The Northern Way: Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

The Northern Way: Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

The Northern Way: Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

The Northern Way: Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement April 2009

The Northern Way: Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

ii Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

The Northern Way: Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Executive Summary 1 Part 1:The Conditional Outputs 7 Part 2:The Evidence Base for the Economic Case for Enhancing Manchester Hub Capacity and Capability 13 Part 3:Disaggregated Rates of Benefit 33 Part 4:Stakeholder Aspirations 45 Part 5:Overview Of Approach To Modelling 49 Glossary 73 Contents Text and design by Steer Davies Gleave

The Northern Way: Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement
The Northern Way: Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement 01 Executive Summary Context The Manchester Hub is the network of rail corridors that link and cross in and around central Manchester.

The Northern Way has identified the Hub as the most fundamental rail bottleneck in the North of England. It limits the capacity, performance and connectivity of commuter and longer distance passenger services that either terminate in Manchester or pass through the Hub. It therefore adversely affects journeys between the North’s city regions too. It also limits the number of trains, from across the North and beyond, that can serve Manchester Airport, the North’s principal airport, as well as that can access important distribution centres for freight.

On 4th October 2007, the then Department for Transport Minister of State, Rosie Winterton, responding to the work of the Northern Way, announced that a study would be undertaken to develop proposals to enhance the capacity and functionality of the Manchester Hub. The Manchester Hub Study is being undertaken in two phases overseen by a Department for Transport-chaired Sponsors’ Group, the other members being the Northern Way, Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority and Passenger Transport Executive, and Network Rail. The Sponsors’ Group asked that the Northern Way lead the Phase 1 study.

The Phase 2 work is being led by Network Rail. Producing the Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement has been the primary purpose of the Phase 1 study and it is set out in this report.

The Outputs are described as conditional because their realisation depends on it being found possible to devise solutions which are both affordable and represent value for money. The Phase 2 work is focussing on the development of alternative rail options to meet the Conditional Output Statement and then their assessment from an operational, financial and economic perspective. The Phase 2 study will involve more detailed demand modelling work than Phase 1 (although using the same overall structure), as well as engineering assessment. The Conditional Output Statement The Conditional Output Statement for the Manchester Hub sets out the question that Network Rail, in collaboration with industry colleagues, will attempt to answer.

It seeks to define the problem in a clear way. The Conditional Output Statement is made up of five parts.

Part 1 of the Conditional Output Statement is a summary of the conditional outputs, numerically cross- referenced to the evidence base and results of the Phase 1 modelling which are presented in subsequent sections of this document. It is important to stress that the conditional outputs have been derived from a combination of the evidence base set out in Part 2 and the outputs of the modelling work. The conditional outputs also reflect the Northern Way’s established position that the North’s economic growth needs to be environmentally sustainable and in particular the importance of the North contributing to the national effort to tackle climate change.

In Part 2 of this Conditional Output Statement, the emphasis is entirely on the evidence base, and specifically, the economic evidence base. Stakeholder views and requirements (other than some specific needs of Department for Transport) are not included in Part 2, but are summarised separately in Part 4.

The Northern Way: Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

2 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Part 3 provides further information that has informed the development of the conditional outputs. It comprises a summary of the modelling tests carried out by the Northern Way to examine a package of candidate rail service improvements across the Manchester Hub and on the rail corridors leading to it.

These results have been expressed in a user-friendly format by setting out the value of economic benefits. in each corridor, and expressing the results on a £ benefit/unit change basis. The specific assumptions that lie behind these test results are important in that they reflect a plausible set of incremental improvements which were developed from consideration of stakeholder requirements. By expressing the economic value to be gained on the £ benefit/unit change basis, the Part 3 analysis has a relevance that can be applied across a wide range of scenarios that Network Rail may wish to consider in Phase 2.

As already noted, Part 4 gives an overview of the Northern Way’s consultation with high level stakeholders from across the North. This, along with the conclusions of a stakeholder workshop held in July 2008, led to the definition of four objectives for the Hub Study. Part 4 shows how meeting the conditional outputs set out in Part 1 will contribute to meeting the stakeholder objectives. Part 5 is a summary of the modelling methodology that has been applied. More detailed technical reports on the Phase 1 economic forecasting that has been undertaken by Experian and Steer Davies Gleave’s modelling and appraisal work have been published separately by the Northern Way and are available on our website.

Rail Corridors To support the development the Conditional Output Statement, the Northern Way has defined 14 rail corridors, each of which converge on the Manchester Hub. These corridors have been used to disaggregate the forecasts of future demand and potential benefits set out in Parts 3 and 5. They have also been used in the specification of a number of the Conditional Outputs, which are set out in Part 1. The corridors are listed in Table 1 and shown geographically on Map 1. Map 1 Manchester Hub Corridors

The Northern Way: Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement 03 1 Southport via Wigan 2 Preston and the North via Bolton 3 Blackburn 4 Bradford via Rochdale 5 Yorkshire and the Humber & the North East via Leeds 6 Glossop / Hadfield 7 Marple / Romiley 8 Yorkshire and the Humber & the East Midlands via Sheffield 9 Buxton 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) 11 Manchester Airport 12 Chester via Northwich 13 Liverpool via Irlam (CLC) 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington (Chat Moss) Key Findings There is an extensive evidence base about how the economic performance of the North is affected by transport links in general and rail links in particular.

Evidence shows that to support economic growth there needs to be adequate capacity, and that journeys can be made reliably and with reasonable journey times: within city regions; ● ● between city regions; and ● ● to access international gateways. ● ● It shows that within city regions there remains scope to connect areas of economic need with areas of economic growth. Not all city regions are equally well connected. Facilitating economic growth may require provision of new links to provide new capacity and capability. It shows the key role that rail has to play in delivering economic growth.

In themselves, the modelling tests undertaken by the Northern Way reveal some key pointers on the scale of the economic benefit from the Manchester Hub. Two demand growth scenarios have been considered. In the Trend scenario we have assumed that the North’s economy grows in line with the Department for Transport’s standard appraisal assumptions. In the Trend Plus scenario we have assumed that the North’s regions and city regions successfully deliver their economic development plans, which results in the North’s economy growing at a faster rate. A Test Timetable has been used to assess the potential level of benefit from Hub enhancement.

This Test Timetable is a plausible set of incremental enhancements to journey times and service frequencies together with potential inter-connections between passenger services on each of the rail corridors that converge in the Manchester Hub.

The most significant finding from this new work is simply this: in a scenario with Trend growth a package of plausible incremental service enhancements to commuter and longer distance passengers services offering greater connectivity to and across central Manchester brings overall economic benefits of £12.7bn (PV over the life of the project). In the Trend Plus scenario these benefits increase to £16.2bn PV. This indicates that Manchester Hub is a challenge worth devoting considerable resources to tackling, whether or not the Trend or Trend Plus projections are used as a basis for the Phase 2 work.

It is also clear that the distribution of benefits is widely spread: Manchester Hub is not about one or two key flows. Instead, we observe that growth prospects are highest on south Manchester local commuter markets, whilst the greatest rates of benefits are on the main corridors linking the Table 1 Manchester Hub Corridors

The Northern Way: Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement 04 adjacent city regions to Manchester. There are also very significant benefits related to West Coast Main Line services to London and in the railfreight sector. Manchester Hub is about solving a problem that affects the development of national, regional and local rail services, about freight and passenger services. The scale of benefits on offer suggests that it will be right to consider radical as well as incremental solutions. Some of the key results are summarised in the panel below. Whether or not appropriate measures and schemes can be developed to secure this range and type of benefit will depend on what emerges from Network Rail’s work ahead.

Until then, the Outputs are described as conditional because their realisation depends on it being found possible to devise solutions which are both affordable and represent value for money.

Within the North, commuter and inter-urban services on the five corridors to Yorkshire ● ● and the Humber and North East via Leeds, Preston and the North via Bolton, Yorkshire and the Humber and East Midlands via Sheffield and the two to Liverpool dominate rail demand on services that use the Manchester Hub. The West Coast Main Line Corridor to the south is the largest of all. In the Trend and Trend Plus scenarios these corridors provide the largest ● ● quantity of forecast growth. In the Trend and Trend Plus scenarios the fastest ● ● rate of growth is projected to occur on corridors where commuting to Manchester is the dominant flow.

The corridors to Marple/Romiley, Buxton and Manchester Airport corridors have the highest rates of growth in the Trend scenario. In the Trend Plus scenario, the corridors to Bradford via Rochdale, Marple/Romiley and Buxton have the highest growth rates. In the Trend and Trend Plus scenarios the greatest level of incremental benefit per unit ● ● of generalised journey time improvement is in the following corridors: London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) ● ● Yorkshire and the Humber & North East via Leeds ● ● Preston and the North via Bolton ● ● Yorkshire and the Humber & East Midlands via Sheffield ● ● Manchester Airport ● ● In the Trend scenario the greatest level of incremental benefit per unit increase of ● ● capacity is in the following corridors: Yorkshire and the Humber & East Midlands via Sheffield ● ● London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) ● ● Preston and the North via Bolton ● ● Yorkshire and the Humber & North East via Leeds ● ● Liverpool via Irlam ● ● In the Trend Plus scenario the Leeds and Preston corridors are reversed in this ● ● ranking.

Summary of key results

The Northern Way: Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement 05 What is clear, however, is that the preferred way forward needs to support the growth of rail commuting and business travel into central Manchester, the most significant location of employment in the North’s largest city region. It needs to support enhanced connectivity between the North’s city regions and between the North and the rest of the country. It needs to support the growth of Manchester Airport by increasing rail’s mode share as the airport grows. Finally, it needs to support the growth in inter-modal containers, both for established markets and by facilitating new markets too.

Stakeholder Engagement As we have already noted, high level consultation with stakeholders from across the North led to the definition of four objectives for the Manchester Hub study. These were discussed and confirmed at a stakeholder meeting held on 29th July 2008. This meeting also furthered our understanding of what stakeholders see as problems and issues around the Manchester Hub, as well as their aspirations for the future. The discussions at the stakeholder meeting helped inform the package of service improvements that was tested by the modelling work and helped inform the specification of the conditional outputs.

Reports on the high level consultation exercise and the July 2008 stakeholder group can be downloaded from the Northern Way’s website (www.thenorthernway.co.uk). Prior to the finalisation of the conditional outputs set out in Part 1 of this report, a second stakeholder meeting was held on 18th March 2009. The then draft conditional outputs were presented to that meeting and were broadly endorsed by the attendees. The conditional outputs have also been endorsed by the Northern Way Steering Group and the Northern Transport Compact.

The Northern Way: Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

6 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement 07 The Northern Way has identified 10 conditional outputs that Network Rail, in collaboration with industry colleagues, should seek to meet when developing and then identifying the way forward for the Manchester Hub. These relate to: Capacity and Flexibility 1. Carbon Reduction 2. Performance 3. Journey Times 4. Growth Centres in Greater 5. Manchester Connectivity to Deliver Economic 6. Benefits Manchester Airport 7. Trans Pennine 8. North South Links and High Speed 9.

Rail Freight 10.

1. Capacity and Flexibility Future growth in demand has 1.1 been projected on the basis of detailed studies of population and employment trends and the application of demand models consistent with Department for Transport (DfT) standard econometric inputs and rail forecasting methods. In the Trend scenario it is assumed that the North’s economy grows in line with the Department for Transport’s standard appraisal assumptions. In the Trend Plus scenario it is assumed that the North’s three regions and eight city regions successfully deliver their development plans, which results in the North’s economy growing at a faster rate.

The growth in demand should be 1.2 taken as the central requirement in terms of capacity. In general, growth of between 39% (Trend) and 54% (Trend Plus) can be expected by 2020. Of course, service enhancements arising from the Hub solutions are likely to increase demand further. Differential growth rates are forecast on each corridor, with typically the shorter distance suburban corridors having higher average growth rates and the longer distance corridors showing the greatest amounts of growth. Adequate capacity needs to be 1.3 provided to accommodate Trend growth to 2019/20 in longer distance, commuting and other local rail journeys, with average crowding being no greater than implied by the capacity metrics for 2013/14 for Manchester in the Department for Transport’s 2007 High Level Output Statement for the rail industry1 .

For the Trend scenario after 1.4 2019/20 and in relation to the Trend Plus scenario, the identified Manchester Hub proposal should be ‘future- proofed’ to accommodate these higher growth rates without a requirement for further major infrastructure works beyond the identified proposals but through measures such as train lengthening. It is important to note that these 1.5 demand projections do not fully take into account the economic recession. In practice, this may be taken as having a delay impact on projections of demand growth.

[Part 2 References: 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34] {Part 3: Tables 1 and 2 above are from the analysis described in Part 3, also Paragraph 3.8} {Part 5: Tables 4 and 5} 1 Appendix A to Delivering a Sustainable Railway Cm 7176, July 2007 The Conditional Outputs Part 1: Note: The number in square brackets [ ] at the end of each Conditional Output refers to documents cited in Part 2 and included in the Part 2 list of references.

Paragraph and table references shown in curly brackets { } identify the relevant sourcing available from the results of the modelling work summarised in Part 3, and in the case of growth, Part 5. These form the evidence-base for the inclusion of each Conditional Output within the overall Conditional Output Statement.

Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement 08 2.Carbon Reduction The net effect of the Manchester 1.6 Hub proposals on the overall carbon trajectory for the transport sector which in due course will be adopted by Government should be demonstrated. If possible, the effect of Manchester Hub in terms of in-service operation should be to contribute to the trajectory of reduced carbon emissions as set in national level overall targets for the transport sector.2 [Part 2 References: 8, 27, 28] 3.Performance Network performance should be 1.7 such that delay minutes on franchised services in the Manchester area will not be worsened by meeting the Manchester Hub Conditional Outputs and that the performance of franchised rail services in the Manchester area is kept consistent with the High Level Output Statement and in line with targets set nationally.

In respect of Airport services, as the available evidence is that good reliability and performance is of particular significance to encourage rail use by airline passengers, the conditional requirement is to improve performance further as a priority.

[Part 2 References: 5, 6, 9, 14, 15, 16, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 41] 2  Besides taking account of consequences for carbon emissions from changes to the pattern and density of rail services (diesel and electric) arising from the Manchester Hub, it would be appropriate to take into account carbon savings from diversion of demand away from more carbon-intensive travel modes. It is not considered appropriate at this stage to set a carbon target related to construction phases (although this may follow subsequently as a matter of good practice).

4. Journey Times In addition, the evidence is that 1.8 for the economies of the northern city regions to function effectively together, they need to be provided with much speedier inter-connections.

There are no absolute cut-offs or thresholds which define acceptability for the key journey times: quicker still, will always be advantageous. However, based on the need to 1.9 achieve regular interval city centre to city centre times that are recognisably faster than by car, and adopting 60 miles per hour as a benchmark, these are target journey times for the key corridors, from a Manchester City Centre station (either Victoria or Piccadilly) to the principal adjoining city regions3 : Leeds 40 minutes ● ● 4 (and Bradford 50 minutes, recognising route characteristics) Sheffield 40 minutes ● ● Chester 40 minutes ● ● Liverpool 30 minutes ● ● Preston 30 minutes.

● ● It is also of course the case that 1.10 the economic and other benefits of commuting and other local trip making by rail are increased by reducing overall journey times, a function of station to station times, service frequency and wider accessibility considerations. [Part 2 References: 1, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 19, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34] {Part 3: Tables 1-6} 3  Typical off-peak journey times from Manchester Piccadilly are Leeds 55 minutes, Sheffield 48 minutes, Chester 63 minutes, Liverpool 52 minutes, Preston 42 minutes; and from Manchester Victoria, Bradford 69 minutes In the 2007 Rail White Paper, the Department for Transport committed to reduce the Leeds journey time to 43 minutes and the Liverpool journey time to 40 minutes 4  Assuming dwell times at Leeds and York are also minimised, this would give journey times to Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Hull of 133, 124 and 101 minutes respectively.

Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement 09 5.Growth Centres in Greater Manchester To support the growth and 1.11 regeneration of the Manchester/Salford Regional Centre, from each principal rail corridor5 to each sub-area6 within the Regional Centre there should be either: a direct rail service; or ● ● a service that requires no more than ● ● a single interchange for onward travel by rail, Metrolink or Metroshuttle. To support growth elsewhere in 1.12 Greater Manchester, from each principal rail corridor to each of the key town centres7 , there should be either: a direct rail service; or ● ● a service that requires no more ● ● than a single interchange, by rail or Metrolink.

To support growth outside the 1.13 Regional Centre, from each principal rail corridor to Salford Quays there should be a service that requires no more than a single interchange by bus or Metrolink. Recognising that the development 1.14 and then promotion of Metrolink options is a matter for the Greater Manchester authorities rather than Network Rail, the future role of Metrolink tram-train conversions should be taken as being 5  Corridor 2 (serving Preston), Corridor 4 (serving Bradford/Halifax); Corridor 5 (serving Newcastle/ Tees Valley/Hull/Leeds); Corridor 8 (serving Sheffield, South Humber Bank and the East Midlands); Corridor 10 (serving London/ Birmingham); Corridor 13 (serving Liverpool), Corridor 14 (serving Chester/North Wales and Liverpool); together with Corridor 11 serving Manchester Airport 6  The Regional Centre comprises the following sub- area: Central Business District, Retail Core, Eastern Gateway, Piccadilly Gateway, Oxford Road Corridor, Spinningfields, Chapel Street, Victoria, Northern Quarter, Southern Gateway, The Village, Petersfield, Castlefield, Left Bank and Chinatown.

Plans for the physical and transport development of these quarters are set out within the 2008 draft Regional Centre Transport Strategy.

7  These are defined in the Local Transport Plan and are Ashton-under-Lyne, Oldham, Rochdale, Bury, Bolton, Wigan, Altrincham and Stockport ‘in scope’ for the Phase 2 work. Similarly, while the development and promotion of bus links is also a matter for the Greater Manchester authorities, the Phase 2 work will need to be mindful of such opportunities. [Part 2 References: 5, 14, 20] {Part 3: Tables 1, 2, 4, 5} 6.Connectivity to Deliver Economic Benefits8 All principal corridors 1.15 9 to be connected if possible to the same station in Manchester City Centre for easy passenger transfer (or through cross-Manchester operation), as well as other central area stations appropriate to the travel market.

The economic analysis 1.16 undertaken for this project shows that cross-city movements deliver significant incremental unit benefits which in some cases are greater than those from point to point improvements on existing services. The improved connectivity should therefore be used: (a) where possible, to promote direct cross-city movements (for which train service provision and hence franchising costs will also generally experience cost efficiencies), or (b) where this cannot be done, to facilitate convenient passenger 8  The evidence from the economic analysis is that the greatest rates of benefit can stem from improvement in cross-city connectivity.

These journeys have a more strongly competitive road- based alternative given the more dispersed trip pattern and the existence of the complete orbital motorway at Manchester. Northern Way’s analysis [33] shows that road congestion across the North is going to worsen, even with smarter choices, the application of the Highway Agency’s Managed Motorways approach and Intelligent Transport Systems and therefore there is a need to provide a non-congested alternative suitable for high value business use. In addition, there is a need to encourage spillover effects from the key growth centres in the city regions to secondary centres where the economy is most sluggish [1,10].

This means an improvement to links such as those between places north of Manchester to the prosperous band of greater job opportunity on the south side of Manchester, for example. 9 As defined in footnote 5

10 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement interchange. This is best done at a single Manchester City Centre station to avoid circuitous, time consuming/ counter-intuitive routeing. [Part 2 References: 2, 3, 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 20, 22, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36] {Part 3: Tables 2, 5}10 7.Manchester Airport To allow the expansion of the 1.17 Airport to its airside capacity so that it can fulfil its wider potential to support the growth of the Northern economy, it will be necessary to maximise rail mode share on existing corridors and expand the set of major rail destinations directly accessible from the Airport to increase overall rail mode share of surface access trips.

As well as destinations across the North, account needs to be taken of the potential to improve links from the Airport to North Wales and the West and North Midlands.

The requirement is for direct 1.18 11 services of at least hourly interval service frequency in each of the principal corridors12 (30 minutes in the case of the Yorkshire and the Humber and North East via Leeds corridor) on a 7 day/week basis with service start and finish time giving 95% of air passengers the option of using rail for their inbound and outbound legs connecting the Airport with each of the Northern city regions. Services should share in the journey time gains (as in Output 4) and performance gains (as specified in Output 3).

[Part 2 References: 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 41, 42] {Part 3: Tables 2, 5 – line 11} 10  See “To Other Manchester Hub Corridors” columns in these tables.

11  With recognition given to longer term stakeholder ambitions for no interchange en route and in the case of Corridors 8 and 10, direct services to the Airport without the need to pass through central Manchester. 12 As defined in footnote 5 8.Trans Pennine Overall The three Trans Pennine corridors 1.19 form the spine for City Region to City Region links across the North to and from Liverpool and Central Lancashire in the west through to Tyne and Wear, Tees Valley and Hull and the Humber in the east. To support a high frequency, high quality, regular interval core express service that links all of the Northern City Regions in a way designed to maximise the number of direct city region to city region linkages, and meeting the enhanced journey times and performance targets (Conditional Outputs 3 and 4).

Leeds – Manchester With a 15 minute interval service (or better) Sheffield – Manchester With a 20 minute service interval Bradford/Halifax – Manchester With a 30 minute service interval [Part 2 References: 5, 6, 7, 14, 16, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 36, 40] {Part 3: Tables 3, 6} 9.North South Links and High Speed Rail To meet forecasts and 1.20 requirements13 for a doubling of West Coast Main Line demand by 2026 and with such provision as indicated as being appropriate by the National Networks Strategy Group, to accommodate High Speed 2 (HS2) options to and beyond central Manchester, together with a possible parkway station.

[Part 2 References: 5, 6, 8, 14, 20, 26, 27, 28] {Part 3: Table 7} 13  In terms of capacity at terminals and access/ egress capacity, and to meet journey time and performance requirements as set out in the DfT West Coast Strategy and as advised in due course by DfT in relation to HSR/West Coast relief line in respect of such issues as train length and route electrification.

11 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement The Northern Way’s Strategic Direction for Transport identifies that to support economic growth of the North there needs to be adequate capacity, so that journeys can be made reliably and with reasonable journey times for links within city regions, between city regions and to access international gateways.

Meeting the Conditional Outputs will contribute to meeting these needs by: Within Manchester City Region ● ● Providing capacity for commuting (Output 1) ● ● Which is reliable and punctual (Output 3) ● ● And has attractive journey times and frequencies (Output 4) ● ● Serving range of destinations in the City Region (Output 5) ● ● Offering connectivity to interchange to other rail services (Output 6) ● ● Between City Regions ● ● Providing capacity for longer distance trips (Output 1) ● ● Which is reliable and punctual (Output 3) ● ● And has attractive journey times and frequencies (Output 4) ● ● Enhances city regions to city regions connectivity (Output 6) particularly on the key trans ● ● Pennine corridor (Output 8) and north south links (Output 9) To international gateways ● ● Enhances rail access across the North to Manchester Airport (Output 7) ● ● Supports growth in inter-modal rail freight (Output 10) ● ● Underpinning the Northern Way’s Strategic Direction for Transport is the need for the North to contribute to the national effort to tackle climate change through the development of a low carbon transport system (Output 2) 10.Freight Provision for a doubling of 1.21 freight tonnage from existing and new origins and destinations to/from the multi-modal terminals at Trafford Park and elsewhere in the North West by 203014 .

[Part 2 References: 21, 24, 27, 26, 27, 28, 37] {Part 3: Paragraph 3.10} 14  As per DfT Rail White Paper Delivering a Sustainable Railway Cm 7176, July 2007

12 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

13 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Introduction There is extensive evidence on how 2.1 the economic performance of the North is affected by transport links in general and rail links in particular. There is also evidence on the specific economic case for investment in the Manchester Hub. This evidence is the subject of Part 2.

It should be recognised that 2.2 the relationship between transport investment and economic growth has been the subject of much research over many years and that while our understanding of this inter-relationship may be improving, there is always scope to argue both the generalities and the specifics of particular pieces of evidence.

Of course, promoting the 2.3 economy is not the only objective of the Government’s transport agenda which also includes environmental considerations (including carbon) and quality of life issues. Equally, the Manchester Hub is not the only transport intervention that will facilitate economic growth in the North, although stakeholders across the North have agreed it to be the most important challenge facing the rail network of the North. Regions, City Regions and the Economy As part of the 2007 Comprehensive 2.4 Spending Review, the Government set out its vision for the performance of the English regions: “The Government’s central economic objective is to raise the rate of sustainable growth and achieve rising prosperity and a better quality of life, with economic and employment opportunities for all.

Unfulfilled economic potential must be released to increase the long-term growth rate of the UK. The Government’s vision is that every region in England should perform to its full potential and become more competitive in an increasingly global economy.” (HMT, 2007:3) The importance of the contribution 2.5 of the Britain’s city regions to regional and national economic prosperity has become widely recognised. They are the drivers of economic growth, which means that the economic growth of our cities, regional economic growth and economic growth of the country as a whole are inextricably linked.

Consequently in recent years supporting the sustainable economic growth of cities has become a centrepiece of urban and transport policy (ODPM (2000), Northern Way (2004), Eddington (2006), Parkinson (2006a), Parkinson (2006b), Department for Transport (DfT) (2007)). However, it is also well established that the North’s city regions while making a substantial contribution to the national economy, on a per capita basis under perform the national average and city region economies in the South East. The North’s city regions are not meeting their full potential (Parkinson (2006a)). The Evidence Base for the Part 2: Economic Case for Enhancing Manchester Hub Capacity and Capability City region economies drive regional and national growth.

The North’s city regions perform below the national average and are not meeting their full potential. The Government has set out its vision that each region should perform to its full economic potential.

14 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Connectivity and the Economy Eddington (2006) argued that the 2.6 UK is already well connected and that the key economic challenge is to improve the performance of the existing network. He argued that to meet its economic goals of supporting sustainable growth Government should prioritise “action on those parts of the system where networks are critical in supporting economic growth and that there are clear signals that these networks are not performing” (Eddington (2006:6)). To Eddington, this means concentrating on the capacity and performance of existing links.

However, while arguing that the nation is broadly well connected, he recognised that there could be a case for “the addition of new links to support the growth and performance of the labour market in growing and congested urban areas” (Eddington (2006:13)). This led to a policy prescription from Eddington consistent with the position that the Northern Way reached in its earlier 2004 Growth Strategy, namely that: “[t]he strategic economic priorities for transport policy should be: congested and growing urban areas and their catchments; together with key inter- urban corridors and key international gateways that are showing signs of increasing congestion and unreliability.” Eddington (2006:32) This policy prescription has since 2.7 been endorsed by the Department for Transport in its Towards a Sustainable Transport System (DfT, 2007), its response to the Eddington and Stern reports and more recently in Delivering a Sustainable Transport System (DfT, 2008a), in which the Department sets out its processes towards developing an expenditure plan for the period 2014 to 2019 within the context of a longer term sustainable transport strategy.

Covering both the economy and the Government’s wider agenda, the Department has set its goals for the transport system to be: “ ● ● to support national economic competitiveness and growth, by delivering reliable and efficient transport networks; to reduce transport’s emissions of ● ● carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, with the desired outcome of tackling climate change; to contribute to better safety, security ● ● and health and longer life expectancy by reducing the risk of death, injury or illness arising from transport, and by promoting travel modes that are beneficial to health; to promote greater equality of ● ● opportunity for all citizens, with the desired outcome of achieving a fairer society; and to improve quality of life for transport ● ● users and non-transport users, and to promote a healthy natural environment.” DfT (2008a:7) The Department also helpfully 2.8 restates Eddington’s conclusion that the connectivity of the nation’s transport network is good is a “broad generalistion” but “it is not equally true for all cities” (DfT (2008a:21)).

It is recognised that there may be a need to develop new links as well as enhance the capacity and performance of existing ones.

To support economic growth there needs to be adequate capacity, so that journeys can be made reliably and with reasonable journey times: within city regions; ● ● between city regions; and ● ● to access international ● ● gateways. Not all city regions are equally well connected. Facilitating economic growth may require provision of new links to provide new capacity and capability.

15 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Connectivity and the North’s City Regions The Northern Way (2004) in its 2.9 Growth Strategy identifies a number of reasons why there is a differential economic performance between the North and the South, and between the city regions of the North.

Each is strongly influenced by the historic legacy of the Northern economy which was largely dependent on manufacturing and extractive industries, but has since the 1970s experienced a significant shift away from these traditional industries to a more service-based economy (although manufacturing remains an important industry in the North). The goal of the Northern Way is to help address the underperformance of the North’s economy as a whole by promoting the accelerated growth of the North’s eight city regions15 . To this end, the Northern Way Growth Strategy identifies the importance of enhancing the North’s skill base, supporting the development of a more entrepreneurial culture, supporting greater innovation by firms in the North, promoting more sustainable communities, raising the international profile of the North and enhancing the North’s connectivity.

The Northern Way Growth 2.10 Strategy echoes the findings of others that while good connectivity alone is not a sufficient condition to support economic growth it is a necessary one. Similar conclusions were made by Parkinson et al (2006a, 2006b) and Institute of Political and Economic Governance (IPEG) et al (2008), who in particular found that, “whilst it is not an absolute truth to claim that places become economically successful because they are well connected, [we] found powerful evidence of correspondence between the two” (IPEG (2008:18)).

15  These are: Liverpool, Manchester, Central Lancashire, Sheffield, Leeds, Hull and the Humber, Tees Valley and Tyne and Wear. While pre-dating Eddington, 2.11 with regard to connectivity the Growth Strategy identified a policy prescription almost identical to that later piece of work, namely: enhancing links within the North’s ● ● city regions, particularly by public transport enhancing links between the North’s ● ● city regions, notably the Leeds Manchester corridor enhancing links to port and airport ● ● international gateways, both in the North and elsewhere in the UK Enhancing connectivity within the North’s city regions, between the North’s city regions and to international gateways is an integral part of the Northern Way’s Growth Strategy to accelerate the North’s economic growth.

There is good evidence to support this contention. Connectivity between the North’s City Regions Ensuring appropriate and 2.12 adequate connectivity within and between city regions, and to and from international gateways is an integral part of the policy prescription from Eddington and in their response to Eddington, the approach adopted by the Department for Transport. Looking at the North overall, the Northern Way has identified that existing connectivity between the North’s city regions is seen as an impediment to maximising the rate of economic growth in the North.

16 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Moving beyond the general 2.13 prescription of Eddington that links between and within city regions are important to economic growth, how the city regions in the North interact and the importance of linkages between them has been explored in some depth first by Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures (SURF) et al (2006) in a study for NWDA that focussed on the North West, and subsequently as part of a North-wide analysis by IPEG et al (2008) for the Northern Way. The study by SURF et al for 2.14 NWDA used five research strands to inform the derivation of their overall findings.

These were surveys of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), which were conducted with the collaboration of key Chambers of Commerce; work with secondary data sources to look at the organisation of larger firms; work looking at the interaction between key higher education institutions and businesses; interviews with key corporations; and, analysis of econometric data. From these five workstreams SURF et al identified four key activity clusters that stood out in terms of their importance in contributing to the North West’s economy and their recent economic dynamism. These are Manchester (particularly south Manchester and north Cheshire), Liverpool, Chester/ North Wales and Preston.

They also identified as important the economic linkages between the North West and West Yorkshire in general, and Manchester and Leeds in particular, both in terms of overlapping journey to work catchments and the potential for greater business to business interaction. Their work highlighted the importance to businesses in these five nodes of access to international air services at Manchester Airport. SURF et al concluded: 2.15 “the economic importance of our five nodes will continue to grow in future years. All the evidence is that ‘path dependency’ is a powerful logic that is likely to see recent trends being maintained and deepened.

As a result, economic and spatial strategies for the

17 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement North West that aim to realize economic potential need to: (a) give substantial attention to the four [North West] nodes and the connections between them; and (b) continue to bear in mind the opportunities that might arise from developments across the Pennines” SURF et al (2006: unpaginated) Their work also led them to 2.16 conclude: “The crucial importance, for … ● ● [the North West], of expanding the international linkages provided by Manchester Airport and further improving its accessibility along with that of the quickly-expanding John Lennon airport whose growth has underpinned recent economic improvement in the Liverpool city- region The importance of improvements ● ● in connectivity within city-regions in enabling stronger labour market linkages between areas of need and growth, and The economic value of good quality, ● ● fast and reliable transport links to London.” SURF et al (2006: unpaginated) The work by IPEG et al (2008) 2.17 extends the analysis undertaken by SURF et al to the whole of the North.

Again using a mixture of targeted surveys, analyses of econometric data and analyses of secondary data sources, the work explored three themes: the roles and economic functions of the North’s city regions, connectivity within and between city regions and how the North’s city regions stand within a national hierarchy. IPEG et al concluded: 2.18 “the prosperity of the North as a whole will be increasingly driven by the economic performance of the Manchester and Leeds city regions and the putative growth belt that connects them to the Sheffield and Liverpool city regions, the smaller outlying growth centres around York, Chester and Preston and the Tyne and Wear city region in the North East” IPEG et al (2008:35) and “This invites…a strategic approach to inter-city connectivity focused upon prioritising interaction between relative ‘equals’ (for instance Manchester and Leeds) or between centres which vary in their economic specialisms (for instance Liverpool and Manchester) which would also improve the labour market between them.

There would appear to be particular value in developing this approach to promoting cross-Pennine links – including better access to Manchester Airport from Leeds – given that the Pennines continue to act as a barrier to realising the joint agglomeration potential of the North’s largest and most dynamic city regions” IPEG et al (2008:37) As part of a Research 2.19 Programme, the Northern Way is sponsoring work by the LSE’s Spatial Economics Research Centre (SERC) which will extend further the evidence base on the future development of economic links between Leeds and Manchester. This work is scheduled to conclude in autumn 2009 and will then be published on the Northern Way’s web site.

Enhancing links between the North’s city regions will support and facilitate future economic growth. Enhancing the trans- Pennine corridor will support growth of the North’s two largest city region economies and will also benefit the wider North.

18 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Connectivity within the North’s City Regions As has already been highlighted, 2.20 city regions are seen as the engines of economic growth. The importance of connectivity within city regions to support economic growth has been identified by the Northern Way Growth Strategy (Northern Way, 2004), the Northern Way’s Strategic Direction for Transport (2006) and by Eddington (2006).

Through their City Region Development Programmes and other strategic documents, city regions across the North have each identified the importance of enhancing connectivity within city regions to support future economic growth. What is seen across the North 2.21 is that in peak hours road networks are operating at or close to their operational capacity (Steer Davies Gleave, 2008b). Congestion leads to extended journey times and unreliable journeys. This has an economic cost. Significantly, there is little capacity for peak hour trip growth by road, with growth in trip making accommodated by either peak spreading (which in turn results in congestion being experienced in other time periods) or by increasing public transport use.

This is the experience of 2.22 Leeds and Manchester, the two most significant city economies in the North. In recent years both city centres have experienced employment growth while neither city centre has experienced commensurate growth in peak hour car commuting. However, both city centres have experienced a significant growth in peak hour rail (and in the case of Manchester, Metrolink) demand (see GMTU (2008), Metro (2008)). This has led to the conclusion that it is public transport which has accommodated recent growth in city centre employment in these two key locations in the North. However, this growth has occurred at a time when rail has had a degree of excess capacity and has been able to accommodate growth.

Now on- train crowding is becoming significant (Network Rail, 2007 and 2008) so the absence of capacity to accommodate further growth in peak period rail trip making, as well as the constraints on the rail network’s scope and reach have been identified as a threat to the city’s future economic growth (Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA), (2007)). Manchester’s rail network has facilitated the city’s sustainable economic growth by supporting the growth in city centre employment. However, on-train crowding and the current scope and reach of the network limits the scope for future growth.

By comparing the economic 2.23 interactions between Reading and London, and Burnley and Manchester, Centre for Cities (2008) focussed on the links between large city region economies and smaller towns and cities that fall within their economic influence. They found that towns such as Burnley are not integrated within the Manchester labour market despite being close in terms of distance. This was in marked contrast to the situation observed between Reading and London where Centre for Cities identified a strong economic interaction. They went on to identify the strong transport links between Reading and London and the poor transport links between Burnley and Manchester as explanatory factors.

They conclude “the issues of connectivity between core cities and their neighbouring areas play a key role in explaining differences in economic performance in regional economic performance between the North and Greater South East” (Centre for Cities (2008:18)).leading to a prescription that

19 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement enhanced links between core cities in the North (such as Manchester) and smaller near-by towns would increase the spill-over effects from the larger economy and boost economic growth. As IPEG at al (2008) describe 2.24 the effect of poor connectivity leading to limited economic interaction is not limited to towns close to the larger city economies. It can also occur within city regions. Looking at the Manchester City Region IPEG at al show that while GVA in the Greater Manchester South NUTS3 area has grown more than any other location in the North, growth in Greater Manchester North has been lowest.

In part this is attributed to the relatively poor north-south links within the Manchester City Region resulting in the north of the conurbation not enjoying spillover effects from growth in the south.

Supported by the Northern Way’s 2.25 Research Programme, work is in hand to look further at the spillover effects from stronger to weaker economies identified by Centre for Cities. The findings of this work will be published on the Northern Way’s web site in due course. Linking areas of economic need such as North Manchester or the Pennine Lancashire towns with locations with stronger economic growth like Manchester City Centre, South Manchester and around Manchester Airport supports the stronger areas by extending labour markets, while at the same time facilitating spill over effects into the weaker areas.

International Links Thus far we have summarised the 2.26 evidence on the importance to future economic growth of links within and between city regions and links within city regions. Also of importance is international connectivity. York Aviation (2006) in their study of the economic importance of the Manchester Airport Group companies has identified the following economic impacts of air transport: Direct impacts: employment, income ● ● or outputs that are wholly or largely related to the operation of an airport and are generated either on-site or in the surrounding area Indirect impacts: employment, ● ● income or outputs that are in the chain of suppliers of goods and services to the direct activities Induced impacts: employment, ● ● income or outputs that are due to household spending resulting from direct and indirect employment Catalytic impacts: employment, ● ● income or outputs that are generated by new businesses locating to the region, inward investments and inbound tourism; and Productivity/competitive advantage ● ● impacts: employment, income or outputs gains amongst existing businesses in the economy due to increased export volumes and productivity improvements.

20 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement As York Aviation highlight, while 2.27 challenging to quantify, the consensus is that the catalytic impacts and the productivity and competitive advantage impacts of air transport greatly outweigh the direct, indirect and induced impacts. These significant impacts come about because provision of international air services: is an important element in company ● ● location decisions. The presence of an international airport can be a important factor in: attracting new investment from ● ● outside the area, and especially companies from overseas; retaining existing companies ● ● in the area, whether they had previously been inward investors or indigenous operations; securing the expansion of ● ● existing companies in the face of competition with other areas; promotes the export success of ● ● companies located in the area by the provision of passenger and freight links to key markets; enhances the competitiveness of ● ● the economy, and the companies in it, through its fast and efficient passenger and freight services; attracts inbound tourism, including ● ● both business and leisure visitors, to the area.

Manchester Airport is the most 2.28 significant airport in the North, catering for more passengers than all the other northern airports combined. It is the only airport in the North with a network of inter-continental scheduled services and the only airport in the North that caters for a substantial volume of air freight. It is the largest airport in the UK outside the South East and the only airport in the North identified in Delivering a Sustainable Transport System as a key international airport gateway (DfT, 2008a).

Manchester Airport (2007) has 2.29 identified that surface access capacity is the most significant constraint on its future growth and therefore the economic benefits that it can help deliver to the Northern economy.

It has identified increasing public transport mode share as the most effective and efficient way of overcoming these constraints. Unpublished market research 2.30 undertaken in 2005 for Trans Pennine Express (ORC International, 2005) has demonstrated that while the period from 05:00 to 10:00 has the greatest volume of travellers arriving at Manchester Airport to check-in for their departing flights, it also has lower rail mode share than the period from 10:00 to 16:00. Air passengers have a high awareness of rail as an access option, but do not use it as rail does not allow them to arrive at the airport in time for their flight.

The same research also shows that for those air passengers who consider using rail the three most significant deterrents were the frequency of service, journey reliability and lack of a direct service. The importance of direct services 2.31 has been quantified by Lythgoe and Wardman (2002), who demonstrated that air passengers using rail to access an airport have a greater value of time than other rail passengers and also that they place a greater penalty on interchange than other types of rail passenger. Interestingly, Lythgoe and Wardman also showed that the elasticity to GDP of air travellers is greater than for other rail passengers (this means that the number of air passengers using rail grows at a faster rate for each unit of GDP growth than other rail passengers).

The finding on interchange has been reinforced by work by consultants LEK (2003) in a study commissioned jointly by Manchester Airport Group, the DfT, the Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail to develop rail options for

21 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Manchester Airport, in turn to inform the 2004 Airports White Paper. This work concluded that the city centre catchment area is much less important to Manchester Airport, than the centre of London is to the London airports. Using 2001 data it showed that rail’s market share is highest in the areas served by North Trans Pennine services (13.9%) and the Lancaster/Windermere/ Barrow services (15.4%), compared with the then average rail share of 5.3%. This work reported statistical analysis which showed that whether or not locations were linked by direct services to Manchester Airport was a significant explanatory variable for rail mode share, with those locations with direct services having a higher mode share.

More recently, DfT (2008b:19) 2.32 repeated the position reached by the Northern Way that, “congestion during the peak periods on the rail services leads to delays and services being terminated at Manchester Piccadilly, with negative impacts on passenger experience. Passenger perception that rail is not reliable (because of the Manchester Hub congestion) also suppresses demand for rail travel as passengers place a high value on reliability and journey time for airport journeys.” The importance of direct rail services to airports has also been demonstrated in DfT-commissioned qualitative research on air passengers’ journey experiences by Sykes and Desai (2009:17) which reported, “where available, trains were regarded as a good alternative to road travel by some respondents, especially where the train route was straightforward and services frequent and reliable.

However, participants also worried about unscheduled cancellations of train services, delays and missed connections over which they had little control.” The evidence that direct and 2.33 reliable rail services to the airport maximise rail mode share is very strong. Manchester Airport delivers substantial economic benefits to the North which will grow as the Airport grows. Surface access capacity is the most significant constraint to the Airport’s future growth. Increasing public transport mode share is the preferred way to overcome these constraints. The three estuarial port 2.34 complexes in the North around the Humber, the Tees and the Mersey serve national roles.

Measured by tonnes lifted in 2006 Grimsby and Immingham on the Humber is the largest port in the country, Tees and Hartlepool is ranked second and the Port of Liverpool sixth. These northern ports are national assets. The Mersey ports are the principal national gateway port for short sea shipping to Ireland and deep sea shipping to North America. The Tees and Humber ports are best located to serve the Scandinavian, Baltic and North European markets. The hinterland of the North’s ports extends well beyond the three northern regions into the Midlands and Scotland, and into the South East for some traffic.

These ports play a significant 2.35 role to the economy of each of the regions within which they sit. This is through their direct contributions to employment, and through associated benefits that are opened up by the linkages created and that attract investment and business to the area. As MDS Transmodal (2006) identify, in a similar way to airports there are direct, indirect and induced economic impacts of ports, as well as catalytic impacts. Given that the vast majority of imported and exported goods arrive and depart by sea, these wider impacts are clearly substantial and are likely to be far greater in magnitude than the direct impacts which can be quantified.

22 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Together the North’s ports cater 2.36 for 36% of the tonnes handled at all British ports in 2006. Over the last decade the North’s ports have grown at a faster rate than those in the South and consequently their market share has increased (from under 30% in 1994). As MDS Transmodal (2006) highlights the growth prospects of the Northern ports are strong, particularly in the market for inter-modal containers. Given increasing congestion on the North’s motorway network, provided there is sufficient capacity and capability this will result in increased demand for movement of containers by rail to and from the North’s ports, including on the trans-Pennine corridor where in an unconstrained demand scenario there could be demand for over 50 trains per day by 2030 (Steer Davies Gleave, 2007b).

The North’s ports provide substantial economic benefits to the North which will grow as the throughput grows. Growth in throughput of inter-modal containers combined with increasing congestion on the strategic roads network will increase the demand to move containers by rail.

23 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement How Enhancing Connectivity Leads to Economic Growth The contribution that enhanced 2.37 transport links make to economic growth is captured through what are usually described as ‘conventional’ economic benefits and ‘wider’ economic benefits.

Through demand forecasting and application of cost benefit analysis it is possible to monetise both conventional and wider economic benefits. The net impact on the economy is the sum of the conventional and wider economic benefits. These benefits materialise in the economy as a mixture of additional employment and expenditure by the private sector (which in turn induces additional employment). The relationship between conventionally measured benefits, wider economic benefits and productivity gains is shown in the figure below taken from Steer Davies Gleave (2008a).

Within the conventional benefit 2.38 framework, journey time savings for people travelling for business purposes have a greater contribution to the economy than people travelling to and from work, which in turn have a greater contribution that people travelling for leisure purposes (for example to go shopping, or visit friends and relatives). From the work of the Standing 2.39 Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment (SACTRA 1999) and others it became clear that the benefits captured in the conventional framework may not be complete in all circumstances and that there are a number of ‘wider’ economic benefits that enhanced transport links may deliver.

The Department for Transport (2005) has set out what these are: More people choosing to work ● ● People choosing to work longer ● ● hours Relocation to higher productivity ● ● locations Agglomeration benefits ● ● Redress impacts of imperfect ● ● competition Non-work related user benefits (commuting, leisure etc) Other benefits (safety, emissions etc) Reduced Business Costs Agglomeration Imperfect competition Labour Market Impacts Net Element Tax Element Benefits captured in conventional appraisal Wider economic benefits (Captured in commuting user benefits) Productivity gains

24 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Agglomeration benefits, which 2.40 come about by extending the effective area that businesses can attract labour and extending the number of potential linkages between businesses that can trade with each other, have been identified as the most significant of the wider economic benefits. The impact on the economy of enhancements to the transport system is the sum of conventional and wider economic benefits. Agglomeration benefits are the most significant of the wider economic benefits.

Work has been undertaken that 2.41 has explored how enhancing transport links within and between city regions can lead to agglomeration benefits.

Steer Davies Gleave (2006) used a model of South and West Yorkshire which simulates how the rate of growth of the economy is affected by transport supply and its use to examine the impact of different intervention strategies on the economic growth of the two city regions. This work found that a strategy focussed on improving links wholly within a city region resulted in economic growth in the largest of the two city region economies under study at the expense of the smaller one. A strategy of improving links between city regions leads to more balanced growth, with both the larger and the smaller city region economies growing.

This research led to one of the central positions of the Northern Way’s Strategic Direction for Transport (Northern Way, 2006) that for the benefits of economic growth in the North to be distributed across the North (as PSA Delivery Agreement 7 has established as a Government objective), a balanced approach of enhancing links both with and between the North’s city regions is required.

This finding was further reinforced 2.42 by a subsequent study (Steer Davies Gleave, 2007a) which applied a more advanced version of the model used in the earlier work, but this time instead of considering the impact of broad strategies to enhance transport links considered the agglomeration benefits of packages of proposed interventions to improve public transport links. These packages included one focussed at improving links wholly within the Leeds City Regions and one focussed at improving links on the trans-Pennine corridor. This work showed that the inclusion of agglomeration benefits increased the benefits of the within city region package by 25% and the trans- Pennine package by 12%.

Significantly, because typically inter-regional schemes deliver greater benefits than within-city region schemes (albeit usually at greater cost) the quantum of agglomeration benefits was much greater than the for the city region package. This led to the finding that while the inclusion of agglomeration within cost benefit analysis can have the greatest impact on the value for money case of city region schemes, it also shows that inter-regional schemes can have a much greater beneficial impact on economic growth than previously understood. Colin Buchanan and Partners 2.43 (2008) has investigated the wider economic benefits of preferred proposals from Network Rail’s North West Route Utilisation Strategy.

For the interventions considered it was concluded that the RUS schemes which focus on capacity constraints perform better as they provide for a move to more productive jobs as well as agglomeration benefits. While not considered explicitly, they came to the view that journey time improvements between Liverpool and Manchester are likely to perform particularly well in term of wider economic benefits.

25 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement The Northern Way’s Strategic Direction for Transport identifies that to ensure that city regions across the North enjoy economic growth a balanced approach that enhances links within city regions and between city regions is required. Supporting City Region Growth In the context of the established 2.44 evidence on the importance to future economic growth of the North’s city regions, each of the eight city regions in the North has produced a City Region Development Programme (CRDP) which looks in depth at the past and current economic performance of their respective city regions and identifies what has to be overcome for each city region to grow and meet its full economic potential.

Focussing on their respective city 2.45 regions the CRDPs applied a mixture of bespoke evidence and established research and explore the full range of issues identified in the Northern Way’s Growth Strategy. Because of this wider context their transport prescriptions are key pieces of evidence for the need to enhance the capacity and capability of the Manchester Hub to support economic growth. Each of the CRDPs identifies 2.46 the importance of enhancing public transport commuting links within their respective city regions. Looking at the Manchester CRDP and those of its four neighbouring city regions: The Manchester CRDP identifies ● ● transport as a “key component underpinning economic growth.

Connectivity affects the supply and movement of labour, the investment decisions of business and the success and sustainability of communities” (Manchester City Region (2006:45)). It goes on to identify that transport provision influences business investment choices and has a direct and important impact on the success of cities. The Manchester CRDP explicitly identifies the importance to the Manchester City Region economy of links to Manchester Airport, improving access to London and to Leeds, as well as catering for freight.

The Leeds CRDP (Leeds City Region ● ● (2006)) also highlights the need to enhance strategic connections to support economic growth, particularly to its neighbouring city regions of Sheffield and Manchester, and to London. The importance of access to international air services is also identified. The Sheffield CRDP (Sheffield ● ● City Region (2006)) identifies the importance of connectivity from the city region to international air services at Manchester Airport. It also identifies that the road and rail connections between Sheffield and Manchester are “poor and the standard of service variable” and that these are an impediment to greater interaction between the two city region economies.

The Liverpool CRDP (Mersey ● ● Partnership, 2006) identifies the importance of rail connections across the North and connections to international gateways. It highlights the importance to the economy of extending the Liverpool journey work area and of strategic connections to the Manchester City Region. The Central Lancashire CRDP ● ● (Lancashire Economic Partnership, 2006) identifies the economic importance of the current connectivity between Rossendale, Chorley and West Lancashire and Manchester, and the importance of enhancing connectivity of the Pennine Lancashire towns to Preston and the Manchester City Region.

26 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement In addition, the Hull and 2.47 the Humber CRDP highlights the importance of rail access to Manchester Airport as well as rail enhancements to facilitate freight growth between terminals in the Manchester area and the Humber ports (Hull and the Humber City Region (2006)). The City Region Development Programmes have the function of specifying how the key economic drivers (the city regions) can exploit their own strengths to deliver accelerated economic growth. They explicitly recognise the importance of expanding the Manchester labour market through transport enhancements to support commuting, enhancing transport links between the main centres of each city region, and access to Manchester Airport.

Road and Rail Links to and across Manchester Using Highways Agency data, for 2.48 the Northern Way, Steer Davies Gleave (2008b) has reviewed the current and likely future of the North’s strategic road network. This work demonstrates that across the North’s motorways, in the three hour morning peak period (7am and 10am), congestion makes all journeys 20% longer. It shows that the five most delayed journeys in the North in the morning peak period are: Manchester Sheffield – congestion ● ● adds 28 mins to 40 mile journey Liverpool Sheffield - congestion ● ● adds 54 mins to 80 mile journey Leeds Manchester - congestion ● ● adds 32 mins to 46 mile journey Sheffield Manchester - congestion ● ● adds 24 mins to 40 mile journey Manchester Leeds - congestion ● ● adds 24 mins to 46 mile journey This delay is set to increase 2.49 further, since motorway traffic is projected to increase by over a quarter by 2031.

Increased journey times and less reliable journeys will have a high economic cost for business travel, commuters, and for freight. The report also looks at Network 2.50 Stress which is the Highways Agency’s measure of how well traffic moves on a motorway. It is the ratio of average traffic flow and the theoretical capacity of a road. Even with investment, by 2021 it is anticipated that: All of the M62 west of A1 to ● ● Liverpool will experience severe stress The M6 between Sandbatch ● ● (Cheshire) and the Lancaster will experience severe stress The M56 will experience severe ● ● stress between Chester and Manchester The south, west and north and ● ● east quadrants of the M60 each experience mild or severe stress Sections of the M53, M61 and M66 ● ● each experience severe stress The report reinforced the position 2.51 of the Northern Way’s Strategic Direction for Transport (Northern Way, 2006) which identified that congestion on the strategic road network is most severe in and around the North’s city regions, where that network is catering for a mixture of local and longer distance car and freight traffic.

The motorway network in and around the Manchester City Region experiences severe congestion which is forecast to worsen over time.

27 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Steer Davies Gleave (2008b) 2.52 concluded that, while planned investment in the strategic road network will to some degree mitigate the negative impacts of traffic growth, alone it will not be sufficient. Additional initiatives will be needed including the encouragement of smarter travel choices, the development of non-road alternatives and the greater use of Intelligent Transport Systems to manage the use of the network. Particular weaknesses with the 2.53 North’s rail network which will have negative impacts on its ability to support future economic growth have been identified in both the North West Route Utilisation Strategy (Network Rail, 2007) and the consultation draft of the Yorkshire and Humber Route Utilisation Strategy (Network Rail, 2008).

The North West RUS identifies 12 ‘gaps’, which are defined as shortfalls between what the rail network currently delivers and what is currently required or is anticipated to be required during the ten year life time of the RUS. The identified gaps include: Passenger demand exceeding ● ● service capacity during the peaks on most corridors into Manchester Links between major city regions in ● ● the North West being weaker than comparable links elsewhere Many corridors into Manchester ● ● serving only one side of Manchester City Centre Insufficient integration with Metrolink ● ● Rail links to Manchester Airport being ● ● insufficient Gaps identified in the consultation 2.54 draft Yorkshire and Humber RUS (which includes coverage of trans-Pennine routes) include: Peak crowding and suppressed ● ● growth, including on the two trans- Pennine routes serving Manchester and Leeds Off peak crowding and suppressed ● ● growth.

This is cited as a particular problem on the North Trans Pennine corridor linking Leeds and Manchester via Huddersfield

28 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Poor regional links on particular ● ● corridors, in particular the Calder Valley route between Bradford and Manchester and on the South Trans Pennine route between Sheffield and Manchester. The draft Yorkshire and Humber 2.55 RUS goes on to suggest that the North Trans Pennine route could experience a doubling of passenger numbers and by 2019 all practical options to expand the capacity of this route will be exhausted. In summary, therefore we see 2.56 a situation where in each of the city regions neighbouring the Manchester Hub the importance to local economic prospects of enhancing links to and across Manchester and to Manchester Airport has been recognised, while the strategic road network and the rail network are each forecast to have a short fall in capacity in the peak and in other time periods.

The strategic road network across the Pennines and around Manchester experiences network stress and congestion. This results in extended and unreliable journeys. Even with committed and planned investment this will worsen over time. The trans-Pennine rail links and commuter rail links to Manchester experience crowding. On the trans-Pennine routes in particular there is limited capability to cater for additional growth. The Manchester Rail Hub The Northern Way (2006) has 2.57 identified Manchester Hub as the single most critical infrastructure investment in rail for the whole of the North. The Northern Way (2007) has identified the absence of a way forward for the Manchester Hub as a critical transport delivery gap for the promotion of growth in the North’s economy.

There has been some earlier work 2.58 that has looked at the wider economic benefits of the Hub. Analysis by CEBR (2005), for instance, for the North West Rail Campaign identified job creation benefits, but the methodology, which pre-dates the publication of the DfT’s work on wider economic benefits and the report’s assumptions of what a Hub solution may be, has consequently been overtaken.

Steer Davies Gleave (2007c) has 2.59 identified the nature of the limitations of the rail network in central Manchester, which: Constrain the frequency and speed ● ● of the critical services that link the North’s eight City Regions. Impede the development of the most ● ● valuable additional services that could be provided to increase rail access to Manchester Airport. Reduce the value of the existing and ● ● potential future wider trans-Pennine network which, if it is to fulfil a wider capacity-building role going forward, needs to be able to grow and to support an integrated network of services to many key urban centres, and not just those of Leeds and Manchester.

29 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Make it impossible to provide efficient ● ● north-south rail services across Manchester to connect areas of low employment and of employment opportunity. Result in so many conflicting train ● ● movements in the Manchester Hub area that acceptable performance reliability can only be achieved with substantial timing allowances, extending the journey times of local and longer-distance services. Create poor route choices to the ● ● key freight terminals in the Greater Manchester area.

The Northern Way has identified the Manchester Hub as the most significant rail bottleneck in the North and so the most significant rail impediment to maximising economic growth.

This is because it constrains the growth of rail commuter services, rail links between the North’s city regions and between the North and the South, rail links to Manchester Airport and rail freight. The absence of an identified way forward for the Manchester Hub is a key delivery gap if the Northern Way’s Strategic Direction for Transport is to be met.

30 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement References Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) (2007) Greater Manchester TIF Bid AGMA, Manchester [1] Centre for Cities (2008) City Links: Integration and Isolation Centre for Cities, London [2] Colin Buchanan & Partners (2008) North West Productivity Rail Study Final Report NWDA, Warrington [3] CEBR (2005) Macroeconomic Assessment of Manchester Hub Rail Schemes North West Rail Campaign, Manchester [4] Centre for Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures (SURF) et al (2006) Strengthening the Evidence-Base of Key Economic and Spatial Strategies in the North West NWDA, Warrington [5] Centre for Urban Policy Studies (CUPS) et al (2008) Connecting the North: Interdependence and Barriers: Rail, Road, Air and Maritime Links Northern Way, Newcastle [6] Department for Transport (2005) Transport, Wider Economic Benefits and Impacts on GDP Department for Transport, London [7] Department for Transport (2008a) Delivering a Sustainable Transport System: Main Report Department for Transport, London [8] Department for Transport (2008b) Improving the Air Passenger Experience: an Analysis of End-to-End Journeys with a Focus on Manchester Airport Department for Transport, London [9] Eddington R (2006) The Eddington Transport Study HMT, London [10] Greater Manchester Transportation Unit (GMTU) (2008) GMTU Report 1390: Transport Statistics Manchester 2007 GMTU, Manchester [11] HMT (2007) PSA Delivery Agreement 7: Improve the Economic Performance of all English Regions and Reduce the Gap in Economic Growth Rates Between Regions HMT, London [12] Hull and the Humber City Region (2006) Hull and Humber Ports City Region Development Programme II Northern Way, Newcastle [13] Institute for Political and Economic Governance (IPEG), University of Manchester et al, (2008) The Northern Connection: Assessing the Comparative Economic Performance and Prospects of Northern England Northern Way, Newcastle [14] Lancashire Economic Partnership (2006) Central Lancashire City Region Development Programme Northern Way, Newcastle [15] Leeds City Region, (2006), Development Programme Northern Way, Newcastle [16] LEK (2003) Future Rail Services to Manchester Airport Manchester Airport Group, Manchester [17] Lythgoe, W F and Wardman, M (2002) Demand for Rail Travel to and from Airports Transportation 29 125-143 [18] Manchester Airport (2007) Manchester Airport Master Plan to 2030, Manchester Airport, Manchester [19] Manchester City Region (2006) Development Programme 2006 - Accelerating The Economic Growth Of The North Northern Way, Newcastle [20] MDS Transmodal (2006) Evidence Based Review of the Growth Prospects of the Northern Ports, The Northern Way, Newcastle [21] Mersey Partnership (2006) Liverpool City Region Development Programme Report 2006 Northern Way, Newcastle [22]

31 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Metro (2008) Leeds New Generation Transport Strategic Fit: Problems, Technical Note Metro, Leeds [23] Network Rail (2007) North West Route Utilisation Strategy Network Rail, London [24] Network Rail (2008) Yorkshire & Humber Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation Network Rail, London [25] Northern Way (2004) Northern Way Growth Strategy, Northern Way, Newcastle [26] Northern Way (2006) Strategic Direction for Transport Northern Way, Newcastle [27] Northern Way (2007) Short, Medium and Long Term Transport Priorities Northern Way, Newcastle [28] Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2000) Our Towns and Cities: The Future - Delivering an Urban Renaissance ODPM, London [29] ORC International (2005) Trans Pennine Express Manchester Airport Research, Trans Pennine Express, York [30] Parkinson et al (2006a) State of the English Cities Volume 1 ODPM, London [31] Parkinson et al (2006b) State of the English Cities Volume 2 ODPM, London [32] SACTRA (1999) Transport and the Economy, HMSO, London [33] Sheffield City Region (2006) Development Programme Northern Way, Newcastle [34] Steer Davies Gleave (2006) Model Development and Results for Northern Way using the South & West Yorkshire Dynamic Model Northern Way, Newcastle [35] Steer Davies Gleave (2007a) Agglomeration in Leeds City Region Centre for Cities/IPPR, London [36] Steer Davies Gleave (2007b) Market Demand for Rail Gauge Enhancements Northern Way, Newcastle [37] Steer Davies Gleave (2007c) Manchester Hub: Objectives, Options and Next Steps Northern Way, Newcastle [38] Steer Davies Gleave (2008a) The East of England Transport Economic Evidence Study EEDA, Histon [39] Steer Davies Gleave (2008b) A Report to the Northern Way: Existing and Future Traffic and Congestion on the North’s Strategic Road Network Northern Way, Newcastle [40] Sykes W and Desai P (2009) Understanding Airport Passenger Experience Department for Transport, London [41] York Aviation (2006) The Economic and Social Impact of The Manchester Airport Group Airports Manchester Airports Group, Manchester [42]

32 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

33 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Introduction Based on the modelling approach 3.1 summarised in Part 5, metrics for the Output Statement have been calculated for both the Trend and Trend Plus Economic Scenarios. These are: Timetable-driven passenger service ● ● benefit per unit Generalised Journey Time (GJT) improvement; Crowding benefits per incremental ● ● AM peak seat; and Freight benefits per incremental ● ● freight path to Trafford Park. The benefits arise because the Test 3.2 Timetable offers a service improvement when compared with the Do-Minimum option.

Timetable-Driven Benefits The tables below show each 3.3 timetable-driven benefit per minute improvement in GJT (on within- corridor flows). Timetable benefits are the benefits that accrue from faster station to station journey times, more frequent services and reduced times for interchange. GJT is a weighted combination of all of the elements of rail journey time. As well as the time taken to travel between stations, this includes a measure of train frequency as well as a time penalty associated with changing from one train to another.

The first table (Table 1) splits this 3.4 by type of benefit and the second by the type of flow.

There are four types of benefit. The revenue increment is the additional fares revenue that arises due to more people being forecast to use the railway, which in turn comes about due to the improved service. The generalised journey time benefit is the benefit that is enjoyed by existing and new rail users because of the improved service. The non-user benefit arises because some of the new users that are attracted to rail because of the improved service would otherwise have travelled by car. Their transfer to Disaggregated Rates of Benefit Part 3: rail results in lower road congestion. Finally, the wider economic benefits are those productivity benefits which are not already included in the other benefit figures and arise from primarily agglomeration effects and from contributing to addressing imperfect competition.

The second table (Table 2) looks at 3.5 the benefits by geographic area. Five geographic areas have been defined. These are: Central Manchester ● ● Inner Greater Manchester (defined by ● ● the M60 motorway) The rest of the Manchester City ● ● Region The other northern City Regions ● ● The rest of the country ● ● The third table (Table 3) splits the 3.6 per-GJT-improvement benefits into the portion due to, respectively, faster journey times, reduced service interval and reduced interchange requirements. In each table the results are 3.7 presented for the 14 rail corridors that converge in the Manchester Hub.

There is a map of the 14 corridors in Part 5 of this report.

Table 1 shows that the 3.8 predominant benefits relate to improvements in (generalised) journey times. The largest per-unit improvements are on the major corridors providing long-distance connections (as well as significant commuting flows). It should be borne in mind that, while benefits on the major corridors are larger, without consideration of the costs of delivering these benefits they do not necessarily indicate where the best value for money will be achieved.

34 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Trend Scenario Timetable-related benefits per GJT minute improvement (£ million PV, 2002 prices) Corridor Revenue Increment Journey Time Non-user benefits Wider Economic Benefits Total timetable- related benefits 1 Southport via Wigan 3 31 2 15 50 2 Preston and the North via Bolton 25 149 11 75 260 3 Blackburn 2 16 1 11 29 4 Bradford via Rochdale 5 42 2 29 78 5 Yorkshire & the North East via Leeds 45 178 13 98 333 5a Leeds and York 34 130 10 49 222 5b North of York (towards Tees, Tyne and Scotland) 7 30 2 29 69 5c East of Leeds (towards Hull) 4 18 1 20 42 6 Glossop / Hadfield 1 16 0 2 19 7 Marple / Romiley 1 19 0 3 23 8 Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield 17 106 6 61 190 9 Buxton 2 25 1 4 33 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) 219 460 70 120 869 11 Manchester Airport 6 40 1 9 57 12 Chester via Northwich 1 16 0 2 19 13 Liverpool via Irlam 1 25 3 3 33 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 12 49 5 24 90 Total 253 1102 84 438 1,877 Table 1  Trend Scenario - Timetable-related benefits per GJT minute improvement by benefit type Table 2 shows that the largest 3.9 benefits on each corridor are to be found, unsurprisingly, on flows within a corridor or to Central Manchester.

The relatively large values in the “To other Manchester Hub Corridors” demonstrate the importance of journeys that cross central Manchester, providing connectivity across the conurbation. The importance of this cross-corridor connectivity is particularly strong on journeys originating at Manchester Airport (corridor 11).

35 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Trend Scenario Corridor Flows to/from Central Manchester from Inner Manchester City Region Flows to/from Central Manchester from Outer Manchester City Region Flows to/from Central Manchester from Other Northern City Regions Flows to/from Central Manchester from Long Distance stations Other intra corridor flows Inter corridor flows where one or both ends is in the Manchester City Region Inter corridor flows where neither end is in the Manchester City Region Flows to/from Manchester Airport from Manchester City Region Flows to/from Manchester Airport from outside Manchester City Region Flows to all other station Total 1 Southport via Wigan 1 16 4 0 4 12 6 2 1 4 50 2 Preston and the North via Bolton 0 45 61 22 17 14 62 1 21 18 260 3 Blackburn 0 0 18 0 -1 1 8 0 1 2 29 4 Bradford via Rochdale 0 15 11 0 3 11 20 2 6 8 78 5 Yorkshire & the North East via Leeds 0 28 103 3 31 10 118 1 17 22 333 5a Leeds and York 0 19 75 0 27 8 68 1 10 15 222 5b North of York (towards Tees, Tyne and Scotland) 0 6 20 3 2 2 29 0 3 5 69 5c East of Leeds (towards Hull) 0 4 9 0 2 1 21 0 3 3 42 6 Glossop / Hadfield 1 14 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 19 7 Marple / Romiley 0 13 1 0 1 4 1 1 1 1 23 8 Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield 0 9 39 13 25 7 61 0 8 28 190 9 Buxton -2 23 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 1 33 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) 0 30 0 376 394 -2 51 0 11 10 869 11 Manchester Airport 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 39 0 57 12 Chester via Northwich 0 10 4 0 2 -2 3 0 0 1 19 13 Liverpool via Irlam 8 10 -10 0 -5 1 22 5 7 -6 33 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 0 2 37 3 -2 1 34 2 3 9 90 Total 5 259 318 235 293 81 383 29 105 169 1,877 Table 2  Trend Scenario - Timetable-related benefits per GJT minute improvement by flow-type

36 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement The negative values occur when journey time improvements have in part been made by reducing the number of stops on some routes or train routeing have been altered meaning that some passengers have to interchange when previously they did not. Tables 4, 5 and 6 show the 3.11 corresponding results for the Trend Plus Scenario. Table 3 indicates how timetable- 3.10 related benefits accrue to the various elements of generalised journey time, namely in-vehicle time, service interval (i.e. frequency) and interchange penalty. The largest per-unit in-vehicle improvements are on the major corridors providing long-distance connections (as well as significant commuting flows).

The service interval improvement is largest on the trans Pennine routes via Sheffield and Leeds. Trend Scenario Timetable-related benefits per GJT minute improvement (£ million PV, 2002 prices) Corridor In-vehicle time Service Interval Interchange Penalty Total timetable-related benefits 1 Southport via Wigan 35 16 0 50 2 Preston and the North via Bolton 202 53 5 260 3 Blackburn 29 0 0 29 4 Bradford via Rochdale 70 8 0 78 5 Yorkshire & the North East via Leeds 252 80 0 333 6 Glossop / Hadfield 16 3 0 19 7 Marple / Romiley 22 0 0 23 8 Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield 74 114 2 190 9 Buxton 22 10 0 33 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) 952 -98 14 869 11 Manchester Airport 36 21 0 57 12 Chester via Northwich 6 14 -1 19 13 Liverpool via Irlam 74 14 -56 33 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 82 18 -9 90 Total 1,587 302 -12 1,877 Table 3  Trend Scenario - Timetable-related benefits per GJT minute improvement

37 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Table 4  Trend Plus Scenario - Timetable-related benefits per GJT minute improvement by benefit type Trend Plus Scenario Timetable-related benefits per GJT minute improvement (£ million PV, 2002 prices) Corridor Revenue Increment Journey Time Non-user benefits Wider Economic Benefits Total timetable-related benefits 1 Southport via Wigan 4 36 3 20 63 2 Preston and the North via Bolton 29 172 13 88 301 3 Blackburn 3 18 1 13 34 4 Bradford via Rochdale 7 53 3 39 101 5 Yorkshire & the North East via Leeds 50 233 18 139 440 5a Leeds and York 37 176 13 70 296 5b North of York (towards Tees, Tyne and Scotland) 8 35 3 42 88 5c East of Leeds (towards Hull) 4 23 1 28 56 6 Glossop / Hadfield 1 18 0 3 23 7 Marple / Romiley 2 22 0 4 28 8 Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield 21 124 8 83 235 9 Buxton 4 30 1 5 39 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) 282 562 74 126 1,044 11 Manchester Airport 6 42 1 11 60 12 Chester via Northwich 1 21 0 2 25 13 Liverpool via Irlam 4 26 4 6 40 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 12 66 6 29 113 Total 310 1350 101 556 2,318

38 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Trend Plus Scenario Corridor Flows to/from Central Manchester from Inner Manchester City Region Flows to/from Central Manchester from Outer Manchester City Region Flows to/from Central Manchester from Other Northern City Regions Flows to/from Central Manchester from Long Distance stations Other intra corridor flows Inter corridor flows where one or both ends is in the Manchester City Region Inter corridor flows where neither end is in the Manchester City Region Flows to/from Manchester Airport from Manchester City Region Flows to/from Manchester Airport from outside Manchester City Region Flows to all other station Total 1 Southport via Wigan 1 19 5 0 5 17 7 2 1 4 63 2 Preston and the North via Bolton 0 51 71 23 19 21 74 1 21 21 301 3 Blackburn 0 1 21 0 -1 2 10 0 1 2 34 4 Bradford via Rochdale 0 18 15 0 4 16 29 2 6 11 101 5 Yorkshire & the North East via Leeds 0 36 131 4 38 15 171 1 17 27 440 5a Leeds and York 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5b North of York (towards Tees, Tyne and Scotland) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5c East of Leeds (towards Hull) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Glossop / Hadfield 2 17 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 23 7 Marple / Romiley 0 16 2 0 2 5 2 1 1 1 28 8 Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield 0 11 47 15 30 10 84 0 8 30 235 9 Buxton -2 27 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 1 39 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) 0 32 0 476 452 -2 56 -1 11 20 1,044 11 Manchester Airport 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 40 0 60 12 Chester via Northwich 0 13 4 0 2 -2 5 0 0 2 25 13 Liverpool via Irlam 9 13 -12 0 -6 3 26 5 8 -6 40 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 1 2 44 3 -2 2 47 2 3 11 113 Total 6 310 387 290 342 115 518 32 108 211 2,318 Table 5  Trend Plus Scenario - Timetable-related benefits per GJT minute improvement by flow type

39 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Trend Plus Scenario Timetable-related benefits per GJT minute improvement (£ million PV, 2002 prices) Corridor In-vehicle time Service Interval Interchange Penalty Total timetable-related benefits 1 Southport via Wigan 43 19 0 63 2 Preston and the North via Bolton 235 61 5 301 3 Blackburn 35 0 0 34 4 Bradford via Rochdale 91 10 0 101 5 Yorkshire & the North East via Leeds 334 106 1 440 6 Glossop / Hadfield 19 4 0 23 7 Marple / Romiley 28 1 0 28 8 Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield 91 141 3 235 9 Buxton 27 12 0 39 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) 1,144 -117 17 1,044 11 Manchester Airport 38 22 0 60 12 Chester via Northwich 8 18 -1 25 13 Liverpool via Irlam 92 18 -69 40 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 102 22 -12 113 Total 1,959 373 -15 2,318 Tables 4, 5 and 6 demonstrate 3.12 that the benefits from service improvements under the Trend Plus enhanced economic scenario are correspondingly larger than under the Trend economic scenario.

Table 6  Trend Plus Scenario - Timetable-related benefits split by element of GJT improvement Capacity-Driven Benefits Tables 7 and 8 show the crowding 3.13 benefit per incremental AM peak seat, that is, the value of the reduction in “crowded minutes” by existing and new passengers as a result of additional capacity (rolling stock) supplied in the operation of the Test Timetable, compared with Do Minimum timetable (and rolling stock assumptions). Results are presented for the morning peak as this is when crowding is at its most significant. There will also be

40 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement benefits in the evening peak period.

Results are presented for suburban services (essentially those that serve the Manchester journey to work area) and longer distance services (those that provide express links to other Northern city regions or elsewhere in the country). Tables 7 and 8 show that 3.14 crowding benefits (in terms of per incremental AM peak seat) are greatest on the longer distance routes, which reflects both the high volumes on these routes and that passengers experience more crowded conditions for longer than on more commuter focussed routes. Nonetheless, the more heavily patronised commuter corridors also experience a high rate of unit benefit.

As with timetable-related benefits, 3.15 while the results indicate where the largest benefits may lie, they do not necessarily indicate where the best value for money solutions are to be found since the costs of achieving the additional capacity have not been assessed.

Freight Benefits The benefits, in terms of a 60- 3.16 year PV appraisal, of growth in available freight paths to Trafford Park, consistent with Department for Transport growth assumptions, are estimated at £41 million per additional freight path. This figure does not include any wider economic benefits element.

41 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Trend Scenario Crowding benefit per incremental AM peak seat, £’000 PV (2002 prices) Corridor Suburban Services Long- distance Services All Services 1 Southport via Wigan 25.7 N/A 25.7 2 Preston and the North via Bolton 17.0 248.3 89.1 3 Blackburn 45.4 N/A 45.4 4 Bradford via Rochdale 47.2 1.6 10.3 5 Yorkshire and the Humber & the North East via Leeds 20.1 167.0 86.7 6 Glossop / Hadfield 0.0 N/A 0.0 7 Marple / Romiley 2.0 N/A 2.0 8 Yorkshire and the Humber & the East Midlands via Sheffield 7.9 537.2 136.7 9 Buxton 26.0 N/A 26.0 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) 17.9 122.6 101.2 11 Manchester Airport 0.0 60.3 16.1 12 Chester via Northwich 36.8 N/A 36.8 13 Liverpool via Irlam 68.5 N/A 68.5 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 2.2 57.3 46.5 Table 7  Trend Scenario – crowding benefit per incremental am peak seat

42 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Trend Scenario Crowding benefit per incremental AM peak seat, £’000 PV (2002 prices) Corridor Suburban Services Long- distance Services All Services 1 Southport via Wigan 36.6 N/A 36.6 2 Preston and the North via Bolton 26.4 291.3 109.0 3 Blackburn 68.4 N/A 68.4 4 Bradford via Rochdale 93.2 2.4 19.9 5 Yorkshire and the Humber & the North East via Leeds 30.7 255.6 132.6 6 Glossop / Hadfield 0.3 N/A 0.3 7 Marple / Romiley 3.6 N/A 3.6 8 Yorkshire and the Humber & the East Midlands via Sheffield 15.2 777.9 200.8 9 Buxton 41.5 N/A 41.5 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) 22.6 173.3 142.5 11 Manchester Airport 0.0 71.2 19.0 12 Chester via Northwich 59.1 N/A 59.1 13 Liverpool via Irlam 93.0 N/A 93.0 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 5.4 79.1 64.6 Table 8  Trend Plus Scenario – crowding benefit per incremental am peak seat

43 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

44 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

45 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Introduction Following Rosie Winterton’s 4.1 October 2007 announcement that a study would be undertaken to develop proposals to enhance the capacity and functionality of the Manchester Hub, the Northern Way undertook a high level consultation across the North’s city regions to establish what would have to be considered when defining the economic challenge that needs to be addressed.

This work led to the identification of four objectives. These objectives were 4.2 subsequently discussed and validated at the Phase 1 stakeholder workshop held on 29th July 2008.

The four objectives are: 4.3 Objective 1: faster, more reliable ● ● and additional direct rail links to Manchester Airport Objective 2: improved journey times ● ● and reliability for inter-regional and commuter journeys Objective 3: increased capacity for ● ● inter-regional and commuter journeys Objective 4: maintain and enhance ● ● capacity for rail freight The reports of the high-level 4.4 stakeholder consultation and the stakeholder workshop are both available from the Northern Way’s website. Objectives and the Conditional Outputs The table overleaf shows how 4.5 meeting the Conditional Outputs will deliver the Objectives that have been established for the Manchester Hub project.

As well as reflecting the Northern 4.6 Way’s established commitment to promote the sustainable economic growth of the North, the Carbon Reduction Conditional Output also reflects the enactment of the Climate Change Act 2008 as well as the report of the Committee on Climate Change, both subsequent to the high-level consultation and the first stakeholder workshop. Stakeholder Aspirations Part 4:

46 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement How the Conditional Outputs relate to the Manchester Hub Objectives Objective 1: Faster, more reliable and additional direct rail links to Manchester Airport CO7.

Manchester Airport Objective 2: Improved journey times and reliability for inter-regional and commuter journeys CO3. Performance CO4. Journey times CO6. Connectivity to expand rail market share CO8. Trans Pennine CO9. West Coast Main Line Objective 3: Increased capacity for inter-regional and commuter journeys CO1. Capacity and flexibility CO5. Growth Centres in Greater Manchester Objective 4: Maintain and enhance capacity for rail freight CO10. Freight Overarching Objective: Contributing to tackling climate change CO2: Carbon reduction

47 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

48 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement

49 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Economic Scenarios The analysis that has contributed 5.1 to the development of the Conditional Outputs set out in Part 2 and from which the disaggregated rates of benefit set out in Part 3 are derived is based on economic growth scenarios. Two economic development scenarios have been considered: The Trend Scenario. This conforms ● ● to Governmental economic growth and planning assumptions (with population and employment conforming, approximately, to the forecasts in the Department for Transport’s TEMPRO models); and The Trend Plus Scenario, ● ● based on the assumption that economic growth in the North of England will be accelerated by the implementation of the three Regional Economic Strategies and eight City Region Development Programmes.

Geographically disaggregated 5.2 quantified forecasts for Trend and Trend Plus were developed specifically for the Manchester Hub study by Experian. The analysis set out below was undertaken for both of these scenarios. Modelling Approach The process for modelling the 5.3 economic value of passenger service level improvements in and around the Manchester Hub required the following steps: Development of a suitable interface ● ● to receive the outputs from the Economic Model scenarios; Development of suitable ● ● geographical zoning schemes, including the definition of rail corridors into central Manchester; Overview Of Approach To Part 5: Modelling Definition of the do-minimum ● ● scenario (the “Do-Minimum”) against which the test scenario can be tested; Development of a test scenario ● ● rail service specification (the “Test Timetable”), broadly in line with stakeholder aspirations to allow the benefits associated with these improvements to be assessed; Modelling of the impact of ● ● exogenous factors (economic growth, etc.) on rail demand; Modelling of the impact of the ● ● improved rail services on rail demand; Modelling the impact of crowding; ● ● Developing tools to undertake the ● ● appraisal of transport benefits; and Developing tools to undertake ● ● the appraisal of wider economic benefits.

At the core of this process are 5.4 the models of rail demand. Where appropriate, the standard industry tools for forecasting exogenous growth (RIFF-Lite) and service changes (MOIRA) have been used. These models have been utilised by the Department for Transport (DfT) when developing the forecasts that underpin its policy statements, including the 2007 Rail White Paper and High Level Output Statement (HLOS). These models are also used to underpin scheme specific business cases for enhancement projects. However, there are two special cases where this is not an appropriate approach, namely: Journeys to Manchester Airport; ● ● and Journeys on “new flows” where ● ● historically demand is low, but where a change to the service specification has the potential to produce a significantly increased level of demand beyond the level appropriate for the use of the elasticity parameters in MOIRA.

50 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Therefore a model was 5.5 developed of rail journeys to the Airport, taking account of the air passenger forecasts for Manchester Airport and the modelled impact of service level changes on rail’s airport access share. Similarly, a model was developed 5.6 of rail journeys where the potential for significantly improved journey times, frequencies and connectivity means that a “new flows” model, using a gravity model approach is appropriate. The schematic diagram below 5.7 (Figure 1) shows the relationships between the various input data, assumptions and models used to assess the economic value of enhanced passenger services.

Airport flows model New flows gravity model RIFF-LITE MOIRA Crowding Model Do-min MOIRA base matrix (future year journeys and revenues for all flows) Test Scenario MOIRA base matrix (future year journeys and revenues, for airport flows and “new flows” only) Rolling stock assumptions (do-min = HLOS) Timetable changes by corridor (do-min = Dec08 TT) Disaggregated economic actuals and forecasts for Trend and Trend Plus scenarios Exogenous growth parameters based on PDFH with HLOS overlay Base demand data: LENNON with infill for GMPTE Base rail GJTs, car journey times Airport passenger survey / Airport passenger forecast Trend & Trend Plus Scenarios Appraisal – Conventional and Wider Economic Benefits Economic Model Figure 1  Passenger Service Level Benefit Assessment Schematic The modelling approach 5.8 adopted for the Phase 1 work has been discussed with the Department for Transport and as has been noted, in the main, it adopts a standard industry framework.

It should be noted that this framework is focussed on forecasting rail demand and benefits due to changes in rail supply. It cannot model explicitly the impact of specific changes in supply of alternative modes, such as a new bus service or a particular road enhancement. Also the modelling approach uses a fixed economic scenario as an input to the process. It does not model how enhancements to the rail network will change the trajectory of economic growth, if such changes were to occur.

51 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Modelling of Rail Freight Improvement Benefits The approach taken towards 5.9 the modelling of freight improvement benefits complements that used for passenger service improvement, but is methodologically simpler. Rail freight in the Manchester 5.10 area uses a number of freight terminals, but those at Trafford Park have particular importance, especially for inter-modal freight. Other terminals in the Manchester area are important, for example, for handling aggregates. For this reason, the explicit definition of rail corridors, used for modelling passenger services, is inappropriate.

Instead, there has been a focus on the likely demand for freight trains for particular commodities to the Manchester area. In practice, the industry consensus is that the major growth is likely to be in the inter-modal container sector, and the analysis has concentrated on this.

There are no currently industry- 5.11 wide accepted freight forecasts beyond 2014-15, the end date of Network Rail’s March 2007 Freight Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS)16 . While the Rail Freight Group has developed forecasts to 2030 they are not available for this analysis. Therefore the analysis is based on assumptions for future growth consistent with the levels of growth assumed within the Freight RUS, and consistent with Government forecasts of a doubling of traffic by 2030. The forecast was validated by 5.12 comparing costs of road and rail freight to demonstrate the economic viability of the rail freight options for freight flows from key origins (principally the deep sea ports for container freight, in particular Southampton and Felixstowe).

16  Network Rail (2007) Freight Route Utilisation Strategy Network Rail, London Based on the forecast additional 5.13 demand, where additional freight paths into Manchester are required was identified, and the societal benefits for the operation of these paths was estimated. These can also be stated in terms of benefit per additional freight path. Manchester Hub Corridor Definition The size and complexity of the 5.14 Manchester Hub meant that it was necessary to disaggregate the rail network into well-defined corridors into the Hub, so that the impact of particular service changes could be assessed and assigned to the relevant part of the network, as a basis for the optioneering of potential solutions in Phase 2 of the study and then using the same modelling tools the subsequent cost benefit appraisal of a short-list of options.

A set of 14 corridors were defined, based on a combination of Network Rail’s corridor definitions (from the North West RUS) and an analysis of the service patterns currently operating. The corridors are as set out in Table 1 and shown geographically in Map 1.

Table 1 Manchester Hub Corridors 1 Southport via Wigan 2 Preston and the North via Bolton 3 Blackburn 4 Bradford via Rochdale 5 Yorkshire and the Humber & the North East via Leeds 6 Glossop / Hadfield 7 Marple / Romiley 8 Yorkshire and the Humber & the East Midlands via Sheffield 9 Buxton 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) 11 Manchester Airport 12 Chester via Northwich 13 Liverpool via Irlam (CLC) 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington (Chat Moss)

52 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Development of Conditional Output Statement Metrics A set of metrics for the 5.15 Conditional Output Statement has been developed.

These metrics are defined in terms of an appropriate measure of benefit per measure of unit improvement. The metrics represent the magnitude of benefit that should be anticipated for planning purposes from enhancements to identified rail corridors/services. The benefits relating to improved 5.16 passenger services estimated in this study were: Revenue increment; ● ● Journey time improvements; ● ● Crowding; ● ● Non-user benefits; and ● ● Wider Economic Benefits. ● ● For freight services, the benefits 5.17 were the monetary value of Sensitive Lorry Miles saved over the appraisal period.

All passenger service 5.18 improvement benefits were driven by timetable enhancements (faster journey times, higher service frequency or reduced interchange). The value of these benefits is therefore measured against a unit of the improvement in generalised journey time (which brings together actual journey time with additional elements for service interval and interchange penalties). These benefit categories were therefore assessed against the change in GJT between the Do Minimum and Test Timetable cases. The average changes in GJT 5.19 due to the Test Timetable (for journeys within each corridor, including to or from Central Manchester) were as shown in Table 2.

The split between the different elements of GJT causing this change (in-vehicle time, service interval and interchanges) are shown in percentage terms.

Map 1  Manchester Hub Corridors

53 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement In respect of crowding, it was 5.20 assumed that, in the Do Minimum case, additional vehicles are provided as per the HLOS assumptions. For the Test Timetable scenario, it was assumed that additional train services have at least as many vehicles as corresponding services in the Do Minimum scenario, and, where significant crowding was identified, vehicles were further increased, so that there was no significant crowding in the Test Timetable scenario (for the Trend Economic Scenario).

Table 2  GJT improvement by corridor The additional capacity was 5.21 quantified in terms of additional seats provided in the AM peak, roughly corresponding to a requirement for additional vehicles (though of course some vehicles may be able to be used more than once during the three hour peak). Table 3 shows the incremental AM peak seats in each corridor, broken down by suburban and long-distance services. Generalised Journey Time Change Splits Corridor GJT change (within-corridor journeys, minutes) In-vehicle Service Interval Interchange 1 Southport via Wigan -6.37 69% 31% 0% 2 Preston and the North via Bolton -5.52 78% 20% 2% 3 Blackburn -8.61 101% -1% 0% 4 Bradford via Rochdale -7.89 90% 10% 0% 5 Yorkshire and the Humber & the North East via Leeds -5.53 76% 24% 0% 6 Glossop / Hadfield -9.92 84% 16% 0% 7 Marple / Romiley -6.41 98% 2% -1% 8 Yorkshire and the Humber & the East Midlands via Sheffield -5.77 39% 60% 1% 9 Buxton -10.41 69% 31% 0% 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) -2.83 110% -11% 2% 11 Manchester Airport -5.01 63% 37% 0% 12 Chester via Northwich -17.17 34% 72% -5% 13 Liverpool via Irlam -1.33 227% 45% -172% 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington -8.21 91% 20% -10% Total -5.55 85% 16% -1%

54 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Freight benefits have been 5.22 estimated by assuming that additional freight paths will be identified, and used, by intermodal freight services to Trafford Park. The estimated benefits have therefore been compared against the incremental freight paths assumed to be available, i.e. an additional 15 two-way north south paths per day. Table 3  Incremental seats in am peak by corridor Modelling Results and Interpretation The Experian GVA and 5.23 employment forecasts can be translated into their impacts on each of the Manchester Hub corridors (and also on Central Manchester).

Figures 2 and 3 show the overall growth forecast between 2007/8 and 2019/20 for GVA and Employment, for the Trend and Trend Plus economic scenarios (and the corresponding cumulative average growth rates).

Test Timetable vs. Do Min Incremental AM Peak Seats Corridor Suburban Services Long- distance Services All Services 1 Southport via Wigan 4,292 N/A 4,292 2 Preston and the North via Bolton 2,188 992 3,180 3 Blackburn 894 N/A 894 4 Bradford via Rochdale 430 1,808 2,238 5 Yorkshire and the Humber & the North East via Leeds 3,736 3,094 6,830 6 Glossop / Hadfield 2,840 N/A 2,840 7 Marple / Romiley 1,062 N/A 1,062 8 Yorkshire and the Humber & the East Midlands via Sheffield 1,548 498 2,046 9 Buxton 2,100 N/A 2,100 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) 852 3,320 4,172 11 Manchester Airport 3,590 1,306 4,896 12 Chester via Northwich 1,341 N/A 1,341 13 Liverpool via Irlam 3,367 N/A 3,367 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 576 2,366 2,942 Total 28,816 13,384 42,200

55 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Figure 2 Forecast GVA Growth, 2007/8 to 2019/20, for Trend and Trend Plus Economic Scenarios Figure 3 Forecast Employment Growth, 2007/8 to 2019/20, for Trend and Trend Plus Economic Scenarios 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Perecnatge Growth in GVA (%) Trend and Trend Plus GVA Percentage Growth By Corridor 2007/8 to 2019/20 (with CAGR figures shown) Trend Trend Plus 2.7% 2.2% 2.5% 2.2% 2.3% 2.1% 2.2% 2.8% 2.4% 2.5% 2.7% 3.2% 1.9% 2.6% 2.2% 4.2% 3.5% 2.7% 3.1% 4.4% 4.0% 3.7% 4.1% 2.9% 4.0% 2.8% 4.7% 3.2% 3.9% 2.8% 2.7% 2.2% 2.5% 2.2% 2.3% 2.1% 2.2% 2.8% 2.4% 2.5% 2.7% 3.2% 1.9% 2.6% 2.2% 4.2% 3.5% 2.7% 3.1% 4.4% 4.0% 3.7% 4.1% 2.9% 4.0% 2.8% 4.7% 3.2% 3.9% 2.8% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Percentage Growth in Employment (%) Trend and Trend Plus Employment Percentage Growth by Corridor 2007/8 to 2019/20 (with CAGR figures shown) Trend Trend Plus 0.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 1.0% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 1.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 1.3% 0.9% 0.4% 0.7% 1.4% 1.0% 0.9% 1.8% 0.8% 1.1% 0.6% 1.9% 0.9% 1.1% 0.6% 0.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 1.0% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 1.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 1.3% 0.9% 0.4% 0.7% 1.4% 1.0% 0.9% 1.8% 0.8% 1.1% 0.6% 1.9% 0.9% 1.1% 0.6%

56 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement The charts show that as should 5.24 be anticipated the Trend Plus scenario forecast has much stronger growth on most corridors than does the Trend scenario. Rail Demand Growth Exogenous growth in demand 5.25 for each rail corridor to 2019/20 in the Trend and Trend Plus scenarios is shown in Tables 4 and 5. In the tables, the corridor demand is the total number of people that can use, for all or part of their journey, services that pass through or terminate in the Manchester Hub. The geographic reach of these services is large, so many of these passengers’ start and end stations that are remote from Manchester.

Nonetheless, such passengers would benefit from relaxing the capacity constraints in and around the Manchester Hub as the constraints limit the frequency of services and also adversely impact on their performance. It may also be noted that while 5.26 there are fourteen corridors under consideration, total travel volumes on some are relatively low. Five corridors (to Yorkshire and the Humber and the North East via Leeds, to Preston and the North via Bolton, to Yorkshire and the Humber and the East Midlands via Sheffield and the two to Liverpool) dominate within the North and the West Coast Main Line corridor to the south is the largest of all.

Each of these corridors caters for a mix of longer distance, commuting and other local rail journeys. However, it is also important to note that the highest rates of forecast growth in the Trend Scenario are on the three south Manchester suburban corridors - Marple/Romiley, Buxton, and Manchester Airport. In the Trend Plus scenario, the corridors to Bradford via Rochdale, Marple/Romiley and Buxton have the highest growth rates. The demand growth for 2019/20, 5.27 compared to 2007/8, by corridor, is as shown in Figure 4.

57 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Corridor Journeys (m) 2007/08 Journeys (m) 2019/20 Trend Growth Trend Growth 2007/08 to 2019/20 (%) 1 Southport via Wigan 3.5 4.8 38% 2 Preston and the North via Bolton 16.2 22.5 39% 3 Blackburn 1.8 2.4 36% 4 Bradford via Rochdale 3.0 4.4 45% 5 Yorkshire and the Humber & the North East via Leeds 17.2 22.7 32% 5a Leeds and York 11.3 14.9 31% 5b North of York (towards Tees, Tyne and Scotland) 4.6 6.0 31% 5c East of Leeds (towards Hull) 1.3 1.7 38% 6 Glossop / Hadfield 1.6 2.2 42% 7 Marple / Romiley 1.3 2.0 51% 8 Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield 8.7 12.5 44% 9 Buxton 1.9 2.9 50% 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) 39.2 55.3 41% 11 Manchester Airport 1.7 2.5 45% 12 Chester via Northwich 2.1 2.9 38% 13 Liverpool via Irlam 1.6 2.2 35% 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 5.6 7.2 29% Total 105.3 146.4 39% Table 4 Rail Growth – Trend Scenario

58 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Forecast Passenger Demand Rail passenger demand in the 5.28 Manchester Hub corridors is forecast to rise from 105 million journeys in 2007/8 to 156 million in 2019/20, 178 million in 2024/5 and 202 million in 2029 under the Trend Scenario. Here demand is defined as the number of people who can use train services that terminate in or pass through the Manchester Hub. In the Trend Plus scenario, the corresponding forecasts are 174 million in 2019/20, 201 million in 2024/5 and 231 million in 2029/30. This is illustrated in the Figure 5, where demand is shown for each of these forecast years (and the base year), separately for the Do Minimum (no timetable change) and Test scenario timetable, as well as for both the Trend and Trend Plus economic scenarios.

Figure 6 shows the 5.29 changes, in journeys in each corridor, in each of the forecast years, as a result of the introduction of the Test Scenario timetable change. Table 5 Rail Growth – Trend Plus Scenario Corridor Journeys (m) 2007/08 Journeys (m) 2019/20 Trend Plus Growth Trend Plus Growth 2007/08 to 2019/20 (%) 1 Southport via Wigan 3.5 5.5 58% 2 Preston and the North via Bolton 16.2 23.7 47% 3 Blackburn 1.8 2.6 50% 4 Bradford via Rochdale 3.0 5.3 75% 5 Yorkshire and the Humber & the North East via Leeds 17.2 28.2 64% 5a Leeds and York 11.3 18.7 65% 5b North of York (towards Tees, Tyne and Scotland) 4.6 7.1 55% 5c East of Leeds (towards Hull) 1.3 2.3 85% 6 Glossop / Hadfield 1.6 2.5 62% 7 Marple / Romiley 1.3 2.3 72% 8 Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield 8.7 14.2 63% 9 Buxton 1.9 3.3 68% 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) 39.2 57.8 47% 11 Manchester Airport 1.7 2.6 55% 12 Chester via Northwich 2.1 3.4 62% 13 Liverpool via Irlam 1.6 2.4 51% 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 5.6 8.0 44% Total 105.3 161.8 54%

59 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Figure 4  Forecast Passenger Journeys Growth, 2007/8 to 2019/20,for Trend and Trend Plus Economic Scenarios Figure 5 Manchester Hub Passenger Journey Forecasts by Corridor 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Percentage Change in Journeys Trend and Trend Plus Exogenous Journeys Percentage Growth by Corridor 2007/8 to 2019/20 (with CAGR figures shown) Trend Trend Plus 2.7% 2.8% 2.6% 3.1% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.7% 3.0% 3.5% 3.1% 3.4% 2.9% 3.1% 2.7% 2.5% 2.2% 2.8% 3.9% 3.2% 3.4% 4.8% 4.2% 4.3% 3.7% 5.2% 4.1% 4.6% 4.2% 4.4% 3.3% 3.7% 4.1% 3.5% 3.1% 3.6% 2.7% 2.8% 2.6% 3.1% 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.7% 3.0% 3.5% 3.1% 3.4% 2.9% 3.1% 2.7% 2.5% 2.2% 2.8% 3.9% 3.2% 3.4% 4.8% 4.2% 4.3% 3.7% 5.2% 4.1% 4.6% 4.2% 4.4% 3.3% 3.7% 4.1% 3.5% 3.1% 3.6% Trend & Trend Plus Scenario Journey Growth Under DoMin and T est Timetable Changes 50 100 150 200 250 Base Trend Trend Plus Trend Trend Plus Trend Trend Plus Trend Trend Plus Trend Trend Plus Trend Trend Plus DoMin Test DoMin Test DoMin Test 2007/8 2019/20 2024/25 2029/30 Passenger Journeys (Millions) Central Manchester Southport via Wigan Preston and the North via Bolton Blackburn Bradford via Rochdale Yorkshire and the Humber & the North East via Leeds Glossop / Hadfield Marple / Romiley Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield Buxton London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) Manchester Airport Chester via Northwich Liverpool via Irlam Liverpool / Chester via Warrington

60 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Tables 6 and 7 provide more 5.30 information of the forecasts of future growth. Again the forecasts are for 2019/20, with Table 6 showing data for the Trend Scenario and Table 7 for the Trend Plus Scenario. Growth rates are shown for trips to and from Central Manchester from and to locations within Inner Manchester City Region (defined as stations within the M60) and Outer Manchester City Region (the rest of the Manchester City Region), other northern City Regions and Long Distance (all other stations not in the preceeding three categories). The tables also show growth rates for trips within corridors, trips to other corridors and trips to or from Manchester Airport.

Note that the tables relate to growth in journeys due to economic growth only (exogenous growth), and do not include the impact of the introduction of an improved timetable.

It may be noticed that, for some 5.31 sets of corridors Tables 6 and 7, growths to or from Manchester Airport are identical. The reason for this is that the airport flows model used CAA 5 10 15 20 25 30 Trend Trend Plus Trend Trend Plus Trend Trend Plus 2019/20 2024/25 2029/30 Passenger Journeys (Millions) Trend & Trend Plus Scenario Journeys Changes due to Test Timetable Change Central Manchester Southport via Wigan Preston and the North via Bolton Blackburn Bradford via Rochdale Yorkshire and the Humber & the North East via Leeds Glossop / Hadfield Marple / Romiley Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield Buxton London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) Manchester Airport Chester via Northwich Liverpool via Irlam Liverpool / Chester via Warrington Figure 6  Manchester Hub Passenger Journey Forecasts by Corridor survey data in which respondents identified their home residence only by the first part of the postcode, making it difficult to attribute precisely journeys to the true rail station origin, especially where trip makers have alternative options.

Comparing CAA-derived distributions with the base year data, which is derived from actual rail ticket usage data can give anomalous results. To address this, we have therefore grouped some neighbouring corridors for the purpose of calculating forecast journey growth to or from the airport. The overall growth rate for 5.32 journeys to and from the airport is slightly lower than for other types of flow – this arises because airport journeys growth (before timetable improvement is taken into consideration) is assumed to rise in line with the airport passenger growth set out in the Airport’s Masterplan, which happens to be lower than the exogenous growth forecast for rail journeys.

61 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Corridor Flows to/from Central Manchester from Inner Manchester City Region Flows to/from Central Manchester from Outer Manchester City Region Flows to/from Central Manchester from Other Northern City Regions Flows to/from Central Manchester from Long Distance stations Other intra corridor flows Inter corridor flows where one or both ends is in the Manchester City Region Inter corridor flows where neither end is in the Manchester City Region Flows to/from Manchester Airport Total 1 Southport via Wigan 47.7% 49.4% 35.7% N/A 27.8% 43.4% 29.2% 29.2% 38.1% 2 Preston and the North via Bolton N/A 46.3% 44.7% 38.2% 33.2% 29.8% 54.6% 31.1% 38.9% 3 Blackburn 54.1% 43.2% 39.0% N/A 30.4% 29.3% 28.5% 31.1% 35.7% 4 Bradford via Rochdale 46.3% 42.5% 40.7% N/A 30.8% 20.8% 54.0% 31.1% 44.9% 5 Yorkshire and the Humber & the North East via Leeds N/A 45.1% 28.9% 29.5% 32.2% 25.8% 30.5% 31.1% 31.7% 5a Leeds and York N/A 45.1% 29.3% N/A 33.3% 26.0% 26.7% 31.1% 31.1% 5b North of York (towards Tees, Tyne and Scotland) N/A N/A 26.3% 29.5% 30.7% 22.3% 32.5% 31.1% 31.4% 5c East of Leeds (towards Hull) N/A N/A 28.7% N/A 22.0% 29.5% 40.4% 31.1% 37.5% 6 Glossop / Hadfield 48.4% 44.7% N/A N/A 27.2% 32.6% N/A 45.9% 41.9% 7 Marple / Romiley 47.7% 47.5% 35.0% N/A 43.7% 47.5% 58.0% 45.9% 51.4% 8 Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield 48.8% N/A 40.8% 33.3% 47.9% 39.4% 44.1% 45.9% 43.8% 9 Buxton 56.8% 51.2% N/A N/A 31.2% 37.6% N/A 45.9% 49.7% 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) N/A 46.7% N/A 52.2% 40.4% 41.8% 37.5% -4.5% 41.2% 11 Manchester Airport N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 44.6% 44.6% 12 Chester via Northwich N/A 58.0% 37.8% N/A 26.3% 32.8% 24.6% 34.6% 38.1% 13 Liverpool via Irlam 36.1% 35.6% 34.0% N/A 31.2% 34.5% 29.4% 19.5% 35.2% 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 46.0% 39.9% 34.7% 29.9% 23.8% 22.4% 31.5% 19.5% 29.2% Total 52.3% 46.5% 36.3% 48.8% 37.3% 35.8% 37.9% 36.8% 39.0% Table 6 Growth Rates – Trend Scenario

62 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Corridor Flows to/from Central Manchester from Inner Manchester City Region Flows to/from Central Manchester from Outer Manchester City Region Flows to/from Central Manchester from Other Northern City Regions Flows to/from Central Manchester from Long Distance stations Other intra corridor flows Inter corridor flows where one or both ends is in the Manchester City Region Inter corridor flows where neither end is in the Manchester City Region Flows to/from Manchester Airport Total 1 Southport via Wigan 67.1% 69.2% 53.5% N/A 42.7% 79.8% 42.0% 31.1% 57.7% 2 Preston and the North via Bolton N/A 65.2% 65.0% 46.6% 36.0% 51.8% 63.7% 33.5% 46.6% 3 Blackburn 73.0% 60.9% 52.8% N/A 42.6% 45.3% 42.9% 33.5% 49.7% 4 Bradford via Rochdale 66.4% 62.2% 78.2% N/A 58.1% 46.5% 97.6% 32.9% 75.4% 5 Yorkshire and the Humber & the North East via Leeds N/A 62.5% 57.2% 51.2% 56.0% 56.4% 75.2% 32.9% 63.8% 5a Leeds and York N/A 62.5% 58.5% N/A 60.0% 58.0% 80.6% 32.9% 65.2% 5b North of York (towards Tees, Tyne and Scotland) N/A N/A 44.9% 51.2% 46.5% 39.6% 60.7% 32.9% 54.6% 5c East of Leeds (towards Hull) N/A N/A 59.0% N/A 45.7% 64.6% 97.1% 32.9% 84.8% 6 Glossop / Hadfield 70.2% 64.3% N/A N/A 45.6% 56.2% N/A 48.3% 61.5% 7 Marple / Romiley 68.5% 67.9% 57.0% N/A 64.7% 71.8% 77.0% 48.3% 72.1% 8 Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield 69.4% N/A 64.7% 46.6% 62.9% 57.1% 66.4% 48.3% 63.0% 9 Buxton 75.3% 68.3% N/A N/A 49.2% 61.7% N/A 48.3% 68.4% 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) N/A 67.1% N/A 81.9% 43.1% 61.2% 38.0% 2.8% 47.4% 11 Manchester Airport N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 54.6% 54.6% 12 Chester via Northwich N/A 93.9% 57.9% N/A 44.2% 58.6% 42.2% 41.6% 62.5% 13 Liverpool via Irlam 52.0% 52.3% 52.4% N/A 48.0% 57.4% 41.7% 23.2% 51.1% 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 64.9% 58.6% 52.9% 41.4% 32.9% 34.2% 48.0% 23.2% 43.6% Total 71.4% 66.6% 58.9% 74.7% 44.6% 60.0% 58.9% 43.5% 53.6% Table 7 Growth Rates – Trend Plus Scenario

63 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Table 8 Summary of benefits due to improvement in passenger rail services Projected Benefits A standard 60-year assessment 5.33 was undertaken of the benefits of the Test scenario train service, compared to the Do Minimum case, assuming that the Test scenario timetable, and associated additional rolling stock are in place from 2019. The total benefits of the test scenario are £12,721 million under the Trend Economic Scenario and £16,152 million under the Trend Plus Economic Scenario (both numbers are 60 year Present Value (PV), 2002 prices). The results are shown for each corridor in Table 8.

The geographic reach of 5.34 services that terminate in and cross the Manchester Hub is large, so many of the passengers that use these services start and end their journeys at stations that are remote from Manchester. Nonetheless, such passengers would benefit from relaxing the capacity constraints in and around the Manchester Hub as the constraints limit the frequency of services and also Scenario Benefits £m PV Corridor Trend Trend Plus Change % Change 1 Southport via Wigan 431 556 125 29% 2 Preston and the North via Bolton 1,719 2,011 292 17% 3 Blackburn 288 356 67 23% 4 Bradford via Rochdale 636 841 206 32% 5 Yorkshire & the North East via Leeds 2,435 3,342 908 37% 5a Leeds and York 1,566 2,152 586 37% 5b North of York (towards Tees, Tyne and Scotland) 562 739 177 32% 5c East of Leeds (towards Hull) 307 452 144 47% 6 Glossop / Hadfield 190 230 40 21% 7 Marple / Romiley 148 184 36 24% 8 Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield 1,374 1,766 392 29% 9 Buxton 395 496 102 26% 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) 2,882 3,550 668 23% 11 Manchester Airport 362 395 33 9% 12 Chester via Northwich 380 502 122 32% 13 Liverpool via Irlam 274 367 93 34% 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 878 1,117 239 27% Other trips 329 439 110 33% Total 12,721 16,152 3,432 27% adversely impact on their performance.

Also such passengers may potentially enjoy benefits from faster journey times. Table 9 shows the distribution of benefits in the Trend and Trend Plus scenarios. This shows that in the Trend and Trend Plus scenarios 79% of benefits accrue to trips to and from Central Manchester, to and from Manchester Airport and that cross the Manchester Hub. It should be noted that while there is additional growth in most rail markets there is no difference in Airport air passenger forecasts between the Trend and Trend Plus scenarios. This is why the proportion of benefits from Airport trips is lower in the Trend Plus scenarios.

64 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Trend Scenario Trend Plus Scenario To/from Central Manchester 57% 57% To/from Manchester Airport 7% 6% Within corridor (within WCML) 21% (12%) 21% (12%) Between corridors 15% 16% Tables 10 and 11 show the 5.35 aggregate benefits across all corridors split by benefit type and the flow geography. Note that Crowding benefits have been assumed to arise on journeys within corridors only, and Wider Economic Benefits have not been calculated for flows outside the Manchester Hub corridor routes. Tables 12 and 13 give some 5.36 more details on the sources of benefits.

These are shown for benefits for trips to/from Central Manchester, to/from Manchester Airport, within corridors and between corridors. These show that for the most important sources of benefits for the to/from Central Manchester segment are the corridors to Preston via Bolton, the West Coast Main Line, the Yorkshire and Humber and North East via Leeds and Liverpool/ Chester via Warrington. For the to/from Airport segment the most important sources of benefits are the corridors to Preston via Bolton, and the three trans Pennine corridors (via Leeds, Bradford via Rochdale and via Sheffield).

The West Coast Main Line generates over half the within corridor benefits, with the trans Pennine corridor via Leeds also significant. The negative figures in this column arise because in some cases benefits to principal destinations arise at the expense of within corridor movements. Finally, the West Coast Main Line, trans-Pennine via Leeds, Preston via Bolton and trans-Pennine via Sheffield are the most important sources of between corridor benefits. Table 9 Distribution of benefits due to improvement in passenger rail services The benefits for the Trend 5.37 Scenario are illustrated in the following charts (in terms of a 60-year PV in £m at 2002 prices).

Figure 7 shows total benefits by corridor, split by journey type within corridor (i.e. “within corridor”, including journeys to or from central Manchester, “to the airport”, “to other corridors” and “to or from the rest of the UK”).

Figure 8 shows benefits by 5.38 category, namely: Revenue increment; ● ● Journey time improvements; ● ● Crowding; ● ● Non-user benefits; and ● ● Wider Economic Benefits. ● ● The corresponding benefits for 5.39 the Trend Plus Scenario are illustrated in Figures 9 and 10. Freight Modelling and Appraisal Results The estimated value for SLMs 5.40 for Manchester Hub is £612.2m PV for the 60 year assessment period. This equates to around £41m PV for each incremental daily freight path into the Manchester area (modelled as Trafford Park). This figure excludes any contribution from wider economic benefits.

65 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Table 10 Total Benefits by Benefit and Geography type –Trend Scenario Table 11 Total Benefits Benefit and Geography type - Trend Plus Scenario Trend Scenario Benefit £ million PV Flows to/from Central Manchester from Inner Manchester City Region Flows to/from Central Manchester from Outer Manchester City Region Flows to/from Central Manchester from Other Northern City Regions Flows to/from Central Manchester from Long Distance stations Other intra corridor flows Inter corridor flows where one or both ends is in the Manchester City Region Inter corridor flows where neither end is in the Manchester City Region Flows to/from Manchester Airport from Manchester City Region Flows to/from Manchester Airport from outside Manchester City Region Flows to all other station Total Revenue increment 3 101 294 460 406 43 181 9 86 138 1,722 Journey time savings 28 1,108 1,356 839 1,252 327 1,013 126 441 1,002 7,492 Crowding 0 3,195 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 0 3,288 Non user Benefits 1 40 144 197 50 20 73 3 5 30 563 Wider Economic Benefits 2 471 350 111 189 248 1,609 41 67 0 3,088 Total 33 4,915 2,145 1,607 1,896 638 2,876 272 599 1,170 16,152 Trend Scenario Benefit £ million PV Flows to/from Central Manchester from Inner Manchester City Region Flows to/from Central Manchester from Outer Manchester City Region Flows to/from Central Manchester from Other Northern City Regions Flows to/from Central Manchester from Long Distance stations Other intra corridor flows Inter corridor flows where one or both ends is in the Manchester City Region Inter corridor flows where neither end is in the Manchester City Region Flows to/from Manchester Airport from Manchester City Region Flows to/from Manchester Airport from outside Manchester City Region Flows to all other station Total Revenue increment 2 85 241 352 335 1 187 8 86 107 1,403 Journey time savings 23 930 1,124 661 1,075 254 687 115 438 809 6,116 Crowding 0 2,225 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 2,304 Non user Benefits 1 34 119 185 47 8 41 2 5 24 465 Wider Economic Benefits 1 390 281 105 170 186 1,211 33 55 0 2,433 Total 27 3,664 1,765 1,302 1,627 450 2,125 238 583 940 12,721

66 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Sources of Benefit 2019/20 Corridor To/from Central Manchester (57% of Total) To/from Manchester Airport (7% of Total) Within Corridor (21% of Total) Between Corridors (15% of Total) 1 Southport via Wigan 4.0% 5.0% 2.2% 2.6% 2 Preston and the North via Bolton 17.3% 26.8% 5.5% 12.1% 3 Blackburn 4.3% 0.6% -0.5% 1.3% 4 Bradford via Rochdale 5.5% 13.9% 1.4% 5.2% 5 Yorkshire and the Humber & the North East via Leeds 14.8% 21.6% 17.7% 22.1% 6 Glossop / Hadfield 4.9% 1.5% 0.2% 0.7% 7 Marple / Romiley 2.6% 2.3% 0.7% 1.6% 8 Yorkshire and the Humber & the East Midlands via Sheffield 6.6% 10.1% 9.2% 11.9% 9 Buxton 7.0% 0.5% 2.9% 3.2% 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) 15.8% 4.7% 59.7% 27.6% 11 Manchester Airport 1.9% N/A N/A N/A 12 Chester via Northwich 6.9% 0.6% 2.9% 1.8% 13 Liverpool via Irlam 0.1% 3.6% -0.7% 0.5% 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 8.3% 8.8% -1.2% 9.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Table 12 Sources of Benefit – Trend Scenario

67 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Sources of Benefit 2019/20 Corridor To/from Central Manchester (57% of Total) To/from Manchester Airport (6% of Total) Within Corridor (21% of Total) Between Corridors (16% of Total) 1 Southport via Wigan 3.9% 5.1% 2.2% 2.7% 2 Preston and the North via Bolton 16.6% 26.4% 5.5% 11.4% 3 Blackburn 4.0% 0.6% -0.5% 1.2% 4 Bradford via Rochdale 5.6% 13.8% 1.6% 5.6% 5 Yorkshire and the Humber & the North East via Leeds 15.3% 21.5% 19.0% 23.7% 6 Glossop / Hadfield 4.8% 1.5% 0.2% 0.7% 7 Marple / Romiley 2.6% 2.3% 0.7% 1.5% 8 Yorkshire and the Humber & the East Midlands via Sheffield 6.5% 10.1% 9.4% 11.0% 9 Buxton 6.7% 0.5% 2.9% 3.3% 10 London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) 16.7% 4.6% 57.8% 26.5% 11 Manchester Airport 1.83% N/A N/A N/A 12 Chester via Northwich 7.9% 0.6% 2.9% 1.9% 13 Liverpool via Irlam 0.1% 3.6% -0.7% 0.5% 14 Liverpool / Chester via Warrington 8.2% 9.3% -1.0% 10.1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Table 13 Sources of Benefit – Trend Plus Scenario

68 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Figure 7 Trend Scenario Benefits by Corridor and Flow Geography -£500 £0 £500 £1,000 £1,500 £2,000 £2,500 £3,000 Southport via Wigan Preston and the North via Bolton Blackburn Bradford via Rochdale Leeds and York North of York (towards Tees, Tyne and Scotland) East of Leeds (towards Hull) Glossop / Hadfield Marple / Romiley Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield Buxton London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) Manchester Airport Chester via Northwich Liverpool via Irlam Liverpool / Chester via Warrington All Other £ Millions NPV (2002 prices) Corridor Flows to all other station Flows to/from Manchester Airport which are to/from outside Greater Manchester City Region Flows to/from Manchester Airport which are in Greater Manchester City Region Inter corridor flows where neither end is in the Greater Manchester City Region Inter corridor flows where one or both ends is in the Greater Manchester City Region Intra corridor flows Flows to/from Central Manchester to/from Long Distance stations Flows to/from Central Manchester to/from Other City Regions Flows to/from Central Manchester to/from Outer Manchester City Region Flows to/from Central Manchester to/from Inner Manchester City Region Corridor

69 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Figure 8 Trend Scenario Benefits by Corridor and Benefit Type -£500 £0 £500 £1,000 £1,500 £2,000 £2,500 £3,000 Southport via Wigan Preston and the North via Bolton Blackburn Bradford via Rochdale Leeds and York North of York (towards Tees, Tyne and Scotland) East of Leeds (towards Hull) Glossop / Hadfield Marple / Romiley Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield Buxton London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) Manchester Airport Chester via Northwich Liverpool via Irlam Liverpool / Chester via Warrington All Other £ Millions NPV (2002 prices) Corridor Wider Economic Benef Non user Benefits Crowding Journey time savings Revenue Increment

70 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement -£500 £0 £500 £1,000 £1,500 £2,000 £2,500 £3,000 £3,500 Southport via Wigan Preston and the North via Bolton Blackburn Bradford via Rochdale Leeds and York North of York (towards Tees, Tyne and Scotland) East of Leeds (towards Hull) Glossop / Hadfield Marple / Romiley Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield Buxton London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) Manchester Airport Chester via Northwich Liverpool via Irlam Liverpool / Chester via Warrington All Other £ Millions NPV (2002 prices) Corridor Test Rail Service Benefits by Corridor and Flow-type Flows to all other station Flows to/from Manchester Airport which are to/from outside Greater Manchester City Region Flows to/from Manchester Airport which are in Greater Manchester City Region Inter corridor flows where neither end is in the Greater Manchester City Region Inter corridor flows where one or both ends is in the Greater Manchester City Region Intra corridor flows Flows to/from Central Manchester to/from Long Distance stations Flows to/from Central Manchester to/from Other City Regions Flows to/from Central Manchester to/from Outer Manchester City Region Flows to/from Central Manchester to/from Inner Manchester City Region Figure 9 Trend Scenario Benefits by Corridor and Flow Geography

71 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Figure 10 Trend Plus Scenario Benefits by Corridor and Benefit Type £0 £500 £1,000 £1,500 £2,000 £2,500 £3,000 £3,500 Leeds and York £ Millions NPV (2002 prices) Corridor Wider Economic Benefits Non user Benefits Crowding Journey time savings Revenue Increment Southport via Wigan Preston and the North via Bolton Blackburn Bradford via Rochdale Leeds and York North of York (towards Tees, Tyne and Scotland) East of Leeds (towards Hull) Glossop / Hadfield Marple / Romiley Yorkshire & the East Midlands via Sheffield Buxton London, Birmingham and the South (via WCML) Manchester Airport Chester via Northwich Liverpool via Irlam Liverpool / Chester via Warrington All Other

72 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement © Chilled Phill 2008

73 Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement Glossary AGMA Association of Greater Manchester Authorities CRDP City Regional Development Programme CUPS Centre for Urban Policy Studies DfT Department for Transport GJT Generalised Journey Time GMITA Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority GMPTE Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive GMTU Greater Manchester Transportation Unit HLOS High Level Output Statement HMT Her Majesty’s Treasury IPEG Institute for Political and Economic Governance LENNON Latest Earnings Networked Nationally Over Night – rail ticket sales database MOIRA A rail demand forecasting model N/A Not Applicable NUTS3 Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics NWDA North West Development Agency ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister PV Present Value RUS Route Utilisation Strategy SERC Spatial Economics Research Centre SURF Centre for Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures WCML West Coast Main Line

The Northern Way Transport Team Yorkshire Forward, Victoria House, Victoria Place, Leeds LS11 5AE www.thenorthernway.co.uk transport@thenorthernway.co.uk Tel: 0113 394 9590 © The Northern Way 2009