retained for 1 kilometre up to site of new Otley station.

· Passing loop to be installed between A65 and A6038 crossings.

10.2 Structures – Menston to Otley

· Provide new bridge crossings (Br.1 and Br.2) required to be constructed for A65 and A6038 both proposed to be single span box girder with new abutments to A6038 bridge raising the track level to cross at current highway standards.

· Three arch overbridge situated 0.2 miles from A6038 crossing may require to be reconstructed to electrification clearances to be achieved. Reconstruction has been assumed for costing purposes

· Provide new bridge crossing required for West Chevin Road at west end of A660 (T) Otley bypass if highway narrowing is not permitted.

· A retaining wall is required along the rail route where this runs parallel to the A660 (T) Otley bypass.

10.3 Signalling and Telecoms – Menston to Otley

· The new signalling systems will comprise 9 signals, 5 point machines, track circuits for all the track length, one local signal box fitted with remote control, power supply and the connecting equipment.

· Inserting the junction will also involve alterations to the existing equipment on the Down Line and Up Line: repositioning of 4 signals and corresponding track circuits.

· All the new equipment and alterations will need to be mirrored in the York Electronic Interlocking, both in terms of software and hardware.

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 21 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

· New CCTV and train information equipment will require to be interfaced with the existing monitoring equipment on the Menston to Ilkley Route.

10.4 Overhead Line Electrification (OLE) – Menston to Otley

· New cantilever style masts and equipment to be installed on the extension. · Further studies required of train types, service frequency and existing infrastructure to determine requirement for a new feeder station.

10.5 Station Design – Otley

· A single Platform, 160 metre long, to the south of the A660 (T) Otley Bypass is proposed, in order to minimise earthworks. · A car park with bus and taxi waiting areas shall be provided. · A 36 seat waiting shelter shall be provided. · Pedestrian access to Otley town shall be provided via the existing footbridge over the A660 (T) and disabled access ramp to the platform. The access walkway to Birdcage walk shall also be refurbished and relit. · Car Park Options 3 is preferred as it would use existing public owned land to the North of the Station and provide good access links to Otley town centre.

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 22 - Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

APPENDIX A

PHOTOGRAPHS

Otley Rail Link Feasibility

Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

APPENDIX B

OUTLINE SKETCHES

SK01

Otley Rail Link Feasibility

Otley Town Council Project No.: A017372 Otley Rail Link Feasibility Engineering Report Issue: 1

APPENDIX C

DRAWINGS

· A017372/21/R/001: Proposed Layout for Station Option 1

· A017372/21/R/002: Proposed Layout for Station Option 2

· A017372/21/R/001A: Proposed Layout for Station Option 3

· A017372/21/R/003: Proposed General Arrangement Bridge 1 (A65 Crossing)

· A017372/21/R/004: Proposed General Arrangement Bridge 2 (A6038 Crossing)

Otley Rail Link Feasibility

Appendix B

Engineering Drawings and Photographs Consulting Engineers Otley T O W N C O U N C I L Otley T O W N C O U N C I L

Otley T O W N C O U N C I L

Consulting Engineers Photograph 1: Menston Junction

Photograph 2: Menston Station Looking West

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 1 - Photograph 3: Embankment Section After Menston Jn

Photograph 4: A65 Bridge Abutment

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 2 - Photograph 5: Split Level Embankment (taken from Ilkley to Otley line)

Photograph 6: Cutting Filled With Additional Fill Material

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 3 - Photograph 7: Three Arch Over Bridge

Photograph 8: Three Arch Over Bridge

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 4 - Photograph 9: Low Pasture Cottage Access

Photograph 10: Filled in Bridge

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 5 - Photograph 11: A65 Bridge Abutment

Photograph 12: A6038 Crossing

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 6 - Photograph 13: A6038 Crossing; Abutment Adjacent to Road

Photograph 14: A6038 and Gill Beck Crossing: Central Pillar

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 7 - Photograph 15: A6038 Retaining Walls and Culvert

Photograph 16: Filled in Bridge

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 8 - Photograph 17: West Chevin Road Bypass Bridge

Photograph 18: Otley Bypass Footbridge On Site of Old Station Footbridge

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 9 - Photograph 19: Bridge Carrying Chevin Bottom Road

Photograph 20: Otley Bypass Footbridge On Eastern Roundabout Approach

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 10 - Photograph 21: Otley Bypass Eastern Roundabout Looking West

Photograph 22: Otley Bypass Eastern Roundabout Looking East

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 11 - Photograph 23: Rear of Western Tunnel Mouth

Photograph 24: Original Station Yard Adjacent to North side of Footbridge

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 12 - Photograph 25: Lane to Chevin Bottom Road

Photograph 26: View of Station Road

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 13 - Photograph 27: Allotments Adjacent to Old Station Yard

Photograph 28: View of Former Otley Station Yard

Otley Rail Link Feasibility - 14 - Appendix C

Calculations for Screening Framework Appendix C Demand calculations for screening framework

The data in this chart displays the demand data per rail option as discussed in chapter 4

Rail options using the Wharfedale and Harrogate line to link with Leeds and Bradford

Option 1 Menston Otley Diesel Shuttle (Wharfedale line)

Frequency Interchange Demand IVT Penalty Penalty Access Time Fares Total Key To Leeds 30 39 14 20 29.6 132.6 value of time 10 To Bradford 34 39 14 20 29.6 136.6 1p=10 mins

Option 2 Arthington - Menston Diesel Shuttle (Via Wharfedale Line Line)

Frequency Interchange Demand IVT Penalty Penalty Access Time Fares Total To Leeds 41 39 14 20 29.6 143.6 To Bradford 45 39 14 20 29.6 147.6

Option 3 Through Rail Service Otley to Leeds/Bradford (diesel option) (Via Wharfedale Line)

Frequency Interchange Demand IVT Penalty Penalty Access Time Fares Total To Leeds 30 39 0 20 29.6 118.6 To Bradford 34 39 0 20 29.6 122.6

Option 4 Through Rail Service Otley to Leeds/Bradford (electric option) (Via Wharfedale Line)

Frequency Interchange Demand IVT Penalty Penalty Access Time Fares Total To Leeds 25 39 0 20 29.6 113.6 To Bradford 30 39 0 20 29.6 118.6

Option 5 Menston - Otley Shuttle combined rail connection to gravel pits (Wharfedale line)

Frequency Interchange Demand IVT Penalty Penalty Access Time Fares Total To Leeds 30 39 14 20 29.6 132.6 To Bradford 34 39 14 20 29.6 136.6

Option 6 Menston-Otley-Arthington (diesel) passenger service combined wih rail connection to gravel workings (Via Harrogate Line)

Frequency Interchange Demand IVT Penalty Penalty Access Time Fares Total To Leeds 39.5 39 14 20 29.6 142.1 To Bradford 60.5 39 14 20 29.6 163.1

Option 7 Through Rail Service Otley to Leeds/Bradford (diesel option) (Via Harrogate Line)

Frequency Interchange Demand IVT Penalty Penalty Access Time Fares Total To Leeds 39.5 39 0 20 29.6 128.1 To Bradford 60.5 39 0 20 29.6 149.1

Through Rail Service Otley to Leeds/Bradford (electric option) (Via Harrogate Line)

Frequency Interchange Demand IVT Penalty Penalty Access Time Fares Total To Leeds 34.5 39 0 20 29.6 123.1 To Bradford 55.5 39 0 20 29.6 144.1

Otley-Menston by W9 Menston-Leeds/Bradford by rail

Frequency Interchange Demand IVT Penalty Penalty Access Time Fares Total To Leeds 34 19 14 20 29.6 116.6 To Bradford 38 26 14 20 29.6 127.6 Appendix C Engineering feasibility calculations for screening framework

This chart indicates the score of rail options against the engineering feasibility criteria discussed in chapter 4

Rail options using Wharfedale Line Rail options using Harrogate Line Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Menston-Otley Menston Arthington Through Rail Service Through Rail Shuttle (diesel) passenger Otley to service Otley to combined rail service combined Through Rail service Menston-Arthington Leeds/Bradford Leeds/Bradford connection to with rail connections Otley to Leeds Criteria Menston-Otley Diesel Shuttle Diesel Shuttle (diesel option) (electric option) gravel pits to gravel workings Bradford (diesel) Engineering Feasibility Alignment Feasibility -1 -4 -1 -3 -4 -5 -4 Station Feasibility -3 -4 -2 -2 -2 -4 -3 Impact on Network (Rail) -1 -1 -3 -4 -3 -1 -3 Total -5 -9 -6 -9 -9 -10 -10

Key -5 Worse than average 0 Average 5 Better than average Appendix C Operational feasibility calculations for screening framework

This chart indicates the score of rail options against the operational feasibility criteria discussed in chapter 4

Rail options using Wharfedale Line Rail options using Harrogate Line Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Option 7A

Menston-Otley Shuttle Menston Arthington (diesel) Through Rail Service Through Rail service Otley combined rail passenger service combined Through Rail service Menston-Arthington Otley to Leeds/Bradford to Leeds/Bradford connection to gravel with rail connections to Through Rail service Otley to Bradford Criteria Menston-Otley Diesel Shuttle Diesel Shuttle (diesel option) (electric option) pits gravel workings Otley to Leeds (diesel) (diesel) Operational Feasibility Route Capacity 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 Vehicle Capacity -1 -1 2 2 -1 -1 2 2 Freight Capability 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Interchange Requirement 0 0 3 3 0 2 3 3 Total 2 2 6 6 3 5 6 6

Key -3 Worse than average 0 Average 3 Better than average Appendix C Cost and fundability calculations for screening framework

This chart display the cost and fundability data per rail option as discussed in chapter 4, the subsequent charts include the necessary calculations for components used to calculate each criteria for each option.

Rail options using Wharfedale Line Rail options using Harrogate Line Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 3A Option 4 Option 4A Option 5 Option 6 Option 7 Option 7A Through Rail Through Rail Through Rail Menston-Otley Menston- Service Otley to Service Otley to service Otley to Shuttle combined Menston Arthington (diesel) passenger Menston-Otley Arthington Diesel Leeds (diesel Bradford (diesel Leeds (electric Through Rail service Otley to rail connection to service combined with rail connections Through Rail service Through Rail service Otley to Bradford Criteria Diesel Shuttle Shuttle option) option) option) Bradford (electric option) gravel pits to gravel workings Otley to Leeds (diesel) (diesel) Costs and Fundability Alignment Costs 14,250,000 39,300,000 14,250,000 14,250,000 20,250,000 20,250,000 32,450,000 51,500,000.00 25,050,000.00 25,050,000.00 Station Costs 5,800,000 1,600,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 800,000 1,600,000.00 800,000.00 800,000.00 Rolling Stock £ 240,000 £ 240,000 £ 480,000 £ 480,000 £ 480,000 £ 480,000 £ 240,000 £ 240,000 £ 240,000 £ 240,000 Operating Costs 314,847.00 618,068.88 1,893,528.00 1,643,311.80 1,631,448.00 1,415,863.80 392,847.00 707,248.88 1,880,002.80 2,434,536.00 Potential For Freight Grants 327,600.00 327,600.00 Total £ 20,604,847.00 41,758,068.88 17,423,528.00 17,173,311.80 23,161,448.00 22,945,863.80 33,555,247.00 53,719,648.88 27,970,002.80 28,524,536.00

Component calculations used in main chart

Service Assumptions Operating costs assumptions 4 car electric(£) 4 car diesel 2 car train (£) Options Service/hr Cars Total cost/train mile 4.98 5.78 4.14 Option 1 2 2 No hrs/day 18 Option 2 2 4 Hourly frequency 4 Otley - Menston 3.25 miles Capital costs Menston - Leeds 10.75 miles Alignment £ Station £ Neville Bridge-Menston 0.00 miles Menston - Otley 20250000 800000 Neville Bridge-Otley 0.00 Otley - Arthington 25050000 800000 Menston - Arthington 6.38 miles Otley - Gravel Pits 12200000 0 Wharfedale Otley - Leeds 14 miles Otley - Arthington (link only) 21500000 Wharfedale Otley - Bradford 12.15 miles Cost reduction for non electrification 6000000 Harrogate Otley - Leeds 13.9 miles Harrogate Otley - Bradford 18 miles Operating Costs for Freight Trains Cost/train km 2.5 Distance by road from Stephen Smiths in Otley - Leeds Distance Otley - Leeds 24 10.5 miles Daily Frequency 4 80 no of lorries/day equivalent to 2 trains/day 1.5 cost/lorry mile Daily op cost 240 260 annual running in days Annual 78000 Potential for Freight Grants 1.5 per lorry mile

Total annual train and station operating costs Electric Diesel 4 Car Diesel 2 Car Lease cost / vehicle £ 120,000 £ 100,000 £ 100,000

Fuel costs - miles per vehicle pa 75,000 75,000 75000 - cost per vehicle mile £ 0.20 £ 0.30 £ 0.30 Maintenance costs - cost per vehicle mile £ 0.35 £ 0.45 £ 0.45 Track access charges - cost per vehicle mile £ 0.07 £ 0.07 £ 0.07 Crew Costs per hour £25 £25 £25 - Hours per vehicle pa 1875 1875 1875 - cost per vehicle mile 0.63 0.63 1.25

Total Per veh mile £ 1.25 £ 1.45 £ 2.07 No of vehicles per train 4 4 2 TotalCost per train mile 4.98 5.78 4.14

+ leasing cost pa £ 480,000 £ 400,000 £ 240,000 Appendix D

Cost Benefit Appraisal Calculations Appendix D Calculations for demand forecast in chapter 5

D.1 Estimated Boardings: one train per hour

Estimated daily boardings

Otley 0-0.8km population 4875 Otley 0-0.8km Trip Rate x 0.1 Daily boardings = 487.5

Otley 0.8-2km population 7596 Otley 0.8-2km Trip Rate x 0.06 Daily boardings = 455.8

Total daily boardings 943

peak 37.6% 355 off-peak 62.4% + 589 Total daily boardings = 943

Reduction for Service adjustment Peak Off-peak Peak Off-peak Service Elasticity (major change) -1.5 Station Service Enhancement /Reduction Weighted GJT Weighted GJT Weighted GJT Weighted GJT Impact of Changing frequency Service Elasticity (minor change) -0.9 Current Services Current Services Revised Service Revised Service Peak Off-peak Otley Current Menston (3tph peak, 2tph off-peak) 43 50 43 50 0.0% 0.0% peak -43.6% -155 Otley 2tph peak 2tph off peak 43 50 50 50 -20.2% 0.0% off-peak -29.3% + -172 Otley 1tph peak 2tph off peak 43 50 63 50 -43.6% 0.0% Total daily boardings = -327 Otley 1tp peak and off peak 43 50 63 63 -43.6% -29.3%

Current users (at Menston)

peak 90% -112 off-peak 10% + -12 Total daily boardings = -124

Additional rail users (Menston & Guiseley) Peak Off-peak Peak Off-peak Menston Station Service Enhancement /Reduction Weighted GJT Weighted GJT Weighted GJT Weighted GJT Impact of Changing frequency peak 37.6% 218 Current Services Current Services Revised Service Revised Service Peak Off-peak off-peak 62.4% + 361 Menston Service Enhancement + 1tph peak and off peak 38 45 34 38 10.5% 16.4% Total daily boardings = 579 Guiseley Service Enhancement + 1tph peak and off peak 34 41 30 34 11.9% 18.4%

Guiseley peak 37.6% 345 off-peak 62.4% + 573 Total daily boardings = 918

Impact of changing frequency

Menston peak 10.5% 23 off-peak 16.4% + 59 Total daily boardings = 82

Guiseley peak 11.9% 41 off-peak 18.4% + 105 Total daily boardings = 146

Total Menston & Guiseley peak 64 off-peak + 165 Total daily boardings = 229

User Benefits (time savings) GJT mins peak off-peak Existing Users (removal of interchange penalty) 14 14 New User (1/2 saving of interchange penalty) 7 7 New Menston/Guiseley Users (1/2 saving in frequency penalty) 2 3.5

Capital Costs £000 TWA 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 'Total 800 800 1000 5900 6020 6000 20520

Operating Costs £000 2001 1tph 1296 2tph 2111 Appendix D Calculations for appraisal of costs and benefits in chapter 6

Appraisal Parameters Growth pa post 2011 1.9% Summary Benefits and Costs £000 pv Income Growth pa 2.0% Annualisation Factor Capital Costs -£14,745 peak 260 Operating Costs -£22,645 off peak 336 Total Costs -£37,391 Average Fare per passenger peak £2.65 Revenues £11,724 off peak £2.00 Non_user Benefits £13,347 Average trip length (return) 30 kms User Benefits £18,489 Total Benefits £43,561 % of new users ex car 30% Car Occupancy peak 1.2 off-peak 1.6 Financial NPV -£25,666 Road decongestion Economic NPV £6,170 peak 50 pence per pcu km B/C ratio 1.17 off peak 12 pence per pcu km Value of time peak 12 pence per min off peak 13.3 pence per min Operating cost growth 1.5% pa

Table D.2 DAILY PASSENGER FORECASTS

Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

From Trip Rate Model 25,811 n/a 355 355 390 424 454 485 519 554 591 606 619 631 643 655 667 680 693 706 720 733 747 761 776 791 806 821 837 852 869 885 902 919 937 954 972 991 1,010 1,029 1,048 1,068 Gross Estimate 32,473 n/a 589 589 623 653 671 690 709 729 746 764 779 794 809 824 840 856 872 888 905 923 940 958 976 995 1,014 1,033 1,052 1,072 1,093 1,114 1,135 1,156 1,178 1,201 1,223 1,247 1,270 1,295 1,319 1,344 Total 58,283 n/a 943 943 1,013 1,077 1,125 1,175 1,228 1,283 1,337 1,371 1,398 1,424 1,451 1,479 1,507 1,536 1,565 1,595 1,625 1,656 1,687 1,719 1,752 1,785 1,819 1,854 1,889 1,925 1,961 1,999 2,037 2,075 2,115 2,155 2,196 2,238 2,280 2,323 2,368 2,413 Reduction for Service Frequency -11,256 n/a -155 -155 -170 -185 -198 -212 -226 -242 -258 -264 -270 -275 -280 -286 -291 -297 -302 -308 -314 -320 -326 -332 -338 -345 -351 -358 -365 -372 -379 -386 -393 -401 -408 -416 -424 -432 -440 -449 -457 -466 -9,513 n/a -172 -172 -182 -191 -197 -202 -208 -214 -219 -224 -228 -232 -237 -241 -246 -251 -255 -260 -265 -270 -275 -281 -286 -291 -297 -303 -308 -314 -320 -326 -332 -339 -345 -352 -358 -365 -372 -379 -386 -394 Total -20,770 n/a -327 -327 -352 -376 -394 -414 -434 -455 -476 -488 -498 -508 -517 -527 -537 -547 -558 -568 -579 -590 -601 -613 -624 -636 -648 -661 -673 -686 -699 -712 -726 -740 -754 -768 -783 -797 -813 -828 -844 -860 Current Rail Users -8,122 n/a -112 -112 -123 -134 -143 -153 -163 -174 -186 -191 -195 -198 -202 -206 -210 -214 -218 -222 -226 -231 -235 -240 -244 -249 -253 -258 -263 -268 -273 -279 -284 -289 -295 -300 -306 -312 -318 -324 -330 -336 (at Otley) -684 n/a -12 -12 -13 -14 -14 -15 -15 -15 -16 -16 -16 -17 -17 -17 -18 -18 -18 -19 -19 -19 -20 -20 -21 -21 -21 -22 -22 -23 -23 -23 -24 -24 -25 -25 -26 -26 -27 -27 -28 -28 Total -8,806 n/a -124 -124 -136 -147 -157 -167 -178 -190 -202 -207 -211 -215 -219 -223 -228 -232 -236 -241 -245 -250 -255 -260 -265 -270 -275 -280 -285 -291 -296 -302 -308 -314 -320 -326 -332 -338 -344 -351 -358 -365 Additional Users 4,663 n/a 64 64 70 77 82 88 94 100 107 110 112 114 116 118 121 123 125 128 130 132 135 138 140 143 146 148 151 154 157 160 163 166 169 172 176 179 182 186 189 193 (Menston & Guiseley) 9,076 n/a 165 165 174 182 188 193 198 204 209 214 218 222 226 230 235 239 244 248 253 258 263 268 273 278 283 289 294 300 305 311 317 323 329 336 342 348 355 362 369 376 Total 13,739 n/a 229 229 244 259 269 280 292 304 315 323 329 336 342 349 355 362 369 376 383 390 398 405 413 421 429 437 445 454 462 471 480 489 499 508 518 527 537 548 558 569 Net Forecasts 11,096 n/a 152 152 168 182 195 209 223 238 254 261 266 271 276 282 287 292 298 304 309 315 321 327 334 340 346 353 360 366 373 381 388 395 403 410 418 426 434 442 451 459 31,351 n/a 568 568 601 630 648 666 685 704 721 738 752 766 781 796 811 826 842 858 874 891 908 925 942 960 979 997 1,016 1,035 1,055 1,075 1,096 1,116 1,138 1,159 1,181 1,204 1,227 1,250 1,274 1,298 Total 42,447 n/a 721 721 769 813 843 874 907 942 975 998 1,018 1,037 1,057 1,077 1,098 1,118 1,140 1,161 1,183 1,206 1,229 1,252 1,276 1,300 1,325 1,350 1,376 1,402 1,428 1,456 1,483 1,511 1,540 1,569 1,599 1,630 1,661 1,692 1,724 1,757

Table D.3 ANNUAL PASSENGER FORECASTS (000's )

Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

From Trip Rate Model 6,711 n/a 92 92 101 110 118 126 135 144 154 158 161 164 167 170 174 177 180 184 187 191 194 198 202 206 209 213 217 222 226 230 235 239 243 248 253 258 263 268 273 278 Gross Estimate 10,911 n/a 198 198 209 219 225 232 238 245 251 257 262 267 272 277 282 287 293 299 304 310 316 322 328 334 341 347 354 360 367 374 381 389 396 403 411 419 427 435 443 452 Total 17,622 n/a 290 290 311 330 343 358 373 389 404 414 423 431 439 447 456 464 473 482 491 501 510 520 530 540 550 560 571 582 593 604 616 627 639 652 664 677 689 702 716 729 Reduction for Service Frequency -2,927 n/a -40 -40 -44 -48 -51 -55 -59 -63 -67 -69 -70 -72 -73 -74 -76 -77 -79 -80 -82 -83 -85 -86 -88 -90 -91 -93 -95 -97 -98 -100 -102 -104 -106 -108 -110 -112 -114 -117 -119 -121 -3,196 n/a -58 -58 -61 -64 -66 -68 -70 -72 -73 -75 -77 -78 -80 -81 -83 -84 -86 -87 -89 -91 -93 -94 -96 -98 -100 -102 -104 -106 -108 -110 -112 -114 -116 -118 -120 -123 -125 -127 -130 -132 Total -6,123 n/a -98 -98 -105 -112 -117 -123 -129 -135 -140 -144 -147 -150 -152 -155 -158 -161 -164 -168 -171 -174 -177 -181 -184 -188 -191 -195 -198 -202 -206 -210 -214 -218 -222 -226 -231 -235 -240 -244 -249 -253 Current Rail Users -2,112 n/a -29 -29 -32 -35 -37 -40 -42 -45 -48 -50 -51 -52 -53 -54 -55 -56 -57 -58 -59 -60 -61 -62 -63 -65 -66 -67 -68 -70 -71 -72 -74 -75 -77 -78 -80 -81 -83 -84 -86 -87 (at Otley) -230 n/a -4 -4 -4 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -10 Total -2,341 n/a -33 -33 -36 -39 -42 -45 -47 -51 -54 -55 -56 -57 -58 -59 -61 -62 -63 -64 -65 -67 -68 -69 -70 -72 -73 -74 -76 -77 -79 -80 -82 -83 -85 -87 -88 -90 -92 -93 -95 -97 Additional Users 1,212 n/a 17 17 18 20 21 23 24 26 28 28 29 30 30 31 31 32 33 33 34 34 35 36 36 37 38 39 39 40 41 42 42 43 44 45 46 47 47 48 49 50 (Menston & Guiseley) 3,049 n/a 55 55 58 61 63 65 67 68 70 72 73 75 76 77 79 80 82 83 85 87 88 90 92 93 95 97 99 101 103 105 107 109 111 113 115 117 119 122 124 126 Total 4,262 n/a 72 72 77 81 84 88 91 94 98 100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 117 119 121 123 126 128 131 133 136 138 141 143 146 149 152 155 158 161 164 167 170 173 176 Net Forecasts 2,885 n/a 40 40 44 47 51 54 58 62 66 68 69 71 72 73 75 76 77 79 80 82 84 85 87 88 90 92 93 95 97 99 101 103 105 107 109 111 113 115 117 119 10,534 n/a 191 191 202 212 218 224 230 236 242 248 253 257 262 267 272 278 283 288 294 299 305 311 317 323 329 335 341 348 355 361 368 375 382 389 397 404 412 420 428 436 Total 13,419 n/a 231 231 246 259 268 278 288 298 308 316 322 328 334 341 347 354 360 367 374 381 388 396 403 411 419 427 435 443 452 460 469 478 487 496 506 515 525 535 545 555 Table D.4 ANNUAL REVENUE £ 000's Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

From Trip Rate Model 17,783 £7,548 244 244 269 292 313 334 357 382 407 418 426 435 443 451 460 469 477 487 496 505 515 525 535 545 555 566 576 587 598 610 621 633 645 658 670 683 696 709 722 736 Gross Estimate 21,822 £8,783 396 396 418 439 451 463 476 490 502 514 523 533 543 554 564 575 586 597 608 620 632 644 656 668 681 694 707 721 734 748 763 777 792 807 822 838 854 870 886 903 Total 39,605 £16,331 640 640 687 731 763 798 834 872 909 931 950 968 986 1,005 1,024 1,044 1,063 1,084 1,104 1,125 1,147 1,168 1,191 1,213 1,236 1,260 1,284 1,308 1,333 1,358 1,384 1,410 1,437 1,464 1,492 1,521 1,549 1,579 1,609 1,639 Reduction for Service Frequency -7,756 -£3,292 -107 -107 -117 -128 -136 -146 -156 -167 -178 -182 -186 -190 -193 -197 -201 -204 -208 -212 -216 -220 -225 -229 -233 -238 -242 -247 -251 -256 -261 -266 -271 -276 -281 -287 -292 -298 -303 -309 -315 -321 -6,393 -£2,573 -116 -116 -123 -128 -132 -136 -140 -143 -147 -150 -153 -156 -159 -162 -165 -168 -172 -175 -178 -182 -185 -189 -192 -196 -200 -203 -207 -211 -215 -219 -223 -228 -232 -236 -241 -245 -250 -255 -260 -265 Total -14,149 -£5,865 -222 -222 -240 -256 -268 -282 -295 -310 -324 -333 -339 -346 -352 -359 -366 -373 -380 -387 -394 -402 -410 -417 -425 -433 -442 -450 -459 -467 -476 -485 -494 -504 -513 -523 -533 -543 -554 -564 -575 -586 Current Rail Users -5,596 -£2,375 -77 -77 -85 -92 -98 -105 -112 -120 -128 -131 -134 -137 -139 -142 -145 -147 -150 -153 -156 -159 -162 -165 -168 -171 -175 -178 -181 -185 -188 -192 -196 -199 -203 -207 -211 -215 -219 -223 -227 -232 (at Otley) -460 -£185 -8 -8 -9 -9 -9 -10 -10 -10 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -12 -12 -12 -12 -13 -13 -13 -13 -14 -14 -14 -14 -15 -15 -15 -15 -16 -16 -16 -17 -17 -17 -18 -18 -18 -19 -19 Total -6,056 -£2,560 -85 -85 -93 -101 -108 -115 -122 -130 -139 -142 -145 -148 -151 -154 -157 -160 -163 -166 -169 -172 -175 -179 -182 -185 -189 -193 -196 -200 -204 -208 -212 -216 -220 -224 -228 -232 -237 -241 -246 -251 Additional Users 3,213 £1,364 44 44 49 53 56 60 65 69 74 75 77 79 80 82 83 85 86 88 90 91 93 95 97 98 100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 117 119 121 123 126 128 131 133 (Menston & Guiseley) 6,099 £2,455 111 111 117 123 126 130 133 137 140 144 146 149 152 155 158 161 164 167 170 173 177 180 183 187 190 194 198 201 205 209 213 217 221 226 230 234 239 243 248 252 Total 9,312 £3,818 155 155 165 175 182 190 198 206 214 219 223 228 232 236 241 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 280 285 291 296 302 308 313 319 325 332 338 344 351 358 364 371 378 385 Net Forecasts 7,645 £3,245 105 105 115 126 134 144 154 164 175 180 183 187 190 194 198 201 205 209 213 217 221 226 230 234 239 243 248 252 257 262 267 272 277 283 288 294 299 305 311 316 21,068 £8,479 382 382 404 423 435 447 460 473 484 496 505 515 525 535 545 555 566 576 587 599 610 621 633 645 658 670 683 696 709 722 736 750 764 779 794 809 824 840 856 872 Total 28,713 £11,724 487 487 519 549 570 591 614 637 659 675 689 702 715 729 742 757 771 786 801 816 831 847 863 879 896 913 931 948 966 985 1,003 1,022 1,042 1,062 1,082 1,102 1,123 1,145 1,166 1,189

Table D.5 ANNUAL PASSENGER KMS (000's) Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

From Trip Rate Model 201,322 n/a 2,766 2,766 3,040 3,311 3,539 3,784 4,045 4,324 4,609 4,729 4,828 4,920 5,013 5,109 5,206 5,305 5,405 5,508 5,613 5,719 5,828 5,939 6,052 6,167 6,284 6,403 6,525 6,649 6,775 6,904 7,035 7,169 7,305 7,444 7,585 7,729 7,876 8,026 8,178 8,334 Gross Estimate 327,327 n/a 5,933 5,933 6,277 6,578 6,763 6,952 7,147 7,347 7,523 7,704 7,850 7,999 8,151 8,306 8,464 8,625 8,789 8,955 9,126 9,299 9,476 9,656 9,839 10,026 10,217 10,411 10,609 10,810 11,016 11,225 11,438 11,655 11,877 12,103 12,332 12,567 12,806 13,049 13,297 13,549 Total 528,649 n/a 8,699 8,699 9,317 9,889 10,302 10,736 11,191 11,670 12,132 12,432 12,678 12,919 13,165 13,415 13,670 13,929 14,194 14,464 14,738 15,018 15,304 15,595 15,891 16,193 16,500 16,814 17,133 17,459 17,791 18,129 18,473 18,824 19,182 19,546 19,918 20,296 20,682 21,075 21,475 21,883 Reduction for Service Frequency -87,799 n/a -1,206 -1,206 -1,326 -1,444 -1,544 -1,650 -1,764 -1,886 -2,010 -2,062 -2,106 -2,146 -2,186 -2,228 -2,270 -2,313 -2,357 -2,402 -2,448 -2,494 -2,542 -2,590 -2,639 -2,689 -2,740 -2,792 -2,846 -2,900 -2,955 -3,011 -3,068 -3,126 -3,186 -3,246 -3,308 -3,371 -3,435 -3,500 -3,567 -3,634 -95,893 n/a -1,738 -1,738 -1,839 -1,927 -1,981 -2,037 -2,094 -2,152 -2,204 -2,257 -2,300 -2,343 -2,388 -2,433 -2,480 -2,527 -2,575 -2,624 -2,673 -2,724 -2,776 -2,829 -2,882 -2,937 -2,993 -3,050 -3,108 -3,167 -3,227 -3,288 -3,351 -3,415 -3,479 -3,546 -3,613 -3,682 -3,752 -3,823 -3,895 -3,969 Total -183,693 n/a -2,945 -2,945 -3,165 -3,371 -3,525 -3,687 -3,858 -4,038 -4,214 -4,319 -4,405 -4,489 -4,574 -4,661 -4,750 -4,840 -4,932 -5,026 -5,121 -5,219 -5,318 -5,419 -5,522 -5,627 -5,733 -5,842 -5,953 -6,067 -6,182 -6,299 -6,419 -6,541 -6,665 -6,792 -6,921 -7,052 -7,186 -7,323 -7,462 -7,604 Current Rail Users -63,349 n/a -870 -870 -957 -1,042 -1,114 -1,191 -1,273 -1,360 -1,450 -1,488 -1,519 -1,548 -1,578 -1,607 -1,638 -1,669 -1,701 -1,733 -1,766 -1,800 -1,834 -1,869 -1,904 -1,940 -1,977 -2,015 -2,053 -2,092 -2,132 -2,172 -2,214 -2,256 -2,299 -2,342 -2,387 -2,432 -2,478 -2,525 -2,573 -2,622 (at Otley) -6,896 n/a -125 -125 -132 -139 -142 -146 -151 -155 -158 -162 -165 -169 -172 -175 -178 -182 -185 -189 -192 -196 -200 -203 -207 -211 -215 -219 -223 -228 -232 -236 -241 -246 -250 -255 -260 -265 -270 -275 -280 -285 Total -70,244 n/a -995 -995 -1,089 -1,180 -1,256 -1,337 -1,423 -1,515 -1,609 -1,650 -1,685 -1,717 -1,749 -1,782 -1,816 -1,851 -1,886 -1,922 -1,958 -1,996 -2,033 -2,072 -2,111 -2,152 -2,192 -2,234 -2,277 -2,320 -2,364 -2,409 -2,455 -2,501 -2,549 -2,597 -2,647 -2,697 -2,748 -2,800 -2,853 -2,908 Additional Users 36,373 n/a 500 500 549 598 639 684 731 781 833 854 872 889 906 923 941 958 977 995 1,014 1,033 1,053 1,073 1,093 1,114 1,135 1,157 1,179 1,201 1,224 1,247 1,271 1,295 1,320 1,345 1,370 1,396 1,423 1,450 1,478 1,506 (Menston & Guiseley) 91,484 n/a 1,658 1,658 1,754 1,839 1,890 1,943 1,997 2,053 2,103 2,153 2,194 2,236 2,278 2,321 2,366 2,410 2,456 2,503 2,551 2,599 2,648 2,699 2,750 2,802 2,855 2,910 2,965 3,021 3,079 3,137 3,197 3,258 3,319 3,383 3,447 3,512 3,579 3,647 3,716 3,787 Total 127,857 n/a 2,158 2,158 2,304 2,437 2,530 2,627 2,728 2,834 2,935 3,007 3,066 3,125 3,184 3,244 3,306 3,369 3,433 3,498 3,565 3,632 3,701 3,772 3,843 3,916 3,991 4,067 4,144 4,223 4,303 4,385 4,468 4,553 4,639 4,727 4,817 4,909 5,002 5,097 5,194 5,293 Net Forecasts 86,547 n/a 1,189 1,189 1,307 1,423 1,522 1,627 1,739 1,859 1,981 2,033 2,076 2,115 2,155 2,196 2,238 2,280 2,324 2,368 2,413 2,459 2,505 2,553 2,602 2,651 2,701 2,753 2,805 2,858 2,913 2,968 3,024 3,082 3,140 3,200 3,261 3,323 3,386 3,450 3,516 3,583 316,021 n/a 5,728 5,728 6,060 6,351 6,529 6,712 6,900 7,093 7,263 7,438 7,579 7,723 7,870 8,019 8,172 8,327 8,485 8,646 8,810 8,978 9,148 9,322 9,499 9,680 9,864 10,051 10,242 10,437 10,635 10,837 11,043 11,253 11,467 11,685 11,907 12,133 12,363 12,598 12,838 13,081 Total 402,569 n/a 6,917 6,917 7,367 7,775 8,051 8,338 8,639 8,952 9,245 9,470 9,654 9,838 10,025 10,215 10,409 10,607 10,809 11,014 11,223 11,437 11,654 11,875 12,101 12,331 12,565 12,804 13,047 13,295 13,548 13,805 14,067 14,335 14,607 14,885 15,167 15,456 15,749 16,048 16,353 16,664

Table D.6 ANNUAL ROAD VEH KMS SAVED (000's) Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

From Trip Rate Model 50,331 n/a 692 692 760 828 885 946 1,011 1,081 1,152 1,182 1,207 1,230 1,253 1,277 1,301 1,326 1,351 1,377 1,403 1,430 1,457 1,485 1,513 1,542 1,571 1,601 1,631 1,662 1,694 1,726 1,759 1,792 1,826 1,861 1,896 1,932 1,969 2,006 2,045 2,083 Gross Estimate 61,374 n/a 1,112 1,112 1,177 1,233 1,268 1,303 1,340 1,378 1,411 1,444 1,472 1,500 1,528 1,557 1,587 1,617 1,648 1,679 1,711 1,744 1,777 1,810 1,845 1,880 1,916 1,952 1,989 2,027 2,065 2,105 2,145 2,185 2,227 2,269 2,312 2,356 2,401 2,447 2,493 2,541 Total 111,704 n/a 1,804 1,804 1,937 2,061 2,153 2,249 2,351 2,458 2,563 2,627 2,679 2,730 2,782 2,835 2,888 2,943 2,999 3,056 3,114 3,173 3,234 3,295 3,358 3,422 3,487 3,553 3,620 3,689 3,759 3,831 3,903 3,978 4,053 4,130 4,209 4,289 4,370 4,453 4,538 4,624 Reduction for Service Frequency -21,950 n/a -302 -302 -331 -361 -386 -413 -441 -471 -503 -516 -526 -536 -547 -557 -568 -578 -589 -601 -612 -624 -635 -647 -660 -672 -685 -698 -711 -725 -739 -753 -767 -782 -796 -812 -827 -843 -859 -875 -892 -909 -17,980 n/a -326 -326 -345 -361 -371 -382 -393 -404 -413 -423 -431 -439 -448 -456 -465 -474 -483 -492 -501 -511 -521 -530 -540 -551 -561 -572 -583 -594 -605 -617 -628 -640 -652 -665 -677 -690 -703 -717 -730 -744 Total -39,930 n/a -628 -628 -676 -722 -757 -794 -834 -875 -916 -939 -958 -976 -994 -1,013 -1,032 -1,052 -1,072 -1,092 -1,113 -1,134 -1,156 -1,178 -1,200 -1,223 -1,246 -1,270 -1,294 -1,319 -1,344 -1,369 -1,395 -1,422 -1,449 -1,476 -1,504 -1,533 -1,562 -1,592 -1,622 -1,653 Current Rail Users -15,837 n/a -218 -218 -239 -260 -278 -298 -318 -340 -363 -372 -380 -387 -394 -402 -410 -417 -425 -433 -442 -450 -458 -467 -476 -485 -494 -504 -513 -523 -533 -543 -553 -564 -575 -586 -597 -608 -620 -631 -643 -656 (at Otley) -1,293 n/a -23 -23 -25 -26 -27 -27 -28 -29 -30 -30 -31 -32 -32 -33 -33 -34 -35 -35 -36 -37 -37 -38 -39 -40 -40 -41 -42 -43 -44 -44 -45 -46 -47 -48 -49 -50 -51 -52 -53 -54 Total -17,130 n/a -241 -241 -264 -286 -305 -325 -346 -369 -392 -402 -411 -419 -427 -435 -443 -451 -460 -469 -478 -487 -496 -505 -515 -525 -535 -545 -555 -566 -576 -587 -599 -610 -622 -633 -645 -658 -670 -683 -696 -709 Additional Users 9,093 n/a 125 125 137 150 160 171 183 195 208 214 218 222 226 231 235 240 244 249 254 258 263 268 273 279 284 289 295 300 306 312 318 324 330 336 343 349 356 363 369 376 (Menston & Guiseley) 17,153 n/a 311 311 329 345 354 364 375 385 394 404 411 419 427 435 444 452 461 469 478 487 497 506 516 525 535 546 556 566 577 588 599 611 622 634 646 659 671 684 697 710 Total 26,247 n/a 436 436 466 494 514 535 557 580 602 617 629 641 654 666 679 692 705 718 732 746 760 774 789 804 819 835 851 867 883 900 917 935 952 970 989 1,008 1,027 1,046 1,066 1,086 Net Forecasts 21,637 n/a 297 297 327 356 380 407 435 465 495 508 519 529 539 549 559 570 581 592 603 615 626 638 650 663 675 688 701 715 728 742 756 770 785 800 815 831 846 863 879 896 59,254 n/a 1,074 1,074 1,136 1,191 1,224 1,258 1,294 1,330 1,362 1,395 1,421 1,448 1,476 1,504 1,532 1,561 1,591 1,621 1,652 1,683 1,715 1,748 1,781 1,815 1,849 1,885 1,920 1,957 1,994 2,032 2,071 2,110 2,150 2,191 2,232 2,275 2,318 2,362 2,407 2,453 Total 80,891 n/a 1,371 1,371 1,463 1,547 1,605 1,665 1,728 1,795 1,857 1,903 1,940 1,977 2,014 2,053 2,092 2,131 2,172 2,213 2,255 2,298 2,342 2,386 2,432 2,478 2,525 2,573 2,622 2,671 2,722 2,774 2,827 2,880 2,935 2,991 3,048 3,106 3,165 3,225 3,286 3,348

Table D.7 Value of Road Decongestion Benefits £000 pa Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

From Trip Rate Model 42,333 £18,961 346 346 388 431 469 512 558 609 662 693 721 750 779 810 842 875 909 945 982 1,021 1,061 1,103 1,147 1,192 1,239 1,287 1,338 1,391 1,446 1,502 1,562 1,623 1,687 1,753 1,823 1,894 1,969 2,046 2,127 2,211 Gross Estimate 12,389 £5,382 133 133 144 154 161 169 178 186 194 203 211 219 228 237 246 256 266 277 288 299 311 323 336 349 362 377 392 407 423 440 457 475 494 513 533 554 576 599 622 647 Total 54,723 £24,343 479 479 532 585 631 681 736 795 856 896 932 969 1,007 1,047 1,088 1,131 1,175 1,222 1,270 1,320 1,372 1,426 1,482 1,540 1,601 1,664 1,730 1,798 1,869 1,942 2,019 2,098 2,181 2,267 2,356 2,449 2,545 2,645 2,750 2,858 Reduction for Service Frequency -18,462 -£8,269 -151 -151 -169 -188 -205 -223 -243 -265 -289 -302 -315 -327 -340 -353 -367 -382 -397 -412 -428 -445 -463 -481 -500 -520 -540 -561 -584 -607 -630 -655 -681 -708 -736 -765 -795 -826 -859 -892 -928 -964 -3,630 -£1,577 -39 -39 -42 -45 -47 -50 -52 -55 -57 -59 -62 -64 -67 -69 -72 -75 -78 -81 -84 -88 -91 -95 -98 -102 -106 -110 -115 -119 -124 -129 -134 -139 -145 -150 -156 -162 -169 -175 -182 -190 Total -22,092 -£9,846 -190 -190 -211 -233 -252 -273 -295 -320 -346 -362 -376 -391 -407 -423 -439 -457 -475 -493 -513 -533 -554 -576 -598 -622 -646 -672 -698 -726 -754 -784 -815 -847 -880 -915 -951 -989 -1,027 -1,068 -1,110 -1,154 Current Rail Users -13,321 -£5,966 -109 -109 -122 -135 -148 -161 -176 -192 -208 -218 -227 -236 -245 -255 -265 -275 -286 -297 -309 -321 -334 -347 -361 -375 -390 -405 -421 -438 -455 -473 -491 -511 -531 -552 -573 -596 -620 -644 -669 -696 (at Otley) -261 -£113 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -6 -6 -6 -6 -7 -7 -7 -7 -8 -8 -8 -9 -9 -9 -10 -10 -10 -11 -11 -12 -12 -13 -13 -14 Total -13,582 -£6,080 -112 -112 -125 -139 -151 -165 -179 -195 -212 -222 -231 -241 -250 -260 -270 -281 -292 -303 -315 -328 -340 -354 -368 -382 -397 -413 -429 -446 -464 -482 -501 -521 -541 -563 -585 -608 -632 -657 -682 -709 Additional Users 7,648 £3,426 62 62 70 78 85 92 101 110 120 125 130 135 141 146 152 158 164 171 177 184 192 199 207 215 224 233 242 251 261 271 282 293 305 317 329 342 356 370 384 399 (Menston & Guiseley) 3,463 £1,504 37 37 40 43 45 47 50 52 54 57 59 61 64 66 69 72 74 77 80 84 87 90 94 97 101 105 109 114 118 123 128 133 138 143 149 155 161 167 174 181 Total 11,111 £4,930 100 100 110 121 130 140 150 162 174 182 189 197 205 213 221 230 239 248 258 268 279 290 301 313 325 338 351 365 379 394 410 426 443 460 478 497 517 537 558 580 Net Forecasts 18,199 £8,151 149 149 167 185 202 220 240 262 284 298 310 322 335 348 362 376 391 406 422 439 456 474 493 512 532 553 575 598 621 646 671 698 725 754 783 814 846 880 914 950 11,961 £5,196 129 129 139 149 156 163 171 180 188 196 204 212 220 229 238 247 257 267 278 289 300 312 324 337 350 364 378 393 408 425 441 459 477 495 515 535 556 578 601 625 Total 30,160 £13,347 278 278 306 334 358 384 411 441 472 494 514 534 555 577 600 623 648 673 700 727 756 786 817 849 882 917 953 991 1,030 1,070 1,113 1,156 1,202 1,249 1,298 1,350 1,403 1,458 1,515 1,575 Table D.8 Value of Time Savings £000 pa Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

From Trip Rate Model 11,256 £5,138 53 53 61 69 76 85 95 105 117 125 132 140 149 158 167 177 188 199 211 224 237 252 267 283 300 318 337 357 379 402 426 451 479 507 538 570 604 641 679 720 Gross Estimate 28,973 £12,990 180 180 198 216 231 247 265 283 302 321 341 361 383 406 430 456 484 513 544 576 611 648 687 728 772 818 867 920 975 1,034 1,096 1,162 1,232 1,306 1,384 1,468 1,556 1,650 1,749 1,854 Total 40,229 £18,128 233 233 259 285 308 333 359 388 418 446 473 501 532 564 597 633 672 712 755 800 848 899 953 1,011 1,072 1,136 1,204 1,277 1,354 1,435 1,522 1,613 1,710 1,813 1,922 2,038 2,160 2,290 2,428 2,574 Reduction for Service Frequency -7,163 -£3,269 -34 -34 -39 -44 -49 -54 -60 -67 -74 -79 -84 -89 -95 -100 -106 -113 -120 -127 -134 -142 -151 -160 -170 -180 -191 -202 -214 -227 -241 -256 -271 -287 -304 -323 -342 -363 -385 -408 -432 -458 -8,671 -£3,888 -54 -54 -59 -65 -69 -74 -79 -85 -90 -96 -102 -108 -115 -121 -129 -137 -145 -153 -163 -172 -183 -194 -205 -218 -231 -245 -260 -275 -292 -309 -328 -348 -369 -391 -414 -439 -466 -494 -523 -555 Total -15,833 -£7,157 -88 -88 -98 -109 -118 -128 -139 -152 -165 -175 -186 -197 -209 -222 -235 -249 -264 -280 -297 -315 -334 -354 -375 -398 -422 -447 -474 -503 -533 -565 -599 -635 -673 -714 -757 -802 -850 -901 -956 -1,013 Current Rail Users 10,336 £4,718 49 49 56 63 70 78 87 97 107 114 122 129 137 145 154 163 173 183 194 206 218 231 245 260 275 292 309 328 348 369 391 414 439 466 494 524 555 588 624 661 (at Otley) 1,247 £559 8 8 9 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 28 30 31 33 35 37 40 42 44 47 50 53 56 60 63 67 71 75 80 Total 11,583 £5,277 57 57 64 72 80 89 98 109 120 128 136 144 153 162 172 182 193 205 217 230 244 259 275 291 309 327 347 368 390 413 438 464 492 522 553 587 622 659 699 741 Additional Users 848 £387 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 27 29 30 32 34 36 38 41 43 46 48 51 54 (Menston & Guiseley) 4,136 £1,854 26 26 28 31 33 35 38 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 65 69 73 78 82 87 92 98 104 110 117 124 131 139 148 156 166 176 186 198 210 222 235 250 265 Total 4,984 £2,241 30 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 52 55 59 62 66 70 74 78 83 88 94 99 105 111 118 125 133 141 149 158 168 178 188 200 212 225 238 252 268 284 301 319 Net Forecasts 15,277 £6,973 72 72 82 93 104 115 128 143 158 169 180 190 202 214 227 241 255 270 287 304 322 342 362 384 407 431 457 485 514 545 578 613 649 689 730 774 820 870 922 978 25,685 £11,516 160 160 176 192 205 219 235 251 267 285 302 320 339 360 381 404 429 455 482 511 542 574 609 645 684 725 769 815 864 916 971 1,030 1,092 1,158 1,227 1,301 1,379 1,462 1,550 1,644 Total 40,963 £18,489 232 232 258 285 309 335 363 394 426 454 482 511 541 574 608 645 684 725 769 815 864 916 971 1,029 1,091 1,157 1,226 1,300 1,378 1,461 1,549 1,643 1,741 1,846 1,957 2,075 2,200 2,332 2,472 2,621

Table D.9 Capital costs £000 pa Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

-20,520 -£14,745 0 0 0 0 0 -800 -800 -1,000 -5,900 -6,020 -6,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -20,520 -£14,745 0 0 0 0 0 -800 -800 -1,000 -5,900 -6,020 -6,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Forecasts -20,520 -£14,745 0 0 0 0 0 -800 -800 -1000 -5900 -6020 -6000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -20,520 -£14,745 0 0 0 0 0 -800 -800 -1000 -5900 -6020 -6000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

D.10 Operating Costs £000pa Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

-58,811 -£22,645 -1,296 -1,315 -1,335 -1,355 -1,376 -1,396 -1,417 -1,438 -1,460 -1,482 -1,504 -1,527 -1,550 -1,573 -1,596 -1,620 -1,645 -1,669 -1,694 -1,720 -1,746 -1,772 -1,798 -1,825 -1,853 -1,880 -1,909 -1,937 -1,966 -1,996 -2,026 -2,056 -2,087 -2,118 -2,150 -2,182 -2,215 -2,248 -2,282 -2,316 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -58,811 -£22,645 -1,296 -1,315 -1,335 -1,355 -1,376 -1,396 -1,417 -1,438 -1,460 -1,482 -1,504 -1,527 -1,550 -1,573 -1,596 -1,620 -1,645 -1,669 -1,694 -1,720 -1,746 -1,772 -1,798 -1,825 -1,853 -1,880 -1,909 -1,937 -1,966 -1,996 -2,026 -2,056 -2,087 -2,118 -2,150 -2,182 -2,215 -2,248 -2,282 -2,316 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Forecasts -58,811 -£22,645 -1,296 -1,315 -1,335 -1,355 -1,376 -1,396 -1,417 -1,438 -1,460 -1,482 -1,504 -1,527 -1,550 -1,573 -1,596 -1,620 -1,645 -1,669 -1,694 -1,720 -1,746 -1,772 -1,798 -1,825 -1,853 -1,880 -1,909 -1,937 -1,966 -1,996 -2,026 -2,056 -2,087 -2,118 -2,150 -2,182 -2,215 -2,248 -2,282 -2,316 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -58,811 -£22,645 -1,296 -1,315 -1,335 -1,355 -1,376 -1,396 -1,417 -1,438 -1,460 -1,482 -1,504 -1,527 -1,550 -1,573 -1,596 -1,620 -1,645 -1,669 -1,694 -1,720 -1,746 -1,772 -1,798 -1,825 -1,853 -1,880 -1,909 -1,937 -1,966 -1,996 -2,026 -2,056 -2,087 -2,118 -2,150 -2,182 -2,215 -2,248 -2,282 -2,316 Appendix D Calculations for demand forecast as discussed in chapter 5

Table D.11 Estimated Boardings: two trains per hour

Estimated daily boardings

Otley 0-0.8km population 4875 Otley 0-0.8km Trip Rate x 0.1 Daily boardings = 487.5

Otley 0.8-2km population 7596 Otley 0.8-2km Trip Rate x 0.06 Daily boardings = 455.8

Total daily boardings 943

peak 37.6% 355 off-peak 62.4% + 589 Total daily boardings = 943

Reduction for Service adjustment Peak Off-peak Peak Off-peak Station Service Enhancement /Reduction Weighted GJT Weighted GJT Weighted GJT Weighted GJT Impact of Changing frequency Service Elasticity (minor change) -0.9 Current Services Current Services Revised Service Revised Service Peak Off-peak Otley Current Menston (3tph peak, 2tph off-peak) 43 50 43 50 0.0% 0.0% peak -12.7% -45 Otley 2tph peak 2tph off peak 43 50 50 50 -12.7% 0.0% off-peak 0.0% + 0 Otley 1tph peak 2tph off peak 43 50 63 50 -29.1% 0.0% Total daily boardings = -45 Otley 1tp peak and off peak 43 50 63 63 -29.1% -18.8%

Current users (at Menston)

peak 90% -112 off-peak 10% + -12 Total daily boardings = -124

Additional rail users (Menston & Guiseley) Peak Off-peak Peak Off-peak Menston Station Service Enhancement /Reduction Weighted GJT Weighted GJT Weighted GJT Weighted GJT Impact of Changing frequency peak 37.6% 218 Current Services Current Services Revised Service Revised Service Peak Off-peak off-peak 62.4% + 361 Menston Service Enhancement + 2tph peak and off peak 38 45 31 34 20.1% 28.7% Total daily boardings = 579 Guiseley Service Enhancement + 2tph peak and off peak 34 41 27 30 23.1% 32.5%

Guiseley peak 37.6% 345 off-peak 62.4% + 573 Total daily boardings = 918

Impact of changing frequency

Menston peak 20.1% 44 off-peak 28.7% + 104 Total daily boardings = 147

Guiseley peak 23.1% 80 off-peak 32.5% + 186 Total daily boardings = 266

Total Menston & Guiseley peak 123 off-peak + 290 Total daily boardings = 413

User Benefits (time savings) GJT mins peak off-peak Existing Users (removal of interchange penalty) 14 14 New User (1/2 saving of interchange penalty) 7 7 New Menston/Guiseley Users (1/2 saving in frequency penalty) 3.5 5.5

Capital Costs £000 TWA 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 'Total 800 800 1000 5900 6020 6000 20520

Operating Costs £000 2001 1tph 1296 2tph 2111 Appendix D Calculations for appraisal of costs and benefits in chapter 6

Appraisal Parameters Growth pa post 2011 1.9% Summary Benefits and Costs £000 pv Income Growth pa 2.0% Annualisation Factor Capital Costs -£14,745 peak 260 Operating Costs -£36,886 off peak 336 Total Costs -£51,631 Average Fare per passenger peak £2.65 Revenues £19,760 off peak £2.00 Non_user Benefits £25,100 Average trip length (return) 30 kms User Benefits £28,888 Total Benefits £73,748 % of new users ex car 30% Car Occupancy peak 1.2 off-peak 1.6 Financial NPV -£31,871 Road decongestion Economic NPV £22,116 peak 50 pence per pcu km B/C ratio 1.43 off peak 12 pence per pcu km Value of time peak 12 pence per min off peak 13.3 pence per min Operating cost growth 1.5% pa

Table D.12 DAILY PASSENGER FORECASTS

Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

From Trip Rate Model 25,811 n/a 355 355 390 424 454 485 519 554 591 606 619 631 643 655 667 680 693 706 720 733 747 761 776 791 806 821 837 852 869 885 902 919 937 954 972 991 1,010 1,029 1,048 1,068 Gross Estimate 32,473 n/a 589 589 623 653 671 690 709 729 746 764 779 794 809 824 840 856 872 888 905 923 940 958 976 995 1,014 1,033 1,052 1,072 1,093 1,114 1,135 1,156 1,178 1,201 1,223 1,247 1,270 1,295 1,319 1,344 Total 58,283 n/a 943 943 1,013 1,077 1,125 1,175 1,228 1,283 1,337 1,371 1,398 1,424 1,451 1,479 1,507 1,536 1,565 1,595 1,625 1,656 1,687 1,719 1,752 1,785 1,819 1,854 1,889 1,925 1,961 1,999 2,037 2,075 2,115 2,155 2,196 2,238 2,280 2,323 2,368 2,413 Reduction for Service Frequency -3,276 n/a -45 -45 -49 -54 -58 -62 -66 -70 -75 -77 -79 -80 -82 -83 -85 -86 -88 -90 -91 -93 -95 -97 -98 -100 -102 -104 -106 -108 -110 -112 -114 -117 -119 -121 -123 -126 -128 -131 -133 -136 0 n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -3,276 n/a -45 -45 -49 -54 -58 -62 -66 -70 -75 -77 -79 -80 -82 -83 -85 -86 -88 -90 -91 -93 -95 -97 -98 -100 -102 -104 -106 -108 -110 -112 -114 -117 -119 -121 -123 -126 -128 -131 -133 -136 Current Rail Users -8,122 n/a -112 -112 -123 -134 -143 -153 -163 -174 -186 -191 -195 -198 -202 -206 -210 -214 -218 -222 -226 -231 -235 -240 -244 -249 -253 -258 -263 -268 -273 -279 -284 -289 -295 -300 -306 -312 -318 -324 -330 -336 (at Otley) -684 n/a -12 -12 -13 -14 -14 -15 -15 -15 -16 -16 -16 -17 -17 -17 -18 -18 -18 -19 -19 -19 -20 -20 -21 -21 -21 -22 -22 -23 -23 -23 -24 -24 -25 -25 -26 -26 -27 -27 -28 -28 Total -8,806 n/a -124 -124 -136 -147 -157 -167 -178 -190 -202 -207 -211 -215 -219 -223 -228 -232 -236 -241 -245 -250 -255 -260 -265 -270 -275 -280 -285 -291 -296 -302 -308 -314 -320 -326 -332 -338 -344 -351 -358 -365 Additional Users 8,978 n/a 123 123 136 148 158 169 180 193 206 211 215 219 224 228 232 237 241 246 250 255 260 265 270 275 280 286 291 296 302 308 314 320 326 332 338 345 351 358 365 372 (Menston & Guiseley) 15,979 n/a 290 290 306 321 330 339 349 359 367 376 383 390 398 405 413 421 429 437 445 454 463 471 480 489 499 508 518 528 538 548 558 569 580 591 602 613 625 637 649 661 Total 24,957 n/a 413 413 442 469 488 508 529 551 573 587 599 610 621 633 645 658 670 683 696 709 722 736 750 764 779 794 809 824 840 856 872 889 906 923 940 958 976 995 1,014 1,033 Net Forecasts 23,390 n/a 321 321 353 385 411 440 470 502 535 549 561 572 582 594 605 616 628 640 652 665 677 690 703 716 730 744 758 772 787 802 817 833 849 865 881 898 915 932 950 968 47,768 n/a 866 866 916 960 987 1,015 1,043 1,072 1,098 1,124 1,146 1,167 1,190 1,212 1,235 1,259 1,283 1,307 1,332 1,357 1,383 1,409 1,436 1,463 1,491 1,519 1,548 1,578 1,608 1,638 1,669 1,701 1,733 1,766 1,800 1,834 1,869 1,904 1,940 1,977 Total 71,158 n/a 1,187 1,187 1,269 1,345 1,398 1,454 1,513 1,574 1,633 1,674 1,707 1,739 1,772 1,806 1,840 1,875 1,911 1,947 1,984 2,022 2,060 2,099 2,139 2,180 2,221 2,263 2,306 2,350 2,395 2,440 2,487 2,534 2,582 2,631 2,681 2,732 2,784 2,837 2,891 2,946

Table D.13 ANNUAL PASSENGER FORECASTS (000's)

Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

From Trip Rate Model 6,711 n/a 92 92 101 110 118 126 135 144 154 158 161 164 167 170 174 177 180 184 187 191 194 198 202 206 209 213 217 222 226 230 235 239 243 248 253 258 263 268 273 278 Gross Estimate 10,911 n/a 198 198 209 219 225 232 238 245 251 257 262 267 272 277 282 287 293 299 304 310 316 322 328 334 341 347 354 360 367 374 381 389 396 403 411 419 427 435 443 452 Total 17,622 n/a 290 290 311 330 343 358 373 389 404 414 423 431 439 447 456 464 473 482 491 501 510 520 530 540 550 560 571 582 593 604 616 627 639 652 664 677 689 702 716 729 Reduction for Service Frequency -852 n/a -12 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -20 -20 -20 -21 -21 -22 -22 -22 -23 -23 -24 -24 -25 -25 -26 -26 -27 -27 -28 -28 -29 -29 -30 -30 -31 -31 -32 -33 -33 -34 -35 -35 0 n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -852 n/a -12 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -20 -20 -20 -21 -21 -22 -22 -22 -23 -23 -24 -24 -25 -25 -26 -26 -27 -27 -28 -28 -29 -29 -30 -30 -31 -31 -32 -33 -33 -34 -35 -35 Current Rail Users -2,112 n/a -29 -29 -32 -35 -37 -40 -42 -45 -48 -50 -51 -52 -53 -54 -55 -56 -57 -58 -59 -60 -61 -62 -63 -65 -66 -67 -68 -70 -71 -72 -74 -75 -77 -78 -80 -81 -83 -84 -86 -87 (at Otley) -230 n/a -4 -4 -4 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -6 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -8 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -10 Total -2,341 n/a -33 -33 -36 -39 -42 -45 -47 -51 -54 -55 -56 -57 -58 -59 -61 -62 -63 -64 -65 -67 -68 -69 -70 -72 -73 -74 -76 -77 -79 -80 -82 -83 -85 -87 -88 -90 -92 -93 -95 -97 Additional Users 2,334 n/a 32 32 35 38 41 44 47 50 53 55 56 57 58 59 60 62 63 64 65 66 68 69 70 71 73 74 76 77 79 80 82 83 85 86 88 90 91 93 95 97 (Menston & Guiseley) 5,369 n/a 97 97 103 108 111 114 117 121 123 126 129 131 134 136 139 141 144 147 150 153 155 158 161 164 168 171 174 177 181 184 188 191 195 199 202 206 210 214 218 222 Total 7,703 n/a 129 129 138 146 152 158 164 171 177 181 185 188 192 195 199 203 207 211 215 219 223 227 232 236 240 245 250 254 259 264 269 274 280 285 290 296 301 307 313 319 Net Forecasts 6,082 n/a 84 84 92 100 107 114 122 131 139 143 146 149 151 154 157 160 163 166 170 173 176 179 183 186 190 193 197 201 205 209 213 217 221 225 229 233 238 242 247 252 16,050 n/a 291 291 308 323 332 341 350 360 369 378 385 392 400 407 415 423 431 439 447 456 465 473 482 492 501 510 520 530 540 550 561 572 582 593 605 616 628 640 652 664 Total 22,132 n/a 374 374 400 423 439 455 473 491 508 521 531 541 551 562 572 583 594 606 617 629 641 653 665 678 691 704 717 731 745 759 773 788 803 818 834 850 866 882 899 916 Table D.14 ANNUAL REVENUE £ 000's Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

From Trip Rate Model 17,783 £7,548 244 244 269 292 313 334 357 382 407 418 426 435 443 451 460 469 477 487 496 505 515 525 535 545 555 566 576 587 598 610 621 633 645 658 670 683 696 709 722 736 Gross Estimate 21,822 £8,783 396 396 418 439 451 463 476 490 502 514 523 533 543 554 564 575 586 597 608 620 632 644 656 668 681 694 707 721 734 748 763 777 792 807 822 838 854 870 886 903 Total 39,605 £16,331 640 640 687 731 763 798 834 872 909 931 950 968 986 1,005 1,024 1,044 1,063 1,084 1,104 1,125 1,147 1,168 1,191 1,213 1,236 1,260 1,284 1,308 1,333 1,358 1,384 1,410 1,437 1,464 1,492 1,521 1,549 1,579 1,609 1,639 Reduction for Service Frequency -2,257 -£958 -31 -31 -34 -37 -40 -42 -45 -48 -52 -53 -54 -55 -56 -57 -58 -59 -61 -62 -63 -64 -65 -67 -68 -69 -70 -72 -73 -75 -76 -77 -79 -80 -82 -83 -85 -87 -88 -90 -92 -93 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -2,257 -£958 -31 -31 -34 -37 -40 -42 -45 -48 -52 -53 -54 -55 -56 -57 -58 -59 -61 -62 -63 -64 -65 -67 -68 -69 -70 -72 -73 -75 -76 -77 -79 -80 -82 -83 -85 -87 -88 -90 -92 -93 Current Rail Users -5,596 -£2,375 -77 -77 -85 -92 -98 -105 -112 -120 -128 -131 -134 -137 -139 -142 -145 -147 -150 -153 -156 -159 -162 -165 -168 -171 -175 -178 -181 -185 -188 -192 -196 -199 -203 -207 -211 -215 -219 -223 -227 -232 (at Otley) -460 -£185 -8 -8 -9 -9 -9 -10 -10 -10 -11 -11 -11 -11 -11 -12 -12 -12 -12 -13 -13 -13 -13 -14 -14 -14 -14 -15 -15 -15 -15 -16 -16 -16 -17 -17 -17 -18 -18 -18 -19 -19 Total -6,056 -£2,560 -85 -85 -93 -101 -108 -115 -122 -130 -139 -142 -145 -148 -151 -154 -157 -160 -163 -166 -169 -172 -175 -179 -182 -185 -189 -193 -196 -200 -204 -208 -212 -216 -220 -224 -228 -232 -237 -241 -246 -251 Additional Users 6,186 £2,626 85 85 93 102 109 116 124 133 142 145 148 151 154 157 160 163 166 169 172 176 179 182 186 189 193 197 200 204 208 212 216 220 224 229 233 237 242 247 251 256 (Menston & Guiseley) 10,738 £4,322 195 195 206 216 222 228 234 241 247 253 258 262 267 272 278 283 288 294 299 305 311 317 323 329 335 342 348 355 361 368 375 382 390 397 405 412 420 428 436 444 Total 16,924 £6,947 280 280 299 318 331 344 359 374 388 398 406 414 421 429 438 446 454 463 472 481 490 499 509 518 528 538 548 559 570 580 591 603 614 626 638 650 662 675 687 701 Net Forecasts 16,116 £6,841 221 221 243 265 283 303 324 346 369 379 386 394 401 409 417 425 433 441 449 458 467 475 484 494 503 513 522 532 542 553 563 574 585 596 607 619 630 642 655 667 32,100 £12,920 582 582 616 645 663 682 701 720 738 755 770 784 799 815 830 846 862 878 895 912 929 947 965 983 1,002 1,021 1,040 1,060 1,080 1,101 1,122 1,143 1,165 1,187 1,209 1,232 1,256 1,280 1,304 1,329 Total 48,216 £19,760 803 803 859 910 947 985 1,025 1,067 1,107 1,134 1,156 1,178 1,201 1,223 1,247 1,270 1,295 1,319 1,344 1,370 1,396 1,422 1,449 1,477 1,505 1,534 1,563 1,592 1,623 1,653 1,685 1,717 1,749 1,783 1,817 1,851 1,886 1,922 1,959 1,996

Table D.15 ANNUAL PASSENGER KMS (000's) Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

From Trip Rate Model 201,322 n/a 2,766 2,766 3,040 3,311 3,539 3,784 4,045 4,324 4,609 4,729 4,828 4,920 5,013 5,109 5,206 5,305 5,405 5,508 5,613 5,719 5,828 5,939 6,052 6,167 6,284 6,403 6,525 6,649 6,775 6,904 7,035 7,169 7,305 7,444 7,585 7,729 7,876 8,026 8,178 8,334 Gross Estimate 327,327 n/a 5,933 5,933 6,277 6,578 6,763 6,952 7,147 7,347 7,523 7,704 7,850 7,999 8,151 8,306 8,464 8,625 8,789 8,955 9,126 9,299 9,476 9,656 9,839 10,026 10,217 10,411 10,609 10,810 11,016 11,225 11,438 11,655 11,877 12,103 12,332 12,567 12,806 13,049 13,297 13,549 Total 528,649 n/a 8,699 8,699 9,317 9,889 10,302 10,736 11,191 11,670 12,132 12,432 12,678 12,919 13,165 13,415 13,670 13,929 14,194 14,464 14,738 15,018 15,304 15,595 15,891 16,193 16,500 16,814 17,133 17,459 17,791 18,129 18,473 18,824 19,182 19,546 19,918 20,296 20,682 21,075 21,475 21,883 Reduction for Service Frequency -25,554 n/a -351 -351 -386 -420 -449 -480 -513 -549 -585 -600 -613 -624 -636 -648 -661 -673 -686 -699 -712 -726 -740 -754 -768 -783 -798 -813 -828 -844 -860 -876 -893 -910 -927 -945 -963 -981 -1,000 -1,019 -1,038 -1,058 0 n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -25,554 n/a -351 -351 -386 -420 -449 -480 -513 -549 -585 -600 -613 -624 -636 -648 -661 -673 -686 -699 -712 -726 -740 -754 -768 -783 -798 -813 -828 -844 -860 -876 -893 -910 -927 -945 -963 -981 -1,000 -1,019 -1,038 -1,058 Current Rail Users -63,349 n/a -870 -870 -957 -1,042 -1,114 -1,191 -1,273 -1,360 -1,450 -1,488 -1,519 -1,548 -1,578 -1,607 -1,638 -1,669 -1,701 -1,733 -1,766 -1,800 -1,834 -1,869 -1,904 -1,940 -1,977 -2,015 -2,053 -2,092 -2,132 -2,172 -2,214 -2,256 -2,299 -2,342 -2,387 -2,432 -2,478 -2,525 -2,573 -2,622 (at Otley) -6,896 n/a -125 -125 -132 -139 -142 -146 -151 -155 -158 -162 -165 -169 -172 -175 -178 -182 -185 -189 -192 -196 -200 -203 -207 -211 -215 -219 -223 -228 -232 -236 -241 -246 -250 -255 -260 -265 -270 -275 -280 -285 Total -70,244 n/a -995 -995 -1,089 -1,180 -1,256 -1,337 -1,423 -1,515 -1,609 -1,650 -1,685 -1,717 -1,749 -1,782 -1,816 -1,851 -1,886 -1,922 -1,958 -1,996 -2,033 -2,072 -2,111 -2,152 -2,192 -2,234 -2,277 -2,320 -2,364 -2,409 -2,455 -2,501 -2,549 -2,597 -2,647 -2,697 -2,748 -2,800 -2,853 -2,908 Additional Users 70,026 n/a 962 962 1,057 1,152 1,231 1,316 1,407 1,504 1,603 1,645 1,679 1,711 1,744 1,777 1,811 1,845 1,880 1,916 1,952 1,989 2,027 2,066 2,105 2,145 2,186 2,227 2,270 2,313 2,357 2,401 2,447 2,493 2,541 2,589 2,638 2,688 2,740 2,792 2,845 2,899 (Menston & Guiseley) 161,070 n/a 2,920 2,920 3,089 3,237 3,328 3,421 3,517 3,615 3,702 3,791 3,863 3,936 4,011 4,087 4,165 4,244 4,325 4,407 4,491 4,576 4,663 4,751 4,842 4,934 5,027 5,123 5,220 5,319 5,420 5,523 5,628 5,735 5,844 5,955 6,069 6,184 6,301 6,421 6,543 6,667 Total 231,096 n/a 3,882 3,882 4,146 4,389 4,559 4,737 4,924 5,119 5,305 5,436 5,542 5,647 5,755 5,864 5,976 6,089 6,205 6,323 6,443 6,565 6,690 6,817 6,947 7,079 7,213 7,350 7,490 7,632 7,777 7,925 8,075 8,229 8,385 8,545 8,707 8,872 9,041 9,213 9,388 9,566 Net Forecasts 182,446 n/a 2,507 2,507 2,755 3,000 3,207 3,429 3,665 3,918 4,177 4,285 4,375 4,459 4,543 4,630 4,718 4,807 4,899 4,992 5,086 5,183 5,282 5,382 5,484 5,588 5,695 5,803 5,913 6,025 6,140 6,257 6,375 6,497 6,620 6,746 6,874 7,004 7,138 7,273 7,411 7,552 481,501 n/a 8,728 8,728 9,234 9,677 9,948 10,226 10,513 10,807 11,067 11,332 11,547 11,767 11,990 12,218 12,450 12,687 12,928 13,174 13,424 13,679 13,939 14,204 14,474 14,749 15,029 15,314 15,605 15,902 16,204 16,512 16,826 17,145 17,471 17,803 18,141 18,486 18,837 19,195 19,560 19,931 Total 663,946 n/a 11,235 11,235 11,989 12,677 13,155 13,655 14,178 14,725 15,243 15,618 15,923 16,225 16,534 16,848 17,168 17,494 17,827 18,165 18,510 18,862 19,220 19,586 19,958 20,337 20,723 21,117 21,518 21,927 22,344 22,768 23,201 23,642 24,091 24,549 25,015 25,490 25,975 26,468 26,971 27,484

Table D.16 ANNUAL ROAD VEH KMS SAVED (000's) Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

From Trip Rate Model 50,331 n/a 692 692 760 828 885 946 1,011 1,081 1,152 1,182 1,207 1,230 1,253 1,277 1,301 1,326 1,351 1,377 1,403 1,430 1,457 1,485 1,513 1,542 1,571 1,601 1,631 1,662 1,694 1,726 1,759 1,792 1,826 1,861 1,896 1,932 1,969 2,006 2,045 2,083 Gross Estimate 61,374 n/a 1,112 1,112 1,177 1,233 1,268 1,303 1,340 1,378 1,411 1,444 1,472 1,500 1,528 1,557 1,587 1,617 1,648 1,679 1,711 1,744 1,777 1,810 1,845 1,880 1,916 1,952 1,989 2,027 2,065 2,105 2,145 2,185 2,227 2,269 2,312 2,356 2,401 2,447 2,493 2,541 Total 111,704 n/a 1,804 1,804 1,937 2,061 2,153 2,249 2,351 2,458 2,563 2,627 2,679 2,730 2,782 2,835 2,888 2,943 2,999 3,056 3,114 3,173 3,234 3,295 3,358 3,422 3,487 3,553 3,620 3,689 3,759 3,831 3,903 3,978 4,053 4,130 4,209 4,289 4,370 4,453 4,538 4,624 Reduction for Service Frequency -6,389 n/a -88 -88 -96 -105 -112 -120 -128 -137 -146 -150 -153 -156 -159 -162 -165 -168 -172 -175 -178 -181 -185 -188 -192 -196 -199 -203 -207 -211 -215 -219 -223 -227 -232 -236 -241 -245 -250 -255 -260 -264 0 n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -6,389 n/a -88 -88 -96 -105 -112 -120 -128 -137 -146 -150 -153 -156 -159 -162 -165 -168 -172 -175 -178 -181 -185 -188 -192 -196 -199 -203 -207 -211 -215 -219 -223 -227 -232 -236 -241 -245 -250 -255 -260 -264 Current Rail Users -15,837 n/a -218 -218 -239 -260 -278 -298 -318 -340 -363 -372 -380 -387 -394 -402 -410 -417 -425 -433 -442 -450 -458 -467 -476 -485 -494 -504 -513 -523 -533 -543 -553 -564 -575 -586 -597 -608 -620 -631 -643 -656 (at Otley) -1,293 n/a -23 -23 -25 -26 -27 -27 -28 -29 -30 -30 -31 -32 -32 -33 -33 -34 -35 -35 -36 -37 -37 -38 -39 -40 -40 -41 -42 -43 -44 -44 -45 -46 -47 -48 -49 -50 -51 -52 -53 -54 Total -17,130 n/a -241 -241 -264 -286 -305 -325 -346 -369 -392 -402 -411 -419 -427 -435 -443 -451 -460 -469 -478 -487 -496 -505 -515 -525 -535 -545 -555 -566 -576 -587 -599 -610 -622 -633 -645 -658 -670 -683 -696 -709 Additional Users 17,506 n/a 241 241 264 288 308 329 352 376 401 411 420 428 436 444 453 461 470 479 488 497 507 516 526 536 546 557 567 578 589 600 612 623 635 647 660 672 685 698 711 725 (Menston & Guiseley) 30,201 n/a 547 547 579 607 624 641 659 678 694 711 724 738 752 766 781 796 811 826 842 858 874 891 908 925 943 961 979 997 1,016 1,036 1,055 1,075 1,096 1,117 1,138 1,159 1,181 1,204 1,227 1,250 Total 47,707 n/a 788 788 844 895 932 970 1,011 1,054 1,095 1,122 1,144 1,166 1,188 1,211 1,234 1,257 1,281 1,305 1,330 1,355 1,381 1,407 1,434 1,461 1,489 1,517 1,546 1,576 1,605 1,636 1,667 1,699 1,731 1,764 1,797 1,832 1,866 1,902 1,938 1,975 Net Forecasts 45,611 n/a 627 627 689 750 802 857 916 980 1,044 1,071 1,094 1,115 1,136 1,157 1,179 1,202 1,225 1,248 1,272 1,296 1,320 1,345 1,371 1,397 1,424 1,451 1,478 1,506 1,535 1,564 1,594 1,624 1,655 1,686 1,718 1,751 1,784 1,818 1,853 1,888 90,281 n/a 1,636 1,636 1,731 1,814 1,865 1,917 1,971 2,026 2,075 2,125 2,165 2,206 2,248 2,291 2,334 2,379 2,424 2,470 2,517 2,565 2,614 2,663 2,714 2,765 2,818 2,871 2,926 2,982 3,038 3,096 3,155 3,215 3,276 3,338 3,401 3,466 3,532 3,599 3,667 3,737 Total 135,893 n/a 2,263 2,263 2,420 2,565 2,667 2,775 2,887 3,006 3,119 3,196 3,259 3,321 3,384 3,448 3,514 3,581 3,649 3,718 3,789 3,861 3,934 4,009 4,085 4,162 4,242 4,322 4,404 4,488 4,573 4,660 4,749 4,839 4,931 5,024 5,120 5,217 5,316 5,417 5,520 5,625

Table D.17 Value of Road Decongestion Benefits £000 pa Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

From Trip Rate Model 42,333 £18,961 346 346 388 431 469 512 558 609 662 693 721 750 779 810 842 875 909 945 982 1,021 1,061 1,103 1,147 1,192 1,239 1,287 1,338 1,391 1,446 1,502 1,562 1,623 1,687 1,753 1,823 1,894 1,969 2,046 2,127 2,211 Gross Estimate 12,389 £5,382 133 133 144 154 161 169 178 186 194 203 211 219 228 237 246 256 266 277 288 299 311 323 336 349 362 377 392 407 423 440 457 475 494 513 533 554 576 599 622 647 Total 54,723 £24,343 479 479 532 585 631 681 736 795 856 896 932 969 1,007 1,047 1,088 1,131 1,175 1,222 1,270 1,320 1,372 1,426 1,482 1,540 1,601 1,664 1,730 1,798 1,869 1,942 2,019 2,098 2,181 2,267 2,356 2,449 2,545 2,645 2,750 2,858 Reduction for Service Frequency -5,373 -£2,407 -44 -44 -49 -55 -60 -65 -71 -77 -84 -88 -92 -95 -99 -103 -107 -111 -115 -120 -125 -130 -135 -140 -146 -151 -157 -163 -170 -177 -183 -191 -198 -206 -214 -223 -231 -240 -250 -260 -270 -281 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -5,373 -£2,407 -44 -44 -49 -55 -60 -65 -71 -77 -84 -88 -92 -95 -99 -103 -107 -111 -115 -120 -125 -130 -135 -140 -146 -151 -157 -163 -170 -177 -183 -191 -198 -206 -214 -223 -231 -240 -250 -260 -270 -281 Current Rail Users -13,321 -£5,966 -109 -109 -122 -135 -148 -161 -176 -192 -208 -218 -227 -236 -245 -255 -265 -275 -286 -297 -309 -321 -334 -347 -361 -375 -390 -405 -421 -438 -455 -473 -491 -511 -531 -552 -573 -596 -620 -644 -669 -696 (at Otley) -261 -£113 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -6 -6 -6 -6 -7 -7 -7 -7 -8 -8 -8 -9 -9 -9 -10 -10 -10 -11 -11 -12 -12 -13 -13 -14 Total -13,582 -£6,080 -112 -112 -125 -139 -151 -165 -179 -195 -212 -222 -231 -241 -250 -260 -270 -281 -292 -303 -315 -328 -340 -354 -368 -382 -397 -413 -429 -446 -464 -482 -501 -521 -541 -563 -585 -608 -632 -657 -682 -709 Additional Users 14,725 £6,595 120 120 135 150 163 178 194 212 230 241 251 261 271 282 293 304 316 329 342 355 369 384 399 415 431 448 465 484 503 523 543 565 587 610 634 659 685 712 740 769 (Menston & Guiseley) 6,096 £2,648 66 66 71 76 79 83 87 92 96 100 104 108 112 117 121 126 131 136 141 147 153 159 165 172 178 185 193 200 208 216 225 234 243 253 262 273 284 295 306 318 Total 20,821 £9,243 186 186 206 226 243 261 282 303 326 341 355 369 383 398 414 430 447 465 483 502 522 543 564 586 609 633 658 684 711 739 768 798 830 862 896 932 968 1,007 1,046 1,087 Net Forecasts 38,364 £17,183 313 313 351 390 425 464 506 552 600 628 654 679 706 734 763 793 824 857 890 925 962 1,000 1,039 1,080 1,122 1,167 1,213 1,260 1,310 1,362 1,415 1,471 1,529 1,589 1,652 1,717 1,784 1,855 1,928 2,004 18,225 £7,916 196 196 212 227 238 249 261 274 286 299 311 323 335 349 362 377 391 407 423 440 457 475 494 513 533 554 576 599 622 647 672 699 726 755 785 816 848 881 916 952 Total 56,589 £25,100 510 510 563 617 663 713 767 825 886 926 964 1,002 1,042 1,083 1,125 1,170 1,216 1,263 1,313 1,365 1,419 1,475 1,533 1,593 1,656 1,721 1,789 1,859 1,932 2,008 2,088 2,170 2,255 2,344 2,436 2,532 2,632 2,736 2,843 2,955 Table D.18 Value of Time Savings £000 pa Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

From Trip Rate Model 11,256 £5,138 53 53 61 69 76 85 95 105 117 125 132 140 149 158 167 177 188 199 211 224 237 252 267 283 300 318 337 357 379 402 426 451 479 507 538 570 604 641 679 720 Gross Estimate 28,973 £12,990 180 180 198 216 231 247 265 283 302 321 341 361 383 406 430 456 484 513 544 576 611 648 687 728 772 818 867 920 975 1,034 1,096 1,162 1,232 1,306 1,384 1,468 1,556 1,650 1,749 1,854 Total 40,229 £18,128 233 233 259 285 308 333 359 388 418 446 473 501 532 564 597 633 672 712 755 800 848 899 953 1,011 1,072 1,136 1,204 1,277 1,354 1,435 1,522 1,613 1,710 1,813 1,922 2,038 2,160 2,290 2,428 2,574 Reduction for Service Frequency -2,085 -£952 -10 -10 -11 -13 -14 -16 -18 -19 -22 -23 -25 -26 -28 -29 -31 -33 -35 -37 -39 -41 -44 -47 -49 -52 -56 -59 -62 -66 -70 -74 -79 -84 -89 -94 -100 -106 -112 -119 -126 -133 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -2,085 -£952 -10 -10 -11 -13 -14 -16 -18 -19 -22 -23 -25 -26 -28 -29 -31 -33 -35 -37 -39 -41 -44 -47 -49 -52 -56 -59 -62 -66 -70 -74 -79 -84 -89 -94 -100 -106 -112 -119 -126 -133 Current Rail Users 10,336 £4,718 49 49 56 63 70 78 87 97 107 114 122 129 137 145 154 163 173 183 194 206 218 231 245 260 275 292 309 328 348 369 391 414 439 466 494 524 555 588 624 661 (at Otley) 1,247 £559 8 8 9 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 28 30 31 33 35 37 40 42 44 47 50 53 56 60 63 67 71 75 80 Total 11,583 £5,277 57 57 64 72 80 89 98 109 120 128 136 144 153 162 172 182 193 205 217 230 244 259 275 291 309 327 347 368 390 413 438 464 492 522 553 587 622 659 699 741 Additional Users 2,856 £1,304 13 13 15 17 19 22 24 27 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 64 68 72 76 81 86 91 96 102 108 115 121 129 136 145 153 163 172 183 (Menston & Guiseley) 11,443 £5,131 71 71 78 85 91 98 105 112 119 127 135 143 151 160 170 180 191 202 215 228 241 256 271 288 305 323 343 363 385 408 433 459 486 516 547 580 615 651 691 732 Total 14,299 £6,434 85 85 94 103 111 119 129 138 149 159 168 178 189 200 212 225 239 253 268 284 302 320 339 359 381 404 428 454 481 510 541 573 608 644 683 724 768 814 863 915 Net Forecasts 22,364 £10,208 105 105 121 137 152 169 188 209 232 248 263 279 295 313 332 352 373 396 420 445 472 500 530 562 596 632 670 710 753 798 846 897 951 1,008 1,069 1,133 1,201 1,273 1,350 1,431 41,663 £18,680 259 259 285 311 333 356 381 407 434 462 490 519 551 584 619 656 695 737 782 829 879 931 987 1,047 1,110 1,177 1,247 1,322 1,402 1,486 1,576 1,671 1,771 1,878 1,991 2,110 2,237 2,372 2,515 2,666 Total 64,027 £28,888 365 365 406 448 485 525 569 616 666 709 753 798 846 897 951 1,008 1,069 1,133 1,201 1,273 1,350 1,431 1,517 1,609 1,706 1,808 1,917 2,032 2,155 2,284 2,422 2,567 2,722 2,886 3,059 3,243 3,438 3,645 3,865 4,097

D.19 Capital costs £000 pa Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

-20,520 -£14,745 0 0 0 0 0 -800 -800 -1,000 -5,900 -6,020 -6,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -20,520 -£14,745 0 0 0 0 0 -800 -800 -1,000 -5,900 -6,020 -6,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Forecasts -20,520 -£14,745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -20,520 -£14,745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table D.20 Operating Costs £000pa Total 2011+ NPV 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

-95,795 -£36,886 -2,111 -2,143 -2,175 -2,207 -2,241 -2,274 -2,308 -2,343 -2,378 -2,414 -2,450 -2,487 -2,524 -2,562 -2,600 -2,639 -2,679 -2,719 -2,760 -2,801 -2,843 -2,886 -2,929 -2,973 -3,018 -3,063 -3,109 -3,156 -3,203 -3,251 -3,300 -3,349 -3,399 -3,450 -3,502 -3,555 -3,608 -3,662 -3,717 -3,773 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -95,795 -£36,886 -2,111 -2,143 -2,175 -2,207 -2,241 -2,274 -2,308 -2,343 -2,378 -2,414 -2,450 -2,487 -2,524 -2,562 -2,600 -2,639 -2,679 -2,719 -2,760 -2,801 -2,843 -2,886 -2,929 -2,973 -3,018 -3,063 -3,109 -3,156 -3,203 -3,251 -3,300 -3,349 -3,399 -3,450 -3,502 -3,555 -3,608 -3,662 -3,717 -3,773 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Net Forecasts -95,795 -£36,886 -2,111 -2,143 -2,175 -2,207 -2,241 -2,274 -2,308 -2,343 -2,378 -2,414 -2,450 -2,487 -2,524 -2,562 -2,600 -2,639 -2,679 -2,719 -2,760 -2,801 -2,843 -2,886 -2,929 -2,973 -3,018 -3,063 -3,109 -3,156 -3,203 -3,251 -3,300 -3,349 -3,399 -3,450 -3,502 -3,555 -3,608 -3,662 -3,717 -3,773 0 £0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -95,795 -£36,886 -2,111 -2,143 -2,175 -2,207 -2,241 -2,274 -2,308 -2,343 -2,378 -2,414 -2,450 -2,487 -2,524 -2,562 -2,600 -2,639 -2,679 -2,719 -2,760 -2,801 -2,843 -2,886 -2,929 -2,973 -3,018 -3,063 -3,109 -3,156 -3,203 -3,251 -3,300 -3,349 -3,399 -3,450 -3,502 -3,555 -3,608 -3,662 -3,717 -3,773 Appendix E

Study Brief