March - Wisbech Rail Study Stage 1 Final Report

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "March - Wisbech Rail Study Stage 1 Final Report"

Transcription

1 March - Wisbech Rail Study Stage 1 Final Report Cambridgeshire County Council 7 th December 2012

2 Notice This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Cambridgeshire County Council s information and use in relation to the March to Wisbech Rail Patronage Study. Atkins assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents. This document has 50 pages including the cover. Document history Job number: Document ref: Stage 1 Final Report - Draft Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Rev 1.0 Draft Report NB/PB/AH/TH TH AJC AJC 22/10/12 Rev 2.0 Revised report following client review NB/PB/AH/TH TH AJC AJC 07/12/12 Client signoff Client Cambridgeshire County Council Project March to Wisbech Rail Study Document title Stage 1 Final Report Job no Copy no. Document reference Stage 1 Final Report

3 Table of contents Chapter Pages 1. Introduction Background Core Assumptions Report Structure 6 2. Base Demand & Revenue Introduction Core Scenarios 8 3. Operating Costs Introduction Rolling Stock Staff Infrastructure Summary Sensitivity Tests Alternative Growth Scenario Second Station in Wisbech Appraisal Results Introduction Core Scenario Results Alternative Growth Scenario Results Additional Station Results Higher Fare Scenario Heritage Railway Conclusions Base Case Patronage Forecast Base Case Operational Costs Comparison of Appraisal Results Caveats Heritage Railway Potential Further Work 43 Appendices 45 Appendix A. Operating Costs 47 A.1. Operating Cost Model 47 Tables Table 1. Journey Purpose by Ticket Type 8 Table 2. Journeys and Revenue to/from March Station 8 Table 3. Study Area Stations, London Revenue as a Percentage of Total, Table 4. Annual Highway Trip Ends, March and Wisbech, Table 5. Observed and Calibrated Rail Trips Ends from March, Table 6. Estimated Trip End Demand to / from Wisbech Station, Table 7. GJT for Highway and Rail to / from Wisbech 13 Table 8. Wisbech Trip End Growth Rates, Table 9. Wisbech Growth Rates, Table 10. Rolling Stock Cost Assumptions (2012 prices) 16 Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

4 Table 11. Staff Costs (2012 prices) 16 Table 12. CP4 Price List - Passenger Variable Track Usage Charge (2012 prices) 17 Table 13. Capacity Charges incurred by the proposed services (2012 prices) 17 Table 14. Summary of Annual Operating Cost Estimates (2012 prices) 18 Table 15. Wisbech Trip End Growth Rates Alternative Growth Scenario, Table 16. Wisbech Trip End Growth Rates Alternative Growth Scenario, Table 17. Estimated Trip End Demand to / from Wisbech Station, 2009 (Alternative Growth Scenario) 20 Table 18. Comparison of highway trips from Wisbech, with and without the second station, Table 19. Estimated Trip End Demand to / from Wisbech with an Additional Station, Table 20. Additional Boardings and Revenue by station, Table 21. Cumulative Revenue at all Study Area Stations, Table 22. Additional Boardings and Revenue by station, Table 23. Cumulative Revenue at all Study Area Stations, Table 24. Change in Boardings and Revenue by station, Table 25. Cumulative Revenue, Table 26. Change in Boardings and Revenue by station, Table 27. Cumulative Revenue, Table 28. Additional Boardings and Revenue by station, Table 29. Cumulative Revenue at all Study Area Stations, Table 30. Additional Boardings and Revenue by station, Table 31. Cumulative Revenue at all Study Area Stations, Table 32. Change in Boardings and Revenue by station, Table 33. Cumulative Revenue, Table 34. Change in Boardings and Revenue by station, Table 35. Cumulative Revenue, Table 36. Additional Boardings and Revenue by station, Table 37. Cumulative Revenue at all Study Area Stations, Table 38. Additional Boardings and Revenue by station, Table 39. Cumulative Revenue at all Study Area Stations, Table 40. Summary of Results Total Revenue & Operating Costs, ( m) 42 Table 41. Operating Cost Model (2012 Prices) 47 Figures Figure 1. Wisbech to March Heavy Rail: Revenue and Costs over Time 24 Figure 2. Wisbech to March Light Rail: Revenue and Costs over Time 26 Figure 3. Wisbech to Cambridge: Revenue and Costs over Time 27 Figure 4. Wisbech to Peterborough: Revenue and Costs over Time 29 Figure 5. Wisbech to March Heavy Rail: Revenue and Costs over Time 30 Figure 6. Wisbech to March Light Rail: Revenue and Costs over Time 32 Figure 7. Wisbech to Cambridge: Revenue and Costs over Time 33 Figure 8. Wisbech to Peterborough: Revenue and Costs over Time 35 Figure 9. Wisbech to March Heavy Rail: Revenue and Costs over Time 36 Figure 10. Wisbech to March Heavy Rail: Revenue and Costs over Time 38 Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

5 1. Introduction 1.1. Background Cambridgeshire County Council has commissioned Atkins to investigate the potential business case for reopening the Bramley Line between Wisbech and March for passenger services. The study is proposed to progress in three stages. Stage 1 investigates the potential revenue and patronage that may arise from reintroducing passenger services on the line, with an assessment of the operational costs; Stage 2 provides an estimate of the capital costs of reopening the line; and Stage 3 analyses whether the capacity of the rail network is sufficient to provide direct services between Wisbech and Cambridge or Peterborough. This report is concerned with the first stage of the study only. The Wisbech March line was closed for passenger services in 1968 and closed for freight in Wisbech and its surrounding areas have a combined population of nearly 60,000 according to the 2010 midyear population estimates. The primary link to the local rail network is provided by the X1 bus, which operates a half hourly service to Peterborough and Kings Lynn via Wisbech town centre, and from regular bus services to March town centre, which is approximately 1km from March rail station. The X1 takes approximately 45 minutes to Peterborough rail station, and bus services between Wisbech and March town centre take approximately 30 minutes. There has been local support for the reopening of the line given the increase in traffic congestion in the area, and introducing a rail service could offer part of the solution for dealing with this. Previous studies have examined the feasibility of reopening the line, the most recent of which was undertaken by the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) in It examined a service between Wisbech and Peterborough and concluded that it would not meet the Department for Transport (DfT) benefit to cost ratio criteria of at least 1.5, but that further work would be worthwhile, in particular examining a direct service between Wisbech and Cambridge. Studies by Cambridgeshire County Council in 1995 and 1996 examined the potential costs and benefits of a rail service between Wisbech, March and Peterborough but concluded that the service would not generate sufficient revenue to cover its costs and would therefore require public subsidy Core Assumptions The main station is proposed to be located in Wisbech town centre, to the north of Weasenham Lane. There are three potential service patterns: 1. An hourly shuttle service between Wisbech and March that would utilise one of the disused platforms at March, enabling interchange with existing services towards Ely and Peterborough; 2. An hourly service to Cambridge, calling at March, Manea, Ely, Waterbeach and Cambridge Science Park; and 3. An hourly service to Peterborough, calling at March and Whittlesea. The service is assumed to operate at an average speed of 60 mph between Wisbech and March. For the assessment of operational costs, it is assumed that Service 1 could be operated by light rail or heavy rail, while Service 2 and 3 could be operated using heavy rail only. In addition to the core assessment of the three service patterns described above, three sensitivity tests have been undertaken: Assessment of the core service patterns, assuming an alternative growth scenario for housing and employment based on the emerging Fenland Core Strategy; Assessment of the core service patterns, assuming an additional station in Wisbech adjacent to the A47, accessed from New Bridge Lane; and High level assessment of the likely income and costs for running the line as a heritage railway. Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

6 1.3. Report Structure The remainder of this report is structured as follows: Chapter 2 outlines the approach to forecasting base demand and revenue for each of the core scenarios; Chapter 3 details the approach to the calculation of operating costs; Chapter 4 describes sensitivity testing undertaken; Chapter 5 summarises the results of the model testing, including forecasts of revenue and operational costs over the appraisal period for each of the core options and sensitivity tests; Chapter 6 draws conclusions from the model testing, and the implications for the business case for developing a rail service between Wisbech and March. Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

7 2. Base Demand & Revenue 2.1. Introduction This chapter sets out the modelling approach to estimating patronage and revenue on the proposed service. Atkins has constructed a simple binomial mode choice model for highway and rail and applied this to highway demand from Wisbech to provide an initial estimate of rail patronage and revenue for each of the three potential service patterns: 1. An hourly service between Wisbech and March (heavy or light rail); 2. An hourly service between Wisbech and Cambridge, calling at March, Manea, Ely, Waterbeach and Cambridge Science Park (heavy rail only); and 3. An hourly service between Wisbech and Peterborough, calling at March and Whittlesea (heavy rail only). The defined study area comprises zones that cover the following rail stations: Peterborough; Whittlesea; March; Wisbech (proposed); Manea; Ely; Waterbeach; Cambridge Science Park (not yet committed but assumed to be open for the purposes of this study); and Cambridge. Atkins has obtained rail demand and generalised journey time (GJT) data from a version of MOIRA for the Greater Anglia franchise, previously supplied by National Express. Revenue and passenger journey data is for the year to September 2009, disaggregated by ticket type: full, season and reduced, and based on the December 2009 timetable. The rail data comprises annualised journeys, fares and GJT s between the above stations in each direction, and other significant stations, including London. To supplement the MOIRA data, Atkins has utilised the National Rail Travel Survey (NRTS) to estimate the travel cost of accessing each station and the proportion of journey purposes split by each of the three ticket types. The three journey purposes used in the modelling are work, commute and leisure. Highway demand has been taken from Roadside Interview (RSI) surveys that were used in the construction of the base SATURN models for March and Wisbech, and from the Cambridge Sub Regional Transport Model (SRTM). NRTS data estimate that the average car user accesses each rail station from 5km away. Therefore the model zones have been defined as having a catchment area of 5km around each station. This is the expected distance from each station that car users are prepared to consider when deciding whether to travel by rail. Trips have been extracted from the RSI s between each of the zones, and journey speeds have been estimated from the base highway models to calculate journey times. The mode choice model has been calibrated to observed demand between March and each of the other existing zones. This has been carried out for each journey purpose to estimate a mode choice parameter for each zone. For each of the proposed service patterns, this mode choice parameter has been applied to highway demand between Wisbech and each of the modelled zones to estimate the demand for rail, given the relative costs of highway and rail. The number of bus users that might change from bus to rail has been estimated between Wisbech and March using a simple assumption for the estimated loading on the buses. Some rail trips at March and Peterborough have their origin in the Wisbech area, so it has been assumed that they would be abstracted by the Wisbech service. Rail demand growth has been estimated from Department for Transport (DfT) forecasts of external factors such as GDP per capita, population and employment, as well as competition factors such as rail fares and car fuel costs. After discussion with Cambridgeshire County Council, it has been assumed that the line to Wisbech will open in 2016, and the change in revenue and patronage has been estimated for each year to 2029, which covers the period to the end of the next rail franchise. In addition, an alternative growth scenario has tested based on the emerging Fenland Core Strategy. The future year patronage and revenue for a rail service from Wisbech has been estimated based on the revised forecasts of passenger growth. Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

8 2.2. Core Scenarios Base rail data Atkins has obtained rail demand and costs from the 2009 MOIRA data set for the Greater Anglia franchise. This covers the year to September 2009 and provides revenue, journeys, average yields and GJT s disaggregated by the following ticket types: Full Reduced Season In order for the data to be comparable with highway data, these figures have been mapped to the three journey purposes using methodology recommended by the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH): Work Commute Leisure NRTS data has been obtained from the DfT, which includes journey purpose by ticket type for journeys wholly within the defined study area. Table 1 below shows the estimated distribution of journey purposes for each ticket type. Table 1. Journey Purpose by Ticket Type Business Commute Leisure Full Tickets 42.5% 16.2% 41.3% Season Tickets 7.7% 66.7% 25.6% Reduced Tickets 30.4% 11.5% 58.2% The stations for which data has been extracted from MOIRA include those in the study area, London, and other major destinations outside the study area: Bedford Midland, Bury St Edmunds, Ipswich, King s Lynn, Leicester, Northampton, Norwich and Nottingham. Separate MOIRA data is not available for Manea as it is grouped with March rail station in the MOIRA zoning structure. The Table 2 shows total trips and revenue that start and finish in March between the other rail stations for which data have been gathered. Table 2. Journeys and Revenue to/from March Station Destination Total Journeys Total Revenue ( ) Cambridge 52, ,547 Ely 13,121 45,679 Peterborough 131, ,863 Whittlesea 1,058 1,980 Waterbeach Non-Study Area Excl London 8,804 75,662 London 53, ,826 Total 260,973 1,510,201 The primary stations at which trip ends occur at March are Peterborough, Cambridge and London, which between them comprise 91% of all trips and revenue. Revenue from journeys between March and London represents the largest source of revenue for rail, comprising over half of all revenue. An examination of Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

9 other stations in the study area demonstrates that trips to and from London represent the most important source of revenue, as shown in Table 3 below. Table 3. Study Area Stations, London Revenue as a Percentage of Total, 2009 London ( m) Total ( m) London % March % Cambridge % Ely % Peterborough % Whittlesea % Waterbeach % The exception to this rule is Peterborough, where London services operate on the East Coast Main Line and so MOIRA data is not available from this particular dataset. Therefore, assumptions that are made about the journeys to London from Wisbech will be important in determining the total revenue at the new station. MOIRA provides a GJT for each station to station journey. The GJT comprises three elements: in-vehicle time, which represents the time spent on the train travelling; interchange penalty, which represents the disutility of having to change trains and the time spent interchanging, and service penalty, which is a penalty that represents the frequency of the service, including wait time. There are two additional elements of GJT that need to be accounted for: fare paid and station access / egress time. Fares are provided by MOIRA as average yield and have been converted to time units using values of time specified in TAG Unit Station access and egress times have been calculated by assessing NRTS data for access and egress mode at each station, and calculating a population weighted journey time from the rail station to the town / city centre at each station. For people in work time, a weighting of 1 has been applied to all times, but for commute and leisure trips weights have been applied as provided in Table B.10.2 of PDFH, version 5.0. The journey data produced by MOIRA is production / attraction based, and so for calibrating the mode choice model the journeys have been re-balanced so that trips between each station are equal in each direction. This has provided consistency with the origin-destination based highway journeys Highway Base Data Highway demand for each of the three journey purposes has been derived from the March Area Transport Study (MATS), the Wisbech Area Transport Study (WATS) and the Cambridge SRTM. The base years for each model are 2010 for MATS, 2008 for WATS and 2006 for SRTM. TEMPRO growth rates have been applied to balance all demand to For each station in the study area, a catchment area of 5km has been defined around each station, from which it has been assumed that rail will conceivably be an alternative mode. The highway demand is daily, covering the period 7am to 7pm, and is derived from RSIs, which were undertaken at cordons around the towns. The demand includes only cars and not LGVs or OGVs. Demand has been converted from vehicles to persons using observed occupancy rates. As observed trips are daily, an annualisation factor of 300 has been applied to determine annual demand consistent with the rail demand. 0 below presents the annual highway trips between the different study area stations, as well as King s Lynn, and March and Wisbech. The table demonstrates that March and Wisbech have roughly similar numbers of highway trips, with about a third travelling between March and Wisbech. For Wisbech, the main destinations are March, King s Lynn, Peterborough and Whittlesea. Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

10 Table 4. Annual Highway Trip Ends, March and Wisbech, 2009 Station Wisbech March Cambridge 21,481 73,728 Cambridge Science Park 34,153 62,607 Ely 66, ,950 King s Lynn 1,004, ,570 Manea 45, ,858 March 881,901 n/a Peterborough 449, ,073 Waterbeach 0 0 Whittlesea 157, ,912 Wisbech n/a 881,901 Total 2,661,565 2,398,438 The areas that represent Cambridge and the proposed station at Cambridge Science Park overlap, and so they have been divided in an equidistant manner. The number of highway trips from Wisbech to Cambridge is relatively low, which suggests that without changes in travel patterns patronage on a direct service to Cambridge would also be relatively low. There are significant numbers of journeys to King s Lynn, but a rail service via March would involve at least one interchange at Ely and take between 90 minutes and two hours, which is significantly slower than the X1 service which operates directly to King s Lynn. Therefore it is not expected that there will be any significant rail demand between Wisbech and King s Lynn. Highway demand between Wisbech and Peterborough is approximately 60% of the demand between March and Peterborough. With 131,000 rail trips between March and Peterborough, it may be expected that there would be as many as 78,000 rail trips between Wisbech and Peterborough, although a number of factors will reduce this figure: the direct bus service (X1) between Wisbech town centre and Peterborough, the direct highway link to Peterborough (A47), and the infrequent nature of the rail service from Wisbech, which will be hourly. Whilst undertaking the cordon analysis it was found that there was no highway demand between either March or Wisbech and Waterbeach, hence this station has not been included in the mode choice calibration. The highway models of March and Wisbech are relatively small, so the network representations of other towns are relatively coarse, with trips between the stations not fully represented on the highway network. Therefore an alternative method has been used to estimate journey costs, using journey speeds from the highway model and applying them to highway distance derived from Google online mapping to estimate journey time. The distance element of highway GJT has been calculated using a combined fuel and non-fuel operating cost of 7.32 pence per kilometre, derived from parameters in TAG Unit 3.5.6, and converted into time. For each journey purpose, the value of time from TAG has been used to convert from pence per kilometre into minutes Mode Choice Calibration As described in Section 2.2.2, a set of demand and costs for highway and rail have been derived for trips between March and the following stations: Cambridge; Ely; Peterborough; and Whittlesea. Atkins has constructed a simple binomial logit model from this data to estimate mode choice between car and rail between March and each of the above stations. There is currently no rail demand estimated for Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

11 Cambridge Science Park, demand and costs for Manea trips are not disaggregated in the MOIRA data and no highway demand was found for Waterbeach. The formulation of the logit model is as follows: Where: P i is the probability of choosing mode i λ is a mode choice parameter GC i is the generalised cost of mode i = exp exp There are only two modes used in the formula: highway and rail. Highway GJT comprises a journey time and operating costs. Rail GJT comprises in-vehicle time, interchange penalty, service penalty, fare and station access penalty. In addition, constants have been included for Peterborough, Ely and Cambridge of - 10, -10 and -20 minutes, respectively to represent traffic congestion effects around these stations that are not otherwise taken into account. The model has been calibrated for each of the journey purposes. This has enabled a replication of total rail journeys to / from March for each journey purpose, and an estimated distribution of rail demand between the stations within the study area. Table 5 below shows how the calibrated rail demand at March compares with the observed demand. Table 5. Observed and Calibrated Rail Trips Ends from March, 2009 Observed Calibrated Difference % Cambridge 52,891 27,622-25,269-48% Ely 13,121 22,400 9,279 71% Peterborough 131, ,329 14,641 11% Whittlesea 1,058 2,406 1, % Total 198, , % Table 5 demonstrates that whilst overall rail demand is accurate, there is significant variation by station. Rail demand at Cambridge is underestimated by 25,000 whilst it is overestimated at other stations. This is likely to be because Cambridge is a strong attractor of trips, which is accounted for in the highway and rail generalised costs of travel. This is then balanced by overestimation of trips to Ely, Cambridge and Whittlesea. A similar pattern may be expected at Wisbech as the mode choice parameters are calibrated to observed values at March Estimating Rail Demand at Wisbech Within the model, Wisbech rail demand is assumed to be derived from existing highway trips. This is achieved by comparing the GJT of car travel from Wisbech to / from each of the destination stations with rail GJT. Highway GJT has been derived from journey speeds within WATS and MATS, but an estimate of rail GJT needs to be made. Rail GJT depends on the service pattern and speed, and comprises the following elements: In-vehicle time; Interchange time and penalty; Service penalty; Fare; and Station access penalty. The following assumptions have been made: A rail journey between Wisbech and March takes 12 minutes; A light rail journey between Wisbech and March takes 14 minutes (as a Parry People Mover is restricted to 50mph); An hourly service will mean a 31 minute service penalty (source: PDFH v5.0, Table B.4.8); Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

12 For journeys beyond March, there will be an interchange penalty of 7 minutes for commuters and 10 minutes for work and leisure trips (source: PDFH v5.0, Table B.4.10). Given the existing service pattern at March, a 5 minute interchange time has been assumed in either direction to onward stations; For the scenarios with direct services modelled to Cambridge and Peterborough, interchange penalties have been removed; GJTs for trips beyond March have been taken directly from MOIRA, with the calculated GJT for Wisbech to March added to GJTs from March to other rail stations. As GJTs from March include a service penalty, only the greater of the two service penalties has been included in the GJT for trips from Wisbech, which are formed from the GJT between Wisbech and March and the GJT for the journey beyond March. Therefore, the service from Wisbech to other rail stations has been assigned a 31 minute service penalty (based on an hourly frequency between Wisbech and March); Fares have been assumed to be the same as the yields observed in MOIRA for trips between Peterborough and March: full tickets are 4.29 per trip, season tickets are 2.37 per trip and reduced fares are 2.82 per trip in 2012 prices; and An access penalty to Wisbech rail has not been applied as it is situated in the town centre, although the corresponding penalty has been applied for the other end of the trip. Bus Services There are regular bus services between March and Wisbech that currently run every 30 minutes, with a journey time of approximately 30 minutes between the centre of Wisbech and the centre of March. A rail journey that operates hourly with a journey time of 12 minutes between the centre of Wisbech and March rail station (which is approximately 0.75 miles from the town centre), is anticipated to abstract some of these journeys. The following assumptions have been made to estimate the bus demand between March and Wisbech: Bus capacity is 80 persons, and average loadings are 20%, therefore over 12 hours there are 384 bus trips per day between the towns; The distribution of journey purposes for bus users is 3.4% work, 25.5% commute and 71.1% leisure, which is based on TAG Unit 3.5.6; and Bus GJT is based on a 30 minute journey time, 23 minute interval penalty (equivalent to the rail interval penalty for a half hour service) and a 2 assumed fare. Applying the mode choice parameters to the estimated demand and relative GJT s, it is estimated that a rail service would capture approximately 200 of these trips per day between Wisbech and March. Calibration Results For each journey purpose, the calibrated scaling parameter has been applied to the binomial logit choice model calibrated for March to give an estimate of rail demand at Wisbech, with the addition of the estimated demand abstracted from bus. Table 6 below presents estimates of annual demand in 2009 for each of the service patterns tested. Table 6. Estimated Trip End Demand to / from Wisbech Station, 2009 Station Wisbech-March (heavy rail service) Wisbech-March (light rail service) Wisbech- Cambridge Wisbech- Peterborough March 256, , , ,922 Cambridge incl Science Park 3,725 3,602 4,757 3,725 Ely 3,116 2,976 4,356 3,116 Peterborough 28,751 27,702 28,751 36,692 Whittlesea 6,055 5,814 6,055 7,849 Total 298, , , ,304 It can be seen from Table 6 that the majority of demand estimated for Wisbech is to and from March. The next most popular station is Peterborough, followed by Whittlesea and Ely. There is very little demand to / from Cambridge in any of the scenarios, which is a reflection of the low levels of observed highway travel. Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

13 Table 7 shows the relative GJTs for highway and rail to / from Wisbech for each journey purpose (Wisbech to March service only). Table 7. GJT for Highway and Rail to / from Wisbech Station Work Commute Leisure Highway Rail Highway Rail Highway Rail March Cambridge Cambridge Science Park Ely Peterborough Whittlesea Demand to other stations within the study area and beyond has also been calculated, as set out below. Cambridge Science Park Estimated daily trips to Cambridge Science Park are 2,620, with 860 of these abstracted from Cambridge itself. This is based on an assumption of reduction in demand at Cambridge of 9%, and that Cambridge Science Park would attract 26% of Cambridge demand. These factors have been applied to Cambridge demand to derive rail demand for Cambridge and Cambridge Science Park. Manea Manea has not been modelled as a separate station, and it has been assumed that any demand to / from Manea is included within demand for March. Waterbeach, London and other non-study area stations For journeys to and from other rail stations, March has been used as a proxy for demand to and from Wisbech. Rail trips between Wisbech and stations other than March have been estimated as a proportion of those trips from March, and it has been assumed that the there would be a similar scaled down distribution from Wisbech. There are approximately 200,000 annual rail journeys between March and Cambridge, Peterborough, Ely and Whittlesea, according to the base data for 2009 from MOIRA. It has been estimated that there are approximately 56,000 journeys between Wisbech and the other stations, 28% of the total. The demand between Wisbech and non-study area stations is estimated as 23% of the total between March and the same stations. It should be noted that Table B.4.10 of PDFH v5.0 suggests an increase in interchange penalty with increasing journey length, which will be applicable for a direct service to March only. The estimated GJT from Wisbech to London would be 234 minutes for work, 330 minutes for commute and 382 for leisure. The distance between Wisbech and London is approximately 100 miles, which would mean an interchange penalty of 26 minutes for trips on season tickets and 40 minutes on full and reduced, higher than the 7 and 10 minutes used for trips within the study area. This suggests that it might be expected that rail trips between Wisbech and London are less than 23% of the total from March. Abstraction Origin post codes in NRTS have been examined to determine the proportion of rail journeys from other rail stations originating within the Wisbech area. It has been found that 7.3% of March trips originate within the Wisbech area, as well as 1.9% of trips from Peterborough. It has been assumed that these passengers would switch to Wisbech and so the numbers of trips from March and Peterborough stations have been reduced accordingly Rail demand growth Atkins has applied growth factors to grow the estimated demand for 2009 to future years from 2016, the assumed opening date of the line, through the period to the end of the next franchise in These growth factors have been derived from DfT forecasts of a combination of external factors, such as population, employment, GDP, and forecasts, as well as competition factors, such as rail fares and fuel costs. The growth is applied to base demand disaggregated by district and journey purpose, with elasticities derived Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

14 from PDFH applied to the growth factors to determine the relative weighting of growth based on area of the country and journey purpose. Table 8 and Table 9 below show estimated growth in rail patronage from 2009 to the initial forecast year of 2016, and the final forecast year of 2029, respectively. Overall growth for trips in 2016 at Wisbech station is 12% for work trips and 17% for leisure and commuter trips. By 2029, this has increased to 40% for work, 59% for commute and 57% for leisure. Table 8. Wisbech Trip End Growth Rates, Work Leisure Commute March Cambridge incl Science Park Ely Manea Peterborough Waterbeach Whittlesea Average Table 9. Wisbech Growth Rates, Work Leisure Commute March Cambridge incl. Science Park Ely Manea Peterborough Waterbeach Whittlesea Average In accordance with recommendations in PDFH v5.0, Table B.12.1, a ramp up of demand has been assumed from the opening year of 2016, to account for the fact that demand will not be generated or abstracted immediately after the introduction of a new rail service. A factor of 70% has been applied to rail demand in 2016, 85% in 2017 and 95% in Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

15 3. Operating Costs 3.1. Introduction Operating costs for the March to Wisbech study have been estimated using Atkins own operating cost model. This model is based upon the latest data available from the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) for Network Rail Control Period 4 (CP4) and Atkins own corporate knowledge of rolling stock and leasing costs. The operating cost model includes the following cost items: Rolling stock, including - Lease costs - Fuel costs - Maintenance costs Staff costs Track access charges, including - Fixed - Variable - Capacity charge Station operating costs All operating costs have been based upon rail services operating between 6am and 10pm, 7 days per week, every day except Christmas Day The following sections describe the process and assumptions used to derive the unit costs that are applied in the operating cost model Rolling Stock Peak Hour Capacity Requirements The following numbers of trips would need to be accommodated each day in both directions in 2016, based on an annualisation factor of 300: Wisbech to March (light rail service): 1,100 Wisbech to March (heavy rail service): 1,140 Wisbech to Peterborough, Heavy rail: 1,180 Wisbech to Cambridge: 1,160 It would be expected that approximately half of the daily number of trips occur in the morning peak period between 7am and 10am, and a quarter of the total to occur in the high peak hour (8am 9am). Therefore in one direction, morning peak period demand will be between 275 and 295, with peak hour demand between 140 and 150. On an hourly service, therefore, it would be necessary to operate a two car Class 156 diesel unit or equivalent during the morning peak period in order to provide sufficient capacity. An alternative light rail solution has been considered, using a Parry People Mover (PPM) similar to the Class 139 unit currently used between Stourbridge Junction and Stourbridge Town in the West Midlands. These vehicles have a capacity of 60, which would not be sufficient to meet peak demand. For the light rail scenario, it may be possible to run a more frequent service on PPMs, but they are restricted to 50mph with an assumed journey time of 14 minutes in one direction, and they would need more than 2 minutes to turn the service around. Therefore it would be possible to run a service at a frequency of 40 minutes using a single Class 139 during the peak periods, providing a total of 5 trains per direction during the Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

16 peak 3 hour period. The capacity provided would not be sufficient for the predicted demand for the high peak hour. One further light rail option is the T-Train PPM currently under development, which is larger than the Class 139, with a passenger capacity of 100. In theory the proposed T-Train variant of the PPM would be ideal for operating a Wisbech to March shuttle. However, although the design of this vehicle is well established, it is likely to be some time before a prototype is produced. Due to this uncertainty this option has been ruled out for the time being, but this may be worth re-evaluating in the future once the T-Train concept has been fully developed Assumed Costs The costs for rolling stock leasing, fuel and maintenance are based upon Atkins knowledge and experience of the rolling stock market and operating characteristics, together with information published by the Parry Company comparing the operation of a Parry People Mover (PPM) and a Class 153 DMU on the Stourbridge line. Table 10 shows the rolling stock costs that have been assumed in the operating cost model. Table 10. Rolling Stock Cost Assumptions (2012 prices) Cost Item Unit Unit Rate Assumption Rolling Stock Leasing charge Per vehicle/carriage Class 153/156: 124,000 p.a. Parry People Mover: 28,000 p.a. Fuel Per vehicle mile Class 153/156: 1.33p Parry People Mover: 0.76 Light Maintenance Per vehicle mile Class 153/156: 0.53p Parry People Mover: 0.21 Heavy Maintenance Per vehicle mile Class 153/156: 0.31p Parry People Mover: Staff The staff costs used in the latest operating cost model are based upon information available on current industry salaries. The salary costs have been increased by a factor of 2 to reflect the employment costs of those staff members. This uplift takes into account likely employment costs such as pensions, holidays, national insurance and productivity. Staff numbers and costs have been estimated upon the basis of rail staff working a standard 35 hour week. The staffing costs that have been used in the cost model are shown in Table 11 below. Table 11. Staff Costs (2012 prices) Staff Role Annual Employment Cost Staff Costs (Driver) ,000 Staff Costs (Guard) , Infrastructure Track Access Charges There are several elements of track access charge that are taken into account within the operating cost model. The following section describes these charges and the assumptions that have been used to estimate them for this project. Fixed Track Access Fixed track access charges are levied on TOCs as part of their franchise agreements to provide them with access to the rail network. The charge is collected by Network Rail and is determined by the ORR. Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

17 Atkins has calculated the fixed access charges for each of the service options based upon the schedules of rates and other information published by the ORR for CP4. Greater Anglia track access cost for 2012/13 is 53.8 Million. Using this information, together with details of services and rolling stock, it has been estimated that the typical track access cost in this area will be 0.96p per vehicle mile. Variable Track Access This access charge varies by the type of rolling stock. Different types of rolling stock have different weights, number of wheels and speeds. All of these lead to differing amounts of wear and tear on the rail network infrastructure. The variable access charge is designed to reflect the differing rates of wear imposed by different types of rolling stock to provide funding to enable Network Rail to implement an appropriate maintenance regime to reflect the likely impacts of differing rolling stock on different routes. This charge is determined by the ORR and collected by Network Rail. ORR has published a schedule of the track access costs for all rolling stock operating on the UK network. An extract of this is shown in Table 12 for the rolling stock assumed to be utilised in the three EWR options. Table 12. CP4 Price List - Passenger Variable Track Usage Charge (2012 prices) Class Type Price (pence / vehicle-mile) 53 Diesel Multiple Unit Diesel Multiple Unit 6.02 PPM (a) Lightweight Rail Car 3.13 Note: (a) The variable track access charge for a Parry People Mover is not contained within the CP4 price list. Atkins has therefore looked at the access charges for rail vehicles of similar dimensions and weights to estimate the likely charge. On this basis it has been estimated that the charge for a Parry People Mover is 3.13 pence per vehicle mile Capacity Charges Capacity charge is an access charge that has to be paid by TOCs per train mile on busy sections of the rail network. The costs are route section specific to reflect the capacity issues along that section. The purpose of the charge is to compensate Network Rail for the performance impact of the services and potential compensation that NR may have to pay to other operators along the section of route in question should operational difficulties ensue. The section of the route between Wisbech to March is self contained and is unlikely to impact upon other operations. However, the services which travel to Cambridge and Peterborough will have to travel over the main rail network and will incur a capacity charge for these sections. Table 13 shows the current capacity charges paid on the Ipswich to Peterborough and Cambridge to Ely sections of the route. Table 13. Capacity Charges incurred by the proposed services (2012 prices) TOC Service Group Weekday rate ( /train mile) Weekend rate ( /train mile) Average Daily Rate ( /train mile) GA EB05 - Ipswich to Peterborough GA EB06 - Cambridge to Ely sections Station Costs New station facilities assumed as part of the core Wisbech to March options include a new station at Wisbech. The charges within the operational cost model reflect the long term station charges for similar stations operated by Greater Anglia within the franchise area. The typical annual cost per station has been estimated to be approximately 66,000 p.a. Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

18 3.5. Summary By combining the cost and charge rates outlined previously and applying these to the scheme specifications outlined in this chapter, overall operating cost estimates for each of the options being appraised have been calculated and are presented in Table 14 below. Table 14. Summary of Annual Operating Cost Estimates (2012 prices) Service Rolling Stock Assumptions Annual Operating Cost (including Station Costs) Wisbech to March (PPM) Wisbech to March (Heavy Rail) Wisbech to Peterborough Wisbech to Cambridge 1 No Parry PPM60 Operating every 40 minutes peak periods and hourly at other times 2 x Class 153 DMU peak periods, 1x Class 153 off peak all operating an hourly service 1 x Class 156 DMU operating hourly all day 1 x Class 156 DMU operating hourly all day 794,401 1,653,748 3,320,656 4,769,747 These operating costs have been adopted for inclusion in the economic appraisal of the schemes presented in Chapter 5. A detailed cost breakdown for each of the schemes can be found in Appendix A. Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

19 4. Sensitivity Tests 4.1. Alternative Growth Scenario The core scenario external growth assumptions produced by DfT include forecasts of population, employment and housing based on TEMPRO data. Growth is applied at district level, for example, the Fenland district. Fenland District Council have published a Draft Core Strategy as part of the Local Development Framework, and an alternative growth scenario has been developed based on the housing and employment assumptions contained in this strategy Housing The core growth scenario is based on DfT forecasts contained in TEMPRO version 6.2 and amended by the DfT with adjustment by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). From 2015/2016 to 2028/2029 there are 8,577 additional households and 2,142 additional jobs forecast for the Fenland district. Over the period this includes allowance for 11,000 new households. The TEMPRO housing forecasts are updated regularly in line with the Annual Monitoring Reports, which contains the latest housing projections. In the Core Strategy, housing projections into the future are given as 550 houses per annum from 2011 to This is based on forecasts of 11,000 new houses from 2001 to 2021 at an annual average of 550 per annum from the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), which has been taken forward in the Core Strategy. There is confidence in this figure, but there is potential for an additional 150 houses per annum. There are two studies on potential demand for new households, one by Cambridgeshire County Council Research Group and another by the Communities and Local Government (CLG) and Office for National Statistics (ONS), which predict that housing demand could range between 505 and 720 households per annum from 2011 to As the TEMPRO forecasts already include the latest housing projections, Atkins has not adjusted the housing growth assumptions in the model Employment Employment forecasts in TEMPRO are based on central Government forecasts of growth in GDP. Over the period 2015/16 to 2028/29 there were 2,142 jobs forecast at an average of 153 per annum. The Fenland District Core Strategy estimates that 7,200 new jobs will be created between 2011 and 2031 at an annual average of 360. This rate of growth has been substituted for that contained in the TEMPRO forecasts to provide a higher estimate of employment. The adjusted growth rates for rail travel are shown in Table 15 and Table 16 below. It can be seen that for 2016 there is a small difference in growth rates, with some slightly higher. For example, the average leisure growth rate is 1.17 for the period 2009 to 2016 in the core scenario, and 1.18 in the alternative growth scenario. By 2029 there is a wider divergence in growth, with an average leisure growth rate of 1.57 in the core scenario, compared with 1.63 in the alternative growth scenario. Therefore, it is expected that the alternative growth scenario will have a positive impact on the forecast revenue for the rail services modelled compared with the core scenario. Table 15. Wisbech Trip End Growth Rates Alternative Growth Scenario, Work Leisure Commute March Cambridge incl. Science Park Ely Manea Peterborough Waterbeach Whittlesea Average Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

20 Table 16. Wisbech Trip End Growth Rates Alternative Growth Scenario, Work Leisure Commute March Cambridge incl Science Park Ely Manea Peterborough Waterbeach Whittlesea Average Forecast annual rail demand for each of the service patterns tested is presented in Table 17 below. Table 17. Estimated Trip End Demand to / from Wisbech Station, 2009 (Alternative Growth Scenario) March (heavy rail service) March (light rail service) Cambridge Peterborough March 264, , , ,588 Cambridge incl Science Park 3,725 3,602 4,757 3,725 Ely 3,116 2,976 4,365 3,116 Peterborough 28,751 27,702 28,751 36,692 Whittlesea 6,055 5,814 6,055 7,849 Total 306, , , , Second Station in Wisbech Atkins has estimated demand for an additional parkway station in Wisbech. This station would be located to the south of the town centre, adjacent to the A47, with access from New Bridge Lane. The distance on the line between March and the main Wisbech station is approximately 12 km, with the second Wisbech station approximately 1.3km closer to March. Additional analysis has been undertaken of demand from within the 5km catchment area for both stations at Wisbech. Because the catchment areas between the two Wisbech stations overlap, the area has been divided equally between the two. Despite this, the analysis has found that there would be negligible additional highway demand between Wisbech and other towns in the study area. Table 18 below compares the number of trips from the 5km catchment area around both the main station located in the town centre and the parkway station, compared with trips from the 5km area around the original station only. Table 18. Comparison of highway trips from Wisbech, with and without the second station, 2009 Wisbech (main station only) Wisbech (both stations) Wisbech (main station) Peterborough 449, , ,326 54,242 Whittlesea 157, , ,341 9,195 March 881, , , ,245 Manea 45,915 45,915 25,646 20,269 Ely 66,485 66,485 57,085 9,400 Waterbeach Cambridge Science 34,153 34,153 30,304 3,850 Wisbech (parkway station) Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

21 Park Cambridge 21,481 21,481 21,481 - King s Lynn 1,004,526 1,011, , ,857 Total 2,661,565 2,668,425 2,329, ,056 It can be seen that with the exception of trips between Wisbech and King s Lynn, there is no difference in highway trips between Wisbech and the other stations in the study area. Therefore it is not expected that the parkway station would abstract a significant level of demand from alternative modes, such as car and bus. The majority of the travel market at Wisbech is closer to the station in the town centre than the alternative location adjacent to the A47. It has been assumed that residents who live nearer to the station in the town centre will continue to use this station, as they will experience a greater access penalty for using the parkway station. Those living nearer to the parkway station are assumed to favour this station on the basis that it offers a slightly shorter rail journey time to March and hence a lower GJT. In order to represent the lower highway GJT between areas closer to the parkway station and March, the highway distance has been reduced by 0.65km (half the distance between the two Wisbech stations) and highway journey time has been reduced accordingly. For journeys still within the catchment area of the main station, highway distance has been increased by 0.65km. Rail passengers using the parkway station are assumed to have a GJT adjusted pro rata to the lower distance to March, whilst those using the main station are assumed to lose a minute of GJT owing to the additional stop. Rail fares to other stations are assumed to be the same from either station. Demand between the two Wisbech stations has not been estimated. Forecast annual rail demand in 2009 for each of the service patterns tested is presented in Table 19 below. Table 19. Estimated Trip End Demand to / from Wisbech with an Additional Station, 2009 March (heavy rail service) March (light rail service) Cambridge Peterborough March 266, , , ,580 Cambridge incl Science Park 3,747 3,626 4,788 3,747 Ely 3,171 3,037 4,440 3,171 Peterborough 28,943 27,924 28,943 36,959 Whittlesea 6,133 5,899 6,133 7,958 Total 308, , , ,415 The table demonstrates that some additional demand is generated compared with the core scenario results. For the light rail service, an additional 2% of rail demand is generated, but for the heavy rail service additional demand is just 1%. For the Peterborough and Cambridge services, an additional 1.6% of demand is generated. For the purposes of the appraisal results documented in Chapter 5, an adjustment has been made to the annual operating costs to account for the additional Wisbech station. It has been assumed that station operating costs will double from 66,000 p.a. to 132,000 p.a.. Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

22 Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

23 5. Appraisal Results 5.1. Introduction This chapter sets out the results arising from the modelling undertaken. It presents expected patronage and change in revenue by station in nominal prices and includes a comparison with operating costs for each potential service pattern. Demand and revenue has been presented for the proposed forecast period of , from the assumed opening date of the line to the end of the next franchise period Core Scenario Results This section presents the results from the core scenario, for each of the four service patterns in turn Wisbech to March Heavy Rail Table 20 below shows the total forecast additional boardings and revenue at stations in the study area as a result of an hourly rail service between Wisbech and March, for the years 2016 to It can be seen that a large proportion of the additional journeys are at March, presumably due to local trips to Wisbech abstracted from car and bus. There are also some limited additional boardings at Peterborough, with addtional boardings at Whittlesea, Cambridge and Ely very limited considering the length of the appraisal period. The results suggest the majority of trips made on the new service are between March and Wisbech, with trips further afield potentially limited by the need to interchange at March. Table 20. Additional Boardings and Revenue by station, Revenue ( m) March Cambridge including Science Park Ely Peterborough Waterbeach 0 0 Wisbech Whittlesea Total Boardings (m) 0 shows the total cumulative revenue for each of the years through the appraisal period, and compares this value with the cumulative operating costs. This data is shown graphically in Figure 1, along with the net cumulative revenue. It can be seen that initially operating costs are significantly higher than the revenue generated, though over time revenue increases at a faster rate and by 2022 annual revenue is expected to exceed the costs required to operate the service. By approximately 2027 it is expected that the new service will have generated net revenue. Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

24 Table 21. Cumulative Revenue at all Study Area Stations, Year Cumulative Revenue ( m) Cumulative Costs ( m) Figure 1. Wisbech to March Heavy Rail: Revenue and Costs over Time Revenue and Costs over Time Revenue ( m) m Operating Costs ( m) 0.00 Net Cumulative Revenue ( m) Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

25 Wisbech to March Light Rail Table 22 below shows the total forecast boardings and additional revenue at stations in the study area as a result of an hourly service between Wisbech and March operated by light rail, for the years 2016 to It can be seen that compared with the heavy rail service, the number of passengers using the new service is slightly lower, owing to the increased journey time of 2 minutes between Wisbech and March. As a result, the revenue generated over the appraisal period is approximately 1.22 million lower. Table 22. Additional Boardings and Revenue by station, Revenue ( m) March Cambridge including Science Park Ely Peterborough Waterbeach Wisbech Whittlesea Total Boardings (m) Table 23 and Figure 2 demonstrate that although revenue generated is slightly lower, the lower cost of operating a light rail service compared with conventional rail enables a net positive revenue to generated from the first year of operation, and the revenue generated over the entire appraisal period exceeds 15 million, compared with just over 1 million for heavy rail. Table 23. Cumulative Revenue at all Study Area Stations, Year Cumulative Revenue ( m) Cumulative Costs ( m) Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

26 Figure 2. Wisbech to March Light Rail: Revenue and Costs over Time Revenue and Costs over Time m Revenue ( m) Operating Costs ( m) Net Cumulative Revenue ( m) Wisbech to Cambridge Table 24 below shows the total forecast boardings and additional revenue at stations in the study area as a result of a direct hourly rail service between Wisbech and Cambridge, for the years 2016 to The results suggest that there is some additional demand compared with the shuttle service between Wisbech and March, as passengers travelling between Wisbech and stations towards Cambridge do not need to interchange at March. The increase in demand, however, is not significant, with just over 1 million of additional revenue generated over the appraisal period. It is of particular note that generated demand to / from Cambridge is still very low, which suggests that even a direct rail service does not offer an attractive alternative to car travel. Table 24. Change in Boardings and Revenue by station, Revenue ( m) March Cambridge including Science Park Ely Peterborough Waterbeach 0 0 Wisbech Whittlesea Total Boardings (m) Table 25 and Figure 3 show that the operating costs are far higher for operating a direct service between Wisbech and Cambridge, compared with the shuttle service to March, owing to the significantly higher mileage and track access costs. As a result the cost of operating the service between Wisbech and Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

27 Cambridge is almost five times higher than the revenue generated in the first year of operation. Over the duration of the appraisal period, there is an operating deficit of nearly 55 million. Table 25. Cumulative Revenue, Year Cumulative Revenue ( m) Cumulative Costs ( m) Figure 3. Wisbech to Cambridge: Revenue and Costs over Time Revenue and Costs over Time m Revenue ( m) Operating Costs ( m) Net Cumulative Revenue ( m) Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

28 Wisbech to Peterborough Table 26 below shows the corresponding forecast boardings and additional revenue at stations in the study area for a direct hourly rail service between Wisbech and Peterborough, for the years 2016 to As with the direct service to Cambridge, there is some additional demand compared with the shuttle service between Wisbech and March, but not significantly so, with just over 2.5 million of additional revenue generated over the appraisal period, predominantly for trips between Wisbech and Peterborough. Table 26. Change in Boardings and Revenue by station, Revenue ( m) March Cambridge including Science Park Ely Peterborough Waterbeach 0 0 Wisbech Whittlesea Total Boardings (m) Table 27 and Figure 4 show that similar to the Cambridge service the service between Wisbech and Peterborough is forecast to make a significant operating loss over the appraisal period. The overall loss of approximately 26.5 million is under half that of the Wisbech Cambridge service, owing mainly to lower vehicle mileage and track access costs. Table 27. Cumulative Revenue, Year Cumulative Revenue ( m) Cumulative Costs ( m) Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

29 Figure 4. Wisbech to Peterborough: Revenue and Costs over Time Revenue and Costs over Time Revenue ( m) m Operating Costs ( m) Net Cumulative Revenue ( m) Alternative Growth Scenario Results This section presents the results for the four service patterns, given the alternative forecasts of growth in rail demand described in Section Wisbech to March Heavy Rail Table 28 presents the total forecast additional boardings and revenue as a result of an hourly rail service between Wisbech and March, for the years 2016 to 2029, given the alternative growth scenario. There are approximately 0.2 million additional boardings over the appraisal period compared with the core scenario, equating to just under 1 million additional revenue. Table 28. Additional Boardings and Revenue by station, Revenue ( m) March Cambridge including Science Park Ely Peterborough Waterbeach Wisbech Whittlesea Total Boardings (m) Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

30 Table 29 and Figure 5 demonstrate that the service achieves an operating surplus approximately one year earlier in 2026 and the net revenue generation over the appraisal period rises to approximately 2 million compared with the core growth forecast. Table 29. Cumulative Revenue at all Study Area Stations, Year Cumulative Revenue ( m) Cumulative Costs ( m) Figure 5. Wisbech to March Heavy Rail: Revenue and Costs over Time Revenue and Costs over Time m 1.00 Revenue ( m) Operating Costs ( m) Net Cumulative Revenue ( m) Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

31 Wisbech to March Light Rail Table 28 presents the total forecast additional boardings and revenue for the hourly light rail service between Wisbech and March, for the years 2016 to 2029, given the alternative growth scenario. Again, approximately 1 million additional revenue is generated over the appraisal period compared with the core growth forecasts. Table 30. Additional Boardings and Revenue by station, Revenue ( m) March Cambridge including Science Park Ely Peterborough Waterbeach Wisbech Whittlesea Total Boardings (m) Table 31 and Figure 6 show the impact of the alternative growth scenario over time, with the graph indicating a higher cumulative net revenue. Table 31. Cumulative Revenue at all Study Area Stations, Year Cumulative Revenue ( m) Cumulative Costs ( m) Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

32 Figure 6. Wisbech to March Light Rail: Revenue and Costs over Time Revenue and Costs over Time m Revenue ( m) Operating Costs ( m) Net Cumulative Revenue ( m) Wisbech to Cambridge Table 32 presents the total forecast additional boardings and revenue for the hourly service between Wisbech and Cambridge, for the years 2016 to 2029, given the alternative growth scenario. There is under 1 million additional revenue generated as a result of the revised growth forecasts. Table 32. Change in Boardings and Revenue by station, Revenue ( m) March Cambridge including Science Park Ely Peterborough Waterbeach Wisbech Whittlesea Total Boardings (m) Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

33 Table 33 and Figure 7 demonstrate that the higher forecast growth does not alter the viability of a Wisbech Cambridge service, given the operating costs still far exceed the anticipated revenue. Table 33. Cumulative Revenue, Year Cumulative Revenue ( m) Cumulative Costs ( m) Figure 7. Wisbech to Cambridge: Revenue and Costs over Time Revenue and Costs over Time m Revenue ( m) Operating Costs ( m) Net Cumulative Revenue ( m) Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

34 Wisbech to Peterborough Table 34 presents the total forecast additional boardings and revenue for the hourly service between Wisbech and Peterborough, for the years 2016 to 2029, given the alternative growth scenario. There is again under 1 million additional revenue generated as a result of the revised growth forecasts. Table 34. Change in Boardings and Revenue by station, Revenue ( m) March Cambridge including Science Park Ely Peterborough Waterbeach Wisbech Whittlesea Total Boardings (m) Table 35 and Figure 8 confirm that the revised growth forecasts have little impact on the viability of a Wisbech Peterborough service. Table 35. Cumulative Revenue, Year Cumulative Revenue ( m) Cumulative Costs ( m) Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

35 Figure 8. Wisbech to Peterborough: Revenue and Costs over Time Revenue and Costs over Time Revenue ( m) m Operating Costs ( m) Net Cumulative Revenue ( m) Additional Station Results This section presents the results for the sensitivity test where an additional station is provided to the south of Wisbech, as described in Section 4.2. The results have only been presented here for the shuttle service between Wisbech and March, operated by light rail, as this service appears to be the most viable in terms of net operating revenue. Table 36 below shows the total forecast additional boardings and revenue at stations in the study area as a result of the hourly light rail service between Wisbech and March, for the years 2016 to It can be seen that overall there is an increase in revenue of under 1 million over the forecast period as a result of the additional station at Wisbech. Table 36. Additional Boardings and Revenue by station, Revenue ( m) Boardings (m) March Cambridge including Science Park Ely Peterborough Waterbeach Wisbech Whittlesea Total Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

36 Table 37 and Figure 9 show the revised forecasts of net revenue with the provision of an additional station in Wisbech. It can be seen that although the additional station generates some additional revenue, the operating costs of the new station exceed the additional revenue generated, and the operating surplus is approximately 0.5 million lower than the core scenario. Table 37. Cumulative Revenue at all Study Area Stations, Year Cumulative Revenue ( m) Cumulative Costs ( m) Figure 9. Wisbech to March Heavy Rail: Revenue and Costs over Time Revenue and Costs over Time m Revenue ( m) Operating Costs ( m) Net Cumulative Revenue ( m) Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

37 5.5. Higher Fare Scenario This section presents results for a light rail shuttle service between Wisbech and March, given an increase of 20% on the core fare assumptions. Table 38 below shows the total forecast additional boardings and revenue at stations in the study area as a result of the hourly light rail service between Wisbech and March, for the years 2016 to It can be seen that the total number of boardings over the appraisal period has reduced by just under 0.5 million as a result of the higher fares, although the overall revenue generated is almost 2 million higher. Table 38. Additional Boardings and Revenue by station, Revenue ( m) March Cambridge including Science Park Ely Peterborough Waterbeach Wisbech Whittlesea Total Boardings (m) Table 39 and Figure 10 show the higher level of net cumulative revenue over the appraisal period. Table 39. Cumulative Revenue at all Study Area Stations, Year Cumulative Revenue ( m) Cumulative Costs ( m) Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

38 Figure Wisbech to March Heavy Rail: Revenue and Costs over Time Revenue and Costs over Time m Revenue ( m) Operating Costs ( m) Net Cumulative Revenue ( m) Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

39 6. Heritage Railway This section examines the option of reopening the Wisbech March railway line as a heritage railway. This term is usually used to describe railway preservation by dedicated enthusiasts catering for tourist traffic. Such lines are operated under light railway orders with speeds normally limited to 25 mph. Revenue is obtained from passenger fares and costs are kept to a minimum through the work of volunteers and fund raisers involved in all aspects of running the railway. In contrast with the national rail network there is no mechanism for systematically subsidising the passenger services run on heritage lines. Heritage railways cover their costs through passenger fares, donations, fund raising and grants as well as the donated time of volunteers Context The line from March (Whitemoor Junction) to Magdalen Road via Wisbech closed to passenger traffic in The branch of approximately 12.5km to Wisbech remained open for freight traffic until The railway is characterised by having 7 level crossings, of varying types. Replacement and/or modernisation of these crossings would be essential for future use of the branch whether as a heritage line or part of the National Rail network. The formal status of the branch is out of use with Network Rail holding a watching brief for the outcome of this study. More significantly the East and West Curve and associated junctions at the southern (March) end of the line are important for access to and egress from Whitemoor Yard. This is a nationally important distribution base for Network Rail s infrastructure/engineering trains and for recycling materials. Network Rail will be keen to avoid any disruption to or jeopardising of these freight services. This suggests in rather simplistic terms that any passenger service on the Wisbech March line would likely be confined to the branch itself with no regular access to or from the main line between Cambridge and Peterborough. The optimum solution may be a newly reinstated platform at March station providing for cross station connections to the two main centres of population and employment in the region. This solution needs to be tested in discussion with stakeholders including the promoters of the heritage railway and the train operating company (TOC), namely Abellio. More widely there should be a focus group of present day and potential travellers who may consider travelling by train to Cambridge or Peterborough for employment, shopping and leisure Passenger Services Heritage Railways Almost by definition motive power and rolling stock for heritage railways are vintage preserved steam and diesel locomotives, multiple units and carriages. In the case of Wisbech March consideration has been given to using the latest generation of vehicles, exemplified by the Parry People Mover (PPM). Although this has a specified top speed of 50 mph, it would be restricted to 25 mph on a heritage railway. Suitable for commuter traffic, its appeal to enthusiasts and visitors to a heritage line is unknown. It has been identified that few if any heritage railways in the UK run a commuter service throughout the year. In spite of initial support from the Heritage Railway Association it has not proved possible to obtain benchmarking data from individual railway companies. In general heritage railways expect to operate without public subsidies for their operation. This is in contrast to the national UK rail network where franchised TOCs receive state subsidies Summary The advantage of the heritage railway option lies in encouraging day and overnight stay visitors to the historic town of Wisbech. It would help to generate income for the local economy as well as jobs, training and volunteer opportunities for local people. In terms of helping residents of Wisbech and March gain access to jobs in and around Cambridge, the Wisbech to March railway line has a limited role. It is constrained by level crossings, and limited access to the main Peterborough to Cambridge line because of rail freight movements in and out of Whitemoor Distribution Centre. The reopening of rail services on Wisbech to March would involve changing trains at March. The cost of public subsidy for operating a conventional rail vehicle or a PPM would need to be investigated with interested TOCs, open access Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

40 operators as well as the PPM company. Indications from re-opened railway lines suggest figures between 250,000 and 100,000 per year. Careful study should be given to comparing these with costs of supporting dedicated bus operation, light rail on public roads and conversion of the railway line to light rail, for example with tram train operation. Further options to be considered are replacement of the level crossings, the opening of intermediate stations (on the site of the previous railway station at Coldham, for example) and establishment of park and ride sites at Wisbech and March. Each of these would need to be assessed for any heritage railway operation. Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

41 7. Conclusions The following conclusions can be drawn from the model testing and analysis undertaken for Stage1 of the March to Wisbech Rail Patronage Study Base Case Patronage Forecast A base case forecast of rail demand and revenue generated by a new rail service from Wisbech has been derived using a mode choice model based on rail demand derived from MOIRA and NRTS, highway demand from RSI surveys, and relative costs for these modes derived from the same sources. The mode choice model has been calibrated to observed demand between March and each of the other zones in the study area. Rail demand growth derived from the DfT has been applied to 2009 data to forecast demand for the new service from 2016 to Three hourly service patterns have been tested: - Wisbech March (heavy and light rail) - Wisbech Cambridge - Wisbech Peterborough Forecasts have shown that demand for the new service will range from approximately 290, ,000 per year, based on 2009 demand levels. The majority of demand for the new service is between Wisbech and March, with some demand to Peterborough, Whittlesea and Ely. There is very little demand to / from Cambridge, which is a reflection of the low levels of observed highway travel. Services extended to Cambridge and Peterborough generate more demand than the shuttle service between Wisbech and March, in the region of 10,000 trips per year. Demand for a light rail service is likely to generate 10,000 fewer trips per year Base Case Operational Costs Operational costs vary substantially between the service patterns tested, ranging from an annual cost of just under 0.8 million to operate a light rail service between Wisbech and March, to a cost of nearly 4.8 million to operate a service between Wisbech and Cambridge. The variation in cost is driven by the rolling stock type used, the mileage operated, and track access charges paid to Network Rail.Sensitivity Tests Alternative Growth Scenario An alternative growth scenario has been developed based on the housing and employment assumptions contained in the Fenland District Council Draft Core Strategy, which is forecast to have an impact of approximately 3% on the forecast demand from the new rail service over the appraisal period. Second Station in Wisbech A second station south of Wisbech has been forecast to generate some additional demand compared with the core scenario results. For the light rail service, an additional 2% of rail demand is generated, but for the heavy rail service additional demand is just 1%. For the Peterborough and Cambridge services, an additional 1.6% of demand is generated. It has been assumed that the costs of operating the second station will be 66,000 p.a Comparison of Appraisal Results An appraisal of the relative cost and generated revenue has been carried out for each of the service patterns tested, and for each of the sensitivity tests, including a higher fares scenario, over the period below summarises the total revenue and operating costs over the appraisal period for each of the tests undertaken and each of the service patterns. Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

42 Table 40. Summary of Results Total Revenue & Operating Costs, ( m) Scenario Item Core Test Alternative Growth March (heavy rail service) March (light rail service) Additional Station Revenue Costs Net Revenue Revenue Costs Net Revenue Cambridge Revenue Costs Net Revenue Peterborough Revenue Costs Net Revenue Higher Fares (20%) Table 40 confirms that only the shuttle service between Wisbech and March provides a positive net operating revenue over the appraisal period. This is due to the additional operating costs incurred by the services to Cambridge and Peterborough far outweighing the additional revenue generated. The business case for a conventional rail service between Wisbech and March is relatively marginal, with a net revenue of just over 1 million over an appraisal period of 14 years, with annual operating revenues exceeding operating costs from the 6 th year of operation. The light rail scenario is the stronger performing option, due to the significantly lower operating costs, and is forecast to deliver a cumulative net operating revenue over the appraisal period of over 15m. The alternative growth scenario increases the expected revenue generation over the appraisal period but has minimal impact on the overall conclusions on the viability of a new rail service from Wisbech. An additional station to the south of Wisbech is not viable, as it generates some additional revenue for all of the service patterns, but not enough to cover the operating costs of the new station. Increasing fares by 20% for the service between Wisbech and March has a positive impact on the revenue generation potential of the service overall Caveats The analysis of all the options undertaken does not account for any investment in scheme development or infrastructure that might be required to enable implementation and operation. This would need to be accounted for in any full business case analysis of options. The costs of the light rail system accounted for a single unit. In practice, a second unit might be required to assure system resilience and cover any potential breakdowns, maintenance or other disruption to services. An additional vehicle would require the operator to pay leasing, storage and maintenance costs. The leasing cost of a Parry People Mover unit has been estimated as 28,000 per annum, with maintenance costs being a further 42,000 per annum. The full leasing costs of an additional unit would need to be met by the operator, but economies of scale for maintenance costs per unit may be achievable. This inclusion of these additional ongoing costs to secure resilience would reduce the potential commercial return from operating a light rail service. Resilience is also an issue with respect to the heavy rail service options. Spare heavy rail 153 / 156 diesel units would need to be sourced from the regional network to cover periods where the main unit required maintenance or repair. Whilst spare units are not generally available, the operator may have sufficient spare capacity on the wider network to cover repair and maintenance to accommodate the Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

43 additional service. Discussions with the operator would be required to ensure they had confidence that they would be able to source a spare unit for a Wisbech to March service if and when required. Interoperable ticketing between the light rail service and the wider rail network would be required to avoid any potential reduction in forecast ticket revenues. If a separate ticketing system were in place, this would act as a potential barrier to travel that would increase the cost of travel and so reduce the passengers perceived benefit from the new service. Interoperable ticketing would facilitate the light rail service as an integrated part of the wider rail network, particularly given any potential future developments of smart ticketing products. Assumptions about demand to London will be key to the level of revenue that a service might be expected to generate. The estimation of bus passengers between March and Wisbech transferring to rail is based on assumptions about demand rather than actual data. Recorded passenger demand data was unavailable when the study was undertaken Heritage Railway A heritage railway option has the potential to encourage day and overnight stay visitors to the Wisbech and generate income for the local economy, but would have a limited role in terms of helping residents of Wisbech and March gain access to jobs in and around Cambridge. Indications from re-opened railway lines suggest the cost of public subsidy for operating a conventional rail vehicle or a PPM figures between 250,000 and 100,000 per year. Careful study should be given to comparing these with costs of supporting dedicated bus operation, light rail on public roads and conversion of the railway line to light rail, for example with tram train operation. Further options to be considered are replacement of the level crossings, the opening of intermediate stations (on the site of the previous railway station at Coldham, for example) and establishment of park and ride sites at Wisbech and March. Each of these would need to be assessed for any heritage railway operation Potential Further Work Stages 2 and 3 of the Study Brief The analysis undertaken in Stage 1 has demonstrated that there may be a commercial case for reopening the March to Wisbech line to passenger traffic. This does not take account of capital costs that would be required to reopen the line. Analysis undertaken by ATOC in 2009 indicated a capital investment of 12m would be required. The core test results showed that the March to Wisbech light rail service might be expected to generate an overall operating surplus of 15.5m over a 14 year period between 2014 and Therefore, it would appear that there is a commercial operating case for re-opening the line between Wisbech and March using light rail. The capital costs that would need to be taken into consideration are: Cost of any work required at March station to accommodate the extra services. Construction costs of the new station in Wisbech town centre. Provision of level crossings between Wisbech and March. If applicable, costs of the second station should Cambridgeshire County Council and Fenland District Council choose to proceed with this option, although this report has shown that a second station would not be commercially viable. Potential work required at the Whitemoor sidings junction to ensure there was no disruption to maintenance trains. Any other right of way costs, or upgrades to the line required. The cost of a bridge taking the A47 over the rail line as an alternative to a level crossing. The original study brief set out a third stage of work, which would investigate capacity issues on the wider network should the Wisbech to Peterborough or Cambridge service prove viable. It has been found that neither of the services had a viable commercial operating case, therefore this stage of work would not be required. Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

44 Major Scheme Business Case If the commercial case remains viable once capital costs have been assessed, a major scheme business case would be required to secure approval and funding. Any economic appraisal would cover a 60 year operating period and need to be compliant with the guidelines set out in the webtag. The business case would need to be carried out in line with the DfT s guidance on major scheme business cases and would in the context of the emergence of Local Transport Bodies (LTB) need to be identified in the relevant LTB schedule of priority major schemes. It is anticipated that any such business case would continue to be required to address the HM Treasury 5 cases requirement for business cases and as such address and present the following: The Strategic Case. The Value for Money / Economic Case (reflecting webtag appraisal requirements). The Delivery Case. The Financial Case. The Commercial Case. Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

45 Appendices

46 Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

47 Appendix A. Operating Costs A.1. Operating Cost Model Table 41 provides a detailed summary of the outputs of the operating cost model used in this study. Table 41. Operating Cost Model (2012 Prices) Service: Wisbech - March Wisbech - March (Peak Only) Wisbech - Peterborough Wisbech - Wisbech - Cambridge March Frequency (trains per hour) (40 minute frequency) Rolling Stock 153 (1 Car) 153 (1 Car) 156 (2 Car) 156 (2 Car) PPM (1 Car) Number of Carriages per set Number of Sets Journey Distance (miles) Journey Time (minutes) Number of services/day Number of a-b trips/set/day Mileage/day/train Total Service Mileage/day Annual mileage (including 10% for ECS) Number of Drivers/week (including relief) Number of Guards/week (including relief) Leasing Cost 124, , , ,303 27,945 Fuel Cost 141,799 50, ,254 1,385,271 94,712 Light Maintenance 56,749 20, , ,391 26,465 Heavy Maintenance 32,940 11, , ,801 15,362 Staff Costs 440, , , , ,000 Track Access (Fixed) 102,009 36, , , ,010 Track Access (Variable) 6,205 2,190 37,270 62,485 3,908 Capacity Charge (Ga) - - 7, ,949 - Rolling Stock Sub Total 903, ,971 3,254,656 4,703, ,401 Annual Station Costs 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 Total Annual Service Cost 1,653,748 3,320,656 4,769, ,401 Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

48 Atkins March - Wisbech Rail Study, Stage 1 Final Report 7 th December

49

50 Adil Chaudhery Atkins Highways & Transportation Euston Tower 286 Euston Road London NW1 3AT Direct Telephone: Fax: Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo, Carbon Critical Design and the strapline Plan Design Enable are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

Submission to Greater Cambridge City Deal

Submission to Greater Cambridge City Deal What Transport for Cambridge? 2 1 Submission to Greater Cambridge City Deal By Professor Marcial Echenique OBE ScD RIBA RTPI and Jonathan Barker Introduction Cambridge Futures was founded in 1997 as a

More information

Post Opening Project Evaluation. M6 Toll

Post Opening Project Evaluation. M6 Toll M6 Toll Five Post Years Opening After Study: Project Summary Evaluation Report Post Opening Project Evaluation M6 Toll Five Years After Study Summary Report October 2009 Document History JOB NUMBER: 5081587/905

More information

Department for Transport. Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit Values of Time and Operating Costs

Department for Transport. Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit Values of Time and Operating Costs Department for Transport Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit 3.5.6 Values of Time and Operating Costs September 2006 1 Contents 1. Values of Time and Operating Costs 3 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 Values

More information

The operating cost model considered the variable elements of operating costs only, as follows:

The operating cost model considered the variable elements of operating costs only, as follows: Midland Mainline Upgrade Programme Economic Case Report OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL 6. Operating Costs 6.1. Introduction This chapter presents the operating cost ( opex ) estimates for each rolling

More information

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO. Revised: March/13 TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO. MEETING DATE: March 26, 2014 SUBJECT: COMMUNITY BUS SERVICES ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board not approve any routing

More information

Midland Mainline Upgrade Programme Economic Case Department for Transport. 28 September 2016

Midland Mainline Upgrade Programme Economic Case Department for Transport. 28 September 2016 Midland Mainline Upgrade Programme Economic Case Department for Transport 28 September 2016 Midland Mainline Upgrade Programme Economic Case Report OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL Table of contents Chapter

More information

Chapter 4. HS2 Route Capacity and Reliability. Prepared by Christopher Stokes

Chapter 4. HS2 Route Capacity and Reliability. Prepared by Christopher Stokes Chapter 4 HS2 Route Capacity and Reliability Prepared by Christopher Stokes 4 HS2 ROUTE CAPACITY AND RELIABILITY Prepared by Christopher Stokes 4.1 This chapter relates to the following questions listed

More information

Integrating transport (buses)

Integrating transport (buses) Integrating transport (buses) TransWilts CIC / Summer 2015 Linking buses to trains and to other buses Right bus provision at right place & time Integrated fares and information Reducing subsidy yet retaining

More information

Traffic and Toll Revenue Estimates

Traffic and Toll Revenue Estimates The results of WSA s assessment of traffic and toll revenue characteristics of the proposed LBJ (MLs) are presented in this chapter. As discussed in Chapter 1, Alternatives 2 and 6 were selected as the

More information

Three ULTra Case Studies examples of the performance of the system in three different environments

Three ULTra Case Studies examples of the performance of the system in three different environments Three ULTra Case Studies examples of the performance of the system in three different environments airport application: London Heathrow : linking business and staff car parks through the access tunnel

More information

Modernising the Great Western railway

Modernising the Great Western railway Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General Department for Transport and Network Rail Modernising the Great Western railway HC 781 SESSION 2016-17 9 NOVEMBER 2016 4 Key facts Modernising the Great Western

More information

Downtown Lee s Summit Parking Study

Downtown Lee s Summit Parking Study Downtown Lee s Summit Parking Study As part of the Downtown Lee s Summit Master Plan, a downtown parking and traffic study was completed by TranSystems Corporation in November 2003. The parking analysis

More information

How will high speed rail transform the sheffield city region

How will high speed rail transform the sheffield city region How will high speed rail transform the sheffield city region HSR and the wider rail network 1 How HSR will transform the Sheffield City Region SUMMARY By 2033 the Sheffield City Region (SCR) will be served

More information

Parks and Transportation System Development Charge Methodology

Parks and Transportation System Development Charge Methodology City of Sandy Parks and Transportation System Development Charge Methodology March, 2016 Background In order to implement a City Council goal the City of Sandy engaged FCS Group in January of 2015 to update

More information

WP3 Transport and Mobility Analysis. D.3.5. Transport Scenarios Results Report Nottingham

WP3 Transport and Mobility Analysis. D.3.5. Transport Scenarios Results Report Nottingham WP3 Transport and Mobility Analysis D.3.5. Transport Scenarios Results Report Nottingham October 2015 314164 (ENER/FP7/314164) Project acronym: InSMART Project full title: Integrative Smart City Planning

More information

CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE # 6

CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE # 6 2016 2019 CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE # 6 STRATEGIC AREA OF FOCUS: SUB-PRIORITY: STRATEGY: INITIATIVE: INITIATIVE LEAD(S): BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE CITY

More information

Traffic Micro-Simulation Assisted Tunnel Ventilation System Design

Traffic Micro-Simulation Assisted Tunnel Ventilation System Design Traffic Micro-Simulation Assisted Tunnel Ventilation System Design Blake Xu 1 1 Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia, Sydney 1 Introduction Road tunnels have recently been built in Sydney. One of key issues

More information

CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update

CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update EECUTIVE SUMMARY DECEMBER 2015 Executive Summary In 2013, the Twin Cities metropolitan area s first bus rapid transit (BRT) line, the METRO Red Line,

More information

Energy Technical Memorandum

Energy Technical Memorandum Southeast Extension Project Lincoln Station to RidgeGate Parkway Prepared for: Federal Transit Administration Prepared by: Denver Regional Transportation District May 2014 Table of Contents Page No. Chapter

More information

Policy Note. Vanpools in the Puget Sound Region The case for expanding vanpool programs to move the most people for the least cost.

Policy Note. Vanpools in the Puget Sound Region The case for expanding vanpool programs to move the most people for the least cost. Policy Note Vanpools in the Puget Sound Region The case for expanding vanpool programs to move the most people for the least cost Recommendations 1. Saturate vanpool market before expanding other intercity

More information

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO.

TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO. Form Revised: February 2005 TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION REPORT NO. MEETING DATE: October 24, 2012 SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN RAPID TRANSIT EXPANSION STUDY (DRTES) PHASE 1 STRATEGIC PLAN ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDATIONS

More information

Bedford Town Centre Transport Modelling. Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) Final Draft

Bedford Town Centre Transport Modelling. Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) Final Draft Bedford Town Centre Transport Modelling Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) Final Draft Bedford Town Centre Transport Modelling Local Model Validation Report (LMVR) JMP Consultants Limited Abacus House

More information

STH 60 Northern Reliever Route Feasibility Study Report

STH 60 Northern Reliever Route Feasibility Study Report #233087 v3 STH 60 Northern Reliever Route Feasibility Study Report Washington County Public Works Committee Meeting September 28, 2016 1 STH 60 Northern Reliever Route Feasibility Study Hartford Area Development

More information

FINAL. Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update. Issue Paper S.1: Tacoma Link Integration with Central Link. Prepared for: Sound Transit

FINAL. Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update. Issue Paper S.1: Tacoma Link Integration with Central Link. Prepared for: Sound Transit Sound Transit Long-Range Plan Update Issue Paper S.1: Tacoma Link Integration with Central Link Prepared for: Sound Transit Prepared by: Quade & Douglas, Inc. FINAL March 2005 Foreword This issue paper

More information

Geneva, 67th SC.2 Session October 2013 High Speed Trains Master Plan

Geneva, 67th SC.2 Session October 2013 High Speed Trains Master Plan Geneva, 67th SC.2 Session 23 25 October 2013 High Speed Trains Master Plan Work Package I Work Package II Work Package III Project Management Review of related Work Socio economic framework of the ECE

More information

WP3 Transport and Mobility Analysis. D.3.8. Transport Scenarios Results Report Cesena

WP3 Transport and Mobility Analysis. D.3.8. Transport Scenarios Results Report Cesena WP3 Transport and Mobility Analysis D.3.8. Transport Scenarios Results Report Cesena May 2015 314164 (ENER/FP7/314164) Project acronym: InSMART Project full title: Integrative Smart City Planning Coordination

More information

Travel Forecasting Methodology

Travel Forecasting Methodology Travel Forecasting Methodology Introduction This technical memorandum documents the travel demand forecasting methodology used for the SH7 BRT Study. This memorandum includes discussion of the following:

More information

The Engineering Department recommends Council receive this report for information.

The Engineering Department recommends Council receive this report for information. CORPORATE REPORT NO: R161 COUNCIL DATE: July 23, 2018 REGULAR COUNCIL TO: Mayor & Council DATE: July 19, 2018 FROM: General Manager, Engineering FILE: 8740-01 SUBJECT: Surrey Long-Range Rapid Transit Vision

More information

Appendix 4. HS2 Route Capacity and Reliability. Prepared by Christopher Stokes

Appendix 4. HS2 Route Capacity and Reliability. Prepared by Christopher Stokes Appendix 4 HS2 Route Capacity and Reliability Prepared by Christopher Stokes 4 HS2 ROUTE CAPACITY AND RELIABILITY Prepared by Christopher Stokes Introduction 4.1 This appendix considers the planned utilisation

More information

The Boston South Station HSIPR Expansion Project Cost-Benefit Analysis. High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Technical Appendix

The Boston South Station HSIPR Expansion Project Cost-Benefit Analysis. High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Technical Appendix The Boston South Station HSIPR Expansion Project Cost-Benefit Analysis High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Technical Appendix Prepared by HDR August 5, 2010 The Boston South Station HSIPR Expansion Project

More information

Madison BRT Transit Corridor Study Proposed BRT Operations Plans

Madison BRT Transit Corridor Study Proposed BRT Operations Plans Madison BRT Transit Corridor Study Proposed BRT Operations Plans This paper presents a description of the proposed BRT operations plan for use in the Madison BRT Transit Corridor Study. The objective is

More information

TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTS

TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTS Jiangxi Ji an Sustainable Urban Transport Project (RRP PRC 45022) TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTS A. Introduction 1. The purpose of the travel demand forecasts is to assess the impact of the project components

More information

4 COSTS AND OPERATIONS

4 COSTS AND OPERATIONS 4 COSTS AND OPERATIONS 4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes the estimated capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the Modal and High-Speed Train (HST) Alternatives evaluated in this

More information

Controlled Parking Zones Commentary

Controlled Parking Zones Commentary Controlled Parking Zones Commentary November 2012 Residents Association Controlled Parking Zones Commentary 244884 TPN ITQ 001 C http://localhost:3579/ahjycdovl0vvtkfqau1tl0rpq1vnru5uly9ilw FjdGlvbiUzYV9hX2FmaW5kaXRlbWluZm9hY3Rpb25fYWl0ZW1fY19hMT

More information

Project Appraisal Guidelines for National Roads Unit National Parameters Values Sheet

Project Appraisal Guidelines for National Roads Unit National Parameters Values Sheet Project Appraisal Guidelines for National Roads Unit 6.11 - National Parameters Values Sheet TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IRELAND (TII) PUBLICATIONS About TII Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) is responsible

More information

UTA Transportation Equity Study and Staff Analysis. Board Workshop January 6, 2018

UTA Transportation Equity Study and Staff Analysis. Board Workshop January 6, 2018 UTA Transportation Equity Study and Staff Analysis Board Workshop January 6, 2018 1 Executive Summary UTA ranks DART 6 th out of top 20 Transit Agencies in the country for ridership. UTA Study confirms

More information

Update on Community or Heritage Rail Project (Project Manager Services) The Engineering Department recommends that Council:

Update on Community or Heritage Rail Project (Project Manager Services) The Engineering Department recommends that Council: Corporate NO: R279 Report COUNCIL DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2006 REGULAR COUNCIL TO: Mayor & Council DATE: December 15, 2006 FROM: General Manager, Engineering FILE: 8710-20 (Heritage) SUBJECT: Update on Community

More information

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND POLICY COMMITTEE MAY 5, 2016

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND POLICY COMMITTEE MAY 5, 2016 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND POLICY COMMITTEE MAY 5, 2016 Shift Rapid Transit Initiative Largest infrastructure project in the city s history. Rapid Transit initiative will transform London s public transit

More information

The Value of Travel-Time: Estimates of the Hourly Value of Time for Vehicles in Oregon 2007

The Value of Travel-Time: Estimates of the Hourly Value of Time for Vehicles in Oregon 2007 The Value of Travel-Time: Estimates of the Hourly Value of Time for Vehicles in Oregon 2007 Oregon Department of Transportation Long Range Planning Unit June 2008 For questions contact: Denise Whitney

More information

Appendix B: Travel Demand Forecasts July 2017

Appendix B: Travel Demand Forecasts July 2017 Appendix B: Travel Demand Forecasts July 2017 Table of Contents 1 Introduction... 2 2 Model Review and Updates... 2 2.1 Overview of Smart Moves Model ( City of London Model )... 2 2.1.1 Network and Zone

More information

DEVELOPMENT OF RIDERSHIP FORECASTS FOR THE SAN BERNARDINO INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT STUDY

DEVELOPMENT OF RIDERSHIP FORECASTS FOR THE SAN BERNARDINO INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT STUDY APPENDIX 1 DEVELOPMENT OF RIDERSHIP FORECASTS FOR THE SAN BERNARDINO INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT STUDY INTRODUCTION: This Appendix presents a general description of the analysis method used in forecasting

More information

Introduction and Background Study Purpose

Introduction and Background Study Purpose Introduction and Background The Brent Spence Bridge on I-71/75 across the Ohio River is arguably the single most important piece of transportation infrastructure the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana (OKI) region.

More information

Fueling Savings: Higher Fuel Economy Standards Result In Big Savings for Consumers

Fueling Savings: Higher Fuel Economy Standards Result In Big Savings for Consumers Fueling Savings: Higher Fuel Economy Standards Result In Big Savings for Consumers Prepared for Consumers Union September 7, 2016 AUTHORS Tyler Comings Avi Allison Frank Ackerman, PhD 485 Massachusetts

More information

APPENDIX C1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DESIGN YEAR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

APPENDIX C1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DESIGN YEAR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS APPENDIX C1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DESIGN YEAR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DESIGN YEAR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS February 2018 Highway & Bridge Project PIN 6754.12 Route 13 Connector Road Chemung County February 2018 Appendix

More information

Aging of the light vehicle fleet May 2011

Aging of the light vehicle fleet May 2011 Aging of the light vehicle fleet May 211 1 The Scope At an average age of 12.7 years in 21, New Zealand has one of the oldest light vehicle fleets in the developed world. This report looks at some of the

More information

CITY of GUELPH Transit Growth Strategy and Plan, Mobility Services Review. ECO Committee

CITY of GUELPH Transit Growth Strategy and Plan, Mobility Services Review. ECO Committee CITY of GUELPH Transit Growth Strategy and Plan, Mobility Services Review ECO Committee July 19, 2010 1 Study Purpose Vision and growth strategy for Guelph Transit, ensuring broad consultation Operational

More information

UC Santa Cruz TAPS 3-Year Fee & Fare Proposal, through

UC Santa Cruz TAPS 3-Year Fee & Fare Proposal, through UC Santa Cruz TAPS 3-Year Fee & Fare Proposal, 2016-17 through 2018-19 Introduction Transportation and Parking Services (TAPS) proposes a three-year series of annual increases to most Parking fees and

More information

WATFORD LOCAL PLAN PART 2. Review of Car Parking Policy and Standards. Evidence Base. February 2012

WATFORD LOCAL PLAN PART 2. Review of Car Parking Policy and Standards. Evidence Base. February 2012 WATFORD LOCAL PLAN PART 2 Review of Car Parking Policy and Standards Evidence Base February 2012 1.0 Background 1.1 The Watford District Plan 2000 contains various policies relating to the provision of

More information

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PAT MCCRORY GOVERNOR STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES ANTHONY J. TATA SECRETARY January 6, 2014 19A NCAC 03B.0201 Driver License Examination Agency Contact:

More information

Travel Time Savings Memorandum

Travel Time Savings Memorandum 04-05-2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Background 3 Methodology 3 Inputs and Calculation 3 Assumptions 4 Light Rail Transit (LRT) Travel Times 5 Auto Travel Times 5 Bus Travel Times 6 Findings 7 Generalized Cost

More information

Aaren Healy, 20 September 2017 / 1

Aaren Healy, 20 September 2017 / 1 Network Rail s consultation on variable charges and station charges in CP6 Electricity charge for traction (EC4T) and the electrification asset usage charge (EAUC) Aaren Healy, 20 September 2017 / 1 Purpose

More information

Transit Vehicle (Trolley) Technology Review

Transit Vehicle (Trolley) Technology Review Transit Vehicle (Trolley) Technology Review Recommendation: 1. That the trolley system be phased out in 2009 and 2010. 2. That the purchase of 47 new hybrid buses to be received in 2010 be approved with

More information

Appendix J Traffic Impact Study

Appendix J Traffic Impact Study MRI May 2012 Appendix J Traffic Impact Study Level 2 Traffic Assessment Limited Impact Review Appendix J [This page was left blank intentionally.] www.sgm-inc.com Figure 1. Site Driveway and Trail Crossing

More information

Bi-County Transitway/ Bethesda Station Access Demand Analysis

Bi-County Transitway/ Bethesda Station Access Demand Analysis Bi-County Transitway/ Bethesda Station Access Demand Analysis Prepared for: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Office of Planning and Project Development May 2005 Prepared by: in conjunction

More information

Subarea Study. Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) Corridor Management and Safety Improvement Project. Final Version 1. Washington County.

Subarea Study. Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) Corridor Management and Safety Improvement Project. Final Version 1. Washington County. Subarea Study Manning Avenue (CSAH 15) Corridor Management and Safety Improvement Project Final Version 1 Washington County June 12, 214 SRF No. 138141 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Forecast Methodology

More information

Written Exam Public Transport + Answers

Written Exam Public Transport + Answers Faculty of Engineering Technology Written Exam Public Transport + Written Exam Public Transport (195421200-1A) Teacher van Zuilekom Course code 195421200 Date and time 7-11-2011, 8:45-12:15 Location OH116

More information

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RED HILL MINING LEASE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Section 14 Transport Section 14 Transport 14.1 Description of Environmental Values This section of the Red Hill Mining Lease Environmental Impact Statement

More information

Clean Harbors Canada, Inc.

Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Clean Harbors Canada, Inc. Proposed Lambton Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference Transportation Assessment St. Clair Township, Ontario September 2009 itrans Consulting Inc. 260

More information

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. The following is an outline of the traffic analysis performed by Hales Engineering for the traffic conditions of this project.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. The following is an outline of the traffic analysis performed by Hales Engineering for the traffic conditions of this project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study addresses the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Shopko redevelopment located in Sugarhouse, Utah. The Shopko redevelopment project is located between 1300 East and

More information

Application of claw-back

Application of claw-back Application of claw-back A report for Vector Dr. Tom Hird Daniel Young June 2012 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. How to determine the claw-back amount 2 2.1. Allowance for lower amount of claw-back

More information

Feasibility Study. Community Meeting March, North-South Commuter Rail Feasibility Study

Feasibility Study. Community Meeting March, North-South Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Feasibility Study Community Meeting March, 2017 1 Agenda 1. Welcome / Introductions 2. Background / Meeting Purpose 3. Progress to Date Options Evaluated Capital/Operating Costs Ridership 4. Financial

More information

1 YORK REGION TRANSIT EXTENSION OF EXISTING DIAL-A-RIDE PILOT PROJECT AND STOCK TRANSPORTATION SCHOOL BUS CONTRACTS

1 YORK REGION TRANSIT EXTENSION OF EXISTING DIAL-A-RIDE PILOT PROJECT AND STOCK TRANSPORTATION SCHOOL BUS CONTRACTS 1 YORK REGION TRANSIT EXTENSION OF EXISTING DIAL-A-RIDE PILOT PROJECT AND STOCK TRANSPORTATION SCHOOL BUS CONTRACTS The Transit Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations contained in the

More information

Cambridge Rapid Mass Transit Options Appraisal

Cambridge Rapid Mass Transit Options Appraisal Cambridge Rapid Mass Transit Options Appraisal Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro (CAM): The Proposition Greater Cambridge Partnership Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority January 2018 Overview

More information

Mississauga Bus Rapid Transit Preliminary Design Project

Mississauga Bus Rapid Transit Preliminary Design Project Mississauga Bus Rapid Transit Preliminary Design Project PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE OCTOBER 2008 WELCOME The Mississauga Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project Thank you for attending this Public Information Centre.

More information

TRAFFIC SURVEY REPORT HARVINGTON PT1 (CREST HILL)

TRAFFIC SURVEY REPORT HARVINGTON PT1 (CREST HILL) TRAFFIC SURVEY REPORT HARVINGTON PT1 ( HILL) October 20-24th 2014 Conducted voluntarily by the residents of Harvington Village. This report has been prepared in light of the planning application W14/01788/OU

More information

US 81 Bypass of Chickasha Environmental Assessment Public Meeting

US 81 Bypass of Chickasha Environmental Assessment Public Meeting US 81 Bypass of Chickasha Environmental Assessment Public Meeting March 14, 2013 Introductions ODOT FHWA SAIC Meeting Purpose Present need for bypass Provide responses to 10/04/11 public meeting comments

More information

MILLERSVILLE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND

MILLERSVILLE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND MILLERSVILLE PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND Prepared for: Department of Public Works Anne Arundel County Prepared by: URS Corporation 4 North Park Drive, Suite 3 Hunt Valley,

More information

Indicative Gas Transportation Charges from 1 April 2012 for East of England, London, North West and West Midlands Distribution Networks

Indicative Gas Transportation Charges from 1 April 2012 for East of England, London, North West and West Midlands Distribution Networks National Grid House Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill, Warwick CV34 6DA National Gas Emergency Service - 0800 111 999* (24hrs) *calls will be recorded and may be monitored Indicative Gas Transportation

More information

Appendix B CTA Transit Data Supporting Documentation

Appendix B CTA Transit Data Supporting Documentation RED ED-PURPLE BYPASS PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION Appendix B CTA Transit Data Supporting Documentation 4( Memorandum Date: May 14, 2015 Subject: Chicago Transit Authority

More information

RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982

RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT 1982 Subject MINISTERIAL BRIEFING NOTE Rapid Transit in Auckland Date 1 November 2017 Briefing number BRI-1133 Contact(s) for telephone discussion (if required) Name Position Direct line Cell phone 1 st contact

More information

Green Line Long-Term Investments

Green Line Long-Term Investments Enhancements Short-term improvements to keep Austin moving. Investments Long-term projects to support our future. Mobility Hubs MetroRapid MetroRail MetroExpress Connectors Circulators Project Connect

More information

2030 Multimodal Transportation Study

2030 Multimodal Transportation Study 2030 Multimodal Transportation Study City of Jacksonville Planning and Development Department Prepared by Ghyabi & Associates April 29,2010 Introduction Presentation Components 1. Study Basis 2. Study

More information

CLRP. Performance Analysis of The Draft 2014 CLRP. Long-Range Transportation Plan For the National Capital Region

CLRP. Performance Analysis of The Draft 2014 CLRP. Long-Range Transportation Plan For the National Capital Region NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BOARD Item 12 CLRP Financially Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan For the National Capital Region 2014 Performance Analysis of The Draft 2014 CLRP

More information

5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS

5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS 5. OPPORTUNITIES AND NEXT STEPS When the METRO Green Line LRT begins operating in mid-2014, a strong emphasis will be placed on providing frequent connecting bus service with Green Line trains. Bus hours

More information

HALTON REGION SUB-MODEL

HALTON REGION SUB-MODEL WORKING DRAFT GTA P.M. PEAK MODEL Version 2.0 And HALTON REGION SUB-MODEL Documentation & Users' Guide Prepared by Peter Dalton July 2001 Contents 1.0 P.M. Peak Period Model for the GTA... 4 Table 1 -

More information

Attachment F: Transport assessment report on implications if Capell Avenue never formed

Attachment F: Transport assessment report on implications if Capell Avenue never formed Attachment F: Transport assessment report on implications if never formed CCL Ref: 14447-181118-williams.docx 18 November 2018 Tim Williams Williams and Co Limited By e-mail only: tim@williamsandco.nz

More information

Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire NH Route 28 Western Segment Traffic Impact Fee Methodology

Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire NH Route 28 Western Segment Traffic Impact Fee Methodology Town of Londonderry, New Hampshire NH Route 28 Western Segment Traffic Impact Fee Methodology Prepared by the Londonderry Community Development Department Planning & Economic Development Division Based

More information

Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI)

Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI) Sustainable Urban Transport Index (SUTI) City Comparisons & Way Forward PROF. H.M SHIVANAND SWAMY, CEPT UNIVERSITY DHAKA SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 Purpose Discussion of Results from 5 Cities Reflections on the

More information

Scope of Services January 26, Project Development and Conceptual Engineering for City of Lake Forest Amtrak Station

Scope of Services January 26, Project Development and Conceptual Engineering for City of Lake Forest Amtrak Station 203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 (312) 558-1345 Fax: (312) 346-9603 E-Mail: cquandel@quandelconsultants.com www.quandel.com Scope of Services January 26, 2010 Project Development

More information

The capital cost estimates do not include allowances for: ROW acquisition. Third-party mitigation works. Hazardous materials handling.

The capital cost estimates do not include allowances for: ROW acquisition. Third-party mitigation works. Hazardous materials handling. Mode Selection Report 7 Cost Evaluation The cost evaluation criteria used in the evaluation of the transit modes are: Capital cost. operating costs. Fare revenue. Net cost per passenger/passenger-mile.

More information

CITY OF VANCOUVER ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

CITY OF VANCOUVER ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Supports Item No. 1 T&T Committee Agenda May 13, 2008 CITY OF VANCOUVER ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Report Date: April 29, 2008 Author: Don Klimchuk Phone No.: 604.873.7345 RTS No.: 07283 VanRIMS No.: 13-1400-10

More information

BUS SERVICES IN CHAMBERLAYNE ROAD NW10

BUS SERVICES IN CHAMBERLAYNE ROAD NW10 INTRODUCTION BUS SERVICES IN CHAMBERLAYNE ROAD NW10 1 LONDON BUSES 1. This note reviews the issues in Chamberlayne Road, Kensal Rise. It covers the range of bus routes in the area, their characteristics

More information

Future Funding The sustainability of current transport revenue tools model and report November 2014

Future Funding The sustainability of current transport revenue tools model and report November 2014 Future Funding The sustainability of current transport revenue tools model and report November 214 Ensuring our transport system helps New Zealand thrive Future Funding: The sustainability of current transport

More information

The Impact of Speed Enforcement and Increasing the HGV Speed Limit on the A9(T)

The Impact of Speed Enforcement and Increasing the HGV Speed Limit on the A9(T) The Impact of Speed Enforcement and Increasing the HGV Speed Limit on the A9(T) Transport Scotland Microsimulation Modelling and Accident Assessment May 2012 THE IMPACT OF SPEED ENFORCEMENT AND INCREASING

More information

RTID Travel Demand Modeling: Assumptions and Method of Analysis

RTID Travel Demand Modeling: Assumptions and Method of Analysis RTID Travel Demand Modeling: Assumptions and Method of Analysis Overall Model and Scenario Assumptions The Puget Sound Regional Council s (PSRC) regional travel demand model was used to forecast travel

More information

Green Line LRT: Beltline Segment Update April 19, 2017

Green Line LRT: Beltline Segment Update April 19, 2017 Green Line LRT: Beltline Segment Update April 19, 2017 Quick Facts On April 11, 2017, City Council approved Administration s recommendation for the Green Line to be underground in the Beltline from 2 Street

More information

Appendix 3. DRAFT Policy on Vehicle Activated Signs

Appendix 3. DRAFT Policy on Vehicle Activated Signs Appendix 3 DRAFT Policy on Vehicle Activated Signs Ealing Council has been installing vehicle activated signs for around three years and there are now 45 across the borough. These signs help to reduce

More information

Wellington Transport Strategy Model. TN19.1 Time Period Factors Report Final

Wellington Transport Strategy Model. TN19.1 Time Period Factors Report Final Wellington Transport Strategy Model TN19.1 Time Period Factors Report Final Wellington Transport Strategy Model Time Period Factors Report Final July 2003 prepared for Greater Wellington The Regional Council

More information

2013 ELR Addendum Note Implications of Siemens / ABP Announcement East Riding of Yorkshire Council

2013 ELR Addendum Note Implications of Siemens / ABP Announcement East Riding of Yorkshire Council Report Report GVA 1 st Floor, City Point 29 King Street Leeds LS1 2HL Implications of Siemens / ABP Announcement April 2014 gva.co.uk Contents 1. Introduction... 1 2. Siemens / ABP proposals... 2 3. Commercial

More information

How to Create Exponential Decline in Car Use in Australian Cities. By Peter Newman, Jeff Kenworthy and Gary Glazebrook.

How to Create Exponential Decline in Car Use in Australian Cities. By Peter Newman, Jeff Kenworthy and Gary Glazebrook. How to Create Exponential Decline in Car Use in Australian Cities By Peter Newman, Jeff Kenworthy and Gary Glazebrook. Curtin University and University of Technology Sydney. Car dependent cities like those

More information

Recommended Vision for the Downtown Rapid Transit Network

Recommended Vision for the Downtown Rapid Transit Network Recommended Vision for the Downtown Rapid Transit Network April 2008 Presentation Overview Context Transit options Assessment of options Recommended network Building the network 2 1 Rapid Our Vision Reliable

More information

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY DERRY GREEN CORPORATE BUSINESS PARK MILTON SECONDARY PLAN MODIFICATION

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY DERRY GREEN CORPORATE BUSINESS PARK MILTON SECONDARY PLAN MODIFICATION TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY DERRY GREEN CORPORATE BUSINESS PARK MILTON SECONDARY PLAN MODIFICATION TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY DERRY GREEN CORPORATE BUSINESS PARK MILTON SECONDARY PLAN MODIFICATION DECEMBER 24 UPDATED

More information

DRIVER SPEED COMPLIANCE WITHIN SCHOOL ZONES AND EFFECTS OF 40 PAINTED SPEED LIMIT ON DRIVER SPEED BEHAVIOURS Tony Radalj Main Roads Western Australia

DRIVER SPEED COMPLIANCE WITHIN SCHOOL ZONES AND EFFECTS OF 40 PAINTED SPEED LIMIT ON DRIVER SPEED BEHAVIOURS Tony Radalj Main Roads Western Australia DRIVER SPEED COMPLIANCE WITHIN SCHOOL ZONES AND EFFECTS OF 4 PAINTED SPEED LIMIT ON DRIVER SPEED BEHAVIOURS Tony Radalj Main Roads Western Australia ABSTRACT Two speed surveys were conducted on nineteen

More information

The City of Toronto s Transportation Strategy July 2007

The City of Toronto s Transportation Strategy July 2007 The City of Toronto s Transportation Strategy July 2007 Presentation Outline Transportation Statistics Transportation Building Blocks Toronto s Official Plan Transportation and City Building Vision Projects

More information

Impact of Copenhagen s

Impact of Copenhagen s Impact of Copenhagen s Parking Strategy Copenhagen s parking strategy Strategy background From the 1950s, a marked increase was seen in car traffic, and streets and squares in the centre of Copenhagen

More information

Halifax Commuter Rail Feasibility Study

Halifax Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Halifax Commuter Rail Feasibility Study Open House Halifax Regional Municipality February 26, 2015 Study Team The team is led by CPCS: A global management consulting firm (formerly the consulting arm of

More information

Funding Scenario Descriptions & Performance

Funding Scenario Descriptions & Performance Funding Scenario Descriptions & Performance These scenarios were developed based on direction set by the Task Force at previous meetings. They represent approaches for funding to further Task Force discussion

More information

BIRMINGHAM CONNECTED Anne Shaw Tuesday 20 January 2015

BIRMINGHAM CONNECTED Anne Shaw Tuesday 20 January 2015 BIRMINGHAM CONNECTED Anne Shaw Tuesday 20 January 2015 www.birmingham.gov.uk/connected Birmingham Connected Setting the context challenges in Birmingham The need for action The EU the SUMP process Strategy

More information

Online Appendix for Subways, Strikes, and Slowdowns: The Impacts of Public Transit on Traffic Congestion

Online Appendix for Subways, Strikes, and Slowdowns: The Impacts of Public Transit on Traffic Congestion Online Appendix for Subways, Strikes, and Slowdowns: The Impacts of Public Transit on Traffic Congestion ByMICHAELL.ANDERSON AI. Mathematical Appendix Distance to nearest bus line: Suppose that bus lines

More information

Error! Reference source not found.

Error! Reference source not found. shown in Error! Reference source not found..5. Four scenarios are shown representing the AM and PM peak periods for the current status quo of traffic and the 2011 projected traffic with all of the public

More information