mersey dee link (halton curve) full business case · 1.1.1 transportation liverpool city region...

1.1.1 Transportation Liverpool City Region TransportPartnership

February 2016

Mersey Dee Link (HaltonCurve) Full Business CaseCommercial in Confidence

Prepared by: ........................................................... Checked by: .....................................................................Oliver Baldwin Iain MobbsPrincipal Consultant Associate Director

David ArthurAssociate Director

Approved by:Andy CoatesRegional Director

Rev No Comments Checked by Approved Date1 Draft V1 IM AC 01/09/152 Final Report, incorporating Merseytravel comments and revised

Network Rail capital costsAC AC 19/02/16

3 Redacted version AC AC 15/04/16

1 New York Street, Manchester, M1 4HDTelephone: …………….0 Website: http://www.aecom.com

Job No 60328742 Reference FBC Report Date Created May 2015

This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited for the sole use of our client (the “Client”) and in accordance withgenerally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM Limited andthe Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM Limited,unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and expresswritten agreement of AECOM Limited.

f:\projects\transport planning - wrexham-bidston (borderlands) line\mersey dee link\sept 15 fbc inputs\final reports\redaction versions\halton curve fbc - final versionfeb 2016 redacted version3.docx

1 Scheme Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 31.1 Purpose of this Document ............................................................................................................................... 31.2 Document Structure ........................................................................................................................................ 31.3 Headline Description ....................................................................................................................................... 31.4 Background to the Scheme.............................................................................................................................. 41.5 Strategic Need ................................................................................................................................................ 51.6 Economic Benefits .......................................................................................................................................... 61.7 Financial Case ................................................................................................................................................ 61.8 Delivery .......................................................................................................................................................... 7

2 The Strategic Case ..................................................................................................................................................... 92.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 92.2 Business Strategy ........................................................................................................................................... 92.3 Area of Influence and the Local Economy ........................................................................................................ 92.4 Existing Arrangements .................................................................................................................................. 112.5 Accidents, Congestion and Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 252.6 Freight .......................................................................................................................................................... 292.7 Summary of Transport Challenges ................................................................................................................. 292.8 Wider Economic and Social Issues ................................................................................................................ 302.9 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 392.10 Impact of Not Changing / Summary of the Constraints .................................................................................... 392.11 Option Assessment Report ............................................................................................................................ 392.12 Strategic Fit .................................................................................................................................................. 482.13 Political and Stakeholder Support .................................................................................................................. 522.14 Project Delivery ............................................................................................................................................. 542.15 Internal or External Business Drivers ............................................................................................................. 592.16 Synergy with Other Schemes ........................................................................................................................ 592.17 Measures for Success ................................................................................................................................... 592.18 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 60

3 The Economic Case ................................................................................................................................................. 633.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 633.2 Options Appraised ......................................................................................................................................... 633.3 Methodology and Assumptions: Demand and Revenue Forecasting ............................................................... 643.4 Scheme Appraisal Assumptions..................................................................................................................... 703.5 Economy (Transport Economic Efficiency) ..................................................................................................... 723.6 Public Accounts ............................................................................................................................................ 743.7 Environmental Benefits.................................................................................................................................. 763.8 Social Benefits (Including Safety Benefits) ..................................................................................................... 773.9 Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits ...................................................................................................... 793.10 Wider Economic Benefits............................................................................................................................... 813.11 Tourism Benefits ........................................................................................................................................... 823.12 Appraisal Summary Table (AST).................................................................................................................... 823.13 Conclusion and Value for Money Statement ................................................................................................... 83

4 The Financial Case................................................................................................................................................... 864.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 864.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 864.3 Scheme Appraisal Assumptions..................................................................................................................... 874.4 Base Costs ................................................................................................................................................... 874.5 Quantified Risk Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 904.6 Optimism Bias ............................................................................................................................................... 904.7 Preferred Funding Arrangements ................................................................................................................... 904.8 Alternative Funding Arrangements ................................................................................................................. 91

Table of Contents

5 The Commercial Case .............................................................................................................................................. 935.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 935.2 Output Based Specification............................................................................................................................ 935.3 Procurement Strategy ................................................................................................................................... 945.4 Procurement to Date ..................................................................................................................................... 955.5 Preferred Procurement Route ........................................................................................................................ 955.6 Payment Mechanisms ................................................................................................................................... 965.7 Risk Allocation and Transfer .......................................................................................................................... 965.8 Contract Length ............................................................................................................................................ 995.9 Contract Management ................................................................................................................................... 995.10 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 99

6 The Management Case........................................................................................................................................... 1016.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1016.2 Governance ................................................................................................................................................ 1016.3 Assurance................................................................................................................................................... 1016.4 Delivery Programme.................................................................................................................................... 1046.5 Risk Management ....................................................................................................................................... 1066.6 Communication and Stakeholder Management ............................................................................................ 1066.7 Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 1076.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 111

7 Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................................................................... 1137.1 Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 1137.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 113

Appendix A – Options Appraisal Report

Appendix B – Scheme Drawings

Appendix C – Economic Appraisal Report

Appendix D – Analysis of Available Data

Appendix E – Transport Economic Efficiency – Preferred Option: Chester to Liverpool (Option 1)

Appendix F – Safety Benefits

Appendix G – Environmental Appraisal

Appendix I – Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB)

Appendix J – Scheme Cost Estimates

Appendix K – Letter from Section 151 Offer

Appendix L – Scheme Delivery Programme

Appendix M – Risk Assessment and Management Strategy

Appendix N – Stakeholder Letters of Support

1 Scheme Summary

AECOM Mersey Dee Link (Halton Curve) Full Business Case 3

1.1 Purpose of this DocumentThis document presents the Business Case for the introduction of the Halton Curve to provide direct rail servicesbetween North Wales/Chester and Liverpool. The scheme has been identified by Merseytravel in conjunction withthe Welsh Government as one of the key projects within the region which is required to help revitalise the local andregional economy. The scheme has full council support across the Liverpool City Region and is further endorsed byWelsh Government.

1.2 Document StructureThe remainder of this chapter provides a summary description of the Halton Curve and the history behind thedevelopment of the scheme. This is then followed by:

- Chapter Two presents the Strategic Case for the scheme. This includes a summary of the underlying businessstrategy for the scheme, an overview of the current and future problems the scheme is designed to address, andspecific objectives of the scheme, against which the success of the scheme will ultimately be measured;

- Chapter Three presents the Economic Case for the scheme, demonstrating the impact of the scheme on theeconomy, environment, and society, based on an appraisal framework that aligns with WebTAG guidance;

- Chapter Four presents the Financial Case for the scheme, including a comprehensive cost breakdown, adescription of how the cost estimates have been calculated and a record of assumptions relating to risk andinflation;

- Chapter Five presents the Commercial Case for the scheme, detailing the procurement strategy; and- Chapter Six presents the Management Case, with clear proposals for governance, project planning and

management , risk management, stakeholder engagement and management and evaluation; and- Chapter Seven provides an overview of the key points and presents conclusions from the Business Case.

1.3 Headline DescriptionThe Halton Curve is a rail infrastructure scheme which would re-signal and re-instate the appropriate track work toenable bi-directional movements between the West Coast Main Line (WCML) at Runcorn with the Warrington BankQuay to Chester line at Frodsham (see Figure 1). The purpose of the scheme is to allow train services to run directfrom Liverpool Lime Street and Liverpool John Lennon Airport to Frodsham/Helsby and onwards to Chester andNorth Wales in both directions – there is currently a requirement to interchange at Chester and Liverpool LimeStreet or Crewe for such trips.

In terms of infrastructure, the preferred option is for a single bi-directional route with a crossover and single leadjunction at both Frodsham and Halton Junctions – the line would be signalled using colour light signals and trackcircuit block. This would also provide passive provision for future capacity expansion on the chord in terms ofconstructing a loop of around 1,000m in length.

In terms of service patterns, ten service options were originally identified:

- Option 1: 1tph Liverpool to Chester- Option 2: 2tph Liverpool to Chester- Option 3: 1tph Liverpool to Chester plus 1tph Liverpool to Wrexham- Option 4: 1tph Liverpool to Chester plus 1tph Liverpool to Bangor- Option 5: 1tph Liverpool to Wrexham plus 1tph Liverpool to Bangor (the Wrexham service does not call at

Frodsham and Helsby);- Option 6: 1tph Liverpool to Wrexham;- Option 7: 1tph Liverpool to Bangor;- Option 8: 1tph Liverpool to Wrexham and 1tph Liverpool to Bangor (both services call at Frodsham and Helsby);- Option 9: 0.5tph Liverpool to Chester and 0.5tph Liverpool to Wrexham;- Option 10: 0.5tph Liverpool to Bangor and 0.5tph Liverpool to Wrexham.

From this long list of options, the hourly service between Liverpool and Chester was selected as the PreferredOption (Option 1). This selection reflected the political importance of introducing a scheme as early as possible andit would require the lowest revenue support. Liverpool City Region partners have indicated their willingness to coverthe revenue support requirements for the initial three year period after the scheme has opened.

1 Scheme Summary


Figure 1: Scheme Location

Importantly, this proposal for an hourly service between Liverpool and Chester would also provide a framework tosubsequently extend the service into North Wales,. The new services could also be included in the forthcomingWales and Borders franchise which is due to be re-let in 2018. Negotiations with stakeholders including WelshGovernment and the Department for Transport will be required to confirm these outcomes.

Whilst the initial timetabling work completed as part of the Demand Study undertaken by AECOM indicated that itshould be feasible to provide two trains per hour over the new infrastructure, this outcome remains subject to furthertimetable development analysis to be undertaken by the scheme stakeholders and verified by Network Rail as thescheme progresses. On this basis, Options 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 were not taken forward for detailed analysis as part ofthis FBC. Furthermore, additional network capacity between Chester and Wrexham may be required to support anew hourly service in each direction between these two locations.

On the basis of the above, Option 1 was taken forward as the defined ‘Preferred Option’, whilst Options 6, 7, 9 and10 were taken forward as the ‘Alternative Options’, reflecting the clear aspiration of stakeholders for the service tobe ultimately extended into North Wales.

1.4 Background to the SchemeRegular passenger services over the Halton Curve ceased in May 1975, although it was used as a diversionaryroute when the WCML was closed for engineering work until the early 1990s. Current use of the line is limited, withone scheduled passenger train service a week during the summer, which due to the lack of a crossover at HaltonJunction can only be operated in the northbound direction.


In 2004, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) announced that it intended to close the line as part of plans to upgradethe signalling on the WCML in the Runcorn area. In view of the SRA’s proposals, in 2005 Merseytravelcommissioned Steer Davis Gleave to undertake a high level study to establish the potential case for thereinstatement of a service on the line. Further work was subsequently carried out as part of the Route UtilisationStrategies for Wales and Merseyside by Network Rail. In 2007 Network Rail undertook a GRIP Stage 3 (SingleOption Selection) study, including generating a cost estimate for the scheme. A more detailed demand study wascarried out in 2009 by Steer Davis Gleave (on behalf of Merseytravel) which concluded that there was an economiccase for the scheme. In 2012, the Government stated that the scheme would not be included in a programme of railinvestment schemes as part of the High Level Output Specification, but the benefits of the scheme were recognised.

Network Rail updated the cost estimate for the scheme to GRIP 2 level in 2013 as part of a package including theWeaver to Wavertree re-signalling scheme on the West Coast Main Line – this would allow the cost of the HaltonCurve to be substantially reduced compared to a scenario where it is implemented as a standalone scheme.

In March 2014 the scheme was included in the Liverpool City Region Growth Deal submission to Government, witha request to fund the capital costs of the scheme (£10.4million). AECOM was commissioned in April 2014 toundertake a demand study for the scheme, including an update to the economic appraisal work. The Chancellorannounced that funding for the scheme has been agreed and this was confirmed in the Liverpool City RegionGrowth Deal in July 2014. Network Rail is currently updating the GRIP Stage 3 work, before progressing to Stages 4to 8. Construction of the scheme is expected to start in 2016/17, with the line open for operation in 2018.

Figure 2 below shows the history of the scheme.

Figure 2: Timeline of Scheme

1.5 Strategic NeedThe scheme has a very high level of importance in strategic terms as it provides connectivity enhancements acrossa broad geographical area and particularly between North Wales, the Mersey Dee area and the Liverpool CityRegion. Public transport connections between the areas are poor, with rail trips currently requiring an interchange atChester. These issues impact on the competitiveness of the public transport offer, with adverse consequences interms of policy objectives such as access to employment, congestion on the road network, air quality, connectivity toairports and access for tourism. The scheme was identified in the Liverpool City Region Growth Deal in 2014 andhas been actively promoted by the Mersey Dee alliance, which is a cross border partnership that supports strategiceconomic activity in an area spanning Denbighshire, Cheshire West and Chester, Flintshire, the Wirral andWrexham. The scheme had also been recommended by the North East Wales Integrated Transport Task Force andwas included in their representation to the Minister in June 20131.

1 North East Wales Integrated Transport Task Force – Report to Edwina Hart, Minister for Economy, Science and Transport (June 2013)

1975: Regularpassengers services

cease on the line

2004: Strategic RailAuthority proposes

to close the line

2005: Merseytravelcommissions high

level demand studyfor the scheme

2007: Network Railcompletes GRIP 3assessment of the

scheme.

2009: Merseytravelcommissons

detailed demandstudy for the

scheme

2012: Scheme is notincluded in

Government HighLevel OutputSpecification

2013: Network Railupdates scheme

cost estimate as partof Weaver to

Wavertree scheme

March 2014:Scheme included inthe Liverpool City

Region Growth Dealsubmission

July 2014:Chancellor approves

funding for thescheme


1.6 Economic BenefitsThe Economic Case for the scheme has been assessed to determine the value for money impacts of the scheme,including a qualitative and quantitative assessment of scheme benefits. This includes the development of aWebTAG compliant economic assessment. The table below provides a summary of the economic results for thePreferred Option and the alternative schemes.

Table 1: Summary of Economic Appraisal Results (£000s, Local Plan Growth Scenario)TEMPRO Growth Local Plan Led Growth

Test PVB PVC NPV BCR PVB PVC NPV BCR

1 99,093 49,777 49,317 2.0 100,855 48,965 51,890 2.16 135,120 75,751 59,369 1.8 136,467 75,003 61,464 1.87 205,003 129,449 75,554 1.6 208,320 128,080 80,240 1.69 120,26 74,607 45,661 1.6 121,700 73,829 47,871 1.610 179,302 103,051 76,250 1.7 181,615 101,964 79,651 1.8

Source: AECOM calculation. Values shown in 2010 prices, discounted over a 60 year appraisal period. Results take account of the TEMPRO orLocal Plan Led growth scenario but do not include the impact of tourism and wider economic benefits which are shown as a sensitivity test

- Option 1: 1tph Liverpool to Chester (the Preferred Option)- Option 6: 1tph Liverpool to Wrexham;- Option 7: 1tph Liverpool to Bangor;- Option 9: 0.5tph Liverpool to Chester and 0.5tph Liverpool to Wrexham;- Option 10: 0.5tph Liverpool to Bangor and 0.5tph Liverpool to Wrexham.

The table above presents the summary appraisal results for the preferred and alternative options. The economiccase for a new service to Chester (Option 1) is strong for an hourly service, with a BCR of 2.1-2.2 depending on theunderlying growth proposals. The results presented in Table 1 are sensitive to the journey time assumptions and thetiming of the service. For example, the results assume the journey time between Halton Junction and FrodshamJunction (known as the Sectional Running Times) are reduced by 2 minutes from 5 minutes. The amended timing ofthe proposed service would also enable other journey time savings to be achieved. The economic case for 1tph toWrexham is still relatively strong, generating a BCR of 1.8, although this outcome is reliant on delivering furthercapacity improvements. However, the case for the hourly service to Wrexham appears stronger than a reducedfrequency, or trains via the North Wales Line to Bangor. In addition, it is inevitable that affordability will also play akey role in the development of the scheme.

1.7 Financial CaseScheme CostsThe capital costs of the scheme (at interim GRIP 3 level) total £14.9m, including an allowance for project risk.Network Rail has also produced a maximum and minimum estimate around this mid-point estimate. The maximumscheme cost is £18.7m and adopting this cost in the economic appraisal reduces the BCR for the preferred Optionto 1.9. The minimum scheme cost is £13.5m and the BCR for the Preferred Option remains at 2.1 with the adoptionof this cost.

Funding SupportThe new rail service is likely to require ongoing subsidy (or revenue support), which can vary considerablydepending on the service option. It is estimated that circa £xxxxx support in Year 1 reducing to £xxxxx by Year 5would be required for Option 1. The other tests would require additional financial support, including an extra £xxxxxin Year 1 for Option 7.

FundingMerseytravel is the Scheme Promoter as it is financing the capital costs of the scheme through its Growth Dealsettlement with Government, which was announced in July 2014. Network Rail is the delivery agency. The LiverpoolCity Region Local Enterprise Partnership has agreed to fund the revenue support required for Option 1 for the firstthree years of operation to ensure services via the Halton Curve can be introduced as soon as possible.


1.8 DeliveryNetwork Rail has produced a detailed project delivery programme through to GRIP Stage 8 (Project Closeout) whichis expected by the end of 2018. Key milestones are identified in Chapter 6. Key to the delivery of the scheme is thedelivery of the neighbouring Weaver-Wavertree infrastructure upgrade being planned by Network Rail over thesame timescales, leading to synergies between the two projects and therefore cost savings to the Halton Curvescheme. The methodology used in developing the programme is in line with the GRIP process and guidelines, asoutlined in Chapter 5. The scheme currently sits at interim GRIP 3 stage. Construction of the scheme is planned tostart in Summer 2017 and will be completed in 2018, with the new services intended to be introduced from theDecember 2018 timetable.

Procurement of the train service will be via two possible franchises, either Northern Rail (jointly operated by Abellioand Serco at present, with new operator Arriva Trains taking over from April 2016) or the Wales and Bordersfranchise (currently operated by Arriva Trains Wales (ATW)). The final decision on this will depend upon a numberof factors, including where the service actually serves, timing of re-franchising and the appetite of the appropriateorganisations (DfT, Welsh Government, Merseytravel, Rail North) to contribute to the necessary subsidyrequirements. Preliminary discussions with ATW have been held.

2 The Strategic Case


2.1 IntroductionThis section of the business case describes the Strategic Case for the Halton Curve scheme. It includes a reviewof the existing transport network and offer, focusing on the public transport connections and trip patterns betweenthe Liverpool City Region, Cheshire West and Chester and North Wales. The wider economic and social contextacross the area is assessed, including the identification of growth areas for both employment and housing. Thereview of evidence concludes with the identification of specific transport challenges that are of relevance to thescheme and a set of broader based objectives are proposed.

A number of potential options to address the challenges are identified and considered against the objectives andother key criteria, prior to the selection of the preferred options. Finally, the Strategic Case assesses the strategicfit of the scheme with national, regional and local policy and the strength of support from stakeholders.

2.2 Business StrategyLiverpool City Region Combined Authority, with support from Welsh Government, CW&C, Network Rail, is workingjointly to deliver this scheme. Network Rail has signed a Development Services Agreement with Merseytravel toundertake the initial engineering feasibility work for the scheme. Network Rail previously prepared the High LevelOutput Statement that describes the investment to achieve a better railway between 2014 and 2019. In responseto the unprecedented levels of recent passenger growth, Network Rail’s business plan outlines the committedschemes that will be delivered to meet the forecast growth and reduce the level of public subsidy. Network Rail’sobjectives recognise the role rail can help to play in creating new jobs, opening new travel markets and achievingbalanced economic growth over the next five years. These Network Rail objectives complement the local andregional objectives set out by Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and their partners which underpin thescheme.

The stakeholders are also working closely with Arriva Trains Wales to develop the commercial aspects of thescheme. As the proposals are developed, AECOM the business case advisors for Liverpool City Region CombinedAuthority, have shared various demand and revenue forecasts for comment / review. This forms part of theprocess to help secure operator-buy-in and sign-off the forecasts from a commercial perspective. This dialogue isparticularly important since the revenue forecasts have not been solely generated using the industry standardMOIRA forecasting tool. The engagement with the operator has become more complex given some uncertaintiesregarding the content of the future franchise. The Wales & Borders franchise is the preferred franchise for the newservice, since the current franchise ‘map’ offers a better ‘fit’ with future service development opportunitiescompared with other possible franchises. However, negotiations with Northern would be restarted in the event of afailure to agree a commercial agreement with the Wales & Borders franchise operator. The scheme objectives forthe scheme are summarised in Section 2.7, with the other supporting information is presented in Chapter 2.

2.3 Area of Influence and the Local EconomyAn ‘Area of Influence’ for the scheme was identified to assist in preparing the evidence base to support theproposal. This was selected on the basis of those areas which could potentially benefit, either initially as part of thecore scheme between Liverpool and Chester, or the potential extension to North Wales. As a result, the Area ofInfluence covers a large area as the scheme will result in improved connectivity between North Wales, CheshireWest, and the Liverpool City Region as a whole.

The former Taith area (consisting of Anglesey, Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Wrexham, and part of Gwynedd)was used to define the extent of the area in North Wales. All of Liverpool and the Wirral, and the adjacent built upareas of Sefton, St Helens and Knowsley were also included. The borough of Halton and neighbouring areas ofWarrington were included owing to their proximity to the location of the proposed link (and access to it viaRuncorn). Chester, in addition to some rural areas of Cheshire West and Chester, was included as the scheme willoffer improved access to the Liverpool City Region (and vice versa), particularly from areas such as Frodsham andHelsby. The Area of Influence is shown in Figure 3.

2 The Strategic Case


Figure 3: Area of Influence


The Liverpool City Region2 economy, which the ‘Area of Influence’ forms a part, has an economy that isworth approximately £23.1bn3, which represents around 2% of the UK economy as a whole. It is home toover 37,000 businesses providing 574,000 jobs. Key business drivers in the economy include advancedmanufacturing, life sciences, financial and professional services, maritime and logistics, the visitoreconomy and more recently, renewable sectors. The strong growth achieved by these sectors has createdthousands of new jobs, with the city region supporting many major employers including Jaguar LandRover, Unilever, Cammell Laird, Peel Group, Novartis, Prinovis, NSG Pilkington, Stobart Group, ShopDirect Group, Santander and Maersk.

Since 2004, the business base has grown by 8.6%, which is in line with the national growth rate. Recentgrowth in employment has been particularly in transport and communication, distribution and hotel andrestaurants. Liverpool John Lennon Airport is the 12th busiest in the UK, carrying 4.2 million passengers in2013 – in the period 1997 to 2007 the airport was one of the fastest growing in Europe in terms ofpassenger numbers, albeit passenger numbers have declined since 2010. The potential for transportimprovements to Liverpool John Lennon Airport will help to encourage mode shift in the travel patterns tothe airport with the improved connectivity making it a more attractive choice for prospective passengersliving in Cheshire and North Wales. This improved connectivity could also help to expand the number ofroutes offered.

The North Wales economy is worth approximately £10.4bn per annum4 and represents 22% of theeconomy of Wales as a whole5. The area has a particular strength in manufacturing and accounts for 30%of the manufacturing output in Wales6 - this includes high value jobs at Airbus and St. Asaph BusinessPark. Cross boundary connections are critical in terms of economic development and access toopportunities – it has been estimated that the scale of the economy running along the M56/A5 belt fromAnglesey to Manchester Airport generates an output of £31bn7.

2.4 Existing ArrangementsTransport NetworkThe key transport network in the Area of Influence is shown on Figure 3. The M56/A55 roads linkcommunities along the North Wales coast (and Ireland via Holyhead) with Liverpool, Cheshire West, andthe remainder of the national motorway network. Passenger rail services operate along the North Walescoast from Holyhead, Bangor, Rhyl, Prestatyn, and Chester to London, Birmingham, Manchester andCardiff. Additional road and rail links run inland from the North Wales coast towards the Wrexham area(Chester-Wrexham/Borderlands rail lines, and A483 dual carriageway), and rural North Wales (A494,A470, A5, Conwy Valley rail line).

A network of trunk roads (A561/A562/A557/A553) link Cheshire (Frodsham, Helsby, and Runcorn) withLiverpool and South Merseyside via the Runcorn Bridge. These routes also link the M56 with the M62 andtheir respective connections. Rail links are provided on a similar axis on a branch of the West Coast MainLine between Crewe and Liverpool (including an intermediate station at Runcorn).

The Liverpool urban area is connected to the national motorway network via the east-west M62 (towardsManchester and Leeds) and the M58 (connecting to the M6 near to Wigan). Similar rail links connectLiverpool to Warrington (and beyond to Manchester/Yorkshire/North East and East Midlands), Wigan (forconnections towards the North West and Scotland), and Southport. Good quality road (A494/M53) and rail(Merseyrail from Chester and Borderlands via Shotton) links provide access to the Wirral and Liverpool (viaMersey Tunnels) from Deeside and North Wales.

Liverpool John Lennon Airport is accessible via the A561 from Runcorn/Liverpool. Nearby Liverpool SouthParkway station provides direct rail access to the city centre, Runcorn, Warrington and further afield, and islinked to the Airport by a high frequency bus service.

2 Includes the local authority areas of Liverpool, Halton, Knowsley, Sefton, St Helens and Wirral3 Liverpool City Region Growth Plan and Strategic Economic Plan4 Statistical Bulletin, Statistics for Wales, May 20135 2011 Regional GVA, Office of National Statistics, 20126 Sector Reports – North Wales – Report to the North Wales Forum, Mickledore, 20127 Sector Reports – North Wales – Report to the North Wales Forum, Mickledore, 2012


Public Transport ServicesTable 2 summarises the existing rail and bus journey time and service frequencies between Liverpool citycentre and key locations within the study area. A key issue in terms of connectivity is that services fromNorth West Wales, in addition to Frodsham and Helsby, require interchange at Chester or Crewe andLiverpool Lime Street depending on the end destination. This combination of one or more enforcedinterchange and the relatively slow rail stopping service into Liverpool via the Wirral means that end to endjourney times are significantly extended. For example, the quickest journey from Wrexham to Liverpooltakes 75 minutes by rail, an average speed of less than 25mph (compared to approximately 50 minutes /40mph by car).

Rail service frequencies within the area are relatively low. For example, there is only one train an hourbetween Chester and Wrexham, and two trains per hour on the North Wales Coast line for some of theday, although some stations only get served by the hourly Llandudno – Chester - Manchester trains.

Bus services between these locations are slower, with locations outside of the Wirral requiring a change ofservices (either in Chester or Runcorn) to reach Liverpool.

Table 2: Rail / Bus Service Frequencies and Journey Times to/from Liverpool City Centre from KeyLocations in the ‘Area of Influence’

Service Rail Journeytime

Rail Daytimefrequency

Bus Journeytime

BusDaytime

frequency

Chester - Liverpool 45 mins(direct) Every 15 mins 90 mins

(direct)Every 10

mins

Ellesmere Port - Liverpool 40 mins(direct) Every 30 mins 60 mins

(direct)Every 10

mins

Frodsham/Helsby-Liverpool 60 mins(1 change) Hourly 60 mins

(1 change) Hourly

Runcorn - Liverpool 20 mins(direct) Three per hour 70 mins

(direct)Every 15

mins

Wrexham - Liverpool 70-80 mins(1 change) Two per hour 160 mins

(1 change)Every 12

mins

Llandudno- Liverpool 130 mins(1 change) Hourly >180 mins n/a

Bangor- Liverpool 140 mins(1 change) Hourly >180 mins n/a

Source: Transport Direct 2014

Table 3 shows the relative competitiveness of public transport journey times compared to car for a widerrange of journeys across the ‘Area of Influence’ – this information is taken from Transport Direct for the AMPeak period and includes walk and wait time. Journeys where public transport is most competitive with carare shown in the orange and green boxes – the red boxes are journeys where public transport iscomparatively less competitive. It is therefore apparent that rail and bus is generally relatively competitivefor journeys into Manchester and Chester city centres, but less so for other destinations.

This is especially true when accessing Liverpool Airport, with nearly all journey times by rail/bus overdouble compared with that those by private car from most of the selected origins. The number of changesrequired to reach the airport from some destinations is notable (three changes are required in manycases).


Table 3: Public Transport Journey Times Relative to Car Between Key Destinations – AM Peak (including walk and wait time)

Runcorn

(WA7 2GY)

Manchester CityCentre

(M1 4HD)

ManchesterAirport

Liverpool CityCentre

(L2 2ET)Liverpool Airport

Chester CityCentre

(CH1 2HU)

Ellesmere Port(CH65 8AD)

Helsby(WA6 0AS)

00:26 - bus,0 changes

01:02 - train,0 changes

01:38 - train,1 change

01:21 - bus/train,1 change

01:28 - bus,1 change



Bangor(LL57 2YN)

02:07 - train/bus,1 changes





01:30 - train,no changes


Flint(CH6 5AD)





01:56 - bus/train,2 changes



Rhyl(LL18 1BA)







01:37 - bus/train -2 changes

Ellesmere Port(CH65 8AD)



01:57 - coach,0 changes



00:34 - bus,0 changes x

Wrexham(LL12 8LD)








Frodsham(WA6 7AB)

00:19- bus,0 changes







Chester City Centre(CH1 2HU)

00:55 – bus,0 changes

01:32 – train, 0changes

01:35 – train, 1change

01:00 – train, 0changes

01:40 – bus/train,1 change x 00:41 – bus, 0

changes

KEY

0-20% differencein Journey Time incomparison with

the car trip

20-40% differencein Journey Time incomparison with

the car trip

40-100%difference in

Journey Time incomparison with

the car trip

>100% differencein Journey Time incomparison with

the car trip

Source: Transport Direct 2014


Figure 4 shows the journey time isochrones using public transport into Liverpool city centre during the AM peak. Most of the North Wales coast has ajourney time of over two hours to Liverpool. Furthermore, only the centres of Frodsham and Helsby have a journey time less than 80 minutes (inclusive ofwalk and wait time).

Figure 4: Map showing Public Transport Accessibility to Liverpool City Centre Stations (AM Peak)


Figure 5 shows that Wrexham has a travel time in excess of 80 minutes from Liverpool City Centre, partially due to the requirement to change at Chester orBidston. Connections from Liverpool Airport to North Wales are in excess of 100 minutes and highlight the non-direct route to complete these trips usingpublic transport.

Figure 5: Map Showing Public Transport Accessibility to Wrexham Stations (AM Peak)


Figure 6 shows that, for journeys to Bangor, only stations on the North Wales Coast have a journey time of less 100 minutes. The area immediately aroundChester station is also just within this time band.

Figure 6: Map showing Public Transport Accessibility to Bangor Stations (AM Peak)


The introduction of rail services via the Halton Curve would offer some improvements to tackle these accessibilityconstraints, particularly addressing the issues between South Liverpool / Liverpool Airport to Chester and NorthWales. However, extending the Halton Curve services beyond Chester to North Wales would be required to deliverthe benefits, since this would remove the interchange penalty incurred at Chester.

Summary – Public Transport Services

The evidence identifies a number of key issues regarding existing public transport services – these canbe summarised as follows:

- Indirect services between the Liverpool City Region and the following areas (and vice versa):- Helsby and Frodsham- North Wales coast- Wrexham

- Indirect services between Liverpool John Lennon Airport (including adjacent employment areas):- Chester- North Wales Coast- Wrexham- Helsby and Frodsham

The above issues combine to result in extended public transport journey times that are not competitivewith car between these destinations. The relative competitiveness of public transport is also limited by theline speed and capacity restrictions on the rail network. This impacts on the ability to provide sustainabletransport connections to support economic development aspirations in North Wales as identified by theNorth Wales Economic Ambition Board and in the Liverpool City Region, as articulated in the StrategicEconomic Plan.

Travel Patterns and Travel ChoiceThe main stations that could be served by the service in Option 1, plus the possible future extensions is shown in(Figure 7). Stations shown in red would be served by Option 1 as part of the initial scheme, with those stationspotentially served as part of subsequent phases in blue. Liverpool Lime Street is the most important station withover 14.2m trips per annum which reflects its status as a major national and regional node in the North West.Chester is used by 4.2m passengers per annum, with a further 1.8m trips using Liverpool South Parkway. Runcornattracts about 0.7m trips per annum, although Frodsham and Helsby are less busy stations. Of the examples thatcould be served as part of a second phase if trains were extended beyond Chester, Bangor, Rhyl and WrexhamGeneral all generate more than 0.5m trips per annum.Figure 7: Annual Station Usage

Source: ORR 2013-14


Figure 8 shows that the number of annual rail journeys to Liverpool from stations on the North Wales Coast,Wrexham, and Frodsham and Helsby is considerably lower than the total from Chester (almost xxxxx). Wrexham,Bangor and Shotton are the largest other flows, but these generate less than xxxxx single journeys in bothdirections to / from Liverpool. This seems a reasonable outcome given the additional overall distance to Liverpool,the requirement to interchange at Chester and the low service freqencies for the connecting services fromWrexham / the North Wales Coast to Chester. The Demand Study report also highlighted the likelihood of ‘splitticketing’ with passengers buying two tickets – the first from their origin station to Chester, and the second fromChester to Liverpool. There is scope to buy a multi-modal ticket covering journeys in Merseyside and this may becontributing to the pattern of journeys being presented.

Figure 8: Annual Journeys to/from Liverpool BR Stations

Diagram redacted

Source: ATW MOIRA output Dec 2014

Table 4 shows that the mode of travel for work trips within the ‘Area of Influence’, as reported by the 2011 Census.On average 73% of work trips in the Area of Influence are made by car, with 9% by bus and 4% by rail. As wouldbe expected, the bus mode share is highest for areas with higher density bus networks, including Merseyside andHalton (13%) and Wrexham (6%). Rail is only competitive within Merseyside and Halton, parts of Cheshire Westand Chester to travel to work. It should be noted that the Merseyside and Halton figures only relate to the parts ofthis area that fall within the ‘Area of Influence’.

Table 4: Mode Utilised for Travel to Work by District (2011)Rail Bus Car Other

England and Wales 5.6% 8.1% 67.5% 18.8%

Area of Influence 3.7% 9.3% 72.9% 14.2%Merseyside and Halton 5.3% 12.8% 67.3% 14.7%

Cheshire West and Chester 2.5% 4.3% 78.3% 14.9%

Wrexham 0.9% 5.6% 82.1% 11.4%

Conwy 1.3% 4.7% 79.7% 14.4%

Flintshire 1.0% 4.2% 84.4% 10.5%

Anglesey 0.8% 2.9% 83.8% 12.6%

Denbighshire 1.2% 3.7% 79.7% 15.5%

Gwynedd 0.6% 5.5% 77.1% 16.9%Source: Census 2011


Table 5 shows the change in the mode share for work trips between 2001 and 2011 across the Area of Influence.The mode share of bus trips across the ‘Area of influence’ has declined at a higher rate than national trends, buthas been particularly marked in Merseyside and Halton. This has been counterbalanced by the increase in railtrips in the area, resulting in the overall mode share of car trips reducing by 0.4% on average. The change in themode share of car trips has not been uniform across the area, with some local authority areas seeing an increase(e.g. Wrexham and Anglesey).

Table 5: Mode Utilised for Travel to Work by District 2001-2011, Percentage Share Change

Rail Bus Car OtherEngland and Wales 1.1% -0.1% -1.8% 0.8%AOI Total 1.2% -1.0% -0.4% 0.2%Merseyside and Halton 1.6% -1.8% -0.1% 0.3%Cheshire West and Chester 0.9% -1.0% -1.0% 1.1%Wrexham 0.5% -0.4% 0.7% -0.7%Conwy 0.4% -0.1% 0.5% -0.8%Flintshire 0.3% -0.1% -0.4% 0.2%Anglesey 0.1% 0.3% 1.1% -1.5%Denbighshire 0.3% 0.6% -0.4% -0.5%Gwynedd 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% -0.4%

Source: Census 2011

The 2011 Census recorded that 716,180 trips to work were made each day within the ‘Area of Influence’. Thenumber of work trips internal to North Wales was 249,238. Of these, a higher proportion (77.9%) were made usinga car or other private motor vehicle (Figure 9). Only 5.8% of journeys were made by public transport (and of this,only 0.5% were made by rail). This is a reflection of the predominantly rural nature of North Wales and the limitedcoverage of the rail network.

Figure 9: Mode Share of Journey to Work Trips Internal to North Wales

Source: Census 2011

0.5% 5.3%

77.9%

16.3%

RAIL %

BUS %

CAR %

OTHER %

Total: 249,238 trips


Figure 10 shows that the public transport mode share increases when considering trips from North Wales toCheshire West and Chester and Merseyside and Halton. A significant number (17,107 trips) to work wererecorded as originating within North Wales and ending in Cheshire West and Cheshire. Of these, 85% utilised carto access their place of employment. 8.1% and 2.0% utilised bus and rail respectively. In comparison, only 4,441trips were made from North Wales into Merseyside and Halton. 90% of these commuters used a car to accesswork. Bus mode share is comparatively high for those accessing destinations in Cheshire West and Chester dueto the good quality bus links into Chester City Centre (and immediately surrounding area) from Wrexham and theNorth Wales Coast corridor. Conversely, rail has a slightly higher mode share of 5.4% into Merseyside and Haltonowing to the longer distance from places of residence to work.

Figure 10: Mode Share of Journey to Work Trips From North Wales to Parts of the Area of Influence WithinCheshire West and Chester/Merseyside and Halton

Source: Census 2011

Figure 11 shows that fewer trips are made into North Wales from Cheshire West and Chester (11,202) comparedwith the reverse movement (17,107), with the vast majority of these being made by car (90%). Less than 4% ofjourneys were made by public transport – this is likely to be lower than for trips in the reverse direction owing to themore dispersed nature of employment in North Wales. Significantly more people from Merseyside and Haltonmake the journey into North Wales for employment (5,616) compared with the reverse movement (3,202), withabove 90% travelling by car. Overall there is a net inflow from North Wales into Cheshire West and Chester ofapproximately 6,000 work trips, and a net outflow into Merseyside and Halton of approximately 2,400 work trips.

Figure 11: Mode Share of Journey to Work Trips From Parts of the Area of Influence Within Cheshire Westand Chester/Merseyside to North Wales

Source: Census 2011 data

1.1% 2.3%2.9% 2.5%

90.6% 91.5%

5.4% 3.7%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Cheshire West and Chester Merseyside and Halton

OTHER %

CAR %

BUS %

RAIL %

Total:11,202trips

Total:5,616trips

2.0% 5.4%8.1% 1.1%

85.3% 90.5%

4.6% 3.1%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Cheshire West and Chester Merseyside and Halton

OTHER %

CAR %

BUS %

RAIL %

Total:17,107trips

Total:4,441trips


Figure 12 indicates that there are a significant number of trips made into Liverpool City Centre from North Walesand Chester. The majority of the North Wales based trips originate in Flintshire and Wrexham.

Figure 12: Trips to Liverpool City Centre from North Wales/Chester/Frodsham and Helsby – Total

Source: Census 2011

Figure 13 shows that rail is most competitive to Liverpool City Centre from Chester (44% mode share) where adirect, high frequency service links the two cities. The additional distance, interchange penalty and lack of servicefrequency from other destinations such as Frodsham / Helsby and Wrexham results in rail being less attractivefrom these locations, from where the rail mode share is 18% and 13% respectively. Bus is not a competitive modefor commuters from any of the locations into Central Liverpool.

Figure 13: Mode Share of Work Trips to Liverpool City Centre from North Wales/ Wrexham/ Chester/Frodsham and Helsby

Source: Census 2011

17.7% 20.7%13.2%

44.1%0.0%

2.0%2.3%

2.5%

78.9% 72.3% 81.6%

47.0%

3.4% 5.1% 2.9% 6.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Frodsham andHelsby

North Wales Wrexham (urbanarea)

Chester (urbanarea)

OTHER %

CAR %

BUS %

RAIL %


Figure 14 and Figure 15 show a similar picture when looking at journeys to work in the wider Liverpool City Councilarea – as would be expected public transport is more attractive for journeys into Liverpool City Centre than for theurban area as a whole.

Figure 14: Trips to Liverpool City Council Area From North Wales Chester / Frodsham and Helsby - Total

Source: Census 2011

Figure 15: Mode Share of Work Trips to Liverpool City Council Area From North Wales/ Wrexham/Chester/Frodsham and Helsby

Source: Census 2011

8.0% 12.7% 9.5%

28.9%0.0%

1.3% 1.5%

1.8%

90.1% 81.7% 86.5%

63.9%

2.0% 4.3% 2.4% 5.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Frodsham and Helsby North Wales Wrexham (urbanarea)

Chester (urban area)

OTHER %

CAR %

BUS %

RAIL %


Table 6 and Table 7 show that, although most individuals make journeys to work of below 20km, the proportion ofpeople making longer trips to their place of employment has increased over the past ten years across the area ofinterest. The greatest percentage growth has been in Gwynedd and Anglesey in the west of the ‘Area of Influence’.The proportion of journeys of over 40km increased at a higher rate than the average for England and Wales in allof the local authorities in the ‘Area of Influence’, with the exception of Conwy and Denbighshire – this may reflectthe different pattern in the terms of employment opportunities in these predominantly rural areas.

Table 6: Distance Travelled to Work 2011, by Distance Band, Percentage Share of Total Journeys

0-5km 5-20km 20-40km 40+kmEngland and Wales 42.9% 40.2% 10.3% 6.7%Area of Influence 43.5% 41.3% 8.9% 6.3%Merseyside and Halton 47.2% 41.7% 6.0% 5.1%Cheshire West and Chester 39.0% 39.4% 13.4% 8.2%Wrexham 42.3% 41.9% 9.2% 6.6%Conwy 41.7% 36.4% 12.3% 9.6%Flintshire 33.1% 48.8% 10.9% 7.2%Anglesey 34.3% 39.2% 17.8% 8.7%Denbighshire 38.6% 35.6% 18.3% 7.4%Gwynedd 36.7% 38.6% 13.7% 11.0%

Source: Census 2011

Table 7: Distance Travelled to Work 2001-2011, by Distance Band, Percentage Share Change

0-5KM 5-20KM 20-40KM 40+KMEngland and Wales -3.6% 1.3% 1.3% 1.0%Area of Influence -3.3% 0.6% 1.4% 1.3%Merseyside and Halton -3.1% 0.8% 1.0% 1.3%Cheshire West and Chester -3.0% -0.4% 1.8% 1.6%Wrexham -3.9% 0.6% 2.0% 1.3%Conwy -5.4% 2.5% 2.1% 0.7%Flintshire -1.5% -1.0% 1.0% 1.5%Anglesey -7.7% 0.8% 4.8% 2.1%Denbighshire -5.5% 2.0% 3.3% 0.2%Gwynedd -5.5% -0.4% 3.4% 2.5%

Source: Census 2011

Table 8 shows the relatively high levels of no-car households in Merseyside and Halton where overall there is lessthan 1 car per household and 37% of residents do not have access to a car. Elsewhere there are generally morecars per household than the national average (1.17) reflecting the predominantly rural low density nature of theremainder of the ‘Area of Influence’.


Table 8: Car Ownership by Household, 2011

Allhouseholds No Car % 1 car % 2+ cars % Total

cars/vansAvg

per HHEngland andWales 23,366,044 5,989,770 26% 9,861,642 42% 7,514,632 32% 27,294,656 1.17

Area ofInfluence 952,975 283,161 30% 395,292 41% 274,522 29% 1,024,364 1.07

Merseysideand Halton 564,609 206,396 37% 230,581 41% 127,632 23% 516,386 0.91

CheshireWest andChester

104,564 19,684 19% 43,278 41% 41,602 40% 139,286 1.33

Wrexham 57,029 12,647 22% 23,903 42% 20,479 36% 71,282 1.25Conwy 51,177 11,128 22% 22,621 44% 17,428 34% 63,647 1.24Flintshire 63,781 10,834 17% 26,756 42% 26,191 41% 87,946 1.38Anglesey 30,594 5,517 18% 13,066 43% 12,011 39% 41,770 1.37Denbighshire 40,546 8,515 21% 17,818 44% 14,213 35% 51,374 1.27Gwynedd 37,149 7,998 22% 15,692 42% 13,459 36% 47,677 1.28

Source: Census 2011

Table 9 shows the change in levels of car ownership across the Area of Influence between 2001 and 2011. Therehas been a notable decrease in the number of households who do not own a car (-3%) compared with the nationalaverage of -1%. Households with two or more vehicles have increased by between 2% and 7% over the period.

Table 9: Car Ownership by Household, 2001-2011, Percentage Share ChangeNo cars

(% change)1 car

(% change)2 or more cars

(% change)

England and Wales -1% -2% 3%Area of Influence -3% -1% 4%

Merseyside and Halton -3% 0% 4%Cheshire West and Chester -1% -1% 2%Wrexham -3% -3% 5%Conwy -2% -3% 5%

Flintshire -2% -2% 3%

Anglesey -3% -4% 7%

Denbighshire -3% -2% 4%Gwynedd -2% -4% 6%

Source: Census 2011


Summary – Travel Patterns and Travel Choice

- Across the ‘Area of Influence’, car is the dominant mode for travel to work trips (73%) of the total – busand rail comprise 9% and 4% respectively;

- Between 2001 and 2011 the bus mode share in the ‘Area of Influence’ reduced by 1% - this wascounterbalanced by a 1.2% increase in the mode share of rail. The car mode share decreased by 0.4%;

- Car ownership levels increased across the ‘Area of Influence’ between 2001 and 2011, with the numberof households without access to a car reducing by 3%. Notwithstanding this, 30% of households in thearea had no access to a car in 2011;

- 44% of trips to Liverpool City Centre from the urban area of Chester are made by rail. The rail modeshare to Liverpool City Centre is considerably lower from areas that are not served by a direct service,such as Frodsham and Helsby (18%), North Wales (21%), and Wrexham (13%);

- There is a significant movement (17,000) of work trips from North Wales into the Cheshire West andChester area – the reverse movement was around 11,000. The importance of this movement is reflectedin the work of the Mersey Dee Alliance, which is a cross border economic partnership which supports anddevelops economic development, infrastructure and skills initiatives;

- Only 4,400 trips were made from North Wales into the part of the ‘Area of Influence’ within Merseysideand Halton - the reverse movement is higher (5,600 trips). This may in part suggest some level of tripssuppression resulting from the existing transport connections;

- Travel to work distances increased significantly across the ‘Area of Influence’ between 2001 and 2011,with more journeys in excess of 40km, particularly in the case of North West Wales. The majority of thesetrips are undertaken by car, with adverse impacts in terms of congestion and air quality.

2.5 Accidents, Congestion and Air QualityThe Halton Curve scheme would enable direct rail services to run between Liverpool and Chester, with thepotential for extensions to serve North Wales. As a result, the scheme would have impacts across a dispersedgeographic area. Figure 16 shows the locations of all fatal road accidents between 2005-2012 in the Area ofInfluence. In addition to the clusters around dense urban areas of Merseyside, Halton, and Chester, there werealso a significant number of fatalities around Buckley and Mold, near Rhyl and around Bangor and the Menaicrossing.

Whilst the Halton Curve scheme will contribute towards reducing accident levels (through the reduction of car tripsusing the network), the disperse nature of the impacts means that it will not have specific localised impacts, suchas addressing particular accident blackspots.


Figure 16: Map Showing Location of Fatal Accidents between 2005 - 2012


There are a number of Air Quality Management Areas in place within the Area of Influence. The largest is theentirety of Liverpool City Council (Figure 17). Other AQMA’s in the area include two in Widnes town centre, one inEllesmere Port, and one at Boughton Gyratory in east Chester. Overall, emissions from road vehicles make up82% of NOx emissions within Liverpool City Centre. The Halton Curve scheme would assist in contributingtowards the objectives of the AQMAs by reducing the number of car trips, with resulting benefits in terms of airquality.

Figure 17: Extent of Liverpool City Council AQMA

Figure 18 shows the 2011 Average Annual Daily Traffic flows along key corridors in North East Wales, Cheshireand the Wirral. The most significant traffic flows are along the A55 around Chester, the M56 towards Manchester,and the M53 heading up to Birkenhead via the Wirral. Other significant traffic flows include the Wrexham RingRoad and the A494 Queensferry crossing.

A key link not shown on the plan is the A533 Silver Jubilee Bridge between Runcorn and Widnes – this is one ofthe main routes to access employment opportunities across the city region from Halton and beyond, but hasbecome heavily congested. The construction of the replacement Mersey Gateway bridge by 2017 is expected toalleviate congestion affecting the corridor, whilst the additional capacity will deliver journey time reductions andimproved reliability on the road network.

Significant upgrades to routes such as the A55, A483, A494 and M56 have facilitated the cross-borderconnections, but a point is being reached where these routes are attracting unsustainable levels of long distancecar commuting. Some evidence of this is provided in the earlier analysis of trip lengths in the areas, including thechange between 2001 and 2011.


Figure 18: Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) Along Key Corridors

Source: North East Wales Integrated Transport Task Force Stage One Report: Evidence Base (2013)

Figure 19 shows AM Peak modelled speeds around the A55/A494 junctions in the Shotton, Connahs Quay andQueensferry areas, demonstrating the significant amount congestion on routes around the England/Wales border.

Figure 19: Model Outputs Indicating Congestion on the A55/A494

Source: A55/A494 WeITAG Study – Stage One Appraisal, July 2012

A55A494


2.6 FreightThe recent demand study8 considers the issues relating to current and potential rail freight flows and terminals inthe vicinity of the Halton Curve by type of traffic. The study highlighted the importance of the WCML as a freightartery, linking areas of industrial production to centres of population. The WCML is gauge cleared for W10 butconnecting lines are constrained in terms of gauge clearance and capacity. The scope for intermodal flows isconstrained by the gauge which dictates the size of containers permitted to use the route and whether specialwagons are required. The following points summarise the main rail freight capacity issues:

- Welsh Marches: the line from Chester/Crewe to Newport in South Wales attracts a range of traffic includingcoal and steel. Traffic has reduced following the drop in heavy manufacturing. Freight trains operate betweenDee Marsh and South Wales with steel for Tata and to the cement terminal at Penyffordd. However, these flowshave reduced commensurate with the change in operations at Tata, with just three trains scheduled in eachdirection on Mondays to Fridays. The repetitive nature of the passenger service means it is reasonable toassume that additional freight could operate in other time periods. However the gauge clearance is limited whichreduces the scope for operating intermodal trains via this route;

- Wrexham to Chester: The route between Wrexham and Chester is W7 gauge. This is mainly single line, andprovides very limited scope for freight. It is used by hourly passenger trains but less than five freight trains perday. However the partial re-doubling and line speed / capacity enhancement between Wrexham General andSaltney Junction is currently on–site with a completion date of Spring 2015. This will provide some extracapacity, but the scope for freight may continue to be restricted given the gauge clearance;

- Chester to Warrington: This attracts one passenger train per hour (two trains per hour in the peak), plus afurther eight freight trains per day. This indicates there is some spare capacity for extra freight. However,connecting routes beyond Warrington to the WCML, Manchester and Liverpool are affected by capacityconstraints, although some improvements are planned to support the growth in freight traffic;

- Wrexham to Newport via Shrewsbury: assuming the issues south of Chester are addressed, trains couldcontinue to Shrewsbury. An hourly passenger train operates plus two freight trains per day, although it is doubletrack. The reduction in Tata traffic described above indicates that a number of freight paths should be available.South of Shrewsbury, trains could continue towards South Wales and use the Severn Tunnel to access theSouth West. With three passenger trains every two hours as well as freight, it also attracts other freight betweenSouth Wales and Northern England which could constrain the scope for other trains; and

- Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton: the limited gauge clearance of the route (W6 / W6A) and the mixture ofpassenger and existing freight could restrict the opportunities for freight. However, the future closure ofIronbridge power station and subsequent reduction in coal traffic may address this bottleneck.

The Demand study examined the potential freight services that could make use of an upgraded, bi-directionalHalton Curve but found that the level of daily usage is likely to be relatively limited. Given that most freight trainsusing the Halton Curve would not be taking the most direct route, journey times would be longer and operationswould be more costly. It was concluded that if the growth plans of several major freight generators were realised,network capacity in selected locations is likely to be reached. Consequently, the feasibility of diverting some trainswhich could release capacity on the WCML needs to be examined. With the expansion at Jaguar Landrover, thePort of Liverpool and traffic via the Manchester ship canal is forecast to grow by 70%, together with potential forwaste-to-energy flows to use rail, biomass flows and 3MG expansion, there could be a requirement for extrafreight capacity.

2.7 Summary of Transport ChallengesFollowing a review of the evidence provided in this chapter, the transport challenges of relevance to the schemecan be summarised as follows:

- Lack of direct public transport connectivity between Liverpool, Liverpool John Lennon Airport (including adjacentemployment areas) and:- Frodsham and Helsby- Chester- North Wales (towards Wrexham and along the North Wales Coast)- and vice versa

8 Halton Curve Improvements Demand Study (AECOM, February 2015)


- Poor public transport journey times (relative to car) between Liverpool, Liverpool John Lennon Airport (includingadjacent employment areas) and:- Frodsham and Helsby- Chester- North Wales (towards Wrexham and along the North Wales Coast)- and vice versa

- Poor public transport service frequencies between Liverpool, Liverpool John Lennon Airport (including adjacentemployment areas) and:- Frodsham and Helsby- Chester9

- North Wales (towards Wrexham and along the North Wales Coast)- and vice versa

- High levels of long distance car trips on key highway links (A55, A483, A494, M56), with associated impacts interms of journey time, journey time unreliability and air quality.

- Limited scope for intermodal freight flows owing to gauge clearance constraints on routes connecting with theWest Coast Main Line (WCML) when using standard height intermodal freight wagons;

- Adverse environmental impacts affecting the AQMAs which results from the high car mode share and theresulting vehicle emissions.

2.8 Wider Economic and Social IssuesPopulation and HousingTable 10 shows the change in overall population and density in each local authority within the Area of Influencebetween 2001 and 2011. The overall level of population increase (2.5%) is considerably below the average forEngland and Wales (7.9) – this is primarily attributable to the low population growth in Merseyside and Halton. Thegreatest percentage growth was seen in Wrexham where population increased by over 9% in a decade. Thesmallest increases in population were Merseyside and Halton (1.2%) and Cheshire West and Chester (1.9%).

Table 10: Population in Local Authority areas in Area of Influence, 2001-20112001

Population2011

Population%

Change2001

Density2011

Density % Change

England and Wales 52,041,916 56,170,900 7.9% 3.45 3.71 7.5%Area of Influence 2,147,334 2,201,573 2.5% 3.57 3.66 2.5%Merseyside and Halton10 1,289,008 1,304,436 1.2% 22.95 23.57 2.7%Cheshire West andChester11 237,258 241,722 1.9% 3.04 3.09 1.9%

Wrexham 123,142 134,844 9.5% 2.49 2.68 7.5%Conwy 109,596 115,228 5.1% 0.97 1.02 5.1%Flintshire 148,594 152,506 2.6% 3.39 3.49 2.7%Anglesey 66,829 69,751 4.4% 0.94 0.98 4.3%Denbighshire 87,912 93,734 6.6% 1.05 1.12 6.4%Gwynedd* 84,995 89,352 5.1% 0.80 0.84 5.1%

Source: 2001, 2011 Census

9 Issue relates to Chester to Liverpool John Lennon Airport only10 Figures only cover part of the authority within the Area of Influence11 Figures only cover part of the authority within the Area of Influence


Table 11 shows the change in population by age group for each local authority area in the Area of Influencebetween 2001 and 2011. The most significant overall growth was seen in the 60+ age group across the entire Areaof influence. This was especially significant in Cheshire West and Chester, Flintshire, and Anglesey.

Table 11: Population in Local Authority Areas in Area of Influence by Age Group, Percentage ShareChange, 2001-2011

Age 0-24 Age 25 to 59 Age 60+

Area of Influence -1% -1% 2%Merseyside and Halton -2% 0% 1%Cheshire West and Chester -1% -3% 4%Wrexham -1% -2% 2%Conwy -1% -2% 3%Flintshire -1% -4% 5%Anglesey -2% -3% 5%Denbighshire 0% -2% 3%Gwynedd 1% -3% 2%

Source: 2001, 2011 Census

Figure 20 shows indicative locations proposed for housing development in Cheshire West & Chester and NorthEast Wales based on a review of available information including Unitary Development Plans (UDPs) and LocalDevelopment Plans (LDPs). It is understood that Chester West & Chester is looking to finalise its Local Planshortly and it is anticipated that this will detail a requirement for approximately 5,000 homes by 2030. This showsthat housing growth in North Wales is likely to be focused upon the more urbanised parts of the study area,namely the A483 corridor north and south of Wrexham, the Connah’s Quay/Mold/Buckley area and the NorthWales coastline adjacent to the A548.

Figure 20: Proposed Housing Development Areas


Employment and DeprivationFigure 21 shows the locations and number of economically active unemployed persons in and around the Area of Influence. The most significant numbersof those seeking work can be found in Merseyside, the west of Runcorn, Widnes, and Holyhead.

Figure 21: Map showing Economically Active Unemployed Persons (2011 Census)


Figure 22 shows the claimant count for locations within the Area of Influence. This presents a similar picture to the concentrationsof economically active unemployed, with the largest concentrations of JSA claimants situated in the urban areas of Merseyside andHalton. There are however isolated pockets of those claiming JSA in Holyhead and Rhyl.

Figure 22: Map showing JSA Claimant Count (2011 Census)


Figure 23 represents the Indices for Multiple Deprivation for the Area of influence. It is clear that large areas in the bottom 20% fallwithin Merseyside and Halton, although pockets of deprivation exist in Wrexham, Cheshire West and along the North Wales Coastin locations such at Rhyl and Holyhead.

Figure 23: Indices of Multiple Deprivation in the Area of Influence


Figure 24 indicates where areas scoring poorly for health related indices of deprivation are located. These are generally situated inthe outer suburbs of Merseyside, Widnes and around Rhyl.

Figure 24: Map Showing Indices of Multiple Deprivation (2010) for Health


Table 12 shows that the largest number of jobs in the Area of Influence (around half a million) is situated withinMerseyside and Halton. Cheshire West and Chester has over 100,000 jobs, with the remainder of the local authorityareas having between 20,000 to 55,000 jobs.

Table 12: Job Numbers by Local Authority

2011 TotalEmployment

Area of Influence 907,568Merseyside and Halton 529,290Cheshire West and Chester 113,448Wrexham 54,709Conwy 39,637Flintshire 69,781Anglesey 20,862Denbighshire 38,234Gwynedd 39,452

Source: Business Register Employment Survey

Table 13 shows that in 2011 GVA per head for most of the ‘Area of Influence’ was below the average for Englandand Wales, with the exception being Cheshire West and Chester, where the GVA per head was above the averagefor England. GVA per head in Flintshire and Wrexham was also higher than the average for Wales. The table alsoshows that GVA has increased in line with or above the average for England and Wales (in percentage terms)across the Area of Influence. Growth has been particularly strong in Cheshire West and Chester, Conwy andDenbighshire and Gwynedd.

Table 13: GVA and GVA per head (Local Authority Level)

2001 GVAper head

(£)

2011 GVAper head

(£)

% Change(2001 to 2011)

Merseyside and Halton 10,808 14,977 +39%Cheshire West and Chester 15,725 23,240 +48%Flintshire and Wrexham 12,716 17,456 +37%Conwy and Denbighshire 8,847 12,922 +46%Anglesey 7,619 10,514 +38%Gwynedd 9,785 14,764 +51%England 15,654 21,700 +39%Wales 10,793 15,161 +40%

Source: ONS


Figure 25 shows the key employment destinations in the east of the Area of Influence and its hinterland. It highlightskey employment centres within North East Wales, such as Deeside Park, Broughton Airbus, Wrexham IndustrialEstate and Wrexham TownCentre. It also highlights thescale of employmentopportunities available toresidents of Wales across theborder in Chester, EllesmerePort and the Wirral, as well assignificant employmentcentres further afield inLiverpool, Warrington andManchester.

Figure 25: Key EmploymentAreas

Figure 26 identifies the key proposed employment sites which may have transport implications in the future in theeast of the Area of Influence and its hinterland. The key development sites in North East Wales are the DeesideNorthern Gateway, which forms the key new development within the Deeside Enterprise Zone. Warren HallBusiness Park is also proposed to be built near to Broughton on the A55, and the junction access arrangementshave already been constructed to allow this development to go ahead. In Wrexham, a number of developments are

also proposed to thewest of the city includingthe Ruthin RoadDevelopment Area, aswell as additionaldevelopment at WrexhamScience Park andWrexham IndustrialEstate.

Figure 26: ProposedEmploymentDevelopment Sites inCheshire West andChester/North EastWales


Figure 27 shows theproposed employmentdevelopment sites in theWirral, south Merseyside, andHalton. The key sites aresituated at Runcorn (TheHeath Business andTechnical Park and at Ineosalongside the Ship Canal),3MG Mersey MultimodalGateway logistics hub, furtherexpansion at HalewoodJaguar Landrover, EstuaryCommerce Park adjacent toLiverpool Airport and withinCentral Liverpool both theKnowledge Quarter (aroundthe University of Liverpool)and the City Centre StrategicInvestment Framework(Phase I). Figure 27: Proposed Employment Development Sites

Summary – Wider Economic and Social Issues

- Population growth (+2.5%) in the ‘Area of Influence (2001 – 2011) increased at a significantly lower ratethan the average for England and Wales (+7.9%). Wrexham showed the strongest level of growth(+9.5%)

- Further significant growth in housing is expected in the Wrexham to Chester corridor, in addition to thearea south of Wrexham. Growth is also forecast in Buckley and Mold and in a number of pockets alongthe North Wales coast.

- Maps showing the concentrations of economically active unemployed and job seekers identifyconcentrations across Merseyside and Halton, in addition to specific locations along the North Walescoast, such as Rhyl and Holyhead. The Indices of Multiple Deprivation show a similar picture.

- GVA per head for most of the ‘Area of Influence’ was below the respective averages for England andWales, with the exception of Cheshire West and Chester and Flintshire and Wrexham. Growth in GVA inthe period 2001 to 2011 has been in line with or above the average for England and Wales (in % terms)across the ‘Area of Influence’.

- The poor public transport connectivity to Liverpool leads to a number of adverse population, economic,environmental and social consequences including high car mode share, low GVA per capita and adverseenvironmental implications. This outcomes have emerged in spite of the significant housing andemployment growth which is planned.

- There are a number of key proposed employment sites in North East Wales that will have significantimplications in terms of transport – this includes the Deeside Northern Gateway, Warren Hall BusinessPark near Broughton and a number of developments to the west of Wrexham.

- There are a large number of key developments proposed in Merseyside and Halton, including LiverpoolWaters, The Heath Business and Technical Park (Runcorn), 3MG Mersey Multimodal Gateway, inaddition to further expansion around Liverpool Airport, including Estuary Commerce Park and JaguarLand Rover at Halewood.

As the impacts of reinstating the Halton Curve will be dispersed across a wide area, the potential for thescheme to have a significant impact on deprivation or employment levels in a particular locality will belimited compared to a scheme where the benefits are more localised. The scheme will however facilitateaccess to highly skilled jobs, particularly in Liverpool City Centre, Liverpool South Parkway, the Mersey Deeeconomic area and North West Wales (including the new nuclear power station Wylfa Newydd), contributingto increased GVA and economic output across the ‘Area of Influence’.


2.9 ObjectivesA set of broad based objectives have been identified below – these have been derived in view of the transportchallenges and wider economic and social issues identified above, plus the identified local policies and priorities.- Facilitate economic activity, employment growth, and access to employment opportunities in the

Liverpool City Region and across North Wales – enhance direct public transport connectivity betweenLiverpool and North Wales Coast / Wrexham and between Liverpool and Frodsham/Helsby.

- Support business investment and productivity growth in the Mersey Dee economic area, includingenhanced access to cross border employment opportunities – development of improved cross border publictransport connections to / from the North Wales Coast including Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham andCheshire West and Chester.

- Enhance connectivity to / from Liverpool John Lennon Airport – improve direct public transport linksbetween the Airport and Chester and Frodsham/Helsby and North Wales Coast / Wrexham for both business andtourism purposes.

- Minimise the impact of forecast trip growth on the highway network– provision of direct public transportconnections and capacity to help in mitigating the impact of forecast trip growth on the highway network.

- Support lower carbon travel – provide sustainable transport alternatives that are competitive with the car.- Sustainable freight movement - facilitate the development of opportunities for the sustainable movement of

freight to / from Liverpool City Region, North Wales to / from other locations.

2.10 Impact of Not Changing / Summary of the ConstraintsIn the absence of the scheme, there would be no significant improvement to public transport connections betweenHelsby, Frodsham and North Wales to Liverpool/Liverpool John Lennon Airport. Previous work has shown thatalternative non-rail based options, such as express coach services, would not provide good value for money and areunlikely to be viable as commercial services. These options are also unlikely to transform the strategic connectivitybetween Liverpool, Liverpool John Lennon Airport, Runcorn, parts of North Cheshire, Chester and North Wales.Failure to progress the scheme would also result in a continued high level of car dependency for the movementsanalysed in this section of the report. This would have adverse consequences in terms of congestion on the roadnetwork and have a detrimental impact on air quality. It would also act as a barrier to growth in Cheshire West andChester, North Wales and the Liverpool City Region as the labour markets would continue to be less accessiblecompared with the scheme in place.

The main technological issue to be addressed relates to the infrastructure characteristics. The current layout onlypermits northbound trains to operate via the Halton Curve since the existing signalling capability does not allowsouthbound trains to run. The upgraded signalling would enable trains to operate in both directions across theCurve. There are no other physical barriers to address. Since the upgraded scheme would be delivered within theexisting railway footprint, there are no specific environmental issues to address. In fact the delivery of the schemecould help to address some environmental impacts if the scheme is not progressed, for example, the removal ofsome car journeys from the corridor in response to the rail improvements. The managerial issues associated withthe scheme delivery is ongoing. A dialogue with the potential operators has commenced covering revenue forecastsand operating costs, although it is recognised that further work to explore these issues will be necessary as thescheme evolves. A commercial proposition will need to be confirmed in due course, with an expectation thatsubsequent phases of the scheme will be incorporated into the future Wales & Borders franchise.

2.11 Option Assessment ReportIntroductionThe scheme options described in this business case are the culmination of a large amount of analysis, review andrevision over a number of years. From the analysis of the evidence base and transport challenges, it is clear that theproblems to be addressed here relate to public transport accessibility between North Wales and the Liverpool CityRegion (and vice versa). There has been significant investment in improvements to road links on the strategicnetwork, such as the A55 and A483 without a commensurate investment in the public transport network. The resulthas been that highway connections are comparatively good relative to public transport and this has facilitated longerdistance car commuting across the area of influence.

There are existing constraints and pinch points on the highway network, such as the Silver Jubilee Bridge betweenRuncorn and Widnes. This is to be addressed through a new bridge over the River Mersey (Mersey Gateway) – thenew bridge will be to the east of the Silver Jubilee bridge, connecting the towns of Runcorn and Widnes.Construction of the scheme commenced in 2014, with completion expected in 2017.


Do MinimumThe scheme assumes the following schemes are committed and form the do minimum to the Mersey DeeProposals:

- Weaver to Wavertree junction re-signalling - allows the scheme to be implemented at a significantly reduced costthan would otherwise be the case;

- Wrexham Central and Saltney Junction upgrade – includes some track doubling and line speed improvements –due to be completed April 2015 which will permit an extra service per hour in either direction (not both)

Whilst not specifically included within the do minimum, the following committed measures will also complement thescheme proposals:

- Phase 1 Rockcliffe Hall – Llandudno Junction re-signalling scheme - (committed scheme for CP5 – to completeby 2019). This section will be re-signalled with passive provision for 100mph / 160km/h running. Implementationof the higher line speed will be subject to the development, submission and approval of a business case byNetwork Rail.

- Phase 2- Llandudno Junction – Holyhead, re-signalling planned early in CP6 (2019+).

Background to Bus OptionsAs part of the evidence base for the Regional Transport Plan (2010-2015) Taith, through the then Public TransportManagers Group, commissioned Peter Brett Associates (PBA) to undertake a feasibility study on a concept of aregional trunk road coach service entitled ‘Taith Express’ in 2007/08. The proposed network focussed on east-westmovements along the A55 corridor, with connections to Manchester and Liverpool Airports. The study report12

identified four options for a Taith Express serving the corridor eastwards of Caernarfon. The intention was todevelop a strong east - west corridor into which local bus network could feed passengers at key interchanges. Theoptions included hourly and half hourly services service alternatives, linking communities along the A55 and atinterchange points.

A subsequent study by Elan Public Transport Consultancy13 concluded that the preferred option should be based onOption 2, as identified by the PBA, but with some adjustments to the route to avoid duplication with the rail service.This comprised of one service per hour from Llandudno Junction to Manchester Airport (TX1) and a further hourlyservice from Llandudno Junction to Liverpool John Lennon Airport (TX2). The services would take similar but notidentical routes along the North Wales Coast and combine to provide a half hourly frequency on this section. Thescheduled journey time between Llandudno Junction and Liverpool John Lennon Airport was 1 hour 47 minutes.

The economic appraisal of the preferred option identified by the Elan study reported a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of0.89 (with infrastructure) and 1.09 (without infrastructure). Whilst the study concluded that the scheme has a positiveBCR, this represented low value for money and the service would have required a significant level of subsidy. Theproposals were not progressed any further following the completion of the Elan study in 2009.

Subsequent to the production of the reports, the concept of Park and Ride / Share / Regional Coach Services thatcould use strategic sites along the A55 connecting a number of the key strategic employment sites to the twoprincipal airports for North Wales (Liverpool and Manchester) was identified as one of the transport priorities in theNorth Wales Regional Transport Plan.

Following the reductions in revenue support for local bus services, the concept of a ‘Taith Express’ was notprogressed by the North Wales local authorities. The issue of park and ride / share was subsequently identified inthe North East Wales Area Based Transport Study (2012), in addition to the North East Wales Integrated TransportTaskforce Report (2013) - which recommended cross border bus services, in addition to re-opening of the HaltonCurve

Background to Rail OptionsIn 2009, Steer Davies Gleave was appointed by Merseytravel to prepare demand and revenue forecasts for new railservices using the reinstated Halton Curve, along with an outline business case. Four service options wereexamined:

12 Taith Express Feasibility Study Stage 1, Peter Brett Associates, 200813 Taith Express: An Intermodal Approach to Public Transport in North Wales, March 2009


- Option 1: Hourly Liverpool Lime Street to Chester via Runcorn calling at all intermediate stations;- Option 2: Option 1, plus an extension beyond Chester to Wrexham General;- Option 3: Option 1, plus an extension beyond Chester to Llandudno Junction; and- Option 4: Half hourly service from Liverpool Lime Street to Chester.

The economic appraisal reported that the option with the highest BCR (1.9) was Option 2 (Liverpool to Wrexham) –the BCRs for the other options ranged from 1.3 to 1.7. It was however noted that given the operating subsidyrequirement the lowest cost option to deliver would be Option 1.

In addition, the study also included an assessment of new stations at Beechwood (on the Halton Curve) and Ditton,with forecasts being based on the Option 1 and Option 4 timetables respectively. The study concluded that bothstations would attract a significant number of passengers, but that the economic case for the stations was notparticularly strong.

The Halton Curve Improvement Demand Study (AECOM, February 2015 (Appendix C) has built on the 2009 workby identifying and assessing a fuller range of service options, which are incorporated in the long list. The optionsconsidered in the 2009 study are incorporated within this.

Long List of OptionsTable 14 and Table 15 show a long list of rail and bus options that have been identified for consideration within thisbusiness case, in addition to the end-to-end journey time.

Table 14: Long List of Options: Rail

Option Name Station calling points End-to-endjourney time

R1 1 tph Liverpool to Chester Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Frodshamand Helsby. 47 minutes

R2 2 tph Liverpool to Chester

One service would call at Liverpool SouthParkway, Runcorn, Frodsham and Helsby,whereas the other would call at LiverpoolSouth Parkway and Runcorn.

43 minutes (fast),

47 minutes (slow)

R31 tph Liverpool to Chesterplus 1 tph Liverpool toWrexham

The Liverpool to Chester service would call atLiverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Frodshamand Helsby.

The Liverpool to Wrexham service would callat Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, andChester.

51 minutes

59 minutes

R41 tph Liverpool to Chester,plus 1 tph Liverpool toBangor

The Liverpool to Chester service would call atLiverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Frodshamand Helsby.

The Liverpool to Bangor service would call atLiverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Chester,Shotton, Flint, Rhyl, Colwyn Bay andLlandudno Junction.

47 minutes

1 hour, 53 mins

R51 tph Liverpool to Wrexhamplus 1 tph Liverpool toBangor

The Liverpool to Wrexham service would callat Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, andChester.

The Liverpool to Bangor service would call atLiverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Frodsham,Helsby, Chester, Shotton, Flint, Rhyl, ColwynBay and Llandudno Junction.

59 minutes

1 hour, 57minutes

R6 1 tph Liverpool to Wrexham Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Frodshamand Helsby and Chester. 1 hour, 3 minutes


Option Name Station calling points End-to-endjourney time

R7 1 tph Liverpool to BangorLiverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Frodshamand Helsby, Chester, Shotton, Flint, Rhyl,Colwyn Bay and Llandudno Junction.

1 hour, 55minutes

R8

1 tph Liverpool to Wrexhamplus 1 tph Liverpool toBangor

(with both services callingat Helsby and Frodsham)

The Liverpool to Wrexham service would callat Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn,Frodsham, Helsby and Chester.

The Liverpool to Bangor service would call atLiverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Frodshamand Helsby, Chester, Shotton, Flint, Rhyl,Colwyn Bay and Llandudno Junction.

1 hour, 3 minute

1 hour, 57minutes

R9

0.5tph Liverpool to Chester

0.5tph Liverpool toWrexham

Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Frodsham,and Helsby

Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Frodsham,Helsby and Chester

47 minutes

1 hour, 3 minutes

R10

0.5tph Liverpool to Bangor

0.5tph Liverpool toWrexham

Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Frodsham,Helsby, Chester, Shotton, Flint, Rhyl, ColwynBay, Llandudno Junction

Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Frodsham,Helsby and Chester

1 hour 56 minutes

1 hour 3 minutes

Rail options R2, R3, R4, R5 and R8, which comprise 2tph via the Halton Curve, have not been taken forward formore detailed analysis since the scope to find suitable train paths for a second hourly service is yet to be proven.

Table 15: Long List of Options: Bus

Option Name End-to-end journey time

B1 1 bph Llandudno Junction to Manchester Airport

1bph Llandudno Junction to Liverpool South Parkway

Includes a number of infrastructure measures, including at interchanges

2 hours 8 mins

2 hours

B2 As per Option 9, but without infrastructure

B3 1 bph Caernarfon to Manchester Airport

1 bus every two hours Rhyl to Liverpool Airport (via Chester)

2 hours 52 mins

1 hr 23 mins

B4 1 bph Caernarfon to Manchester Airport

1 bus every two hours Rhyl to Liverpool Airport (via Chester)

1 bus every two hours between Llandudno and Wrexham (off peak)

2 hours 52 mins

1 hour 23 mins

1 hour 37 mins

Costs and BenefitsTable 16 shows a summary of the costs and the value for money of each rail option, as reported in the recentDemand Study – more detailed analysis is included in the Economic Case (Chapter 3). All of the rail options havethe same capital investment costs, but the operating cost is variable depending on the service option.


Table 16: Rail Options: Summary of Costs and Benefits

Option Name

CostsBenefit toCost Ratio

CapitalInvestment Cost

(2015 prices)

AnnualOperating Cost(2013 prices)

R1 1 tph Liverpool to Chester £14.9m xxxxx 2.1

R6 1 tph Liverpool to Wrexham £14.9m Xxxxx 1.8

R7 1 tph Liverpool to Bangor £14.9m Xxxxx 1.6

R9 0.5tph Liverpool to Chester plus 0.5tphLiverpool to Wrexham

£14.9m Xxxxx 1.6

R10 0.5tph Liverpool to Wrexham, plus 0.5tphLiverpool to Bangor

£14.9m xxxxx 1.8

Note: annual operating costs are those forecast for the first 3 years of operation. From 2027/28, new rolling stock to replace the 40 year old Class150s will be required which means the annual operating costs are expected to increase by circa 25% compared with the totals shown above.

A summary of the costs and benefits for the bus options, as reported in the PBA/Elan studies, is included in Table17. A full set of costs and benefits information for the four options identified is not available at this point in time.Notwithstanding this, the Elan study recommended Option B2 as the recommended option – this was forecast toreturn low value for money with a BCR of 1.09, which is considerably lower than all of the rail options identified inTable 16.Table 17: Bus Options: Summary of Costs and Benefits

Option Name

Costs

Benefitto CostRatio

CapitalInvestmentCost (2009

prices)

AnnualOperatingCost (2009

prices)

B1

1bph Llandudno Junction to Manchester Airport

1bph Llandudno Junction to Liverpool South Parkway

Includes a number of infrastructure measures, including atinterchanges

xxxxxx N/A 0.89

B2 As per Option 9, but without infrastructure - N/A 1.09

B31bph Caernarfon to Manchester Airport

1 bus every two hours Rhyl to Liverpool Airport (viaChester)

N/A N/A N/A

B4

1bph Caernarfon to Manchester Airport

1 bus every two hours Rhyl to Liverpool Airport (viaChester)

1 bus every two hours between Llandudno and Wrexham(off peak)

N/A N/A N/A

Table 18 provide an assessment of the performance of the rail and bus options against the identified objectives.Whilst the hourly service between Liverpool and Chester would help to meet some objectives and represents aninterim step, it is evident that the options which extend trains beyond Chester to Wrexham and / or Bangor performmore strongly overall.


Table 18: Performance of Rail and Bus Options Against Objectives

OptionNo Name

Objectives

Facilitate economic activity,employment growth, andaccess to employment

opportunities in theLiverpool City Region and

across North Wales

Support business investmentand productivity growth in the

Mersey Dee economic area,including enhanced access to

cross border employmentopportunities

Enhanceconnectivity

to / fromLiverpool

John LennonAirport

Minimise theimpact of

forecast tripgrowth on the

highwaynetwork

Supportlower

carbontravel

Sustainablefreight

movement

R1 1tph Liverpool to Chester

R6 1tph Liverpool to Wrexham

R7 1tph Liverpool to Bangor

R90.5tph Liverpool to Wrexham plus 0.5tphLiverpool to Chester

R100.5tph Liverpool to Wrexham plus 0.5tphLiverpool to Bangor

B1

1bph Llandudno Junction to ManchesterAirport plus 1bph Llandudno Junction toLiverpool South Parkway. Includesinfrastructure measures, including atinterchanges

B2As per Option 9, but without infrastructure

B31bph Caernarfon to Manchester Airport. 1bus every two hours Rhyl to LiverpoolAirport (via Chester)

B4

1bph Caernarfon to Manchester Airport. 1bus every two hours Rhyl to LiverpoolAirport (via Chester). 1 bus every twohours between Llandudno and Wrexham(off peak)


A representation of the advantages and disadvantages of each option is shown for rail and bus in Table 19 andTable 20 - this takes account of a range of factors, including objectives, value for money, affordability and feasibility.

Table 19: Rail Options: Advantages and Disadvantages

Option Name Advantages Disadvantages

R1 1tph Liverpoolto Chester

Lowest cost option in terms ofthe ongoing subsidy

Improved links to LiverpoolJohn Lennon Airport fromChester

Strongest performing option interms of Value for Money

Does not fully meet objectives to improveconnections to / from North Wales

R6 1tph Liverpoolto Wrexham

Transforms connectivitybetween Wrexham andLiverpool City Region byremoving the interchange atChester or Bidston

Limited improvements in connectivity along theNorth Wales Coast

Further infrastructure required between Chesterand Wrexham to support the hourly service

Higher ongoing subsidy requirement comparedwith Option 1

R7 1tph Liverpoolto Bangor

Delivers significantimprovements betweenLiverpool / Runcorn and theNorth Wales Coast.

Limited improvements in connectivity toWrexham.

R9

0.5tphLiverpool toWrexham and0.5tphLiverpool toChester

Introduces a direct link toWrexham from Liverpool usingcommitted infrastructure


Timing of 2 hourly service to Chester is relativelyinefficient

Economic business case is significantly weakercompared with the hourly option to Wrexhamgiven the operational issues

R10

0.5tphLiverpool toWrexham and0.5tphLiverpool toBangor

Delivers some improvementsbetween Liverpool / Runcornand the North Wales Coast

Introduces a direct link toWrexham from Liverpool usingcommitted infrastructure


Higher ongoing subsidy requirement comparedwith some options (Option 1, 6)

Two hourly frequency is not particularlyconvenient when promoting the new journeyopportunities as ‘direct services’


Table 20: Bus Options Advantages and Disadvantages

Option Name Advantages Disadvantages

B1

1bph Llandudno Junctionto Manchester Airport

1bph Llandudno Junctionto Liverpool SouthParkway

Includes a number ofinfrastructure measures,including at interchanges

Lower operating costsrelative to rail basedalternatives

Provides sustainabletransport connections to keylocations not served by theNorth Wales Coast rail line

Assessed as low value for money

Package of bus basedinfrastructure found to reduce thevalue for money of the scheme(relative to Option B2)

Journey times less competitivecompared with rail based options

B2 As per Option B1, butwithout infrastructure

Lower operating costsrelative to rail basedalternatives.

Provides sustainabletransport connections to keylocations not served by theNorth Wales Coast rail line.

Assessed as low value formoney.

Journey times less competitivecompared with rail based options.

B3

1bph Caernarfon toManchester Airport

1 bus every two hoursRhyl to Liverpool Airport(via Chester)



Likely to perform poorly in valuefor money terms.


B4

1bph Caernarfon toManchester Airport

1 bus every two hoursRhyl to Liverpool Airport(via Chester)

1 bus every two hoursbetween Llandudno andWrexham (off peak)



Likely to perform poorly in valuefor money terms.


In accordance with the DfT’s guidance, the Early Assessment and Sifting Tool (EAST) has been applied to shortlistpossible options and examine the trade-offs between individual schemes. By shortlisting proposals, this enables keyuncertainties to be identified and ensure options which fail to meet the necessary evaluation criteria are notconsidered in more detail. There are evaluation criteria in the EAST appraisal tool which have been consideredusing a five point scale to evaluate the impacts.

The results from Table 21 indicate that although the bus/coach based schemes perform relatively strongly againstthe cost and flexibility indicators, their contribution to other objectives including economic growth, connectivity,reliability, alignment with wider policies and the environmental impact (based on the assumed mode transfer) isweak compared with the rail based options. On this basis, it is recommended that the rail based proposals arereviewed in more detail, with the bus/coach schemes not progressed in response to their relatively weak contributionto the supporting economic growth.


Table 21: Performance of Rail and Bus Options Against Objectives

IndicatorShortlisted tests

R1 R6 R7 R9 R10 B1 B2 B3 B4

Stra

tegi

c

Fit with wider transport /Government objectives 3 4 4 3 4 1 2 1 1

Fit with other objectives 3 4 4 3 4 1 2 1 1Key uncertainties 4 2 3 4 4 4 3 4 4Consensus over outcomes 3 4 4 3 4 1 2 1 1

Eco

nom

ic

Connectivity 3 3 4 3 4 1 2 1 1Reliability 4 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 4WEBs 3 4 5 3 4 1 2 1 1Resilience 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3Delivery of housing 3 4 4 3 4 1 3 3 3Reducing carbon emissions 3 4 4 3 4 1 2 1 1Local environmental impact 3 4 44 3 4 1 2 1 14Noise 3 4 4 3 4 1 2 1 1Value for money 5 4 4 3 4 1 2 1 1

Man

agem

ent Implementation 5 2 3 3 3 2 1 2 2

Public acceptability 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Practical feasibility 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2Supporting evidence 5 5 4 4 4 2 2 2 2

Fina

ncia

l Affordability 3 3 2 3 2 4 4 4 4Capital costs 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 5 5Revenue costs 3 2 2 2 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Com

m-

erci

al

Flexibility of options 3 1 2 3 3 5 5 5 5Source of funding 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5Income generation 4 5 4 3 4 1 2 2 2

Option Assessment: ConclusionBased on the performance of the options against the objectives, the value for money assessment andconsiderations relating to affordability and technical feasibility, it is proposed that Option R1 is shortlisted at thisstage. This outcome reflects the following considerations:

- The political importance of reinstating trains onto the Halton Curve as early as possible following the Chancellor’sannouncement of £10.4m to fund the infrastructure works;

- It requires the lowest revenue support and Liverpool City Region partners have confirmed funding for an initialthree year period;

- It is the best performing option in value for money terms;- The hourly service will transform connectivity between Chester and Liverpool South Parkway (for Liverpool John

Lennon Airport), as well as improving links from Frodsham and Helsby, and north Wales to Liverpool;- The new service provides a framework to subsequently extend trains beyond Chester to Wales, depending on the

availability of additional funding and the inclusion of the new service in the forthcoming Wales and Bordersfranchise;


It is proposed that the other rail options (R6, R7, R9 & R10) are retained as alternatives to the preferred rail option.There are a number of dependencies which will affect the selection of a future extension of the proposed servicebetween Liverpool and Chester into North Wales. These considerations include:

- Examining whether a business case can be demonstrated for additional network capacity between Chester andWrexham, as identified in the Wales Route Plan;

- The availability of additional revenue funding to support the service extensions will need to be discussed withstakeholders, including Welsh Government;

- The scope to include the new services in the forthcoming Wales & Borders franchise; and- The continued wider rail industry processes to develop and confirm a timetable for operating services over the

Halton Curve, building on the initial analysis undertaken by AECOM with Network Rail to date which has identifiedthat appropriate trainpaths exist.

2.12 Strategic FitThe following summarises how the strategic policy framework produced by the promoting organisation aims tosupport these outcomes.

Scheme PromoterMerseytravel is the scheme promoter for the Halton Curve scheme – the relevant aims and objectives of theorganisation are set out in Merseytravel’s Corporate Plan (2015-16) and the Local Transport Plan 3.

Merseytravel Corporate Plan (2015-16)

The Corporate Plan identifies a vision of:

‘A World Class integrated and sustainable transport system enabling a prosperous, inclusive and growing LiverpoolCity Region’ Merseytravel’s mission is set out in the plan as follows:

‘’To provide the very best transport advice and service delivery to the Liverpool City Region through collaborationwith partners’

The Plan for 2015/16 is based on six delivery drivers –Transport Supporting Growth, Improving Connectivity,Effective Efficient Transport Network and Partnership, Value for Money.. All these drivers are relevant to thedevelopment of the Halton Curve scheme, but particularly relevant are the Transport Supporting Growth, ImprovingConnectivity and Partnership drivers given the economic benefits of the scheme both within the Liverpool City regionand beyond and the close working with partners such as Welsh Government, Network Rail and Cheshire West andChester and Halton Borough Councils.

Merseytravel Local Transport Plan (2011)

The plan provides the statutory framework for the policies and plans that guide the future provision of transport inMerseyside and sets out the following vision:

‘A city region committed to a low carbon future, which has a transport network and mobility culture that positivelycontributes to a thriving economy and the health and wellbeing of its citizens and where sustainable travel is theoption of choice’.

The Halton Curve is identified within the plan as a long standing scheme that would enhance wider city regiontransport public transport links and it was noted the scheme is subject to further assessment. The plan alsohighlights the employment opportunities for residents outside Merseyside and highlights North Wales in particular –it is noted that this raises particular challenges in terms of providing realistic, affordable and convenient transportchoices and will require joint initiatives with our neighbouring local authorities.

Contribution to National ObjectivesWales - One Wales: Connecting the Nation - The Wales Transport Strategy (2008)

This document seeks to provide a stable, long-term framework for the development of transport in Wales. It dealswith the development of all modes of transport as well as implications for other policy areas. It specifies theoutcomes and strategic priorities that link the Wales Spatial Plan, the Welsh Government’s wider strategies and thedevelopment of plans at the local level.

Of relevance to this scheme is a commitment in the strategy to work with partners in England to improve publictransport links to key centres. It stresses that much can be done by improving the capacity and frequency of railservices and the long distance bus network.


England - Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen (2011)

This transport White Paper is the most recent overall Government policy document. It places primary importance ontwo key objectives, which are to help create growth in the economy and to tackle climate change by cutting carbonemissions. It was launched in conjunction with the setup of the Local Sustainable Transport Fund and has a strongemphasis on decentralising power to local areas, including through Local Enterprise Partnerships.

Contribution towards Regional and Sub-Regional ObjectivesNorth Wales Regional Transport Plan (2010)

The North Wales Regional Transport Plan (RTP) is a strategy for identifying and delivering improvements to thetransport system in North Wales over a 25 year period. The plan was co-ordinated by Taith, the North WalesRegional Transport Consortium, which was a grouping of the six North Wales Local Authorities. Whilst Taith wasabolished earlier in 2014, the plan is still a statutory document and will be replaced in early 2015 by a new JointLocal Transport Plan covering the six North Wales authorities. With regard to the Halton Curve scheme, the planincludes a particular focus on the development of cross border linkages, including to Chester and West Cheshire,Wirral and Liverpool.

Liverpool City Region Growth Plan and Strategic Economic Plan (March 2014)

The plan articulates the ambitions of the City Region in terms of stimulating job creation as with a particularemphasis placed on enabling private sector investment and growth.

The plan sets out a vision to be:

‘A globally connected City Region delivering sustainable growth, opportunity and prosperity for people andbusinesses.’

The plan sets out five transformational projects - the most relevant to the Halton Curve scheme is to developLiverpool City Centre as a global brand, visitor and business destination, a centre for commercial and businessgrowth and a location for a growing cluster of knowledge assets.

The plan formed the basis of the Local Growth Deal submission to Government, which has secured the capitalfunding for the Halton Curve scheme. This ask was also made by the Cheshire and Warrington LEP due to thecross border significance of the project.

Liverpool City Region Long Term Rail Strategy (2014)

The strategy sets out a vision for the role that an expanded rail offer can place in facilitating the acceleratedeconomic growth of the Liverpool City Region. Whilst the strategy does not identify specific objectives, it sets outparticular issues and capacity constraints to resolve.

The Halton Curve is one of a range of packages presented in the document - it outlines the aims of the project asfollows:

- Restore direct connectivity to Wrexham and North Wales from Liverpool and Liverpool Airport;- Provide faster journey times and increased frequencies to Chester;- Provide direct linkage to Frodsham and Helsby; and- Create an alternative route between Liverpool and Cardiff via Shrewsbury.

Contribution towards Local ObjectivesIn addition the to the Merseyside LTP, the scheme also contributes towards the local transport objectives in theCheshire West and Chester and Halton, as set out in their respective LTP’s. In autumn 2014, CW&C has publishedits ”Priorities for Strategic Rail Modernisation”. This is a key policy document supporting the scheme. Local transportobjectives for the six local authorities in North Wales are covered by the Regional Transport Plan.

The Red Amber Green (RAG) assessment below summarises the strategic fit of the Halton Curve scheme with keynational, regional and local policy documents.


Table 22: Red Amber Green Policy Assessment of the Scheme Against Objectives

Policy ObjectivesStrategicFit

National Policy

One Wales: Connectingthe Nation - The WalesTransport Strategy

- Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other environmentalimpacts from transport

- Integrating local transport

- Improving access between key settlements and sites

- Enhancing international connectivity

- Increasing safety and security

Creating Growth, CuttingCarbon MakingSustainable LocalTransport Happen (2011)

- Help create growth in the economy

- Tackle climate change by cutting carbon emissions

Sub National Policy

North Wales RegionalTransport Strategy (2009)

- Optimise accessibility to employment, education, health andservices for all the diverse communities of North Wales.

- Improve the quality and provision of passenger transport throughoutNorth Wales and to and from the Region.

- Facilitate the efficient movement of freight supporting the Region’sindustry and commerce and its International Gateway functions.

- Provide, promote and improve sustainable forms of transport andinfrastructure to minimise the negative impacts of transport on thelocal and global environment.

- Improve safety of all forms of transport.

- Enhance the efficiency and use of the transport network.

- Upgrade and maintain the transport infrastructure, providing newwhere necessary.

Liverpool City RegionGrowth Plan andStrategic Economic Plan

- To build on international connectivity and brand-recognition. Ourinvestment will be targeted at establishing a globally connected CityRegion.

- To maximise the economic growth opportunity from being a centrefor energy led and low carbon growth.

- To build on its status as a hub for innovation, science and creativity.

Local Policy

Merseyside LocalTransport Plan 3

- Help create the right conditions for sustainable economic growth bysupporting the priorities of the Liverpool City Region, the LocalEnterprise Partnership and the Local Strategic Partnerships.

- Provide and promote a clean, low emission transport system whichis resilient to changes to climate and oil availability.

- Provide and promote a clean, low emission transport system whichis resilient to changes to climate and oil availability.

- Ensure the transport system promotes and enables improved healthand wellbeing and road safety.

- Ensure equality of travel opportunity for all, through a transportsystem that allows people to connect easily with employment,education, healthcare, other essential services and leisure andrecreational opportunities.


Policy ObjectivesStrategicFit

- Ensure the transport network supports the economic success of thecity region by the efficient movement of people and goods.

- Maintain our assets to a high standard.

Cheshire West andChester Local TransportPlan 3

- Provide and develop reliable and efficient transport networks thatsupport sustainable economic growth in West Cheshire and thesurrounding area.

- Reduce carbon emissions from transport and take steps to adaptour transport networks to the effects of climate change.

- Manage a well maintained transport network.

- Improve accessibility to jobs and key services which help supportgreater equality of opportunity.

- Contribute to safer and secure transport in West Cheshire and topromote types of transport that are beneficial to health.

- Ensure that transport helps improve quality of life and enhances thelocal environment in West Cheshire.

Cheshire West andChester Priorities forstrategic railmodernisation

- A key recommendation of the strategy is the creation of anintegrated transport network with enhanced rail services and

- infrastructure, consisting of station improvements for pedestriansand cyclists, line electrification, improvements to rolling stock

- quality, and service frequency enhancements.- Consultation feedback broadly supported rail electrification and

welcomed service improvements on the Mid-Cheshire line.

Halton Local TransportPlan 3

- Ensure transport network resilience with particular regard toenhancing cross Mersey linkages, by the implementation of theMersey Gateway project and the Mersey Gateway SustainableTransport Strategy.

- Ensure the transport system supports the priorities of the Halton’sLocal Strategic Partnership (LSP), the Local Enterprise Partnership(LEP) and Liverpool City Region (LCR).

- Provide and promote a clean and low carbon transport system.

- Ensure the transport system promotes and enables improved healthand wellbeing.

- Ensure the transport system allows people to connect easily withemployment, services and social activities.

- Ensure the transport network supports the economic success ofHalton and the LCR by the efficient movement of people and goods.

- Maintain our transport and highway assets to a high standard.

Strategic Fit with Scheme X

Strong strategic fit with policy

Neutral / minimal strategic fit with policy

Negative strategic fit with policy


2.13 Political and Stakeholder SupportIn July 2012, the Chancellor’s announcement of £10.4m to fund the infrastructure works to upgrade the HaltonCurve to allow passenger services in both directions demonstrates a strong level of political support at the highestlevel. In addition to confirming a funding source for the capital costs, Liverpool City Region Partners have alsoindicated their commitment to fund the revenue costs for a maximum of three year period. This timescale could beshortened, subject to the inclusion of the service within the forthcoming Wales & Borders franchise.

In view of the two-stage incremental process to develop this scheme, stakeholders who could either be served aspart of the initial Liverpool to Chester service or a future extension to North Wales were consulted. The list ofstakeholders included:

- Members of Parliament;- Assembly Members;- Local authorities;- The business community including Chambers of Commerce;- Local Enterprise Partnerships.

Specific examples of support received prior to the stakeholder day include:

- Questions to Claire Perry MP: the MP provided an update of the scheme status highlighting the work completedto date and the timescales to complete the business case and the other preparatory work. Claire Perry used thisspeech to highlight her support for the scheme;

- Liam Robinson Chair of Merseytravel’s Integrated Transport Authority: Highlighted the importance of theeconomic benefits generated from this link to help unlock many more opportunities for people in the city region,North Wales and Cheshire. The project is being developed by Merseytravel, Halton Borough Council and theWelsh Government. It is expected that the full re-opening of the curve would improve links to Liverpool JohnLennon Airport as well as opening up more leisure and work opportunities across the region;

- Halton Cllr Rob Polhill: Halton Council welcomed the £10.4m funding announcement to reinstate the HaltonCurve. It is an important aspiration for Halton Curve and has featured in various Local Transport Plans for over adecade. The scheme has the support of Liverpool City Region, Welsh Government and the Cheshire LocalEnterprise Partnership;

- Liverpool John Lennon Airport: Representatives from the airport welcomed the announcement of the HaltonCurve since it will support the re-establishment of an important rail link that will make 250,000 passengers acrossNorth Wales. The reinstated link will allow trains to operate from North Wales via Chester and North WestChester to Liverpool South Parkway.

- Weaver Vale MP Graham Evans: Who has urged the Government to back the redevelopment since it wouldprovide the people of Frodsham and Helsby with a direct rail service to Liverpool South Parkway and Liverpoolcity centre. The Halton Curve will deliver a huge boost to the local economy and will make Weaver Vale an evenbetter place to live, work and invest.

An invitation letter was circulated to over 140 stakeholders outlining the main characteristics and benefits of thescheme, reinforcing the phased implementation to the scheme and inviting them to an event in Liverpool on 27 May2015. Over 20 delegates attended. The discussion of these slides was accompanied by an opportunity for individualstakeholders to comment on the proposals, including the recommendation for a phased implementation, comprisingLiverpool to Chester initially and followed by a future extension to North Wales.

Table 23 lists the attendees at the stakeholder briefing. Merseytravel prepared some slides that illustrated the mainimpacts for discussion with stakeholders covering:

- Role of devolved funding in facilitating this scheme;- Strategic vision, reinforcing that the initial scheme for the Liverpool to Chester scheme is only an interim stage;- Infrastructure requirements, and the synergies emerging from the Weaver to Wavertree re-signalling programme;- Current status of the scheme and progress to complete the Outline Business Case.

The discussion of these slides was accompanied by an opportunity for individual stakeholders to comment on theproposals, including the recommendation for a phased implementation, comprising Liverpool to Chester initially andfollowed by a future extension to North Wales.


Table 23: Attendance at the Stakeholder Briefing Day

Name Organisation Name Organisation

Sally McDonald 3MG Widnes Jeanette Hughes Helsby Parish Council

Sally Buttifant ACORP (Assoc ofcommunity Rail Partnership) Cllr Phil Davies Liverpool City Region

Combined Authority

Ben Davies Arriva Trains Wales Robin Tudor(Representative).

LJLA Head of PR &Communications

Joh Chappelle Chappelle Solutions Derek Twigg MP Halton

Fiona Hore - DevelopmentPlanning Manager

Cheshire West and ChesterCouncil Mark Langman Network Rail

Sheila DeeChester to Shrewsbury LineRail Partnership (relevant ifdestination Wrexham)

Cedric Green North Cheshire RailUsers Group

Askar Sheibani DIP and Wrexham BidstonRail users Association John Rooney North Wales Economic

Ambition Board

Mike LearmondFederation of SmallBusinesses North Wales andChester

J.A. Rogers North Wales BusinessCouncil

Tom Reynolds Frodsham Town Council Alan Dickin Warrington MBC

Tom McInerney Halton Borough Council Peter Scott / LeeRobinson

Wrexham CountyBorough CouncilMick Noone Halton Borough Council

A summary of the questions and answers included:

- Car parking availability: the scope of the scheme did not extend beyond the delivery of the infrastructurealthough Merseytravel would be supportive of associated improvements;

- Availability of bus services to link the railway stations with their adjacent catchments: Merseytravel andHalton Council were working closely to develop a bus strategy and ensure the project was delivered holistically;

- Rolling stock availability: the completion of various electrification schemes will facilitate a rolling stock cascadethat will ensure there is sufficient rolling stock available for an hourly service from Liverpool to Chester;

- Role for new stations: this issue will be examined as part of the wider Long Term Rail Strategy;- Scope of infrastructure works: the business case for further infrastructure was examined as part of a previous

study and this concluded the economic case for the additional investment would be weak;- How would the scheme be promoted to business in the Deeside area: the hourly Liverpool to Chester service

provides a framework for possible future extensions to destinations in north Wales including Bangor andWrexham;

- Aspirations for more than 1tph: further analysis would be required to determine whether 2tph could beaccommodated using the proposed infrastructure, along with an assessment of the operational risks;

- Role for freight in the business case, including the gauge clearance for the Halton Curve and the widernetwork: business case was predicated on passenger related benefits, although there may be opportunities toexplore these themes following the completion of the Northern Ports study. Gauge clearance for the HaltonCurve, or the surrounding network could influence the opportunities to develop new freight traffic;

- Identification of any negative impacts relating to the scheme: there was universal support for the scheme.


Letters of support were subsequently received from the following organisations, with copies included in Appendix N:

Arriva Trains Wales Helsby Parish Council

Chester Shrewsbury Rail Partnership Cheshire West and Cheshire Council

Chester University Mid Cheshire Community Rail Partnership

David Hanson MP (Quoted in the Flintshire Chronicle) Mid Cheshire Rail Users Association

Deeside Business Forum North Wales Economic Ambition Board

Derek Twigg MP North Cheshire Rail Users Group

Ellesmere Port Development Board Warrington Borough Council

Greengauge 21 Wrexham County Borough Council

Halton Chamber of Commerce Mersey Dee Alliance

2.14 Project DeliveryMerseytravel is co-ordinating the various aspects of the delivery of the scheme from the physical infrastructureimprovements through to the introduction of the service when the works are completed along with developing aBusiness Case for the whole proposal and securing the relevant funding. There are a number of stakeholders thatwill be making significant contributions to the success of this project and below we detail the Merseytravel internaldelivery mechanisms and the relationship with these external partners. The scope is therefore summarised as:

- Appointment, management and co-ordination of Network Rail to deliver the scheme through GRIP Stages 1-8.- Completion of the Full Business Case in accordance with WebTAG guidance published by the DfT. This includes

all constituent parts such as the Demand Study. This is completed to secure funding from the Local Growth Fund.- Develop the scheme with a provision of up to 1tph (each direction) over the Chord for timetable introduction 2017

with the option of 2tph to be explored.- Introduce the service via either the re-franchising process for the Wales and Borders franchise or via franchise

change in the Northern Franchise.- Establish revenue cost funding for the new service including negotiation/liaison with relevant external partners.Table 24 sets out the key staff and responsibilities whilst Table 25 presents contact details.

Table 24: Key Staff and Responsibilities

Key Staff Responsibility

Frank Rogers Merseytravel Director with responsibility for overall strategy and funding.

ShaneFitzpatrick

Senior Head of Service with responsibility on reporting all aspects of the delivery of the scheme to theTransport Advisory Group (TAG) who provide transport advise to the Liverpool City Region CombinedAuthority.

WayneMenzies

Head of Rail with overall responsibility for coordinating the delivery of all aspects of the remitted scope

Dave Jones

Network Development Manager. Specific responsibility for managing the production of the Outline andFull Business Cases including constituent parts. Specific responsibility in terms of initiating thenegotiations for agreeing Revenue Cost contribution. Responsibility to set up relevant externalmeetings; Stakeholder Meetings up to completion of Full Business Case and the Delivery Stakeholdermeetings from Full Business Case to service commencement.

Colin DeverProgramme Manager with responsibility to develop and manage the high level programme for thedelivery of all aspects of the scheme including GRIP process, Business Case and Franchising with keyinputs into process.

Tom Rickwood Specific responsibility to manage the GRIP process with Network Rail.

Julian Daley Specific responsibility to co-ordinate timetable introduction and include service in appropriate FranchiseAgreement.


Table 25: Contact Details

Contact Name Role Organisation Contact details

Frank RogersDirector ofIntegratedTransport

MerseytravelTel: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Email: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ShaneFitzpatrick

Senior Headof Service Merseytravel

Tel: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Wayne Menzies Head of Rail MerseytravelTel: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Dave JonesNetworkDevelopmentManager



Julian DaleySeniorDevelopmentOfficer



Tom RickwoodRailDevelopmentOfficer



Adeola Dada Sponsor Network RailTel: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Tom Carberry Strategy Network RailTel: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Karla GeorgeSchemeProjectManager

Network RailTel: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Joe Durrant ProjectManager Network Rail



Sean NicholsonDesignProjectEngineer

Network RailTel: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Andy Coates BusinessCase Lead AECOM



Mick Noone Halton LeadHaltonBoroughCouncil



Gareth EvansWelshGovernmentLead

WelshGovernment



Gerard RhodesCheshireWest &Chester

CheshireWest &Chester



Colin Dever ProgrammeManager Merseytravel



Figure 28 presents a key relationship organogram illustrating how the key individuals roles relate to schemedelivery.


Figure 28: Key Relationship Organogram

Output at Interim OBCIndication of RevenueCosts & required SubsidyIndication of optimalservice patterns

Decision PointRevenue Costs reviewed by KeyStakeholders and funding streamdeveloped for service

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICE

Merseytravel ExecutiveOverall strategy for deliveryCoordination of all fundingRemit to Merseytravelinternal team

Shane Fitzpatrick >TAGFunding for InfrastructureBusiness CaseAcceptance

Merseytravel Dft WelshGovernment

Key stakeholders in the development of revenuecost funding for service.

FUN

DIN

G

Wayne Menzies/Dave JonesRemit from Executive to;

Co-ordinate teamManagement of BusinessCase ProductionReport to Executive with keydecision points and progress

Julian DaleyRemit to

Coordinate inputs to TOCs for service.Support to GRIP processInput via WC Mainline IPG for service in ITSSCo-ordination with Liverpool Lime Street worksTimetabling support and advice

Tom RickwoodRemit to undertake;

Co-ordination of GRIPprocess - Network RailSupport to BusinessCase review and serviceprovision

CO

OR

DIN

ATE

/DEL

IVER

SCH

EME

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T

Andy Coates - AECOMKey responsibility for theproduction of WebTAGcompliant Business Casesincluding Demand Study.

Adeola Dada – Network RailCommence GRIP 3 StudyAdvise on link with Weaver /WavertreeAdvise on service and timetableAdvise on costs

Output during GRIP 3Constraints on service over chordidentified with respect to futuretimetable development

Infrastructure Costs refined

Business Case Completion

Outline Business Case

Full Business Case

Contract for ServiceDirect award OR pricedoption explored & priced.Both initially followed.Adeola Dada –

Network RailCommence GRIP 4

SCH

EME

IMPL

EMEN

TATI

ON

Adeola Dada –Network Rail

Progress throughGRIP stages 5-8

Complete Contract for ServiceDirect award OR priced option finalisedTOC identified and contracted

INFRASTRUCTURECOMPLETED

TOCRecruitment of train crewTimetable bidsLease agreement rolling stock

Training of train crew

SERVICECOMMENCES

Colin DeverProgramme Management of all processes with key Merseytravel inputs defined and monitored.


Meetings are scheduled at regular intervals. These constitute two meeting groups; the Strategic Group and theScheme progress meetings.

Strategic Group MeetingTerms of Reference: Review and agree programme and monitor progress on programme. Review progress andrisks with key stakeholders so as to identify issues in advance of the programme for early resolution. Co-ordinationof key interface issues between stakeholders to resolve any cross-stakeholder issues. Identify collective andindividual inputs from and by stakeholders to help maintain progress against programme. Review on-goingindividual stakeholder participation and include invitation to additional relevant parties and agree changes andreductions of other stakeholders as appropriate.

Frequency: Every 4 weeks.

Attendees:

Merseytravel – Frank Rogers, Shane Fitzpatrick, Dave Edge, Wayne Menzies, Dave Jones, Colin Dever, JulianDaley & Tom Rickwood

Network Rail – Adeola Dada

Welsh Government – Gareth Evans

AECOM – Andy Coates

Halton Borough Council – Mick Noone

Cheshire West and Chester Council – Gerard Rhodes

Duration: 1.5 – 2hrs.

Start: October 2014

Finish: June 2016

Scheme Progress MeetingsTerms of Reference: Monitoring of scheme development and progress with Network Rail and the Contractor againstboth specific GRIP stage development and overall scheme progress against milestones including Business CaseDevelopment

Frequency: Every four weeks.

Attendees:

Merseytravel – Tom Rickwood

Network Rail – Karla George, Adeola Dada, Sean Nicholson

Contractor Representatives

Duration: 1hr.

Start: October 2014

Review: April 2016

A timeline for deliverables is summarised in Table 26. This is covered in greater detail in the Commercial andManagement Cases later in this FBC.


Table 26: Timeline for Deliverables

Date Milestone

September 2014 Interim OBC and Demand Study Completed

October 2014 Commence Stakeholder Dialogue

May 2015 Finalise OBC

August 2015 Commence GRIP 3 Outline Design

August 2015 Confirmation of 1 tph service requirement availability

December 2015 GRIP 4 – 8 AFC

January 2016 Finalise FBC

February 2016 FBC issued to external verifier

March – April 2016 FBC issued to TAG, CBA and DfT

April 2016 Completion of GRIP 3

May 2016 GRIP 4 – 8 Tender Process

July 2016 Commence GRIP 4 Detailed Design

November 2016 Track Access Application (via TOC)

March 2017 Commence GRIP 5 – 8 Construction Phase

May 2018 Infrastructure Complete and Commissioned

October 2018 New Wales and Borders Franchise Commences

December 2018 Service Commences

Some early project risks have been identified and are set out in Table 27. Network Rail has undertaken a separateQCRA exercise in relation to the development of the Halton Curve infrastructure and this is included as Appendix M.

Table 26: Risk Log

Key high level risk items Mitigation / elimination planFailure to align with Weaver toWavertree Scheme to realise costefficiencies identified

Development of robust scheme programme with Network Rail andalignment of key milestones with Weaver to Wavertree scheme. Ensurethat the progression of each scheme takes full account of the otherscheme.

Development of a robust 2018 timetableneeds to be evaluated

Ensure that the scheme is included in all timetable development workbeing undertaken by the rail industry stakeholders in planning for theDec 2018 timetable.

Revenue cost funding agreement is notachieved. Train service is not fundedand does not commence.

Ensure timely negotiations with relevant stakeholders to securenecessary funding. Linked to franchise renewal.

Network Change. Objection fromindividual TOC delays the process.

Work with Stakeholders to establish communication with AccessBeneficiaries to avoid surprises as part of Network change.

Service is not included in Franchise. Commence process to possibly include service in Wales and BordersFranchise with Welsh Gov. Alternatively discuss as possible FranchiseChange to Northern Rail franchise with Rail North/DfT..

Rolling stock will not be available. Commence dialogue with ROSCO(s) to identify any issues.


2.15 Internal or External Business DriversThe project has a high level of strategic significance by providing a direct public transport connection betweenChester and the Liverpool City Region (and vice versa) in the first instance, followed by a possible extension tostations in North Wales subject to securing the extra funding and the demonstrating there is a robust business casefor the revised service. Specifically, it would provide potential for direct rail connections between parts of north westCheshire and Liverpool, between Chester and Liverpool South Parkway (for John Lennon Airport). The secondphase of the scheme would connect Liverpool and Liverpool South Parkway to stations in North Wales. Theincreased connectivity to the airport will make it a more attractive choice for potential passengers living in Cheshireand North Wales and also offer improved opportunities for the airport to gain more routes and increase its market.

The scheme also has potential to generate benefits in terms of agglomeration – this refers to the concentration ofeconomic activity – principally business and workers – in one location. Agglomeration benefits can result from theconcentrated co-location of businesses and workers and access of business to those workers. Transport schemescan generate such benefits by extending the effective area that businesses are able to attract labour from, andextending the number of potential linkages between businesses that can trade effectively with each other.

The scheme is strongly supported at a political level in Cheshire West and Chester, the Liverpool City Region and inNorth Wales – this is evidenced by the level of lobbying carried out by local MPs and AMs (Wales) from all three ofthe areas, in addition to the Mersey Dee Alliance, which is a cross border economic development agency. Thescheme is also strongly supported by the constituent local authorities and the Welsh Government.

It is critical for the scheme to be implemented in the short term as there is an opportunity to realise a significant costsaving by implementing the scheme in conjunction with the Weaver Junction to Wavertree Junction re-signalling onthe West Coast Main Line. The ability to access this cost saving is highly beneficial in relation to the value formoney of implementing the scheme in cost benefit terms – it would also minimise disruption to existing services byreducing the number of track possessions required.

2.16 Synergy with Other SchemesAs identified above, implementation of the scheme in conjunction with the Weaver Junction to Wavertree Junctionre-signalling allows the scheme to be implemented at a significantly reduced cost than would otherwise be the case.High level estimates from Network Rail suggest the direct scheme costs for Halton Curve could increase by at least£xxxx (with further indirect scheme costs on top) if it was not aligned with the Weaver to Wavertree scheme.

In addition to the Weaver to Wavertree scheme, Network Rail are progressing works on the approaches to and atLiverpool Lime Street Station to provide improved track and signalling layouts and increased capacity within thestation along with plans for a 4th track at Huyton. These works are being developed to a similar timescale to HaltonCurve.

The Halton Curve is also complementary to upgrades between Wrexham General and Saltney Junction (nearChester) – this includes line speed improvements, some track doubling and additional signalling blocks. Thescheme is currently on-site and due to start operation in 2016. The Halton Curve scheme will enable effective use tobe made of the additional capacity by enabling direct services between Liverpool and Wrexham, albeit at only 0.5tph with the currently committed infrastructure upgrade.

Other complementary schemes in North Wales that are committed by Network Rail include:

- Phase 1 Rockcliffe Hall – Llandudno Junction re-signalling scheme - (committed scheme for CP5 – to completeby 2019). This section will be re-signalled with passive provision for 100mph / 160km/hr running. Implementationof the higher line speed will be subject to the development, submission and approval of the appropriate businesscase.

- Phase 2- Llandudno Junction – Holyhead, re-signalling planned early in CP6 (2019+).

The scheme also complements the Mersey Gateway scheme by providing complementary public transportconnectivity enhancements between the Liverpool City Region, Cheshire West and Chester and North Wales.

2.17 Measures for SuccessA logic model for the scheme has been developed and is included in Figure 29. Logic models demonstrate thecausal links between the intervention, its outcomes and longer term impacts. They represent the hypothesis for theevaluation and provide the framework for identifying key research questions.


The logic model for the scheme does not look to identify all of the impacts of the scheme, instead it highlights thekey theory of change that follow from the schemes objectives and through its implementation. It identifies theimmediate outcomes of the infrastructure investment, (e.g. enhanced connectivity and transport links), changes thatmay occur in relation to user behaviour and the benefits for suppliers and how these outcomes contribute tostrategic impacts. The logic model is applied in the proposed monitoring and evaluation plan, which is discussed inChapter 6.

2.18 ConclusionsThis section has presented an analysis of the current position in terms of the transport offer across an ‘Area ofInfluence’ that has been identified for the scheme. In particular, it has highlighted issues relating to the relativecompetitiveness of public transport services relative to car between North Wales and Liverpool and Liverpool JohnLennon Airport (and vice versa). This is attributable, at least in part, to the indirect rail services between thesedestinations. There has been significant investment in the highway network, such as the A55, A483 and M56, butthis is now attracting unsustainable levels of car commuting as there has not been a commensurate investment inthe public transport network. Increasing trips lengths are validated by comparison of the 2001 and 2011 CensusJourney to Work data.

Analysis of Census data has also highlighted the large flow of cross-border trips from North Wales into CheshireWest and Chester (and vice versa), but a comparatively lower number of movements between North Wales andMerseyside and Halton (and vice versa). This difference is partly attributable to the differing levels of public transportservice provision serving the two travel markets.

An analysis of the wider social and economic issues shows strong population growth in Wrexham and this is set tocontinue given the location of the proposed housing and employment sites. Deprivation issues are concentrated inMerseyside and Halton, in addition to pockets along the North Wales Coast. Whilst the Halton Curve is not expectedto significantly impact on deprivation levels within local areas, it will facilitate employment opportunities across awide geographical area, with benefits in terms of agglomeration and productivity in town and city centres.

The evidence review has concluded by identifying a set of specific transport challenges and six objectives havebeen set in the context of local policies and priorities. This provides the context and reference point for theidentification of options, which have been assessed against the objectives and also considered with regards to valuefor money and affordability.

Following the assessment work to date, Option 1 comprises the preferred option, although there may be scope tosubsequently introduce Options 6, 7, 9 or 10, depending on the outcome of negotiations to secure the additionalfunding, ensuring there is a robust incremental business case if services are extended from Chester into NorthWales. The feasibility of providing 2tph on the Halton Curve in each direction remains something that could bedelivered by Network Rail but would require additional investment, with the single option currently being evaluatedbased on a 1tph service pattern. These issues will need to be resolved independently of the discussions on fundingand service planning. The results of the incremental business cases for the service extensions, along with theoutcome of these discussions, will influence the opportunities for further development of trains via the Halton Curve.


Figure 28 Halton Curve Link Logic Model (Sample)

activity, employment

3 The Economic Case


Table 27 provides information on the stages to completion of an Economic Case. It shows the elements within anEconomic Case (left hand column) and to what standard they should be taken at each of the three stages (SOC,OBC and FBC). All elements, unless indicated as optional, should be completed as a minimum by a FBCsubmission. The table shows what status they should achieve at FBC submission.

Table 27: Economic Case Stages

Element Strategic Outline Case Outline Business Case Full Business Case

Introduction Complete Update Update

Options Appraised Complete Update Update

Assumptions Complete Update Update

Sensitivity and Risk profile Optional Complete Update

Appraisal Summary Table Outline Complete Update

Value for Money Statement Outline Complete Update

3.1 IntroductionThe Economic Case involves assessing proposed options to identify their impacts. The result of this provides avalue for money factor for each option. This fulfills HM Treasury’s requirements for appraisal and is used todemonstrate value for money in the use of taxpayers’ money.

In line with HM Treasury’s appraisal requirements, the impacts considered are not limited to those directly impactingon the measured economy, nor to those which can be monetised. The economic, environmental, social anddistributional impacts of a proposal are all examined, using qualitative and quantitative information. In assessingvalue for money, all of these are consolidated to determine the extent to which a proposal’s benefits outweigh itscosts.

The economic appraisal has been tailored to reflect the needs of the Outline Business Case and is discussed underthe following headings:

- Options Appraised;- Methodology (Demand & Revenue Forecasting);- Assumptions;- Economy (Transport Economic Efficiency);- Public Accounts;- Environmental Benefits;- Social Benefits (Including Safety Benefits);- Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits;

- Sensitivity Tests;- Wider Economic Benefits;- Tourism Benefits;- Supporting Analysis;- Appraisal Summary Table (AST);- Value for Money Statement; and- Conclusion.

The sections below firstly discuss the options appraised, along with the methodology and demand forecastingresults. The discussion of scheme benefits aligns with the structure of the Appraisal Summary Table, discussingEconomy, Environment, Social, and Public Accounts.

3.2 Options AppraisedThe Strategic Case identified a long list of options for improving connectivity between Merseyside, Halton andCheshire West & Chester, and North Wales (Wrexham and/or Bangor). This analysis recommended that a railbased option would be the preferred solution, identifying ten potential rail service variants. These were discussed indetail and refined within the Strategic Case, with a preferred option and four alternatives which could besubsequently introduced subject to addressing possible network capacity constraints or securing additional funding.

3 The Economic Case


AECOM previously used the 2013 timetable to review the feasibility of introducing a new passenger service via theHalton Curve. Following the completion of the Outline Business Case for a 1 train per hour (tph) service betweenLiverpool and Chester via the Halton Curve, Network Rail subsequently provided a future year service specificationfor some routes in the North West. This work was developed to support the wider timetable changes that areexpected to be introduced as part of Northern Hub and changes to the West Coast Main Line timetable. Servicepatterns and timings have been prepared for Liverpool to Liverpool South Parkway, Manchester to Earlestown andManchester to Stockport. Two options were initially developed, whilst a third option was subsequently developed inresponse to the emerging economic appraisal outputs and the requirement to reduce overall journey times. The firsttwo options assume the current Section Running Times between Halton Junction and Frodsham Junction areretained, whilst the third option assumes the SRTs are reduced to 3 minutes. This assumption also enables otherpathing time to be removed, particularly in the southbound direction at Helsby and the northbound direction atRuncorn which is required to avoid operational conflicts with other services. This version of the running times overthe Halton Curve were assumed in the subsequent appraisal of the Preferred and Alternative options in this FBC.Using the proposed timing of services between Liverpool and Chester as a starting point, the feasibility of extendingservices beyond Chester (the Preferred Option) into North Wales to Wrexham and/or Bangor has then beenexamined (the Alternative Options). Option 6 (hourly to Wrexham) has been retained even though the currentinfrastructure between Chester and Wrexham won’t be able to cater for this until further investment in re-doubling ofthe track has taken place. However, this option performed well in the initial optioneering and has strong stakeholdersupport. Option 9 is essentially a variant of Option 6 that introduces a through service to Wrexham given currentinfrastructure constraints.

- Preferred Option – This test provides a direct service to Chester from Liverpool via Liverpool South Parkway,Runcorn, Helsby and Frodsham. As demonstrated in the Strategic Case, there are a number of reasons forsupporting this scheme including the opportunity to implement a politically high profile scheme in a timely mannerand which requires the smallest level of revenue support for the initial three year period. Stakeholders in theLiverpool City Region have confirmed that revenue support for Option 1 can be secured for the three year period.

- Alternative Options: Four other options were examined comprising the followingo Option 6: 1tph from Liverpool to Wrexham;o Option 7: 1tph from Liverpool to Bangor;o Option 9: 1tph from Liverpool to Chester, with 0.5tph extended to Wrexham;o Option 10: 1tph from Liverpool to Chester, with 0.5tph extended to Wrexham and 0.5tph extended

to Bangor.

3.3 Methodology and Assumptions: Demand and Revenue ForecastingTo inform the assessment of the scheme in order to provide a monetised assessment, demand and revenueforecasting has been undertaken. An overview of this methodology is provided below. A detailed explanation of thiscan be found in Appendix C – Economic Appraisal Report which documents the recent demand study which wasrecently prepared to assess the economic viability of the Halton Curve. To assess the impacts of the proposedmeasures, the following methodology was adopted to forecast demand and revenue impacts and to derivemonetised benefits and costs for the Halton Curve. A summary of this approach is illustrated in Figure 29.

Figure 29: Overview of Methodology


As identified above, an initial exercise was undertaken to identify a series of service options. This included anassessment of operational feasibility and requirements for the service to check that options were broadlydeliverable. In addition, an assessment of potential additional new stations and freight impacts was also assessed,though due to marginal impacts were not progressed further. The core element of the study was to undertake ademand and revenue forecasting assessment of the service options. The section below presents the approach toforecasting ridership and revenue for the proposed new services using the upgraded Halton Curve. The HaltonCurve Demand Study describes the data sources, assumptions and methodology for the three models developed.This narrative is not repeated below.

Demand and Revenue Forecasting ResultsThe demand and revenue forecasting results for MOIRA, Non-Air and Surface access models are discussed indetail below. Three separate models were required, since the functionality of MOIRA was not sufficient toadequately represent all the journey patterns, so two further bespoke models were produced to address these gaps.The non-air model included commuting flows to central and south Liverpool which were poorly represented inMOIRA, whilst the surface access model comprised air passenger trips to Liverpool John Lennon Airport.

Demand and revenue forecasts were produced using MOIRA14 and two further bespoke models. These modelscalculated the revenue generated for each travel market.

MOIRA: Impacts on Existing Established Rail FlowsThe outputs indicate the change in journeys and revenue for both national rail and the assumed operator for theHalton Curve (see Table 28). This table summarises the net changes in journeys and revenue affecting all UK railoperators prior to the filtering process. The filtering process was applied to avoid double counting individual flowswhich could be represented in two or more models. This analysis is presented for the preferred Option 1, as well asOptions 6, 7, 9 and 10.

The outputs indicate the change in journeys and revenue for both national rail and the assumed operator for theHalton Curve. The most important flows generated by the Halton Curve are identified. An earlier version of theanalysis using the December 2013 version of MOIRA applied a higher elasticity to flows affected by‘transformational’ changes in journey times, namely, those flows with a change in generalised journey time of morethan 20%. The release of PDFH version 5.1 and the inclusion of the alternative elasticities in the December 2014and May 2015 versions of MOIRA, meant the application of higher elasticities was no longer required and thisimpact has subsequently been removed from the results. With minor timetable changes affecting the differentversions of MOIRA, along with the application of the version 5.1 elasticities, it was important to isolate the individualimpacts. These changes were examined separately to understand the individual revisions. The main headlines fromthe unfiltered results include:

- Option 1: The new Halton Curve operator would generate £xxxxxxx, although some of this total is abstractedfrom other operators including Merseyrail, Arriva Trains Wales, London Midland and Virgin. The incrementalchange in revenue for the wider rail industry is £xxxxxxx with 67,000 extra journeys. The most important flows forthe Halton Curve operator are Runcorn/Chester/Liverpool South Parkway to Liverpool, plus Chester to Frodsham.The average fare yield is £xxxx per passenger and reflects the relatively short distance of the new journeys;

- Option 6: the extension of an hourly Halton Curve service to Wrexham generates an extra £xxxxxxx revenue forthe Halton Curve operator compared with Option 1. In net terms the increase in passenger journeys (compared toOption 1) is xxxxxxx journeys and an extra £xxxxxxx. The average yield is higher at £xxxx and reflects the impactof some longer distance trips. Wrexham to Liverpool is the single largest generator for Halton Curve trains(£xxxxxxx);

- Option 7: The new Halton Curve operator would generate £xxxx, although some of this total is abstracted fromother operators including Merseyrail, Arriva Trains Wales, London Midland and Virgin. The incremental change inrevenue is £xxxx. The most important flows are Bangor to Liverpool/Chester/Manchester and Rhyl to Liverpool.The average fare yield is about £xxxx per passenger and reflects the longer distance nature of the passengerjourneys attracted to use this proposed new service;

- Option 9: The new Halton Curve operator would generate £xxxx although some of this total is abstracted fromother operators including Merseyrail, Arriva Trains Wales, London Midland and Virgin. The incremental change inrevenue is £xxxxxxx with xxxxxx new journeys per annum. The most important flows for the Halton Curve areRuncorn/Chester/Wrexham/Liverpool South Parkway to Liverpool. The average fare yield is about £xxxx perpassenger.;

14 MOIRA is a demand forecasting tool used by the rail industry based on PDFH principles


- Option 10: The new Halton Curve operator would generate £xxxx although a large amount of this total isabstracted from other operators including Merseyrail, Arriva Trains Wales, London Midland and Virgin. Theincremental change in revenue is £xxxxxxx with xxxxxxx extra journeys. The most important flows for the HaltonCurve operator are Bangor to Liverpool/Chester and Wrexham/Runcorn to Liverpool. The average fare yield isabout £xxxx per passenger and reflects the longer distance nature of some of the new journeys. The yieldgenerated by Test 10 is lower than Test 7, since the latter test includes the trips to Wrexham which cover a lowerdistance than journeys via the North Wales coast.

There are a number of important conclusions to highlight:

- The revenue generated for Chester to Liverpool is extremely sensitive to both the journey time (especially if trainsare required to operate on the slow lines via Liverpool South Parkway) and the specific departure time. Therevenues generated and the allocation between operators is particularly sensitive to changes;

- The forecast level of abstraction affecting Arriva Trains Wales, as well as the operators on the North Wales CoastLine (West Coast) will necessitate discussion with the wider rail industry;

- Mode transfer from car is taken into account by these forecasts. Overall, the generative impact of these newservices based on elasticities in PDFH version 5.1 is higher compared with the previous assumptions.

Table 28: Summary of the MOIRA Results (2015)

IndicatorOption 1

1 – Abs 1 - Gen 1 – Total

Change injourneys (‘000’s)

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

Change inrevenue (£’000’s)

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

Average yield £ xxxxx

Change in totalflows (+iveimpact, revenue,Halton Curveoperator)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Filtered revenue £ XxxxxFiltered journeys xxxxx

Source: AECOM analysis of the MOIRA outputs, data shown in green represent the change in journeys or revenue for National Rail (N), whilsttotals in red represent the change in journeys or revenue for the Halton Curve operator (H). ‘ABS’ refer to the total journeys or revenueabstracted, with ‘GEN’ refers to the wholly new demand (Q3 2014 prices)


IndicatorOption 6 Option 7

7 – Abs 7 - Gen 7 – Total 7 – Abs 7 - Gen 7 – Total

Change in journeys(‘000’s)

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

Change in revenue(£’000’s)

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

Average yield (£) xxxxx xxxxx

Change in totalflows (+ive impact,revenue, HaltonCurve operator)



Filtered revenue, £ xxxxxx xxxxxxFiltered journeys xxxxxx xxxxxx


IndicatorOption 9 Option 10

9 – Abs 9 - Gen 9 – Total 10 – Abs 10 - Gen 10 – Total

Change in journeys(‘000’s)

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

Change in revenue(£’000’s)

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

xxxxx

Average yield (£) xxxxx xxxxx

Change in total flows(+ive impact, revenue,Halton Curve operator)

xxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx

Filtered revenue, £ xxxxx xxxxxFiltered journeys xxxxx xxxxx


The change in revenue for each of the services was investigated from the unfiltered outputs from MOIRA to identifythe changes in revenue for each Train Operating Company. Table 29 provides an estimate of the likely changes inrevenue for the preferred and Alternative Options, showing the level of abstraction from other operators and totalrevenue for the Halton Curve service. The following provides an overview of the individual impacts for trainoperators. The timing of interchange at Liverpool South Parkway (LSP) / Runcorn is the main factor contributing tothese outcomes:


- Wales & Borders: with the more convenient connections at LSP onto services heading east of Manchester,(rather than changing in Manchester), ATW loses revenue as a result. In Options 7 and 10, there is £xxxxx and£xxxxx revenue abstracted which reflects the overlap with trains via the North Wales coast and the proposedHalton Curve trains;

- East Midlands Trains: the more convenient connections at LSP onto the EMT Norwich service helps to generatenew demand to Nottingham/Sheffield/Stockport in Option 1 which attracts passengers paying higher yields. Thisoutcome is further reinforced when trains are extended beyond Chester to North Wales;

- London Midland: the extension of Halton Curve trains to North Wales in Options 6, 7, 9 and 10 helps to reducethe level of abstraction (between Runcurn and Liverpool) by introducing new through journey opportunities;

- Merseyrail: the level of abstraction from Merseyrail in Option 1 reflects the journey times between Liverpool andChester and hence Halton Curve services are allocated a percentage of the revenue. The enhanced throughjourney opportunities contribute to the higher levels of abstraction in Options 6, 7, 9 and 10;

- Virgin Trains: there is some local abstraction between Runcorn and Liverpool across all options, but moresignificant is the abstraction affecting services via the North Wales coast in Options 7 and 10;

- Northern: this operator is affected by two impacts. Firstly, the loss of revenue resulting from the removal of 1tphbetween LSP and Lime Street, and secondly the impact of the new Halton Curve services which compete with thestopping trains via LSP. The timing of these trains affects the level of abstraction.

Table 29: Estimation of changing revenues by operator due to the Halton Curve service (£000s)Test National

RailHaltonCurve

Operator

Wales &Borders

EastMidlands

Trains

LondonMidland

Merseyrail Northern WestCoast

Other (incl.TPE)

1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx





NB – Estimated from proportional change in revenue from MOIRA, rounded to the nearest £1,000. Note that the Halton Curve operator wouldgenerate more revenue than indicated in this table due to non-air and air model demand outlined later in this report (Q3 2014 prices).

Note that the abstraction exercise undertaken above has assumed that CLC services (Liverpool-LSP-Warrington Central-Manchester) areoperated by a combination of Northern, EMT and TPE services.

Non-Air ModelTable 29 presents the annual demand and revenue forecasts from the Non-Air Model. In addition to the tripscalculated by using the non-air model based on Census data, an uplift of 33%15 has been applied to representinduced trips. This factor has been derived from previous project work and is applied to both home based work andhome based other trips. The main results are discussed below:

- The hourly service between Chester and Liverpool would generate the majority of the demand from the non-airmodel. Option 1 using the non-air model generates about xxxxx trips per annum, with revenues of about £xxxxx.The demand from Frodsham and Helsby to Liverpool accounts for 35% of the total demand in this model. Thenew journey opportunities mean the overall travel time by rail is reduced by about 40 minutes when the benefits ofa more direct service and removal of the interchange time are taken into account;

- It is assumed all trips switching to rail in the non-air forecasting model have transferred from car. This differs fromthe 26% of trips which are normally assumed to switch from car based on the transfer from MOIRA. The differentassumption applied for the non-air model reflects the 100% of car users in the base travel market;

15 The level of induced demand was based on evidence on the extent of induced demand from surveys carried out after the introduction of railschemes elsewhere in the UK based on the Robin Hood Line (27%), Blackburn – Clitheroe (52%), 11 new stations in West Yorkshire (15%),Birmingham Cross City Line (35%), Glasgow Argyle Line (33%), Liverpool Loop and Link (32%) and Wakefield to Pontefract (35%) which givesan un-weighted average of 33%


- Average yields of about £xxxxx are based on season tickets for HBW trips and off-peak tickets for HBO trips thatinclude an allowance for the use of railcards. This produces similar yields to the MOIRA results;

- 2011 Census data has been uplifted by a factor of 1.04% to ensure consistency with the MOIRA and surfaceaccess models to produce a 2015 forecast;

The results in Table 30 represent modal transfer from existing car trips (there is no abstraction from other trainoperators).

Table 30: Annual Incremental Demand & Revenue Forecasts–Single Home Based Work / Other Trips (2015)

Option Description Total Journeys(‘000’s) Total Revenue (£) Yield (£)

1 1tph to Chester xxxxx xxxxx Xxxxx6 1tph to Wrexham xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx7 1tph to Bangor xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx9 0.5tph to Chester, 0.5tph to Wrexham xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx10 0.5tph to Wrexham, 0.5tph to Bangor xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

Source: AECOM forecasting model

Air Passenger ModelTable 31 summarises the results in terms of the incremental change in trips and the revenue that could begenerated by the proposed tests. This indicates that the Preferred Option (Option 1) would generate over xxxxxextra rail trips each year with additional revenues of £xxxxx.

Table 31: Change in Rail Trips and Revenue to LJLA via Halton Curve versus Do Minimum (2015)

Option 1 Option 6 Option 7 Option 9 Option 10

Additional Single Trips(000s) vs Do Minimum xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

Additional Revenue (£000s) vs Do Minimum xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

Yield (£) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxSource: AECOM forecasting model. Note Figures rounded to the nearest 1,000 (2012 prices).

Consolidated ForecastsThe combined revenues from the three models are shown in Table 32 and include adjustments to ensure aconsistent set of outputs and to remove any areas of potential double counting between model outputs. The totaladditional revenue ranges from circa £xxxxx for the Preferred Option to nearly £xxxxx if services are extendedbeyond Chester to Bangor. The focus for the Preferred Option is on catering for the markets between Chester andHalton/South Liverpool and between North Cheshire and Liverpool and this is reflected in the fact that a greaterproportion of the demand/revenue is sourced from the non-air model (ie commuting markets). Extending the serviceinto North Wales adds greater proportions of demand from existing markets 9modelled using MOIRA). Surfaceaccess trips to LJLA account for the smallest proportion of revenue across all options.


Table 32: Summary of the Annual Demand and Revenue Forecasts (2015)

Market Segment PreferredOption Alternative Options


MOIRA –Journeys (‘000’s) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

MOIRA Revenue(£‘000’s) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

Non Air Model –Journeys (‘000’s) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

Non Air Model –Revenue (£‘000’s) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

Air Model –Journeys (‘000’s) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

Air Model –Revenue (£‘000’s) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

Total –IncrementalJourneys (‘000’s)

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

Total –IncrementalRevenue(£‘000’s)

xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

Source: AECOM forecasting models, 2012 prices

3.4 Scheme Appraisal AssumptionsThe section below identifies the key assumptions which were adopted when preparing the demand & revenueforecasting and economic appraisal, along with how the non-monetised benefits have been assessed.

Key Study AssumptionsThe key appraisal assumptions include:

- The scheme assumes an opening year of 2018;- the appraisal is based on a standard 60 year appraisal period (2018 to 2077).- All new rail demand (for example, the forecasts from the non-air and air models) are also adjusted for ramp-up in

demand over the first 5 years of the service, as shown in Table 33, in line with PDFH guidance.- Forecast years were modelled for 2016, 2026 and 2034 and therefore the benefits have been determined based

on data from these years.- Demand levels have been interpolated between forecast years and demand growth has been capped at 2035 (in

line with WebTAG A5.3).- The Economic Appraisal was undertaken using a spreadsheet based appraisal model which aligns with DfT

WebTAG guidance.- Economic benefits of the scheme have been quantified using a WebTAG- compliant Excel Spreadsheet Model.


Table 33: Demand Ramp-up Assumptions for New Users

Year Percentage

Year 1 56%

Year 2 80%

Year 3 90%

Year 4 98%

Year 5 99%

Year 6 onwards 100%

Demand GrowthWithin the economic appraisal, we have accounted for two different growth scenarios:

- Scenario A TEMPRO Growth: This scenario is based on DfT approved forecasts sourced from TEMPRO,National Trip End Model (NTEM) dataset 6.2, for areas relevant to the study area; and

- Scenario B Local Plan Led Growth: Based on assumptions derived from local planning data from within thestudy area as supplied by Merseytravel and Welsh Government, accounting for known developments, assumingthat these will go ahead.

Of the two scenarios, the Local Plan Led growth scenario is considered to be the core growth scenario because itaccounts for known developments within the study area. The client group for the study advised that the TEMPRObased forecasts do not fully capture expected growth forecasts within the study area, in particular within theLiverpool City Region. It is acknowledged that the TEMPRO growth scenario uses the approved dataset recognisedby DfT, although this is erroneous in light of the 2011 Census. All forecasts presented within this Economic Caseare based on the Local Plan Led Growth scenario, though details of the TEMPRO based scenario are includedwithin the Sensitivity testing discussed in Section 3.10 and in Appendix C.

Rail demand growth along the corridor is determined by a number of endogenous and exogenous factors which arelikely to impact on rail usageinto the future. Theendogenous factors arethose aspects controlled bythe railway, includingchanges in fares andtimetables. Exogenousgrowth factors are beyondthe control of the railindustry and include a widerange of elements such aspopulation change andchanges in other modetimes and costs, . Thefactors likely to affectdemand growth within theappraisal are summarised inFigure 30.

Figure 30: Overview ofGrowth Approach


The key local growth factors within the study area are population, employment and GDP. Due to the varied nature oftrip patterns and land uses within the study corridor, growth forecasts for population were assigned to trip originsand growth forecasts associated with employment and GDP forecasts to trip destinations. Exogenous growthelasticities sourced from the PDFH (Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook) were then applied to each of thegrowth elements described above.

Table 34 presents the actual compound growth rates for three time periods – 2013-16, 2016-26 and 2026-34 – forjourneys into Liverpool. These annual percentage increases take account of the population and employment growthdescribed above, along with the impact of other variables including GDP and the change in motoring times andcosts.

Table 34: Summary of the Compound Annual Growth Rates to Liverpool

StationTEMPRO Local Plan Led

2013-16 2016-26 2026-34 2013-16 2016-26 2026-34

Bangor 2.0% 2.2% 1.7% 2.2% 2.4% 1.8%Chester 1.8% 1.9% 1.6% 2.1% 2.2% 1.8%Frodsham 2.7% 2.7% 2.3% 2.6% 2.6% 2.2%Helsby 3.4% 2.7% 2.4% 3.6% 2.8% 2.5%Liverpool SP 1.7% 2.0% 1.7% 2.0% 2.3% 2.0%Rhyl 2.4% 2.6% 2.1% 2.7% 2.8% 2.3%Runcorn 2.1% 2.3% 1.9% 2.6% 2.8% 2.4%Shotton 1.9% 2.1% 1.7% 2.4% 2.5% 2.1%Wrexham 2.4% 2.5% 2.1% 2.2% 2.3% 1.9%

Source: AECOM forecasting model

Assumptions – Non Monetised BenefitsThe non-monetised benefits of the scheme have been assessed using a standard approach in accordance with DfTguidance and requirements and is based on a distributional impacts assessment. The focus for the appraisalframework is the AST. For each impact, benefits are ranked against an eight point scale depending on their level ofimpact and benefit. The ranking system is as follows:

- Not assessed;- Neutral;- Slight Beneficial;- Moderate Beneficial;- Strong Beneficial;- Slight Adverse;- Moderate Adverse; and- Strong Adverse.

There are eight factors within the AST that contribute to the environment objective assessment and nine factors thatcontribute to the social objective.

3.5 Economy (Transport Economic Efficiency)Benefits are assessed based on a range of scheme impacts. In addition to a qualitative assessment, those benefitswhich are able to be monetised have been included in the Economic Appraisal of the scheme discussed below.

The outputs of the demand and revenue forecasting models discussed in the sections above were incorporated in aspreadsheet based economic appraisal model, to derive monetised costs and benefits to determine the overall valuefor money assessment for each option. Details of the monetisation of these benefits are discussed below in terms ofthose benefits which form the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) Table.


User Time SavingsChange in journey times for existing users are profiled over the appraisal period, being capped at 2035. Travel timesavings between forecast years were derived through interpolation. Travel times were then monetised using theValue of Time as identified in WebTAG Guidance A1.3. New User Travel Time Savings are subject to the rule ofhalf. User time savings have been converted to journey purpose using guidance set out in PDFH and profiled overthe appraisal period. The values were then discounted to 2010 values and prices using discount rates set out inTAG Unit A1.1.

Decongestion BenefitsDecongestion benefits are due to reduced congestion on the highway network resulting from highway tripstransferring to rail due to the scheme. These are derived from the change in car km removed from the highwaynetwork. Rates for decongestion are provided in TAG Unit A5.4 which was applied to the change in car km removedfrom the network. These benefits were then profiled over the full appraisal period and discounted to 2010 prices andvalues.

Revenue Farebox RevenueRevenue impacts due to the scheme were derived for each of the forecast years. These were then profiled over theappraisal period and discounted to 2010 prices and values in line with WebTAG guidance. Revenue impacts wereadjusted to account for the prevailing fares regime and were also subject to the tax correction factor of 1.19 asrecommended by TAG Unit A1.1.

Treatment of Rail Revenue, Investment and Operating Costs within the Rail AppraisalThe costs and benefits for a transport scheme are brought together in final Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE),Public Accounts (PA) and Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) tables to produce the Net PresentValue and Benefit Cost Ratio which can vary depending on the transport scheme being appraised. In particular,WebTAG appraisal guidance (A5.3) suggests that rail scheme costs and benefits have to be treated in a differentway to (say) how a major highway or bus based scheme might be processed. This is because of the specifics of therail industry and how the private sector and public sector finances operate via franchising.

The basic premise is that the new service will be incorporated into a rail franchise and therefore all rail operatingcosts and rail revenues ascribed to the scheme should be transferred to government (to be factored into whateverthe government wishes to ‘buy’ in the next round of franchising). Therefore, the rail private sector provider impacts inthe TEE table are neutralised (by adjusting the grant/subsidy value) and the rail costs and revenues transferred tothe Public Accounts table. The costs are therefore made up of the scheme costs (any investment costs plus costspaid via government subsidy (new franchise)) minus the rail revenues. The incorporation of these within theEconomic Appraisal is discussed below.

Summary TEE ResultsThe above benefits were incorporated in the Transport Economic Efficiency Table, a summary of the results forthese are presented in Table 35.

Table 35: Summary TEE Table for Preferred and Other Options (£’000’s)

OptionPreferred Option

User time savings Decongestion benefits Total

Option 1 44,548 50,819 95,367Option 6 73,100 55,080 128,180Option 7 116,983 73,533 190,516Option 9 62,010 52,819 114,829Option 10 102,105 65,870 167,975

NB: User Time Savings and Decongestion Benefits have been disaggregated within the AST to Business and Commuting & Other

Full standard TEE tables for the Preferred and Alternative Options are presented in Appendix E.


3.6 Public AccountsAs discussed above, the Investment costs and operating costs for the scheme are incorporated within the appraisalvia a revenue transfer. This section explains how the Capital Costs, Renewal Costs and Operating Costs, discussedwithin the Financial Case, have been incorporated within the Economic Appraisal and how they are treated withinthe Public Accounts Table, along with the revenue impacts. A more detailed description of the derivation of schemeand operating costs is set out in Chapter 4.

To incorporate these costs into the economic appraisal, a number of adjustments were required to ensure all costsare represented in a comparable unit of account to allow comparison against scheme benefits. The sections belowdiscuss the assumptions required to assess net changes in capital, renewals and operating costs.

Capital CostsThe incorporation of scheme capital costs into the appraisal included the following assumptions:

- Construction inflation of 1% above RPI was applied to all capital costs after 2015;- Optimism Bias of 40% was applied to infrastructure related costs, this is in line with guidance in TAG Unit A1.2;- Mobilisation Costs, including staff recruitment, training, driver route training, uniforms and additional start-up costs- All costs were converted to 2010 values in line with the GDP deflator (TAG Data book – Annual Parameters);- All costs were discounted back to a 2010 price base; and- The tax correction factor of 1.19 was applied to all capital costs as recommended by TAG Unit A1.1.

The costs are associated with the infrastructure requirements for the Halton Curve and are common to all options,with the current Network Rail mid-point estimate indicating the capital costs are £14.9m (at interim GRIP 3 level). Amaximum value (£18.7m) and a minimum value (£13.5m) have also been provided by Network Rail.

Renewals CostsScheme renewals costs over a 60 year appraisal period were incorporated within the appraisal, through theinclusion of a number of assumptions, these include:

- Construction inflation of 1% above RPI was applied to all capital costs after 2015;- All costs were converted to 2010 values in line with the GDP deflator (TAG Data book – Annual Parameters);- All costs were discounted back to a 2010 price base; and- The tax correction factor of 1.19 was applied to all renewal costs as recommended by TAG Unit A1.1.

A summary of the renewal costs has been estimated after the application of the adjustments discussed above.These costs are associated with the infrastructure requirements for the Halton Curve and are common to all optionsand equate to £xxxxx when discounted over a 60 year period.

Operating CostsOperating Costs for the new services were incorporated into the economic appraisal over a 60 year period, thefollowing assumptions were made:

- Operating costs were developed and appraised in line with WebTAG guidance;- Optimism bias of 1% per annum was applied to operating costs;- All costs were converted to 2010 values in line with the GDP deflator (TAG Data book – Annual Parameters);- All costs were discounted back to a 2010 price base; and- The tax correction factor of 1.19 was applied to all operating costs as recommended by TAG Unit A1.1.

For each option, costs were calculated based on the deployment of Class 150s through to 2027 when they would be40 years old. After that date, new rolling stock has been assumed. Table 36 summarises the operating costs for thepreferred and alternative options. Future operating costs took account of the latest WebTAG advice regarding rollingstock and staff costs. The costs shown are based on the Class 150s in 2018 (the first year of scheme operation) andthe new units in 2028 (their assumed first year of operation).


Table 36: Annual Operating Costs (£000s, 2010 prices)

Test 1 Test 6 Test 7 Test 9 Test 10

No. of traincrew(drivers andconductors)

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Rollingstockassumption

2 Class150

units

2 Newunits

3 Class150

units

3Newunits

5 Class150

units

5 Newunits

3 Class150

units

3 Newunits

4 Class150

units

4Newunits

Lease xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Maintenance xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Fuel xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

VTAC xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Capacitycharge xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Train crew xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

TotalOperatingCosts

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Source: AECOM calculation, 2010 prices. Class 150 operating costs in 2018 / new units operating costs in 2028

In addition, for the scheme’s economic appraisal we have applied an uplift of 5% to the operating costs to accountfor extra charges that would be incurred by introducing the proposed new service. This includes items such as extraadministration costs, ATOC fees, BTP fees and industry systems costs, which are not covered by the service relatedvalues shown in the table above.

In addition, we have included mobilisation costs as a one-off charge covering initial start-up costs such as stafftraining for new staff, route learning for existing staff, conductor ticket machines, and recruitment costs. These werebased on an assumption of £xxxxx per additional member of staff (driver or conductor). The source for these costsis other confidential project work being undertaken by AECOM.

Table 37 presents the discounted operating costs for a 60 year period for the preferred and alternative options.

Table 37: Total Operating Costs (£000s, 2010 prices, 60 years)

Preferred Option Alternative Options

1 6 7 9 10

Operating Costs xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxSource: AECOM calculation, discounted 2010 prices

Indirect Taxation RevenueIndirect Taxation revenue for the rail scheme was defined in line with guidance in TAG Unit 5.3. This includes thefollowing elements:

- Changes in indirect tax revenue due to changes in car expenditure, due to a change in vehicle km travelled;- Changes in indirect tax revenue due to a change in rail revenue; and- Changes in indirect tax due to changes in diesel train usage, based on the change in rail vehicle mileage.

These values were incorporated within the economic appraisal and discounted to 2010 prices and values in line withWebTAG guidance.


Public Accounts TableThe values shown above are incorporated into the Public Accounts Table, along with the rail revenue pulled downfrom the TEE table. After adjusting for the revenue impacts, a revenue transfer value is calculated. A summary ofthe resultant Public Accounts Tables for each option are summarised in Table 38.

Table 38: Summary of Public Accounts Table (£000s, 2010 Prices, discounted)

Option

Calculation

Revenue OperatingCosts

Investmentcosts (capitaland renewal)

Net Impact IndirectTaxationRevenue

1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx





NB Indirect Taxation Revenue is included within the AMCB Table as a benefit. Please note, in the PA Table, a positive value identifies a cost,where as a negative value represents a benefit. The investment costs also include the allowance for driver training prior to the introduction of theservice, and this explains the differences in these costs between the tests

3.7 Environmental BenefitsFurther scheme benefits are present in terms of environmental impacts. Where these can be monetised, explanationof the quantification of these benefits is discussed below. For non-monetised benefits, details of the likely impacts ofthese environmental impacts are discussed, along with the estimated distributional impacts of these.

Monetised BenefitsThe change in car km removed from the highway network will generate environmental benefits providing impacts onNoise, Local Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. The rates for these are provided in TAG Unit A5.4 – MarginalExternal Costs. These were then calculated over the appraisal period and discounted to the appraisal base year forinclusion within the PVB calculations. Table 39 presents the monetised economic impacts on Noise, Local AirQuality, and Greenhouse Gases.

Table 39: Monetised Environmental Benefits (£000s)

OptionCalculation

Noise Local AirQuality

GreenhouseGases

Other, JourneyAmbience)

Total

1 318 3 1,398 299 2,018

6 345 3 1,515 324 2,1877 460 4 2,024 433 2,9219 331 3 1,453 311 2,09710 412 3 1,813 388 2,616

NB: shown in 2010 prices, discounted over 60 years

Environment: NoiseCurrently on the Halton Curve section of route there are only occasional northbound freight services (plus anorthbound only infrequent ‘parliamentary’ passenger service operating on summer Saturdays). With an additional1tph in each direction along this route, there will be an increase in noise levels on this section. The new service willalso increase the number of trains on existing sections between Chester and Liverpool via Runcorn. The sectionbetween Runcorn and Liverpool has a high frequency service, so an extra 1tph will not have a significant effect.


If one of the alternative options is pursued, the introduction of an additional hourly service will not have a majorimpact on the North Wales Coast Line, but it would have a larger impact between Chester and Wrexham inresponse to the lower frequencies currently on that route. The transfer of a small volume of highway trips onto publictransport will result in a small level of noise reduction on the wider highway network due to fewer highway journeys.The monetised impacts in the assessment are presented in Table 39 presented above.

Impact of Noise for the preferred scheme: Slight AdverseEnvironment: Local Air QualityThe local air quality sub-objective appraises changes in respect of potential air quality impacts generated as part ofthe scheme. The key factors that will impact upon local air quality are:

- Dust emissions from construction and demolition stages; and- The generation of power for vehicles.

As no major demolition or construction works are required there will be a neutral impact from a dust emissionsaspect. The impact on air quality will be minimal and will result from a shift of demand from car to rail thus improvingair quality within the cities and on strategic routes between North Wales and Liverpool, as is quantified in Table 39.

Impact of Air Quality for the preferred scheme: Slight BeneficialEnvironment: Greenhouse GasesWebTAG guidance uses carbon dioxide as the key indicator of the impacts of transport on climate change. As thenew rail link will draw more passengers away from commuting by car there will be a positive effect on emissions. Aswith air quality the impact will be greater for the alternative options as they cover a larger geographic area. Howeverthe introduction of additional diesel trains on the rail network will result in more greenhouse gas emissions.

Impact of Greenhouse Gases for the preferred scheme: Slight BeneficialNon – Monetised Benefits

Environment: LandscapeBoth the preferred and alternative options utilise existing rail infrastructure, so the impact on the landscape will besmall. Where construction work occurs, on the Halton Curve, as this is existing infrastructure, the construction workassociated with the Halton Curve is not expected to have a significant impact on the surrounding landscape.

Impact on Landscape for the preferred scheme: NeutralEnvironment: TownscapeThere will be no impact of townscapes as the Halton Curve section is located within the boundary of the existingland occupied by Network rail.

Impact on Townscape for the preferred scheme: NeutralEnvironment: Heritage of Historic ResourcesThe new line will use existing infrastructure, the existing route does not encroach on historic sites.

Impact on Heritage of Historic Resources for the preferred scheme: NeutralEnvironment: BiodiversityLike the heritage impact, as the new link involves the redevelopment and upgrading of existing infrastructure thereare not expected to be any significant impacts on ecological resources associated with the proposed scheme.

Impact on Biodiversity for the preferred scheme: NeutralEnvironment: Water EnvironmentThe new line will use existing infrastructure, there will be no significant impacts on water courses.

Impact on Water Environment for the preferred scheme: Neutral

3.8 Social Benefits (Including Safety Benefits)Further scheme benefits will include social and safety impacts. The likely impact on accidents has been monetisedand the approach to quantifying these benefits is discussed below. For the non-monetised benefits, details of thelikely impacts of these social impacts are discussed, along with the estimated distributional impacts of these.


Monetised Benefits

Safety BenefitsThe change in car kilometres removed from the highway network will impact on the number of accidents whichoccur on the highway network, which is expected to reduce as car trips are transferred onto rail due to the scheme.These benefits are shown in Table 40. The rates for these are provided in TAG Unit A5.4 – Marginal External Costs.These were then calculated based on the changes in car km and applied over the appraisal period and discountedto the appraisal base year for inclusion within the PVB calculations.

Table 40: Safety Benefits (£000s)Option Total Benefits

1 4,0126 4,3497 5,8089 4,17010 5,202

NB: shown in 2010 prices, discounted over 60 years

The scheme will promote the use of rail transport, encouraging passengers away from using cars and the highwaynetwork. Travelling by rail is inherently safer than travelling by car and therefore accident benefits will be generatedin the form of reduced road-based accidents. This value has been monetised within the AST.

These benefits will affect car users in two ways. Firstly, car users who transfer to public transport will benefit fromswitching to a safer mode of travel. Secondly, there will be benefits to those car users still continuing to use their caras their preferred mode of travel.

Impact on Accidents for the preferred scheme: Slight BeneficialNon MonetisedThe following non-monetised benefits have been reviewed using a distributional impacts assessment.

Social: Reliability impact on Commuting and Other usersThere will be little overall impact on reliability from the scheme. The proposed timetable for each option has beendeveloped in line with recommended guidance and can be accommodated within the existing timetable without theneed for retiming of other rail services. However, additional services do have an impact on line capacity, particularlyat network pinch points and during times of service perturbations. Mode transfer to rail will reduce car km on theroads which should assist in journey time reliability on the roads.

Impact on Reliability to Commuting and Other users for the preferred scheme: NeutralSocial: Physical FitnessA slight positive impact on physical fitness may be experienced as people walk or cycle to and from the train stationto reach their final destination.

Impact on Physical Fitness for the preferred scheme: Slight BeneficialSocial: Journey QualityFor a number of journeys the preferred option will remove the need to interchange, such as Chester to LiverpoolSouth Parkway or Frodsham to Liverpool. The scope for improving the quality of rail journeys, through the removalof the need to interchange, increases with the alternative options as the Halton Curve services are extended beyondChester.


Impact on Journey Quality for the preferred scheme: Slight Beneficial to Moderate BeneficialSocial: Personal SecurityA person’s perception of personal safety can ultimately determine whether or not they choose to use public transportas a mode of travel. All safety measures will be considered, however there may be a slight adverse effect in apassenger’s perception of personal security when compared to private travel. These perceptions come from feelingat risk walking to/from the station and reservations to travelling with other members of the public. However, overallthe impacts can be considered to be neutral.

Impact on Personal Safety for the preferred scheme: NeutralSocial: Accessibility ImpactsDfT guidance references the following sub-objectives to be examined under the Accessibility objective:

- Option Values;- Severance; and- Access to the transport system.

This section examines each of these sub-objectives in turn.

Accessibility: Option ValuesAs described in WebTAG, option values refer to the benefit that people experience from the knowledge that a furthertransport option is available to them, even if they do not intend to use the new mode on a regular basis.

The increase in travel options between Liverpool, Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, Frodsham, Helsby andChester will have a positive effect on option values. Clearly this increases as, through the alternative options, thenew service is extended into North Wales.

Impact on Option Values for the preferred scheme: Slight Beneficial to Moderate BeneficialAccessibility: Severance No impacts on severance are anticipated given that the scheme does not involve any new build.

Impact on Severance for the preferred scheme: NeutralAccessibility: Access to Public TransportDfT WebTAG guidance states that residents in a given study area have ‘access to the transport system’ if; they owna car; and/or live within 250m of a public transport service. Both the preferred and alternative options will improveaccess to public transport, allowing it to provide an alternative to private travel through new direct rail services.

Impact on Access to Public Transport for the preferred scheme: Slight Beneficial

3.9 Analysis of Monetised Costs and BenefitsThe costs and benefits for each option are consolidated within the Analysis of Costs and Benefits Tables for eachoption. Five options were initially specified, with the selection informed by market analysis and the proposals whichwere previously examined. The results from these tests indicated that the introduction of 1tph between Liverpooland Chester would offer a stronger business case compared with the options which extend into North Wales.

The AMCB brings together the costs and benefits discussed in the sections above. Full Standard AMCB tables arepresented in Appendix I. An overview of these impacts for each option is presented in Table 41. The BCR for thepreferred option is 2.1 which offers high value for money, whilst the results for Option 6 (hourly service betweenLiverpool and Wrexham) would generate a BCR of 1.8.

A more detailed description of the methodology to collate the capital costs is presented in Chapter 4, but it isworthwhile reinforcing the substantial synergies with the Weaver Wavertree re-signalling scheme. The inclusion ofthe Halton upgrade within the wider Weaver Wavertree upgrade means there are significant cost efficiencies whichcan be realised. Any failure to include Halton Curve within the Weaver Wavertree scheme could mean the basescheme costs increasing by a significant proportion (over £1m) and this outcome would clearly have a detrimentalimpact on the wider benefit cost ratio.


Table 41: Summary AMCB Table (£000s, Local Plan Led Growth)Preferred Alternative

1 6 7 9 10

Environmental Impacts 1,719 1,863 2,488 1,786 2,229

Journey Ambience 299 324 433 311 388

Accidents 4,012 4,349 5,808 4,170 5,202

Economic Efficiency 95,368 128,180 190,516 114,829 167,975

Indirect Tax Revenue -543 1,751 9,075 604 5,823

Option Values 0 0 0 0 0

Present Value of Benefits 100,855 136,467 208,320 121,700 181,615

Present Value of Costs 48,965 75,003 128,080 73,829 101,964

Net Present Value 51,890 61,464 80,240 47,871 79,651

Benefit to Cost Ratio 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.8

Values shown in 2010 prices, discounted over 60 years

Maximum and Minimum Capital CostsThe results presented above are based on the mid-point capital cost estimate provided by Network Rail of £14.9m(interim GRIP 3 level, 2015 prices). They have also provided a maximum and minimum capital cost of £18.7m and£13.5m respectively. Table 43 presents the revised summary AMCB table for the Preferred Option for thealternative capital costs.

Table 42: Summary AMCB Table for Preferred Option – Alternative Capital Costs (£000s, Local Plan LedGrowth)

Preferred Option 1

Mid-PointCapex

MaximumCapex

MinimumCapex

Environmental Impacts 1,719 1,719 1,719

Journey Ambience 299 299 299

Accidents 4,012 4,012 4,012

Economic Efficiency 95,368 95,368 95,368

Indirect Tax Revenue -543 -543 -543

Option Values 0 0 0

Present Value of Benefits 100,855 100,855 100,855

Present Value of Costs 48,965 53,878 47,000

Net Present Value 51,890 46,976 53,855

Benefit to Cost Ratio 2.1 1.9 2.1

Values shown in 2010 prices, discounted over 60 years

Increasing the capital costs by 25% to Network Rail’s maximum value of £18.7m reduces the Preferred Option’sBCR from 2.1 to 1.9. This therefore pushes the Preferred Option into the ‘medium value for money’ bracket.Reducing the capital cost estimate by 10% to Network Rail’s minimum value of £13.5m improves the BCR slightlybut it still remains at 2.1 when rounded.


Alternative Growth ScenariosThe core scheme appraisal outlined above has assumed the Local Plan Led growth scenario described in Section3.4. An alternative growth scenario was also identified based on TEMPRO assumptions. A comparison of thesegrowth scenarios is set out in the table below for the Preferred and Alternative options.

Table 43: Impact of the Growth Scenarios – Results of the Economic AppraisalTest Test 1 Test 6 Test 7 Test 9 Test 10 Test 1 Test 6 Test 7 Test 9 Test 10

TEMPRO Growth Local Plan Led Growth

PVB 99,093 135,120 205,003 120,268 179,302 100,855 136,467 208,320 121,700 181,615

PVC 49,777 75,751 129,449 74,607 103,051 48,965 75,003 128,080 73,829 101,964

NPV 49,317 59,369 75,554 45,661 76,250 51,890 61,464 80,240 47,871 79,651

BCR 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.8

Source: AECOM calculation, shown in 2010 Prices.

The adoption of the TEMPRO-based growth scenario would slightly reduce the Net Present Value for the schemeacross the board, coupled with a marginal reduction in the Benefit Cost Ratio for some of the options. The BCR forthe Preferred Option reduces to 2.0 under the TEMPRO growth scenario.

3.10 Wider Economic BenefitsThe assessment of WEBs (Wider Economic Benefits) seeks to capture the additional benefits of transport schemesthat are not picked up in the traditional transport appraisal methodology. The WEBs calculations assess theeconomic productivity and welfare benefits that may accrue through closer linkages between centres of employmentand are a function of the proximity of businesses to one another and to workers. It should be noted that ourcalculation of WEBs has focussed on agglomeration and labour market impacts. WEBs can also include‘increased/decreased output in imperfectly competitive markets’ but agglomeration impacts constitute the majority ofWEBs (typically circa 60% of WEBs). Our ability to calculate the other impacts was constrained by the modellingprocesses adopted (e.g. no separation of business travel generalised journey times). A process was developed bythe DfT through which these productivity, or agglomeration, benefits could be quantified and valued and this hasbeen documented in WebTAG. It is this process that has been applied for this study. Table 44 summarises theWEBs outputs.

Table 44: Estimated Wider Economic Benefits (£’000’s)

CalculationPreferred Alternative

1 6 7 9 10

Agglomeration 5,982 8,162 8,480 7,062 8,439

Labour Supply 92 122 789 107 410

Total 6,074 8,283 9,268 7,169 8,849

Source: AECOM calculation, 2010 prices, Present Values Discounted for a 60 year period

The estimated WEBs were £6.1m for Test 1, rising to £9.3m for Test 7 (discounted for a 60 year period at 2010values and prices). This means WEBs would generate a further 10% compared with the journey time benefits for thescheme. This ratio is lower compared with some other schemes with evidence from the DfT indicatingagglomeration impacts could add an additional 15-50% to the conventional benefits. The proportion of benefits forthe MDL is lower than other examples, but this appears consistent with the relatively low GDP per capita which is afunction of the calculation method for the population living on the North Wales coast, along with the relatively limitedeconomic links between parts of Cheshire West and Liverpool. The inclusion of these benefits has the potential toincrease the BCRs by a maximum of 0.1, as illustrated in Table 45.


Table 45: Summary of the Economic Appraisal including Wider Economic Benefits (£’000’s)Preferred Alternative

1 6 7 9 10PVB 100,855 136,467 208,320 121,700 181,615

WEBS 6,074 8,283 9,268 7,169 8,849

Total PVB 106,929 144,750 217,588 128,869 190,464

PVC 48,965 75,003 128,080 73,829 101,964

NPV 57,964 69,747 89,508 55,040 88,500

BCR 2.2 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.9


3.11 Tourism BenefitsPotential tourism benefits have been calculated to supplement the estimated wider economic benefits describedabove. The assumptions used to calculate these impacts took account of the number of additional rail trips from theMOIRA model, the estimated percentage of journeys related to tourism and the proportion of visitors stayingovernight or completing a day trip. This was then matched to the average spend per person as supplied by LiverpoolCity Region and Welsh Government.

Over a 60 year period, the discounted benefits equate to £2.6m (Test 1) to £5.3m (Test 7). For the Preferred Option,the inclusion of tourism AND wider economic benefits increases the BCR by a further 0.1 to a BCR of 2.2, aspresented in Table 46. It is also worth noting that the BCR for Option 6 (extending the service to Wrexham)increases to 2.0.

Table 46: Economic Appraisal Results including WEBS and Tourism (£’000’s, Present Values discounted fora 60 year period)

Preferred Alternative1 6 7 9 10

PVB 100,855 136,467 208,320 121,700 181,615

WEBS 6,074 8,283 9,268 7,169 8,849

Tourism 2,605 3,825 5,329 3,189 4,683

Total PVB 109,534 148,575 222,917 132,058 195,147

PVC 48,965 75,003 128,080 73,829 101,964

NPV 60,569 73,572 94,837 58,229 93,183

BCR 2.2 2.0 1.7 1.8 1.9


3.12 Appraisal Summary Table (AST)Appraisal Summary Tables for each of the preferred and alternative options are shown in Appendix H. A summaryfor the Preferred Option is presented in Table 47. The Appraisal Summary Table (AST) presents evidence from theanalysis that is undertaken to inform the Economic Case of an intervention. Applying the principles of HM TreasuryGreen Book, the AST has been designed to record all impacts - Economic, Environmental, Social, Public Accountsand Distributional - at the national level.


Table 47: Summary Combined AST for the Preferred OptionImpacts 1tph Liverpool to Chester

Qualitative £(NPV)

Econ

omy Business Users & Transport Providers 13,602

Regeneration (tourism) 2,605

Wider Impacts 6,074

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Noise Slight Adverse 318

Air Quality Slight Benefit 3

Greenhouse Gases Slight Benefit 1,398

Landscape Neutral

Biodiversity Neutral

Water environment Neutral

Townscape Neutral

Historic Environment Neutral

Soci

al

Commuting and Other 81,765

Reliability Neutral

Physical Activity Slight Benefit

Journey Quality Slight Benefit

Accidents Slight Benefit 4,012

Security Neutral

Access to Services Slight Benefit

Affordability

Severance Neutral

Option Values Slight Benefit

Publ

icA

ccou

nts Cost to Broad Transport Budget - 48,965

Indirect Tax -543

Values shown in £000s, discounted over 60 years in 2010 prices

3.13 Conclusion and Value for Money StatementThe Economic Case to support the overall business case for the scheme has been demonstrated in this Chapter.Appraisal results for the Preferred and Alternative options have been presented, both in terms of conventionaltransport costs and benefits, along with further benefits including Wider Economic Benefits and tourism benefits,which demonstrate the robustness of the proposals. Table 48 provides a summary of the economic results for thePreferred and Alternative options based on the Local Plan Led growth scenario.


Table 48: Summary of Economic Appraisal Summary Results (£000s)

IndicatorPreferred Alternatives

1 6 7 9 10

PVB 100,855 136,467 208,320 121,700 181,615PVC 48,965 75,003 125,080 73,829 101,964NPV 51,890 61,464 80,240 47,871 79,651BCR 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.8

Source: AECOM calculation, 2010 prices, Present Values Discounted for a 60 year periodDoes not include WEBS or tourism benefits

The economic case for a new service to Chester via Runcorn (the Preferred Option) is high for an hourly servicegiven the BCR generates a ratio of 2.1. This BCR is pushed up to a value of 2.2 with the inclusion of WEBs andtourism benefits. If the maximum level of capital cost for the scheme as identified by Network Rail is assumed thenthe BCR for the Preferred Option reduces to 1.9.

All of the Alternative Options generate a medium value for money case, although Option 6 does record a high valuefor money case (BCR of 2.0) once WEBS and tourism benefits are included.

The completed Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) table for the preferred option is included inAppendix I.

4 The Financial Case


4.1 IntroductionThis chapter presents the financial case for the Halton Curve. It focuses on the affordability of the proposed schemeand the funding arrangements in place to deliver the project. The total outturn costs and expenditure profile arepresented. The financial case is discussed under the following headings:

- Methodology;- Assumptions;- Base Costs;- Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA);- Optimism Bias;- Scheme Costs Adjusted for Risk and Optimism Bias;- Preferred Funding Arrangements; and- Alternative Funding Arrangements.

4.2 MethodologyTo assess the affordability of the scheme, costs have been developed for a Preferred Option and AlternativeOptions. These have been developed for capital, renewals, and operating costs. The capital costs have beensupplied by Network Rail, whilst the renewals and operating cost totals and profiles have been reviewed andestimated by AECOM. In 2007 Network Rail reviewed a range of potential infrastructure design options for theHalton Curve and prepared capital costs to GRIP 3 status. These eight options took account of alternative layoutsincluding the potential for double track, or different track layouts at Halton Junction and Frodsham Junction. A singlebi-directional route with a crossover and single lead junction at both Frodsham and Halton Junctions, plus the line tobe signalled using full colour light signals and track circuit block, was identified as their preferred option. This optionwould also provide passive provision for future capacity expansion on the chord in terms of constructing a loop ofaround 1,000m in length, subject to the level of service demand and a supporting business case.

Based upon the timetabling assessment work at that time, the recommended option was deemed capable ofsupporting four train paths per hour (two each way), and an occasional freight path. This assumption will continue tobe the subject of more detailed timetable modelling exercises being undertaken by Network Rail with the railindustry as the scheme develops. The initial option development planning undertaken by AECOM as part of theDemand Forecasting study assumed that four train paths per hour could be operationally deliverable, with thesetimings taking account of other capacity constraints on the network. These conclusions will need to be verified indue course by Network Rail as part of their more detailed Railsys modelling, but the likelihood of a conflict occurringis reduced with just 1tph in each direction – as assumed for the Preferred and Alternative Options which are thesubject of this FBC. If a conflict arises on the single bi-directional chord, the introduction of a loop would avoid aconflict although the resulting scheme costs would increase.

In response to feedback from Network Rail and the availability of a future train service specification, the timinganalysis for the proposed service has now been updated since the initial demand analysis and the OBC. The timingof the Halton Curve service has been revised, which takes account of the amended schedules for other trains alongwith a second hourly London train via the West Coast Main Line, plus a new hourly Northern service betweenManchester and Chester via Warrington. The modelling results are strongly influenced by the journey timeassumptions and the scheduling of services. The SRTs between Halton Junction and Frodsham Junction areassumed to be circa 3 minutes in each direction (this is the value used for demand modelling purposes – actualtimings to the second have been confirmed by Network Rail either side of 3 minutes). The amended timing of theproposed service would also enable other journey time savings to be achieved and is dependent on infrastructureimprovements to support the faster timings.

More recently, Network Rail has completely revised their capital cost for the scheme taking into account revisedGRIP procedures and the opportunity to incorporate the scheme within a wider major re-signalling project for theWest Coast Main Line between Weaver Junction and Liverpool (the ‘Weaver - Wavertree’ re-signalling scheme).The latest cost estimate from Network Rail is at interim GRIP3 level and it is understood that more detailedfeasibility work is expected to be undertaken shortly to refine the current mid-point estimate of £14.9m.

The Preferred Option includes the reconstruction of the Halton Curve, to facilitate the new hourly direct service toLiverpool from Frodsham, Helsby and Chester via Liverpool South Parkway and Runcorn. Several other potentialoptions have also been examined (Alternative Options) which comprised service extensions from Chester toWrexham and/or Bangor.

4 The Financial Case


The further development of these options will be dependent on the provision of additional infrastructure (in somecases), availability of additional funding support and the opportunities to incorporate these services into theforthcoming Wales & Borders franchise. Pursuing these alternative options is important, given some of theseproposals deliver a stronger policy fit with the overarching objectives compared with the preferred options, albeitthese alternatives will require additional subsidy or require further work to mitigate the potential delivery risks.

4.3 Scheme Appraisal AssumptionsThe following cost assumptions have been adopted in the development of scheme costs:

- Construction of the scheme is expected to take place in 2017/18;- Scheme opening is planned in 2018;- The scheme costs have been subjected to construction price inflation of 1% above RPI for capital costs and

renewals. This is assumed per annum between 2015 to 2031 inclusive. Changes to operating costs have beenrevised in accordance with the autumn 2014 WebTAG revisions.

4.4 Base CostsThis section discusses the scheme costs which have been developed to date to inform the appraisal of the HaltonCurve. The section below discusses capital costs, renewal and replacement costs, and operating costs. Schemedrawings provided by Network Rail are included as Appendix B.

Capital CostsBase capital costs for the Halton Curve have been developed by Network Rail to interim GRIP Stage 3 in 2015 andthese are set out in Appendix J. The mid-point estimate for the scheme capital costs total £14.9m, including anestimate of project risk. Further refinement to these cost estimates are proposed in 2016 as part of the GRIPprocess as the scheme progresses to GRIP 3 completion and into procurement of GRIP 4 -8. This will providegreater cost certainty and a more thorough understanding of the likely project risks. No costs have been included forland ownership. This is because all land required for the Halton Curve is understood to be under the ownership ofNetwork Rail and no further land is required. Also, the operation of the new service is not expected to require anymodifications to existing stations to accommodate the additional trains. An assessment of operational requirementswill need to be undertaken.

Due to the timing of construction and the Halton Curve’s location, it is possible to co-ordinate the Halton Curveworks with the Weaver to Wavertree re-signalling works which are planned to be constructed over the next fewyears. As a result, there are significant potential cost savings to be realised due to synergies identified. Thesesavings have been assumed in the costs provided below. A summary of the costs by item has been provided inTable 49 which provides a disaggregation for design costs, direct (construction) costs, Network Rail costs (eg:possessions) and QRA costs.

For appraisal purposes the sub-total (£xxxxx) is included, whereby risk-related costs are removed. This enables anappropriate optimism bias factor (40%) to be overlaid in the economic appraisal in line with WebTAG guidance.

Table 49: Summary of Cost Inputs (2015 Prices)Cost Type Value £

Direct Costs Xxxxx

Indirect Costs Xxxxx

Design, Project Team & Other Costs Xxxxx

Sub Total Xxxxx

QRA (risk) xxxxx

Total (mid-point estimate) 14,999,887

Maximum Cost (+25%) 18,749,859

Minimum Cost (-10%) 13,499,899


Key DatesThe profile of spend for capital expenditure is expected to occur during the planning stage through to schemeopening which is scheduled for 2018 for each of the financial years and GRIP Stages, as shown in Table 50.

Table 50: Profile of Capital Expenditure (£ 2015 Prices)Expenditure Period GRIP Stage Total expenditure within time period

2014/15 2 Xxxxx

2015/16 3 Xxxxx

2016/17 3 & 4 Xxxxx

2017/18 5 & 6 Xxxxx

2018/19 6 & 7 & 8 Xxxxx

Total xxxxxNote: The current anticipated programme aligns with the timescales for the Weaver to Wavertree scheme

Renewal and Replacement CostsOver the 60 year project lifecycle of the scheme it is expected that the additional infrastructure will requirereplacement. To date, no details regarding renewals spend or spend profiles have been prepared by Network Rail.Therefore, in advance of the preparation of these costs, estimates for the renewal of infrastructure have beenassumed. This has been undertaken by applying a spend profile obtained from the appraisal of a similarinfrastructure scheme to the key infrastructure elements – ie: the direct costs identified in Table 50 above (£xxxxx).On this basis, over the 60 year project lifecycle the following renewals profile applies:

- Signalling: 50% every 30yrs;- Civils: 100% every 40yrs;- Permanent Way: 100% every 30yrs; and- Telecoms: 100% every 15yrs.

On this basis, and based on Network Rail’s mid-point estimate for direct costs, the profile of spend for theserenewals costs is shown in Table 51 for each of the renewal items listed.

Table 51: Renewals Profile (2015 Prices, £)Year Signalling Civils Permanent Way Telecoms Total

5 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx












TotalRenewals60 Years

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx


Operating CostsThe operating costs for the new service options have been calculated based on the number of additionalvehicle/train miles operated, the number of additional rolling stock units required and the amount of additional traincrew required. Operating costs therefore include:

- Rolling stock leasing costs;- Maintenance costs;- Fuel costs;- Variable track access costs;- Capacity charges; and- Traincrew costs.

Indicative cost rates for each of the above were kindly provided by Arriva Trains Wales. As this information iscommercially sensitive information, these rates have not been reproduced here. Costs were calculated separatelyfor Monday to Saturday and Sunday, based on the timetables that have been developed.

Table 52 presents the annual operating costs for each option, subdivided for the various operating costs elementsidentified above. For appraisal purposes the use of ATW Class 150s DMUs has been assumed in the first instance(ie from 2018). However, from 2027/28, the operating costs are assumed to be based on the introduction of a newfleet of diesel units. This results in total operating costs increasing by circa 25%. The costs presented here arebased on the Class 150s in 2018 (the first year of scheme operation) and the new units in 2028 (their assumed firstyear of operation).

Table 52: Overview of Annual Operating Costs (£’000’s)Preferred Option Alternative Options


No. of traincrew(drivers andconductors)

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Rollingstockassumption

2 Class150

units

2 Newunits

3 Class150

units

3Newunits

5 Class150

units

5 Newunits

3 Class150

units

3 Newunits

4 Class150

units

4Newunits

Lease xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Maintenance xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Fuel xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

VTAC xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Capacitycharge xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Train crew xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

TotalOperatingCosts

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Source: AECOM calculation, 2010 prices. Class 150 operating costs in 2018 / new units operating costs in 2028

In addition, for the scheme’s economic appraisal we have applied an uplift of 5% to the operating costs to accountfor extra charges that would be incurred by introducing the proposed new service. This includes items such as extraadministration costs, ATOC fees, BTP fees and industry systems costs, which are not covered by the service relatedvalues shown in the table above.


In addition, we have included mobilisation costs as a one-off charge covering initial start-up costs such as stafftraining for new staff, route learning for existing staff, conductor ticket machines, and recruitment costs. These werebased on an assumption of £xxxxx per additional member of staff (driver or conductor). The source for these costsis other confidential project work being undertaken by AECOM.

4.5 Quantified Risk AssessmentNetwork Rail, as part of its GRIP 3 processes, has undertaken two Quantitative Cost Risk Analysis (QCRA)workshops at Manchester on the 6th of October 2015 and 4th November 2015. The objective of the first sessionwas to identify and discuss the objectives, critical success factors, assumptions, dependencies, constraints,interfaces, showstoppers and potential catastrophes associated with this project. The second session was toassess the risks identified, further develop mitigation strategies and assess the anticipated efficacy of thosemitigations.

The outcomes of the QCRA sessions are presented in the Network Rail report which is included as Appendix M.

It should be noted that, in line with appraisal guidance, as this scheme is currently at GRIP Stage 3 then costsassociated with risk have been removed and an optimism bias factor applied instead. This is discussed further inSection 4.6.

4.6 Optimism BiasThe level of optimism bias which has been applied to the scheme costs is in line with DfT WebTAG guidance TAGUnit A5.3 Rail Appraisal, (see Table 53).

Table 53: Recommended Risk and Optimism Bias (WebTAG A5.3 Table 2)Project Level(GRIP Stage)

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Activity ProjectDefinition

Pre-feasibility Option Selection Single OptionRefinement

DesignDevelopment

Capital Expenditure

QRA/Contingency No No No QRA(Mean estimate)

QRA(Mean estimate)

Optimism Bias 66% 50% 40% 18% 6%

Operational Expenditure

QRA/Contingency No No No QRA(Mean estimate)

QRA(Mean estimate)

Optimism Bias 41% 1.6%per annum

1%per annum

1%per annum

1%per annum

In recognition that the capital costs developed by Network Rail are at interim GRIP 3, an optimism bias factor of40% has been applied in the scheme appraisal.

4.7 Preferred Funding ArrangementsThe Halton Curve scheme was given funding in July 2014 as part of the Liverpool City Region Growth Deal, whichwas announced by the Chancellor on 3rd July 2014. The growth deal, subject to a satisfactory conclusion of thefunding agreement, will bring together local, national and private funding in a total growth fund of £232.3m tosupport economic growth in the Liverpool City Region. The breakdown and source of the total funding agreement isas shown in Table 55.


Table 54: Summary of Liverpool City Region Deal Projects Funding2015/2016 2016 onwards Total

Local Growth Fund award £35m £74.5m £109.5m

Previously Committed funding £10.7m £33.4m £44.1m

Provisional allocation to projects starting in2016/2017 and beyond

- £78.7m £78.7m

Total £45.7m £186.6m £232.3m

From the fund identified above, £10.4million of funding has been allocated for the Halton Curve works, which will beprovided by DfT to Merseytravel to fund the scheme. A Development Services Agreement has been entered intobetween Merseytravel and Network Rail for delivery of the GRIP 3 works and an Implementation Agreement will becreated for the delivery of GRIP 4–8. This will mean that any funding risk or overspend of the project will be theresponsibility of Merseytravel and not DfT. Therefore during the scheme development and construction, it isenvisaged where possible value for money and risk minimisation will be undertaken to minimise the risk of projectoverspend.

In addition, Merseytravel has confirmed that Liverpool City Region partners have agreed to fund the requiredrevenue support for the new service that will use the Halton Curve for an initial three year period (refer to Table 56which sets out the estimated rail service subsidy requirement). The decision to fund the subsidy requirementreinforces their commitment to deliver the scheme in a timely manner and provide a framework that couldsubsequently enable the scheme to be extended beyond Chester into North Wales.

4.8 Alternative Funding ArrangementsAs the scheme has already received a funding allocation, no alternative funding arrangements have been identified.

-

5 The Commercial Case


5.1 IntroductionThe first step in conducting due diligence for any project is to consider its basic commercial viability. The commercialviability of any project together with potential economic benefits to a society are key factors in project financing. Thissection presents the commercial case for the Halton Curve scheme. It provides evidence of the procurement thatwill be adopted to deliver the project. DfT’s guidance document ‘The Transport Business Case: The CommercialCase’ outlines the areas that should be covered as part of the business case documentation. This chapter sets outhow the scheme will be procured, the options for procuring the work and the reasons for adopting the preferredprocurement approach.

- Introduction;- Output-based specification;- Procurement Strategy;- Sourcing Options;- Payment Mechanisms;- Pricing Framework and Charging Mechanisms;- Risk allocation and transfer;- Contract Length; and- Contract Management.

The commercial case has been developed following the approach set out below:

- Set out the procurement objectives, outcomes and constraints;- Identify potential procurement / purchasing options and their pros and cons;- Outline the preferred payment mechanism and the pricing framework; and- Outline the risk management strategy

5.2 Output Based SpecificationThe Commercial Case is based on a number of strategic objectives and outcomes, against which alternativeprocurement options are assessed. These include:

- Achieve ‘Cost Certainty’ that the scheme can be delivered within the available funding constraints;- Minimise further preparation costs with respect to scheme design;- Include contractor input into the design and construction programme, through Network Rail’s Guide to Railway

Investment Projects (GRIP) process, to ensure the implementation programme is robust and achievable; and- Include contractor input to the risk management strategy and appraisal process to reduce risk.

Procurement strategy objectives have been established under the proviso that the selected objectives must besupported:

- Deliver the scheme within the available funding;- Ensure full commitment to the project;- Ensure Best Value is delivered;- Offer an affordable ‘whole life’ cost solution;- Reduce risks to a level that is as low as practicably possible; and- Establish contractor and stakeholder engagement throughout the whole process from early-planning to full

scheme delivery.

The specification for the scheme is broadly as follows:

- Introduction of a new two way direct rail link via the Halton Curve to facilitate the introduction of a new 1tphpassenger service between Liverpool and Chester via Runcorn, with the potential to extend services into NorthWales depending on the availability of funding;

- Undertake the necessary signal mods/infrastructure works to accommodate the new services on the curve.- The new service will call at a number of intermediate stations. These include Helsby, Frodsham, Runcorn, and

Liverpool South Parkway. If services were extended beyond Chester to serve Wrexham and/or the North WalesCoast, trains would also serve other principal stations between Bangor and Chester (Shotton, Flint, Rhyl, ColwynBay and Llandudno Junction) which were determined by the existing footfall. The service will operate throughoutthe day between 06:00 and 22:00 (Monday – Saturday). On Sunday, trains will operate between 08:00 to 22:00,subject to engineering possessions.

5 The Commercial Case


5.3 Procurement StrategyThere are a number of alternative procurement methods to deliver the scheme available to Merseytravel inconjunction with Welsh Government. To undertake the infrastructure elements of the project, this will requireNetwork Rail’s involvement as the organisation which owns and maintains the national rail infrastructure. There area number of ways in which investment in the rail network can be funded, procured and delivered. These range fromthose schemes which are undertaken solely by Network Rail, to those which involve partial or full third partyinvolvement. Network Rail’s involvement is critical due to their role of ‘Infrastructure Manager’ of the national railnetwork. It will therefore be Network Rail’s role to verify that the scheme is completed and integrated within theexisting rail operations.

The GRIP ProcessNetwork Rail has its own procedures for undertaking the development and construction of new infrastructureprojects. These follow the Governance for Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) process. This is the projectmanagement tool which governs the process to secure various gateways and milestones which are requiredthroughout the development of the scheme. There are eight GRIP stages, which can influence the procurementstrategy adopted to deliver a scheme at each stage. An overview of this process is summarised below.

Figure 31: Summary of the GRIP Process

Also, Network Rail Infrastructure Projects (Signalling) follows the Network Rail strategic sourcing governanceprocess which includes a series of “gateways” to ensure EU procurement law is followed. These gateways are asfollows:

- Gateway 1 – Category Strategy: Looking at major category of expenditure over the next 3-5yrs for theprogramme

- Gateway 2 – Contracting Strategy: Identify strategic contracting options (more on this below), undertakingmarket analysis, propose recommended option and tendering plan

- Gateway 3 – Contract Award Recommendation: Results of tender, risks & benefits identified

Network Rail utilises a series of contracts which have been produced internally and tailored to the different andunique types of work involved with their business. These range from off-infrastructure work, design only, low risksurvey, to contracts suitable for high risk complex programmes and activities.


5.4 Procurement to DateInitial scheme engineering optioneering work, up to GRIP stage 3, was prepared in 2007. However, for the reasonsset out in Section 4.2, the current scheme sits at an interim GRIP stage 3 level. In order to continue the projectdevelopment in line with the programme and to ensure it aligns with the Weaver to Wavertree Re-signalling Work,the GRIP 3 phase of the study has an expected completion date of Spring 2016. It is envisaged that Halton Curvewill align with the Weaver Wavertree scheme at the end of the GRIP 4 ‘Single Option Development’. Network Railwould generally seek to early engagement with a construction contractor to anticipate and mitigate detailed designand construction risks.

5.5 Preferred Procurement RouteThe following procurement approaches for the rail infrastructure are possible which include:

- Remaining GRIP stages undertaken solely by Network Rail;- Remaining GRIP stages undertaken by partially by Network Rail in conjunction with a contractor; and- Remaining GRIP stages undertaken by a contractor, with approval by Network Rail.

Design and ConstructionAlthough there are a number of potential procurement models, including Design Build Finance Transfer and DesignBuild Finance Maintain, the characteristics of this scheme mean it is more suited to a more traditional procurementmethod. Network Rail will appoint a Design and Build contractor which would establish a relationship with the formerpaying the latter directly using key milestones for delivery. The criteria for payments would be dependent on variousfactors including time, budget, quality and safety related milestones. This scheme is suited to low / medium riskschemes, with the upfront costs borne by the contractor in advance of payments from Network Rail. The NetworkRail funded project would then be reimbursed by higher track access charges which are passed directly onto thetrain operator. Network Rail would then incur the necessary liabilities for renewal and maintenance for the upgradedinfrastructure thereafter.

For this study, Network Rail has already engaged with a contractor using their Development Framework Contractorfor the GRIP 1-3 phase surveys and deliverables.

Operating, Maintenance and RepairOnce the scheme is complete, the maintenance and repair of the infrastructure will be the responsibility of NetworkRail. Incremental operating costs associated with the new infrastructure are assumed to be small, this is likely toinclude:

- Cleaning - as appropriate;- Maintenance – which is split into planned and preventative maintenance;- Repair – to repair any aspects of the network when they are broken; and- Renewal – to replace relevant infrastructure at the end of its life cycle.

Operator InvolvementSimilar to the design and construction consideration, there are several possible procurement routes to consider.

In response to the geographical area served by the preferred option, there are two potential options for identifying asuitable operator. Either the operators of the Northern franchise or the Wales & Borders franchise could potentiallyoperate a service between Liverpool and Chester. The former operator has train crew depots at Liverpool whilst thelatter has a major train crew depot at Chester. The consideration of possible service extensions may further affectthis choice of operator. The feasibility of Northern providing train crew and servicing the unit would become morechallenging though if trains were then extended to Wales. In particular, the operational issues associated withNorthern operating a service to/from Bangor given its relative remoteness from other parts of their network is likelyto form a major barrier in terms of their ability to provide a competitive price for operating these services.

The status of the Wales & Borders franchise is important when influencing this decision. This franchise is due forrenewal in 2018 and work to inform the timetable specification and the Invitation to Tender is expected to commenceshortly. As a result, there is scope to ensure the Halton Curve service proposal is included within the next Wales &Borders franchise as a core requirement. The operation of the new services will be the responsibility of the TOCunder the franchise agreement. The specification for the service will need to align with the assumptions includedwithin the economic case of the business case to deliver the economic objectives of the project.


This would be captured as part of the franchise specification for the service which would require involvementprincipally with the Welsh Government and also with DfT.

The alternative option would be operation of the Halton Curve service by the Northern Franchise. Potential serviceson the Halton Curve and into North Wales are possible through the new Northern Franchise commencing in April2016 with the franchise agreement making provision for “additional, varied and/or extended passenger services toand from…North Wales”…to provide “connections with the North West and new connections to Yorkshire”. Any suchNorthern operated service would require agreement from DfT, Rail North, Merseytravel and the Welsh Government.

5.6 Payment MechanismsThe scheme was given funding in July 2014 as part of the Liverpool City Region Growth Deal, which wasannounced by the Chancellor on 3rd July 2014. This has allocated £10.4million of funding which will be provided byDfT to Merseytravel to fund the scheme. A Development Services Agreement has been created with Network Rail todeliver the scheme to GRIP 3 completion and a Basic Implementation Agreement will be created to cover delivery ofGRIP 4–8.

The payment methods between Network Rail and the appointed contractor is subject to commercial negotiationsbetween the two organisations.

Depending on the outcome of the franchising arrangements, payments from the Department for Transport and/orWelsh Government to either Northern Rail or the operator of the Wales & Borders franchise will need to benegotiated to cover the differences between fare-box revenue and operating costs. Some of the risks associatedwith these payments is discussed in the section below.

5.7 Risk Allocation and TransferThroughout the development of the scheme, risks have been identified, recorded and mitigated against. Thisapproach will be enforced throughout the project lifecycle. Measures to reduce the overall risk accruing to thescheme promoter via risk transfer will be investigated at the appropriate milestone. The section below identifies anumber of key risks to the project. Network Rail has undertaken a QCRA around the capital costs specifically andthese are discussed in Section 4.5. What is discussed further below is an overview of the likely risks to procurementand project in more general terms.

Accommodating 2tph on the Halton CurveThe feasibility of accommodating two trains per hour in each direction over the Halton Curve will be assessed byNetwork Rail as part of their ongoing development of timetable options associated with the introduction of the newinfrastructure, although the initial analysis using the revised future year service planning assumptions indicates asecond hourly service via the Halton Curve will be challenging to integrate onto the wider network. The operation ofextra trains on the single track line could create operational conflicts, so the introduction of a loop would help toaddress this potential conflict. However, the capital costs for the scheme would increase as a result of this change,and there are other network capacity constraints to address.

Dependency on Weaver to Wavertree Re-signalling ProjectThere is a potential risk on procurement and scheme delivery due to the dependency with the Weaver to Wavertreemajor signalling project. The Halton Curve project is dependent on the completion of the major re-signalling projectwhich will facilitate the delivery of a significant cost saving (xxxxxxxx) which has then been incorporated into theeconomic case. However, the potential risks that lie with the major project not being delivered to the sametimescales as the Halton Curve scheme is considered to be low, as the requirement to replace the signalling reflectspoor asset condition. Consequently, the timescales to complete these major works means the larger signallingimprovements is unlikely to be deferred.

Train Operating CompanyAn initial dialogue with ATW has commenced during the preparation of the OBC regarding the revenue forecasts,operating costs and operational issues. ATW has provided positive responses to these initial queries which hasbeen helpful to validate some of the consultant’s assumptions.


There are two possible mechanisms that could be applied regarding a possible incentives payment. For example,the operator could either take the revenue risk on the estimated operating costs, particularly relating to themobilisation costs and during the initial period when the service becomes established. Alternatively, the operatorcould be required to take revenue risk, although the duration of the contract will influence the likelihood that anoperator is willing to take on this revenue risk.

For example, the current Arriva Trains Wales franchise is due to expire on 13 October 2018. With the Halton Curvescheme expected to commence in December 2018, this means that the new service would fall under the newoperator of the Wales & Borders franchise. Whilst this removes the need to negotiate the new service specificallywith ATW (the current operator of the franchise), it places a requirement to specify the new service in the nextfranchise train service requirement. However, should the existing franchise period be extended beyond October2018 in response to wider political considerations, the treatment of costs and fare-box revenue along with theresulting risks would need to be revisited.

However, there are a number of other risks associated with the start-up of this proposed service, including driverand crew training, ensuring there is suitable rolling stock available, as well as helping to publicise the potentialbenefits to passengers (even if this revenue accrues after the current contract has expired). These risks will need tobe planned with the existing operator due to the timescales involved.

Available Rolling Stock to Start Operations in 2018The scheme appraisal has made the assumption that the new service would be operated by Class 150 rolling stock(given that local services in North Wales are currently operated by this rolling stock). As well as the cost differences,there are a number of other factors that could influence the choice of rolling stock. Class 150s are currently operatedby both the Northern Rail and ATW companies. Whilst the availability of this particular rolling stock type cannot beguaranteed in the future due to the uncertainties surrounding how franchise bidders may structure future bids, theincreased availability of 75mph units means there will be a greater likelihood they will be available compared withthe smaller Class 175 fleet currently operated by ATW.

Land RequirementsIt is not expected that there will be any land requirements affecting study programme and delivery. This is because itis expected that the study site is owned 100% by Network Rail, and therefore there is likely to be no third partyownership issues, either during construction, or operation.

Station ChangesThe implementation of the new services are not expected to result in any wider station infrastructure works toaccommodate the increased service frequency operating on the existing rail network. The potential expansion of carparks, particularly at the intermediate stations along the route, may be required although this has not beenconsidered as part of the FBC thus far.

Network ChangeDue to the changes proposed to the network, it will be necessary to consult the various stakeholders including trainoperating companies and passenger groups to agree the changes to the network. As the location of the proposedscheme is unlikely to have significant impacts on other rail operations, both during construction or postimplementation operations, at this stage it is not expected that there will be strong opposition to the project. Inaddition, Merseytravel has already undertaken initial stakeholder engagement with Northern Rail regarding the newservice. This should help to understand operator concerns, also regarding the existing northbound onlyparliamentary service which is operated along the Halton Curve by Northern Rail.

Possessions ManagementIn order to organise appropriate access to the rail network, possessions must be booked through Network Rail. Thetypes of possessions required are beyond the scope of this business case, however there are potential risks on thedelivery of the scheme should network possession not be granted, or delayed. Given the location of the scheme, theexisting services operating the line, and other associated works being progressed at the same time, risks regardingpossession of the rail network in this locality are likely to be low. The Weaver – Wavertree re-signalling programmeis likely to require more extensive possessions and there may be opportunities to achieve synergies with the worksrequired for Halton Curve as part of the larger scheme.


Revenue RiskIf operating costs are greater than revenue, then there is a requirement for subsidy to cover the difference in costs,which is normally administered via the Franchise Agreement. The subsidy can be justified if the scheme as a wholedemonstrates a positive economic business case. The performance of the scheme is normally measured at ‘rail UK’level, and these ‘net’ impacts are presented in Table 56.. However, with subsidies normally paid via the relevantfranchise, it is acknowledged that the individual Train Operating Companies (TOCs) will also be interested in thechange in revenue affecting their services and this information is presented in Appendix C. Individual franchiseoperators are required to take the commercial revenue risk and they will not be compensated for any lossesincurred. For example, Merseyrail could lose circa £xxxx per annum from its Liverpool–Chester service followingthe introduction of the new service via the Halton Curve. If services were extended beyond Chester to Wales, therevenue impacts on other operators become more substantial. For example, there is significant revenue abstractedfrom Wales & Borders and West Coast, with the former affected if trains are extended to Bangor. The subsidyvalues presented are the net overall subsidy impacts for the scheme as a whole.

The scheme promoter is required to take revenue risk for the service, unless the proposal is under-written into theoverarching franchise agreement. Liverpool City Region Combined Authority has committed to under-writing therevenue risk for a period of three years to ensure the scheme is able to progress through the political loopholes. Thetime period for LCR CA to under-write this revenue risk may be reduced if the Welsh Government agree to includethe proposal into the overarching franchise agreement.

Table 55: Summary of the Annual Subsidy Requirement (£000s)

Indicator Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Years 6-10

Option1

Revenue xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Operating costs xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Subsidy xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Option6

Revenue xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxOperating costs xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxSubsidy xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Option7

Revenue xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Operating costs xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxSubsidy xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

Option9


Option10


Source: AECOM forecasting model (local plan led growth), NB: values shown are in 2013 prices, include real price increases, include ramp up,are un-discounted, exclude optimism bias and exclude tax correction factor

Table 56 demonstrates that all options would require subsidy to operate them over the course of the first 10 years ofoperation. The level of subsidy requirement varies considerably, with the Preferred Option (Option 1) requiring£xxxxx per annum initially and then dropping to £xxxxx once journey patterns have become more established.Option 7 will require the most subsidy with £xxxxx per annum initially and then reducing to £xxxxx by year 5 ofoperation.


5.8 Contract LengthThe following timescales are anticipated for contractor involvement in the GRIP 4 – 8 process (see Table 56).

Table 56: Overview of Contract TimescalesTimescales Date

Contractor appointed Summer 2016

Commence on site Autumn 2017

Line handback Summer 2018

Contractor Project Closeout Autumn 2018

A comparison showing the interdependencies with the Weaver to Wavertree Re-signalling is shown in Figure 32.

Figure 32: Overview of project timescales showing interactions with Weaver to Wavertree Re-signalling

5.9 Contract ManagementApproximate dates for the key delivery milestones are shown in Table 57.

Table 57: Key Delivery MilestonesTimescales Date

GRIP 1 to 3 August 2015 to May 2016

GRIP 4 Single Option Development June 2016 to February 2017

GRIP 5 Detailed Design March 2017 to October 2017

GRIP 6 Construction, Test and Commission October 2017 to May 2018

GRIP 7 Scheme Handback June 2018 to December 2018

GRIP 8 Project Close out January 2019There may be some overlap planned between these GRIP stages – for a more detailed set of programme dates please refer to Table 60

It should be noted that the above milestones have been developed to align with the programme for the largerWeaver to Wavertree Re-signalling works.

5.10 ConclusionNetwork Rail will have a key role in the procurement route to ensure the study is delivered in accordance with theirGRIP processes. As the scheme progresses through GRIP stages 4 to 8, the appointed contractor would have anincreasing role.

Procurement of the train service will be via the appropriate franchise, either the Northern or the Wales and Bordersfranchise (currently operated by Arriva Trains Wales). The final decision on this will depend upon a number offactors, including where the service actually operates, timing of re-franchising and the appetite of the appropriateorganisations (DfT, Welsh Government, Merseytravel, Rail North) to contribute to the necessary subsidyrequirements.

6 The Management Case


6.1 IntroductionThe purpose of the Management Case is to assess whether a proposal is deliverable. It tests the project planning,governance structure, risk management, communications and stakeholder management, benefits realisation andassurance (e.g. a Gateway Review). The Management Case for the Halton Curve scheme is discussed under thefollowing headings:

- Governance;- Assurance;- Delivery Programme;- Risk Management;- Communications and Stakeholder Management;- Monitoring and Evaluation; and- Conclusion.

The methodology used to define the process and procedures necessary to manage the project is based on thePRINCE2 methodology promoted by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC).

6.2 GovernanceThe scheme is being developed jointly by Merseytravel, Welsh Government and Network Rail. Merseytravel is theScheme Promoter as it is financing the capital costs of the scheme though its Growth Deal settlement withGovernment. Network Rail is the delivery agency and Liverpool City Region is expected to contribute towards to theongoing subsidy requirement for the service for the first three years. The proposed governance structure for thescheme enables all three organisations to work jointly to oversee the delivery of the scheme. It is also worthacknowledging that other organisations such as the DfT, Rail North and Cheshire West & Chester Council andWelsh Government might also have some responsibilities in terms of contributing towards the ongoing subsidyrequirement.

The key strategic project decisions will be taken by the Strategic Group consisting of Merseytravel, Network Rail,Welsh Government and Local Authority Stakeholders. The Strategic Group meetings are held monthly and arechaired by Merseytravel. The Project Board will be accountable to the Liverpool City Region Transport AdvisoryGroup, which sits under the Combined Authority. The creation of the Combined Authority on 1 April 2014 has bothaltered and simplified the governance arrangements for transport, with local transport authority powers fromMerseytravel and Halton. The Combined Authority acts as scheme provider and delivery agent, with Liverpool CityRegion for transport revenue spending. The Combined Authority has responsibility for the process to select,prioritise and compare the relative business cases for each scheme. Whilst there is no requirement to submit abusiness case for approval to the DfT, since the decision is devolved to Liverpool City Region Combined Authoritythrough the Growth Deal, the approvals process must be highlighted as a potential risk, since the CombinedAuthority may not decide to authorise the Halton Curve scheme if it did not represent value for money. An overallgovernance structure for the project is set out in Figure 33.

6.3 AssuranceAs the capital costs for the scheme are being funded through the LCR City Deal through the Local Growth Fund, thescheme will be subject the Liverpool City Region (LCR) Combined Authority Assurance Framework (29th May 2014),in addition to the Network Rail’s own assurance processes – details on both are set out below.

Liverpool City Region Assurance ProcessThe LCR Assurance Framework was originally developed to manage decisions in respect of the devolution offunding for major local transport schemes and was based on DfT guidelines. The current version of the frameworkhas been revised and will be applicable to all schemes using funds devolved through the Growth Deal.

6 The Management Case


Figure 33: Proposed Governance Arrangements


The accountable body for the funding stream will be the LCR Combined Authority (CA), which is supported byMerseytravel as its transport executive body and the principal staffing and delivery body. Merseytravel will hold thefunds for the Halton Curve scheme on behalf of the CA and make payments to Network Rail as the delivery body.The funds will be accounted for in such a way that they will be identifiable with a separate cost centre. Financialstatements will be regularly provided to members of the CA on scheme costs and profiling of spend. Network Railwill in turn set up a Development Services Agreement with Merseytravel, which is required in order for Network Railto progress schemes that are being funded via a third party.

In relation to major schemes, the Combined Authority will be supported at a professional officer level by theTransport Advisory Group (TAG), which comprises Director or Assistant Director level transport officers from each ofthe city region local authorities and from Merseytravel. All schemes will be required to comply with the existing DfTrequirements in relation to the Transport Business Case. The CA will commission impartial technical support by anindependent consultant for the evaluation of all the individual business cases in relation to WebTAG requirements.The CA will require a Value for Money statement to be produced at each approval stage and this will need to besigned off by the section 151 officer.

Following the submission of the Full Business Case, the scheme will pass through the following approval stages(granted by the CA), which align to the DfT’s WebTAG requirements:

- Programme Entry stage – this will provide ‘in principle’ approval and allow appropriate powers or processes to bepursued.

- Full Approval – this is required before any funds can be committed legally. A resolution discussed at meetings willbe required to enable funds to be released by the CA.

The Combined Authority’s funding contributions will be capped – in the event that scheme costs escalate,applications for additional funding approval will not be considered by the CA once schemes are fully approved.Additional third party or local funding would be required should cost over runs arise. A wider Stakeholder Group willbe set up to provide challenge and scrutiny of the businesses cases – this will include representatives from transportoperators, local interest groups, local authority portfolio members and the Highways Agency.

Network Rail Assurance Process

Stage Gate ReviewsAs identified in Chapter 5, all Network Rail projects are required to follow the GRIP process, which describes howNetwork Rail manages and controls projects that enhance or renew the rail network. Chapter 5 also identifies theeight stages in the GRIP process – in terms of assurance, the project board use a gate way review to assess theproducts delivered and readiness of a project to proceed to the next GRIP stage. A representative from theLiverpool City Region Combined Authority will co-ordinate these reviews. The Project Manager shall be responsiblefor conducting and recording Stage Gate Reviews. The Stage Gate checklists that are produced at the beginning ofthe project or prior to commencing an individual or combined GRIP Stage (as applicable) shall be used to establishthat all products have been delivered. The products shall be delivered (i.e. created, reviewed, updated etc) withinthe Stage prior to the Stage Gate Review. For projects that have a period of more than 12 months betweenscheduled Stage Gate Reviews, the Project Manager shall conduct a review of all products prior to the Stage GateReview to verify that they are current and up to date. The Stage Gate Checklist shall be signed and dated oncompletion of a Stage Gate Review by both the Project Manager and Client to indicate that the project is fit toproceed to the next stage. A product shall be deemed delivered if it is:

- stored electronically in a corporate document management system; and- signed and approved by authorised resource.

The Client shall award a category to a product. The category of the product and its impact on the project shall be asspecified in Table 59. The Client shall not allow a project to proceed to the next stage if any product on the GRIPProduct Checklist has been awarded a category of “C”. Where projects are developed to a certain level by thirdparties before they are handed over to Network Rail for further development and/or delivery, the Client shall conducta gap analysis on the products produced by the third party to check that they can be mapped to GRIP Products andare of an acceptable standard. Any products that are missing shall be completed and accepted by the Client prior tomoving to the next GRIP Stage. The route for the completion of missing GRIP Products shall be agreed by theClient and negotiated with the third party concerned.


The project scope shall be reviewed at Stage Gate Reviews. If scope change has been introduced into a project thathas not been addressed by Change Control, the Project Manager shall liaise with Client and if necessary roll backthe project to the appropriate GRIP Stage and update all necessary GRIP Products (e.g. the Project ManagementPlan).

Table 59: Stage Gate Review Product Categories and ImpactCategory

awarded toProducts

Status Impact on Project

A Product delivered The project shall continue to the nextstage.

B Product delivered but requires modification The project shall continue to the nextstage, but an action plan shall be putinto place by the Project Manager todemonstrate that the Product will bedelivered within the stage. The actionplan and completion of the Product shallbe monitored by the Client.

C Product undelivered or delivered not to asatisfactory standard

The project shall not continue to the nextstage until the Product is delivered to asatisfactory standard and a Stage GateReview is re-conducted and passed.

N Product no longer necessary The project shall continue to the nextstage, but the GRIP Stage gate checklistshall be updated to state why theProduct is no longer necessary.

Peer ReviewsPeer Reviews will be undertaken during the scheme development process - these are key checkpoints in projectsthat provide an early indication of potential risks to delivery. Peer Reviews will be used to establish readiness forStage Gate Reviews. They will be conducted upon request from the Regional, Functional or Major Project Director,or as specified in local GRIP procedure. If performed they shall take place at least four weeks prior to the relevantStage Gate Review to allow sufficient time for action based on the peer review findings. The Project Manager isrequired to record all Peer Reviews as milestones in the project schedule. A Stage Gate Checklist and arecommendation on whether or not a project should delay its planned Stage Gate Review shall be provided by thePeer Review Facilitator to the Regional/Functional/Major Project Director.

6.4 Delivery ProgrammeNetwork Rail has produced a detailed project delivery programme through to GRIP Stage 8, which is included inAppendix L. The methodology used in developing the programme is in line with the GRIP process and guidelines, asoutlined in Chapter 5. Table 60 shows some of the key milestones, including the timescales for the Stage GateReviews outlined above.


Table 60: Key Milestones

Stage Milestone Completion Date

Outline Business Case Outline Business Case Report April 2015

Full Business CaseFull Business Case Report February 2016

Scheme submission to gobefore Combined Authority April 2016

GRIP Stage 1

(Output Definition)Stage Completed 16/09/14

GRIP Stage 2(Pre Feasibility) Stage Completed 01/06/15

GRIP Stage 3(Option Selection)

Option Selection Report 22/03/16

Pre GRIP 4 Risk Review 16/05/16

Stage Gate Review 3 06/05/16

End Stage 29/07/16

GRIP Stage 4(Option Development)

Start Stage 17/05/16

End Stage 23/01/17

GRIP Stage 5(Detailed Design) End Stage 27/02/18

GRIP Stage 6(Construction, Testing and

Commissioning)

Start on Site 22/07/17

End Stage 13/07/18

Lessons Learnt Report 13/07/18

GRIP Stage 7(Scheme Handback) End Stage 10/01/19

GRIP Stage 8(Project Closeout) Close out 09/05/19

There are a number of dependencies regarding the above milestones and successful completion of the project,including the operation of the service. These can be summarised as follows:

- Weaver to Wavertree re-signalling project – the proposal to undertake the construction at the same time as thisrenewals scheme allows the costs for the Halton Curve to be substantially reduced. Significant slippage to theprogramme for either scheme could put the ability to access this cost saving at risk. Network Rail considers therisk to be low given the time allowance in the programme in relation to the works;

- The service will require subsidy to operate – whilst it is anticipated that an agreement for the apportionment ofthese costs will be reached, no formal agreement has been made to date;

- The service would need to be incorporated within the franchise specification for the Northern or Wales & Bordersfranchises – the specification is still to be finalised;

- The economic case assumes that Class 150 rolling stock will be available to operate the service – whilst it isanticipated that it will be possible to secure this rolling stock, the units are currently in high demand at least until2018;

- Track possessions will be required to undertake the works – delays in achieving the necessary permissions couldpotentially impact on the programme.

A detailed scheme delivery programme is included in Appendix L.


6.5 Risk ManagementRisk Management will take place in relation to the scheme cost and programme. A formal QCRA/QSRA has beenundertaken at the time of preparing estimates for authority. Throughout the GRIP stage the risks are reviewed toestablish if they have been closed, reduced or impacted and the revised cost risk obligation is identified at this time.The responsibility for risk and change control rests with the Project Manager (Joe Durrant). However, the owner ofthe risk could be the Sponsor (Adeola Dada), or escalated through the Network Rail hierarchy as necessary.The Sponsor, the client organisation and the project management team have a responsibility for ensuring the rightresources are available. Internal resources can be managed relatively easily but contractor resources can be moreproblematical as these are being called on by a considerable number of project teams.

Network Rail has confirmed that if the scheme implemented is delayed or factors emerge that might prevent thesynergies between the Halton Curve and the Weaver – Wavertree scheme being realised, an alternative solutioncould still be developed although this outcome would require additional funding which is yet to be confirmed. Tominimise the likelihood of these synergies not being realised, Network Rail has identified some possible risks whichare summarised below:

- No scope defined for overhead electrification modifications which arise as part of the renewals;- Changing GRIP design standards may emerging during the lifecycle of this project, including revisions to British

design standards;- Lack of engineering resources to seek and gain necessary approvals which could result in works slipping if

submissions are missed;- Inefficient timing of approvals due to uncertainty relating to changing stakeholder requirements;- Lack of expertise and competency in identifying and implementing innovative solutions;- Potential scope creep from stakeholders which leads to inefficient scheduling of activities;- Due to site constraints, there are insufficient opportunities to secure the necessary programme of engineering

possessions.

The likelihood of these risks occurring can be mitigated by Network Rail’s good track record of delivering similarschemes including:

- Todmorden Curve: A project delivered by our Infrastructure Projects Central team has reconnected Burnley andManchester after 45 years following the closure as part of the Beeching cuts. It provides a single track bi-directional link between the East Lancashire and Calder Valley Lines via Todmorden. Reinstating thisinfrastructure will remove the need for passengers to interchange at Hebden Bridge, with the direct service cuttingjourney times by around 25 minutes. The scheme was delivered in two phases, with the link initially reinstated asa one-direction line followed by a second phase which comprised further signalling improvements to ensure trainscould operate in both directions. The reinstatement of this particular stretch of track will have major benefits forthe area, providing the public with a direct rail link to Manchester and helping to boost the local economy byattracting new people and businesses into the Borough.

- Olive Mount Chord: Freight capacity was increased in the Liverpool area in December 2008 by the reinstatementof the Olive Mount chord. This new chord onto the Bootle branch was funded by the Transport Innovation Fund(TIF) and involved installing a crossover and lead junction at Bootle. This new chord allows trains to access theBootle branch directly from the Earlestown direction, without the need for a run round move and has increasedthe capacity for freight traffic to and from Liverpool docks.

A Risk Assessment (QCRA) and Management Strategy has been included as Appendix M.

6.6 Communication and Stakeholder ManagementIn July 2012, the Chancellor’s announcement of £10.4m to fund the infrastructure works to upgrade the HaltonCurve to allow passenger services in both directions demonstrates a strong level of political support at the highestlevel. In addition to confirming a funding source for the capital costs, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority havealso indicated their willingness to fund the revenue costs for a maximum of three years, although this timescalecould be shortened if Welsh Government is willing to include the proposed scheme in the forthcoming Wales &Borders franchise.


As noted in Chapter 2, a stakeholder event was convened in May 2015 to disseminate the current proposals to MPs,AMs, local authorities, train operators and representatives from the business community and the various LEPscovering the study area. At this meeting, stakeholders offered unanimous support for the emerging proposals,although there were a number of detailed points including access to stations including bus links and car parkingavailability. The scope of future consultation exercises need to be considered and could include:

- Production of a non-technical summary document which is available on stakeholder’s websites. Thisdocument could describe the benefits the scheme is expected to deliver, illustrate the new travel opportunitiesincluding the interchange opportunities at Runcorn, Liverpool South Parkway and the improved access toLiverpool John Lennon Airport from the latter station. The travel benefits offered by this new service could behighlighted, along with the station improvements at Helsby and Frodsham given the scarcity of existing carparking provision. The summary document could also confirm details of funding and the revenue support, alongwith the expected timescales for scheme implementation. This latter element is crucial to help raise the profile ofthe scheme to prospective customers, particularly those passengers which will benefit from a substantialreduction in journey time as a result of the scheme and therefore do not consider rail to be a viable option atpresent;

- Questionnaire reviewing the other scheme proposals: as well as the non-technical document, a questionnaireshould be produced to understand the suitability of proposals from a wider group of stakeholders. Thequestionnaire would be available on websites, although its availability could be publicised at stations that will beserved by the new Halton Curve service. Furthermore, adverts could be placed in local newspapers to promotethe service to motorists who either use rail infrequently or not at all. The questionnaire could examine the level ofsupport from a wider range of stakeholders, to understand the most important elements of the scheme, how oftenwould the service be used, for what type of journeys, and whether respondents have any further suggestions toenhance the overall proposals. A range of socio-economic data could also be collected from the respondents tounderstand the relative importance of each issue from the perspective of specific users.

6.7 Monitoring and EvaluationIntroductionThe LCR Combined Authority Assurance Framework requires promoters to prepare monitoring and evaluationmethod statements as a condition of funding, with reporting at one year after a scheme has opened and a FinalReport after 5 years of operation. This outline evaluation plan for the scheme follows DfT guidance as set out in theMonitoring and Evaluation Framework for Local Authority Major Schemes (Sept 2012). In addition, all Network Railprojects are monitored and evaluated at the Monthly Business Review (MBR). This is Headquarters' mandatedmonthly business review where Network Rail Directors challenge all aspects of the business.

The following section sets out the proposed approach to benefits realisation in line with DfT guidance and highlightsthe level of resource required for this task.

Proposed ApproachDfT guidance advises a proportionate and targeted approach to the assessment that can demonstrate that the majorscheme has achieved its objectives and that funding has been wisely invested. As the overall cost of the scheme isless than £50m it falls within the Standard Monitoring Framework as set out in the guidance.

The evaluation will consider the key questions that the scheme is addressing and the extent that it is achieving itsdesired outcome. A recent DfT Transport Evaluation Workshop (June 2014) highlighted that a streamlinedapproach, where appropriate, can be more effective and efficient than a full ex ante approach through focusing onthese key questions and outcomes. Alignment with the Rail Executives Rail Benefits Framework will assist with theidentification, monitoring and optimisation of benefits that relate to rail investment. Five key benefit types have beenidentified in the framework which also includes the identification of potential dis-benefits:

1. Socio-economic (e.g. connecting people to jobs, local development)2. Financial (e.g. franchise premium, efficiency)3. Passenger Experience (e.g. higher quality of service)4. Passenger Journey (e.g. reduced journey time, increased reliability, reduced crowding)5. Compliance and risk (e.g. other government policies or EU regulations implemented, reduced risk profile)


The monitoring and evaluation plan identifies the data requirements and arrangements for monitoring that will berequired in collating the evidence base for the different benefit types at year 1 and year 5. Strengthening the linksbetween appraisal and evaluation has also been identified as an area where future evaluations would benefit fromfurther work. The comparison of predicted impacts with actual impacts will, therefore, be an important part of thelearning process, as summarised by the ROAMEF model (Figure 34) which also provides an overview of themonitoring and evaluation process.

Figure 34: The ROAMEF Model

Logic ModelA logic model for the scheme has been developed and is included in Figure 34. Logic models demonstrate thecausal links between the intervention, its outcomes and longer term impacts. They represent the hypothesis for theevaluation and provide the framework for identifying key research questions.

The logic model for the scheme does not look to identify all of the impacts of the scheme, instead it highlights thekey theory of change that follow from the schemes objectives and through its implementation. It identifies theimmediate outcomes of the infrastructure investment, (e.g. enhanced connectivity and transport links), changes thatmay occur in relation to user behaviour and the benefits for suppliers and how these outcomes contribute tostrategic impacts.

In addition, we have highlighted how we intend to make use of the Rail Benefits Management Framework, launchedby the Rail Executive in 2014, to assist with the identification of measureable change that can be monitored as partof the benefits realisation process. The framework identifies the five key benefit types that will shape the monitoringprocess.

Key Research QuestionsIn accordance with the DfT's Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, evaluation questions will be split into thefollowing three assessments elements:

- Process Evaluation: How was the scheme delivered? This covers the processes by which the scheme wasimplemented and has been undertaken.

- Impact Evaluation: What difference has the scheme made? This requires an assessment of the outcomes andimpacts generated by the scheme.

- Economic Evaluation: Have the benefits justified the costs? An assessment will be made on whether the costsof the scheme have been outweighed by the benefits.

Whilst the questions will be refined through the development of a full monitoring and evaluation plan it is anticipatedthat key questions will include, but will not be limited, to the following:

Process Evaluation

- Context - Have there been any changes to the context for the scheme since it was planned and through thedelivery process? Is the context still valid?


- Scheme inputs – Have the critical success factors been achieved and the necessary capital and revenueinvestment been put in place? Have the necessary resources (e.g. staff and rolling stock) been put in place todeliver the anticipated outcomes?

- Scheme outputs – Has the infrastructure been delivered to the proposed specification?- Risk management - Assessment of the effectiveness of the risk management strategy and mitigation measures

on key risks; for example, safety during construction, delays and any negative (perceived or real) impacts ontransport users, local communities and businesses during construction.

Impact Evaluation

- Has the scheme been delivered to the expected quality standards and provided the anticipated benefits (benefitsrealisation)?

- What have been the changes in outcome indicators (e.g. rail passenger numbers, modal shift, passengerexperience, freight movements) at year one and year five?

- What has been the geographic distribution of any impacts?- What contribution did the scheme make to any observed changes, where possible identifying the extent that

observed changes can be attributed to the intervention?- Have there been any unintended outcomes observed and what was the cause?- Has the finished scheme met its original objectives and to what extent have these objectives been achieved?

Economic Evaluation:

- How has the scheme contributed to economic growth (consideration to be given to key metrics such as traveltimes and accessibility improvements in relation to access to key economic centres)?

- What has been the value of the benefits of the scheme in relation to its costs and how do these relate to the costsand benefits presented in the business case?

- Have any jobs been facilitated by the scheme and how has it contributed to increasing access to job activities andlocal services?

Process OutputsKey information and evidence such as programme costs, risks and resources, will be collected throughout thedelivery process as part of the reporting process to the Combined Authority. Process monitoring will also beinformed by regular progress reporting to update the Project Board on scheme delivery. In addition, the Network RailGRIP and Stage Gate Assurance processes will also be used to inform the evidence on key successes and failureswithin the delivery process including in relation to risk.

Transport User and Provider ImpactsData collection relating to Transport user and Provider Impacts provides an estimate of the impacts of the additionalservices on users and providers of the transport system where users are those making journeys on elements of thetransport network affected by the scheme.

The proposed methodology follows WebTAG guidance to capture potential impacts, both quantitative andqualitative. The appraisal will identify generalised cost savings against the baseline scenario for three trip purposes(business, commuting and leisure) as set out in WebTAG generalised cost accounts for journeys. The approach willfocus on impacts where there is greatest scope for quantification/monetisation although a qualitative approach willbe taken for more minor impacts that cannot be quantified.

The following transport user and provider benefits/disbenefits will be considered as part of the evaluation:

User Impacts

- Journey Time- Reliability- Crowding- Journey Quality- Safety (transport accidents)

Provider Impacts

- Operator Incomes


In relation to externalities of transport use and operation, whilst a quantitative approach would be applied tomeasuring any impacts on carbon, the scheme is not considered to have any significant impact on noise or airquality.

On Train Passenger SurveysOn-train surveys provide evidence of travel choices that passengers using the new service have made and help toidentify the decisions that passengers would have made in the absence of the new infrastructure i.e. thecounterfactual position. The surveys complement quantitative data on the types of journeys made and origins anddestinations. The survey results would provide the basis for estimating levels of change in demand caused by thenew services through trip generation, mode shift or destination shift.

The proposed method of data collection is to hand out questionnaires on-trains on services using the newinfrastructure for self-completion and then to collect them before respondents alight. The trains to be surveyedwould be carefully selected to ensure that respondents boarding at a range of stations are surveyed and thatsurveys take place at different times of day and day of week to ensure people travelling for a range of journeypurposes are captured.

The questionnaire would include questions relating to the following:

- Details of the journey respondents were making at the time of interview from start to finish (e.g. home address towork address), the station they boarded and alighted and how they got/ were intending to get to and from thestations;

- Understand what respondents would have done in the absence of the new service for the journey they weremaking; and

- Identify the influence the existence the new service has had had in decisions to move house and/or change jobs.Derivation of Demand Matrices

National demand by origin and destination station and ticket type will be derived from the MOIRA ticketing data, withstandard ORCATS profiles applied (as used in MOIRA) to provide the split by time of day. The analysis will focus onuse of the new service and any abstraction from other services using forecast background growth to aid theestablishment of a counterfactual position.

Derivation of Cost Change MatricesChanges in travel costs are a further input into the estimation of user benefits and would be identified throughmeasuring changes in travel costs for origin/destination pairs over the total length of the journey from ultimate originto destination.

User and Demand Related Impact EstimationThe monetary value of estimated rail user impacts will be identified for each of the 60 years of the appraisal on thebasis of the difference between demand and costs in the ‘with scheme’ and counterfactual scenarios. Calculationswill use DfT’s WebTAG parameters where available (including values of time by journey purpose and crowdingparameters) and, if not, will draw on the rail industry’s Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH) as asecondary source, where WebTAG recommends its use or does not provide values. In line with WebTAG,calculations apply the ‘rule of half’ methodology where appropriate.

Wider Economic and Regeneration ImpactsExperience of undertaking evaluations of transport interventions that cover large geographical areas hasdemonstrated value in concentrating resources on research methods that have the greatest potential to identifycausal chains linking the intervention to outcomes. As a result of the geographic breadth of the study area and thecomplexities associated with attributing impacts amongst a wide range of influencing factors, it is not proposed thatsecondary data relating to land use and regeneration impacts will be collated. Instead the transport and userimpacts will form the evidence base for a theory of change approach that will use the logic model to link outcomes toanticipated strategic impacts, with a particular focus on economic impacts. It is also proposed to undertake a seriesof stakeholder interviews.


The stakeholder interviews will take place at baseline year one and year five and seek to identify wider strategicimpacts and provide an understanding of the counterfactual position. The stakeholder interviews will help tounderstand the extent that the scheme has influenced economic development, business decisions and whether thescheme has impacted upon socio-economic characteristics of the study area. They will also include consideration ofhow the scheme has contributed to regeneration objectives and Strategic Added Value. As well as representativesfrom the LCR, Merseytravel, Network Rail and the Welsh Government, key stakeholders groups could includeregeneration agencies and business groups e.g. Chambers of Commerce.

Evaluation CostsDfT guidance highlights the responsibility of scheme promoters to fund and ensure the delivery of schememonitoring and evaluation in line with an agreed monitoring framework. The cost of delivering the scheme shouldmake provision for the implementation of monitoring activities. An estimated cost for the implementation of themonitoring and evaluation programme has been made of between £50,000 and £100,000, covering activitiesthroughout the implementation and at Years 1 and 5 after opening.

6.8 ConclusionThis Full Business Case details the current processes and governance, assurance and delivery for the project, inaddition to the proposals relating to the management of risks and monitoring and evaluation of the project. As theproject progresses into delivery these proposals will need to be reviewed and developed to take into account thechanging relationships and nature of the project’s development.

7 Summary and Conclusions


7.1 SummaryThe Preferred Option comprises an hourly service between Liverpool and Chester via Runcorn. This proposalgenerates the strongest BCR of the options evaluated and it also offers the opportunity to implement a schemewhich requires the lowest ongoing revenue support. The opportunity to extend services into North Wales (theAlternative Options), to provide direct links for the first time between North Wales and Liverpool, are also recognisedas important aspirations for the service in the medium to longer term once existing infrastructure constraints andfunding sources are addressed. Considerable timetable planning work has already been undertaken to support thedevelopment of the Preferred and Alternative Options. The importance of providing a competitive Sectional RunningTime of circa 3 minutes over the Halton Curve infrastructure has been identified as being an important element inmeeting the business case as set out in this FBC. The final timetabling solution will be developed by the railindustry with stakeholders as the scheme is progressed through to implementation.

In terms of the scheme’s performance against the five cases:

- Strategic Case: strong alignment with the strategic objectives which confirm the scheme would help to resolvesome accessibility gaps affecting the existing transport network and certain key flows between North Wales,North Cheshire and Merseyside. The scheme will help to facilitate and promote economic activity, supportbusiness investment and productivity growth, enhancing connectivity to Liverpool John Lennon Airport, minimisethe impact of forecast trip growth and support low carbon travel. The preferred option would make a contributionto address these objectives and tackle the low public transport mode share evident on some of these flows;

- Economic Case: the introduction of an hourly service between Liverpool and Chester via Runcorn wouldgenerate over xxxxxxx new rail trips per annum and nearly xxxxx revenue (at today’s demand levels). Much of thenew demand is expected to originate from journeys between Chester and Liverpool South Parkway plus betweenHelsby/Frodsham and central Liverpool/Liverpool South Parkway. The economic appraisal indicates the schemewould generate high value for money with a BCR of 2.1 assuming the local plan led growth can be achieved. Atotal of £xxxxx subsidy would be required in the first year of operation, declining to £xxxxx by year 5 when thejourney patterns have matured;

- Financial Case: a contribution of £10.4m has been confirmed by the Government to fund this scheme, withMerseytravel required to meet any further cost increases;

- Commercial Case: various procurement strategies have been examined, with particular reference to the riskallocation and transfer, along with engagement with future train operating companies to potentially operate thisservice. Discussions with two potential operators (Arriva Trains Wales and Northern Rail) have commenced,although the former may offer stronger synergies between their likely future franchise ‘shape’ and these proposedservices via Halton Curve, particularly from the perspective of future potential service extensions into NorthWales;

- Management Case: this element examined the governance and assurance arrangements for the scheme, therisk management and the communications strategy. This assessment highlighted Network Rail has a strong trackrecord of conducting similar enhancements, whilst key stakeholders have expressed strong support for thescheme given the range of benefits that could be delivered.

Four Alternative Options were considered alongside the Preferred Option. These options comprised a mixture ofservice extensions beyond Chester to Wrexham and Bangor. Some of these proposals could help to meet theunderlying strategic and economic objectives more effectively, though the opportunity to progress these proposalswould be reliant on addressing other issues such as infrastructure constraints between Wrexham and Chester.

7.2 ConclusionsThe hourly Liverpool to Chester via Runcorn has been nominated as the Preferred Option. It supports the objectivesunderpinning the Strategic Case, whilst demonstrating there is a strong Economic Case for the new service. It isevident this proposal for the Preferred Option would provide an excellent framework to extend services beyondChester into North Wales. This Full Business Case has set out the strategic and economic case for the scheme andhighlighted the procurement strategy now being implemented by the key stakeholders. Risks to delivery have beenidentified, recognising that a considerable proportion of the funding necessary for the scheme is already in place.

7 Summary and Conclusions

Appendix A – Options AppraisalReport

AECOM

Redacted

Appendix A – Options Appraisal Report

AECOM

Redacted


Appendix C – Economic AppraisalReport

AECOM

Redacted

Appendix C – Economic Appraisal Report

Appendix D – Analysis of AvailableData

AECOM

Redacted

Appendix D – Analysis of Available Data

Appendix E – Transport EconomicEfficiency

AECOM

Redacted

Appendix E – Transport Economic Efficiency

AECOM

Redacted


Appendix G – EnvironmentalAppraisal

AECOM

Redacted

Appendix G – Environmental Appraisal

Appendix H – Appraisal SummaryTables

AECOM

Redacted

Appraisal Summary Tables

Appendix I – Analysis of MonetisedCosts and Benefits (AMCB)

AECOM

Redacted

Appendix I – Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB)

Appendix J – Scheme CostEstimates

AECOM

Redacted

Appendix J – Scheme Cost Estimates

Appendix K – Letter from Section151 Offer

AECOM

Redacted

.

Appendix K – Letter from Section 151 Offer

Appendix L – Scheme DeliveryProgramme

AECOM

Redacted

Appendix L – Scheme Delivery Programme

Appendix M – Risk Assessmentand Management Strategy

AECOM

Redacted

Appendix M – Risk Assessment and Management Strategy

Appendix N – Stakeholder Lettersof Support

AECOM

Redacted

Appendix N – Stakeholder Letters of Support

mersey dee link (halton curve) full business case · 1.1.1 transportation liverpool city region...

Documents