Yorkshire Rail Network Study - Metro | Home

Yorkshire Rail Network Study

Conditional Output Statement

Report

March 2012

Prepared for: Prepared by:

Metro, SYPTE and Leeds City Region

Steer Davies Gleave

West Riding House

67 Albion Street

Leeds LS1 5AA

+44 (0)113 389 6400

www.steerdaviesgleave.com


Contents

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

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 Passenger Corridors ....................................................... 5


Contents

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 Type – Trend Plus ..61

TABLES

Table 1 Conditional Output Summary............................................ ix


Contents

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


i

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).


ii

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


iii

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 on-

train 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


iv

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:

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


v

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


vi

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 suggest.

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.


vii

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


viii

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:

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


ix

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 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.

Capability of the network

and provision of sufficient

and appropriate rolling

stock to operate faster

services

Network capacity and

availability of rolling stock

to deliver increased

frequency

2. Capacity 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.

Limited availability of

rolling stock and

infrastructure capability

(track capacity, depot

capacity and platform

length) prevents longer or

more frequent services


x


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 trans-

Pennine and North–South

freight paths

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

4. Performance Reduce the variation in

performance on different

corridors by improving

performance of the relatively

poor performing corridors.

Any enhancements to meet

these Conditional Outputs

should not worsen performance

Variability in performance

of services in different

corridors caused by track

capacity, rolling stock

reliability and delivery of

planned capacity

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

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.


xi


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

Local rail services should

maximise the distribution of

HS2 benefits around the region

To be considered following

HS2 Phase 2 consultation

in 2014

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

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

10. Carbon

Reduction

Support the achievement of the

overall reduced carbon

trajectory for transport sector

as adopted by Government

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 Yorkshire 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.


xii

I 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.


1

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.


2

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 7th 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 specific

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


3

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:

Ben Still, Director of Strategy, SYPTE Richard Thompson, Network Rail

David Hoggarth, Director Development,

Metro

Rob Warnes, Performance and Planning

Director, Northern Rail

Brian Welch, DfT Nick Gibbons, National Planning Manager, DB

Schenker

1.12 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.


4

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:

5 Towns;

Bradford FS;

Bradford Interchange;

Calderdale;

Harrogate – York;

Huddersfield;

Hull;

Ilkley;

Leeds – Harrogate;

Leeds – York;

North Trans-Pennine;

Skipton;

I Inter CR Corridors:

Barnsley;

Leeds – Doncaster;

Penistone;

Pontefract Baghill;

Bolton - Moorthorpe;

I Sheffield CR Corridors

Doncaster – Cleethorpes;

Goole;

Lincoln;

Midland Main Line;

Sheffield – Doncaster;

South Trans-Pennine;

York – Doncaster;

I Other:

Blackpool;

ECML North;

ECML South;

Rochdale;

Scarborough;

Yorkshire Dales; and

Other.


5

FIGURE 1.1 PASSENGER CORRIDORS


6

FIGURE 1.2 FREIGHT CORRIDORS AND TERMINALS


7

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.


9

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 inter-

relationship 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."


10

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 pre-

recession 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.


11

"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 Minister. 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 showing 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:


12

"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


13

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:


14

"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


15

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 pre-

recession 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


16

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 on-

train 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 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


17

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)


18

Source: The Work Foundation et al (2009)

International Links

Airports

2.35 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:


19

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.

2.36 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 inter-

continental 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


20

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.


21

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


22

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 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.

2.51 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


23

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

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;

Benefits

captured in

conventional

appraisal

Imperfect competition

Labour Market Impacts Net Element

Reduced Business Costs

Agglomeration Wider

impacts

Productivity

gains

Other benefits (safety, emissions etc)

Non-work related user benefits

(commuting, leisure etc)

(Captured in

commuting user

benefits)


24

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 transport 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.


25

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:

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.

2.62 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 assessed are important

influences on the derived estimates of GVA uplift.


26

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 trans-

Pennine routes. It also notes that employment opportunities would be enhanced by

enhanced connectivity to major regeneration areas, for example in East Doncaster,


27

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


28

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.

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.


29

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 7th 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:

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.

3.4 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 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.

3.6 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.


30

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 Manchester

1) Connectivity

4) Performance

Connectivity to and between sub-regional

centres including Bradford, Huddersfield,

Wakefield, Barnsley and Doncaster

1) Connectivity

4) Performance

Consistent quality of journey experience 2) Capacity

5) Journey Quality

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


31

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. This 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


32

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 PDFH1 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 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;

1 Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook: The rail industry’s standard methodology for forecasting changes in rail

demand.


33

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


34

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.


35

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 INCREMENTAL PEAK SEATS - DO MINIMUM V TEST TIMETABLE -

TREND


36

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 FORECAST GDP AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH, 2011 TO 2027


37

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.


38

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 2011 TO 2019 DEMAND GROWTH – TREND PLUS


39

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


40

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%).


41

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.


42

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 sub-

regional 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


43

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.


44

FIGURE 4.15 CONNECTIVITY BENEFITS BY DESTINATION - TREND

FIGURE 4.16 CONNECTIVITY BENEFITS BY DESTINATION – TREND PLUS


45

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 RUS2.

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


46

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


47

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


48

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:

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;


49

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).


50

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.


51

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:

Tees Port to Manchester;

Tees Port to Southampton;

Leeds to Felixstowe;

Leeds to Wilton

I Aggregates:

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;

I Steel:

Immingham to Scunthorpe;

Scunthorpe to South Wales;

I Coal:

Immingham to West Burton;

Hunterston to Drax;

I Other:

Waste from Greater Manchester to Roxby.

4.70 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


52

number of lorry miles. This uses Mode Shift Benefit Rates as identified by the

DfT3; 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 FORECAST DIRECT FREIGHT BENEFITS

Freight Flow Economic Benefit (PV 2002 £m)

Tees Port – Manchester £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 Manchester – Roxby £29

Total Benefits £689

3 http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/adobepdf-165226-443908/msbtechpaper.pdf

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/adobepdf-165226-443908/msbtechpaper.pdf


53

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.


55

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:

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.

5.5 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.


56

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


57

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.


58

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:

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.

5.17 The horizontal axis shows all benefits accruing to journeys where regional, sub-

regional 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 NORMALISED CONNECTIVITY BENEFITS BY TYPE – TREND PLUS

5.18 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.


59

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 NORMALISED CONNECTIVITY BENEFITS BY DESTINATION – TREND

PLUS

5.22 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.


60

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 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.


61

FIGURE 5.5 PROPORTION OF TEST TIMETABLE BENEFIT BY FLOW TYPE –

TREND PLUS

5.26 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.

5.27 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


62

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.


63

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


64

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:


65

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 off-

peak 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 services11 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.


66

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 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.


67

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 provision, 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 towns12 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.


68

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 inter-

regional 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:

I Leeds and Bradford stations to Leeds Bradford Airport; and

I Sheffield and Doncaster stations to Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield.


69

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.


70

TABLE 6.1 CONDITIONAL OUTPUT SUMMARY


1.Connectivity 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.

Capability of the network

and provision of sufficient

and appropriate rolling

stock to operate faster

services

Network capacity and

availability of rolling stock

to deliver increased

frequency

2. Capacity 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.

Limited availability of

rolling stock and

infrastructure capability

prevents longer or more

frequent services

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 trans-

Pennine and North–South

freight paths

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

4. Performance Reduce the variation in

performance by improving

performance of the relatively

poor performing corridors.

Any enhancements to meet

these Conditional Outputs

should not worsen performance

Variability in performance

of services in different

corridors

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


71


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 from rail hubs to

growth centres that are not

connected to the rail network

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.

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

Local rail services should

maximise the distribution of

HS2 benefits around the region

To be considered following

HS2 Phase 2 consultation in

2014

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

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

10. Carbon

Reduction

Support the achievement of the

overall reduced carbon

trajectory for transport sector

as adopted by Government

Not all rolling stock meets

contemporary emissions

standards


72


Appendix A

APPENDIX

A

EVIDENCE REVIEW REFERENCES


Appendix A

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

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

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


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


York Aviation (2006) The Economic and Social Impact of The Manchester Airport

Group Airports Manchester Airports Group, Manchester Appendix list number


Appendix B

APPENDIX

B

DISAGGREGATED ECONOMIC BENEFITS


Appendix B

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

B2 TREND ECONOMIC BENEFITS BY TYPE – PV 2002 VALUES £M

Benefit Type

Origin Station / Corridor

Revenue Incre

ment

Journ

ey T

ime

Cro

wdin

g

Non U

ser

Benefi

ts

Wid

er

Econom

ic B

enefi

ts

Tota

l Benefi

ts

Regional

Centre

Station

Leeds £141.5 £550.3 £0.0 £154.9 £119.3 £966.1

Manchester £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

Sub

Regional

Centre

Station

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

Leeds CR

Corridors

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


Appendix B

Benefit Type


Revenue Incre

ment

Journ

ey T

ime

Cro

wdin

g

Non U

ser

Benefi

ts

Wid

er

Econom

ic B

enefi

ts

Tota

l Benefi

ts

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

Inter CR

Corridors

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 - Moorthorpe £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

Sheffield

CR

Corridors

Lincoln £44.0 £122.0 £17.3 £39.9 £42.5 £265.6

Midland Main 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

Other

Corridors

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

ECML North £14.6 £32.7 £49.8 £9.4 £7.4 £114.0

ECML 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

Total £1,338 £4,816 £1,755 £1,366 £1,228 £10,503


Appendix B

B3 TREND ECONOMIC BENEFITS BY DESTINATION EXCLUDING

CROWDING (REGIONAL STATIONS) – PV 2002 VALUES £M

Destination


Leeds

Manchest

er

Sheff

ield

York

Bra

dfo

rd

London

Tota

l Regio

nal

Centr

es

Regional

Centre

Station

Leeds £0.0 £135.9 £41.6 £40.7 £102.3 -£0.2 £320.4

Manchester £112.2 £0.0 £47.6 £37.4 £14.8 £0.0 £212.0

Sheffield £63.2 £76.8 £0.0 £6.3 £11.8 £0.1 £158.2

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

Sub

Regional

Centre

Station

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

Leeds CR

Corridors

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


Appendix B

Destination


Leeds

Manchest

er

Sheff

ield

York

Bra

dfo

rd

London

Tota

l Regio

nal

Centr

es

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

Inter CR

Corridors

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 - Moorthorpe £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

Sheffield

CR

Corridors

Lincoln £6.9 £6.0 £44.4 £3.9 £2.9 £0.9 £64.9

Midland Main 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

Other

Corridors

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

ECML North -£3.6 £38.5 £0.2 -£19.6 £1.6 -£3.5 £13.5

ECML 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

Total Excluding Crowding £2,071 £833 £540 £383 £498 £47 £4,371


Appendix B

B4 TREND ECONOMIC BENEFITS BY DESTINATION EXCLUDING

CROWDING (ALL LOCATIONS) – PV 2002 VALUES £M

Destination

Origin Station / Corridor Regio

nal Centr

es

Sub R

egio

nal

Centr

e S

tati

on

Leeds

CR

Corr

idors

Sheff

ield

CR

Corr

idors

Oth

er

Corr

idors

All

Flo

ws

Regional

Centre

Station

Leeds £320.4 £154.3 £332.8 £12.9 £145.7 £966.1

Manchester £212.0 £53.0 £29.1 £6.7 £149.2 £450.1

Sheffield £158.2 £83.9 £14.7 £61.9 £113.4 £432.1

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

Sub

Regional

Centre

Station

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


Wakefield £145.1 £47.0 £29.1 £4.1 £10.5 £235.8


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

Leeds CR

Corridors

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


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


Appendix B

Destination


nal Centr

es

Sub R

egio

nal

Centr

e S

tati

on

Leeds

CR

Corr

idors

Sheff

ield

CR

Corr

idors

Oth

er

Corr

idors

All

Flo

ws


Skipton £253.3 £18.1 £91.0 £1.5 £13.4 £377.2


Inter CR

Corridors

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


York - Doncaster £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0

Sheffield

CR

Corridors

Lincoln £64.9 £50.5 £1.6 £93.7 £37.6 £248.3




Thorne (Station) £0.8 £2.6 £0.1 £0.5 £1.0 £5.0

Other

Corridors

Blackpool £77.0 £13.1 £9.1 £1.3 £131.8 £232.3


ECML North £13.5 £5.0 £4.4 £0.4 £40.8 £64.1

ECML 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


Total Excluding Crowding £4,371 £1,249 £1,125 £452 £1,551 £8,747


Appendix B

B5 TREND PLUS ECONOMIC BENEFITS BY TYPE – PV 2002 VALUES £M

Benefit Type


Revenue Incre

ment

Journ

ey T

ime

Cro

wdin

g

Non U

ser

Benefi

ts

Wid

er

Econom

ic B

enefi

ts

Tota

l Benefi

ts

Regional

Centre

Station

Leeds £145.9 £604.6 £0.0 £155.3 £128.4 £1,034.1

Manchester £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

Sub

Regional

Centre

Station

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


Wakefield £36.1 £151.2 £0.0 £68.1 £28.7 £284.2


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

Leeds CR

Corridors

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


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


Appendix B

Benefit Type


Revenue Incre

ment

Journ

ey T

ime

Cro

wdin

g

Non U

ser

Benefi

ts

Wid

er

Econom

ic B

enefi

ts

Tota

l Benefi

ts


Skipton £46.1 £257.0 £130.7 £54.6 £57.0 £545.4


Inter CR

Corridors

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


York - Doncaster £0.0 £0.0 £6.4 £0.0 £0.0 £6.4

Sheffield

CR

Corridors

Lincoln £45.6 £131.0 £27.8 £41.7 £45.3 £291.4




Thorne (Station) £0.5 £3.3 £0.0 £0.6 £0.9 £5.3

Other

Corridors

Blackpool £35.4 £141.7 £2.0 £29.7 £33.5 £242.3


ECML North £19.4 £38.4 £127.9 £13.1 £9.1 £207.8

ECML 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


Total £1,447 £5,454 £2,413 £1,484 £1,372 £12,170


Appendix B

B6 TREND PLUS ECONOMIC BENEFITS BY DESTINATION EXCLUDING

CROWDING (REGIONAL STATIONS) – PV 2002 VALUES £M

Destination


Leeds

Manchest

er

Sheff

ield

York

Bra

dfo

rd

London

Tota

l Regio

nal

Centr

es

Regional

Centre

Station

Leeds £0.0 £163.1 £53.3 £43.9 £110.9 -£0.2 £371.0

Manchester £122.1 £0.0 £58.8 £38.9 £14.8 £0.0 £234.5

Sheffield £73.6 £95.0 £0.0 £6.3 £11.8 £0.1 £186.8

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

Sub

Regional

Centre

Station

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

Leeds CR

Corridors

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


Appendix B

Destination


Leeds

Manchest

er

Sheff

ield

York

Bra

dfo

rd

London

Tota

l Regio

nal

Centr

es

Leeds - York £101.6 £13.6 £0.8 £23.7 £0.8 £1.7 £142.3

North Transpennine £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

Inter CR

Corridors

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 - Moorthorpe £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

Sheffield

CR

Corridors

Lincoln £8.0 £7.4 £55.7 £4.1 £3.3 £0.9 £79.4

Midland Main 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

Other

Corridors

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

ECML North -£4.2 £50.4 £0.3 -£19.8 £1.6 -£3.6 £24.7

ECML 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

Total Excluding Crowding £2,382 £985 £681 £425 £557 £46 £5,076


Appendix B

B7 TREND PLUS ECONOMIC BENEFITS BY DESTINATION EXCLUDING

CROWDING (ALL LOCATIONS) – PV 2002 VALUES £M

Destination


nal Centr

es

Sub R

egio

nal

Centr

e S

tati

on

Leeds

CR

Corr

idors

Sheff

ield

CR

Corr

idors

Oth

er

Corr

idors

All

Flo

ws

Regional

Centre

Station

Leeds £371.0 £149.5 £350.1 £15.2 £148.4 £1,034.1

Manchester £234.5 £53.0 £29.5 £7.9 £121.4 £446.3

Sheffield £186.8 £92.6 £15.2 £69.3 £117.7 £481.5

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

Sub

Regional

Centre

Station

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


Wakefield £177.5 £59.8 £31.6 £4.6 £10.7 £284.2


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

Leeds CR

Corridors

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


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


Appendix B

Destination


nal Centr

es

Sub R

egio

nal

Centr

e S

tati

on

Leeds

CR

Corr

idors

Sheff

ield

CR

Corr

idors

Oth

er

Corr

idors

All

Flo

ws


Skipton £285.2 £19.5 £94.2 £1.8 £14.0 £414.7


Inter CR

Corridors

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



York - Doncaster £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0

Sheffield

CR

Corridors

Lincoln £79.4 £49.4 £1.6 £94.9 £38.2 £263.6




Thorne (Station) £1.0 £2.7 £0.1 £0.6 £1.0 £5.3

Other

Corridors

Blackpool £83.4 £13.5 £9.3 £1.4 £132.5 £240.3


ECML North £24.7 £5.0 £4.5 £0.5 £45.2 £79.8

ECML 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


Total Excluding Crowding £5,076 £1,386 £1,227 £487 £1,582 £9,757


Appendix B

B8 TREND SCENARIO DISAGGREGATED RATE OF BENEFIT / DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFIT GRAPHS


Appendix B


Appendix B


Appendix B


Appendix B


Appendix B

B9 TREND RATES OF ECONOMIC BENEFIT BY TYPE – PV 2002 VALUES

£M (BENEFIT DIVIDED BY GJT MINUTES / ADDITIONAL SEATS)

Benefit Type


Revenue Incre

ment

Journ

ey T

ime

Non U

ser

Benefi

ts

Wid

er

Econom

ic B

enefi

ts

Tota

l Connecti

vit

y

Benefi

ts

Cro

wdin

g (

£000’s

)

Regional

Centre

Station

Leeds £14.1 £54.8 £15.4 £11.9 £96.3

Manchester £15.4 £36.3 £11.3 £7.5 £70.5

Sheffield £5.3 £18.9 £4.7 £5.4 £34.3

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

Sub

Regional

Centre

Station

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

Leeds CR

Corridors

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


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


Appendix B

Benefit Type


Revenue Incre

ment

Journ

ey T

ime

Non U

ser

Benefi

ts

Wid

er

Econom

ic B

enefi

ts

Tota

l Connecti

vit

y

Benefi

ts

Cro

wdin

g (

£000’s

)

Leeds - York £2.3 £9.5 £2.3 £2.3 £16.4 £4.7


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

Inter CR

Corridors

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


York - Doncaster £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £3.7

Sheffield

CR

Corridors

Lincoln £2.7 £7.4 £2.4 £2.6 £15.2 £4.4




Thorne (Station) £0.2 £1.4 £0.3 £0.4 £2.2

Other

Corridors

Blackpool £3.6 £14.4 £3.0 £3.4 £24.5 £0.3


ECML North £16.6 £37.0 £10.6 £8.4 £72.6 £3.2

ECML 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


Appendix B

B10 TREND RATES OF ECONOMIC BENEFIT BY DESTINATION (REGIONAL

STATIONS) – PV 2002 VALUES £M (BENEFIT DIVIDED BY GJT

MINUTES - EXCLUDING CROWDING)

Destination

Origin Station / Corridor Leeds

Manchest

er

Sheff

ield

York

Bra

dfo

rd

London

Regional

Centre

Station

Leeds £0.0 £7.1 £3.2 £6.0 £8.7 £3.4

Manchester £5.9 £0.0 £3.0 £1.7 £0.7 £0.0

Sheffield £4.8 £4.6 £0.0 £1.7 £0.3 £1.9

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

Sub

Regional

Centre

Station

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


Wakefield £11.0 £0.2 £0.9 £0.4 £1.6 £0.0


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

Leeds CR

Corridors

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


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


Appendix B

Destination


Manchest

er

Sheff

ield

York

Bra

dfo

rd

London


Skipton £30.1 £0.3 £0.3 £0.5 £7.7 £1.5


Inter CR

Corridors

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



York - Doncaster £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0

Sheffield

CR

Corridors

Lincoln £0.2 £0.2 £2.5 £0.2 £0.0 £0.9




Thorne (Station) £0.0 £0.0 £0.1 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0

Other

Corridors

Blackpool £1.2 £3.4 £0.2 £0.5 £0.4 £1.2


ECML North £3.6 £2.3 £0.3 £8.4 £0.2 £0.9

ECML 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

B11 TREND RATES OF ECONOMIC BENEFIT BY DESTINATION (ALL

LOCATIONS) – PV 2002 VALUES £M (BENEFIT DIVIDED BY GJT


Destination


nal Centr

es

Sub R

egio

nal

Centr

e S

tati

on

Leeds

CR

Corr

idors

Sheff

ield

CR

Corr

idors

Oth

er

Corr

idors

All

Flo

ws

Regional

Centre

Station

Leeds £27.1 £16.8 £37.5 £0.8 £12.0 £96.3

Manchester £11.3 £3.0 £1.7 £0.3 £51.3 £70.5

Sheffield £12.5 £7.7 £0.7 £5.4 £7.8 £34.3

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

Sub

Regional

Centre

Station

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


Wakefield £16.2 £4.2 £2.0 £0.4 £0.9 £23.8


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

Leeds CR

Corridors

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


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


Appendix B

Destination


nal Centr

es

Sub R

egio

nal

Centr

e S

tati

on

Leeds

CR

Corr

idors

Sheff

ield

CR

Corr

idors

Oth

er

Corr

idors

All

Flo

ws


Skipton £40.6 £1.3 £15.6 £0.1 £1.3 £59.0


Inter CR

Corridors

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



York - Doncaster £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0

Sheffield

CR

Corridors

Lincoln £3.8 £1.0 £0.0 £5.2 £3.1 £15.2




Thorne (Station) £0.2 £1.4 £0.0 £0.1 £0.8 £2.2

Other

Corridors

Blackpool £8.0 £0.6 £0.3 £0.0 £15.1 £24.5


ECML North £0.8 £0.4 £0.1 £44.4 £72.6

ECML 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

B12 TREND PLUS RATES OF ECONOMIC BENEFIT BY TYPE – PV 2002

VALUES £M (BENEFIT DIVIDED BY GJT MINUTES / ADDITIONAL

SEATS)

Benefit Type


Revenue Incre

ment

Journ

ey T

ime

Non U

ser

Benefi

ts

Wid

er

Econom

ic B

enefi

ts

Tota

l Connecti

vit

y

Benefi

ts

Cro

wdin

g (

£000’s

)

Regional

Centre

Station

Leeds £14.5 £60.1 £15.4 £12.8 £102.8

Manchester £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

Sub

Regional

Centre

Station

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

Leeds CR

Corridors

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


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


Appendix B

Benefit Type


Revenue Incre

ment

Journ

ey T

ime

Non U

ser

Benefi

ts

Wid

er

Econom

ic B

enefi

ts

Tota

l Connecti

vit

y

Benefi

ts

Cro

wdin

g (

£000’s

)

Leeds - York £2.7 £11.1 £2.7 £2.7 £19.1 £4.9


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

Inter CR

Corridors

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


York - Doncaster £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £6.4

Sheffield

CR

Corridors

Lincoln £2.7 £7.9 £2.5 £2.7 £15.8 £6.9




Thorne (Station) £0.2 £1.4 £0.3 £0.4 £2.3

Other

Corridors

Blackpool £3.8 £15.2 £3.2 £3.6 £25.8 £0.3


ECML North £20.6 £40.9 £13.9 £9.7 £85.1 £6.5

ECML 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


Appendix B

B13 TREND PLUS RATES OF ECONOMIC BENEFIT BY DESTINATION

(REGIONAL STATIONS) – PV 2002 VALUES £M (BENEFIT DIVIDED BY

GJT MINUTES - EXCLUDING CROWDING)

Destination


Manchest

er

Sheff

ield

York

Bra

dfo

rd

London

Regional

Centre

Station

Leeds £0.0 £8.5 £4.1 £6.4 £9.4 £3.5

Manchester £6.4 £0.0 £3.7 £1.7 £0.7 £0.0

Sheffield £5.5 £5.7 £0.0 £1.7 £0.3 £1.9

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

Sub

Regional

Centre

Station

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


Wakefield £12.9 £0.2 £1.1 £0.4 £2.1 £0.0


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

Leeds CR

Corridors

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


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


Appendix B

Destination


Manchest

er

Sheff

ield

York

Bra

dfo

rd

London


Skipton £34.8 £0.4 £0.3 £0.5 £7.9 £1.5


Inter CR

Corridors

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



York - Doncaster £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0

Sheffield

CR

Corridors

Lincoln £0.2 £0.2 £3.1 £0.2 £0.0 £0.9




Thorne (Station) £0.0 £0.0 £0.1 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0

Other

Corridors

Blackpool £1.4 £4.2 £0.3 £0.5 £0.4 £1.2


ECML North £4.2 £3.0 £0.4 £8.4 £0.2 £0.9

ECML 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

B14 TREND RATES OF ECONOMIC BENEFIT BY DESTINATION (ALL

LOCATIONS) – PV 2002 VALUES £M (BENEFIT DIVIDED BY GJT


Destination


nal Centr

es

Sub R

egio

nal

Centr

e S

tati

on

Leeds

CR

Corr

idors

Sheff

ield

CR

Corr

idors

Oth

er

Corr

idors

All

Flo

ws

Regional

Centre

Station

Leeds £30.4 £16.7 £39.2 £0.9 £12.7 £102.8

Manchester £12.6 £3.0 £1.7 £0.3 £49.7 £72.8

Sheffield £14.4 £8.5 £0.7 £6.1 £8.1 £38.2

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

Sub

Regional

Centre

Station

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


Wakefield £19.8 £5.2 £2.2 £0.5 £0.9 £28.8


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

Leeds CR

Corridors

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


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


Appendix B

Destination


nal Centr

es

Sub R

egio

nal

Centr

e S

tati

on

Leeds

CR

Corr

idors

Sheff

ield

CR

Corr

idors

Oth

er

Corr

idors

All

Flo

ws


Skipton £46.0 £1.4 £16.4 £0.1 £1.3 £65.5


Inter CR

Corridors

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



York - Doncaster £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0 £0.0

Sheffield

CR

Corridors

Lincoln £4.6 £1.0 £0.0 £5.1 £3.1 £15.8




Thorne (Station) £0.2 £1.4 £0.0 £0.2 £0.7 £2.3

Other

Corridors

Blackpool £9.3 £0.6 £0.4 £0.0 £15.2 £25.8


ECML North £0.8 £0.4 £0.1 £51.5 £85.1

ECML 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 C

APPENDIX

C

NORTHERN RAIL PPM MAA


Appendix C

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, West 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

Yorkshire

(WNY)

Leeds - York, Bradford Interchange,

Calderdale & Blackpool

85%

Sheffield - Denby Dale –

Huddersfield

South and East

Yorkshire (SEY)

Barnsley & Penistone 87%

Leeds - Harrogate – York WNY Leeds - Harrogate & Harrogate York 87%

Leeds – Huddersfield WNY Huddersfield 88%

Leeds - Manchester Victoria via

Bradford*

WNY 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 Moorthorpe WNY Leeds - Doncaster, Bolton - Moorthorpe &

Sheffield - Doncaster

89%

Leeds – Nottingham* SEY 5 Towns, Barnsley & Midland Main Line 89%

Leeds-Dewsbury-Rochdale-

Manchester Victoria*

WNY Huddersfield, Calderdale & Rochdale 90%


Appendix C

Service Area Corridors PPM

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

trains)*

SEY 5 Towns & Barnsley 91%

Leeds – Doncaster WNY Leeds - Doncaster 91%

Leeds – Morecambe* WNY Skipton & Yorkshire Dales 91%

Sheffield/Kiveton Park - Retford

- Lincoln/Cleethorpes*

SEY Lincoln 91%

York - Moorthorpe – Sheffield* SEY Leeds - York, Pontefract Baghill, Bolton -

Moorthorpe & Sheffield - Doncaster

92%

Wakefield - Huddersfield/Halifax

- Bradford - Leeds – Selby

WNY 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%

Leeds - Bradford Forster Square WNY Bradford FS 96%

Area Totals WNY 92%

South and East Yorkshire 90%


Appendix D

APPENDIX

D

UDM CHANGES IN JOB DISTRIBUTION MAPS


Appendix D

D1 UDM TEST 1 – CHANGES IN JOB DISTRIBUTION


Appendix D



Appendix D



Appendix D


\\Douglas\Work\Projects\224\0\78\01\Work\COS\Yorkshire Rail Network Study - Conditional Output Statement v11.docx

Control Sheet

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:

Documents

Yorkshire Rail Network Study - Metro | Home