Page 1

Assessment of Alternative Modes Document: 1.0 Version: 1 Whitehill Bordon Rail Study

Hampshire County Council 17 August 2012


Assessment of Alternative Modes Whitehill Bordon Rail Study

Hampshire County Council 17 August 2012

Halcrow Group Limited Elms House, 43 Brook Green, London W6 7EF tel +44 20 3479 8000 fax +44 20 3479 8001 halcrow.com Halcrow Group Limited is a CH2M HILL company Halcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance with the instructions of client Hampshire County Council for the client’s sole and specific use. Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk. Š Halcrow Group Limited 2012


Assessment of Alternative Modes

Document history Assessment of Alternative Modes Whitehill Bordon Rail Study Hampshire County Council

This document has been issued and amended as follows: Version

Date

Description

Created by

Verified by

Approved by

1.0

18/07/12

First Draft

DC

DC

DC

2.0

17/08/12

Final

DC

DC

RS


Assessment of Alternative Modes

Contents 1

Introduction

3

1.1 1.2

Overview Structure of the Report

3 3

2

Alternative Mode Assessment

4

2.1 2.2

Ultra Light Rail Technology Diesel Shuttle

4 8

3

Conclusion

3.1

Key Issues

Appendix A

10 10


Assessment of Alternative Modes

1

Introduction

1.1

Overview The findings from the GRIP3 study into rail links to Whitehill Bordon indicate that the economic and funding case for delivering a heavy rail service is likely to be extremely challenging. Current funding constraints and fundamentally the economic performance of the scheme based upon DfT Value for Money Indicators play against the development of the scheme as set out in that report. The original GRIP2 study undertook an economic and environmental assessment of a range of alternative options to a direct rail service. This showed poor Benefits to Cost Ratios and substantial environmental constraints, and subsequently lead to the investigation of the option of running a direct heavy rail service on the London Waterloo line via Bentley. None of the proposed LRT options, or a segregated BRT variation, showed a positive BCR due to lower journey times than the heavy rail option, high infrastructure costs in comparison to potential demand, and the costs associated with needing to acquire and run a bespoke fleet of vehicles in the case of LRT. Similarly, the rail shuttle service requiring interchange at Bentley also showed a low BCR given still comparatively high infrastructure costs and good bus service provision to other railheads which themselves have superior rail services. Not all the alternative mode options were explored in detail however. Consideration was not given to a diesel shuttle from Bentley, or the operation of Ultra Light Rail technology on the Bentley / Whitehill Bordon corridor. Both of these options should prove cheaper in capital cost terms. The focus of this report therefore is to examine the impact on the scheme economics, and to explore the operating issues associated with these alternative modes.

1.2

Structure of the Report The report is split into two distinct sections covering Ultra Light Rail (ULR) and Diesel shuttle alternatives. Each section considers the engineering issues surrounding each option, before summarising the scheme capital and operating costs associated with that. It should be noted that the assessment has been undertaken at a relatively high level, taking the GRIP3 work and building on that to define the variances associated with each mode. The following sections then consider the impact on demand of the options, taking into account impact on journey time and interchange/access. Finally the sections are brought together to show a revised BCR for each option. The report is then summarised by drawing out the pertinent issues associated with the finding here and linking back to the previous GRIP studies.

Doc no: 1.0 Version: 1 Date: 17 July 2012 Project code: Filename: WB Study_Assessment of Alternative Modes_DRAFTPART B_V2

3


Assessment of Alternative Modes

2

Alternative Mode Assessment

2.1

Ultra Light Rail Technology Operational Concept The basis of the ULR assessment has been consideration of the Parry People Mover (PPM), with the key rationale behind this being that this is the only operational system in the UK, and as such it is a proven technology on the link where it operates and thus should reduce the technology risks that can be associated with new forms of traction. ULR / PPM incorporates flywheel energy storage, allowing electric tramway systems without overhead wires and vehicles powered by small prime movers running on gas, diesel or hydrogen. Currently, the only ULR service working in a mainstream public transport system is found in Stourbridge. The service links Stourbridge Town Centre to Stourbridge Junction, a route of approximately 1.3km. The service operates a 10 minute frequency, with each unit carrying a maximum of 25 people seating and 35 with standing. The Stourbridge Line was converted from existing diesel operation. It benefitted at introduction from the existing shared platform configuration at Stourbridge Junction thus avoiding the need for any significant capital costs outside the needs for maintenance facilities. For operation of ULR between Whitehill Bordon and Bentley the following assumptions have been made:  Frequency of the proposed service will be optimal at 30 minutes and timed to interface directly with Waterloo bound rail services.  Demand profiles from the previous GRIP studies would suggest vehicle types as operate on the Stourbridge Line would not have sufficient capacity to cope. Larger Tram Train PPM (60:Class 139) units are currently in development, they have the potential for higher speed, but not units currently exist against which to benchmark. Given these constraints it is suggested two units be joined to meet expected capacity issues.  Permanent Way – The rolling stock itself is lighter and therefore axle loads on the track formation lower than heavy rail. This will impact on construction costs. Given the vehicle specification however, there can be no interface (same track) with the existing railway, and therefore a new facility at Bentley will be required. The provision of a new facility will require a change to the route alignment from Bentley station to the spur. The new line will share the island platform 2 which currently is a single platform serving the UP and DOWN loop. The new line would have a physical separation with the main line and would carry onto the bridge structure over Blacknest Road before it spurs left and follows the GRIP 3 route. To maintain a separation between the ULR line and the main line, the bridge over Blacknest Road may need to be widened. A full topographic survey has to be undertaken to confirm this view.

4


Assessment of Alternative Modes

 Structures – Given the similarities of the vehicle type with conventional road vehicles, no separation at road crossings will be required. Therefore the costs of bridge structures can be saved. Though barrier crossings will need to be provided. The impact on the highway network of regular road closures when the barriers are down has not been included in the scheme economics.  Signalling and Comms – as the ULR and the main line will be segregated there is no need for any new signalling. The is a need to consider how road crossings are managed – barriers or conventional highway signals, and an allowance for additional signalling to address this has been made in the costing.  Stations – There would be a new island platform at Bentley Station on the south side. There is an existing footbridge which could still serve the island platform. The public footpath crossing located on the up side of the station platform would allow for disabled access over the railway line. At the Whitehill Bordon end there will be a depot to house three vehicles (2 operating and 1 spare) and facilities for maintenance and refuelling. Capital Cost Capital costs for the ULR option are presented below. As noted at the top of this document the level of detail included in the estimates is not at GRIP 3 for all cost items, but the work has built upon the existing GRIP 3 cost estimates. For comparative purposes costs associated with the Electric option is also included. All costs shown exclude optimism bias. Capital Cost 2011 Q4 - £m

Heavy Rail (DC electric)

Cost Item

Ultra Light Rail

Stations

7.86

7.86

Civil works in forming embankments, cuttings etc.

21.51

21.51

Bridges

5.15

0.5

P-way and Associated Works

19.17

5.4

Traction Power

5.33

0

Signalling

1.64

0.5

Telecomms

1.99

0.2

5


Assessment of Alternative Modes

Capital Cost 2011 Q4 - ÂŁm

Depot Works

0.25

0.75

-

5.0

Construction Costs

62.90

41.72

Project Development Costs

6.05

4.0

Risk Contingency

10.34

6.84

Land Purchase

17.10

17.10

Total

96.38

69.66

New platform at Bentley & bridegeworks at Blacknest Road

Operating Cost Annual operating costs assume a fleet of 3, 2 car vehicles. Two in operation and 1 as a spare. The service will run every half an hour, and be timed to coincide with departing services at Bentley. Existing PPM vehicles operate at a maximum of 40mph. We do not have precise acceleration and deceleration figures, and have therefore undertaken varying assumptions to give journey time assumptions of between 12 and 16 minutes for the station to station journey times. With a 4 minute interchange required at Bentley for connection to Heavy rail services. Increased penetration of Whitehill Bordon has also been considered as an option. A key driver of operating costs is service peak vehicle requirement (PVR). With a 12 minute journey time, plus 3 minute change around, that would imply a 30 minute frequency could be operated by 1 vehicle with no slack in the timetable at all. It would not allow for further penetration of the town at the Whitehill Bordon end, and assumes the maximum in our range of acceleration and deceleration assumptions. On this basis it has been assumed that we would require a fleet of 2 vehicles to run the service. Generic operating costs have been taken from our in-house database of information and relate to investigations of the PPM. With the above assumptions therefore, the annual vehicle operating costs are assumed to be ÂŁ740k in 2012.

6


Assessment of Alternative Modes

Demand Forecast A series of demand forecasting scenario have been undertaken based on differing journey times and fares. ULR is assumed to operate a 30 minute frequency throughout. An allowance for reduced access time to the station from increased penetration of Whitehill Bordon has been assumed in the modelling. Reducing accessibility by a nominal 50%. The results of the demand assessments are included below. Scenario

Demand at Whitehill Bordon (000)

New Demand to Rail Network (000)

1: Cost £1; 12 min journey time

600

378

2: Cost £1.5; 12 min journey time

519

296

3: Cost £2; 12 min journey time

454

232

4: Cost £2.5; 12 min journey time

402

180

5: Cost £1; 16min journey time

541

318

6: Cost £1.5; 16min journey time

471

249

7: Cost £2; 16min journey time

416

194

8: Cost £2.5; 16min journey time

372

150

Economic Case The economic appraisal of the ULR option is based on the standard GRIP / WebTAG approach and the same methodology as used for the previous appraisals. The key assumptions in the appraisal are summarised below:

Demand – is assumed for scenario 1 with a travel time of 12 minutes. This is the most optimistic of the demand forecasts with the highest level of passenger benefit per trip.

7


Assessment of Alternative Modes

The average time saving is assumed to be 9 minutes per trip. This compares to between 15-18 minutes for the heavy rail services. The lower benefit reflects the interchange time at Bentley station between ULR and heavy rail as well as the slower overall journey time.

Optimism bias at 66% has been applied to the capital costs. This is the standard factor for schemes at this stage of development. A full TEE table of the results is included in the Appendix. The headline figures show that the ULR scheme has a BCR of around 0.75. Meaning the scheme benefits are not sufficient to cover the scheme operating and capital costs. The key factor in that figure is the level of capital investment that would be required despite the lower specification of ULR. Moreover, the scheme economic benefits are not as extensive as a through running service would be, given the need for interchange, the location of the new platform farther from the existing service and the overall slower journey time associate with ULR over heavy rail options.

2.2

Diesel Shuttle Operational Concept The GRIP 3 report highlighted the difficulty in operating through electric services to Whitehill Bordon. An option was considered that included a shuttle service with electric trains, but this did not show a positive economic case due to high capital costs and associated impact on demand of the interchange penalty at Bentley. By running a diesel shuttle it should avoid issues associated with provision of electric power between Bentley and Whitehill Bordon, though consideration of maintenance and fuelling strategies would be new issues requiring resolution. Issues considered are outlined below:  Permanent Way – The rolling stock is heavy rail and is therefore compatible with main line rolling stock, and the weight requirements of the GRIP 3 work will remain. 

Structures – no change to GRIP 3 assessment.

Signalling & Comms - no change to GRIP 3 assessment.

 Traction & Power – no requirement for third rail infrastructure and associated power infrastructure in this option.  Stations – Bentley station layout would remain as planned for the electric options. There is a need to provide depot facilities however, it is suggested a depot to house two trains and undertake light maintenance and refuelling be provided at Whitehill Bordon. Major maintenance would be undertaken at Salisbury.

8


Assessment of Alternative Modes

Capital Cost Capital Cost 2011 Q4 - ÂŁm

Cost Item

Heavy Rail (DC electric) Diesel Shuttle

Stations

7.86

7.86

Civil works in forming embankments, cuttings etc.

21.51

21.51

Bridges

5.15

5.15

P-way and Associated Works

19.17

19.17

Traction Power

5.33

0

Signalling

1.64

1.64

Telecomms

1.99

1.99

Depot Works

0.25

0.75

Construction Costs

62.90

58.07

Project Development Costs

6.05

5.57

Risk Contingency

10.34

9.52

Land Purchase

17.10

17.10

Total

96.38

90.26

Operating Cost The operating scenario for the diesel shuttle will involve running half hourly frequency services to interchange with Waterloo bound services from Bentley. Journey times will be similar to those assumed for the electric operation at around 8 minutes, and therefore the service can operate with one vehicle. The estimated operating costs of this service are ÂŁ900k per annum.

9


Assessment of Alternative Modes

Whilst the diesel option does save capital costs of electrification, these figures are partially offset by the need to maintain the diesel fleet remotely from other parts of the diesel network, and that impacts on associated operating costs. Demand Forecast Demand estimates here are similar to those for Option 3 in the GRIP 3 work, where services were operated via interchange at Ascot. That option had a demand forecast of around 675k per annum. In this options London bound passengers would still interchange at Bentley. However, passengers for stations between Bentley and Ascot would also now require interchange, and as a result demand figures are around 15% lower than those of the GRIP3 option at around 575k. Economic Case The economic appraisal of the diesel shuttle option is based on the standard GRIP / WebTAG approach and the same methodology as used for the previous appraisals. The key assumptions in the appraisal are summarised below:



The average time saving is assumed to be between 15-18 minutes for the heavy rail services.



Optimism bias at 66% has been applied to the capital costs. This is the standard factor for schemes at this stage of development. A full TEE table of the results is included in the Appendix. The headline figures show that the ULR scheme has a BCR of around 0.80 meaning the scheme benefits are not sufficient to cover the scheme operating and capital costs.

3

Conclusion

3.1

Key Issues This report has briefly revisited the options for the provision of mass transit interventions to provide increased accessibility from Whitehill Bordon to the rail network. The work has investigated the potential to run alternative heavy rail traction (diesel) and also an intermediate mass transit mode in the form of Ultra Light Rail. Both of the options have the advantage of allowing the overall capital costs to be reduced over that of the other heavy rail options. Not all cost changes are positive however, and in both cases there is a need to develop standalone maintenance and stabling solutions for the fleet which inevitably lose the economies of scale that would be associated with an all electric option. Moreover, whilst costs of electric power can be saved, and also significant cost savings can be made on the civil works for the ULR option, there are also cost increases to be considered in terms of additional platform costs at Bentley and the need for segregation of ULR from the mainline.

10


Assessment of Alternative Modes

However, the fundamental issue that produces low economic performance of these options is the need for passengers to interchange. The assumptions made in the economics allow for limited wait time at Bentley in all cases, and has even considered reduced accessibility costs at Whitehill Bordon in the case of ULR. Despite this research consistently shows that passengers do not like interchanging on their journeys, and put significant costs as a penalty for doing so. The interruption of a journey to change to a different vehicle disrupts the journey flow and adds uncertainty to the passenger experience of the trip. These features are shown in statistical research to be valued highly by passengers and interrupt the seamless journey that is offered by through running operation. That issue alongside still significant capital costs plays against these options for the scheme.

11


Assessment of Alternative Modes

Appendix A

Appendix A Option TEE Tables

12


Assessment of Alternative Modes

Whitehill-Bordon via Bentley - ULTRA LIGHT RAIL OPTION Table 1: Economic Efficiency of Transport System Cars, LGVs and goods vehicles Bus & Coach

Total

Rail

Consumers user benefits - travel time saving

£24.637

- Vehicle opcost

£0.000

- user charges

£0.000

- during construction & maintenance Net (1)

£4.276

£0.000 £24.637

£20.361

£4.276

£0.000

£20.361

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

Business User benefits - Travel time

£0.000

- Vehicle opcost

£0.000

- user charges

£0.000

- during construction & maintenance

£0.000 £0.000

Net (2)

Total Rail Private sector provider impact - revenue

£33.202

- opcost

-£9.465

-£9.465

-£49.874

-£49.874

- investment cost - grant/subsidy - revenue clawback Sub total (3)

£33.202

£49.874

£49.874

-£23.736

-£23.736

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

All Modes

Road

Bus & Coach

Rail

Total

Infrastructure

£0.000

£0.000

Other impacts - Developer contribution (4) Net business impact (5 = 2+3+4) Total, PV of transport econ eff. Benefits (6 = 1+5)

£24.637

Note that subtotals (1) and (5) flow into the AMCB table. Subtotal (6) does not. Table 2 Public Accounts (costs should be recorded as a positive number, surpluses as a negative one)

Local Government funding - Direct Revenue

£0.000

- Op costs

£0.000

- Investment costs

£0.000

- Developer and other contributions

£0.000

- Grant/Subsidy (k)*

£0.000

- Revenue clawback

£0.000

Net (7)

£0.000

£0.000

General Government funding - Direct Revenue

£0.000

- Op costs

£0.000

- Investment costs*

£0.000

- Developer and other contributions - Grant/Subsidy (k)* - Indirect Tax Revenues - Revenue clawback Net (8) Total PV of costs (9 =7+8)

£0.000 £49.874

£49.874

£6.939

£6.939

-£23.736 £33.076

-£23.736 £0.000

£0.000

£33.076

£33.076

*The public sector costs in these boxes should exclude developer contribution e.g. developer contribution is subtracted from these figures to give Net (8) Table 3: Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) Total

Road

Bus & Coach

Rail

£24.637

£4.276

£0.000

£20.361

Business users and providers (sub-total 5, Table 1)

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

Reliability (incl. performance & reliability) (s)

£0.000

Option values (s)

£0.000

Interchange (s)

£0.000

Noise (s)

£0.000

Local air quality (s)

£0.000

Greenhouse gases (s) Journey ambience (incl. rolling stock quality, station quality and crowding)

£0.000

Accidents (incl. safety) Consumer users (sub-total 1, Table 1)

Wider Economic Benefits Central PVB, (c = sum of above, excluding sensitivity (s) items)

£0.000 £0.000

£0.000

Sensitivity PV of Benefits (a = sum of all benefits)

£24.637 £24.637

PVC (b = sub-total 9, Table 2)

£33.076

Overall impact, total (includes all monetised benefits) - NPV (a-b) - BCR (a/b)

-£8.439 0.74


Assessment of Alternative Modes

Whitehill-Bordon via Bentley - DIESEL SHUTTLE Table 1: Economic Efficiency of Transport System Cars, LGVs and goods vehicles Bus & Coach

Total

Rail

Consumers user benefits - travel time saving

£29.728

- Vehicle opcost

£0.000

- user charges

£0.000

- during construction & maintenance Net (1)

£5.159

£0.000 £29.728

£24.569

£5.159

£0.000

£24.569

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

Business User benefits - Travel time

£0.000

- Vehicle opcost

£0.000

- user charges

£0.000

- during construction & maintenance

£0.000 £0.000

Net (2)

Total Rail Private sector provider impact - revenue

£49.011

£49.011

- opcost

-£11.445

-£11.445

- investment cost

-£65.094

-£65.094

- grant/subsidy - revenue clawback Sub total (3)

£65.094

£65.094

-£37.566

-£37.566

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

- Developer contribution (4)

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

Net business impact (5 = 2+3+4)

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

All Modes

Road

Bus & Coach

Rail

Total

Infrastructure

£0.000

£0.000

Other impacts

Total, PV of transport econ eff. Benefits (6 = 1+5)

£29.728

Note that subtotals (1) and (5) flow into the AMCB table. Subtotal (6) does not. Table 2 Public Accounts (costs should be recorded as a positive number, surpluses as a negative one)

Local Government funding - Direct Revenue

£0.000

- Op costs

£0.000

- Investment costs

£0.000

- Developer and other contributions

£0.000

- Grant/Subsidy (k)*

£0.000

- Revenue clawback

£0.000

Net (7)

£0.000

£0.000

General Government funding - Direct Revenue

£0.000

- Op costs

£0.000

- Investment costs*

£0.000

- Developer and other contributions

£0.000

- Grant/Subsidy (k)*

£65.094

- Indirect Tax Revenues

£10.243

£10.243

-£37.566 £37.772

-£37.566

- Revenue clawback Net (8) Total PV of costs (9 =7+8)

£65.094

£0.000

£0.000

£37.772

£37.772

*The public sector costs in these boxes should exclude developer contribution e.g. developer contribution is subtracted from these figures to give Net (8) Table 3: Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) Total

Road

Bus & Coach

Rail

£29.728

£5.159

£0.000

£24.569

Business users and providers (sub-total 5, Table 1)

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

£0.000

Reliability (incl. performance & reliability) (s)

£0.000

Option values (s)

£0.000

Interchange (s)

£0.000

Wider Economic Benefits

£0.000

Noise (s)

£0.000

Local air quality (s)

£0.000

Greenhouse gases (s) Journey ambience (incl. rolling stock quality, station quality and crowding)

£0.000

Accidents (incl. safety) Consumer users (sub-total 1, Table 1)

Central PVB, (c = sum of above, excluding sensitivity (s) items)

£0.000 £0.000

Sensitivity PV of Benefits (a = sum of all benefits)

£29.728 £29.728

PVC (b = sub-total 9, Table 2)

£37.772

Overall impact, total (includes all monetised benefits) - NPV (a-b) - BCR (a/b)

-£8.043 0.79


Assessment of Alternative Modes


For details of your nearest Halcrow office, visit our website halcrow.com

study - assessment of alternative modes  
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you