michael schabas march 2008 sustainable urbanism: funding major rail infrastructure

Michael Schabas March 2008

Sustainable Urbanism:

Funding major rail infrastructure

11 March 2008 PAGE 2

Copyright: Not to be reproduced or distributed without written permission of Superlink Limited Maps Crown Copyright OS License 100042675

London – a product of evolution not design

World’s most extensive radial rail networkLimited road network; parking restraint in centreLow –medium density but mostly clustered Very strong centre drawing regional workforceHigh PT mode share for radial commuting to central

London, many routes actually profitableMedium PT share for local journeys, mostly busLow PT share for everything else, esp. orbital journeys



The Problem

1 million more new homes outside M25 by 2018?Many 2-worker householdsSo although half may work locally, half will commuteWill they commute radially or orbitally? Radial lines already full in peak hoursUnderground cannot distribute more passengers from

existing rail terminalsNobody has found a way for PT to serve orbital journeys



Public Transport CompetitivenessPublic Transport Competitiveness

FromCentral London

Inner London

Outer London

Beyond M25

ToCentral London 0.8 1.2 0.9 ? Strong PT use

Some PT

Inner London 4.1 1.6 ? Low PT use

Outer London 8.6 ?

Beyond M25

Million of trips per day Source: TfL, Lnodon Travel Report 2007



The Solutions

1. encourage radial commuting – because 90% + of this will go by rail – this requires more capacity into central London

2. find ways for PT (rail?) to serve orbital, or “quasi-orbital” journeys (e.g. Watford – Cambridge)

3. encourage PT bike and foot for access to rail stations



Encouraging rail commuting

Thameslink will carry 20,000 more commuters north

CTRL will carry another 10,000 from KentThameslink and CTRL will serve some “quasi-

orbital journeys – e.g. Ashford – Cambridge 80 minutes with one change

Part of the solution, but nowhere near enoughIs Crossrail the answer?



What is Crossrail?

Conceived 1945 - London has changed a bit since then (commuting across the Green Belt, airports, M25, Docklands,)

Revived in 1989, then 1999 but not re-thought Branches to Heathrow and Canary Wharf tacked on in 2001 Purely a “metro scheme” - regional schemes rejected to match

“The Mayor’s Transport Strategy” “Sold” as a new kind of railway, but isn’t it just another tube line?



ASHFORD

Crossrail Routes

Congestion Relief

Not all railways or stations are shown

HEATHROW 4/4

24/10

Crossrail - Current Scheme

6/4

Iver

W D

rayt

onTa

plow

Burnh

am

Lang

ley

SloughMaidenhead

EalingHayes

Trains per hour

peak/midday

6 trains per hour to Maidenhead, maybe Reading eventually.

24 trains per hour across central London but 14 trains turn back empty at Paddington. Is there nowhere to go in the West?

4 trains per hour Canary to Heathrow, slow stopping service. Not to T5. Not from Shenfield. No interchange with Airtrack

No capacity increase from Stansted - yet fastest growing rail market in Europe

Shenfield branch - Service and community disruption; longer journeys. Adds no real capacity. +£1,400 million funding gap.

Split services as Crossrail can only take 12 of 18 existing Shenfield trains.

Assumed capacity at Liverpool St for more Stansted trains not really feasible

Abbey Wood branch - supposedly serves Thames Gateway, but adds little new capacity. Competes with 2 DLR branches, JLE, CTRL, and North Kent line. Maybe Ebbsfleet someday?

Canary Wharf on branch so only gets half of trains

Ebbsfleet

Shenfield

Stratford

12/6

12/4

Whi

tech

apel

Canary Wharf Abbey

Wood

Custom House

Farrin

gdon

Bond

St

Live

rpoo

l St

Totte

nham

Ct

Rd

Padd

ingt

o

n

Why not KX/Euston /St Pancras instead of TCR?



Little effective capacity to London

Shenfield corridor mature with limited growth potentialMaidenhead has growth potential, but from low base (CLRL’s figures)

Crossrail will only add 2.3% to effective London commuting capacity

P ersons entering central London in A M P eak

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2002 2016 Crossrail

thou

sand

s

Crossrail/Superlink

National Rail inludingtransfers to UndergroundUnderground and DLRenhancementsUnderground and DLRonlyBus

Coach/Minibus

Pedal Cycle

Motorcycle

Taxi

Car



A financial millstone

Passengers pay two-thirds of total costs on bus underground, and London rail

Passengers will pay less than one-third of incremental Crossrail costs (CLRL figures)

Crossrail will be a financial millstone on the neck of London ratepayers

Comparative A nnual Revenues and Subsidies

(500)

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

London

Underg

round

2004

London B

uses

2004

All S

outh

east

train

opera

tors

2004

Cro

ssra

ilin

crem

enta

l2020

£ m

illi

on

s (2

004)

Subsidies

PassengerRevenues



Crossrail – funding now committed?

+ £16 bn capital cost - £1.7 bn inflation during construction= £14.3 bn cash cost- £5.6 bn cash from central government- £0.5 bn City of London Corporation and BAA- £0.5 bn?? Canary Wharf, Woolwich developers - £4.0 bn net operating revenues- £2.0 bn additional business rate= £3.7 bn London ratepayer (plus any overruns)

Crossrail only serves a narrow cross-London corridor and is not worth £16 billion



"a classic case of what happens when the planning of upgrades of railway lines and improvements are not thought through properly"

Transport Secretary Alastair Darling speaking about the West Coast Main Line, responding to a question from Dr Phyllis Starkey MP 24 May 2005



Superlink Approach

Systematic analysis of options across the London Region Link regional centres to central London - support the

planning agenda and generate all-day traffic Build new tracks across London to connect into existing lines

where they have capacity for growth - and attract 100,000 extra commuters onto rail

Run additional services to growth areas - earn revenue Divert some services onto Superlink, for faster journeys and

better distribution – and release capacity for “Metro” services on lines within Greater London

How can we make better use of the expensive cross-London tunnel???



Is this London? (7 million people)

From the Mayor’s “London Plan”



The Solution

Extend Crossrail into EssexSupport growth where it can best happenBuild new tracks with capacity for another

40,000+ commutersUse Crossrail tunnels as central distribution



The Solution

Heathrow

CTRLThere is a big gap in London’s radial railways



The Solution

CTRLNew railway to Shenfield Jct and Sawbridgeworth, connects to three routes beyond M25 with capacity for growth

Heathrow

Shenfield

Sawbridgeworth

Stansted

To Cambridge

Southend

To Ipswich



How?

Deep bore tunnel from Crossrail at Stratford or Canary Wharf to Fairlop Waters

Then surface lines to Sawbridgworth and Shenfield Junction

Cost £3 billionSurface line in “open country”; mostly greenbeltLess than 50 homes affected; no identified areas of

special interest (e.g. AONBs, SSSIs,)



What benefit?

Capacity for 40 more fast peak trains from Essex into London (40,000 commuters)

Through trains to West End, Heathrow and Reading, and potentially Basingstoke and Milton Keynes (if other Superlink branches built)

Capacity released on existing lines through Ilford and Tottenham Hale for more stopping services



Farring

don

STANSTED

CAMBRIDGE

READING

HEATHROW

BASINGSTOKEGUILDFORD

Ascot

Woking

Harlow S

Barking

Wokingham

Canary Wharf

Sawbridgeworth

Bishops Stortford

EalingHayesIve

r

W Drayton

Twyford

Taplow

Burnham

Langle

yEarley

Winnersh TriangleWinnersh

BracknellMartins Heron

Winchfield

Sunnin

gdale

Hook

Farnborough

Fleet

BrookwoodVirg

inia W

ater

Egham

Worplesdon

Dagenham

Rainham

Purfleet

ShelfordWhittlesford

Gt ChesterfordAudley End

NewportElsenham

Stansted Mountfichet

SloughMaidenhead

Bond S

t

Liverp

ool S

t

2/2

4/4

2/2

4/4

10/8

4/4

6/4

6/4

10/8

24/18

Superlink Concept

Tilbury

PitseaStanford le HopeE Tilbury

BletchleyLeighton Buzzard

CheddingtonTring

Apsley

BerkhamsteadHemel Hempstead

Kings Langley

Wolverton

Harrow

MILTON KEYNES

Watford Jct

NORTHAMPTON

2/2

8/4

8/6

4/2 SOUTHENDBillericay

Wickford

RayleighHockley

RochfordPrittlewell

Shenfield

Grays

6/4 Hatfield Peverel

Marks Tey

IPSWICH

WithamKelvedon

Manningtree

Ingatestone

Colchester

Chelmsford

2/2

Paddin

gton

Totten

ham Ct R

d

Superlink Routes

Other Railways

Congestion relief




Superlink Network



Superlink delivers the Regional Agenda

Milton Keynes and South Midlands

London, Stansted Cambridge Corridor

Ashford

Urban areas 1991Green BeltAONBGrowth Study Areas

Source: National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty by Countryside Agency, Green Belts from Local Plans

Western Wedge

Superlink And CTRL Routes Overlaid On Policy Areas

SOUTHEND

READING

BASINGSTOKE

MILTON KEYNES

CAMBRIDGENORTHAMPTON

STANSTED

HEATHROW

TILBURY

SuperlinkCTRL Domestic routesThameslink

Thames Gateway

GUILDFORD



Real additional capacity

M ORE CAPACITY (thousands of additional peak daily

commuters)

0 50 100 150

Crossrail

Superlink



Superlink is fundable

Each branch costs £500m to £2 billion to build Incremental revenue entirely offsets

incremental costs So adding branches progressively reduces

funding requirement of total scheme Each can be promoted as a separate addition

to the core Crossrail scheme Potential to build new communities along the

route, or on branches connecting into it



Each branch subject to economic analysis

All figures are in real Crossrail Crossrail

2002 £ millionPhase 1 12 tph

Phase 2 20 tph

Phase 3 24 tph

Phase 1 12

tph

Phase 2 20 tph

Phase 3 24 tph

Public sector evaluation (Incremental to existing network)Capital Cost 7,475 7,500 8,235 9,595 598 600 659 768 Operating Cost 2,223 2,066 2,444 3,582 106 99 117 171 Total Cost 9,698 9,566 10,679 13,177 704 699 775 938 Revenues 3,239 4,725 6,309 9,965 150 218 291 460

Funding Gap or Subsidy6,459 4,841 4,370 3,212 555 480 484 478 Other transport benefits 16,196 23,624 31,546 49,825 748 1,091 1,456 2,300 Net benefits 9,737 18,783 27,176 46,612 1,302 1,571 1,940 2,778 Net Benefits/Subsidy Ratio (1.51) (3.88) (6.22) (14.51) Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.0 3.0 3.5 4.5Private sector evaluation (freestanding business)Train operating cost (franchise) 1,449 1,184 2,032 3,501 104 85 146 251 Incremental Fixed operating cost 878 934 962 1,073 63 67 69 77 Capital Charge 7,475 7,500 8,235 9,595 598 600 659 768 Revenues 3,450 6,292 9,211 14,471 253 462 676 1,062 "Franchise" Subsidy (premium)6,352 3,326 2,018 (302) 512 290 198 34

Superlink SuperlinkDesign Year 2020Project 60 year NPV



New Journey Opportunities

Fast no-interchange and same-platform journeys New cross-London and “quasi-orbital” journey

opportunities

Station pair Current Journey time SUPERLINK Journey Time Saving

Woking - Stansted 120 minutes with 3 changes 80 minutes with 1 change 40 minutes, 2 changes

Chelmsford – Tottenham Court Road 50 minutes with 1 change 30 minutes direct 20 minutes, 1 change

Billericay – Bond Street 50 minutes with 1 change 30 minutes, direct 20 minutes, 1 change

Slough - Rainham 120 minutes with 2 changes 80 minutes direct 40 minutes, 2 changes

Billericay - Woking 90 minutes with 2 changes 70 minutes, direct 20 minutes, 2 changes

Milton Keynes - Cambridge 120 minutes with 2 changes 100 minutes 20 minutes, 2 changes

Basingstoke - Heathrow 80 minutes (bus connection) 35 minutes 45 minutes, no bus!

Salisbury - Milton Keynes 180 minutes with 2 changes 150 minutes, 1 change 30 minutes, 1 change

Guildford - Paddington 60 minutes with 1 change 45 minutes 15 minutes



CLRL Critique of Crossrail

Two pages in the Crossrail Environmental Statement Not their brief (told to design a “metro” scheme, to

relieve central London congestion) Too expensive; too complicated Environmental problems building new railways in

the greenbelt Contrary to “government policy” as it would

encourage long distance commuting

See our full response to the Crossrail ES at www.Superlink.org.uk



What now?

Alert stakeholders - winners (and losers?) Promote regional branches incrementally using

Transport & Works Orders Seek opportunities for complementary

development

We want to see it happen!



MILTON KEYNES

STANSTED

CAMBRIDGE

READING

HEATHROW

BASINGSTOKE

Watford Jct

GUILDFORD

NORTHAMPTON

Ascot

SOUTHEND

Woking

Luton

Peterborough

Stevenage

Harlow S

Bedford

Hatfield Peverel

Marks Tey

IPSWICH

Barking

Billericay

ASHFORD

Gatwick

Croydon

Wokingham

KingsX

St P

ancra

s

Lond

on Brid

ge

BletchleyLeighton Buzzard

CheddingtonTring

Apsley

BerkhamsteadHemel Hempstead

Kings Langley

Wolverton

Canary Wharf

Sawbridgeworth

Bishops Stortford

Wickford

WithamKelvedon

ColchesterManningtree

ChelmsfordIngatestone

Rayleigh

Hockley

RochfordPrittlewell

EalingHayesIve

r

W Drayton

Twyford

Taplow

Burnham

Langle

yEarley

Winnersh TriangleWinnersh

BracknellMartins Heron

Winchfield

Sunnin

gdale

Hook

Farnborough

Fleet

BrookwoodVirg

inia W

ater

Egham

Worplesdon

Dagenham

Rainham

Purfleet

Tilbury

PitseaStanford le HopeE Tilbury

ShelfordWhittlesford

Gt ChesterfordAudley End

NewportElsenham

Stansted Mountfichet

Grays

SloughMaidenhead

Bond S

t

Euston

Harrow

Shenfield

M25

The Superlink Network

M25

M25M25

Superlink Routes

Other Railways

Congestion relief


Paddin

gton

Waterlo

oTott

enha

m Ct Rd

Farring

don

Liverp

ool S

t

michael schabas march 2008 sustainable urbanism: funding major rail infrastructure

Documents

pt rail

rail stations

encouraging rail

quasiorbital journeys

quasi orbital journeys

radial commuting

low pt share

pt bike