IGH PEED TWO HASE 2B REWE TO ANCHESTER WEST IDLANDS … · Doncaster ouncil [s Response to HS2 Phase 2b Route Refinement Consultation 2016 Page 1 of 23 HIGH SPEED TWO PHASE 2B: CREWE

Doncaster Council’s Response to HS2 Phase 2b Route Refinement Consultation 2016

Page 1 of 23

HIGH SPEED TWO PHASE 2B: CREWE TO MANCHESTER; WEST MIDLANDS TO LEEDS

ROUTE REFINEMENT CONSULTATION 2016

Contact Officer: Neil Firth Head of Service for Major Projects & Infrastructure

Address: 4th Floor Civic Office Waterdale DONCASTER DN1 3BU

e-mail address: [email protected]

The following response to the Route Refinement Consultation 2016 was unanimously endorsed by

Full Council on 2nd March 2017.

The Council offers no comments on Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Question 7 – Derbyshire to West Yorkshire (M18 / Eastern route)

The Secretary of State is minded to move the alignment of the route between Derbyshire and

West Yorkshire to reflect a change in the proposals for serving Sheffield.

Do you support the proposal to amend the route to serve South and West Yorkshire? Please indicate whether or not you support the proposal together with your reasons.

INTRODUCTION In 2014, Doncaster Council, along with the other three South Yorkshire Authoritiesi, enthusiastically supported the Government’s high speed rail proposal, given the transformational impact it would have on the region’s economy. Doncaster Council wants the high speed rail proposals to secure long-lasting economic benefits for the Borough, for South Yorkshire and for the city region as a whole, which go far beyond the delivery of the scheme alone. Doncaster Council remains supportive of high speed rail, but the Council vigorously opposes the change in alignment to the route through South Yorkshire simply because a station at Sheffield Meadowhall is the better option, as this consultation response will demonstrate. In 2014 Sir David Higgins made a considered analysis of the options for HS2 in the Sheffield City Region and clearly concluded that Meadowhall was the best option for a station in our region. Moreover, he specifically dismissed the current spur proposal, correctly identifying that it does not deliver for our people and businesses. He was right then, and that position is still right today.


Page 2 of 23

The Sheffield Midland Spur option:

Provides fewer and smaller trains, giving fewer seats for SCR passengers

Offers inferior connectivity and journey times

Delivers much less economic benefit and generates fewer jobs

Serves most of the region’s priority growth areas less effectively; yet

Costs more money Indeed, our analysis demonstrates that, far from saving £1bn as claimed by Sir David Higgins, when the true costs are taken into account, the new proposal will actually cost the public purse more, to both build and run. Furthermore, in addition to the impact on the city region as a whole, the proposal brings devastation to one of our communities, and severe noise and visual intrusion to another. It is the wrong solution for the Sheffield City Region, Yorkshire, The North, and the wrong solution for UK PLC. A NOTE ON OUR CONSULTATION RESPONSE

Our response to this consultation question sets out why the Council believes the Preferred Route proposal is not acceptable. We are responding to the proposal as set out, ie what is committed to as part of the proposals and funded as part of the HS2 project. This is (as illustrated in Figure 1):

High speed line through South Yorkshire on the M18/Eastern Route

A spur off the high speed line, connecting into the existing Midland Main Line at Clay Cross enabling classic compatible trains to run into Sheffield Midland station

A junction from the existing Dearne Valley line onto the new high speed line at Clayton

We have noted that there are several references in the Command Paper to other work that may or may or may not come to fruition eg a parkway station for South Yorkshireii, a Northern Loopiii, and the extension of HS2 journeys to Barnsley, Meadowhall and Rotherhamiv. The Council notes that there is no commitment behind any of this work to it being included in the HS2 project, and some of them are potentially contradictory. As noted elsewhere in our response, the journey time savings claimed within the Command Paper are not deliverable without funding and commitment from a third party. This funding

FIGURE 1: HS2 M18/EASTERN ROUTE PROPOSAL


Page 3 of 23

and commitment has not been established. As such, we believe that the journey time savings claimed in the Command Paper are fundamentally misleading. We also note that there have been a number of verbal statements by HS2 Limited officers over the past few months of matters not contained within, or even hinted at, in the Command Paper, for example, relating to the number of trains that it is suggested Sheffield Midland station might benefit from in the future.

The Council is deeply concerned that responses to this consultation might be affected by these statements, particularly responses from people who have not read the Command Paper and its supporting documents in detail. If they rely on such verbal statements as if they had been included in the Command Paper, then their responses could be based on misleading information. In its response, the Council has made comments against the five key factors that Sir David Higgins used to review possible route options in the Command Paper.v THE COUNCIL’S STATED POSITION The Council unanimously passed the following motion at its meeting on 15th September 2016, following the publication of the Sir David Higgins report - Sheffield and South Yorkshire Report 2016 on 7th July 2016:

“RESOLVED that Council objects to the new proposals for HS2 in the Sheffield City Region, which were announced on 7th July. When compared to the previous recommended HS2 route and Station at Meadowhall, the new proposals put forward by HS2 Ltd will provide fewer train services, reduce job creation, reduce connectivity, damage the environment and have a devastating impact on communities in our Borough and the Wards it affects, in particular the destruction of over 200 homes in Mexborough and the surrounding areas. This proposal is bad for local residents, communities, Doncaster and the Sheffield City Region. Doncaster Council therefore calls on the Secretary of State to reject the recommendation.”

Whilst the Council understands that HS2 Limited’s estimate of number of homes that would be directly affected (ie demolished) by the Preferred Route in the Mexborough area is 19, the impact goes far beyond direct demolitions, especially given the close proximity of housing to the proposed viaduct and the height of the viaduct crossing the Shimmer Estate which on completion comprises some 220 homes and Pastures Road/Pastures Court. Looking at each of Sir David Higgins’ factors in turn…

Demand HS2 LIMITED’S DEMAND FORECASTING HS2 Limited’s forecasts for demand for HS2 services in the City Region estimate that the majority of demand will arise from south west Sheffield.vi This of course is based upon existing demand patterns for long distance travel. However demand is dependent upon the level of service. The level of service in South Yorkshire is currently very poor. And so demand currently is suppressed as a result.


Page 4 of 23

The flaw in the demand logic used by HS2 Limited in their work is amply illustrated by comparing the current demand from Doncaster where the level of service is very good. Doncaster currently satisfies a demand for 4 trains per hour to London. HS2 Limited, using existing flawed demand patterns in Sheffield City Region, can only justify one train per hour from Sheffield Midland station, or a maximum of two. There is no logic to this, given the difference in the population of the two places, and it illustrates that there is a fundamental flaw in HS2 Limited’s analysis. FUTURE GROWTH IN SCR The Sheffield City Region Priority Growth Areasvii are predominantly located from Sheffield city centre to the north and east (see Figure 2), with the two top priority areas located between Sheffield and Rotherham (Advanced Manufacturing and Innovation District or AMID) and at Doncaster Sheffield Airport (areas numbered 6 and 2 in Figure 2). Both of these locations are better supported by the Sheffield Meadowhall option with the high speed station actually sitting within AMID, a nationally important advanced manufacturing asset. TRAIN SERVICE PATTERNS AND SEAT AVAILABILITY TO MEET DEMAND HS2 Limited’s proposed train service pattern for the Sheffield Midland Spur option is for two trains per hour to serve Sheffield Midland station. Both of these services will terminate at the station and rely upon the existing classic railway line from Clay Cross. Classic compatible trains are just 200 metres long. In comparison, the Sheffield Meadowhall option provides 5 trains per hour. Two of these trains from London would be 400 metre long trains with one of them splitting at Meadowhall to serve both Leeds and York. The other three trains from Birmingham would be 200 metres long. Two of these would serve Leeds, and the other York and beyond to the North East.

FIGURE 2: SCR PRIORITY GROWTH AREAS

Doncaster

Sheffield

Airport

AMID


Page 5 of 23

The Sheffield Meadowhall option gives 3½ times more high speed train seats for Sheffield City Region passengers than the Sheffield Midland spur option. The economic case states that the Preferred Route on the M18/Eastern corridor provides only “slightly higher BCRs, with a similar BCR spread”, and only “a slightly lower likelihood of supplying value for money”.viii So for a marginal decrease in BCR [Benefit Cost Ratio] and a slightly lower likelihood of supplying value for money, the region suffers a huge loss of available service from high speed rail. But note that these conclusions have been drawn from an incorrect cost model – see section below on Cost. CAPACITY OF SHEFFIELD MIDLAND STATION TO MEET INCREASING DEMAND The Council questions whether there would be the available capacity at Sheffield Midland station to ever increase the frequency of HS2 compatible trains beyond the two per hour proposed, especially as without the Northern Loop, these services will terminate at Sheffield Midland with the resulting increase in dwell and turnaround time. This is hugely important given the already suppressed demand figures used by HS2 Limited as set out above, and there is a severe risk that the 2 trains per hour service to be provided from Sheffield Midland will be saturated soon after opening with no ability thereafter to meet increased demand. This will ultimately then have a detrimental effect on the city region, with rail services reverting back to the poor level of service that the city region has experienced for too long. In contrast, there would no constraint to increasing train frequencies at any time in the future at Meadowhall.

Needs of Sheffield City Region SIR DAVID HIGGINS’ VIEWS IN 2014 In 2014, Sir David Higgins made his own considered analysis, having had the benefit of several years of assessment work, refinement and research on a possible route for HS2, together with feedback through a comprehensive public consultation exercise held in 2013/14. Of the alternative which HS2 Limited examined considering a direct route via a spur terminating at Sheffield Midland station, he said: “While this provided limited benefits for the city centre market, it did not provide the connections and journey time necessary to serve the wider city region effectively…”. “Furthermore, as Sheffield local leaders have also noted, introducing a terminating spur also removes the onward connections north to West

FIGURE 3: COMPARISON OF SEAT AVAILABILITY


Page 6 of 23

Yorkshire and the North East provided by the current Y route.”ix Of options using the existing Midland Mainline, he said: “Disruption on the current network during construction, with consequential impacts on demand, productivity and passenger satisfaction, must also be considered.”x This will clearly be significant, and will be multiplied if the Northern Loop is to be upgraded and electrified as well. Years of disruption to rail travellers will result. And in his analysis of and recommendations for the South Yorkshire hub: “I remain of the view that Sheffield Meadowhall is the right answer for the South Yorkshire hub.”xi BALANCING CONFLICTING DEMANDS The Sheffield Midland spur option does not balance conflicting demands within the city region, as Sir David Higgins asserts. Doncaster is not served at all by the proposals, but suffers the devastating impact of the line, particularly at Mexborough/Conisbrough and at Barnburgh. The new route alignment has a significant impact on existing high quality housing and potential future housing development sites at Mexborough. The Council rejects Sir David Higgins’ assertion that Doncaster “would benefit from the overall proposition”.xii Doncaster does not benefit from the increased journey times to Birmingham through the current proposal, which is unfortunate, particularly given the growing academic and business links, between the two places. When the new Super Express trains are introduced on the East Coast Main Line next year, it will take longer to travel from Doncaster to Birmingham than it does from Doncaster to London, despite both being direct trains. The Sheffield Meadowhall option would reduce journey times to Birmingham from Doncaster by 30 minutes (excluding interchange time) and deliver more frequent services, even though a change of train will be required. This journey time saving would be reduced yet further if the Doncaster to Meadowhall service were to be upgraded. Whilst Chesterfield gains from the proposal, having a station where HS2 classic compatible trains will call, Sheffield only has 2 x 200 metre trains per hour, whereas it has 5 trains per hour at Sheffield Meadowhall. Barnsley and Rotherham have better connectivity and shorter journey times using Sheffield Meadowhall. All but two of the SCR Priority Growth Areas are better served by a station at Sheffield Meadowhall (see Figure 2). It is therefore clear that it is the Sheffield Meadowhall option that achieves the best balance of the varying demands within Sheffield City Region, and not the Sheffield Midland Spur option. ECONOMIC BENEFIT AND JOBS Work undertaken by Mott MacDonald for Doncaster and Rotherham Councilsxiii suggests that the Sheffield Meadowhall option could deliver significantly more economic benefit and jobs for the city region (see Figure 4 below). Intuitively, more trains at a higher speed connecting with more cities deliver greater economic benefit and more jobs. The Mott MacDonald work bears this out with an estimate of up to 45% more jobs being created and up to 75% greater economic benefit.


Page 7 of 23

SCR’s ambitionxiv is to increase economic output in the city region by £3.2billion by 2025, to create 70,000 net additional jobs, 6,000 net new businesses, and build at least 70,000 new homes. Much of this growth will take place to the north east of Sheffield, where access to Sheffield Midland station is at its worst. Any proposal for high speed rail in the city region must take this into account. We particularly believe that HS2 should effectively service the national asset that is the Sheffield and Rotherham Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District, which already hosts global brands including Boeing, Rolls-Royce, BAE Systems and, most recently announced, McLaren.

SHEFFIELD MEADOWHALL - THE OPTIMAL STATION LOCATION The Council supports the provision of a station on the high speed railway which accepts full length trains within the city region, because this is what will provide the transformational change the city region needs. It is the Sheffield Meadowhall option that will provide that transformational change.

The Sheffield Meadowhall option has the long-standing support of the majority of local authorities, and Chambers of Commerce, in South Yorkshire. It is the optimal solution for the city region.

The Sheffield Midland Spur option is the solution that nobody asked for, and nobody

wanted.

FIGURE 4: JOBS AND GVA COMPARISON


Page 8 of 23

Connectivity NORTHERN POWERHOUSE RAIL AMBITIONS The Sheffield Meadowhall option more closely meets the Northern Powerhouse Rail [NPR] ambitions with 4 high speed trains per hour to Leeds, than the Sheffield Midland Spur option which has no connectivity at all to Leeds. Yet the NPR ambitions (see Figure 5 below) were cited by Paul Griffiths at Doncaster’s HS2 Information Briefing on 20th January 2017 as being the single reason for the Government changing its recommendations. The Sheffield Midland Spur option provides no connectivity to Birmingham, or to Leeds, or to stations north of Leeds (York and Newcastle).

The Command Paper implies that the Sheffield Meadowhall option never met the new NPR ambition of a 30 minute journey to Leeds, hence the reason for the change in alignment. And yet on HS2 Limited’s own figures, they have quoted a 27 minute journey time from Sheffield Midland station, via interchange at Sheffield Meadowhall to Leeds (see

Figure 6).xv This not only meets the NPR ambition in terms of journey time, but also provides four of the six journeys per hour set out in NPR’s conditional outputs. JOURNEY TIMES HS2 is promoted on its journey time savings, amongst other things. The proposal brings a journey time saving from Sheffield Midland to London of 36 minutes. However, under the proposals, journey time savings to Leeds and to Birmingham, which are key city connections for the city region’s economy, will not change as access to these cities will only be available on existing lines and services. The council finds it fundamentally misleading that the Command Paper lays claim to journey time savings to these two destinations, when these improved journey times can only be achieved by the improvement of the existing railway line between Sheffield Midland station and the Clayton Junction. There is no commitment to this improvement within the proposals – just a hope and an assumption that a third party - Northern Powerhouse Rail - will have improved the route before HS2 services commence. Furthermore connectivity to London, via the spur on the existing Midland Mainline, gives a journey time of 85 minutes, nearly 25% longer than the high speed journey from Sheffield Meadowhall.

FIGURE 5: NORTHERN POWERHOUSE RAIL VISION


Page 9 of 23

The only way to equal the NPR ambition with the Sheffield Midland Spur option is to construct the Northern Loop (electrification, signalling/line upgrades). The Council notes that the journey time estimate of 85-87 minutes from Sheffield to London, which underpins HS2 Limited’s BCR calculations, are “subject to change following a consideration of railway operations which may need to introduce additional time due to any splitting or joining of services.”xvi Any further increase in these journey times could risk decreases in the estimated benefits associated with the Sheffield Midland Spur option. CAPACITY AT SHEFFIELD MIDLAND STATION The Council has considerable doubt over the ability of Sheffield Midland station to accommodate the additional HS2 services, and yet the full extent of NPR’s aspirations needs to be accommodated in the station as well. Sir David Higgins himself points to the lack of space in the station for existing services, high speed through services and NPR ambitions.xvii The site is extremely constrained and contains Grade II listed buildings. Significant investment will be required to accommodate HS2 Limited’s proposals, if indeed it is possible. Yet none of this work has been factored into HS2 Limited’s cost figures. Even if the capacity at Sheffield Midland station is found, there will be no ability thereafter to provide additional HS2 services to meet growing demand. In contrast, Sheffield Meadowhall station, being on the high speed line, provides an almost limitless ability to respond to future increases in demand in the region, and also provides a safeguard where HS2 Limited has got its demand forecasts for high speed travel wrong. RELEASED CAPACITY In the Command Paper, much is made of the capacity that the HS2 proposals will release on the classic rail network. The Council welcomes any opportunity to make the best possible use of the available capacity on the rail network as a whole and acknowledges that the additional capacity created by HS2 will present many opportunities to reconfigure services on the existing network.

However the Council wants Doncaster’s particular circumstances to be noted. It already has excellent connectivity on the East Coast Main Line [ECML] with London and to the north, with the current fastest journey time from Doncaster to London of 96 minutes. This will potentially reduce by a further 11 minutes with the commissioning of new Super Express trains in 2018. This journey time will not be improved by the high speed rail proposals presented as it takes a minimum of 21 minutes to travel to Sheffield Midland station, and then a further 85 minutes to travel to London by HS2.

FIGURE 6: JOURNEY TIMES FROM

SHEFFIELD CITY CENTRE –

MEADOWHALL OPTION


Page 10 of 23

The next main line stations north of Doncaster are Leeds and York. Both of these stations will have direct high speed services to London via High Speed 2 with journey times of 81 and 84 minutes respectively. Doncaster becomes the most northerly station on the existing East Coast Main Line that will not benefit from High Speed 2 services, but with journey times on the existing network comparable with journey times from Leeds and York on High Speed 2, cities that are more than 30 miles further away from London.

The Council will not want to see any degradation in services on the East Coast Main Line resulting from the reconfiguration of services, for example by the introduction of new freight pathways which might slow down existing services, or by the reduction in the frequency of ECML trains. Any such degradation of the ECML would have a negative impact on both Doncaster and the Sheffield City Region, compounding the issues raised by the new HS2 recommendations, and would be vigorously opposed by Doncaster Council.

The Council notes that no decisions have yet been taken on the introduction of new services, and that the Government “will build an open and shared evidence base” and “consult passengers, communities and freight users … before the introduction of a new timetable when HS2 opens.”xviii The Council will welcome engagement in this process at the time. ACCESS TO AIRPORTS The Council notes that “DfT and HS2 Ltd are working closely with airport operators, local authorities, Local Enterprise Partnerships, Highways England and Network Rail to ensure as the scheme develops that the opportunities for airport access are fully realised.”xix Doncaster Sheffield Airport [DSA] became fully operational in 2005 and is the newest purpose-built airport in the UK with flights to over 40 destinations worldwide. The airport has one of the longest runways outside the South East and is able to accommodate the largest aircraft including the A380 Super Jumbo. The runway could easily be extended further within existing landholdings. The potential for the growth of the airport is considerable with the airport corridor identified as one of Sheffield City Region’s seven Growth Areas (See Figure 2).xx Providing growth and enhancing the role of DSA and the surrounding area has also been identified by the Local Enterprise Partnership as one of its strategic spatial priorities. DSA sits at the heart of the Motorway network - M18, A1[M] and M1 and access to DSA by road has already been improved with the recent completion of the Great Yorkshire Way leaving the M18 at Junction 3. Improved rail access is already planned with a station on the Doncaster to Lincoln line, and there are aspirations to realign the East Coast Main Line south of Doncaster into the airport. High speed rail could improve access yet further on an east-west axis, and the Council would welcome the close working of DfT and HS2 Limited with the airport to explore further opportunities to improve access to the airport. The current HS2 service and route proposals to Sheffield Midland station could only deliver very limited airport connectivity in the Sheffield City Region, when compared with the Sheffield Meadowhall option.


Page 11 of 23

Environment FLOODING HS2 Limited has identified that the location of Sheffield Meadowhall station is in a flood zone. So is Sheffield Midland station (see Figure 7). Sheffield Midland station is in Flood Zone 3 (high probability), whereas the high speed station proposal at Meadowhall is mostly in Zone 2, with parts of the proposed surface infrastructure in Zone 3 (high probability) (see Figure 8). The existing station at Meadowhall is in Zone 2 (medium probability). However, because the infrastructure at Sheffield Meadowhall would be completely new, flooding mitigation measures will enable the station to be built with minimum flood risk, unlike at Sheffield Midland station, which is an existing station with an existing high flood risk probability.


Page 12 of 23

Meadowhall Station

Site of Sheffield Meadowhall

High Speed Station

FIGURE 8: Flood Zones - Sheffield Meadowhall

FIGURE 7: Flood Zones - Sheffield Midland Station

Sheffield Midland Station


Page 13 of 23

AIR QUALITY AND ROAD CONGESTION Issues of poor air quality and road congestion have also been cited at Sheffield Meadowhall.xxi Sheffield Midland station sits at the very heart of Sheffield’s Air Quality Management Area (see Figure 9), and as a city centre location, suffers from chronic congestion at peak times. The main access to the station from the Motorway network (M1 Junction 33), the A630 Sheffield Parkway, also suffers from chronic congestion at peak times. Any concerns about accessibility from the M1 to Sheffield Meadowhall station pale into insignificance when looking at the 10 kilometre journey from M1 Junction 33 to Sheffield Midland.

Figures 10 and 11 below show typical Google traffic map screenshots for Sheffield City Centre taken at 8.15am on a Tuesday morningxxii and 9.00am at the tail end of the morning peak on a Wednesday morningxxiii in different weeks. It can be seen that in the morning peak there is over 10km of slow queuing traffic travelling inbound on the A630 Sheffield Parkway, the whole length from M1 Junction 33 all the way through to Sheffield Midland station and to other roads in the area where there might be parking facilities. Even at the tail end of the morning peak, queues extend for 5km along Sheffield Parkway. The persistence of these delays is clearly illustrated in the two examples. By comparison, it can be seen that the delays for traffic on the M1 Motorway at Junction 34 North and South at Meadowhall are minimal and short lived. This congestion makes Sheffield Midland station very much less accessible by car.

FIGURE 9: Sheffield Air Quality Management Area

A630 Sheffield Parkway

Meadowhall

Sheffield Midland


Page 14 of 23

FIGURE 11: Typical Google Traffic Map Screenshot taken at 9.00am Wednesday Morning


Meadowhall

Sheffield Midland

FIGURE 10: Typical Google Traffic Map Screenshot taken at 8.15am Tuesday Morning


Meadowhall

Sheffield Midland


Page 15 of 23

MEXBOROUGH The Sheffield Midland Spur route through Doncaster has a devastating impact on a brand new quality rural riverside residential development at Mexborough. It passes through the so-called ‘gap’ between Mexborough and Conisbrough. Whilst the estimated number of direct demolitions on the Shimmer Estate is low (<20 properties), there is a severe impact in terms of visual intrusion and noise on all 220 properties, having a 20m high viaduct with 18 trains per hour (~3 minute intervals) travelling at 360kph, less than 200 metres away. This devastating impact also extends to properties on Doncaster Road, Don View, Pastures Road, Pastures Court and Mallory Drive. This severely undermines the Council’s current and aspirational attempts to regenerate the town. Quite apart from the permanent detrimental impact of the proposals in Mexborough, the effect of construction traffic during the years of the construction phase of the scheme will be intolerable for residents. This is especially the case where a 20 metre high viaduct needs to be built across the River Don and Sheffield & South Yorkshire Navigation, affecting a well populated area to the east of Mexborough, including Shimmer. Mexborough currently suffers from low skills levels, low employment and low wages, all of these being below the Doncaster Borough average. Developments such as the Shimmer Estate play an important role in our work to deliver regeneration in the area. The Council has identified several areas of land to the east of Mexborough to meet its housing needs targets, as well as to help start a regeneration process for the town. A plan is attached. Some of the allocated sites are already under development eg Shimmer (839) and Pastures Road (731). One of the sites (154) is cut in half by the Preferred Route alignment and the existing Pastures Road site is severed from the rest of the community. The consequence for the Council is that we will need to look at substitute residential development sites for the town in order to achieve our housing targets, and this will lead either to the consideration of sites on the west side of Mexborough in high performing green belt areas or alternatively finding suitable sites elsewhere in the Borough in less sensitive areas, and the sites will then be lost to Mexborough. This will severely undermine the Council’s efforts to regenerate the town. The Command Paper proposals compromise the best new housing and housing sites which are helping to deliver change in Mexborough,

FIGURE 12: PHOTOMONTAGE OF MEXBOROUGH VIADUCT AND IMPACT

ON SHIMMER ESTATE

SHIMMER ESTATE

A6023 DONCASTER

ROAD

SHEFFIELD & SOUTH

YORKSHIRE NAVIGATION


Page 16 of 23

and they risk significantly damaging the progress already made.

BARNBURGH The route is set on embankments up to 21 metres high either side of a localised peak in ground levels where the line passes approximately 500 metres to the east of Barnburgh. The central area of Barnburgh is a conservation area. The current open vista to the east of Barnburgh with its softly undulating horizon will be severely affected with the HS2 railway embankments providing a new hard horizontal engineered horizon for people in the village, as well as noise impacts from the passage of 9 trains per hour in each direction.

Cost

THE £1BN COST SAVING HS2 Limited claims that the M18/Eastern Route option with its spur into Sheffield Midland station will provide savings of £1bn over the cost of the Sheffield Meadowhall option. Several assumptions have been made to get to this apparent saving, and the presentation of the information in the Command Paper is misleading, at best. The reality is that the M18/Eastern route option will cost more to build and will cost more to operate. However, through sleight of hand, some of the costs of the delivery of the M18/Eastern Route option have been passed to other organisations to prioritise and fund themselves, and therefore conveniently omitted from the costs associated with the HS2 project. MIDLAND MAIN LINE ELECTRIFICATION The use of the existing Midland Mainline from the new junction at Clay Cross is only possible if it is upgraded and electrified. At one time Network Rail had a commitment to complete full electrification of the Midland Mainline to Sheffield by December 2023. There is now no such commitmentxxiv, with much of the project suspended to cover overspends on other electrification programmes. It is nothing more than a hope that this work will have been completed by the time high speed services start to operate on HS2. Operating classic compatible HS2 services on the Midland Mainline is absolutely dependent upon the line being electrified, and so the cost of electrification should be included in HS2 Limited’s costs. This is estimated to be in the region of £0.5bn.xxv SHEFFIELD MIDLAND STATION REMODELLING Sheffield Midland station needs to be remodelled in order to accommodate classic compatible HS2 trains. The Sheffield Midland Spur option proposed by the Secretary of State requires two trains per hour to terminate in the station with the resulting additional capacity requirements. Sir David Higgins himself points to the lack of space in the existing stationxxvi which is insufficient to accommodate the needs of existing local services … and new services resulting from Northern Powerhouse Rail. The work to provide the additional capacity at the station is essential, and yet the cost has not been included in HS2 Limited’s figures because it is assumed that Network Rail will have delivered it.xxvii There is currently no commitment by Network Rail to do this.


Page 17 of 23

THE NORTHERN LOOP The upgrading and electrification of the Northern Loop is fundamental to the Sheffield Midland Spur option providing high speed connectivity to Birmingham, to Leeds, and to cities north of Leeds – York and Newcastle. The Command Paper lays claim to the journey time benefits to Birmingham and to Leedsxxviii without a commitment to providing the infrastructure to give the connectivity. The Command Paper says that funding for this improvement will be considered as part of Transport for the North’s [TfN] work.xxix Yet TfN, (currently not a statutory body) when it becomes a statutory body and has a budget, will be considering priorities for funding across the whole of the north of England, and there is currently no indication that they would consider this a priority.xxx The upgrade and electrification of the Northern Loop is estimated to cost £0.3bn.xxxi If the HS2 journey time benefits are to be claimed as part of the proposal, then there has to be a commitment by the Government to fund the improvements to form the Northern Loop. PARKWAY STATION The Command Paper makes reference to a parkway station study being undertaken by HS2 Limited.xxxii Again, no commitment to a parkway station has been provided. Sir David Higgins has said in Parliament that a parkway station would be “very attractive”,xxxiii The cost of a parkway station is estimated by HS2 Limited to be between £0.2bn and £0.3bn.xxxiv EXTENSION OF HS2 SERVICES TO BARNSLEY AND ROTHERHAM The Command Paper makes reference to the possibility of extending services to Barnsley, Meadowhall or Rotherham.xxxv For Barnsley and Rotherham, the existing lines would need to be upgraded and electrified to enable classic compatible HS2 services to use them. These improvements are uncosted and are not taken into account in the estimated £1bn saving. FURTHER ROLLING STOCK COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NORTHERN LOOP Cost estimates associated with the Northern Loop are highlighted in the Economic Case as being “indicative” and exclude “any further rolling stock costs that may be required – which may lead to an underestimation of the rolling stock needed.”xxxvi

This all suggests that construction costs of the Sheffield Meadowhall option will at worst be no more expensive than the Sheffield Midland spur option, but could be cheaper.

OPERATING COSTS HS2 Limited has estimated that the additional operating costs of the Sheffield Midland Spur option will be £1.7bn over the 60 year appraisal period.xxxvii This is an ongoing cost to the taxpayer. SUMMARY OF THE SHEFFIELD MIDLAND SPUR OPTION COSTS Far from saving the UK taxpayer £1bn, the Sheffield Midland Spur option actually costs more. HS2 Limited’s construction cost figures do not include:

Electrification of the Midland Mainline £0.5bn

Electrification of the Northern Loop £0.3bn

Parkway station £0.2bn – £0.3bn

Remodelling of Sheffield Midland station £uncosted

Further rolling stock requirements for the Northern Loop £uncosted

Extension of services to Barnsley and/or Rotherham £uncosted


Page 18 of 23

These costs more than wipe out the claimed £1bn saving. Furthermore, the claimed saving does not take into account running costs, and as such fail to recognise the additional £1.7bn it will cost to operate the Sheffield Midland option. A summary of this is illustrated in Figure 13 below.

The Council also notes the uncertainty over estimated journey times from Sheffield to London. These journey times underpin HS2 Limited’s BCR calculations, which are marginal when comparing the Sheffield Midland Spur option with the Sheffield Meadowhall option. Any increases to these journey times may result in the estimated benefits of this route option decreasing even further.

The Council calls upon HS2 Limited to reassess the economic case for the M18 Eastern

Route proposal using the true inclusive costs of delivering the proposals in South

Yorkshire.

FIGURE 13: THE REAL COST OF THE M18/EASTERN ROUTE


Page 19 of 23

Summary The Command Paper proposals as they stand are vastly inferior to the Sheffield Meadowhall proposal for the Sheffield City Region. They do not maximise the potential benefits of HS2 to the City Region, to Yorkshire or to the United Kingdom as a whole. Access to the high speed rail network for Doncaster residents is very limited or even non-existent. It is Doncaster residents that take much of the pain of the proposals in South Yorkshire to enable the Government supposedly to cut £1bn from the cost of HS2, all for a “slightly lower BCR” and a “slightly higher likelihood of delivering value for money”. Most importantly, the route delivers less economic benefit and will create fewer jobs. This cannot be acceptable to the Council and it should not be acceptable to the Government. Even if the specific Command Paper proposal of the Sheffield Midland Spur option is enhanced to the Sheffield Midland Loop option together with a Parkway Station on the high speed line, these enhancements still do not make up for a fundamentally flawed proposition. The proposals:

Use fewer and shorter trains and provide less capacity for the city region;

Provide high speed services that are less frequent and slower

Provide vastly inferior connectivity to key destinations

Deliver fewer economic benefits, and serve the region’s key priority growth areas less well

Constrain future economic growth opportunities; and

Cost more As set out above, the £1bn saving claimed by HS2 Limited is simply illusory.

The Council calls upon the Government to make a decision on the final route for High

Speed 2 in South Yorkshire as soon as possible.

The years of uncertainty that have already been caused and continues for residents and businesses on the original Meadowhall route is unacceptable, and the continuing uncertainty for residents and businesses affected by both routes must be brought to an end as soon as possible.


Page 20 of 23

Questions 8 and 9 – Creating a northern junction

Changing the way Sheffield is served opens up the possibility of running high speed trains from Sheffield to Leeds via a dedicated link. The Secretary of state is also seeking views on the railway junction needed to create this northern ‘loop’. Do you support the potential development of a northern junction to enable high speed services stopping at Sheffield to continue further north? Please indicate whether or not you support the proposal and your reasons.

Notwithstanding the Council's opposition to the Preferred Route alignment, DMBC believes that the development of the junction to create the possibility of the northern 'loop' is essential to secure improved journey times to Leeds and beyond, and to Birmingham, if the Government chooses to proceed with the new proposals. It is noted that in the Command Paper, HS2 lays claim to the journey time benefit resulting from the implementation of the Northern Loop.xxxviii This is fundamentally misleading given that the Command Paper makes no provision for the upgrades required for the loop to take HS2 compatible trains, instead leaving the improvements as an un-prioritised and unfunded scheme in the Northern Powerhouse Rail wish list. The Council is concerned that there are already capacity constraints on this section of line, notably the ‘throat’ immediately to the north of Sheffield Midland station. Implementation of the Northern Loop would create a mix of local stopping services, regional express services and high speed services on a line that already suffers problems of journey time volatility. Therefore capacity improvements as well as signalling and electrification upgrades will be essential. The Council believes that the junction at Clayton together with all of the improvements required to create the Northern Loop, including capacity upgrades where necessary should be included in the Government's proposals and funded as part of HS2 Phase 2b.

Do you support the proposed location of the northern junction in the vicinity of Clayton? Please indicate whether or not you support the proposal and your reasons.

Notwithstanding the Council's opposition to the Preferred Route alignment, DMBC believes that the location of the northern junction near Clayton is sensible, being located at the intersection of the Preferred Route with the existing Sheffield to Leeds/York Dearne Valley railway line.


Page 21 of 23

Comments on Other Work referenced in the Command Paper

PARKWAY STATION The Council notes the work being undertaken by HS2 Limited on a potential parkway station on the high speed rail corridor serving South Yorkshire. Notwithstanding the Council's opposition to the Preferred Route alignment, as stated above, the Council believes that the provision of a station in South Yorkshire on the high speed line is essential for the Borough, for South Yorkshire and for Sheffield City Region [SCR] in order to gain the maximum benefit from the regenerative effect that such a station would have. For the city region as a whole to gain that benefit, it needs to be located at a point where there is good rail and road access to as many of its identified growth areas as possible. Sheffield Meadowhall and the Initial Preferred Route met these criteria. However, if the Secretary of State confirms the alternative Preferred Route alignment proposal, then a parkway station on the high speed line must be provided in addition to the HS2 classic compatible Sheffield Midland station spur. As noted elsewhere, capacity at Sheffield Midland station will forever be constrained and there must be provision for additional capacity elsewhere in South Yorkshire to meets the region’s growing demand. The parkway station must have good connectivity to existing transport networks - road and rail. It must complement the city region’s housing growth areas, and have a good strategic fit with local and city region aspirations. For the Borough of Doncaster, this means that the location must provide competitive rail journey times to major economic destinations, eg to London and Birmingham, easy and quick road and rail access from Doncaster town, and also have good rail and road connectivity to Doncaster Sheffield Airport. The latter reinforces the need for close working with HS2 Limited on airport connectivity. NORTHERN LOOP Whilst the Council understands that there is an underlying assumption that the existing line between Sheffield Midland station and Clayton will have been upgraded and electrified by the time HS2 services commence, we believe that it makes no sense that the improvements required to complete the Northern Loop north of Sheffield Midland station are not included in the Government’s proposals. HS2 Limited’s own analysis states that “whilst there are additional costs, the overall BCR is similar to the M18 Spur Route.”xxxix If the Secretary of State is minded to include the junction between the existing line and the new high speed line at Clayton in the Hybrid Bill, (ie he accepts that the Northern Loop is required), then there is no logic to exclude the improvements to create the Northern Loop from the Hybrid Bill. Indeed, the Council seeks clarification as to whether the Government has the powers to be able to acquire land for the junction which in effect is for speculative purposes, ie for the possibility that Transport for the North, once it becomes a statutory body, prioritises and funds the £0.3bn improvement to enable him to run HS2 classic compatible trains on the existing line. As this work is not currently funded or committed, we believe the purchase of land for the junction would fail the normal test for the use of compulsory purchase powers.


Page 22 of 23

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 HS2 M18/Eastern Route Proposal Page 2

Figure 2 SCR Priority Growth Areas Page 4

Figure 3 Comparison of Seat Availability Page 4

Figure 4 Jobs and GVA Comparison Page 7

Figure 5 Northern Powerhouse Rail Vision Page 8

Figure 6 Journey Times from Sheffield City Centre – Meadowhall Option Page 8

Figure 7 Flood Zones - Sheffield Midland Station Page 11

Figure 8 Flood Zones - Sheffield Meadowhall Page 11

Figure 9 Sheffield Air Quality Management Area Page 12

Figure 10 Typical Google Traffic Map Screenshot taken at 8.15am Page 13

Figure 11 Typical Google Traffic Map Screenshot taken at 9.00am Page 13

Figure 12 Photomontage of Mexborough Viaduct and Impact on Shimmer Page 14

Figure 13 The Real Cost of the M18/Eastern Route Page 17

The Council believes that the Northern Loop should be fully included in the proposals and funded as part of HS2 Phase 2b, and not left to the uncertainty of Northern Powerhouse Rail prioritising, funding and delivering the improvements within the required timescale. EXTENSION OF SERVICES NORTH OF SHEFFIELD MIDLAND Whilst Doncaster is not affected by this piece of work, and notwithstanding the Council’s opposition to the Preferred Route alignment, the Council believes that any consideration of HS2 services being extended to Meadowhall, Rotherham or Barnsley, needs to be carried out in conjunction with the work for a possible location of a parkway station. The connectivity improvements that a parkway station might bring may also satisfy the connectivity requirements for these locations. Clearly this will depend on whether a parkway station is provided, and where the parkway station is located.


Page 23 of 23

ATTACHMENTS

Mott MacDonald Report High Speed 2 in the Sheffield City Region February 2017

DMBC Housing Allocations Plan – Mexborough/Conisbrough

REFERENCES AND SOURCE DOCUMENTS

i SYITA High Speed Rail Investing in Britain’s Future Consultation Response February 2014

ii High Speed Two: From Crewe to Manchester, the West Midlands to Leeds and beyond: Para 6.25 Page 53

iii High Speed Two: From Crewe to Manchester, the West Midlands to Leeds and beyond: Para 6.23 Page 53

iv High Speed Two: From Crewe to Manchester, the West Midlands to Leeds and beyond: Para 8.14 Page 66

v High Speed Two: From Crewe to Manchester, the West Midlands to Leeds and beyond: Para 6.18 Page 51

vi HS2 Phase Two Sheffield and South Yorkshire Options Report Figure 2 Page 10

vii

SCR Strategic Economic Plan March 2014 Figure 13 Page 31

viii High Speed Two Phase 2b Crewe to Manchester, West Midlands to Leeds Economic Case: Para 5.6.1

ix HS2 Rebalancing Britain From HS2 towards a national transport strategy: Page 20

x HS2 Rebalancing Britain From HS2 towards a national transport strategy: Page 20

xi HS2 Rebalancing Britain From HS2 towards a national transport strategy: Page 32

xii

HS2 Sheffield and South Yorkshire Report 2016 Page 10

xiii Mott MacDonald Report High Speed 2 in the Sheffield City Region February 2017 Figures 1 & 2

xiv

Sheffield City Region Integrated Infrastructure Plan Executive Summary

xv HS2 Limited Sheffield Meadowhall Station Factsheet July 2013

xvi

High Speed Two Phase 2b Crewe to Manchester, West Midlands to Leeds Economic Case: Para 5.5.4 Page 22

xvii HS2 Sheffield and South Yorkshire Report July 2016 Page 17

xviii

High Speed Two: From Crewe to Manchester, the West Midlands to Leeds and beyond: Para 7.20

xix High Speed Two: From Crewe to Manchester, the West Midlands to Leeds and beyond: Para 7.17

xx

Sheffield City Region Integrated Infrastructure Plan Figure 1, Page 7

xxi HS2 Sheffield and South Yorkshire Report 2016 Page 15

xxii

Google Traffic Map screenshot taken at 08.15am Tuesday 7th

March 2017

xxiii Google Traffic Map screenshot taken at 09.00am Wednesday 1

st March 2017

xxiv

Hansard 7th

November 2016 Volume 616

xxv East Midlands Councils/Arup The Case for Upgrading and Electrifying the Midland Mainline Table 2 Page 5

xxvi

HS2 Sheffield and South Yorkshire Report 2016 Page 17

xxvii HS2 Phase Two Sheffield and South Yorkshire Options Report July 2016 Para 3.2.3

xxviii

High Speed Two: From Crewe to Manchester, the West Midlands to Leeds and beyond: Figure 17 Page 53

xxix High Speed Two: From Crewe to Manchester, the West Midlands to Leeds and beyond Para 6.24 Page 53

xxx

Hansard High Speed 2: Yorkshire 6 February 2017 Volume 621

xxxi High Speed Two Phase 2b Crewe to Manchester, West Midlands to Leeds Economic Case: Para 5.5.5 Page 24

xxxii

High Speed Two: From Crewe to Manchester, the West Midlands to Leeds and beyond: Para 6.25 Page 53 xxxiii

Hansard Transport Committee Oral Evidence: High Speed Two, HC746 xxxiv

HS2 Limited - verbal briefing at HS2 Phase 2b Parkway Station Stakeholder Group meeting 11th

January 2017

xxxv High Speed Two: From Crewe to Manchester, the West Midlands to Leeds and beyond: Para 6.25 Page 53

xxxvi

High Speed Two Phase 2b Crewe to Manchester, West Midlands to Leeds Economic Case: Pages 23, 24 xxxvii

High Speed Two Phase 2b Crewe to Manchester, West Midlands to Leeds Economic Case: Para 5.5.4 Page 24 xxxviii

High Speed Two: From Crewe to Manchester, the West Midlands to Leeds and beyond: Figure 17 Page 53 xxxix

High Speed Two Phase 2b Crewe to Manchester, West Midlands to Leeds Economic Case: Para 5.6.2

Documents

IGH PEED TWO HASE 2B REWE TO ANCHESTER WEST IDLANDS … · Doncaster ouncil [s Response to HS2 Phase 2b Route Refinement Consultation 2016 Page 1 of 23 HIGH SPEED TWO PHASE 2B: CREWE