Responses to Questions from Mr Johnson on Rail Access
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Responses to Questions from Mr Johnson on Rail Access
From P Rust, Steer on behalf of STAL
Date 22 February 2021
APPEAL REF: APP/C1570/W/20/3256619
Surface Access Questions
Modal Share
1) Why has a lower figure been used for rail modal share in the October 2020 Transport
Assessment Addendum (TAA) than was recorded in the CAA passenger survey data for 2019?
The October 2020 TAA (CD 9.2) uses a 31% modal share for rail at Stansted Airport passengers and
states that the figures used for modal share are ‘existing 2019 mode shares derived from the CAA
passenger survey’ (Table 4.3). This share was reconfirmed in paragraph 3.4 and 3.10 of the Rebuttal
Proof of Evidence (STAL/10/3). However, the rail modal share in 2019 was 33.2%, according to table
7a in the CAA Annual Passenger Survey 2019 (CD 21.10). The same figure appears on the CAA
website and the CAA has confirmed these are the final published figures for 2019.
Response
We do not rely on the simple tables produce by CAA but instead have access to the detailed survey
data, which they summarise in the annual report. We are unable to replicate the CAA summary
figure of 33.2%, though this appears close to an unvalidated figure previously released by CAA.
The TAA was based on the full year validated primary data provided to Stansted by CAA in 2020 and
this indicated 8,197,67 of a total 26,190,994 (31.3%) non transfer passengers travelled by rail.
For the purposes of surface access modelling we had calculated future rail passengers rising to
10.955 or 13.459 million having used the 31.3% rail mode share and applied this to the total future
passenger figures of 35mppa and 43mppa (note: for robustness we not reduce surface access
passenger demands to allow for transfer passengers).
Applying the alternative 33.2% figure to the future passenger numbers excluding 6.6% transfer
passengers would result in rail demand of 10.85 or 13.33 million.
Notwithstanding the difference between the primary data and the CAA annual report figure, the rail
capacity modelling that was provided to Network Rail adopted a 35% rail mode share figure (again
applied to 43mppa) which is higher than either figure.
12) Why has the highways impact been prioritised over the rail impact?
Paragraph 6.13 of the 2018 Transport Assessment (CD 5.1) acknowledged ‘a history of decreasing
share of car use for travel to and from Stansted Airport’ and ‘the historic trend of growth for the
public transport mode share’; however, the TA stated that it ‘is considered prudent for the purposes
of assessing a robust case for potential highway impact, to assume that the current modal shares will
remain constant’. Whilst this may be prudent from a highways perspective, it fails to take account of
the significant historic growth in rail usage (acknowledged in the TA and evident in CAA survey and
Office of Rail and Road (ORR) data), and the implications if that growth were to continue.
Response
There has been no bias towards highways impact being prioritised over the rail impact.
In reaching agreement with Network Rail and separately with the highway authorities, we carried
out sensitivity modelling for both modes; potential rail share at 10% greater than 2019 figures and,
equally, increased road share by 10% above predicted road share. All applied to a future 43mppa
demand, without reduction for transfer passengers.
3) Would you agree that the 35 per cent modal share used in the sensitivity test request by
Network Rail as was on the cusp of materialising immediately prior to the pandemic?
As noted above, Table 7a from the CAA’s 2019 passenger survey reported modal share for rail at
Stansted Airport in 2019 at 33.2% (plus 0.2% ‘Tube/Metro/Subway/Tram’). The STAL CEO report to
the January 2020 STACC meeting, (CD 23.24), includes a figure of 34.3% for the ’12 Month MAT
[moving annual total]’ for rail, citing CAA Passenger Survey Data Q3’. In addition, Greater Anglia, in
its submission to the Planning Inquiry [CD21.22], cites a figure of 34.5% modal share for rail
passengers pre-pandemic.
Response
No. The demand figures provided to Network Rail were based on a sensitivity test of total future rail
passenger demand of 15.050 million (35% of 43million). Applying 33.2% to future external surface
access movements (assuming 2019 proportion of transfer passengers) would result in 13.3 million
rail passengers per annum, i.e. the sensitivity test was accordingly 13% higher than applying demand
levels immediately prior to the pandemic.
4) Was any sensitivity test conducted on higher background rates of growth (i.e. non-Airport
passengers)?
Paragraph 3.14 of the July 2018 Surface Access TAA (CD 11.24) states a 1.5% per annum background
growth rate was used for modelling, in agreement with Network Rail (i.e. excluding air passenger
traffic). However, based on ORR station entrance/exit data from key stations on the Liverpool Street
to Stansted Airport route, the annual growth in patronage has generally, and sometimes
significantly, outstripped this growth rate. For example, Annex A below shows year-on-year growth
in recent years at Bishop’s Stortford according to ORR survey data. On average, between 2010-11
and 2018-19, annual growth at Bishop’s Stortford, which is served by most Stansted Express trains,
has been 2.5% pa.
2Response
1.5% was applied as agreed with NR. Note: 2010-2018 included significant growth in rail use
following the financial crisis recession. This growth has subsequently levelled off. Both Bishop’s
Stortford and Harlow Town have grown less than 1.5% per annum since 2017- (See Annex B)
4) Which four northbound services would be above 100% seating capacity between 1600 and
1900 under the 35 per cent scenario? Would these be consecutive services (please confirm the
number of services assumed in the three-hour period)?
Para 3.20 of the 2018 TAA (CD 11.24) states that demand may exceed seating availability on four
Stansted Express services heading northbound during the PM peak, should airport passenger rail
mode share rise to 35% by 2028 with the growth of the airport to 43mppa.
Response
Unfortunately such detail was provided on a confidential basis and is not available for release. As
stated in the TA, data on Individual train loadings were provided by Abellio Greater Anglia on a
confidential basis for consideration by Network Rail. However, it is useful to understand that the
peak demand on trains is significantly influenced by commuter movements which are concentrated
within the 3-hour period and some standing on commuter peak period trains is the norm. The
calculations provided to NR indicated that this may be the case in the PM peak from Tottenham Hale
to the next stop, on a very few trains for the 43mppa scenario.
5) Does the conclusion from paragraph 3.21 of the 2018 TAA (CD 11.24) that ‘NR is therefore
satisfied that the stress test demonstrates no forecast capacity issues on Stansted Express
services’ still stand, given 35% modal share was almost reached in late 2019 / early 2020?
Response
Yes. This has been reconfirmed by Network Rail to UDC (CD 27.13b).
6) What discussions took place between STAL’s transport consultants and Network Rail about the
updated ES and prior to the letter (CD 27.13b) being issued by Network Rail to Uttlesford
District Council (UDC) on 4 December 2020?
Response
No further engagement was necessary, as NR’s previous position was well understood.
3Passenger Loadings
7) Why was autumn 2016 loading data still used in the updated October 2020 ES when it would
have been possible to source more up-to-date passenger loading (for example autumn 2019)?
In the TA and addendum for the original application, autumn 2016 loading data was used. The 2017
figures for modal share were disregarded. Paragraph 3.15 of the TA Addendum [CD11.24] outlines
why the data showing a considerable increase in passenger numbers for the Stansted Express since
2016 should be disregarded. It stated that there were ‘significant qualitative improvements in
improved rail fare advertisement / marketing’ as a justification not to use that year as a baseline and
2016 data was consistent with longer term trends. However, the growth in passenger numbers and
modal share for rail was sustained in subsequent years.
Using a different data source to the CAA survey, statistics published by the ORR show over the ten
years from 2009-10 to 2018-19, usage of Stansted Airport rail station has more than doubled with a
119% growth in passenger entries/exits, from 4.459 million in 2009-10 to 9.774 million in 2018. Year-
on-year growth figures for 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 were 22%, 34% and 27% respectively.
Although growth appears to have slowed slightly in more recent years, these trends confirm the
increase in modal share evident in the CAA passenger survey figures.
Given all of the above, it appears difficult to justify why 2016 loadings data has continued to be used.
Response
The consideration was that the potential future demand associated with 43mppa remained well
within the sensitivity test demands previously provided and that there was no change in the
assessment of likely acceptable impact. The 4 year deferment of predicted future demand for
43mppa being reached is likely to be replicated in rail demand for many of the same reasons (indeed
rail demand could be expected to be lower as a result in an acceleration, arising from Covid-19, of an
already established trend towards home working). The fluctuations between 2014-2017 (noted in
the question) have been explained and are due to changes in the rail services operation and also
changes in the operation of Stansted coach services from London.
Network Rail has subsequently reconfirmed its position and no objection has been raised by NR or
Uttlesford DC accordingly.
8) Why has no allowance been made in the maximum capacity figures for standing passengers
travelling with luggage?
It is not clear why a 43% figure has been used to calculate the standing capacity for Stansted Express
rolling stock, as this is much higher than the 35% figure for commuter rolling stock. Given the need
for air passengers to travel with luggage, even if it is only a small suitcase, it would be reasonable to
conclude that standing capacities are more likely to be around 20%, the standing capacity figure long
distance rolling stock.
Response
The future year sensitivity testing indicated that very little of the standing capacity was needed for
even the busiest trains for the 43mppa case.
4Irrespective of the anticipated ample seating capacity, the new trains are “walk-through” carriages
with large standing areas, and have been configured specifically for the Stansted Express services
and the nature of passenger behaviour.
9) Is it possible for a standing passenger with luggage to be accommodated in a space measuring
9cm by 5cm (i.e. 0.45m2) for a journey to the Airport, the allowance assumed in table 7.4 of
the Proof of Evidence (STAL/10/2)?
Response
This has replicated exactly the same mathematical error made by Mr Johnson in his own evidence
and that provided by SSE. The figures 9cm by 5cm are completely irrelevant and the result of
inaccurate mathematics. 0.45 sqm is a correct figure but this equates to 90cm by 50cm.
10) Has any allowance been made for the fact that passengers do not tend to be spread evenly
across the entire train?
The Proof of Evidence appears to assume passengers are evenly spread at intervals along the 192m
length of the new rolling stock. However, experience of travelling on Stansted Express services
suggests that the rear carriages of the trains travelling towards the Airport become very crowded,
given the positioning of the entrances to the platforms at Liverpool Street and Tottenham Hale. In
particular, this is an issue at Tottenham Hale where the service only stops briefly, and entrances
exits to the platform are all at the rear (for northbound trains) of a long platform.
Given the tendency for overcrowding at the rear of the train, the consequence is that some
passengers will either be unable to board Stansted Express trains or cause delays by moving up the
platform whilst the train is in the platform to try and board at less crowded points causing delays to
the train departing and knock-on consequences for other services.
Response
The new trains are walk through carriages and have been configured specifically for the Stansted
Express services. Stansted Express services have historically generally been observed to be evenly
loaded reflecting the varying entry and exit points at the different stations served between the
airport and Liverpool Street Station. At Tottenham Hale, the current transformation programme
has relocated the principal platform entry/exit points towards the centre of the platform. This makes
it much easier and quicker for boarding passengers to ‘spread’ along the platform.
11) Paragraph 6.184 in the February 2018 ES (CD3.6) states some Cross Country services from
Cambridge to Stansted Airport during the PM peak are likely to operate above seating
capacity. However, table 6.24 appears to show the average for the PM peak is 105%. Does this
assume three services (i.e. 1 per hour) and are all three trains in excess of seating capacity?
5Response
Unfortunately such detail was provided on a confidential basis and is not available for release. We
are able to advise that the peak demand is quite remote from Stansted and relates to local
commuter movements on services that terminate in Birmingham
Rail Infrastructure
12) What are the prospects of longer term additional rail capacity rail capacity schemes on the
West Anglia Main Line?
In letters to UDC (CD 27.13a and CD 27.13b) Network Rail (NR) stated that increased rail passengers
resulting from increased air passengers would mean that longer term rail capacity schemes on the
West Anglia Main Line are likely to be needed sooner’. However, the National Infrastructure
Strategy, published alongside the Government’s Spending Review on 25 November 2020, confirmed
that the Government ‘has agreed that Transport for London will stop development on Crossrail 2’.
NR’s December 2020 letter refers to a ‘medium-term capacity study’ on the WAML currently being
undertaken, but it is not clear what proposals this study will make or its timescale for reporting.
Response
This has been covered by evidence provide by Mr Denby of Abellio Greater Anglia. No objection has
been raised to the proposal to expand operations to 43mppa based on current infrastructure and
train services.
13) How does this application address the further improvements which, as NR state in their
December 2020 letter, may be required at Tottenham Hale station, including the retention of
the existing southern footbridge?
Response
No objection has been raised by Network Rail to the proposal to increase air passenger numbers to
43mppa, following a comprehensive analysis of the transport assessment by them. Network Rail &
Greater Anglia are members of the Stansted Transport Forum. This ensures that rail services,
performance and operations are continually reviewed. Any concerns, or opportunities for
improvements, can be brought forward and be considered and the Forum is able to agree
investment where justified.
6Annex A
Entries and Exits 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Bishops Stortford 2,346,220 2,464,026 2,660,140 2,820,376 2,920,187 3,030,210 3,104,298 3,165,150 3,179,796 3,259,594 3,074,350
Year-on-year
change 5.0% 8.0% 6.0% 3.5% 3.8% 2.4% 2.0% 0.5% 2.5% -5.7%
Source: Table 1415 - Time series of passenger entries and exits by station (https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1908/table-1415-time-series-of-passenger-
entries-and-exits-and-interchanges-by-station.ods)
7Annex B
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Bishops Stortford 2,464,403 2,480,700 2,346,220 2,464,026 2,660,140 2,820,376 2,920,187 3,030,210 3,104,298 3,165,150 3,179,796 3,259,594 3,074,350
Harlow Town 1,712,840 1,660,404 1,551,930 1,542,672 1,598,508 1,689,924 1,700,148 1,791,452 1,850,868 1,908,742 1,886,284 1,913,192 1,876,540
BS @1.5% 3212627 3260817 3309729 3359375 3409765 3460912 3512826 3565518 3619001 3673286 3728385 3784311 3841076 3898692 3957172
HT @1.5% 1937373 1966434 1995930 2025869 2056257 2087101 2118408 2150184 2182436 2215173 2248401 2282127 2316359 2351104 2386370
Passengers per Annum at Bishop's Stortford and Harlow Town
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
Bishops Stortford Harlow Town BS @1.5% HT @1.5%
8You can also read
