Yorkshire Rail Network Study Conditional Output Statement Report March 2012
Prepared for: M etro, SYPTE and Leeds City Region
Prepared by: Steer Davies Gleave West Riding House 67 Albion Street Leeds LS1 5AA +44 (0)113 389 6400 www.steerdaviesgleave.com
Conditional Output Statement
CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................I This Study’s Purpose and Key Conclusion ......................................................i Study Context ..................................................................................... ii Challenges and Opportunities.................................................................. iii The Conditional Output Statement ............................................................ v The Conditional Outputs........................................................................ ix Next Steps ........................................................................................ xi 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 Context ............................................................................................ 1 Study Objectives ................................................................................. 1 Study Governance ................................................................................ 2 Study Area ......................................................................................... 3 The Conditional Output Statement ............................................................ 7
2
STRATEGIC EVIDENCE ........................................................................... 9 Introduction ....................................................................................... 9 The Government's Vision for Transport ........................................................ 9 Regions, City Regions and the Economy ......................................................10 Connectivity and the Economy ................................................................11 Connectivity and the North's City Regions ...................................................12 Connectivity between the City Regions ......................................................13 Connectivity within City Regions ..............................................................15 International Links ..............................................................................18 How Enhancing Connectivity Leads to Economic Growth ..................................22 Supporting City Region Growth ................................................................26 Concluding Remarks.............................................................................27
3
STAKEHOLDER ASPIRATIONS ................................................................. 29 Stakeholder Group ..............................................................................29 Stakeholder Event ...............................................................................29 Stakeholder Aspirations for Improvements ..................................................29
4
MODELLING APPROACH ....................................................................... 31 Introduction ......................................................................................31 Defining the Do Minimum and the Test Timetable ..........................................31
Contents
Conditional Output Statement Allocation to Corridors ......................................................................... 31 Economic Growth Scenarios ................................................................... 32 Passenger Modelling Overview ................................................................ 32 Rates of Benefit ................................................................................. 34 Passenger Demand Growth .................................................................... 36 Forecast Passenger Demand ................................................................... 39 Passenger Economic Benefits .................................................................. 41 Impact on Jobs .................................................................................. 45 Performance ..................................................................................... 50 Freight Modelling Approach ................................................................... 51 Freight Benefits ................................................................................. 52 5
DISAGGREGATED RATES OF BENEFIT........................................................55 Introduction...................................................................................... 55 Guidance on Interpreting the Rates of Benefit ............................................. 56 Capacity Benefits ............................................................................... 56 Connectivity Benefits ........................................................................... 57 Freight Benefits ................................................................................. 61
6
CONDITIONAL OUTPUT STATEMENT.........................................................63 1)
Connectivity............................................................... 63
2)
Capacity ................................................................... 66
3)
Freight ..................................................................... 66
4)
Performance .............................................................. 66
5)
Journey Quality ........................................................... 67
6)
Access to the Network ................................................... 67
7)
Growth Centres ........................................................... 67
8)
North-South Links ........................................................ 68
9)
Links to Airports .......................................................... 68
10)
Carbon Reduction ........................................................ 69
Strategic Gap Analysis .......................................................................... 69 Test Timetable Economic Benefits ........................................................... 81 Disaggregated Rates of Benefit ............................................................... 81
FIGURES Figure 1.1
Contents
Passenger Corridors ....................................................... 5
Conditional Output Statement Figure 1.2
Freight Corridors and Terminals ......................................... 6
Figure 2.1
Wider Economic Impacts .................................................23
Figure 4.1
Passenger Benefit Modelling Overview.................................34
Figure 4.2
Average GJT Change – Do Minimum v Test Timetable ...............35
Figure 4.3
Incremental Peak Seats - Do Minimum v Test Timetable - Trend ..35
Figure 4.4
Incremental Peak Seats - Do Minimum v Test Timetable – Trend Plus .........................................................................36
Figure 4.5
Forecast GDP and Employment Growth, 2011 to 2027 ...............36
Figure 4.6
2011 to 2019 Demand Growth – Trend .................................37
Figure 4.7
2011 to 2019 Demand Growth – Trend Plus ...........................38
Figure 4.8
Historic and Projected Demand Growth ...............................39
Figure 4.9
Do Minimum Demand Growth By Origin - Trend ......................39
Figure 4.10
Do Minimum Demand Growth By Origin – Trend Plus.................40
Figure 4.11
Test Timetable Induced Demand By Origin - Trend ..................41
Figure 4.12
Test Timetable Induced Demand By Origin – Trend Plus ............41
Figure 4.13
Total Benefits By Type - Trend .........................................42
Figure 4.14
Total Benefits By Type – Trend Plus ....................................43
Figure 4.15
Connectivity Benefits By Destination - Trend .........................44
Figure 4.16
Connectivity Benefits By Destination – Trend Plus ...................44
Figure 4.17
GDP ‘Jobs Equivalent’ - Trend ..........................................46
Figure 4.18
GDP ‘Jobs Equivalent’ – Trend Plus ....................................46
Figure 4.19
‘Jobs Equivalent – Labour Market Impacts’ - Trend ..................47
Figure 4.20
‘Jobs Equivalent – Labour Market Impacts’– Trend Plus .............48
Figure 4.21
UDM Tests – Potential Job Impact ......................................49
Figure 5.1
Normalised Crowding Benefits – Trend Plus ...........................57
Figure 5.2
Normalised Connectivity Benefits by Type – Trend Plus .............58
Figure 5.3
Normalised Connectivity Benefits By Destination – Trend Plus .....59
Figure 5.4
Normalised Connectivity Benefits By Destination and Number of Stations – Trend Plus .....................................................60
Figure 5.5
Proportion of Test Timetable Benefit by Flow T ype – Trend Plus ..61
TABLES Table 1
Conditional Output Summary............................................ ix
Contents
Conditional Output Statement Table 1.1
Steering Group Members ................................................. 3
Table 3.1
Stakeholder Aspirations v Conditional Outputs ....................... 30
Table 4.1
Forecast Direct Freight Benefits ....................................... 52
Table 6.1
Conditional Output Summary ........................................... 70
APPENDICES A
EVIDENCE REVIEW REFERENCES
B
DISAGGREGATED ECONOMIC BENEFITS
C
NORTHERN RAIL PPM MAA
D
UDM JOB DISTRIBUTION MAPS
Contents
Conditional Output Statement
Executive Summary This Study’s Purpose and Key Conclusion To make the greatest possible contribution to economic growth, Yorkshire’s rail network needs a sustained programme of planned investment. The rail industry is currently finalising its plans for investment in the five year period from 2014 to 2019 (known as ‘Control Period 5’). The first purpose of this study is to reinforce the investment case for proposed near-term enhancements benefitting Yorkshire. The second purpose is to set the foundation for an assessment of the medium term investment needs for rail routes in Yorkshire. This will support the identification, for phased implementation beyond 2019, of preferred options that have been costed, are affordable and provide value for money. Specifically, the Yorkshire Rail Network Study establishes an evidence base that allows targeted proposals to enhance the rail network to be developed with the goal of maximising economic returns. This is especially important in a time where resources for investment are limited. Using industry-standard demand forecasting models to look at passenger services within and between the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions and the connections to other cities in the North, the study has identified the scale of potential benefits that can be achieved from improved connectivity and greater capacity: £10.5bn to £12.2bn. The challenge to the railway industry is now to work with local partners to identify the most cost effective, value for money and affordable ways of delivering as much of these benefits as feasible, and then to ensure the timely delivery of the most appropriate solutions. In particular: I
The study reiterates the benefits that could be delivered from capacity and journey time enhancements to the Hope Valle and Calder Valley routes, for which funding was announced in the March 2012 Budget subject to a value for money investment case being confirmed;
I
This study provides further evidence of the case for full delivery of the remaining elements of the Northern Hub Strategy, specifically improvements in the Castlefield Corridor through Manchester that will benefit journeys to and across Manchester, and to Manchester Airport, particularly from Bradford. The study also supports the case for implementation of plans for Control Period 5 (2014-19) to increase freight capacity to the South Humber Bank, as well as improvements that will benefit passenger services between Leeds and Sheffield via Barnsley and capacity enhancements at Leeds and Sheffield stations.
I
Working with the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions and the Department for Transport, the rail industry should undertake work to develop an affordable and value for money package of investments for the national strategic corridors between Leeds and Sheffield and Doncaster and Sheffield for implementation in Control Period 6 (2019-2024).
i
Conditional Output Statement I
To complement and add to the benefits of investment planned to 2019, the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions should work with their rail industry partners to develop an affordable and value for money strategy for enhancing rail travel within the two city regions beyond 2019. This should include proposals for resolving the remaining capacity bottlenecks around Leeds and Sheffield stations which have not been fully addressed in Control Period 5.
The study has been funded by Metro, SYPTE and Leeds City Region. Passenger and freight train operators, Network Rail and the Department for Transport have been part of the study's Steering Group.
Study Context 1. Yorkshire’s railways deliver substantial economic benefits and offer a sustainable alternative to road travel. They do this by providing connectivity for passengers and freight within Yorkshire, and between Yorkshire and the rest of the country. However, across Yorkshire the ability to accommodate more passengers and a greater volume of freight is increasingly constrained. 2. This means there are now limited opportunities to enhance connectivity – more trains, quicker and more reliable journeys, better connections - to and between Yorkshire’s most important economic centres. Trains in the commuting peaks and at other times of the day experience overcrowding. For additional demand to be accommodated and the economic and environmental benefits associated with that growth secured, then enhancements to the rail network in Yorkshire will be needed. 3. The past 15 years have seen significant growth in passenger and freight use of the rail network across the UK. In Yorkshire specifically, passenger numbers increased by 65% between 1998 and 2011. Providing there is available capacity, passenger numbers are expected to continue to grow for the foreseeable future - by up to 37% by 2027. Accommodating this projected increase in passenger numbers will support further economic growth. Freight traffic is also forecast to grow, in particular the movement of intermodal containers to and from ports which is forecast to increase threefold by 2030. On top of this, the evidence is that improving connectivity – making journey times shorter and operating more frequent services – can also deliver significant economic returns. 4. There remains a marked contrast between economic performance in the North of England and the South East. Revitalisation of the economy in the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions will require coordinated action to enhance rail connectivity and capacity, as part of a wider targeted programme looking at transport and other sectors. 5. Already very beneficial investment is planned for Yorkshire. The first phase of Network Rail’s Northern Hub package and electrification of the route between Manchester and York via Leeds are both planned to be implemented by 2018 and will lead to more frequent trains and quicker journeys on the North Trans Pennine route. Funding for a second Northern Hub phase including capacity and journey time improvements on the Hope Valley and Calder Valley routes has also been identified. In addition, Metro and SYPTE continue to improve existing stations and are building new ones. A nationwide initiative to introduce a Strategic Freight
ii
Conditional Output Statement Network will increase the capacity available for freight to, from and through Yorkshire, as well as making more routes available to the latest generation of intermodal containers hauled on standard wagons. Nonetheless, even with this investment there will remain constraints that will inhibit the improvement of rail’s connectivity and the expansion of its capacity. 6. The objective of this study for stakeholders in the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions is therefore twofold. First, it is to reinforce the case for the timely delivery of investment proposed for the rail industry for implementation in the five year funding period to 2019 (‘Control Period 5’) and so secure the benefits that this investment will bring. Second, it is to secure further investment (through to 2019 and beyond) that will be needed if the economies of the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions are to grow to meet their full potential. 7. This study has identified benefits that could be generated as a result of changes to connectivity – journey time and train frequency – as well as reduction in ontrain crowding. It does not consider the potential impact of changes in rail policy or regulatory processes. It specifically excludes changes in fares policy. 8. The study geography focuses on improvements to rail services within Leeds and Sheffield City Regions and links to neighbouring centres such as Hull, Nottingham and Manchester.
Challenges and Opportunities 9. Rail passengers in Yorkshire currently experience on-train crowding in the traditional peak periods and at other times of the day on some routes. Current capacity will not be sufficient to accommodate all forecast demand. Without enhancement, train and in some cases, network capacity will constrain future demand growth which will, in turn, limit economic benefits and encourage car commuting. Crowding on trans-Pennine services and on Leeds and Sheffield commuter corridors has previously been identified as a problem that should be addressed. 10. Frequency and journey times on some routes are comparatively good. For example between Leeds and Manchester at present there are four express trains per hour and committed and planned improvements will deliver frequency and journey time enhancements to the North Trans Pennine service. However, other city to city links are comparatively poor - Leeds to Sheffield for example. As set out in this report, there is strong evidence that good transport links can support economic interaction between city regions, which in turn supports a stronger regional and national economy. There is also established evidence that the current capability of the rail network in terms of capacity, journey times, and reliability is restricting the potential for additional and faster services. Committed Enhancements 11. Network Rail has identified a compelling case for enhancements to unlock capacity in central Manchester and facilitate faster and more frequent services across the North of England. This is the package of enhancements known as the Northern Hub. The first phase of the Northern Hub, the Ordsall Curve, will deliver additional capacity in Manchester, allowing more and faster North Trans Pennine services between Leeds and Manchester and beyond. Funding for this phase was
iii
Conditional Output Statement committed in the March 2011 Budget. A second phase, delivering capacity and journey time improvements on the Hope Valley and Calder Valley routes was committed in the March 2012 Budget, subject to a value for money investment case. North Trans Pennine electrification received Government endorsement in the 2011 Autumn Statement. These committed improvements will benefit both passenger and freight journeys between Yorkshire and the North West and are planned to be implemented by 2018. 12. As part of the Strategic Freight Network, works are being undertaken to extend the routes over which the latest generation of intermodal containers can be carried on standard wagons – this is known as ‘gauge clearance’. The East Coast Main Line as well as routes to the Tees and Humber ports and a route between Yorkshire and the East and West Midlands are all being gauge cleared as part of the Strategic Freight Network initiative. High Speed Rail 13. In January 2012, following consultation the Government announced its intention to construct by 2026 a high speed rail line (known as HS2) between London and Birmingham, extending to Manchester and Leeds by 2033. The line to Leeds will have stations that will serve both the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions. As well as leading to a significant reduction in journey time, HS2 will increase the capacity for journeys between the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions and the Capital. Importantly, constructing HS2 will also release capacity on the East Coast and Midland Main Lines that can be used for new inter-regional and freight connections. Further Enhancement will be Needed 14. Phase 1 of the Northern Hub, along with the proposed trans-Pennine electrification, will deliver benefits to all rail travellers using the Manchester – Leeds corridor. Phase 2 of the Northern Hub will benefit passengers travelling between Sheffield / Bradford and Manchester. The Strategic Freight Network will support growth in rail freight. High speed rail will increase capacity and reduce journey times to London, but not until 2032. Responding to Network Rail’s Northern Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS), the rail industry has made further enhancement proposals for the five year period to 2019 and these are contained in the Initial Industry Plan (IIP). 15. However, further enhancement to network capacity and capability will still be needed to support future economic growth and maximise the returns from planned investment in rail. In particular:
iv
I
There are further important benefits to be gained from the full delivery of the Northern Hub package. Further proposed Northern Hub phases delivered by 2019 would release additional capacity in central Manchester and allow increases in frequency and new destinations to be served, for example from Bradford to Manchester Airport via Rochdale.
I
While the Northern Hub work considered capacity constraints on the corridors connecting Manchester with Bradford, Leeds and Sheffield, it did not address constraints on the approaches to and at those stations. Even with full delivery of the proposed Northern Hub package and trans -Pennine electrification as well
Conditional Output Statement as proposals from Network Rail set out in the Yorkshire & Humber and Northern Route Utilisation Strategies, there will remain constraints in the rail network that will inhibit expansion of rail capacity. Most notably these include the approaches and platform capacity at Leeds and Sheffield stations, affecting east-west and north-south long distance as well as commuter services. There is not yet a long term strategic plan beyond 2019 to address these two significant constraints on the development of passenger and freight rail services to, from and within the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions. I
The currently planned rolling stock programmes, such as the Intercity Express Programme (IEP), Thameslink and subsequent cascades do not encompass a strategy to replace much of the unreliable, uncomfortable, and slow rolling stock serving the North.
I
The ability for rail freight to serve effectively the ports of the North, the growing inter-modal container market, the electricity supply industry and to offer a viable and more environmentally sustainable alternative to road transport is inhibited by a lack of capacity and functionality of the rail network. The works associated with North Trans Pennine electrification is an opportunity to create a gauge cleared route across the Pennines for inter-modal freight.
I
Revitalisation of the economy in the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions will require co-ordinated action to address the long-term imbalance between the North and the South East. This will need to include a sustained programme to enhance the connectivity to and between their economic centres; increase capacity at Leeds and Sheffield stations; and improved network capability in the rail corridors linking the economic centres.
16. If the economies of the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions are to meet their full potential, it is essential that the rail network continues to support their growth. To achieve this it will be necessary to invest in the rail network to provide the capacity needed to accommodate future growth in passenger and freight demand and deliver improved connectivity. 17. There is now an important window of opportunity to inform and influence how the rail industry responds to the Government’s High Level Output Statement (HLOS) and Statement of Funds Available (SOFA) for the next five year period of rail investment (Control Period 5 2014-19), as well as set the challenges for the subsequent five year period (2019-2024).
The Conditional Output Statement 18. The primary purpose of this study has been to develop a “Conditional Output Statement”. With the goal of supporting economic growth in the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions, the Conditional Outputs codify what the rail industry should strive to deliver. The Conditional Outputs have been developed considering the established evidence base complemented by bespoke analysis of the potential economic benefits of enhancing current train capacity and facilitating more frequent services with lower journey times. They are described as “conditional” because realisation of each output will be subject to an affordable and value for money solution being identified and delivered by the rail industry. Taken as a whole, the Conditional Output Statement provides an evidence base that will help
v
Conditional Output Statement the industry to establish the key priority network improvements in the Yorkshire region. How Rail Enhancements will Support Economic Growth 19. Recent years have seen a substantial research effort to develop the understanding of how transport systems and the economy interact. Consideration of this evidence has been an integral part of the development of the Conditional Outputs. What this evidence tells us is that enhancing links between the city regions will support and facilitate future economic growth. The evidence also shows that for city regions to enjoy balanced economic growth, an approach that enhances links within city regions and between city regions is required. Furthermore, emerging evidence suggests that transport investments that are anticipated to have a structural impact on the economy can have an impact far greater than conventional transport cost benefit analysis would sugges t. 20. Specifically, the wider evidence base shows that enhancing the trans -Pennine rail corridors would support growth of Leeds and Manchester, the North's two largest city region economies. It would also strengthen the economic links between the Sheffield and Manchester city regions - rail is especially important in this corridor given the comparatively poor road links across the South Pennines. The Leeds Sheffield corridor links the two largest city region economies in Yorkshire and its enhancement would contribute to their balanced growth. The Leeds and Sheffield focussed commuter rail networks have facilitated sustainable economic growth by supporting growth in city centre employment. However, on-train crowding and the current scope and reach of the network limits the scope for future growth. 21. The available evidence also identifies the role that rail can have in expanding the scale and scope of labour markets while at the same time facilitating spill-over effects into the economically underperforming areas . The Leeds and Sheffield city regions have each identified spatial priorities for development and regeneration. Enhanced connectivity could support these priorities and cost effective rail enhancement will be an option to support some of these priorities, particularly where there is already connection to the rail network, for example Barnsley town centre. The available evidence also highlights the key role that rail can play in securing economic benefits from serving the growing demand from Yorkshire’s international air and sea gateways. An Innovative but Proven Approach 22. This Conditional Output Statement turns on its head the usual approach to scheme development. Conventionally, a scheme is developed and this is then subject to economic analysis to see whether it provides a value for money solution and consideration is given to its affordability. At the same time fit with wider objectives is assessed. Sometimes schemes are shown to provide good value for money, other times there is a need to recast the proposal or return to the drawing board. For the development of the Conditional Outputs set out here, along with consideration of the wider evidence base on how transport and the economy interact, bespoke modelling has been undertaken to allow the potential of a rail corridor to deliver economic benefits to be identified. Mindful of this potential, the rail industry can now go on and develop proposals that best release the identified potential.
vi
Conditional Output Statement 23. This approach does not guarantee that identified solutions will have a good value for money case or that they will be affordable, but it does set a framework for this to be the case. This was the experience of the Northern Hub. Following an approach very similar to the one applied in this study, a set of Conditional Outputs was defined. These were informed by the benefit potential of each corridor into Manchester and the wider evidence base. Responding to these Conditional Outputs, Network Rail then developed a set of interventions that were intended to release as much as possible of these benefits while at the same time being implementable and affordable and realising a high as possible value for money case. This led to their recommended Northern Hub strategy, a £530m package of investment that returned a benefit cost ratio of 4:1. In 2011 the Government committed to fund the first phase of the Northern Hub package, less than five years after the Northern Way identified the importance to the whole of the North of unlocking Manchester rail capacity. The success of this approach is therefore clear. The Potential Benefits for Yorkshire 24. Analysis undertaken as part of the Yorkshire Rail Network Study suggests that delivering more capacity and improved connectivity for passenger services could yield a benefit potential of between £10.5bn to £12.2bn over a 60 year period. Potential benefits are those that would arise from a network wide uplift in frequency, reduction in journey time and increase in on-train capacity. They are not the benefits that would come from any one scheme or package of schemes, rather they are an indication that if a strategy of affordable and value for investments can be identified then significant benefits would result. The benefits are expressed as a range to reflect the low and high demand forecasts applied in this study. 25. Some of these potential benefits are generated by trips to and from Manchester and are in corridors that were included in the Northern Hub study. This report’s analysis shows that further enhancement, beyond those that will come from the committed enhancements that will be delivered by 2018, will lead to additional potential benefits. Further journey time enhancements and frequency increases in the trans-Pennine corridors could deliver an additional £1.8bn to £2.1bn benefit. A proportion of these benefits would be secured by the recently announced second phase the Northern Hub strategy, although funding for this is subject to a value for money investment case being identified, and other as yet uncommitted parts of the strategy including the Castlefield Corridor and other capacity enhancements in the Manchester area. 26. At least £8.7bn to £10.1bn of the total potential benefit are net additional potential benefits to those identified in the earlier Northern Hub work. It is therefore clear that improvements to the rail network in the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions could yield worthwhile economic benefits and time and effort should be invested by the rail industry to identify and then implement solutions to achieve the Conditional Outputs. 27. Over a quarter of the potential journey time benefits (excluding benefits from crowding relief) identified by this study, between £2.6bn and £3.0bn, could be delivered by enhancing connections between the key regional and sub-regional
vii
Conditional Output Statement centre stations. These could be achieved by improvements to just four key rail corridors: I
York to Manchester, via Leeds and Huddersfield;
I
Leeds to Manchester via Bradford and Halifax (the Calder Valley route);
I
Leeds to Sheffield, and beyond; and
I
Doncaster to Manchester via Sheffield.
28. Increasing the network’s ability to cater for freight traffic is also a source of potential benefit, for example running just one additional container train per day between Leeds and the Haven Ports could be generate £60m to the economy. 29. To make the case for investment it is necessary to identify interventions that provide value for money and are affordable. When assessing value for money, looking alone at the benefit potential on a particular rail corridor is not sufficient to say that investment in that corridor is worthwhile. The likely costs of enhancement to deliver those benefits have to be considered too. Typically, to realise higher benefits more money needs to be invested. When considering affordability, as well as consideration of the capital costs of any intervention, the impact on operating costs when compared with any additional revenue that may be gained also needs to be assessed. 30. It is important, therefore, that any future study to identify possible solutions to deliver the Conditional Outputs considers possible enhancements across the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions. To focus solely on those corridors returning the highest rates of benefit may omit possible low cost/high value for money enhancements elsewhere. This said, taken together the wider evidence base and the modelling undertaken for this study suggests that:
viii
I
for the Yorkshire economy to function effectively there is a need to provide quicker journey times, more frequent services and adequate on-train capacity between the key locations for economic activity: Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield and York, along with Manchester. The modelling for this study shows that enhancements for rail trips between these regional centres typically attract comparatively high rates of economic benefits per unit of journey time improvement
I
there are worthwhile rates of economic benefits to be gained by enhancing rail connectivity between the regional centres which are well served by rail (Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield, York and Manchester) and sub-regional centres (Halifax, Harrogate, Huddersfield and Wakefield in the Leeds City Region and Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster and Chesterfield in the Sheffield City Region).
I
each city region also has a number of routes which offer within city region connectivity, serving predominantly journey to work trips but also providing opportunities to interchange to longer distance services. The analysis shows that enhancements to such routes will also generate worthwhile rates of economic benefit per unit of journey time improvement.
I
enhancements just targeted at journeys between sub-regional centres will deliver benefits, but typically at a lower unit rate than enhancements focussed
Conditional Output Statement on journeys between the regional centres of Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield and York and commuting journeys to these centres. I
any strategy focussed on enhancing connectivity for just one of these four groups of movement – between regional centres, from sub-regional centres to the regional centres, within city region journeys and between sub-regional centres – would potentially contribute to an unbalanced growth trajectory across Yorkshire. What is needed is a targeted strategy that supports enhanced connectivity for each of these groups of movements.
The Conditional Outputs 31. The Conditional Outputs identified by the study are summarised in the following table. Full details of the Conditional Outputs can be found in Chapter 6. Delivering these outputs will contribute towards achieving the potential economic benefits identified by the study. The table also summarises the current network constraints that may need to be addressed by the rail industry working with local stakeholders to facilitate achievement of the Conditional Outputs. TABLE 1
CONDITIONAL OUTPUT SUMMARY
Conditional Output
Current Constraint
1.Connectivity
Capability of the network and provision of sufficient and appropriate rolling stock to operate faster services
Rail journey times that are quicker than off peak car journeys A minimum frequency of two trains per hour (up to six trains per hour in some corridors) all day operating on a clockface timetable with additional peak services as required to meet demand.
2. Capacity
Sufficient capacity, by providing longer or more frequent trains, to accommodate forecast demand growth to 2027
Network capacity and availability of rolling stock to deliver increased frequency
Seating capacity currently exceeded on peak and inter-regional off peak services. Limited availability of rolling stock and infrastructure capability (track capacity, depot capacity and platform length) prevents longer or more frequent services
ix
Conditional Output Statement
Conditional Output
Current Constraint
3. Freight
Sufficient network capacity and capability to maintain the region’s electricity generating capacity and deliver forecast growth in rail freight, particularly inter-modal container traffic
Availability of transPennine and North–South freight paths
Reduce the variation in performance on different corridors by improving performance of the relatively poor performing corridors.
Variability in performance of services in different corridors caused by track capacity, rolling stock reliability and delivery of planned capacity
4. Performance
Any enhancements to meet these Conditional Outputs should not worsen performance
Network currently restricts operation of longer freight trains and the routes that are available for trains transporting the latest generation of inter-modal containers on standard wagons
5. Journey Quality
New and/or refurbished rolling stock to offer an improved passenger experience
Variability in the quality of rolling stock across different corridors
6. Access to the Network
Sufficient car parking capacity and high quality access by sustainable modes to accommodate future demand and consistent station quality
Insufficient car park capacity to cater for all day demand Poor quality walk / cycle routes to stations and lack of capacity in high quality public transport Variability in station facilities
7. Growth Centres
Connectivity to rail connected growth centres should benefit from delivering the Connectivity Output Appropriate fast and frequent connectivity is required from rail hubs to growth centres that are not directly connected to the rail network
x
While many growth centres are well connected to the rail network, a number of growth centres are not, so there is a need is to consider access services to these.
Conditional Output Statement
Conditional Output
Current Constraint
8. North-South Links
To be considered following HS2 Phase 2 consultation in 2014
Service improvements should not preclude HS2 implementation or vice versa. In the interim the development of services on the Midland and East Coast Main Lines are supported Local rail services should maximise the distribution of HS2 benefits around the region
9. Links to Airports
Ensure fast, frequent and reliable connectivity between rail hubs and airports Direct hourly connectivity to Manchester Airport (during the period of 90% of passenger throughput) via South Trans Pennine and Calder Valley corridors and half hourly via North Trans Pennine corridor
10. Carbon Reduction
Support the achievement of the overall reduced carbon trajectory for transport sector as adopted by Government
No current rail links to Leeds Bradford Airport and Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield. Improved connectivity from the Calder Valley and South Yorkshire to Manchester Airport is not yet committed
Not all rolling stock meets contemporary emissions standards
Next Steps 32. Taking account of the evidence from this study, the challenge for the rail industry is to work with the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions and find affordable and cost effective ways of delivering as much as possible of the potential benefits identified by this study. In particular: I
Account should be taken of the evidence developed by this study when considering the investment case for rail enhancements benefitting Yorks hire in the next investment period from 2014 to 2019 (known as ‘Control Period 5’). In particular, this study provides further evidence on the case for the delivery of improvements to the South Trans Pennine and Calder Valley routes as part of the second phase of the Northern Hub and for the full delivery of remaining elements of the Northern Hub Strategy. This will benefit access to and across Manchester, and to Manchester Airport, from Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield. This study also supports the case for increased freight capacity to the South Humber Bank, as well as improvements that will benefit passenger services between Leeds and Sheffield via Barnsley and delivering additional capacity at Leeds and Sheffield stations in Control Period 5.
xi
Conditional Output Statement I
xii
The rail industry should undertake work together with the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions and the Department for Transport to develop an affordable and value for money strategy for the national strategic corridor between Leeds and Sheffield and Doncaster and Sheffield also for rail travel within the two city regions for implementation in Control Period 6 (2019-2024). This should include proposals for resolving the remaining capacity bottlenecks around Leeds and Sheffield stations which have not been fully addressed in Control Period 5.
Conditional Output Statement
1
Introduction Context
1.1
Yorkshire’s railways deliver substantial economic benefits and offer a sustainable alternative to road travel. They do this by providing connectivity for passengers and freight within Yorkshire and between Yorkshire and the rest of the country. However, across Yorkshire the ability to accommodate more passengers and a greater volume of freight is increasingly constrained. There are now limited opportunities to enhance connectivity to and between Yorkshire’s most important economic centres. Trains in the commuting peaks and at other times of the day experience over-crowding. For additional demand to be accommodated and the economic and environmental benefits associated with that growth secured, then enhancements to the rail network in Yorkshire will be needed.
1.2
The past 15 years have seen significant growth in passenger and freight use of the rail network across the UK and in Yorkshire specifically. Providing there is available capacity, growth in rail demand is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, which in turn will support further economic growth. On top of this, the evidence is that improving connectivity – making journey times shorter and operating more frequent services – can also deliver significant economic returns.
1.3
Already very worthwhile investment is planned that will benefit Yorkshire. The first phase of Network Rail’s Northern Hub package and electrification of the route between Manchester and York via Leeds are both planned to be implemented by 2018 and will lead to service improvements on the North Trans Pennine route. Funding has also been committed for the second phase of the Northern Hub, including capacity and journey time improvements to the Hope Valley and Calder Valley routes, subject to a value for money investment case being confirmed. In addition, Metro and SYPTE continue to improve existing stations and are building new ones. A nation-wide initiative to introduce a Strategic Freight Network will increase the capacity available for freight to, from and through Yorkshire, as well as make more routes available to the latest generation of intermodal containers hauled on standard wagons. Nonetheless, even with this investment there will remain constraints that will inhibit improving rail's connectivity and the expansion of its capacity. Further enhancement to network capacity and capability is needed to support future economic growth and maximise the returns from planned investment in rail.
Study Objectives 1.4
The goal for this study is twofold. First, it is to reinforce the case for the timely delivery of investment proposed for the rail industry for implementation in the five year funding period to 2019 (‘Control Period 5’) and so secure the benefits that this investment will bring. Second, it is to set the foundation for an assessment of medium term investment needs for rail routes in Yorkshire leading to the identification of preferred options for phased implementation beyond 2019 that have been costed, are affordable and provide value for money.
1
Conditional Output Statement 1.5
To support these two goals, study objectives were agreed by the Steering Group at its meeting on 5th October 2011 and presented to the Stakeholder Meeting on 7 th October. The objectives for the Yorkshire Rail Network Study are to: I
Identify evidence-based rail outputs that will maximise the economic benefits that enhancements to rail’s capability and capacity can deliver to Yorkshire;
I
Support the realisation and maximisation of the economic benefits to Yorkshire of the Northern Hub capacity and capability enhancements;
I
By providing the economic rationale, contribute to the on-going rail investment planning processes to secure investment that would benefit Yorkshire in Control Period 5; and
I
Make the economic case for further longer term enhancements benefiting the Yorkshire rail network’s capacity and capability.
1.6
To achieve these objectives this study provides the evidence base for the potential benefits that improvements to the rail network could generate. There are two sources for this evidence base. One source is the extensive evidence base that has been developed in recent years on how transport and the economy interact. The second source is s pecific analysis that has been undertaken to quantify the potential benefits that enhancements to rail services across the City Regions could generate in terms of additional revenue, reduced journey time, reduced crowding, non-user benefits and wider economic impacts.
1.7
This evidence has been drawn together to inform the development of a set of Conditional Outputs, the principal output of this study. With the goal of supporting economic growth in the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions, the Conditional Outputs codify what the rail industry should strive to deliver and also provides an evidence base that will help the industry to establish the key priority network improvements in the Yorkshire region. The outputs are described as conditional because achieving the outputs is dependent on an affordable and value for money solution being identified.
1.8
This Conditional Output Statement presents those outputs and the evidence (both existing and modelled) that is used to justify these outputs. The supporting Benefit Forecasting Report sets out in detail the analytical evidence that has been developed specifically as part of this study.
1.9
At this stage the study does not consider the cost implications of enhancements to the rail network. Instead the study identifies the corridors and type of services that might return the greatest rates of benefit. This allows those developing future enhancements to the network to focus on areas that might generate the greatest return on investment. It is anticipated that the rail industry will undertake a further study to identify economically viable and affordable solutions to deliver the Conditional Outputs, although the scope of this study has yet to be confirmed.
Study Governance 1.10
The Yorkshire Rail Network Study has been managed by Metro on behalf of the study funders; Metro, SYPTE and Leeds City Region. To maximise the value of the study within the rail industry and ensure support from wider stakeholders , two support groups were established: a Steering Group and a Stakeholder Group.
1.11
The study’s Steering Group was responsible for advising on the strategic context within which the study was delivered and, from a senior stakeholder perspective, challenging the
2
Conditional Output Statement study’s approach and outputs to ensure that relevant issues were appropriately considered. The study’s Steering Group comprised senior manager and director representation from Metro and SYPTE, the DfT, Network Rail and passenger and freight operating companies. The Steering Group was independently chaired by John Jarvis, who was latterly Transport Director for the Northern Way and led the Phase 1 Northern Hub Study. Table 1.1 summarises the Steering Group attendees: TABLE 1.1
STEERING GROUP MEMBERS Chair: John Jarvis Members:
1.12
Ben Still, Director of Strategy, SYPTE
Richard Thompson, Network Rail
David Hoggarth, Director Development,
Rob Warnes, Performance and Planning
M etro
Director, Northern Rail
Brian Welch, DfT
Nick Gibbons, National Planning M anager, DB Schenker
The Stakeholder Group comprised representatives from local authorities, development agencies, business representatives and the rail industry. Consultation with the Stakeholder Group has sought to confirm the wider aspirations for development in the rail network. Feedback from stakeholders on the Conditional Outputs was sought before final publication.
Study Area 1.13
The study has considered rail routes within Leeds and Sheffield City Regions and on routes between the two city regions and other regional and sub-regional centres including Hull, Cleethorpes, Lincoln, Nottingham, and Manchester. The study has not considered enhancements to services to London, Birmingham and north of York. The potential benefits of improvements to such services are already well established and the strategy for their future development is considered at a national level.
1.14
The study has monetised the potential economic benefits that could be generated by improved connectivity (from quicker journeys, more frequent rail services and better connections) and reduced crowding in terms of increased revenue, user journey time savings, non-user benefits and wider economic impacts.
1.15
The size of the study area and nature of services means that it is desirable to identify from which parts of the network and which types of service these benefits are generated. To achieve this, the potential benefits presented in Chapters 4 and 5 have been disaggregated by either stations or corridors. In disaggregating the benefits those where the origin is a regional centre station (Leeds, York, Sheffield, Bradford (Forster Square and Interchange combined), along with Manchester and London) or a sub-regional centre station (Harrogate, Halifax, Huddersfield, Wakefield stations, Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Chesterfield) are shown separately. The underlying rail demand data combines Pontefract Baghill and Monkhill stations as well as Thorne North and South, although in each case the stations are in different corridors. Therefore the benefits as a result of improvements to these stations are also shown separately from the corridor results.
3
Conditional Output Statement 1.16
The remaining stations have been split into the following corridors and are also illustrated in the map in Figure 1.1. Figure 1.2 illustrates the key freight terminals and corridors in the study area. I
Leeds CR Corridors:
I
Inter CR Corridors:
4
5 Towns; Bradford FS; Bradford Interchange; Calderdale; Harrogate – York; Huddersfield; Hull; Ilkley; Leeds – Harrogate; Leeds – York; North Trans-Pennine; Skipton;
Barnsley; Leeds – Doncaster; Penistone; Pontefract Baghill; Bolton - Moorthorpe;
I
Sheffield CR Corridors
I
Doncaster – Cleethorpes; Goole; Lincoln; Midland Main Line; Sheffield – Doncaster; South Trans-Pennine; York – Doncaster;
Other:
Blackpool; ECML North; ECML South; Rochdale; Scarborough; Yorkshire Dales; and Other.
Conditional Output Statement FIGURE 1.1
PASSENGER CORRIDORS
5
Conditional Output Statement FIGURE 1.2
6
FREIGHT CORRIDORS AND TERMINALS
Conditional Output Statement
The Conditional Output Statement 1.17
This document is structured to present the Conditional Outputs alongside the strategic and numeric evidence that has supported the development of the Outputs. This document is structured as follows: Chapter 2 – Strategic Evidence
1.18
Considers the existing evidence base, presented in various studies, strategies and plans, of the economic benefits that improved transport can provide, specifically considering improvements in Yorkshire and the North of England. Chapter 3 – Stakeholder Aspirations
1.19
Presents an overview of the consultation with the Stakeholder Group. The chapter summarises the aspiration for improvements to the rail network identified by stakeholders and shows how these aspirations have been reflected in the Conditional Outputs. Chapter 4 – Modelling Overview
1.20
Provides an overview of the analytical work undertaken and used to derive the disaggregated rates of benefit, including the absolute benefits forecast. The analysis of benefits is based on a theoretical Test Timetable that is used to test the potential economic benefits that could be generated from improvements to the rail network. The Test Timetable includes a range of challenging, but plausible, improvements to services in the study area reflecting the stakeholders’ aspirations for future network development.
1.21
A more detailed Benefit Forecasting Report is available. Chapter 5 –Disaggregated Rates of Benefit
1.22
In this chapter the rates of benefit have been calculated as a £ benefit divided by the generalised time change or number of incremental peak seats. This allows those developing solutions as part of future studies to consider the relative benefits on different corridors while acknowledging that the absolute benefits of the Test Timetable may not be achievable. Chapter 6 – Conditional Output Statement
1.23
Presents the Conditional Outputs set by the study with reference to the supporting evidence.
7
Conditional Output Statement
2
Strategic Evidence Introduction
2.1
There is extensive evidence on how the economic performance of the North of England is affected by transport links in general and rail links in particular. Within this context, there is an extensive and growing evidence base on the importance to Yorkshire's economy of road and rail links within Yorkshire, between Yorkshire and its neighbouring regions, between Yorkshire and London and the South East, and Yorkshire's international connections for both people and goods using air and sea. The available evidence explores the economic gains that can be enjoyed through enhancing these links. Here we review this evidence and identify what it tells us about the economic gains that can be had through enhancing the capacity and capability of Yorkshire's passenger and freight railway.
2.2
The relationship between transport investment and economic growth has been the subject of much research over many years. While our understanding of this interrelationship is improving, there remains, however, scope to argue both the generalities and the specifics of particular pieces of evidence. Nonetheless, this uncertainty does not affect the core conclusions drawn here on the importance of connectivity to the future scale and shape of Yorkshire's economy.
The Government's Vision for Transport 2.3
The economic importance of transport was acknowledged by the Coalition Government when establishing its vision for the nation's transport system in the November 2010 Business Plan for the Department for Transport (DfT). This vision has since been reaffirmed in the January 2011 Local Transport White Paper (DfT, 2011a) and the May 2011 revision of the DfT Business Plan: "Our vision is for a transport system that is an engine for economic growth but one that is also greener and safer and improves quality of life in our communities. By improving the links that help to move goods and people around, and by targeting investment in new projects that promote green growth, we can help to build the balanced, dynamic and low-carbon economy that is essential for our future prosperity." DfT (2011b)
2.4
In the 2010 Spending Review, capital and revenue transport spending was reduced. However, the DfT's reduction in capital spend was lower than the average across all government departments. This was because the contribution that investment in the transport system can make to both the scale and distribution of economic growth was explicitly recognised in the 2010 Spending Review, which states "High quality transport links are essential to underpin a successful economy.… The Spending Review prioritises capital spending on transport projects which can offer high economic returns when compared to investment projects in other sectors. By focusing on projects that deliver greater benefits in return for their costs, the positive impact of capital spending on the wider economy can be maximised."
9
Conditional Output Statement HMT (2010: 22) 2.5
The 2011 National Infrastructure Plan which was published at the end of November alongside the Chancellor's Autumn Statement also identifies the importance of investment in transport infrastructure to the economy: "Evidence shows that investing in economic infrastructure is important for growth and that, for example, building better transport links and energy generation capacity can have a stronger positive effect on GDP per capita than other forms of investment." HMT & IUK (2011: 13)
Regions, City Regions and the Economy 2.6
The importance of the contribution of Britain's city regions to regional and national economic prosperity has become widely recognised. They are the drivers of economic growth, which means that the economic growth of our cities, regional economic growth and economic growth of the country as a whole are inextricably linked. Consequently in recent years supporting the sustainable economic growth of cities has become a centrepiece of urban and transport policy (ODPM (2000), Northern Way (2004), Eddington (2006), Northern Way (2006), Parkinson (2006a), Parkinson (2006b), Northern Way (2007), Department for Transport (DfT) (2007)).
2.7
However, it is also well established that the North's city regions while making a substantial contribution to the national economy, on a per capita basis under perform the national average and city region economies in the South East. Per capita Gross Value Added (GVA) in the North is 80% of the South East. Using prerecession data GVA was 17% lower than the national average in the Leeds City Region (LCR, 2010) and in the Sheffield City Region it was 23% lower (SCR, 2010). The North's city regions are not meeting their full potential (Parkinson (2006a)). While manufacturing in the North remains an important part of the economy and the service sector has been growing, the North has a greater than average proportion of workers in public sector employment.
2.8
During the recession, between Q1 2008 and Q3 2009 the UK economy shrunk by 6.4%. Centre for Cities (2011) identifies that the impacts of the recession have been felt differentially across the country. Using the percentage increase in Job Seekers Allowance claimants as a proxy measure of the state of local economies, cities across the North of England have on average fared worse through the recession than cities in the South. Of the 64 towns and cities considered in the Centre for Cities review, Hull, Grimsby, Doncaster and Sheffield are all in the list of the ten cities with the highest percentage increase in JSA claimants.
2.9
Before the recession, taken together the North's city regions were underperforming economically when compared with the national average. The North's cities including those in Yorkshire have been more severely affected by the recession and the impact of this is that the economic performance gap has widened.
2.10
The policy imperative of supporting growth across the country was recognised by the Coalition Government in its Programme for Government.
10
Conditional Output Statement "We want to create a fairer and more balanced economy, where we are not so dependent on a narrow range of economic sectors, and where new businesses and economic opportunities are more evenly shared between regions and industries." HM Government (2010:9) 2.11
This position has been reinforced by the Prime M inister. Speaking in Yorkshire in May 2010 in his first major speech as Prime Minister, David Cameron said : "Today our economy is heavily reliant on just a few industries and a few regions particularly London and the South East. This really matters. An economy with such a narrow foundation for growth is fundamentally unstable and wasteful - because we are not making use of the talent out there in all parts of our United Kingdom. We are determined that should change." City region economies drive regional and national growth. Yorkshire's city regions perform below the national average and are not meeting their full potential. They have been more affected by the recession than town and cities in the South East. The Government has set out its vision for a fairer and more balanced economy where economic opportunities are more evenly shared.
Connectivity and the Economy 2.12
The importance of connectivity in sustaining local economies and supporting economic growth is widely recognised. Eddington (2006) argued that the UK is already well connected and that the key economic challenge is to improve the performance of existing networks. He argued that to meet its economic goals of supporting sustainable growth, Government should prioritise "action on those parts of the system where networks are critical in supporting economic growth and that there are clear signals that these networks are not performing" (Eddington (2006:6)). To Eddington, this means concentrating on the capacity and performance of existing links. However, while arguing that the nation is broadly well connected, he recognised that there could be a case for "the addition of new links to support the growth and performance of the labour market in growing and congested urban areas" (Eddington (2006:13)). This led to a policy prescription from Eddington that: "[t]he strategic economic priorities for transport policy should be: congested and growing urban areas and their catchments; together with key inter-urban corridors and key international gateways that are s howing signs of increasing congestion and unreliability." Eddington (2006:32)
2.13
Eddington's policy prescription has recently been re-considered by the House of Commons Transport Committee. A key question that the Committee considered was whether in the light of the recession the approach put forward by Eddington remained sound or whether an alternative approach is now needed. The Committee noted that:
11
Conditional Output Statement "Despite changes in economic conditions and transport demand, the predominant view of our witnesses, including the DfT, academics, business groups, local authorities and transport professionals was that Eddington's broad analysis of the linkages between transport and the economy held true. The DfT's conclusion was that, despite the lower rates of GDP and transport growth, Eddington's analysis that well-targeted investment in transport remained an important contributor to [economic growth] remained valid." Transport Committee (2011:9) 2.14
The Committee went on to conclude, "despite GDP, traffic volumes and public spending being at levels somewhat lower than Eddington envisaged, it is clear to us that investment in the transport system remains a high priority in order to support economic growth. Congestion on road, rail and air networks remains a major constraint on growth" (Transport Committee (2011:11)) To support economic growth there needs to be adequate network capacity and capability, so that journeys can be made reliably and with reasonable journey times: I
within city regions;
I
between city regions; and
I
to access international gateways.
Not all city regions are equally well connected. Facilitating economic growth may require provision of new network capacity and capability.
Connectivity and the North's City Regions 2.15
The Northern Way (2004) in its Growth Strategy identified a number of reasons why there is a differential economic performance between the North and the South, and between the city regions of the North. Each is strongly influenced by the historic legacy of the Northern economy which was largely dependent on manufacturing and extractive industries, but since the 1970s has experienced a significant shift away from these traditional industries to a more service-based economy (although manufacturing remains an important industry in the North, for example the steel industry continues to be a key component of the Sheffield city region economy).
2.16
To address the underperformance of the North's economy, the Northern Way Growth Strategy identified the importance of enhancing the North's skill base, supporting the development of a more entrepreneurial culture, supporting greater innovation by firms in the North, promoting more sustainable communities, raising the international profile of the North and enhancing the North's connectivity.
2.17
The Northern Way Growth Strategy echoed the findings of others that while good connectivity alone is not a sufficient condition to support economic growth it is a necessary one. Similar conclusions were made by Parkinson et al (2006a, 2006b) and the Institute of Political and Economic Governance (IPEG) et al (2008), who in particular found that, "whilst it is not an absolute truth to claim that places
12
Conditional Output Statement become economically successful because they are well connected, [we] found powerful evidence of correspondence between the two" (IPEG (2008:18)). 2.18
While pre-dating Eddington, with regard to connectivity the Growth Strategy identifies a policy prescription almost identical to that later piece of work, namely: I
enhancing links within the North's city regions, particularly by public transport
I
enhancing links between the North's city regions, notably the Leeds Manchester corridor which plays a fundamental role linking the North's city region economies; and
I
enhancing links to port and airport international gateways, both in the North and elsewhere in the UK.
There is strong evidence to support the contention that enhancing connectivity within the North's city regions, between the North's city regions and to international gateways needs to be an integral part of any strategy to accelerate the North's economic growth.
Connectivity between the City Regions 2.19
Ensuring appropriate and adequate connectivity within and between city regions, and to and from international gateways is an integral part of the policy prescription from Eddington. Looking at the North overall, the Northern Way identified that existing connectivity between the North's city regions is an impediment to maximising the rate of economic growth in the North. Focussing on Yorkshire, this suggests a need to consider connectivity between the Leeds and Sheffield city regions, as well as the connectivity between these city regions and city regions in the North West, East Midlands and North East.
2.20
Moving beyond the general prescription of Eddington that links between and within city regions are important to economic growth, how the city regions in the North interact and the importance of linkages between them has been explored in some depth as part of a North-wide analysis by IPEG et al (2008) for the Northern Way. The IPEG study used a mixture of targeted surveys, analyses of econometric data and analyses of secondary data sources. It explores three themes: the roles and economic functions of the North's city regions, connectivity within and between city regions and how the North's city regions stand within a national hierarchy.
2.21
IPEG et al concluded: "the prosperity of the North as a whole will be increasingly driven by the economic performance of the Manchester and Leeds city regions and the putative growth belt that connects them to the Sheffield and Liverpool city regions, the smaller outlying growth centres around York, Chester and Preston and the Tyne and Wear city region in the North East" IPEG et al (2008:35) and:
13
Conditional Output Statement "This invites…a strategic approach to inter-city connectivity focused upon prioritising interaction between relative 'equals' (for instance Manchester and Leeds) or between centres which vary in their economic specialisms (for instance Liverpool and Manchester) which would also improve the labour market between them. There would appear to be particular value in developing this approach to promoting cross-Pennine links - including better access to Manchester Airport from Leeds - given that the Pennines continue to act as a barrier to realising the joint agglomeration potential of the North's largest and most dynamic city regions" IPEG et al (2008:37) 2.22
Building from the work by IPEG et al, as part of its Research Programme, the Northern Way sponsored work by the LSE's Spatial Economics Research Centre (SERC) that has extended further the evidence base on the relationship between transport supply and economic links between Leeds and Manchester. A primary finding of this work (SERC, 2009) is that when compared with other city pairs in Great Britain, commuting between the Manchester and Leeds City Regions is 40% lower than expected given the physical proximity of the two cities. This is explained by overall transport costs and travel time between the two city-regions. SERC go on to say that tackling factors which hamper integration between the two cities, such as transport costs and skills, could have economic benefits which extend across the wider North. Using a model that considers the interaction between the two city region economies (a heterogeneous firms model) SERC concluded that: I
A 20 minute reduction in train journey times between Manchester and Leeds would be worth £6.7 billion across the whole of the North of England;
I
£2.7 billion of this would be captured within the two city regions; and
I
The same reduction in journey time could increase wages in the two cities by between 1% and 3%.
2.23
When considering these figures it is important to note, however, that they are not directly comparable with the estimates of welfare benefits captured by a conventional DfT-style transport cost benefits analysis. In particular, the SERC work does not adopt the transport cost benefit analysis assumptions that the patterns of land use and employment and the structure of the economy is not significantly changed by the transport intervention under study.
2.24
SERC go on to conclude that that securing these benefits will require a structural change affecting industrial structure and skills -mix alongside enhancements to transport links.
2.25
To support the development of its Strategic Direction for Transport, the Northern Way commissioned work that examined the potential economic benefits of enhancing links within and between the Leeds and Sheffield city regions. Steer Davies Gleave (2006) used a model of South and West Yorkshire which simulates how the rate of growth of the economy is affected by transport supply and its use to examine the impact of different intervention strategies on the economic growth of the two city regions. This work found that a strategy focussed on improving links wholly within a city region resulted in economic growth in the largest of the two city region economies under study at the expense of the smaller one. A strategy of
14
Conditional Output Statement improving links between city regions leads to more balanced growth, with both the larger and the smaller city region economies growing. 2.26
In a study undertaken for Manchester and Sheffield City Councils that explored the economic linkages between the Manchester and Sheffield city regions, Ekosgen found that both the Manchester and Sheffield economies could benefit from greater economic interaction but that at present this is less than would be expected for city regions of such proximity. Poor transport connectivity is a key factor in this lower than anticipated level of economic interaction. Ekosgen (2008:4) concluded that "it is important in the context of city competiveness that physical connections between the cities improve. Addressing constraints on rail connectivity and developing a strategy for the future would deliver significant benefits." In addition, Ekosgen highlighted the particular importance of links from the Sheffield city region to Manchester Airport. Enhancing links between the city regions will support and facilitate future economic growth. Enhancing the trans-Pennine corridor will support growth of Leeds and Manchester, the North's two largest city region economies and will also benefit the wider North. The Leeds - Sheffield corridor links the two largest city region economies in Yorkshire and its enhancement will support balanced growth in the region. Enhancing the Sheffield - Manchester corridor would support greater interaction between these two city regions.
Connectivity within City Regions 2.27
As has already been highlighted, city regions are seen as the engines of economic growth. The importance of connectivity within city regions to support economic growth has been identified by the Northern Way Growth Strategy (Northern Way, 2004), the Northern Way's Strategic Direction for Transport (2006) and by Eddington (2006). Both the Leeds and Sheffield city regions have identified the importance of enhancing connectivity within city regions to support future economic growth. In this context, the Manchester Independent Economic Review (2009) has identified that in general transport enhancements have the potential to give greater economic returns than capital investments in other sectors within a city region.
2.28
Prior to the recession road networks across the North were operating at or close to their operational capacity in peak hours (Steer Davies Gleave, 2008b). During the recession many areas experienced a reduction in traffic volumes and this is most notable when looking at goods vehicle flows on the motorway network. Nonetheless congestion remains and it should be anticipated that a period of sustained economic growth would result in traffic levels returning to their prerecession levels. Even with the recession-induced reduction in traffic levels, congestion remains a facet of inter-urban and city region road networks in Yorkshire.
2.29
Congestion leads to extended journey times and unreliable journeys. This has an economic cost. Significantly, there is little capacity for peak hour trip growth by road, with growth in trip making accommodated by either peak spreading (which
15
Conditional Output Statement in turn results in congestion being experienced in other time periods) or by increasing public transport use. 2.30
This is the experience of Leeds, the most significant city economy in Yorkshire. Pre-recession, Leeds city centre experienced employment growth without a commensurate growth in peak hour car commuting. However, Leeds did experience a significant growth in peak hour rail travel (Metro (2008)). This led to the conclusion that it is public transport which facilitated the growth in city centre employment. Much of this growth occurred at a time when rail had a degree of excess capacity and was able to accommodate growth. However, pre-recession ontrain crowding was becoming significant (Network Rail (2009)) and the absence of capacity to accommodate further growth in peak period rail trip making had been identified as a threat to the city's future economic growth. This finding is supported by more recent work for ATOC which indicates that additional rolling stock that has been introduced to some lines in Yorkshire in recent years has facilitated continuing growth which otherwise would not have occurred due to crowding (Mott MacDonald, 2011). Overall capacity is a function of train capacity and the capacity and capability of the network. While similar detailed analysis is not available for Sheffield, Network Rail (2009) identifies peak on-train crowding as a constraint for services to Sheffield too.
2.31
Data from the Office of Rail Regulation (Delta Rail (2011)) suggests that total annual demand at Leeds City Station decreased by 2% between 2008/09 and 2009/10, while demand at Sheffield station increased by around 3% in the same period. While a degree of caution needs to be expressed when considering what this means for peak hour crowding, it is safe to say that the recession has had no tangible impact on the level of on-train crowding on services to these two principal stations and that moving forward there is limited capacity to accommodate any additional employment-driven growth in rail demand into the two city centres. The Leeds and Sheffield focussed commuter rail networks have facilitated sustainable economic growth by supporting growth in city centre employment. However, on-train crowding and the current scope and reach of the network limits the scope for future growth.
2.32
16
By comparing the economic interactions between Reading and London, and Burnley and Manchester, Centre for Cities (2008) focussed on the links between large city region economies and smaller towns and cities that fall within their economic influence. They found that towns such as Burnley are not integrated within the Manchester labour market despite being close in terms of distance. This was in marked contrast to the situation observed between Reading and London where Centre for Cities identified a strong economic interaction. They went on to identify the strong transport links between Reading and London and the poor transport links between Burnley and Manchester as explanatory factors. They conclude "the issues of connectivity between core cities and their neighbouring areas play a key role in explaining differences in regional economic performance
Conditional Output Statement between the North and Greater South East" (Centre for Cities (2008:18)) leading to a prescription that enhanced links between core cities in the North (such as Leeds and Sheffield) and smaller nearby towns would increase the spill-over effects from the larger economy and boost economic growth. 2.33
Supported by the Northern Way's Research Programme, further work has been undertaken to look at the spill-over effects from stronger to weaker economies identified by Centre for Cities. This work (The Work Foundation et al, 2009) identified a typology of links between towns and the dominant city centre within a city region. This work looked at the Leeds and Sheffield city regions, as well as other city regions in the North. It concluded that it is clear that different places have different economic roles within a city region depending on a number of factors including skills, transport, firm links, the 'pull' of economic centres, industrial history, and quality of place and housing.
2.34
The Work Foundation et al went on to conclude that a deeper appreciation of different roles and influencing factors can support policy makers in maximising benefits from city relationships. Promoting growth in the economic core has the potential to benefit other cities and towns of a city region, provided there is investment in links to the economic centre. The way in which cities and towns can benefit from this relationship and link to the economic centre will vary depending on whether their role is dependent, interdependent, independent or isolated, on the type of city region and on the firm links within the city region. Linking areas of economic need such as the southern parts of the Leeds City Region and the Dearne Valley with locations with stronger economic growth like Leeds and Sheffield city centres supports the stronger areas by extending labour markets, while at the same time facilitating spill over effects into the weaker areas.
The Work Foundation City Linkage Typology Independent: Labour market B independent from Economic Centre A but with strong labour market of its own (City B has strong economy and weak labour market links with Economic Centre A) Isolated: Labour market B independent from Economic Centre A and with weak labour market of its own (City B has weak economy and weak labour market links with Economic Centre A) Dependent: Labour market B dependent on Economic centre A (City B has a variable economy and strong labour market links with Economic centre A) Interdependent: Labour market B interdependent with Economic Centre A (City B has strong economy and strong labour market links with Economic Centre A)
17
Conditional Output Statement
Source: The Work Foundation et al (2009)
International Links Airports 2.35
18
Thus far we have summarised the evidence on the importance to future economic growth of links within and between city regions and links within city regions. Also of importance is international connectivity. York Aviation (2006) has identified the economic impacts of air transport:
Conditional Output Statement
2.36
I
Direct impacts: employment, income or outputs that are wholly or largely related to the operation of an airport and are generated either on-site or in the surrounding area
I
Indirect impacts: employment, income or outputs that are in the chain of suppliers of goods and services to the direct activities
I
Induced impacts: employment, income or outputs that are due to household spending resulting from direct and indirect employment
I
Catalytic impacts: employment, income or outputs that are generated by new businesses locating to the region, inward investments and inbound tourism; and
I
Productivity/competitive advantage impacts: employment, income or outputs gains amongst existing businesses in the economy due to increased export volumes and productivity improvements.
As York Aviation highlight, while challenging to quantify, the consensus is that the catalytic impacts and the productivity and competitive advantage impacts of air transport greatly outweigh the direct, indirect and induced impacts. These significant impacts come about because provision of international air services: I
is an important element in company location decisions. The presence of an international airport can be an important factor in:
attracting new investment from outside the area, and especially companies from overseas; retaining existing companies in the area, whether they had previously been inward investors or indigenous operations; securing the expansion of existing companies in the face of competition with other areas;
I
promotes the export success of companies located in the area by the provision of passenger and freight links to key markets;
I
enhances the competitiveness of the economy, and the companies in it, through its fast and efficient passenger and freight services;
I
attracts inbound tourism, including both business and leisure visitors, to the area.
2.37
As the Northern Way (2008) shows, Manchester Airport is the most significant airport in the North, catering for more passengers than all the other northern airports combined. It is the only airport in the North with a network of intercontinental scheduled services and the only airport in the North that caters for a substantial volume of air freight. It is the largest airport in the UK outside the South East.
2.38
The Northern Way (2008) also identifies the important roles played by Leeds Bradford and Robin Hood Doncaster Sheffield airports. Leeds Bradford has experienced strong rates of growth anchored by expansion of services offered by low cost carriers. Robin Hood Doncaster Sheffield has also become established in recent years.
2.39
Manchester Airport (2007) has identified that surface access capacity is the most significant constraint on its future growth and therefore the economic benefits that it can help deliver to the Northern economy. It has identified increasing
19
Conditional Output Statement public transport mode share as the most effective and efficient way of overcoming these constraints. 2.40
Unpublished market research undertaken in 2005 for Trans Pennine Express (ORC International, 2005) has demonstrated that air passengers have a high awareness of rail as an access option to Manchester Airport, but rail's operating hours does not allow them to arrive at the airport in time for their departing flight or to use rail for the return journey. The same research also shows that for those air passengers who consider using rail the three most significant deterrents were the frequency of service, journey reliability and lack of a direct service.
2.41
The importance of direct services has been quantified by Lythgoe and Wardman (2002), who demonstrated that air passengers using rail to access an airport have a greater values of time and that they place a greater penalty on interchange than other types of rail passenger. Interestingly, Lythgoe and Wardman also showed that the elasticity to GDP of air travellers is greater than for other rail passengers (this means that the number of air passengers using rail grows at a faster rate for each unit of GDP growth than other rail passengers). The finding on interchange has been reinforced by work by consultants LEK (2003). This work reported statistical analysis which showed that whether or not locations were linked by direct services to Manchester Airport was a significant explanatory variable for rail mode share, with those locations with direct services having a higher mode share. Sheffield and Doncaster have direct rail services to Manchester Airport (1 tph), as do Huddersfield, Leeds and York (2 tph).
2.42
The importance of direct rail services to airports has also been demonstrated in DfT-commissioned qualitative research on air passengers' journey experiences by Sykes and Desai (2009:17) which reported, "where available, trains were regarded as a good alternative to road travel by some respondents, especially where the train route was straightforward and services frequent and reliable. However, participants also worried about unscheduled cancellations of train services, delays and missed connections over which they had little control."
2.43
While the evidence on rail access to Northern airports has focussed on Manchester Airports, the evidence that direct and reliable rail services maximise rail mode share is very strong and is consistent with findings from across the world. Also needed are train services with operating hours that make rail an attractive option for the departure and arrival leg of a passenger's journey. It is safe to generalise these findings when considering if rail could play a worthwhile role in serving the surface access needs of the two Yorkshire airports Through its international connectivity Manchester Airport delivers substantial economic benefits to Yorkshire. These benefits will grow as the Airport grows. Surface access capacity is the most significant constraint to Manchester Airport's future growth. Increasing rail mode share for journeys between Yorkshire & Manchester Airport will support the Airport's growth which in turn will deliver economic benefits to Yorkshire business and leisure travellers.
20
Conditional Output Statement
Surface access to Leeds Bradford and Robin Hood Doncaster Sheffield airports is primarily affected by road connectivity and congestion. For rail to play a worthwhile role the available evidence identifies the importance of direct services at an attractive frequency operating over much of the day.
Ports 2.44
As the Northern Way (2008) identifies, the three estuarial port complexes in the North around the Humber, the Tees and the Mersey serve national roles. Measured by tonnes lifted in 2010, Grimsby and Immingham on the Humber is the largest port in the country, Tees and Hartlepool is ranked fifth and the Port of Liverpool seventh. These northern ports are national assets. The Mersey ports are the principal national gateway port for short sea shipping to Ireland and deep sea shipping to North America. The Tees and Humber ports are best located to serve the Scandinavian, Baltic and North European markets. The hinterland of the North's ports extends well beyond the three northern regions into the Midlands and Scotland, and into the South East for some traffic.
2.45
These ports play a significant role in the economy of each of the regions within which they sit. This is through their direct contributions to employment, and through associated benefits that are opened up by the linkages created and that attract investment and business to the area. As MDS Transmodal (2006) identify, in a similar way to airports there are direct, indirect and induced economic impacts of ports, as well as catalytic impacts. Given that the vast majority of imported and exported goods arrive and depart by sea, these wider impacts are clearly substantial and are likely to be far greater in magnitude than the direct impacts which can be quantified.
2.46
Before the recession, in 2007 together the North's ports catered for 34% of the tonnes handled at all UK ports. In the decade to 2007 the North's ports grew at a faster rate than those in the South and consequently their market share increased (from 30% in 1999). However, port throughput has fallen during the recession and the North's market share has fallen back. In 2010, national port throughput was 13% lower than in 2005. Overall throughput is now growing again.
2.47
Already rail is an important mode for moving goods to and from the North's ports. As Network Rail (2009:30) notes ''some of the busiest freight corridors in the UK are to be found within the Yorkshire and Humber area, particularly on the south bank of the Humber and the area represents a key element in the UK rail network for the movement of bulk freight".
2.48
As MDS Transmodal (2006) highlights, the growth prospects of the Northern ports are strong and given road and rail congestion in the south and the Government's desire to rebalance the economy, this remains the case. The strongest growth is expected in the market for inter-modal containers (nationally, inter-modal container traffic grew by 5% between 2009 and 2010). Given increasing congestion on the North's motorway network, provided there is sufficient capacity and capability this will result in increased demand for movement of containers by rail to and from the North's ports, including on the trans-Pennine corridor. Growth will
21
Conditional Output Statement also increase demand for containers being carried by rail between the South Coast ports (the Haven ports and Southampton) and the North. 2.49
The Northern Way identified the lack of physical capability of the rail network to cater for maritime containers on standard wagons as a constraint to the growth of the North's ports. As the Northern Way (2010) sets out, enhancing the capability of the rail network to address this connectivity gap requires 'gauge clearance' work on the existing rail lines. The East Coast Main Line as well as routes to the Tees and Humber ports and a route between Yorkshire and the East and West Midlands are all being gauge cleared as part of the Strategic Freight Network initiative. The North's ports provide substantial economic benefits to the North which will grow as the throughput grows. Growth in throughput of inter-modal containers combined with increasing congestion on the strategic roads network will increase the demand to move containers by rail, both to/from the North's ports and between the South Coast ports and the North. Gauge clearance of the links between the North East and Humber ports to markets in the Midlands and Scotland is being advanced, but the absence of a gauge cleared route across the Pennines is a constraint. Planned electrification of the North Trans Pennine route creates an opportunity to create a gauge cleared route at marginal cost.
How Enhancing Connectivity Leads to Economic Growth 2.50
2.51
22
Eddington (2006) set out how enhancing connectivity leads to economic growth. This has been summarised by the House of Commons Transport Committee (2011) as: I
Improved business efficiency, notably by travel time savings, improving journey time reliability and travel quality;
I
Stimulating business investment and innovation by supporting economies of scale and new ways of working;
I
Agglomeration economies which bring firms closer (in space or time) to other firms or workers in the same sector ;
I
Improved labour market efficiency, enabling firms to access a larger labour supply, and wider employment opportunities for workers and those seeking work;
I
Increasing competition by opening access to new markets, principally by integration of world markets;
I
Increasing domestic and international trade by reducing trading costs; and
I
Attracting globally mobile activity to the UK, by providing an attractive business environment and good quality of life.
The contribution that enhanced transport links make to productivity is captured through what are usually described as 'conventional' economic benefits and 'wider' impacts. Through demand forecasting and application of cost benefit analysis it is possible to monetise both conventional and wider impacts. The net welfare impact on the economy is the sum of the conventional and wider impacts. However, not
Conditional Output Statement all of these welfare benefits have a direct link to productivity. Those benefits that have a direct link to productivity include time savings enjoyed by those travelling for business purposes and time savings and cost savings to freight traffic. They also include the so-called wider impacts, such as agglomeration benefits. However, and in part because of the assumptions on changes in land use, population and employment that underpin a cost benefit analysis of a transport scheme, not all of the GVA impacts of a transport investment are captured in the welfare assessment of a scheme's economic worth. 2.52
The relationship between conventionally measured welfare benefits, wider economic benefits and productivity gains is shown in the figure below taken from Steer Davies Gleave (2008a). FIGURE 2.1
WIDER ECONOMIC IMPACTS Non-work related user benefits
(commuting, leisure etc) Other benefits (safety, emissions etc)
Benefits captured in conventional appraisal
Reduced Business Costs
Labour Market Impacts
Net Element
Productivity
gains Agglomeration
(Captured in commuting user benefits)
Wider impacts
Imperfect competition
2.53
Within the conventional benefit framework, journey time savings for people travelling for business purposes have a greater contribution to the economy than people travelling to and from work, which in turn have a greater contribution that people travelling for leisure purposes (for example to go shopping, or visiting friends and relatives).
2.54
From the work of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA 1999) and others it became clear that the benefits captured in the conventional framework may not be complete in all circumstances and that there are a number of 'wider' impacts that enhanced transport links may deliver. The Department for Transport (2005) has set out what these are: I
More people choosing to work;
I
People choosing to work longer hours;
I
Relocation to higher productivity locations;
23
Conditional Output Statement I
Agglomeration benefits; and
I
Redress impacts of imperfect competition.
2.55
Agglomeration benefits, which come about by extending the effective area that businesses can attract labour and extending the number of potential linkages between businesses that can trade with each other, have been identified as the most significant of the wider economic benefits.
2.56
Work by the Institute for Transport Studies (ITS, 2009) has identified a theoretical case for further wider impacts that do not form part of the current cost benefit framework. These 'regeneration wider impacts' occur in areas where there is structural unemployment and transport investment enhances connectivity to areas of employment opportunity. The welfare impact on the economy of enhancements to the transport system is the sum of conventional economic benefits and wider impacts. Agglomeration benefits are the most significant of the wider economic benefits. However, not all welfare benefits have a direct link to productivity.
2.57
Work by Steer Davies Gleave (2006) which explored how enhancing trans port links within and between city regions can lead to economic benefits led to one of the central positions of the Northern Way's Strategic Direction for Transport (Northern Way, 2006), namely that for the benefits of economic growth in the North to be distributed across the North, a balanced approach of enhancing links both within and between the North's city regions is required.
2.58
This finding was further reinforced by a subsequent study (Steer Davies Gleave, 2007a) which applied a more advanced version of the model used in the earlier work, but this time instead of considering the impact of broad strategies to enhance transport links considered the agglomeration benefits of packages of proposed interventions to improve public transport links. These packages included one focussed at improving links wholly within the Leeds City Regions and one focussed at improving links on the trans-Pennine corridor. This work showed that the inclusion of agglomeration benefits increased the benefits of the within city region package by 25% and the trans-Pennine package by 12%. Significantly, because typically inter-regional schemes deliver greater benefits than within-city region schemes (albeit usually at greater cost) the quantum of agglomeration benefits was much greater than for the city region package. This led to the finding that while the inclusion of agglomeration within cost benefit analysis can have the greatest impact on the value for money case of city region schemes, it also shows that inter-regional schemes can have a much greater beneficial impact on productivity growth than previously understood. The work by SERC (2009) looking at the Manchester - Leeds corridor has further reinforced this conclusion. To ensure that city regions across the North enjoy economic growth a balanced approach that enhances links within city regions and between city regions is required.
24
Conditional Output Statement 2.59
An underpinning assumption for the methodologies employed to estimate welfare benefits is that the transport intervention under consideration does not have an impact on the number of people employed or on the structure of the economy. In particular it is a standard assumption that the pattern of land use (that is the distribution of population and employment) is invariant between the do-minimum and do-something scenarios. However, over time transport investments can and do affect where people live and work. Indeed part of the rationale for a number of significant investments is to realise changes in the distribution of population and employment and so economic activity.
2.60
There is a growing body of work that is seeking to identify the impacts that transport enhancement can have on the economy through supporting structural economic change. Such work includes that by SERC (2009) and Greengauge21 (2010). This work suggests that well targeted transport investment can have a substantial economic impact greatly in excess of the impact suggested by a conventional welfare assessment through facilitating beneficial patterns of land use development and/or structural changes to the economy (including wage rates).
2.61
Work in this area, however, remains an emerging field and as yet there is no consensus on appropriate methodologies or the scale of the impact of different types of transport intervention. Institute for Transport Studies (2010) has reviewed the methods that have been developed to assess the GVA impacts of transport investment. ITS identified:
2.62
I
Transport investment can both stimulate a local economy and lead to redistribution of economic activity from elsewhere. The redistribution of economic activity due to a transport investment is important. The available evidence suggests that redistribution effects are stronger than local productivity gains;
I
In turn, this reinforces the benefit in distinguishing between people-based productivity effects and place-based productivity effects. People-based effects come about from the migration of productive labour and are principally associated with re-distribution. It is place-based effects (such as greater agglomeration) that determine the net increase in national productivity;
I
From the work to date, the contribution of different transport modes to productivity appears very different. The GVA benefits of rail investments can be large and overall the evidence thus far suggests that on a per traveller basis, rail investment has a greater productivity impact than road investment; and
I
Changes in productivity associated with rail schemes are particularly driven by productivity changes of medium skilled workers.
The ITS work also identifies a number of further issues which are important when considering how these new approaches are used to inform decision making: namely, how much is spent on enhancing the transport system and where is that expenditure directed. Conventional cost benefit analysis takes an equity approach, that is the value for money case of a transport investment is a function of its use and how much it costs, not where it is located. In the GVA benefit calculations, both location and the area over which impacts are assess ed are important influences on the derived estimates of GVA uplift.
25
Conditional Output Statement 2.63
ITS (2010) also identifies that the estimates of GVA uplift is a measure of economic potential rather than an assessment of the actual impact on the economy of a particular transport investment. For this potential to be realised, further investments may be needed in, for example, sites and premises or skills and training. The nature of these additional investments is unspecified and uncosted in the GVA assessment methods. It seems important that alongside the GVA assessment, work is undertaken to understand the capacity of a local economy to deliver the projected economic potential. Emerging evidence suggests that transport investments that are anticipated to have a structural impact on the economy can have an impact far greater than conventional transport cost benefit analysis would suggest.
Supporting City Region Growth 2.64
Both Leeds and Sheffield have contemporary city region transport strategies.
2.65
The Leeds City Region Transport Strategy (Leeds City Region (2009)) identifies a number of spatial priorities for development and regeneration: I
Develop the role of Leeds as a regional city and transform the role of Bradford;
I
Develop enhanced and complementary roles for the sub-regional cities and towns: Barnsley (including the Accessibility Improvement Zone and New Growth Point proposals); Halifax (including Calderdale New Growth Point proposals); Harrogate; Huddersfield (including Kirklees Strategic Economic Zone); Wakefield and York;
I
Support the Coalfield Regeneration Area in Wakefield district;
I
Increase employment opportunities in the Airedale corridor (Bradford to Skipton);
I
Deliver housing regeneration, housing growth and economic development in Aire Valley Leeds;
I
Develop Dewsbury's role by delivering regeneration and housing renewal and development; and
I
Deliver new homes and a new central business district in York North West.
2.66
The Leeds City Region Transport Strategy identifies that these spatial priorities would be supported by enhanced connectivity on the trans -Pennine corridor to Manchester and Manchester Airport, to Sheffield City Region and London, to Leeds Bradford Airport and for rail freight to the Humber ports.
2.67
The Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy (Sheffield City Region (2011)) was developed in parallel to the third local transport plan for South Yorkshire, which was adopted by the Integrated Transport Authority in April 2011. This identifies that business growth in the Sheffield City Region would be supported by improved interurban connectivity through strengthening rail links to London, Manchester, Leeds and Nottingham on the Midland Main Line, East Coast Main Line and transPennine routes. It also notes that employment opportunities would be enhanced by enhanced connectivity to major regeneration areas, for example in East Doncaster,
26
Conditional Output Statement the Dearne Valley, Rossington, Waverley, the Lower Don Valley, Markham Vale and Junctions 36-37 of the M1. The Leeds and Sheffield city regions have identified spatial priorities for development and regeneration. Each has highlighted that enhanced connectivity could support these priorities. Cost effective rail enhancement will be an option to support some of these priorities, but not all.
Concluding Remarks 2.68
From the review of evidence on the interaction of transport and the economy and work that has considered the trans-Pennine corridor, it can be concluded that: I
City region economies drive regional and national growth. The North's city regions perform below the national average and are not meeting their full potential. They have been more affected by the recession than cities in the South. The Government has set out its vision for a fairer and more balanced economy where economic opportunities are more evenly shared.
I
To support economic growth there needs to be adequate capacity, so that journeys can be made reliably and with reasonable journey times:
within city regions; between city regions; and to access international gateways.
I
Not all city regions are equally well connected. Facilitating economic growth may require provision of new links to provide new capacity and capability.
I
There is strong evidence to support the contention that enhancing connectivity within the North's city regions, between the North's city regions and to international gateways needs to be an integral part of any strategy to accelerate the North's economic growth.
I
Enhancing links between the city regions will support and facilitate future economic growth. Enhancing the trans-Pennine corridor will support growth of Leeds and Manchester, the North's two largest city region economies and will also benefit the wider North. The Leeds - Sheffield corridor links the two largest city region economies in Yorkshire and its enhancement will support balanced growth in the region.
I
The Leeds and Sheffield focussed commuter rail networks have facilitated sustainable economic growth by supporting growth in city centre employment. However, on-train crowding and the current scope and reach of the network limit the scope for future growth.
I
Linking areas of economic need such as the southern parts of the Leeds City Region and the Dearne Valley with locations with stronger economic growth like Leeds and Sheffield city centres supports the stronger areas by extending labour markets, while at the same time facilitating spill over effects into the weaker areas.
I
Through its international connectivity Manchester Airport delivers substantial economic benefits to Yorkshire. These benefits will grow as the Airport grows. Surface access capacity is the most significant constraint to Manchester
27
Conditional Output Statement Airport's future growth. Increasing rail mode share for journeys between Yorkshire & Manchester Airport will support the Airport's growth which in turn will deliver economic benefits to Yorkshire business and leisure travellers. Surface access to Leeds Bradford and Robin Hood Doncaster Sheffield airports is primarily affected by road connectivity and congestion. For rail to play a worthwhile role the available evidence identifies the importance of direct services at an attractive frequency operating over much of the day.
28
I
The North's ports provide substantial economic benefits to the North which will grow as the throughput grows. Growth in throughput of inter-modal containers combined with increasing congestion on the strategic road network will increase the demand to move containers by rail, both to/from the North's ports and between the South Coast ports and the North. Gauge clearance of the links between the North East and Humber ports to markets in the Midlands and Scotland is being advanced, but the absence of a gauge cleared route across the Pennines is a constraint.
I
To ensure that city regions across the North enjoy economic growth a balanced approach that enhances links within city regions and between city regions is required.
I
Emerging evidence suggests that transport investments that are anticipated to have a structural impact on the economy can have an impact far greater than conventional transport cost benefit analysis would suggest.
I
The Leeds and Sheffield city regions have identified spatial priorities for development and regeneration. Each has highlighted that enhanced connectivity could support these priorities. Cost effective rail enhancement will be an option to support some of these priorities, but not all.
Conditional Output Statement
3
Stakeholder Aspirations Stakeholder Group
3.1
To shape the development of the Conditional Outputs, the study sought to capture local aspirations for the development of the rail network. To achieve this, a study stakeholder group was established, with members drawn from local authorities, development agencies, business representatives and the rail industry.
Stakeholder Event 3.2
A stakeholder event was held in Leeds on 7 th October 2011. The objectives of this event were to inform stakeholders of the study’s remit and timescales and to ascertain from stakeholders their aspirations for the development of Yorkshire’s rail network.
3.3
The stakeholder event identified the following key themes that have been considered in developing the evidence base and Conditional Outputs:
3.4
I
Theme 1: The Need for Economic Growth;
I
Theme 2: Barriers to Growth;
I
Theme 3: Improved Passenger Connectivity – through increased frequency, reduced journey times and provision of more direct services;
I
Theme 4: Consistency/Quality; and
I
Theme 5: Freight Network Capability.
The feedback from Theme 3 has been specifically considered in the formation of the test timetable that underpins the modelling work and is therefore a key input into the study’s analytical process.
Stakeholder Aspirations for Improvements 3.5
3.6
The stakeholders’ feedback has been grouped further into the following aspirations for the Yorkshire Rail Network: I
Access to the rail network and station quality;
I
Connectivity to key regional centres including Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester;
I
Connectivity to and between sub-regional centres including Bradford, Huddersfield, Wakefield, Barnsley and Doncaster;
I
Consistent quality of journey experience; and
I
Enhanced freight capability.
The following table demonstrates the link between these aspirations and the Conditional Outputs. In addition the table considers the overarching national objectives for the rail industry in terms of increasing the value of the rail industry and reducing the environmental impact of the rail industry.
29
Conditional Output Statement TABLE 3.1
STAKEHOLDER ASPIRATIONS V CONDITIONAL OUTPUTS
Aspiration / Objective
Conditional Output
Access to the rail network and station quality
6) Access to the Network 7) Growth centres 9) Links to Airports
Connectivity to key regional centres including Leeds, Sheffield and M anchester
1) Connectivity
Connectivity to and between sub-regional centres including Bradford, Huddersfield, Wakefield, Barnsley and Doncaster
1) Connectivity
Consistent quality of journey experience
2) Capacity
4) Performance
4) Performance
5) Journey Quality
30
Enhanced freight capability.
3) Freight
Increase value for money of the rail industry
Subject to subsequent study to identify solutions
Reduce the environmental impact of transport
10) Carbon Reduction
Conditional Output Statement
4
Modelling Approach Introduction
4.1
This chapter provides an overview of the modelling framework used to estimate the potential economic benefits generated by the Test Timetable. T his evidence is used to derive the disaggregated rates of benefit presented in Chapter 5, which in turn supports the development of the Conditional Outputs. A Benefit Forecasting Report accompanies this Conditional Output Statement and sets out in detail the various modelling tools used and assumptions made to derive the potential economic benefits.
4.2
The benefits of the Test Timetable are conditional upon viable and affordable solutions being identified. They are provided to guide those developing solutions as to the relative magnitude of benefits that could be generated in different corridors. These benefits should not be used to justify investment for which a full business case, considering in detail all costs and benefits, must be developed.
Defining the Do Minimum and the Test Timetable 4.3
The potential economic benefits presented are the incremental benefits of the Test Timetable compared to the Do Minimum.
4.4
The Test Timetable is not a viable proposed timetable. It is simply a modelling input that allows the potential economic benefit of removing network constraints to be identified and facilitates calculation of the potential rate of benefit on a per corridor basis. The Test Timetable has been specified to lead to a reduction in Generalised Journey Time (GJT) compared to the Do Minimum timetable on each and every corridor in the study area. This is achieved through quicker, more frequent, and where appropriate direct services. It includes a range of challenging, but plausible, improvements to services in the study area reflecting the stakeholders' aspirations for future network development.
4.5
The Do Minimum timetable against which the Test Timetable is modelled has been coded to reflect the additional peak services in the Leeds area, introduced in December 2011, and the committed Northern Hub enhancements . The Northern Hub enhancements include two additional Leeds to Manchester Piccadilly services providing stops at intermediate services between Huddersfield and Stalybridge (replacing the existing stopping service between Huddersfield and Manchester Victoria), and diversion of the existing four trans-Pennine services via Manchester Victoria and Ordsall Curve.
4.6
The improvements announced for the Hope Valley and Calder Valley routes in the March 2012 Budget have not been included in the base case. The funding for these improvements will only be fully committed once a value for money case has been confirmed, and therefore the exact detail of any proposition is not yet known.
Allocation to Corridors 4.7
Unless otherwise stated, demand and economic benefits have been allocated to corridors (or specific stations) based on the demand flows originating from stations
31
Conditional Output Statement within that corridor. This approach differs from the results presented in the Northern Hub study, which allocated demand and benefits to each corridor based on flows through the corridor. The adopted approach makes best use of the version of MOIRA made available for this study. 4.8
This approach means that the modelling results presented in this report have to be considered differently to those in the Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement. The data presented in this study better reflects the origin and destination of flows that generate benefits. Its strength therefore is that the rates of benefit presented are independent of how the network could be enhanced to realise those benefits. This is particularly important when there is more than one route available between two stations. For example, the benefit from improved connectivity between Leeds and Sheffield could be achieved by improving either the route via Barnsley or Moorthorpe. It should also be noted that this study has adopted more contemporary forecasts of demand growth that reflect the Government’s lower projections of economic growth as well as the policy to increase fares in excess of inflation.
Economic Growth Scenarios 4.9
Two demand growth scenarios have been considered. Both scenarios utilise the Department for Transport’s assumptions for population and employment growth reflecting summer 2011 Government projections of the rate of economic growth. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth forecasts come from Oxford Economic Forecasting data supplied by Metro.
4.10
The Trend scenario is based on the standard PDFH 1 framework for forecasting background rail demand growth. However the PDFH framework can underestimate growth. Therefore the Trend scenario has been presented as a lower bound for future demand growth and for the potential benefits that could be generated by improvement to the rail network.
4.11
A Trend Plus scenario considers an updated framework taking into account the potential for accelerated economic growth. It also considers changes in employment structure and increases in car parking charges in urban centres to give a high background demand growth scenario. This approach is consistent with that taken in the Northern RUS. The Trend Plus forecast gives a higher bound of future demand growth and the potential benefits.
Passenger Modelling Overview 4.12
1
Modelling and forecasting the potential economic benefits for passenger improvements has been undertaken through the following process: I
Development of a study area zoning structure and definition of the study corridors;
I
Definition of the Do Minimum scenario against which the Test Timetable is considered;
Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook: The rail industry’s standard methodology for forecasting changes in rail demand.
32
Conditional Output Statement I
Development of a Test Timetable reflecting stakeholder aspirations, to allow the relative value of aspirations to be tested;
I
Modelling of the impact of background economic and population growth on rail demand;
I
Modelling the impact of improved rail services (Test Timetable v Do Minimum) on rail demand;
I
Modelling of the impact of crowding;
I
Appraisal of the conventional benefits (revenue, journey time and non-user benefits) and wider economic impacts (agglomeration, labour supply and imperfect completion); and
I
Assessment of the impact on the distribution of jobs and business activity.
4.13
Central to the valuation of the conventional economic benefits are the rail demand models. Where appropriate, standard rail industry tools for forecasting the impact of background economic growth (RIFF-Lite) and the impact of timetable changes (MOIRA) have been used. The demand forecasting uses as a base case annual demand for the year to March 2011 taken from Lennon ticket sales data including PTE ticket infill.
4.14
These models have been supplemented by a bespoke ‘new flows model’ that was initially developed as part of the Northern Hub study. This model forecasts the demand impact on flows that are currently poorly served by rail and as a result may have historically low demand, but where there is potential for additional demand beyond that forecast by MOIRA. The model is a gravity model that considers the economic activity at origin and destination stations as well as the comparable rail GJT and car drive journey time. The model has only been applied to flows where there is currently no regular direct service and the GJT change is greater than 20%. Additionally flows to Leeds and Sheffield have been excluded. Because these are dominant economic centres, there is often established rail demand to these destinations, even where the service may be relatively poor.
4.15
The wider economic benefits have been forecast based on the change in rail GJT and demand forecast by MOIRA and the new flows model. A model has been developed that follows WebTAG guidance to value the wider economic impacts.
4.16
Figure 4.1 illustrates the process used to forecast the potential passenger economic benefits.
4.17
The Urban Dynamic Model (UDM) is a model that considers the distributional impact on economic activity as a result in changes in transport supply. A version of the model has been previously developed for the former Yorkshire and Humber Region for Yorkshire Forward (the former regional development agency).
4.18
The modelling approach used broadly replicates that used as part of the Northern Hub study. As such it has been discussed previously with the Department for Transport as part of the Northern Hub Phase 1 study and was partially adopted by Network Rail as part of the development of the Phase 2 Northern Hub business case. For the most part the modelling tools follow standard industry practice and evidence set out in the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook.
4.19
The framework is designed to forecast the impact on demand as a result of changes to rail supply (timetable and on train capacity). The modelling process
33
Conditional Output Statement does not consider possible future changes in the supply of alternative modes, for example changing bus networks or new road links. FIGURE 4.1
PASSENGER BENEFIT MODELLING OVERVIEW
Rates of Benefit 4.20
The summary of benefits included in Chapter 5 present normalised rates of benefit; a measure of benefit per appropriate measure of unit improvement. The rates of benefit seek to present measures of benefit that are comparable between corridors by normalising the effect of variation in the Test Timetable specification between each corridor. The rates of benefit have been calculated by dividing the total benefits generated by the driver of that benefit. For connectivity benefits the driver is GJT while for crowding benefits the driver is the number of peak additional seats in each corridor.
4.21
Revenue increment, journey time, non-user and wider economic benefits are all generated by connectivity improvements included in the Test Timetable. The value of these benefits has therefore been expressed as a per minute reduction in GJT. GJT is a measure of journey time used for rail journeys that includes passengers perceived journey frequency penalty, the actual journey time and a perceived penalty where there is a need to interchange. The average change in GJT from stations in each corridor is shown in Figure 4.2.
34
Conditional Output Statement FIGURE 4.2
AVERAGE GJT CHANGE – DO MINIMUM V TEST TIMETABLE
4.22
The crowding benefits are generated by the additional seats offered in the peak periods (07:00 – 10:00 and 16:00 – 19:00) in the Test Timetable compared to the Do Minimum.
4.23
Figures 4.3 and 4.4 summarises the additional seating capacity assumed in each corridor during the peak periods. FIGURE 4.3 TREND
INCREMENTAL PEAK SEATS - DO MINIMUM V TEST TIMETABLE -
35
Conditional Output Statement FIGURE 4.4 INCREMENTAL PEAK SEATS - DO MINIMUM V TEST TIMETABLE – TREND PLUS
Passenger Demand Growth 4.24
The key drivers of growth in rail demand are GDP, which drives business and leisure trips, and employment which drive commuting trips. Forecast GDP growth for the Yorkshire and Humber region has been adopted from Oxford Economic Forecasting data supplied by Metro while employment growth has come from Tempro version 6.2. Figure 4.5 illustrates the forecast growth between 2011 and 2027 in GDP and employment for the Trend scenario. FIGURE 4.5
36
FORECAST GDP AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH, 2011 TO 2027
Conditional Output Statement 4.25
The RIFF-Lite model, which reflects PDFH guidance, has been used to derive the rail demand growth forecasts, based on the economic data summarised above. The following graphs present the growth in demand from stations in each corridor. Not all these journeys will be to and from the capacity constrained centres in the study area. However they may still benefit from the relaxation of capacity constraints some distance from their journey as this may facilitate improved frequency of services, capacity and service performance.
4.26
Figure 4.6 shows the forecast growth in demand between 2011 and 2019 for each of the individual stations and corridors. This shows that, with the exception of the East Coast Main Line to London, the largest growth is seen on the corridors radiating from Leeds, with lower growth found in the Sheffield City Region. This reflects the differential in employment growth forecasts between the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions. FIGURE 4.6
2011 TO 2019 DEMAND GROWTH – TREND
4.27
The growth shows a conservative forecast of background demand growth with average growth across all corridors of around 8.6% between 2011 and 2019, which equates to an annual growth rate of 1.0% per year. The Trend Plus forecast growth is summarised in Figure 4.7. This shows an increased rate of growth across the study area. The average growth across all corridors between 2011 and 2019 is 21.0%, which equates to an annual growth rate of 2.4% per year.
4.28
Although the approach to the Trend Plus forecasts is consistent with the Northern RUS the resulting growth rates differ. This is because the forecasts presented as part of this study are based on a shorter time period (The base demand year for the RUS is 2008/09 whereas the base year for this s tudy is 2010/11) and more recent, and conservative, projections for employment, population and economic growth.
37
Conditional Output Statement 4.29
Figure 4.8 provides a comparison of the forecast Trend and Trend Plus growth, set against the context of historic demand growth in the study area. This shows the strong growth in rail demand over the past 13 years. The dip in demand in 2000/01 reflects disruption to rail services in the aftermath of the Hatfield accident as well as disruption associated with Leeds Station’s redevelopment. Demand growth was also subdued during 2008/09 as a result of the economic recession. The Trend Plus forecast suggests that demand growth will continue albeit at slower rates than previously experienced, while the Trend forecasts suggests that growth would continue at a notably slower rate. While subdued rates of growth and above inflation fare increases contribute to these lower rates of growth, historically national rail demand forecasting models have understated actual growth in Yorkshire. FIGURE 4.7
38
2011 TO 2019 DEMAND GROWTH – TREND PLUS
Conditional Output Statement FIGURE 4.8
HISTORIC AND PROJECTED DEMAND GROWTH
Forecast Passenger Demand 4.30
The following figures summarise the demand growth from 2011 to 2027 including the effect of background demand growth and the Do Minimum timetable assumptions (summarised in Paragraph 5.16). The demand considered includes all trips to or from stations included within corridors in the study area. The growth to 2027 equates to 21% in the Trend scenario and 37% in the Trend Plus scenario. FIGURE 4.9
DO MINIMUM DEMAND GROWTH BY ORIGIN - TREND
39
Conditional Output Statement FIGURE 4.10 DO MINIMUM DEMAND GROWTH BY ORIGIN – TREND PLUS
4.31
Figures 4.11 and 4.12 illustrate the induced demand in each of the modelled demand years as a result of the Test Timetable.
4.32
In the Trend scenario, Do Minimum demand is forecast to be 95m in 2019, rising to 105m by 2027. Considering the Test Timetable the demand is forecast to be 118m in 2019, an increment of 22m (24%) from the Do Minimum, and 130m in 2027, an increment of 25m (24%).
4.33
In the Trend Plus scenario, Do Minimum demand is forecast to be 106m in 2019 increasing to 118m by 2027. Demand including the Test Timetable is forecast to be 130m in 2019, an increment of 25m (23%), while in 2027 demand is forecast to be 146m, an increment of 28m (23%).
40
Conditional Output Statement FIGURE 4.11 TEST TIMETABLE INDUCED DEMAND BY ORIGIN - TREND
FIGURE 4.12 TEST TIMETABLE INDUCED DEMAND BY ORIGIN – TREND PLUS
Passenger Economic Benefits 4.34
A WebTAG compliant 60 year appraisal of the economic benefits generated by the Test Timetable compared to the Do Minimum has been undertaken. This assumes that the Test Timetable would be delivered in 2019. The appraisal suggests that potential benefits of the Test Timetable could be £10.5bn under the Trend scenario and £12.2bn in the Trend Plus scenario.
41
Conditional Output Statement 4.35
A more detailed breakdown of the economic benefits by origin, benefit type and destination is provided in Appendix B.
4.36
The origin and destination of journeys made spreads beyond the study area with origins and destination across the country as a whole. Many of these journeys may not travel to or through the capacity constrained centres in the study area. However such passengers may still benefit from improvements to infrastructure not directly on their journey as a result of better service frequency, improved connections and better performance.
4.37
A breakdown of the economic benefits by corridor is shown in Figure 4.13 for the Trend scenario and Figure 4.14 for the Trend Plus scenario.
4.38
With the exception of the crowding benefits the graph shows the benefits allocated to each individual station or corridor based on journeys originating from the station or corridor. The crowding benefits accrue to the corridors through which services run, hence there are no crowding benefits at the regional and subregional centre stations. The graph shows that the greatest benefits are generated on flows from the major regional centre stations, with significant benefit also being generated from the inter-regional and local corridors serving Leeds and Sheffield. FIGURE 4.13 TOTAL BENEFITS BY TYPE - TREND
42
Conditional Output Statement FIGURE 4.14 TOTAL BENEFITS BY TYPE – TREND PLUS
4.39
Figures 4.15 and 4.16 show the distribution of benefits, in the Trend and Trend Plus scenarios respectively, by destination. This shows that the largest benefits are generated by flows to and from the regional centre stations. Within the study area the key destinations are Leeds and locations within the Leeds City Region. This reflects that there is a much larger demand for rail travel in the Leeds City Region as a result of the larger rail network. There are also significant benefits to be found from improvement to services to the Sheffield City Region.
4.40
On these graphs, the horizontal axis shows the origin. The destinations are represented by different colours within the bars. Again the vertical axis shows the monetised rate of benefit.
43
Conditional Output Statement FIGURE 4.15 CONNECTIVITY BENEFITS BY DESTINATION - TREND
FIGURE 4.16 CONNECTIVITY BENEFITS BY DESTINATION – TREND PLUS
44
Conditional Output Statement
Impact on Jobs 4.41
The Trend and Trend Plus scenarios project growth in rail demand of between 9% and 21% by 2019. Growth in journeys to the key employment centres, namely the regional and sub-regional centres (excluding London), is greater, with trend growth forecast to be 12% and Trend Plus growth of 29%. Even though the benefit modelling takes into account on-train crowding there is a theoretical assumption in the modelling that this level of demand growth can be accommodated by the capacity modelled in the Do Minimum timetable. This assumption has been made because the study does not consider how the benefits would be delivered.
4.42
The forecast level of growth in the peak periods suggests an increase of between 10,000 and 28,000 in the number of daily commuting journeys made by rail to the regional and sub-regional centre stations. If this growth cannot be accommodated by rail, trips will either be made by another mode, possibly to another destination or not made at all, with the associated possible economic disbenefit. Providing additional capacity to realise this growth is therefore essential to support employment growth in the regional and sub-regional centres and across the region in general, as recognised by the Northern RUS 2.
4.43
In addition to enabling this growth in travel to employment there can be further job impacts associate directly with enhancements in rail connectivity. Two separate analyses of the potential impact on jobs in the study area as a result of connectivity enhancements have been undertaken.
4.44
Wider economic impacts have been quantified as part of economic analysis and these can also be expressed as a number of jobs. Additionally the UDM has been used to understand the potential generation and distributional impact of enhancement to rail connectivity on jobs. These assessments consider only the impact of rail connectivity and no other supply or demand side changes. This is a deliberately conservative approach. GDP ‘Job Equivalent’ Benefits
4.45
The wider economic impacts quantified as part of the study seek to value the potential productivity benefits to the economy in terms of GDP. By dividing the total GDP benefits by the average GDP per worker it is possible to express the wider economic impacts as a ‘job equivalent’ value, rather than a financial value. However while it is possible that some productivity gains could result in increased employment it is also possible that the productivity gains would result in lower costs to consumers or increased profitability for business from improved productivity of existing workers. It is important to note that these benefits are the same as those quantified as part of the wider economic impacts, and not additional to the wider economic impacts.
4.46
Figures 4.17 and 4.18 present the ‘jobs equivalent’ valuation of GDP benefits, for each corridor for the Trend and Trend Plus scenario. The values show an annual ‘job equivalent’ based on the GDP gains in 2019.
2
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/rus%20ge neration%202/northern/northern%20route%20utilisation%20strategy.pdf
45
Conditional Output Statement FIGURE 4.17 GDP ‘JOBS EQUIVALENT’ - TREND
FIGURE 4.18 GDP ‘JOBS EQUIVALENT’ – TREND PLUS
4.47
In total the analysis suggests that the total GDP benefits for 2019, expressed as jobs, could be between 3,500 in the Trend scenario and 3,850 in the Trend Plus scenario.
4.48
The graphs show that the greatest productivity gains, expressed as a job equivalent, are generated by flows to and from the regional centres, particularly
46
Conditional Output Statement from corridor stations. This reflects the importance of providing connectivity from residential areas to employment and retail opportunities as well as inter business connectivity. 4.49
Part of the valuation of GDP impacts includes the valuation of increased willingness to work (labour market impacts) as a result of the reduced cost (including journey time) of travel to employment opportunities. Calculating the ‘jobs equivalent’ measure of GDP using just the labour market impact provides a more specific measure of potential job creation. Since the labour market impacts relate solely to the willingness of the labour market to seek employment it can be considered that these benefits will result in increased employment instead of other productivity benefits. This measure can be calculated by dividing the labour market impact benefits by the GDP per worker. As with the ‘jobs equivalent’ it is important to note that these projections of increased labour market benefits are the same as those quantified as part of the wider economic impacts, but expressed in a different form of account. These job numbers are a subset of those identified above in paragraphs 4.44 to 4.47.
4.50
Figures 4.19 and 4.20 present the ‘jobs equivalent’ valuation of GDP labour market impacts benefits, for each corridor for the Trend and Trend Plus scenario. FIGURE 4.19 ‘JOBS EQUIVALENT – LABOUR MARKET IMPACTS’ - TREND
47
Conditional Output Statement FIGURE 4.20 ‘JOBS EQUIVALENT – LABOUR MARKET IMPACTS’– TREND PLUS
4.51
These show that the greatest benefits can be found by improving connections from the sub-regional and corridor stations to the regional centres. These reflect the concentration of employment found in the regional centres. In total the analysis suggests, in 2019, there could be an additional 140 jobs in the Trend scenario and 160 in the Trend Plus scenario. Urban Dynamic Model
4.52
The UDM is a simulation of how an urban area evolves over time, with particular emphasis on how transport, land-use, population and employment all interact. The job projections forecasts by the UDM are in addition to those identified in the GDP ‘jobs equivalent’ analysis.
4.53
For this study the UDM has been used to understand the distributional impact on employment in the study area as a result of improvements to rail services. Rather than model the specific benefits of the Test Timetable the UDM analysis has considered a number of specific scenarios selected to represent packages of possible enhancements to rail services that are likely to have differing impacts on the distribution of employment. These have been informed by feedback received at the stakeholder event. The packages consider improvements:
48
I
Test 1 - to connections between the key regional economic centres of Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester and key intermediate locations (Wakefield, Barnsley, Stockport, Huddersfield). This considers zones covering the city centre and suburbs of these cities;
I
Test 2 - for commuter flows from Leeds City Region to Leeds. This includes improvements from all zones in the Leeds City Region to zones covering Leeds City Centre;
Conditional Output Statement I
Test 3 - for commuter flows from Sheffield City Region to Sheffield. This includes improvements from all zones in the Sheffield City Region to zones covering Sheffield City Centre; and
I
Test 4 - in connections between sub-regional centres including Harrogate, York, Bradford and Halifax, Huddersfield, Wakefield, Barnsley and Doncaster.
4.54
To understand how a different magnitude of improvements may affect the distribution of economic activity a high and low reduction in generalised cost of 10% and 30% is being considered. This will give a range of possible distributional impacts.
4.55
Figure 4.21 provides a summary of the net impact on employment, in terms of the number of jobs, for each of the tests. A more detailed illustration of the distribution of changes in jobs is provided in Appendix D. This suggests that there will be some abstraction of jobs from outside the study area to as a result of the tests. The notable abstraction in jobs from central Manchester in Tests 1, 2 and 4 is as a result of improved connectivity to locations in the study area from areas that are also connected to Manchester, for example Huddersfield. The more minor abstraction in jobs from areas not explicitly modelled in each test can be considered as ‘noise’ within the model. FIGURE 4.21 UDM TESTS – POTENTIAL JOB IMPACT
4.56
The figure shows the breakdown of job impacts for each of the test scenarios considered. However in practice solutions developed to address the conditional outputs are likely to deliver improvements that are covered by a combination of the modelled test scenarios. The combined job projection for all tests considering a 30% reduction in rail generalised journey cost is in excess of 1,000 for the Leeds City Region and around 200 for the Sheffield City Region (reflecting the smaller rail market and network density in this region).
49
Conditional Output Statement 4.57
A combination of test 2 and 3, consisting of improved journey to work trips to central Leeds and Sheffield are forecast to generate the greatest number of additional jobs. Where the generalised costs are improved by 30% the UDM suggests an increase of 700 jobs in Leeds and 150 jobs in Sheffield.
4.58
Test 1 suggests that over 200 jobs could be generated in Yorkshire by improving connectivity between Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester (and intermediate locations), under the 30% generalised cost reduction scenario. The increase in jobs includes the abstraction of around 120 jobs from the Manchester area as a result of improved access to the Yorkshire region from locations such as Huddersfield.
4.59
Test 4, improving connectivity between selected regional and sub-regional centres, has a relatively smaller net impact on jobs in the city regions
4.60
Overall the analysis suggests that the interventions most likely to generate jobs are improvements to access to Leeds. However there are also meaningful benefits that could be generated by improving connectivity to Sheffield and between the key centres of Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester.
Performance 4.61
The punctuality of services is a consideration of passengers when they choose to travel by rail. Evidence suggests that passengers typically perceive unscheduled journey time (i.e. lateness) at 2.5 times the actual time, although this multiple increases up to 6.1 for longer distance services and to 6.5 for journeys to airports. Consistent poor performance can lead to passengers choosing to travel by alternative modes, or to not travel at all.
4.62
The Public Performance Measure (PPM) is the percentage of trains arriving at their destination, having made all planned calls, and within a specified lateness margin. The lateness margin is 5 minutes for shorter distance services and 10 minutes for longer distance services.
4.63
Northern Rail operates the majority of services within the study area. Details of Northern Rail’s Moving Annual Average (MAA) PPM by service is provided in Appendix C. This shows that the PPM measure for services in South and East Yorkshire is 90% and in West and North Yorkshire is 92%, compared to the PPM target of 91%. However, there is notable variation in PPM between different services, ranging from 85% for services between York and Blackpool to 96% for services between Leeds and Bradford Forster Square.
4.64
First TransPennine Express services via the South Trans Pennine route recorded MAA PPM of 96% to January 2012 while for the North Trans Pennine route the PPM was 95%. The PPM target for these routes was 88%.
4.65
The performance benefits have not been quantified as part of this study. Some routes are already performing at or in excess of the study area wide targets. On some relatively well performing routes investment to further increase the PPM may well prove to be prohibitively expensive. Nonetheless, improving performance can generate worthwhile economic benefits. These should be taken into consideration when developing future enhancements to the rail network, particularly on those corridors that are currently performing below average.
50
Conditional Output Statement
Freight Modelling Approach 4.66
Rail freight is an important part of the rail industry bringing benefits across the country and in Yorkshire specifically. The valuation of the benefits of freight paths complements the valuation of passenger benefits and will allow those developing solutions to consider the importance of freight capacity where there is an interaction with passenger corridors.
4.67
The approach taken to value the benefits of additional rail paths follows a different approach to that used for passenger benefits. This focuses on the key demands for rail freight in the study area: Intermodal, Aggregates, Steel and Coal.
4.68
Rail freight movements fluctuate greatly as the economy, business and shipping practices change. Therefore it is very challenging to accurately reflect a likely future rail freight timetable. Instead an approach has been adopted to value the economic benefits on a number of key existing and aspirational future freight corridors rather than for a specific timetable.
4.69
The freight flows that have been considered are summarised as follows . The key rail freight terminals and corridors in the study area have been identified in the map in Figure 1.2.: I
Intermodal:
I
Aggregates:
I
Immingham to West Burton; Hunterston to Drax;
Other:
4.70
Immingham to Scunthorpe; Scunthorpe to South Wales;
Coal:
I
Hope to Dewsbury; Hope to West Thurock; Rylstone to Hull; Peak Forest to the South East; Tunstead to Aire Valley Power Stations; Drax to Hope;
Steel:
I
Tees Port to Manchester; Tees Port to Southampton; Leeds to Felixstowe; Leeds to Wilton
Waste from Greater Manchester to Roxby.
The freight modelling identifies two sets of benefits: I
Quantification of the direct non user benefits of being able to accommodate additional rail freight movements which in turn leads to a reduction in the
51
Conditional Output Statement number of lorry miles. This uses Mode Shift Benefit Rates as identified by the DfT 3; and I
A qualitative assessment, using numerical evidence, of the importance of the rail freight industry drawing on Input – Output analysis for the national economy as a whole and the Yorkshire economy specifically.
Freight Benefits 4.71
The estimated direct economic benefits, which includes the congestion and environmental benefits of removing freight from the highway network, for each of the freight flows modelled is summarised in Table 4.1. This considers each freight flow operating on a daily weekday basis throughout the 60 year appraisal period. This suggests that the total potential economic benefit of delivering all of the selected flows could be £689m. The value per return freight path ranges from £125m for aggregates flows from the Peak District to South East England to £7m for short distance flows between Scunthorpe Steel Works and Immingham Docks. TABLE 4.1
3
FORECAST DIRECT FREIGHT BENEFITS Freight Flow
Economic Benefit (PV 2002 £m)
Tees Port – M anchester
£24
Tees Port – Southampton
£68
Leeds – Felixstowe
£60
Hope – Dewsbury
£21
Hope - West Thurrock
£90
Rylstone – Hull
£48
Peak Forest - South East
£125
Immingham – Scunthorpe
£7
Scunthorpe - South Wales
£30
Immingham - West Burton
£43
Hunterston – Drax
£71
Leeds – Wilton
£18
Tunstead - Aire Valley
£30
Drax – Hope
£25
Greater M anchester – Roxby
£29
Total Benefits
£689
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/adobepdf-165226-443908/msbtechpaper.pdf
52
Conditional Output Statement 4.72
To understand the economic value of the rail freight industry, Input Output Table analysis has been used. Input Output Tables show the supply and demand of all industries in the economy in order to produce goods and the final consumption of these goods.
4.73
By analysing the rail freight sector’s supply chain within the table, and the supply chains of the industries using rail freight, it is possible to understand how important the sector is for the rest of the economy, both nationally and within Yorkshire.
4.74
The economic importance of the sector is measured at three levels: I
The direct effect is the turnover and employment of the industry itself;
I
The indirect effect adds the sum of inter-trading between businesses to the direct turnover. This registers as a multiplier effect as goods and services are traded; and
I
The induced effect is the indirect effect plus the expenditure driven by the household income derived from the rail freight sector.
4.75
The direct value of the rail freight industry nationally is £830m per year representing around 0.03% of the gross national output. The industry supports economic output of £3,800m through indirect links and £8,300 through induced links, the latter representing around 0.33% of the national economic output.
4.76
At a Yorkshire level the direct value of the rail freight industry is £82m, around 0.04% of the Yorkshire economy. The industry supports economic output of £332m through indirect links and £586m through induced links, which represents around 0.25% of the Yorkshire economy.
4.77
The rail freight industry brings significant benefit to the national and local economies in Yorkshire. It is therefore important that the forecast growth in rail freight is accommodated to ensure that rail freight continues to support the national and local economies.
53
Conditional Output Statement
5
Disaggregated Rates of Benefit Introduction
5.1
The Test Timetable has been used to model the potential benefit improvements to passenger connectivity and capacity. The objective of this Conditional Output Statement is to provide direction to the future development of the rail network in Yorkshire by identifying the types of services to which improvements may yield the greatest benefits. This chapter provides an overview of the benefits of the Test Timetable disaggregated by origin, destination and benefit type.
5.2
The Test Timetable considers a range of plausible enhancements to the services in the study area. However, taken as a whole these are not necessarily all economically viable or affordable enhancements and are unlikely to be technically feasible without substantial investment. Reflecting this, what is of most interest in informing the Conditional Outputs is the value of capacity per additional seat and connectivity enhancements per minute of Generalised Journey Time (GJT) improvement in different corridors rather than the absolute benefit generated. Further, considering just the absolute benefits alone has the potential to be misleading because of variation in the Test Timetable specification between each corridor, although care has been taken to ensure enhancements to different services are broadly equal.
5.3
Therefore, unless stated, this chapter presents normalised rates of benefits by considering the total benefit generated divided by the driver of benefit. For connectivity benefits the driver is GJT while for crowding benefits the driver is the number of peak additional seats in each corridor. This serves to normalise the effect of variation in the Test Timetable specification between each corridor while still allowing comparison of the relative impact of improvements to different services.
5.4
The metrics have been calculated based on the modelling approach summarised in Chapter 4. The following metrics have been used:
5.5
I
Crowding benefits per incremental seat provided in the peak periods;
I
Timetable related benefits per GJT minute improvement; and
I
Freight benefit per freight path.
The benefits are generated as a result of the improvements made in the Test Timetable compared to the Do Minimum or the possible additional freight paths considered. The Trend and Trend Plus scenarios present low and high scenarios of possible future demand growth. They suggest a range of potential benefits but do not materially change the comparable scale of benefits between different corridors. For ease of presentation the benefits presented are for the Trend Plus scenario, with the comparable Trend scenario graphs included in Appendix B. This Appendix also includes tables presenting a detailed breakdown of the Rates of Benefit for each origin, benefit type and destination.
55
Conditional Output Statement
Guidance on Interpreting the Rates of Benefit 5.6
The potential economic benefit as a result of service enhancements is driven by two key factors: the size of the improvement and the number of people experiencing that improvement. The rates of benefit presented are normalised based on the size of the improvement (journey time reduction or additional seats). The sizes of the resulting rates of benefit differ between stations and corridors based on the volume of demand. It is therefore expected that, for example, the rate of benefit in the Leeds City Region which has a larger rail network and greater demand, will be larger than that in the Sheffield City Region.
5.7
The rates of benefit can be used to identify where the greatest benefit may be generated. However, to make the case for investment it is necessary to identify an affordable and value for money case for investment. Alone, rates of benefit cannot be taken as an indication that investment is worthwhile as the rates do not consider the likely cost of enhancement nor therefore, the likely value for money case. Experience would suggest that to realise the higher rates of benefit in the Leeds City Region will likely require a larger scale of investment.
5.8
It is important that any future study to identify possible solutions to deliver the Conditional Outputs considers possible enhancements across the study area. To focus solely on those corridors returning the highest rates of benefit may omit possible low cost/high value for money enhancement elsewhere in the region, as well as having potential distributional impacts on where benefits occur and on the segments of the population that may benefit.
Capacity Benefits 5.9
Improving connectivity between employees and employment opportunities and between businesses will support economic growth. Lack of capacity to make these connections, be it crowding on train or bus or highway congestion, is a disincentive to travel. It will reduce the pool of employees available to business and limits business interaction which ultimately can restrict economic growth. The rail network provides a crucial role connecting employees to employment opportunities, particularly to those opportunities in the regional and sub-regional centres of the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions . For rail to continue to support to the full economic growth in the region sufficient capacity needs to be provided to accommodate future demand growth.
5.10
Evidence4 suggests that passengers perceive crowding once a train is loaded at more than 70% of the seating capacity. The perceived economic disbenefit of crowding has been monetised as part of this study to calculate the potential economic benefit of additional capacity to reduce crowding. The valuation of crowding benefits seeks to identify the reduction in ‘crowded minutes’ experienced by existing and new passengers as a result of the additional capacity (through longer and/or more frequent trains) in the Test Timetable.
5.11
Figure 5.1 provides a summary of the crowding benefits per additional peak (07:00 – 10:00 and 16:00 – 19:00) seat provided in the Test Timetable compared to the Do
4
Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook
56
Conditional Output Statement Minimum. Unlike the connectivity benefits presented later, the graph below shows the benefit on journeys through each corridor and not specifically to and from origins within the corridor. FIGURE 5.1
NORMALISED CROWDING BENEFITS – TREND PLUS
5.12
The graph shows that the highest rates of crowding benefit per incremental seat, and therefore focus of future planning for investment, can be found on the commuter and inter regional services to and from Sheffield, notably to Manchester, Nottingham and Doncaster. There are also benefits from improvements to capacity in corridors that provide journey to work trips to Leeds, notably the Skipton corridor. Worthwhile benefits can also be found on most other corridors, and achieving these benefits must also be considered in any future study.
5.13
It is notable that North Trans-Pennine crowding benefits are relatively small between the Do Minimum and Test Timetable. This is because the Do Minimum timetable includes increased capacity through the introduction of six trains per hour between Leeds and Manchester, part of the Northern Hub first phase implementation.
Connectivity Benefits 5.14
Connectivity benefits are generated because, compared to the Do Minimum scenario, the Test Timetable delivers faster station to station journey times, more frequent services and reduced need to interchange. This improvement in connectivity will support economic growth in the study area by making it easier for employees to travel to employment opportunities and for business to business travel.
57
Conditional Output Statement 5.15
The following graphs show the economic benefit per minute of GJT improvement. GJT is a composite measure of journey time used for in rail demand forecasting and benefit assessment and includes passenger perceived frequency penalty, the actual journey time and a perceived time penalty where there is a need to interchange.
5.16
Figure 5.2 presents the benefit per GJT minute improvement for journeys from the regional and sub-regional centres and for other stations grouped by corridor. The following type of benefits have been identified:
5.17
I
Revenue increment – is the additional revenue generated;
I
Journey time – is the monetised reduction in GJT;
I
Non-user benefits – is the benefits to non-rail users as a result of mode shift from car to rail; and
I
Wider economic impacts – are the broader impacts on the economy, including from agglomeration benefits, improved labour supply and addressing imperfect competition.
The horizontal axis shows all benefits accruing to journeys where regional, subregional or corridor station is the origin of the journey. The vertical axis shows the normalised rate of benefit monetised in millions of pounds stated in Present Value (PV) terms. FIGURE 5.2
5.18
58
NORMALISED CONNECTIVITY BENEFITS BY TYPE – TREND PLUS
As expected that the graph suggests that generally the highest rates of benefits can be generated by improvements to journeys from regional centre stations and Leeds City Region stations, reflecting the larger volumes of demand that may benefit from improvements.
Conditional Output Statement 5.19
The majority of benefits are the economic benefits perceived by users as a result of quicker journey times. Revenue benefits are higher for flows from the regional centres. These centres will generally handle longer distance flows that yield higher revenues. Revenue is an important factor in determining future priorities for investment because of the need to minimise on-going revenue support and to identify an affordable case for investment. The non-user benefits and wider economic benefits are typically at a lower rate than the time benefits. This is to be expected.
5.20
It is important to understand from the analysis which types of flows generate benefits. Figure 5.3 presents the disaggregated rates of benefit by origin and destination within the study area. The unit rate will differ between Figures 5.2 and 5.3 because the denominator, the average GJT change, in Figure 5.2 is for the corridor as a whole, whereas in Figure 5.3 it is calculated separately for each origin and destination pair.
5.21
On this graph, the horizontal axis shows that the origin. The destinations are represented by different colours within the bars. Again the vertical axis shows the monetised rate of benefit. FIGURE 5.3 PLUS
5.22
NORMALISED CONNECTIVITY BENEFITS BY DESTINATION – TREND
The graph suggests that the greatest rates of benefit can be returned by improving journeys from the regional centre stations. The majority of benefits on flows from other locations are for journeys to the regional centre stations. This suggests that improved services to and between the regional centre stations are likely to yield the greatest levels of economic benefit. This is reflected in the Conditional Output for improvements in connectivity.
59
Conditional Output Statement 5.23
Delivering improvements to and between all regional centre stations is likely to require significant enhancements in the rail network covering the whole region, which may well not be affordable. It is useful to consider where the greatest benefits can be gained by perhaps making more focused enhancements. Figure 5.4 presents the benefit per GJT minute improvement further divided by the number of stations, which is used as a representation for the size of the rail network, and therefore the scale of potential investment needed to achieve the benefits.
5.24
This further supports the conclusion that the greatest benefits can be found by improving services from the regional centre stations. However it provides greater focus on the relative benefit of improving services between the regional centres and from the sub-regional Centres to the regional centres, which could be achieved through improving connections between a relatively small number of stations. FIGURE 5.4 NORMALISED CONNECTIVITY BENEFITS BY DESTINATION AND NUMBER OF STATIONS – TREND PLUS
5.25
60
This conclusion is further enforced by the graph in Figure 5.5 which shows the distribution of absolute benefits by flow type. The scale of benefit to destinations outside the study area, e.g. London, reflect that no specific enhancements have been modelled for these flows.
Conditional Output Statement FIGURE 5.5 PROPORTION OF TEST TIMETABLE BENEFIT BY FLOW TYPE – TREND PLUS
5.26
5.27
This graph shows that 12% of the Test Timetable connectivity benefits (excluding crowding) can be achieved by improving connectivity between the regional centres and a further 16% by linking the sub-regional centres to the regional centres. Delivering improved connectivity between these locations could largely be achieved by improvements to inter-regional services on four key corridors through the region, namely: I
York to Manchester, via Leeds and Huddersfield;
I
Leeds to Manchester via Bradford and Halifax (the Calder Valley route);
I
Leeds to Sheffield, and beyond; and
I
Doncaster to Manchester via Sheffield.
Figure 5.5 also makes very clear the importance of commuting flows to the regional and sub-regional centres from the local (corridor) stations. While there is a sizeable benefit to be gained from these improvements, achieving this is likely to be more challenging requiring enhancement to services on a greater number of corridors. The solution that is likely to yield the greatest benefits is where enhancements lead to a combination of intra-regional and local services.
Freight Benefits 5.28
The direct economic benefits, in terms of a 60 year PV appraisal, have been identified per additional daily freight path for a range of possible freight movements. The direct economic benefits include the benefit from reduced highway HGV mileage resulting from goods moving by rail. This suggests the level of benefit per daily return freight path ranges from £125m PV for longer distance
61
Conditional Output Statement aggregates flows from the Peak District to the South East England to £7m PV for shorter distance flows between Scunthorpe and Immingham. 5.29
Significant growth is anticipated in the inter-modal market. The value of a freight path from Tees Port to Southampton (which could include loaded traffic in either direction for all or part of the route) would deliver direct benefits of £68m PV per return path, while a flow from Tees Port to Trafford Park might secure £24m PV benefit per return path.
5.30
These values do not include the potential wider economic benefits, which have been summarised in Chapter 4.
62
Conditional Output Statement
6
Conditional Output Statement
6.1
This chapter – the Conditional Output Statement - sets out a number of desirable outcomes for the rail network. These have been developed with consideration of the wider transport objectives of supporting economic growth and carbon reduction.
6.2
The outputs are described as conditional because achieving each of these outputs is conditional upon affordable and economically viable solutions being identified. It is anticipated that potential solutions to meet the outputs will be identified by further study.
6.3
The Conditional Outputs have been considered by the study’s Steering Group. The Steering Group has taken into account national objectives for transport as well as stakeholders aspirations for rail network development and the available evidence of the benefits that improvements to rail connectivity can bring. This evidence includes existing plans, strategies and analysis as well as specific analysis undertaken as part of this study to value the potential economic benefits that improvements to rail services in Yorkshire could generate. Because the Conditional Outputs are based on a range of evidence they do not specifically represent the enhancements considered in the Test Timetable.
6.4
The first three Conditional Outputs – related to Connectivity, Capacity and Freight – have been informed by the economic analysis undertaken for this study and reported in the previous two chapters along with the wider evidence base described in Chapter 2. The next six Conditional Outputs have been primarily informed by the wider evidence base. The last Conditional Output simply captures the need for rail to contribute appropriately to the national policy imperative of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
6.5
Taken together, meeting the Conditional Outputs will contribute to the sustainable economic growth of the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions. The Outputs complement the two city regions’ transport strategies, established by their respective local transport plans which were adopted in April 2011.
1) Connectivity 6.6
Evidence suggests that for the economies of the North of England to function effectively there is a need to provide quicker connectivity between the key areas of economic activity. In the context of this study the regional centres are Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield and York, along with Manchester. Analysis undertaken as part of this study suggests that improved connectivity between these five centres alone could generate economic benefits of up to £1.1bn Present Value (PV) in the Trend scenario and £1.2bn PV in the Trend Plus scenario.
6.7
The available evidence also identifies that there are worthwhile economic benefits to be gained by enhancing rail connectivity between the sub-regional centres (Halifax, Harrogate, Huddersfield and Wakefield in the Leeds City Region and Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster and Chesterfield in the Sheffield City Region) and Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield, York and Manchester. The analysis suggests improving these connections could generate benefits of up to £1.4bn PV in the Trend
63
Conditional Output Statement Scenario (of which £0.2bn PV are from flows to and from Manchester) and £1.6bn PV in the Trend Plus scenario (of which £0.2bn PV are to and from Manchester.) 6.8
As well as links between the regional centres and other regional and sub-regional centres (e.g. Leeds to Huddersfield), each city region also has a number of routes which offer within city region connectivity, serving predominantly journey to work trips but also providing opportunities to interchange to longer distance services. The analysis shows that enhancements to such routes could also generate worthwhile economic benefit.
6.9
In particular the benefit of improved connectivity from all corridors (excluding the regional and sub-regional stations) to Leeds could generate benefits of £1.2bn PV in the Trend scenario and £1.4bn PV in the Trend Plus scenario. The benefit of connecting the corridors to Leeds is broadly equal to the benefit of connecting each corridor to all the other regional centres in Yorkshire (Bradford, York and Sheffield).
6.10
Enhancements targeted at journeys between sub-regional centres will deliver benefits but typically at a lower unit rate than enhancements focussed on journeys between the regional centres and commuting journeys to these centres.
6.11
The available evidence also highlights that any strategy focussed on enhancing connectivity for just one of these four groups of movement – between regional centres, from sub-regional centres to the regional centres, within city region journeys and between sub-regional centres – would contribute to an unbalanced growth trajectory across Yorkshire. What is needed is a targeted strategy that supports enhanced connectivity for each of these groups of movements.
6.12
Reflecting the evidence that a balanced package of enhancements would best support balanced economic growth in the Leeds and Sheffield City Regions, this Conditional Output has been separated to reflect different types of journeys: between regional centre stations, between regional and sub-regional centres, from other stations to regional and sub-regional centres and between sub-regional centres. Regional Centre Connectivity
6.13
The regional centres of Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield and York are the key economic centres within Yorkshire. The available evidence shows that enhancing the connectivity between these cities will accelerate economic growth in the North. Links from these cities across the Pennines to Manchester are also highly economically significant, and some benefits identified by this study will be realised by interventions that are part of the Northern Hub Phase 1 and Phase 2 package of works.
6.14
The attractiveness of rail will be maximised by offering an even interval service with journey times recognisably faster than off-peak journeys by car. Journey time targets are generally equivalent to around 75% of the off-peak drive time between the regional centres. The frequency target represents an improvement to current frequency. Target journey times and frequencies between principal centres are:
64
Conditional Output Statement I
Leeds – Manchester: 40 minutes, six trains per hour; 5
I
Sheffield – Manchester: 40 minutes, four trains per hour; 6
I
Leeds – Sheffield: 35 minutes, two trains per hour (and two semi-fast trains which provide a viable alternative to the fast trains); 7
I
Bradford – Manchester: 50 minutes, two trains per hour;8
I
Bradford – Leeds: 15 minutes, six trains per hour, from a single station; 9 and
I
Leeds – York: 20 minutes, six trains per hour. 10
Sub-Regional Centre Connectivity 6.15
There are important connections from Leeds and Sheffield to other regional and sub-regional centres within and outside Yorkshire. These include Halifax, Harrogate, Huddersfield and Wakefield in the Leeds City Region and Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster and Chesterfield in the Sheffield City Region, as well as cities outside the two City Regions such as Hull and Nottingham.
6.16
An even interval service should be provided between these sub-regional centres and Leeds and Sheffield that offers an in-train journey time of at most 75% of offpeak car travel times. Frequency should be at least two trains per hour all-day operating on a clockface timetable with additional services in the peak as the capacity output requires. Within City Region Connectivity
6.17
The rail network in Yorkshire also forms a vital role in providing local rail journeys for commuting, business and leisure purposes to the key regional centres as well as connectivity to longer distance services.
6.18
Local services 11 within Leeds and Sheffield City Regions serving Leeds and Sheffield should have a minimum all-day service frequency of two trains per hour operating on a clockface timetable with additional services in the peak as the capacity output requires. Improving journey times between Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester as well as between these regional centres and the sub-regional centres will also offer the opportunity to improve journey times within the two city regions. Meeting other outputs (such as those related to capacity and rolling stock) will also provide further opportunity to deliver benefits by reducing travel times within the journey to work catchment.
5
Currently four trains per hour with a quickest journey time of 53 minutes, 55 minute drive time
6
Currently two trains per hour with a quickest journey time of 51 minutes, 70 minute drive time (the target rail journey time is less than 75% of the drive time reflecting the poor highway links between Sheffield and Manchester) 7
Currently one fast train per hour with a quickest journey time of 40 minutes, 45 minute drive time
8
Currently one fast train per hour with a journey time of 60 minutes, 55 minute drive time (the target rail journey time is greater than 75% of the drive time reflecting the railway geography between Bradford and Manchester) 9
Currently four per hour from Interchange with a quickest journey time of 18 minutes, 25 minute drive time
10
Currently four fast trains per hour with a quickest journey time of 24 minutes, 35 minute time
11
Typically stopping at all stations on the route in which they operate, for example Ilkley to Leeds.
65
Conditional Output Statement Connectivity between Sub-Regional Centres 6.19
The available evidence is that enhancing connectivity between sub-regional centres will deliver economic benefits but not at a great a rate as enhancements to services between and to/from the principal centres. While every opportunity should be taken that delivers value for money enhancements to services that link sub-regional centres, such enhancements should not be prioritised over enhancements to services between and to/from the regional centres.
2) Capacity 6.20
Passenger demand growth is the central factor determining the need for additional capacity. Forecast growth in demand to 2019 is between 9% in the Trend scenario and 21% in the Trend Plus scenario. By 2027 demand is forecast to be 21% higher than now in the Trend scenario and 37% higher in Trend Plus. These figures do not include any additional demand that would be generated by other service enhancements in that period, for example those identified to meet other of this study’s Conditional Outputs.
6.21
Already peak period trains into Sheffield and Leeds , trains across the Pennines into Manchester and trains at other locations experience crowding. For the economic potential of rail to be fully realised, sufficient capacity, delivered by longer or more frequent trains, needs to be provided to accommodate forecast Trend demand growth to 2027 and demand induced by other future service enhancements.
6.22
Further, infrastructure solutions that are identified to deliver other Conditional Outputs should be ‘future-proofed’ to allow Trend Plus demand growth to be accommodated through train lengthening and without the need for further major infrastructure investment.
3) Freight 6.23
Given the long life of the principal coal-fired power stations in the Aire Valley, providing ESI (Electricity Supply Industry) freight capacity to maintain the generating capacity of power stations in Yorkshire is an important priority.
6.24
In addition provision should be made to accommodate future freight growth as identified by the Strategic Freight Network analysis, the Freight Route Utilisation Strategy and other relevant Route Utilisation Strategies. Specifically measures will be needed to enable the forecast growth to 2030 in intermodal traffic. This will include additional paths between the South Coast ports and existing and proposed intermodal rail freight interchanges in Yorkshire (and the North East and Scotland), as well as enhanced loading gauges and available paths to open up new routes between the East Coast ports and the East and West Midlands, and the East Coast ports and the North West via trans-Pennine routes.
4) Performance 6.25
66
Poor performance, in terms of reliability, punctuality and delivering planned train capacity, can have a direct impact on passengers’ perception of rail. Over time passengers may choose to travel by alternative modes, or to not travel at all, which in turn can have negative economic affects.
Conditional Output Statement 6.26
Opportunities must be identified to reduce the variation in performance by improving performance of the relatively poor performing corridors. Overall performance in the study area, in terms of punctuality and reliability, should not be worsened by enhancements to deliver the Conditional Outputs in each corridor.
6.27
Although formal targets for improved performance have yet to be determined for Control Period 5, any enhancements identified should contribute towards meeting such targets, once they are set.
5) Journey Quality 6.28
Additional rolling stock will be required to deliver additional passenger capacity and connectivity targets set out in this statement. Further, some rolling stock operating in Yorkshire is becoming life expired and will need replacing. Any replacement rolling stock should offer an improved passenger experience.
6) Access to the Network 6.29
To attract people to the rail network it is important that stations, as the gateway to the network, are easily accessible and offer a consistent high quality facility. Local authorities should work in conjunction with the rail industry and other stakeholders to ensure that necessary improvements are made to car parking capacity, including consideration of strategic Park & Ride sites, to accommodate forecast background demand growth and additional demand induced by future service enhancements and that these are complemented by improvements to pedestrian and cycle access to the stations. In particular, improving the quality of walking routes including lighting, signage, sightlines and on occasion, the provision of CCTV can encourage use, particularly during darkness. Station quality should be improved by ensuring that there is consistent information prov ision, staffing arrangements, retail, cycling and toilet facilities and step free access (important for the disabled and those travelling with young children, buggies, luggage etc) for stations in the same category.
7) Growth Centres 6.30
The key role of Bradford and Leeds as engines of economic growth is identified in the Leeds City Region Transport Strategy and transport enhancements to these cities are given the highest priority.
6.31
The economic role of the sub-regional cities and towns 12 is also identified (Halifax, Harrogate, Huddersfield, Wakefield and York) with the intention to capitalise on their particular strengths and potential. The strategy also identifies the need to support the delivery of priority areas for regeneration and housing growth (Coalfield Regeneration Area in Wakefield District, Airedale – Bradford to Skipton, East Leeds, South Dewsbury/North Kirklees, York North West, East Bradford – West Leeds area).
6.32
The Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy identifies the importance of Sheffield City Centre in supporting economic growth. It also highlights the Dearne Valley, East Doncaster and the Lower Don Valley as priority areas for economic growth.
12
The definition of regional and sub-regional centres differs slightly between the Leeds City Region Transport Strategy and this study. The definition for this study can be found in Chapter 1.
67
Conditional Output Statement Ambitious housing targets have been set by the Local Development Frameworks. Transport connectivity to housing and employment areas will be one of the factors that contribute to their success. However, some of these locations are remote from the rail network. 6.33
The Government has announced the creation of 21 Local Enterprise Zones (LEZs). The zones in Yorkshire are the Aire Valley in East Leeds, the Modern Manufacturing and Technology Growth Area in Sheffield City Region and Humber Estuary Renewable Energy Super Cluster.
6.34
Many growth centres are already directly served by rail, but where they are not, opportunities for appropriate fast and frequent connectivity from rail hubs to growth areas in the Leeds and Sheffield City regions and to the LEZs should be pursued.
8) North-South Links 6.35
From the East Coast Main Line and East Midlands RUS process and as witnessed by the case for High Speed 2, there is a strong and established evidence base on the benefits to Yorkshire from reducing journey times to/from London. That this study has not proposed journey time outputs for north - south services should not be taken as an indication that such improvements are not important. Rather it reflects the national nature of such services and that enhancements will be developed as part of national initiatives.
6.36
Improvements to the rail network in Yorkshire should not preclude future enhancements in services to London, Birmingham and beyond using the existing network or future high speed network. It is equally important that additional services to these destinations should not preclude improvements to other interregional and local rail services in Yorkshire. Improvements should seek to distribute the economic benefits and journey opportunities that these services generate around the Yorkshire area and make best use of capacity on longer distance routes that will become available following the introduction of high speed rail services.
9) Links to Airports 6.37
The region’s airports provide important international passenger gateways allowing travel between the region and many European destinations for business and leisure purposes. As such the airports help attract both businesses and potential employees to locate to the area. Ensuring reliable and timely connectivity to the airports is vital to ensuring the success of the airports, and in turn the economies that they support.
6.38
Metro and SYPTE should continue to work with their local authority and LEP stakeholders and transport providers to ensure fast, frequent and reliable connectivity between rail hubs and airports, including:
68
I
Leeds and Bradford stations to Leeds Bradford Airport; and
I
Sheffield and Doncaster stations to Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield.
Conditional Output Statement 6.39
Enhancements identified to meet these Conditional Outputs should take into consideration the longer term aspiration for a rail link to Leeds Bradford Airport and the planning commitment for a station serving Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield.
6.40
Although outside the region, Manchester Airport serves as the primary gateway airport in the North of England. Ensuring ease of access to Manchester Airport is important if the attractiveness of Yorkshire to business is to be maximised. The Northern Hub considered the benefits of improved links from Yorkshire to Manchester Airport and the Conditional Outputs set for that study remain valid.
6.41
This required that each primary corridor has direct rail connectivity to Manchester Airport operating at least an hourly frequency (two per hour on the North Trans Pennine route) over an operational day defined by the period which accounts for 90% of Manchester Airport’s passenger throughput, which for the Yorkshire means: I
from Huddersfield, Leeds, York and the North East via the North Trans -Pennine route;
I
from Doncaster and Sheffield via the South Trans -Pennine route; and
I
from Bradford via the Calder Valley line and utilising infrastructure that will be provided by the Northern Hub package.
10) Carbon Reduction 6.42
The net effect of ‘in-service’ proposals developed to deliver the Conditional Outputs should support the achievement of the overall reduced carbon trajectory for transport sector adopted by Government.
Strategic Gap Analysis 6.43
The following table provides a summary of the Conditional Outputs together with a strategic summary of the infrastructure constraints that might be preventing the delivery of the outputs. An early stage of any further study must be to understand the nature of the constraints that are preventing delivery of the Conditional Outputs and how these might be addressed.
69
Conditional Output Statement TABLE 6.1
CONDITIONAL OUTPUT SUMMARY
Conditional Output
Current Constraint
1.Connectivity
Capability of the network and provision of sufficient and appropriate rolling stock to operate faster services
Rail journey times that are quicker than off peak car journeys A minimum frequency of two trains per hour (up to six trains per hour in some corridors) all day operating on a clockface timetable with additional peak services as required to meet demand.
2. Capacity
3. Freight
4. Performance
Network capacity and availability of rolling stock to deliver increased frequency
Sufficient capacity, by providing longer or more frequent trains, to accommodate forecast demand growth to 2027
Seating capacity currently exceeded on peak and inter-regional off peak services.
Sufficient network capacity and capability to maintain the region’s electricity generating capacity and deliver forecast growth in rail freight, particularly inter-modal container traffic
Availability of transPennine and North–South freight paths
Reduce the variation in performance by improving performance of the relatively poor performing corridors.
Variability in performance of services in different corridors
Limited availability of rolling stock and infrastructure capability prevents longer or more frequent services
Network currently restricts operation of longer freight trains and the routes that are available for trains transporting the latest generation of inter-modal containers on standard wagons
Any enhancements to meet these Conditional Outputs should not worsen performance 5. Journey Quality
70
New and/or refurbished rolling stock to offer an improved passenger experience
Variability in the quality of rolling stock across different corridors
Conditional Output Statement
Conditional Output
Current Constraint
6. Access to the Network
Insufficient car park capacity to cater for all day demand
Sufficient car parking capacity and high quality access by sustainable modes to accommodate future demand and consistent station quality
Poor quality walk / cycle routes to stations and lack of capacity in high quality public transport Variability in station facilities
7. Growth Centres
Connectivity to rail connected growth centres should benefit from delivering the Connectivity Output Appropriate fast and frequent connectivity from rail hubs to growth centres that are not connected to the rail network
8. North-South Links
Service improvements should not preclude HS2 implementation or vice versa. In the interim the development of services on the Midland and East Coast Main Lines are supported
While many growth centres are well connected to the rail network, a number of growth centres are not, so there is a need is to consider access services to these.
To be considered following HS2 Phase 2 consultation in 2014
Local rail services should maximise the distribution of HS2 benefits around the region 9. Links to Airports
Ensure fast, frequent and reliable connectivity between rail hubs and airports Direct hourly connectivity to Manchester Airport (during the period of 90% of passenger throughput) via South Trans Pennine and Calder Valley corridors and half hourly via North Trans Pennine corridor
10. Carbon Reduction
Support the achievement of the overall reduced carbon trajectory for transport sector as adopted by Government
No current rail links to Leeds Bradford Airport and Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield. Improved connectivity from the Calder Valley and South Yorkshire to Manchester Airport is not yet committed
Not all rolling stock meets contemporary emissions standards
71
Conditional Output Statement
72
Conditional Output Statement
APPENDIX A EVIDENCE REVIEW REFERENCES
Appendix A
Conditional Output Statement
A1
STRATEGIC EVIDENCE REFERENCES Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) (2007) Greater Manchester TIF Bid AGMA, Manchester Centre for Cities (2008) City Links: Integration and Isolation Centre for Cities, London CEBR (2005) Macroeconomic Assessment of Manchester Hub Rail Schemes North West Rail Campaign, Manchester Centre for Cities (2011) Cities Outlook 2011 Centre for Cities, London Centre for Urban Policy Studies (CUPS) et al (2008) Connecting the North: Interdependence and Barriers: Rail, Road, Air and Maritime Links Northern Way, Newcastle Delta Rail (2011) Station Usage 2009/10 Office of Rail Regulation, London Department for Transport (2005) Transport, Wider Economic Benefits and Impacts on GDP Department for Transport, London Department for Transport (2008) Improving the Air Passenger Experience: an Analysis of End-to-End Journeys with a Focus on Manchester Airport Department for Transport, London Department for Transport (2011a) Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen Cm 7996, Department for Transport, London Department for Transport (2011b) Business Plan 2011-2015 Department for Transport, London Eddington R (2006) The Eddington Transport Study HMT, London Ekosgen (2008) Joint Economic Study: Manchester and Sheffield Final Report Manchester City Council, Manchester Greengauge21 (2010) Consequences for Employment and Economic Growth Greengauge21, London HM Government (2010) The Coalition: our Programme for Government Cabinet Office, London Her Majesty’s Treasury (2010) Spending Review 2010 Cm 7942 HMT, London Her Majesty’s Treasury & Infrastructure UK (2011) National Infrastructure Plan 2011 The Stationary Office, London House of Commons Transport Committee (2011) Transport and the Economy Third Report of Session 2010–11 Volume I Hc 473 The Stationery Office, London Institute for Political and Economic Governance (IPEG), University of Manchester et al, (2008) The Northern Connection: Assessing the Comparative Economic Performance and Prospects of Northern England Northern Way, Newcastle Institute for Transport Studies (2009) Strengthening the Assessment of Transport’s Wider Impacts on the Economy Northern Way, Newcastle
Appendix A
Conditional Output Statement Institute for Transport Studies (2010) Review of Methodologies to Assess Transport’s Impacts on the Size of the Economy Northern Way, Newcastle Leeds City Region Partners (2009) Leeds City Region Transport Strategy Main Report – Delivering Low Carbon Connectivity to Promote Faster Economic Growth Leeds City Region, Leeds Leeds City Region Partners (2010) Leeds City Region DaSTS Connectivity Study Phase 1 Executive Summary Report Leeds City Region, Leeds LEK (2003) Future Rail Services to Manchester Airport Manchester Airport Group, Manchester Lythgoe, W F and Wardman, M (2002) Demand for Rail Travel to and from Airports Transportation 29 125-143 Manchester Airport (2007) Manchester Airport Master Plan to 2030, Manchester Airport, Manchester Manchester Independent Economic Review (2009) Reviewers’ Report MIER, Manchester MDS Transmodal (2006) Evidence Based Review of the Growth Prospects of the Northern Ports, The Northern Way, Newcastle Metro (2008) Leeds New Generation Transport Strategic Fit: Problems, Technical Note Metro, Leeds Mott MacDonald (2011) PDFC Additional Rolling Stock Study ATOC, London Network Rail (2007) North West Route Utilisation Strategy Network Rail, London Network Rail (2009) Yorkshire & Humber Route Utilisation Strategy Network Rail, London Northern Way (2004) Northern Way Growth Strategy, Northern Way, Newcastle Northern Way (2006) Strategic Direction for Transport Northern Way, Newcastle Northern Way (2007) Short, Medium and Long Term Transport Priorities Northern Way, Newcastle Northern Way (2008) Airports and Ports and the Northern Economy Northern Way, Newcastle Northern Way (2010) Meeting the Economic Challenge: Delivering the Northern Way’s Transport Priorities Northern Way, Newcastle Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2000) Our Towns and Cities: The Future Delivering an Urban Renaissance ODPM, London ORC International (2005) Trans Pennine Express Manchester Airport Research, Trans Pennine Express, York Parkinson et al (2006a) State of the English Cities Volume 1 ODPM, London Parkinson et al (2006b) State of the English Cities Volume 2 ODPM, London SACTRA (1999) Transport and the Economy, HMSO, London
Appendix A
Conditional Output Statement Sheffield City Region Executive Team (2010) Sheffield City Region Strategic Economic Assessment Sheffield City Region, Sheffield Sheffield City Region (2011) Sheffield City Region Transport Strategy 2011-2026 Sheffield City Region, Sheffield Spatial Economics Research Centre (2009) Strengthening Economic Linkages between Leeds and Manchester: Feasibility and Implications Northern Way, Newcastle Steer Davies Gleave (2006) Model Development and Results for Northern Way using the South & West Yorkshire Dynamic Model Northern Way, Newcastle Steer Davies Gleave (2007a) Agglomeration in Leeds City Region Centre for Cities/IPPR, London Steer Davies Gleave (2007b) Market Demand for Rail Gauge Enhancements Northern Way, Newcastle Steer Davies Gleave (2007c) Manchester Hub: Objectives, Options and Next Steps Northern Way, Newcastle Steer Davies Gleave (2008a) The East of England Transport Economic Evidence Study EEDA, Histon Steer Davies Gleave (2008b) A Report to the Northern Way: Existing and Future Traffic and Congestion on the North’s Strategic Road Network Northern Way, Newcastle Sykes W and Desai P (2009) Understanding Airport Passenger Experience Department for Transport, London The Work Foundation, Centre for Cities, Centre for Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures (2009) City Relationships: Economic Linkages in Northern City Regions Northern Way, Newcastle York Aviation (2006) The Economic and Social Impact of The Manchester Airport Group Airports Manchester Airports Group, Manchester Appendix list number
Appendix A
Conditional Output Statement
APPENDIX B DISAGGREGATED ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
B1
INTRODUCTION
This Appendix contains additional information that has been output from the analytical work and used to inform the Conditional Output Statement. This includes a detailed breakdown of the economic benefits generated by the test timetable and graphs setting out the rates of benefit for the Trend scenario. The following paragraphs provide an explanation of the data included in this Appendix.
Test Timetable Economic Benefits The tables in Sections B2 to B7 set out the forecast incremental economic benefit generated by the Test Timetable compared to the Do Minimum. All values are 2002 Present Values. The benefits are broken down by corridor. The revenue, journey time, non-user and wider economic benefits allocated to each corridor are those generated by flows originating from stations within that corridor. The crowding benefits are allocated to each corridor based on the flows through that corridor. Three tables have been presented for each growth scenario, summarised as follows. Economic Benefits By Type (Trend, Section B2 / Trend Plus, Section B5) These tables detail the economic benefit generated by flows from (through in the case of crowding) each corridor broken down by the type of benefit. The data in this table is presented in Figures 4.13 and 4.14 in the body of the report. Economic Benefits By Destination – Regional Centre Stations Only (Trend, Section B3 / Trend Plus, Section B6) These tables present the benefits generated by flows originating in each corridor where the destination is one of the regional centre stations. The benefits are disaggregated by each of the regional centre stations. The table excludes crowding benefits, which are not output from the modelling work on an origin - destination basis. The total benefits from each corridor to all the regional centre stations is also summarised in the All Destinations tables. Economic Benefits By Destination – All Destinations (Trend, Section B4 / Trend Plus, Section B7) These tables present the benefits generated by flows originating in each corridor disaggregated by destination. Destinations have been split into five categories: regional and sub-regional centre stations, stations in Leeds or Sheffield City Regions and stations outside the region. The table excludes crowding benefits, which have not been output from the modelling work on an origin - destination basis. The data in this table is presented in Figures 4.15 and 4.16 in the body of the report.
Disaggregated Rates of Benefit Chapter 5 sets out the disaggregated rates of benefit for the Trend Plus scenario, with Figures 5.1 to 5.5 presenting the rates of benefit for crowding and connectivity benefits as well as the distribution of benefits by flow category. The Trend scenario presents a lower bound of forecast demand and therefore a lower bound of potential economic benefit, although the comparable benefit to be found between each corridor does not materially change. For completeness the graphs in Section B8 of this Appendix set out the corresponding figures for the Trend scenario. The rates of benefit by origin corridor, benefit type and destination, which inform the graphs presented in Chapter 5 are shown in Sections B9 to B14.
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
Journey Time
Crowding
Non User Benefits
Wider Economic Benefits
Total Benefits
TREND ECONOMIC BENEFITS BY TYPE – PV 2002 VALUES £M
Revenue Increment
B2
Leeds
£141.5
£550.3
£0.0
£154.9
£119.3
£966.1
M anchester
£98.5
£231.6
£0.0
£72.3
£47.7
£450.1
Sheffield
£67.3
£237.8
£0.0
£59.4
£67.7
£432.1
York
£59.8
£131.2
£0.0
£49.8
£35.5
£276.2
Bradford
£69.1
£286.3
£0.0
£116.3
£76.0
£547.7
London
£8.7
£15.1
£0.0
£5.7
£11.4
£40.9
Harrogate
£25.8
£74.0
£0.0
£18.8
£18.8
£137.4
Halifax
£23.4
£108.3
£0.0
£36.6
£30.6
£198.9
Huddersfield (Station)
£84.5
£265.5
£0.0
£135.1
£56.8
£541.8
Wakefield
£30.5
£126.1
£0.0
£55.3
£23.8
£235.8
Barnsley (Station)
£17.3
£65.3
£0.0
£20.2
£12.7
£115.6
Doncaster
£28.1
£97.2
£0.0
£33.2
£19.3
£177.9
Rotherham
£20.5
£50.9
£0.0
£13.6
£12.3
£97.3
Chesterfield
£9.6
£31.0
£0.0
£7.9
£12.2
£60.6
5 Towns
£19.6
£136.1
£38.3
£22.7
£30.5
£247.2
Bradford FS
£3.3
£23.0
£3.3
£3.1
£4.6
£37.3
Bradford Interchange
£18.0
£69.0
£163.2
£17.0
£24.3
£291.5
Calderdale
£27.2
£137.6
£105.6
£37.0
£36.9
£344.3
Harrogate - York
£10.0
£37.3
£11.5
£7.7
£9.2
£75.6
Huddersfield
£28.1
£111.7
£254.7
£27.4
£19.8
£441.6
Hull
£49.3
£140.8
£11.8
£41.0
£26.7
£269.5
Ilkley
£25.5
£153.9
£49.6
£33.2
£35.2
£297.4
Leeds - Harrogate
£19.5
£100.9
£61.1
£17.4
£23.7
£222.6
Leeds - York
£23.3
£96.6
£126.7
£23.6
£23.2
£293.3
Benefit Type
Origin Station / Corridor
Regional Centre Station
Sub Regional Centre Station
Leeds CR Corridors
Appendix B
Revenue Increment
Journey Time
Crowding
Non User Benefits
Wider Economic Benefits
Total Benefits
Conditional Output Statement
North Transpennine
£30.5
£96.9
£27.2
£19.8
£28.9
£203.4
Skipton
£43.4
£230.4
£85.9
£51.7
£51.7
£463.1
Pontefract (Station)
£11.4
£34.1
£0.0
£9.3
£7.7
£62.5
Barnsley
£33.3
£87.5
£67.3
£22.9
£16.6
£227.7
Leeds - Doncaster
£12.4
£86.1
£60.8
£14.5
£18.1
£191.8
Penistone
£5.4
£36.7
£1.2
£7.3
£14.7
£65.2
Pontefract Baghill
£1.7
£10.4
-£0.1
£1.2
£2.9
£16.1
Bolton - M oorthorpe
£4.4
£29.1
£69.9
£5.6
£8.0
£117.0
York - Doncaster
£0.0
£0.0
£2.0
£0.0
£0.0
£2.0
Lincoln
£44.0
£122.0
£17.3
£39.9
£42.5
£265.6
M idland M ain Line
£38.2
£107.8
£193.5
£30.2
£43.4
£413.0
Sheffield - Doncaster
£18.3
£53.4
£151.8
£14.9
£12.9
£251.3
South Transpennine
£32.5
£83.4
£156.7
£19.6
£32.6
£324.7
Thorne (Station)
£0.5
£3.1
£0.0
£0.6
£0.8
£5.0
Blackpool
£34.2
£137.1
£1.8
£28.6
£32.4
£234.2
Doncaster - Cleethorpes
£5.3
£23.1
£1.5
£5.0
£5.6
£40.5
ECM L North
£14.6
£32.7
£49.8
£9.4
£7.4
£114.0
ECM L South
£7.0
£22.9
£2.8
£5.1
£5.3
£43.1
Goole
£9.3
£24.5
£36.2
£8.0
£4.2
£82.1
Rochdale
£17.6
£65.3
£1.3
£13.1
£16.2
£113.5
Scarborough
£3.8
£19.4
£2.6
£3.7
£3.3
£32.8
Yorkshire Dales
£3.4
£18.9
£0.0
£3.4
£8.0
£33.7
Outside Study Area
£58.8
£213.5
£0.0
£42.5
£86.6
£401.5
£1,338
£4,816
£1,755
£1,366
£1,228
£10,503
Benefit Type
Origin Station / Corridor
Inter CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
Total
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
TREND ECONOMIC BENEFITS BY DESTINATION EXCLUDING CROWDING (REGIONAL STATIONS) – PV 2002 VALUES £M
Leeds
London
Bradford
York
Sheffield
Manchester
Origin Station / Corridor
Leeds
Destination
Total Regional Centres
B3
£0.0
£135.9
£41.6
£40.7
£102.3
-£0.2
£320.4
M anchester
£112.2
£0.0
£47.6
£37.4
£14.8
£0.0
£212.0
Regional Centre
Sheffield
£63.2
£76.8
£0.0
£6.3
£11.8
£0.1
£158.2
Station
York
£57.2
£46.1
£4.9
£0.0
£9.6
£0.0
£117.8
Bradford
£199.1
£25.7
£10.9
£12.2
£0.0
£4.6
£252.5
London
-£0.1
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£4.4
£0.0
£4.3
Harrogate
£49.4
£9.3
£1.9
£18.8
£5.4
£4.5
£89.2
Halifax
£84.4
£18.9
£1.2
£23.6
£25.0
£2.5
£155.6
Huddersfield (Station)
£200.8
£60.5
£8.0
£18.2
£41.8
£1.7
£331.1
Wakefield
£88.1
£3.4
£9.9
£0.8
£42.8
£0.0
£145.1
Barnsley (Station)
£15.7
£2.2
£36.5
£1.2
£10.7
£1.1
£67.5
Doncaster
£2.8
£9.4
£56.3
£0.0
£1.1
£0.0
£69.6
Rotherham
£7.4
£1.5
£26.3
£12.9
£3.3
£0.6
£51.9
Chesterfield
£6.3
£9.8
£7.9
£0.0
£4.0
£0.0
£28.1
5 Towns
£95.1
£2.6
£2.6
£1.2
£13.2
£0.1
£114.8
Bradford FS
£12.9
£0.4
£0.2
£0.3
£9.6
£0.2
£23.5
Bradford Interchange
£62.4
£3.9
£2.8
£9.9
£9.1
£0.8
£89.0
Calderdale
£72.5
£39.0
£1.9
£20.2
£15.2
£2.1
£151.0
Harrogate - York
£22.5
£2.1
£0.9
£12.7
£2.7
£0.1
£40.9
Huddersfield
£69.5
£14.9
£1.2
£4.3
£2.2
£0.1
£92.2
Hull
£53.9
£26.8
£15.0
£27.2
£3.8
£0.2
£126.9
Ilkley
£159.9
£5.6
£2.7
£2.1
£19.9
£2.7
£193.0
Leeds - Harrogate
£95.2
£8.7
£3.5
£1.6
£6.5
£0.3
£116.0
Sub Regional Centre Station
Leeds CR Corridors
Appendix B
Leeds
Manchester
Sheffield
York
Bradford
London
Destination
Leeds - York
£83.9
£10.7
£0.6
£23.2
£0.8
£1.7
£120.9
North Transpennine
£6.6
£71.9
£0.6
£3.3
£1.0
£1.0
£84.5
Skipton
£167.5
£8.1
£5.1
£6.5
£59.6
£6.4
£253.3
Pontefract (Station)
£17.2
£1.9
£3.3
£25.0
£1.9
£0.6
£49.8
Barnsley
£14.7
£8.9
£28.3
£5.7
£8.4
£0.8
£66.8
Leeds - Doncaster
£59.7
£1.2
£3.9
£2.6
£4.0
£0.1
£71.5
Penistone
£6.1
£2.7
£12.5
£1.6
£0.7
£0.5
£24.1
Pontefract Baghill
£0.0
£0.0
£0.5
£10.8
£0.0
£0.2
£11.5
Bolton - M oorthorpe
£15.7
£0.3
£8.3
£0.7
£0.9
£0.0
£25.9
York - Doncaster
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
Lincoln
£6.9
£6.0
£44.4
£3.9
£2.9
£0.9
£64.9
M idland M ain Line
£23.2
£45.4
£33.9
£2.3
£22.4
£1.1
£128.2
Sheffield - Doncaster
£3.5
£1.0
£25.2
£1.5
£0.5
£0.3
£32.0
South Transpennine
£19.9
£25.5
£32.0
£14.0
£1.9
£0.2
£93.5
Thorne (Station)
£0.2
£0.1
£0.5
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.8
Blackpool
£31.7
£1.7
£3.4
£19.6
£10.4
£10.2
£77.0
Doncaster - Cleethorpes
£5.0
£4.0
£4.9
£0.2
£1.0
-£0.4
£14.7
ECM L North
-£3.6
£38.5
£0.2
-£19.6
£1.6
-£3.5
£13.5
ECM L South
£0.2
£6.4
£5.7
£0.1
£0.9
-£2.0
£11.4
Goole
£1.0
£0.5
£1.8
£0.3
£0.2
£0.2
£4.0
Rochdale
£6.6
£60.7
£0.4
£1.1
£4.1
£0.8
£73.7
Scarborough
-£2.2
£3.2
£0.6
-£1.8
£0.4
£1.6
£1.7
Yorkshire Dales
£12.8
£0.3
£1.5
£2.0
£1.7
£1.0
£19.3
Outside Study Area
£63.6
£30.5
£38.4
£27.8
£13.5
£3.2
£177.0
£2,071
£833
£540
£383
£498
£47
£4,371
Origin Station / Corridor
Inter CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
Total Regional Centres
Conditional Output Statement
Total Excluding Crowding
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
B4
TREND ECONOMIC BENEFITS BY DESTINATION EXCLUDING CROWDING (ALL LOCATIONS) – PV 2002 VALUES £M
Regional Centres
Sub Regional Centre Station
Leeds CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
All Flows
Destination
Leeds
£320.4
£154.3
£332.8
£12.9
£145.7
£966.1
M anchester
£212.0
£53.0
£29.1
£6.7
£149.2
£450.1
Regional Centre
Sheffield
£158.2
£83.9
£14.7
£61.9
£113.4
£432.1
Station
York
£117.8
£44.6
£38.9
£5.3
£69.7
£276.2
Bradford
£252.5
£128.5
£91.4
£16.1
£59.2
£547.7
London
£4.3
£8.8
£10.3
£1.3
£16.2
£40.9
Harrogate
£89.2
£6.6
£15.7
£0.6
£25.3
£137.4
Halifax
£155.6
£8.5
£15.7
£0.7
£18.4
£198.9
Huddersfield (Station)
£331.1
£46.1
£110.1
£4.9
£49.7
£541.8
Wakefield
£145.1
£47.0
£29.1
£4.1
£10.5
£235.8
Barnsley (Station)
£67.5
£12.1
£5.7
£22.2
£8.2
£115.6
Doncaster
£69.6
£11.0
£4.3
£35.9
£57.1
£177.9
Rotherham
£51.9
£14.9
£2.4
£20.4
£7.7
£97.3
Chesterfield
£28.1
£4.6
£1.4
£8.3
£18.3
£60.6
5 Towns
£114.8
£22.4
£41.0
£4.1
£26.7
£208.9
Bradford FS
£23.5
£0.9
£9.2
£0.0
£0.4
£34.0
Bradford Interchange
£89.0
£18.6
£9.7
£3.8
£7.2
£128.3
Calderdale
£151.0
£20.7
£32.3
£1.1
£33.6
£238.7
Harrogate - York
£40.9
£10.4
£7.3
£0.2
£5.3
£64.2
Huddersfield
£92.2
£72.4
£13.1
£0.6
£8.6
£186.9
Hull
£126.9
£20.0
£31.3
£7.5
£72.0
£257.7
Ilkley
£193.0
£6.5
£40.3
£0.6
£7.4
£247.7
Leeds - Harrogate
£116.0
£21.3
£16.1
£0.7
£7.3
£161.4
Leeds - York
£120.9
£20.2
£16.8
£0.4
£8.4
£166.7
Origin Station / Corridor
Sub Regional Centre Station
Leeds CR Corridors
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement Regional Centres
Sub Regional Centre Station
Leeds CR
Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
All Flows
Destination
North Transpennine
£84.5
£57.9
£12.3
£0.4
£21.1
£176.2
Skipton
£253.3
£18.1
£91.0
£1.5
£13.4
£377.2
Pontefract (Station)
£49.8
£4.7
£4.5
£0.4
£3.1
£62.5
Barnsley
£66.8
£38.4
£6.1
£33.5
£15.6
£160.4
Leeds - Doncaster
£71.5
£40.4
£11.0
£4.8
£3.2
£131.0
Penistone
£24.1
£22.3
£6.6
£8.6
£2.3
£64.0
Pontefract Baghill
£11.5
£0.4
£0.9
£0.1
£3.3
£16.2
Bolton - M oorthorpe
£25.9
£8.2
£3.6
£7.9
£1.5
£47.0
York - Doncaster
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
Lincoln
£64.9
£50.5
£1.6
£93.7
£37.6
£248.3
M idland M ain Line
£128.2
£23.3
£8.3
£10.1
£49.6
£219.5
Sheffield - Doncaster
£32.0
£27.2
£1.0
£36.1
£3.3
£99.5
South Transpennine
£93.5
£18.4
£7.5
£6.2
£42.4
£168.0
Thorne (Station)
£0.8
£2.6
£0.1
£0.5
£1.0
£5.0
Blackpool
£77.0
£13.1
£9.1
£1.3
£131.8
£232.3
Doncaster - Cleethorpes
£14.7
£6.3
£1.0
£3.2
£13.8
£38.9
ECM L North
£13.5
£5.0
£4.4
£0.4
£40.8
£64.1
ECM L South
£11.4
£2.7
£1.1
£9.1
£16.0
£40.4
Goole
£4.0
£16.0
£2.2
£5.3
£18.5
£45.9
Rochdale
£73.7
£12.3
£10.2
£0.2
£15.8
£112.3
Scarborough
£1.7
£1.7
£0.3
£0.2
£26.2
£30.2
Yorkshire Dales
£19.3
£2.4
£2.2
£0.3
£9.5
£33.7
Outside Study Area
£177.0
£39.2
£21.5
£8.3
£155.5
£401.5
£4,371
£1,249
£1,125
£452
£1,551
£8,747
Origin Station / Corridor
Inter CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
Total Excluding Crowding
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
Journey Time
Crowding
Non User Benefits
Wider Economic Benefits
Total Benefits
TREND PLUS ECONOMIC BENEFITS BY TYPE – PV 2002 VALUES £M
Revenue Increment
B5
Leeds
£145.9
£604.6
£0.0
£155.3
£128.4
£1,034.1
M anchester
£85.8
£249.5
£0.0
£62.2
£48.6
£446.3
Sheffield
£75.7
£264.4
£0.0
£66.2
£75.3
£481.5
York
£74.8
£150.5
£0.0
£62.7
£42.0
£330.0
Bradford
£80.7
£339.2
£0.0
£143.2
£91.0
£654.0
London
£8.7
£15.2
£0.0
£5.8
£11.5
£41.1
Harrogate
£30.5
£85.4
£0.0
£22.4
£21.9
£160.2
Halifax
£27.6
£124.8
£0.0
£43.7
£35.6
£231.7
Huddersfield (Station)
£88.1
£312.2
£0.0
£128.4
£62.4
£591.1
Wakefield
£36.1
£151.2
£0.0
£68.1
£28.7
£284.2
Barnsley (Station)
£20.2
£76.9
£0.0
£24.3
£15.0
£136.4
Doncaster
£29.8
£111.5
£0.0
£37.4
£22.0
£200.7
Rotherham
£21.0
£57.0
£0.0
£15.3
£13.7
£106.9
Chesterfield
£10.9
£35.3
£0.0
£9.0
£13.9
£69.1
5 Towns
£23.2
£157.1
£70.6
£27.6
£35.5
£314.0
Bradford FS
£3.7
£25.4
£5.8
£3.5
£5.1
£43.4
Bradford Interchange
£21.1
£80.6
£193.4
£20.1
£28.4
£343.7
Calderdale
£30.9
£154.6
£123.6
£42.9
£41.8
£393.8
Harrogate - York
£11.6
£42.0
£12.8
£9.2
£10.5
£86.0
Huddersfield
£35.6
£135.4
£290.2
£34.5
£24.2
£519.9
Hull
£56.0
£158.8
£13.1
£46.8
£30.2
£304.8
Ilkley
£26.5
£175.7
£79.2
£34.5
£39.5
£355.4
Leeds - Harrogate
£23.4
£119.9
£74.2
£21.4
£28.3
£267.2
Leeds - York
£26.9
£111.7
£163.9
£27.4
£26.8
£356.6
Benefit Type
Origin Station / Corridor
Regional Centre Station
Sub Regional Centre Station
Leeds CR Corridors
Appendix B
Revenue Increment
Journey Time
Crowding
Non User Benefits
Wider Economic Benefits
Total Benefits
Conditional Output Statement
North Transpennine
£38.5
£123.9
£49.6
£23.6
£36.5
£272.1
Skipton
£46.1
£257.0
£130.7
£54.6
£57.0
£545.4
Pontefract (Station)
£14.2
£41.5
£0.0
£11.4
£9.5
£76.6
Barnsley
£34.7
£96.6
£99.0
£25.7
£18.4
£274.4
Leeds - Doncaster
£13.3
£95.7
£110.0
£15.5
£20.0
£254.4
Penistone
£6.0
£41.7
£1.6
£8.3
£16.7
£74.3
Pontefract Baghill
£2.0
£11.5
-£0.2
£1.4
£3.2
£17.9
Bolton - M oorthorpe
£5.1
£34.2
£91.8
£6.6
£9.4
£147.2
York - Doncaster
£0.0
£0.0
£6.4
£0.0
£0.0
£6.4
Lincoln
£45.6
£131.0
£27.8
£41.7
£45.3
£291.4
M idland M ain Line
£42.8
£122.5
£256.4
£33.5
£49.0
£504.2
Sheffield - Doncaster
£19.8
£60.3
£224.8
£16.5
£14.5
£335.9
South Transpennine
£43.1
£93.6
£207.8
£25.0
£37.8
£407.3
Thorne (Station)
£0.5
£3.3
£0.0
£0.6
£0.9
£5.3
Blackpool
£35.4
£141.7
£2.0
£29.7
£33.5
£242.3
Doncaster - Cleethorpes
£5.8
£25.5
£5.4
£5.6
£6.2
£48.7
ECM L North
£19.4
£38.4
£127.9
£13.1
£9.1
£207.8
ECM L South
£7.5
£25.3
£2.5
£5.4
£5.8
£46.6
Goole
£9.9
£26.5
£36.8
£8.5
£4.5
£86.2
Rochdale
£19.9
£75.9
£2.9
£14.8
£18.7
£132.2
Scarborough
£5.3
£19.8
£3.1
£4.9
£3.6
£36.7
Yorkshire Dales
£3.9
£20.5
£0.0
£4.0
£8.8
£37.2
Outside Study Area
£33.4
£228.6
£0.0
£22.0
£83.7
£367.8
£1,447
£5,454
£2,413
£1,484
£1,372
£12,170
Benefit Type
Origin Station / Corridor
Inter CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
Total
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
TREND PLUS ECONOMIC BENEFITS BY DESTINATION EXCLUDING CROWDING (REGIONAL STATIONS) – PV 2002 VALUES £M
Leeds
London
Bradford
York
Sheffield
Manchester
Origin Station / Corridor
Leeds
Destination
Total Regional Centres
B6
£0.0
£163.1
£53.3
£43.9
£110.9
-£0.2
£371.0
M anchester
£122.1
£0.0
£58.8
£38.9
£14.8
£0.0
£234.5
Regional Centre
Sheffield
£73.6
£95.0
£0.0
£6.3
£11.8
£0.1
£186.8
Station
York
£71.7
£60.0
£6.1
£0.0
£9.6
£0.0
£147.4
Bradford
£246.7
£32.4
£13.7
£12.3
£0.0
£4.7
£309.9
London
-£0.1
£0.0
£0.1
£0.0
£4.4
£0.0
£4.3
Harrogate
£59.6
£12.0
£2.5
£19.3
£7.1
£4.6
£105.1
Halifax
£102.3
£23.4
£1.5
£31.5
£25.7
£2.5
£186.9
Huddersfield (Station)
£176.3
£71.3
£9.7
£21.8
£55.8
£1.7
£336.6
Wakefield
£103.5
£4.2
£12.3
£0.8
£56.6
£0.0
£177.5
Barnsley (Station)
£18.3
£2.7
£47.3
£1.2
£12.8
£1.1
£83.5
Doncaster
£2.9
£11.7
£73.4
£0.0
£1.1
£0.0
£89.1
Rotherham
£8.6
£1.8
£33.8
£14.9
£3.7
£0.6
£63.4
Chesterfield
£7.3
£12.2
£9.9
£0.0
£4.8
£0.0
£34.2
5 Towns
£113.1
£3.1
£3.2
£1.3
£17.4
£0.1
£138.2
Bradford FS
£15.6
£0.4
£0.2
£0.3
£9.9
£0.2
£26.6
Bradford Interchange
£76.3
£4.9
£3.5
£10.2
£9.5
£0.8
£105.2
Calderdale
£86.3
£48.3
£2.3
£26.5
£15.5
£2.1
£181.1
Harrogate - York
£27.2
£2.7
£1.2
£13.1
£3.5
£0.1
£47.8
Huddersfield
£85.5
£19.5
£1.5
£4.4
£2.4
£0.1
£113.3
Hull
£63.5
£34.4
£18.8
£27.6
£3.9
£0.2
£148.4
Ilkley
£184.5
£6.6
£3.4
£2.2
£20.6
£2.8
£220.0
Leeds - Harrogate
£115.6
£11.3
£4.5
£1.8
£8.1
£0.3
£141.6
Sub Regional Centre Station
Leeds CR Corridors
Appendix B
Leeds
Manchester
Sheffield
York
Bradford
London
Destination
£101.6
£13.6
£0.8
£23.7
£0.8
£1.7
£142.3
£3.1
£90.0
£0.5
£5.5
£1.1
-£0.3
£99.9
Skipton
£193.7
£10.3
£6.4
£6.5
£62.0
£6.4
£285.2
Pontefract (Station)
£20.6
£2.3
£3.7
£33.2
£2.4
£0.6
£62.8
Barnsley
£17.2
£11.0
£36.2
£6.5
£10.0
£0.8
£81.7
Leeds - Doncaster
£69.0
£1.6
£4.8
£2.5
£5.1
£0.1
£83.1
Penistone
£6.5
£3.3
£15.8
£2.0
£0.9
£0.5
£29.0
Pontefract Baghill
£0.0
£0.0
£0.6
£11.0
£0.0
£0.2
£11.8
Bolton - M oorthorpe
£18.9
£0.3
£10.3
£0.7
£1.1
£0.0
£31.4
York - Doncaster
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
Lincoln
£8.0
£7.4
£55.7
£4.1
£3.3
£0.9
£79.4
M idland M ain Line
£27.0
£56.3
£42.0
£2.3
£24.0
£1.1
£152.7
Sheffield - Doncaster
£4.0
£1.3
£32.4
£1.5
£0.6
£0.3
£40.1
South Transpennine
£27.4
£33.6
£39.6
£16.6
£1.9
£0.2
£119.3
Thorne (Station)
£0.2
£0.1
£0.6
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£1.0
Blackpool
£36.9
£2.1
£4.2
£19.6
£10.4
£10.2
£83.4
Doncaster - Cleethorpes
£5.8
£5.0
£6.2
£0.2
£1.0
-£0.4
£17.8
ECM L North
-£4.2
£50.4
£0.3
-£19.8
£1.6
-£3.6
£24.7
ECM L South
£0.2
£7.9
£7.1
£0.1
£0.9
-£2.0
£14.3
Goole
£1.1
£0.6
£2.3
£0.3
£0.2
£0.2
£4.7
Rochdale
£7.5
£75.1
£0.5
£1.1
£4.1
£0.8
£89.2
Scarborough
-£2.5
£4.2
£0.7
-£1.8
£0.4
£2.5
£3.4
Yorkshire Dales
£15.3
£0.4
£1.8
£2.1
£1.7
£1.0
£22.4
Outside Study Area
£64.0
-£12.7
£47.5
£28.6
£13.1
£3.2
£143.7
£2,382
£985
£681
£425
£557
£46
£5,076
Origin Station / Corridor Leeds - York North Transpennine
Inter CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
Total Regional Centres
Conditional Output Statement
Total Excluding Crowding
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
TREND PLUS ECONOMIC BENEFITS BY DESTINATION EXCLUDING CROWDING (ALL LOCATIONS) – PV 2002 VALUES £M
All Flows
£15.2
£148.4
£1,034.1
M anchester
£234.5
£53.0
£29.5
£7.9
£121.4
£446.3
Regional Centre
Sheffield
£186.8
£92.6
£15.2
£69.3
£117.7
£481.5
Station
York
£147.4
£53.1
£42.8
£5.9
£80.7
£330.0
Bradford
£309.9
£163.9
£101.3
£18.3
£60.6
£654.0
London
£4.3
£8.9
£9.9
£1.5
£16.5
£41.1
Harrogate
£105.1
£8.4
£17.8
£0.7
£28.1
£160.2
Halifax
£186.9
£8.9
£16.8
£0.8
£18.3
£231.7
Huddersfield (Station)
£336.6
£57.8
£136.6
£5.7
£54.3
£591.1
Wakefield
£177.5
£59.8
£31.6
£4.6
£10.7
£284.2
Barnsley (Station)
£83.5
£12.3
£6.2
£26.2
£8.2
£136.4
Doncaster
£89.1
£12.9
£4.3
£38.4
£56.0
£200.7
Rotherham
£63.4
£16.1
£2.6
£16.6
£8.1
£106.9
Chesterfield
£34.2
£4.7
£1.5
£10.1
£18.5
£69.1
5 Towns
£138.2
£23.7
£45.7
£4.7
£31.1
£243.4
Bradford FS
£26.6
£1.0
£9.6
£0.0
£0.4
£37.7
Bradford Interchange
£105.2
£21.6
£11.6
£4.3
£7.5
£150.2
Calderdale
£181.1
£21.3
£33.5
£1.2
£33.2
£270.2
Harrogate - York
£47.8
£11.1
£8.3
£0.2
£5.9
£73.3
Huddersfield
£113.3
£91.8
£14.1
£0.7
£9.8
£229.7
Hull
£148.4
£22.7
£38.3
£8.4
£73.8
£291.7
Ilkley
£220.0
£6.3
£41.6
£0.6
£7.6
£276.2
Leeds - Harrogate
£141.6
£24.0
£18.4
£0.9
£8.0
£193.0
Leeds - York
£142.3
£22.7
£17.9
£0.4
£9.4
£192.7
Sub Regional Centre Station
Leeds CR Corridors
Appendix B
Corridors
£350.1
Sheffield CR
£149.5
Leeds CR Corridors
£371.0
Centre Station
Leeds
Origin Station / Corridor
Sub Regional
Other Corridors
Destination
Regional Centres
B7
Conditional Output Statement
Sub Regional Centre Station
Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
All Flows
North Transpennine
£99.9
£74.3
£19.5
£0.4
£28.4
£222.5
Skipton
£285.2
£19.5
£94.2
£1.8
£14.0
£414.7
Pontefract (Station)
£62.8
£5.0
£5.3
£0.5
£2.9
£76.6
Barnsley
£81.7
£35.5
£6.9
£34.9
£16.3
£175.4
Leeds - Doncaster
£83.1
£41.0
£11.7
£5.4
£3.2
£144.4
Penistone
£29.0
£22.9
£7.8
£10.5
£2.4
£72.6
Pontefract Baghill
£11.8
£0.6
£1.2
£0.1
£4.4
£18.1
Bolton - M oorthorpe
£31.4
£9.0
£3.9
£9.5
£1.6
£55.4
York - Doncaster
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
Lincoln
£79.4
£49.4
£1.6
£94.9
£38.2
£263.6
M idland M ain Line
£152.7
£25.8
£7.0
£11.8
£50.6
£247.9
Sheffield - Doncaster
£40.1
£29.7
£1.0
£37.0
£3.3
£111.1
South Transpennine
£119.3
£19.0
£8.9
£5.1
£47.2
£199.5
Thorne (Station)
£1.0
£2.7
£0.1
£0.6
£1.0
£5.3
Blackpool
£83.4
£13.5
£9.3
£1.4
£132.5
£240.3
Doncaster - Cleethorpes
£17.8
£6.4
£1.0
£3.8
£14.2
£43.2
ECM L North
£24.7
£5.0
£4.5
£0.5
£45.2
£79.8
ECM L South
£14.3
£2.7
£1.1
£9.8
£16.2
£44.1
Goole
£4.7
£17.2
£2.8
£5.7
£18.9
£49.4
Rochdale
£89.2
£15.1
£10.3
£0.2
£14.5
£129.3
Scarborough
£3.4
£1.9
£0.3
£0.2
£27.8
£33.6
Yorkshire Dales
£22.4
£2.6
£2.2
£0.3
£9.8
£37.2
Outside Study Area
£143.7
£38.9
£20.6
£9.3
£155.3
£367.8
£5,076
£1,386
£1,227
£487
£1,582
£9,757
Origin Station / Corridor
Inter CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
Total Excluding Crowding
Leeds CR
Regional Centres
Destination
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
B8
Appendix B
TREND SCENARIO DISAGGREGATED RATE OF BENEFIT / DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFIT GRAPHS
Conditional Output Statement
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
Non User Benefits
Wider Economic Benefits
Total Connectivity Benefits
Leeds
£14.1
£54.8
£15.4
£11.9
£96.3
M anchester
£15.4
£36.3
£11.3
£7.5
£70.5
Regional Centre
Sheffield
£5.3
£18.9
£4.7
£5.4
£34.3
Station
York
£7.3
£15.9
£6.0
£4.3
£33.6
Bradford
£6.4
£26.7
£10.8
£7.1
£51.0
London
£5.7
£9.8
£3.7
£7.4
£26.6
Harrogate
£1.7
£4.9
£1.2
£1.2
£9.1
Halifax
£2.0
£9.2
£3.1
£2.6
£16.9
Huddersfield (Station)
£7.9
£25.0
£12.7
£5.3
£50.9
Wakefield
£3.1
£12.7
£5.6
£2.4
£23.8
Barnsley (Station)
£1.8
£6.7
£2.1
£1.3
£11.9
Doncaster
£2.7
£9.5
£3.2
£1.9
£17.3
Rotherham
£1.2
£3.0
£0.8
£0.7
£5.7
Chesterfield
£1.3
£4.2
£1.1
£1.7
£8.2
5 Towns
£1.3
£8.7
£1.5
£1.9
£13.3
£5.0
Bradford FS
£0.4
£2.6
£0.3
£0.5
£3.8
£0.3
Bradford Interchange
£1.6
£6.0
£1.5
£2.1
£11.2
£8.4
Calderdale
£2.0
£9.9
£2.7
£2.6
£17.1
£8.5
Harrogate - York
£0.7
£2.8
£0.6
£0.7
£4.8
£1.7
Huddersfield
£3.5
£14.1
£3.5
£2.5
£23.6
£10.1
Hull
£3.5
£10.1
£2.9
£1.9
£18.5
£1.1
Ilkley
£3.1
£18.7
£4.0
£4.3
£30.1
£6.5
Leeds - Harrogate
£2.2
£11.4
£2.0
£2.7
£18.2
£8.5
Benefit Type
Origin Station / Corridor
Sub Regional Centre Station
Leeds CR Corridors
Appendix B
Crowding (£000’s)
Journey Time
TREND RATES OF ECONOMIC BENEFIT BY TYPE – PV 2002 VALUES £M (BENEFIT DIVIDED BY GJT MINUTES / ADDITIONAL SEATS)
Revenue Increment
B9
Revenue Increment
Journey Time
Non User Benefits
Wider Economic Benefits
Total Connectivity Benefits
Crowding (£000’s)
Conditional Output Statement
Leeds - York
£2.3
£9.5
£2.3
£2.3
£16.4
£4.7
North Transpennine
£3.6
£11.4
£2.3
£3.4
£20.7
£3.1
Skipton
£6.8
£36.1
£8.1
£8.1
£59.0
£13.0
Pontefract (Station)
£0.6
£1.7
£0.5
£0.4
£3.2
Barnsley
£2.7
£7.2
£1.9
£1.4
£13.1
£6.6
Leeds - Doncaster
£1.0
£7.3
£1.2
£1.5
£11.1
£4.1
Penistone
£0.5
£3.1
£0.6
£1.2
£5.4
£0.6
Pontefract Baghill
£0.0
£0.2
£0.0
£0.1
£0.3
-£0.1
Bolton - M oorthorpe
£0.3
£2.1
£0.4
£0.6
£3.3
£9.5
York - Doncaster
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£3.7
Lincoln
£2.7
£7.4
£2.4
£2.6
£15.2
£4.4
M idland M ain Line
£4.8
£13.6
£3.8
£5.5
£27.6
£15.6
Sheffield - Doncaster
£1.5
£4.2
£1.2
£1.0
£7.9
£9.4
South Transpennine
£9.5
£24.5
£5.8
£9.6
£49.4
£16.6
Thorne (Station)
£0.2
£1.4
£0.3
£0.4
£2.2
Blackpool
£3.6
£14.4
£3.0
£3.4
£24.5
£0.3
Doncaster - Cleethorpes
£1.0
£4.5
£1.0
£1.1
£7.6
£1.8
ECM L North
£16.6
£37.0
£10.6
£8.4
£72.6
£3.2
ECM L South
£5.1
£16.7
£3.7
£3.9
£29.3
Goole
£0.7
£2.0
£0.6
£0.3
£3.7
£7.5
Rochdale
£2.1
£7.7
£1.6
£1.9
£13.3
£0.3
Scarborough
£0.7
£3.5
£0.7
£0.6
£5.4
£1.1
Yorkshire Dales
£0.4
£2.1
£0.4
£0.9
£3.7
Benefit Type
Origin Station / Corridor
Inter CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
B10
TREND RATES OF ECONOMIC BENEFIT BY DESTINATION (REGIONAL STATIONS) – PV 2002 VALUES £M (BENEFIT DIVIDED BY GJT MINUTES - EXCLUDING CROWDING)
London
Bradford
York
Sheffield
Manchester
Origin Station / Corridor
Leeds
Destination
Leeds
£0.0
£7.1
£3.2
£6.0
£8.7
£3.4
M anchester
£5.9
£0.0
£3.0
£1.7
£0.7
£0.0
Regional Centre
Sheffield
£4.8
£4.6
£0.0
£1.7
£0.3
£1.9
Station
York
£8.0
£2.0
£1.2
£0.0
£0.4
£0.0
Bradford
£16.9
£1.3
£0.3
£0.5
£0.0
£0.8
London
£2.0
£0.0
£0.9
£0.0
£0.8
£0.0
Harrogate
£3.1
£0.2
£0.1
£1.5
£0.2
£1.1
Halifax
£6.7
£1.0
£0.0
£0.8
£3.6
£0.6
Huddersfield (Station)
£27.0
£4.6
£0.4
£1.5
£1.9
£0.6
Wakefield
£11.0
£0.2
£0.9
£0.4
£1.6
£0.0
Barnsley (Station)
£1.4
£0.1
£3.9
£0.1
£0.2
£0.1
Doncaster
£1.7
£0.6
£5.5
£0.0
£0.1
£0.0
Rotherham
£0.3
£0.1
£1.8
£0.4
£0.1
£0.1
Chesterfield
£0.6
£0.5
£4.0
£0.2
£0.1
£0.0
5 Towns
£6.1
£0.1
£0.1
£0.1
£0.5
£0.0
Bradford FS
£1.2
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£1.2
£0.0
Bradford Interchange
£5.9
£0.2
£0.1
£0.5
£1.0
£0.1
Calderdale
£5.4
£3.1
£0.1
£0.6
£1.7
£0.4
Harrogate - York
£1.1
£0.0
£0.0
£1.3
£0.1
£0.2
Huddersfield
£10.5
£1.1
£0.1
£0.5
£0.1
£0.2
Hull
£4.6
£0.9
£0.5
£1.5
£0.2
£0.3
Ilkley
£20.1
£0.2
£0.1
£0.2
£2.2
£0.6
Leeds - Harrogate
£10.9
£0.3
£0.2
£0.8
£0.4
£0.3
Leeds - York
£10.1
£0.4
£0.1
£1.1
£0.3
£0.1
Sub Regional Centre Station
Leeds CR Corridors
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
Inter CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
London
Bradford
York
Sheffield
Manchester
Origin Station / Corridor
Leeds
Destination
North Transpennine
£1.8
£10.9
£0.0
£0.2
£0.0
£0.1
Skipton
£30.1
£0.3
£0.3
£0.5
£7.7
£1.5
Pontefract (Station)
£1.0
£0.1
£0.1
£0.4
£0.1
£0.1
Barnsley
£0.9
£0.5
£2.9
£0.2
£0.2
£0.1
Leeds - Doncaster
£5.3
£0.0
£0.2
£0.2
£0.1
£0.0
Penistone
£0.5
£0.1
£0.6
£0.1
£0.0
£0.0
Pontefract Baghill
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.2
£0.0
£0.0
Bolton - M oorthorpe
£0.9
£0.0
£0.5
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
York - Doncaster
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
Lincoln
£0.2
£0.2
£2.5
£0.2
£0.0
£0.9
M idland M ain Line
£1.5
£2.4
£2.9
£0.5
£0.4
£0.2
Sheffield - Doncaster
£0.2
£0.0
£1.8
£0.1
£0.0
£0.1
South Transpennine
£1.3
£40.0
£2.0
£0.6
£0.1
£0.3
Thorne (Station)
£0.0
£0.0
£0.1
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
Blackpool
£1.2
£3.4
£0.2
£0.5
£0.4
£1.2
Doncaster - Cleethorpes
£0.4
£0.4
£0.7
£0.2
£0.0
£0.8
ECM L North
£3.6
£2.3
£0.3
£8.4
£0.2
£0.9
ECM L South
£0.3
£0.4
£0.4
£0.1
£0.1
£23.5
Goole
£0.0
£0.0
£0.1
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
Rochdale
£0.4
£9.1
£0.0
£0.0
£0.4
£0.1
Scarborough
£1.2
£0.2
£0.0
£3.6
£0.0
£0.5
Yorkshire Dales
£1.2
£0.0
£0.1
£0.1
£0.1
£0.1
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
B11
TREND RATES OF ECONOMIC BENEFIT BY DESTINATION (ALL LOCATIONS) – PV 2002 VALUES £M (BENEFIT DIVIDED BY GJT MINUTES - EXCLUDING CROWDING) Regional Centres
Sub Regional Centre Station
Leeds CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
All Flows
Destination
Leeds
£27.1
£16.8
£37.5
£0.8
£12.0
£96.3
M anchester
£11.3
£3.0
£1.7
£0.3
£51.3
£70.5
Regional Centre
Sheffield
£12.5
£7.7
£0.7
£5.4
£7.8
£34.3
Station
York
£12.1
£4.1
£2.9
£0.3
£13.2
£33.6
Bradford
£20.2
£64.6
£11.8
£0.3
£1.9
£51.0
London
£2.4
£2.2
£2.3
£0.2
£24.8
£26.6
Harrogate
£6.2
£0.2
£2.8
£0.0
£0.8
£9.1
Halifax
£13.6
£0.5
£2.0
£0.0
£0.8
£16.9
Huddersfield (Station)
£39.7
£3.3
£7.8
£0.3
£1.6
£50.9
Wakefield
£16.2
£4.2
£2.0
£0.4
£0.9
£23.8
Barnsley (Station)
£6.6
£0.8
£0.3
£3.6
£0.4
£11.9
Doncaster
£7.5
£1.0
£0.4
£4.1
£3.7
£17.3
Rotherham
£3.2
£1.2
£0.1
£1.1
£0.3
£5.7
Chesterfield
£6.3
£0.3
£0.1
£0.9
£1.3
£8.2
5 Towns
£7.1
£1.8
£3.7
£0.4
£0.5
£13.3
Bradford FS
£2.5
£0.1
£1.3
£0.0
£0.0
£3.8
Bradford Interchange
£7.9
£2.3
£0.9
£0.1
£0.2
£11.2
Calderdale
£11.8
£2.0
£2.1
£0.0
£1.3
£17.1
Harrogate - York
£2.8
£1.0
£1.2
£0.0
£0.2
£4.8
Huddersfield
£12.7
£7.8
£1.9
£0.0
£0.5
£23.6
Hull
£8.2
£1.2
£1.3
£0.3
£6.7
£18.5
Ilkley
£23.6
£0.5
£5.6
£0.0
£0.4
£30.1
Leeds - Harrogate
£12.9
£2.7
£3.1
£0.0
£0.3
£18.2
Leeds - York
£12.9
£1.2
£1.5
£0.0
£0.3
£16.4
Origin Station / Corridor
Sub Regional Centre Station
Leeds CR Corridors
Appendix B
Leeds CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
All Flows
North Transpennine
£13.1
£3.7
£0.4
£0.0
£1.7
£20.7
Skipton
£40.6
£1.3
£15.6
£0.1
£1.3
£59.0
Pontefract (Station)
£2.7
£0.2
£0.5
£0.0
£0.0
£3.2
Barnsley
£5.7
£2.8
£0.3
£3.7
£0.9
£13.1
Leeds - Doncaster
£6.0
£3.8
£0.8
£0.4
£0.1
£11.1
Penistone
£1.4
£2.5
£1.9
£0.7
£0.1
£5.4
Pontefract Baghill
£0.2
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.1
£0.3
Bolton - M oorthorpe
£1.5
£0.7
£0.3
£0.8
£0.1
£3.3
York - Doncaster
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
Lincoln
£3.8
£1.0
£0.0
£5.2
£3.1
£15.2
M idland M ain Line
£8.4
£1.7
£0.4
£0.7
£15.3
£27.6
Sheffield - Doncaster
£2.2
£2.4
£0.1
£3.3
£0.2
£7.9
South Transpennine
£36.2
£1.2
£0.3
£0.2
£10.0
£49.4
Thorne (Station)
£0.2
£1.4
£0.0
£0.1
£0.8
£2.2
Blackpool
£8.0
£0.6
£0.3
£0.0
£15.1
£24.5
Doncaster - Cleethorpes
£2.5
£2.3
£0.1
£0.6
£2.2
£7.6
£0.8
£0.4
£0.1
£44.4
£72.6
Origin Station / Corridor
Inter CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
ECM L North Other Corridors
Sub Regional
Centre Station
Destination
Regional Centres
Conditional Output Statement
ECM L South
£15.6
£0.6
£0.2
£0.5
£12.8
£29.3
Goole
£0.2
£1.8
£0.0
£0.4
£1.2
£3.7
Rochdale
£10.2
£1.0
£0.7
£0.0
£1.3
£13.3
Scarborough
£5.1
£0.2
£0.1
£0.0
£1.8
£5.4
Yorkshire Dales
£1.6
£0.1
£1.2
£0.0
£1.0
£3.7
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
Non User Benefits
Wider Economic Benefits
Total Connectivity Benefits
Leeds
£14.5
£60.1
£15.4
£12.8
£102.8
M anchester
£14.0
£40.7
£10.2
£7.9
£72.8
Sheffield
£6.0
£21.0
£5.2
£6.0
£38.2
York
£9.0
£18.1
£7.5
£5.0
£39.6
Bradford
£7.5
£31.4
£13.2
£8.4
£60.5
London
£5.8
£10.1
£3.8
£7.6
£27.3
Harrogate
£2.0
£5.5
£1.5
£1.4
£10.4
Halifax
£2.3
£10.5
£3.7
£3.0
£19.5
Huddersfield (Station)
£8.4
£29.7
£12.2
£5.9
£56.2
Wakefield
£3.7
£15.3
£6.9
£2.9
£28.8
Barnsley (Station)
£2.1
£8.0
£2.5
£1.6
£14.3
Doncaster
£2.9
£10.9
£3.6
£2.1
£19.6
Rotherham
£1.3
£3.4
£0.9
£0.8
£6.4
Chesterfield
£1.5
£5.0
£1.3
£2.0
£9.7
5 Towns
£1.5
£10.0
£1.8
£2.3
£15.5
£7.1
Bradford FS
£0.4
£2.8
£0.4
£0.6
£4.2
£0.6
Bradford Interchange
£1.9
£7.1
£1.8
£2.5
£13.2
£7.9
Calderdale
£2.2
£11.1
£3.1
£3.0
£19.5
£7.8
Harrogate - York
£0.8
£3.1
£0.7
£0.8
£5.3
£1.9
Huddersfield
£4.4
£16.9
£4.3
£3.0
£28.6
£10.0
Hull
£4.0
£11.3
£3.3
£2.1
£20.8
£1.1
Ilkley
£3.2
£21.4
£4.2
£4.8
£33.7
£9.5
Leeds - Harrogate
£2.6
£13.4
£2.4
£3.1
£21.5
£9.8
Benefit Type
Origin Station / Corridor
Regional Centre Station
Sub Regional Centre Station
Leeds CR Corridors
Appendix B
Crowding (£000’s)
Journey Time
TREND PLUS RATES OF ECONOMIC BENEFIT BY TYPE – PV 2002 VALUES £M (BENEFIT DIVIDED BY GJT MINUTES / ADDITIONAL SEATS)
Revenue Increment
B12
Revenue Increment
Journey Time
Non User Benefits
Wider Economic Benefits
Total Connectivity Benefits
Crowding (£000’s)
Conditional Output Statement
Leeds - York
£2.7
£11.1
£2.7
£2.7
£19.1
£4.9
North Transpennine
£4.3
£14.0
£2.7
£4.1
£25.1
£4.2
Skipton
£7.3
£40.6
£8.6
£9.0
£65.5
£16.7
Pontefract (Station)
£0.7
£2.1
£0.6
£0.5
£3.9
Barnsley
£3.0
£8.3
£2.2
£1.6
£15.1
£7.4
Leeds - Doncaster
£1.1
£8.1
£1.3
£1.7
£12.2
£6.4
Penistone
£0.5
£3.4
£0.7
£1.4
£6.0
£0.6
Pontefract Baghill
£0.0
£0.2
£0.0
£0.1
£0.4
-£0.1
Bolton - M oorthorpe
£0.4
£2.4
£0.5
£0.7
£3.9
£9.4
York - Doncaster
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£6.4
Lincoln
£2.7
£7.9
£2.5
£2.7
£15.8
£6.9
M idland M ain Line
£5.1
£14.7
£4.0
£5.9
£29.8
£15.8
Sheffield - Doncaster
£1.6
£4.7
£1.3
£1.1
£8.7
£11.1
South Transpennine
£13.9
£30.2
£8.1
£12.2
£64.4
£19.6
Thorne (Station)
£0.2
£1.4
£0.3
£0.4
£2.3
Blackpool
£3.8
£15.2
£3.2
£3.6
£25.8
£0.3
Doncaster - Cleethorpes
£1.1
£4.8
£1.1
£1.2
£8.2
£2.1
ECM L North
£20.6
£40.9
£13.9
£9.7
£85.1
£6.5
ECM L South
£5.0
£16.9
£3.6
£3.9
£29.3
Goole
£0.8
£2.0
£0.7
£0.3
£3.8
£6.7
Rochdale
£2.4
£9.2
£1.8
£2.3
£15.6
£0.6
Scarborough
£1.0
£3.7
£0.9
£0.7
£6.3
£0.9
Yorkshire Dales
£0.4
£2.2
£0.4
£1.0
£4.1
Benefit Type
Origin Station / Corridor
Inter CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
B13
TREND PLUS RATES OF ECONOMIC BENEFIT BY DESTINATION (REGIONAL STATIONS) – PV 2002 VALUES £M (BENEFIT DIVIDED BY GJT MINUTES - EXCLUDING CROWDING)
London
Bradford
York
Sheffield
Manchester
Origin Station / Corridor
Leeds
Destination
Leeds
£0.0
£8.5
£4.1
£6.4
£9.4
£3.5
M anchester
£6.4
£0.0
£3.7
£1.7
£0.7
£0.0
Regional Centre
Sheffield
£5.5
£5.7
£0.0
£1.7
£0.3
£1.9
Station
York
£10.0
£2.7
£1.6
£0.0
£0.4
£0.0
Bradford
£20.9
£1.6
£0.3
£0.5
£0.0
£0.8
London
£2.3
£0.0
£1.1
£0.0
£0.8
£0.0
Harrogate
£3.7
£0.3
£0.1
£1.6
£0.3
£1.1
Halifax
£8.1
£1.2
£0.1
£1.1
£3.7
£0.6
Huddersfield (Station)
£23.7
£5.4
£0.4
£1.7
£2.5
£0.6
Wakefield
£12.9
£0.2
£1.1
£0.4
£2.1
£0.0
Barnsley (Station)
£1.6
£0.1
£5.0
£0.1
£0.3
£0.1
Doncaster
£1.7
£0.7
£7.2
£0.0
£0.1
£0.0
Rotherham
£0.3
£0.1
£2.3
£0.4
£0.1
£0.1
Chesterfield
£0.7
£0.6
£4.9
£0.2
£0.1
£0.0
5 Towns
£7.2
£0.1
£0.2
£0.1
£0.6
£0.0
Bradford FS
£1.5
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£1.2
£0.0
Bradford Interchange
£7.2
£0.2
£0.1
£0.5
£1.0
£0.1
Calderdale
£6.4
£3.9
£0.1
£0.8
£1.7
£0.4
Harrogate - York
£1.3
£0.1
£0.0
£1.3
£0.1
£0.2
Huddersfield
£12.8
£1.4
£0.1
£0.5
£0.2
£0.2
Hull
£5.4
£1.1
£0.7
£1.5
£0.2
£0.3
Ilkley
£23.2
£0.3
£0.2
£0.2
£2.3
£0.7
Leeds - Harrogate
£13.2
£0.3
£0.2
£0.9
£0.5
£0.3
Leeds - York
£12.3
£0.5
£0.1
£1.2
£0.3
£0.1
Sub Regional Centre Station
Leeds CR Corridors
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
Inter CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
London
Bradford
York
Sheffield
Manchester
Origin Station / Corridor
Leeds
Destination
North Transpennine
£0.7
£13.5
£0.0
£0.3
£0.1
£0.0
Skipton
£34.8
£0.4
£0.3
£0.5
£7.9
£1.5
Pontefract (Station)
£1.2
£0.1
£0.1
£0.6
£0.1
£0.1
Barnsley
£1.0
£0.6
£3.8
£0.2
£0.2
£0.1
Leeds - Doncaster
£6.1
£0.1
£0.2
£0.2
£0.2
£0.0
Penistone
£0.5
£0.1
£0.8
£0.1
£0.0
£0.0
Pontefract Baghill
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.2
£0.0
£0.0
Bolton - M oorthorpe
£1.1
£0.0
£0.7
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
York - Doncaster
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
Lincoln
£0.2
£0.2
£3.1
£0.2
£0.0
£0.9
M idland M ain Line
£1.7
£3.0
£3.6
£0.5
£0.4
£0.2
Sheffield - Doncaster
£0.2
£0.1
£2.3
£0.1
£0.0
£0.1
South Transpennine
£1.7
£51.9
£2.5
£0.7
£0.1
£0.4
Thorne (Station)
£0.0
£0.0
£0.1
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
Blackpool
£1.4
£4.2
£0.3
£0.5
£0.4
£1.2
Doncaster - Cleethorpes
£0.5
£0.5
£0.9
£0.2
£0.0
£0.8
ECM L North
£4.2
£3.0
£0.4
£8.4
£0.2
£0.9
ECM L South
£0.3
£0.5
£0.5
£0.1
£0.1
£23.6
Goole
£0.0
£0.0
£0.1
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
Rochdale
£0.4
£11.3
£0.0
£0.0
£0.4
£0.1
Scarborough
£1.4
£0.2
£0.1
£3.5
£0.0
£0.7
Yorkshire Dales
£1.4
£0.0
£0.1
£0.1
£0.1
£0.1
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
B14
TREND RATES OF ECONOMIC BENEFIT BY DESTINATION (ALL LOCATIONS) – PV 2002 VALUES £M (BENEFIT DIVIDED BY GJT MINUTES - EXCLUDING CROWDING) Regional Centres
Sub Regional Centre Station
Leeds CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
All Flows
Destination
Leeds
£30.4
£16.7
£39.2
£0.9
£12.7
£102.8
M anchester
£12.6
£3.0
£1.7
£0.3
£49.7
£72.8
Regional Centre
Sheffield
£14.4
£8.5
£0.7
£6.1
£8.1
£38.2
Station
York
£15.2
£4.9
£3.2
£0.3
£15.0
£39.6
Bradford
£24.8
£60.9
£13.4
£0.4
£2.0
£60.5
London
£2.6
£2.2
£2.2
£0.2
£26.5
£27.3
Harrogate
£7.1
£0.3
£3.4
£0.0
£0.8
£10.4
Halifax
£16.0
£0.5
£2.2
£0.0
£0.8
£19.5
Huddersfield (Station)
£40.3
£4.1
£9.4
£0.3
£1.7
£56.2
Wakefield
£19.8
£5.2
£2.2
£0.5
£0.9
£28.8
Barnsley (Station)
£8.2
£0.8
£0.4
£4.3
£0.4
£14.3
Doncaster
£9.5
£1.2
£0.4
£4.2
£3.8
£19.6
Rotherham
£3.9
£1.3
£0.1
£1.0
£0.3
£6.4
Chesterfield
£7.7
£0.4
£0.1
£1.1
£1.3
£9.7
5 Towns
£8.5
£1.9
£4.3
£0.4
£0.6
£15.5
Bradford FS
£2.8
£0.1
£1.3
£0.0
£0.0
£4.2
Bradford Interchange
£9.3
£2.7
£1.0
£0.1
£0.2
£13.2
Calderdale
£14.1
£2.0
£2.2
£0.0
£1.3
£19.5
Harrogate - York
£3.1
£1.0
£1.5
£0.0
£0.2
£5.3
Huddersfield
£15.6
£9.4
£2.0
£0.0
£0.5
£28.6
Hull
£9.5
£1.3
£1.5
£0.4
£6.9
£20.8
Ilkley
£26.9
£0.5
£5.8
£0.0
£0.4
£33.7
Leeds - Harrogate
£15.5
£3.1
£3.6
£0.0
£0.3
£21.5
Leeds - York
£15.3
£1.3
£1.5
£0.0
£0.3
£19.1
Origin Station / Corridor
Sub Regional Centre Station
Leeds CR Corridors
Appendix B
Leeds CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
Other Corridors
All Flows
North Transpennine
£15.2
£4.8
£0.5
£0.0
£1.9
£25.1
Skipton
£46.0
£1.4
£16.4
£0.1
£1.3
£65.5
Pontefract (Station)
£3.4
£0.2
£0.6
£0.0
£0.0
£3.9
Barnsley
£7.0
£3.0
£0.4
£4.0
£0.9
£15.1
Leeds - Doncaster
£7.0
£3.9
£0.8
£0.4
£0.1
£12.2
Penistone
£1.6
£2.6
£2.4
£0.8
£0.1
£6.0
Pontefract Baghill
£0.2
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.1
£0.4
Bolton - M oorthorpe
£1.8
£0.8
£0.3
£1.0
£0.1
£3.9
York - Doncaster
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
£0.0
Lincoln
£4.6
£1.0
£0.0
£5.1
£3.1
£15.8
M idland M ain Line
£10.0
£2.0
£0.3
£0.9
£15.3
£29.8
Sheffield - Doncaster
£2.8
£2.6
£0.1
£3.3
£0.2
£8.7
South Transpennine
£47.9
£1.5
£0.4
£0.3
£11.9
£64.4
Thorne (Station)
£0.2
£1.4
£0.0
£0.2
£0.7
£2.3
Blackpool
£9.3
£0.6
£0.4
£0.0
£15.2
£25.8
Doncaster - Cleethorpes
£2.8
£2.3
£0.1
£0.8
£2.3
£8.2
£0.8
£0.4
£0.1
£51.5
£85.1
Origin Station / Corridor
Inter CR Corridors
Sheffield CR Corridors
ECM L North Other Corridors
Sub Regional
Centre Station
Destination
Regional Centres
Conditional Output Statement
ECM L South
£16.1
£0.6
£0.2
£0.6
£12.4
£29.3
Goole
£0.2
£2.0
£0.0
£0.5
£1.2
£3.8
Rochdale
£12.4
£1.1
£0.7
£0.0
£1.2
£15.6
Scarborough
£8.2
£0.2
£0.1
£0.0
£2.0
£6.3
Yorkshire Dales
£1.8
£0.1
£1.3
£0.0
£1.1
£4.1
Appendix B
Conditional Output Statement
APPENDIX C NORTHERN RAIL PPM MAA
Appendix C
Conditional Output Statement
C1
NORTHERN RAIL PPM MAA
Public Performance Measure (PPM) is the percentage of trains arriving at their destination, having made all planned calls, and within a specified lateness margin. The lateness margin is 5 minutes for shorter distance services and 10 minutes for longer distance services. With the exception of the following services, all Northern Rail services in the study area are shorter distance services. The longer distance services are indicated by an ‘*’ in the table. I
Leeds - Carlisle
I
Leeds - Blackpool North
I
Leeds - Manchester Victoria
I
Leeds – Morecambe
I
Leeds - Barnsley - Sheffield (fast trains)
I
Leeds - Nottingham
I
Sheffield - Pontefract - York
I
Sheffield - Lincoln/Cleethorpes
Northern Rail services in the study are divided into two areas, W est and North Yorkshire and South and East Yorkshire. The average PPM in each area is included in the table. Service
Area
Corridors
PPM
York/Leeds - Blackpool North*
West and North Leeds - York, Bradford Interchange, Yorkshire Calderdale & Blackpool (WNY)
85%
Sheffield - Denby Dale – Huddersfield
South and East Barnsley & Penistone Yorkshire (SEY)
87%
Leeds - Harrogate – York
WNY
Leeds - Harrogate & Harrogate York
87%
Leeds – Huddersfield
WNY
Huddersfield
88%
Leeds - M anchester Victoria via WNY Bradford*
Bradford Interchange, Calderdale & Rochdale
88%
Doncaster – Goole
SEY
Doncaster - Cleethorpes & Goole
88%
Leeds – Selby
WNY
Leeds - York & Hull
88%
Sheffield – Hull
SEY
Sheffield - Doncaster, Doncaster Cleethorpes, Goole & Hull
88%
Sheffield - Doncaster Adwick/Goole/Scunthorpe
SEY
Sheffield - Doncaster, Doncaster Cleethorpes, Leeds - Doncaster & Goole
89%
Leeds - Sheffield via M oorthorpe WNY
Leeds - Doncaster, Bolton - M oorthorpe & Sheffield - Doncaster
89%
Leeds – Nottingham*
SEY
5 Towns, Barnsley & M idland M ain Line
89%
Leeds-Dewsbury-RochdaleM anchester Victoria*
WNY
Huddersfield, Calderdale & Rochdale
90%
Appendix C
Conditional Output Statement Service
Area
Corridors
Sheffield - Barnsley - Darton – Leeds
SEY
Barnsley & 5 Towns
90%
Carlisle – Leeds*
WNY
Skipton & Yorkshire Dales
90%
Leeds – York
WNY
Leeds - York
90%
Sheffield - Barnsley - Leeds (fast SEY trains)*
5 Towns & Barnsley
91%
Leeds – Doncaster
WNY
Leeds - Doncaster
91%
Leeds – M orecambe*
WNY
Skipton & Yorkshire Dales
91%
Sheffield/Kiveton Park - Retford SEY - Lincoln/Cleethorpes*
Lincoln
91%
York - M oorthorpe – Sheffield*
Leeds - York, Pontefract Baghill, Bolton M oorthorpe & Sheffield - Doncaster
92%
Wakefield - Huddersfield/Halifax WNY - Bradford - Leeds – Selby
Huddersfield, Calderdale, Bradford Interchange, Leeds - York & Selby
92%
Bradford – Ilkley
WNY
Bradford FS & Ilkley
93%
Doncaster - Scunthorpe
SEY
Doncaster - Cleethorpes
93%
York – Hull
SEY
Leeds - York, Pontefract Baghill & Hull
93%
Leeds - Knottingley – Goole
WNY
5 Towns
93%
Bradford Forster Square – Skipton
WNY
Bradford FS & Skipton
95%
Leeds – Skipton
WNY
Skipton
95%
Leeds - Harrogate – Knaresborough
WNY
Leeds - Harrogate & Harrogate York
95%
Wakefield – Knottingley
WNY
5 Towns
96%
Leeds - Ilkley
WNY
Ilkley
96%
Bradford FS
96%
SEY
Leeds - Bradford Forster Square WNY Area Totals
Appendix C
PPM
WNY
92%
South and East Yorkshire
90%
Conditional Output Statement
APPENDIX D UDM CHANGES IN JOB DISTRIBUTION MAPS
Appendix D
Conditional Output Statement
D1
UDM TEST 1 – CHANGES IN JOB DISTRIBUTION
Appendix D
Conditional Output Statement
D2
Appendix D
UDM TEST 2 – CHANGES IN JOB DISTRIBUTION
Conditional Output Statement
D3
UDM TEST 3 – CHANGES IN JOB DISTRIBUTION
Appendix D
Conditional Output Statement
D4
Appendix D
UDM TEST 4 – CHANGES IN JOB DISTRIBUTION
CONTROL SHEET
Project/Proposal Name
Yorkshire Rail Network Study
Document Title
Conditional Output Statement
Client Contract/Project No.
.
SDG Project/Proposal No.
22407801 ISSUE HISTORY
Issue No.
Date
Details
V11
29/03/2012
Final version REVIEW
Originator
Hutchinson, Alastair
Other Contributors Review by:
Print
Neil Chadwick
Sign DISTRIBUTION Client:
Metro, SYPTE and Leeds City Region
Steer Davies Gleave:
\\Douglas\Work\Projects\224\0\78\01\Work\COS\Yorkshire Rail Network Study - Conditional Output Statement v11.docx
Control Sheet
