Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Horden Peterlee Station
Full Business Case: December 2016
Durham County Council
1
Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Purpose of the Document ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 5
1.2.1 Current Constraints ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.2.2 Proposed Scheme ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Strategic Need ....................................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Benefits .................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.5 Timescale for Delivery ........................................................................................................................... 8
1.6 Structure of the Document ..................................................................................................................... 8
2 Strategic Case ............................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 9
2.2 Background to the Scheme ................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.1 Location and Context .................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.2 Scheme History ........................................................................................................................... 11
2.3 Existing Situation ................................................................................................................................. 12
2.3.1 Existing Transport Network and Public Transport Services ........................................................ 12
2.3.2 Existing Rail Provision ................................................................................................................ 13
2.3.3 Demand & Catchment ................................................................................................................. 13
2.3.4 Local Area ................................................................................................................................... 15
2.4 Identified Problems and Issues ............................................................................................................ 17
2.5 Case for Change ................................................................................................................................. 19
2.5.1 Comparable Schemes ................................................................................................................ 19
2.5.2 Housing Growth .......................................................................................................................... 20
2.5.3 Employment Growth ................................................................................................................... 21
2.5.4 Additional Factors ....................................................................................................................... 21
2.6 Strategic Fit ......................................................................................................................................... 22
2.6.1 National Fit .................................................................................................................................. 22
2.6.2 Regional Fit ................................................................................................................................. 23
2.6.3 Local Fit ...................................................................................................................................... 25
2.7 Aims and SMART objectives ............................................................................................................... 27
2.8 Scope .................................................................................................................................................. 28
2.9 Scheme Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 29
2.10 Synergy with other Schemes ............................................................................................................... 29
2.11 Political Support for the Scheme ......................................................................................................... 30
2.12 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 30
3 Economic Case ........................................................................................................................... 32
3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 32
3.2 Critical Success Factors ...................................................................................................................... 32
3.3 Options Appraisal ................................................................................................................................ 33
2
3.3.1 Longlisted Options ...................................................................................................................... 34
3.3.2 Shortlisted Options ...................................................................................................................... 35
3.3.3 Preferred Way Forward ............................................................................................................... 35
3.4 Demand Forecasting ........................................................................................................................... 37
3.4.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 37
3.4.2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 38
3.4.3 Existing Demand ......................................................................................................................... 38
3.4.4 Forecasting Methodology ............................................................................................................ 41
3.4.5 Trip Rate Model .......................................................................................................................... 41
3.4.6 Gravity Model .............................................................................................................................. 44
3.4.7 Full Tickets .................................................................................................................................. 45
3.4.8 Reduced Price Tickets ................................................................................................................ 46
3.4.9 Season Tickets ........................................................................................................................... 48
3.4.10 Forecast Demand ....................................................................................................................... 49
3.4.11 Comparison with Trip Rate Model ............................................................................................... 51
3.4.12 Abstraction .................................................................................................................................. 51
3.4.13 Impact on Through Travellers ..................................................................................................... 52
3.4.14 Demand and Revenue Forecasts ............................................................................................... 53
3.5 Appraisal Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 54
3.5.1 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 55
3.5.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 56
3.6 Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits ........................................................................................... 56
3.6.1 Benefits and Disbenefits ............................................................................................................. 57
3.6.2 Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 67
3.6.3 Updated Values of Time ............................................................................................................. 70
3.7 Appraisal Results ................................................................................................................................. 70
3.7.1 Core Results ............................................................................................................................... 70
3.7.2 Wider Economic Benefits ............................................................................................................ 71
3.7.3 Option & Non-Use Values ........................................................................................................... 72
3.7.4 Operational Costs and Revenue Generated ............................................................................... 72
3.8 Preferred Option .................................................................................................................................. 73
3.9 Value for Money Statement ................................................................................................................. 73
3.10 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 74
4 Commercial Case ........................................................................................................................ 76
4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 76
4.2 Output Based Specification ................................................................................................................. 76
4.3 Procurement Method ........................................................................................................................... 77
4.4 Contract Management ......................................................................................................................... 79
4.4.1 Durham County Council’s Contract Management ....................................................................... 79
4.4.2 Payment Mechanism .................................................................................................................. 80
4.5 Project Milestones ............................................................................................................................... 80
3
4.6 Risk, Constraints and Dependencies ................................................................................................... 80
4.6.1 Primary Risks, Constraints and Dependencies ........................................................................... 80
4.6.2 Further Considered Risks ........................................................................................................... 81
4.6.3 Network Rail Risk Fund .............................................................................................................. 82
4.6.4 Land Issues................................................................................................................................. 82
4.6.5 Planning Issues........................................................................................................................... 82
4.7 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 82
5 Financial Case ............................................................................................................................. 84
5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 84
5.2 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 84
5.3 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................................ 85
5.4 Costs ................................................................................................................................................... 85
5.4.1 Capital Costs............................................................................................................................... 85
5.4.2 Whole Life Costs ......................................................................................................................... 87
5.4.3 Operational Costs and Revenue Generated ............................................................................... 88
5.4.4 Land Assembly Costs ................................................................................................................. 89
5.5 Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................................. 89
5.5.1 Risk Management Approach ....................................................................................................... 89
5.5.2 Risk Register............................................................................................................................... 90
5.5.3 Risk Allocation and Transfer ....................................................................................................... 92
5.5.4 Optimism Bias ............................................................................................................................. 92
5.6 Funding Arrangements ........................................................................................................................ 92
5.7 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 93
6 Management Case ....................................................................................................................... 94
6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 94
6.2 Governance ......................................................................................................................................... 94
6.2.1 Project Governance and Resourcing .......................................................................................... 94
6.2.2 Rail Industry Governance ........................................................................................................... 96
6.3 Assurance ............................................................................................................................................ 96
6.3.1 Approvals .................................................................................................................................... 98
6.3.2 Station Operation ........................................................................................................................ 98
6.4 Programme Delivery ............................................................................................................................ 99
6.4.1 Design Stage ............................................................................................................................ 100
6.4.2 Implementation Stage ............................................................................................................... 100
6.4.3 Exit Strategy.............................................................................................................................. 101
6.5 Risk Management Strategy ............................................................................................................... 102
6.5.1 Risk Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 102
6.6 Evidence of Delivery Capability ......................................................................................................... 103
6.7 Communications and Stakeholder Management ............................................................................... 105
6.7.1 Communications Strategy ......................................................................................................... 106
6.7.2 Consultation .............................................................................................................................. 107
4
6.8 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 108
6.8.1 Benefits Realisation Plan .......................................................................................................... 110
6.8.2 Reporting .................................................................................................................................. 111
6.9 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 112
7 Summary and Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 113
7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 113
7.2 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 113
7.3 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 114
Appendices
Risk Tables
Network Rail Pre-GRIP Feasibility Report
Mott MacDonald Horden Peterlee Station Demand Forecasting and Economic Assessment
Letters of Support
5
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the Document
This document provides the business case for Horden Peterlee Station. The business case
has been compiled in line with Treasury Guidance on the Green Book (Treasury, 2011) and
WebTAG (Web-based Transport Analysis Guidance), the Department for Transport’s
transport appraisal guidance and toolkit outlined in: Transport Business Case Assessment
(DfT, 2011). It therefore covers the five cases: Strategic; Economic; Financial; Commercial
and Management.
1.2 Introduction
A new station to be known as Horden Peterlee located on the Durham Coast Line seeks to
provide improved public transport access to the people and businesses of Horden and
Peterlee, including the adjacent communities of East Durham. The proposed site of the
station is known locally as South East View and lies at the Ordnance Survey coordinates of
444,658, 541226. The site is situated between Seaham (8.5km to the north) and Hartlepool
(12km to the south) stations and will be served by the existing Middlesbrough to Newcastle
upon Tyne, via Hartlepool and Sunderland service, which presently operates at hourly
intervals throughout the day.
1.2.1 Current Constraints
The construction of a new station at Horden Peterlee will fill an appreciable gap in rail
service provision given the lack of intermediate stations between Hartlepool and Seaham. At
present there is a 21km gap between Hartlepool and Seaham stations which restricts
access, for a substantial number of residents, to the rail network. Durham County Council’s
Regeneration Statement (2012) states that a station in this area of County Durham will
create an economically sustainable solution to the access constraints within the east of the
County and is essential in order to raise the profile of the area in relation to business and
leisure, as well as offering residents wider travel horizons and greater opportunities in
relation to employment and access to services.
The scheme will therefore seek to address these access constraints by:
Providing access for residents to a larger labour market and the presence of higher
value jobs, both to the North and South of Horden Peterlee;
Providing access to a wider range of services and leisure facilities including improved
access to the region’s largest hospitals and education facilities;
Providing a park and ride facility, as existing neighbouring stations are limited to
relatively low numbers of parking spaces; and
Providing a modal change alternative from the car, contributing to lessened
congestion on the A19.
1.2.2 Proposed Scheme
The proposed construction of a new station at Horden Peterlee will involve:
Two opposing platforms of circa 100m length, consistent with the longer trains
specified in the Northern Franchise;
6
Modular platform construction (steel or precast concrete) with typical platform
furniture including: waiting shelters, benches, lighting columns, help points, CCTV,
CIS screens etc;
Pedestrian steel footbridge with stairs and ramps;
100 space car park and ride facility with associated taxi, drop off and bus route;
Two lane vehicular access road to the station, via Dene Street (off Blackhills Road)
with improvements to allow busses to pass in opposite directions;
Appropriate walking and cycling links to Horden and Peterlee, with cycle parking
provided; and
Walking links provided to the existing Durham Heritage Coastal Path.
Furthermore, the design of the proposed station is to be in full compliance with rail and
highway standards including: Network Rail’s Station Design Principles1, Secure by Design
Station Scheme Guidelines2, Design Manual for Roads and Bridges3 and Manual for Streets
Standards4. The station is to be fully accessible and compliant with the Equality Act 2010.
1.3 Strategic Need
The scheme is guided by a number of key strategic drivers; these can be divided into local,
regional and national subsets and are explored in detail over the course of the following
section – The Strategic Case. The table below provides a brief summary of the high level
policy drivers which demonstrate the need for pursuing the scheme:
Level Policy Driver Reasoning How the scheme contributes
Local County Durham Infrastructure Delivery Plan
Describes the requirements to 2030 which are needed to support forecast levels of growth, addresses specific objectives including improving existing rail network, supporting economic growth and enhancing connectivity within the County and with other parts of the region.
The construction of a new station improves existing public transport provision within the east of the County, allowing residents improved access to the region both North and Southbound.
Local County Durham Regeneration Statement
Highlights the need for greater connectivity stating: “transport infrastructure improvements will enable and ensure the successful development of employment and housing sites and help residents to access opportunities across the County and the region.”
The creation of a new station at Horden Peterlee will create an economically sustainable solution to the access constraints of the area helping residents access employment, education and training opportunities.
Regional More and Better Jobs: Strategic Economic Plan for the North East
Details a number of strategic priorities for transport investment including: investing to support economic and employment growth, connecting businesses and increasing the accessibility of local people to employment locations, unlocking the potential
Selected as a priority project by the North East Local Transport Body on the basis that the scheme aligns with the SEPs target of improving the North East’s strategic connectivity, improving
1 Design Standard for Accessible Railway Stations, Department for Transport, March 2015 2 Secure Stations Scheme Guidelines, Department for Transport, July 2012 3 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Highways England, 2008 4 Design Manual for Streets Standards 2, Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation, 2010
7
of employment sites which directly contribute to economic growth and provide sustainable solutions to economic challenges.
access from all parts of the North East to priority locations for economic growth helping access to areas of employment opportunity.
National
The National Transport Strategy & Supplementary: Transport Constraints and Opportunities in the North of England
Recognises that city-focussed growth across the North will lead to growth in the demand for travel between cities, city regions and their surrounds. Enhanced connectivity within is the foremost priority: improving the existing rail network and creating new capacity allowing improved labour market efficiency, enabling firms to access a larger labour supply, and wider employment opportunities for workers and those seeking work.
Transport connectivity is vital to the quality of life and the economy of the region. Horden Peterlee will support the economic success of the region by increasing the efficient movement of people, providing a low carbon alternative to travel ensuring equality of travel opportunity for all, allowing people to connect with employment and other essential services.
1.4 Benefits
The scheme will improve accessibility in Horden and Peterlee, providing a new public
transport option in the East of the County. It will provide improved linkages both north and
south bound into the main employment and service sector hubs of the region: Newcastle
upon Tyne, Sunderland, Middlesbrough and the Tees Valley. The scheme will therefore
significantly contribute towards alleviating access constraints within the area by providing
ready access to employment, education and training, leisure and the health facilities
available in the wider region.
The monetised economic assessment of the scheme has been undertaken in compliance
with the guidance outlined in the Government’s Web-based Transport Analysis Guidance
(WebTAG). The Economic Case details how the scheme will provide a Net Present Value of
£3.17m exclusive of wider economic benefits, though when wider economic benefits and
option/non-use values are included this rises to £25.6m. This gives the scheme a Benefit
Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.59 for the core transport appraisal rising to 5.74 when the
aforementioned wider economic benefits are included. This rating demonstrates that the
scheme provides a medium to very high value for money return on investment.
There are, of course, additional qualitative benefits which have not been quantified in the
economic appraisal associated with the scheme which will be outlined in further detail over
the course of The Strategic Case and The Economic Case.
8
1.5 Timescale for Delivery
Key milestones for the delivery of Horden Peterlee station are set out in the table below:
Milestone Projected Completion Date
Option Feasibility Report 08/04/2016
New Stations Fund Submission 25/11/2016
Business Case Submission 09/12/2016
Completion of RRD document 31/01/2017
Completion of GRIP3 option selection 31/07/2017
Indicative schedule for full GRIP 3 completion 31/03/2018
Completion of land acquisition 31/03/2018
Completion of GRIP4 & 5 outline and detailed design 31/03/2019
Planning Application Approved 31/03/2019
Completion of GRIP6 & 7 construction and handback February 2020
Station Opens January 2020
Completion of GRIP8 project closeout September 2020
1.6 Structure of the Document
Following this introduction section, the structure of the document will continue as follows:
Section 2: The Strategic Case – outlines the case for change and ascertains the strategic fit
of the scheme within current national, regional and local policies, strategies and plans.
Section 3: The Economic Case – appraises the costs determining the value for money of
the scheme.
Section 4: The Financial Case – provides a budget breakdown demonstrating that the
scheme will result in a fundable and affordable deal.
Section 5: The Commercial Case – provides the procurement arrangements establishing
that the scheme will result in viable procurement and well-structured deal.
Section 6: The Management Case – outlines the management arrangements demonstrating
that the scheme is capable of being delivered successfully.
Section 7: Summary and Conclusions – This section provides a summery outlining the key
issues and findings of the business case.
9
2 Strategic Case
2.1 Introduction
This section covers The Strategic Case for the scheme; The Strategic Case determines
whether or not an investment is needed, either now or in the future. It demonstrates the case
for change – that is, a clear rationale for making the investment; and strategic fit – how an
investment will further the aims and objectives of local, regional and national strategies.
This section, therefore, outlines the evidence, detailing why the scheme is required, along
with providing a wider policy and regional context.
In summary this section will:
Outline the existing socio-economic characteristics of East Durham in order to draw
comparisons to other localities with existing rail provision, setting the context of
investment;
Summarise the main catchment, along with the drivers of change that could affect
future demand, specifying the business need for the scheme;
Examine the suitability for alternative modes as well as the proposed rail station to
meet the travel requirements for this part of the East Durham catchment, building a
case for change; and
Highlight the specific transport challenges which are relevant to the scheme, as well
as the scheme’s contribution to overarching policy objectives, determining the
strategic fit.
Additionally, in accordance with best practice as outlined in The Green Book, this section will
determine:
SMART spending objectives; Potential business scope and key service requirements; and Benefits, constraints and dependencies of the scheme.
Finally, evidence of the political support offered by stakeholders for this scheme is given,
which includes: Durham County Council, North East Combined Authority, North East Local
Enterprise Partnership, Network Rail and Northern Rail.
Therefore, the Strategic Case will be structured around the following headings:
Background to the Scheme; Existing Situation; Identified Problems and Issues; Case for Change; Strategic Fit; Aims and SMART objectives ; Scope; Scheme Benefits; Synergy with other Schemes; Political Support for the Scheme; and Conclusions.
10
2.2 Background to the Scheme
2.2.1 Location and Context
The proposed station site is South East View which lies at 78miles 1450 yards on the LEN3
line. Land availability and assembly is straightforward, with all of the required land either in
the possession of Durham County Council or Network Rail. Horden Peterlee will be located
between Seaham station 8.5km to the north and Hartlepool station 12km to the south, and
will operate on the on the Durham Coast Rail Line, which runs from Middlesbrough to
Newcastle via Hartlepool and Sunderland. Durham station which sits on the East Coast Main
Line is a further 21km away via the road network.
The site location is shown below: South East View station location:
Source: Durham County Council
There is a large population catchment (circa 41,500) located adjacent to the station.
However, there is no catchment to the East, given the proximity to Durham’s heritage coast.
It should be noted that only 10% of the population catchment for the station is located within
the 800m generally used as a proxy for an acceptable walking distance, therefore, the
accessibility plan and design of the station will ensure that there is adequate provision for
other modes of transport such as: bus, car and bike, to access the station. Though Horden
has had its own station in the past the area has not been served by a functioning commercial
11
rail link since 1964, additionally, Peterlee with a population of 27,900 is one of the largest
centres of population in England without access to the rail network5.
Given the location of the proposed station the potential population catchment may be further
increased by the proximity of several other communities in the immediate hinterland of East
Durham, this becomes possible because of the considerable distance to stations at Durham,
Hartlepool and Seaham and the associated difficulties in accessing these stations via the
road network due to congestion and poor availability of park and ride services.
2.2.2 Scheme History
Proposals for a new station on the Durham Coast line have been deemed a priority for East
Durham by the County Council since its move to unitary status in 2009 and the production of
the first iteration of the County Durham Regeneration Statement which stated:
We will ensure that transport services and infrastructure improvements in East Durham,
such as increased public transport provision combined with the opportunities that the
Durham Coast line provide help residents to access employment, education and training.
The creation of a new station at Horden Peterlee will create an economically sustainable
solution to some of the access constraints of the area.6
In 2012 consultants AECOM were appointed to produce demand and revenue forecasts for
the proposed station. This study built on earlier work produced by Association of Train
Operating Companies (ATOC) which indicated a new station could generate a BCR of 8.8:1.
Although the ATOC7 study examined a number of proposed stations from other parts of the
UK, a new station at Horden Peterlee was expected to generate one of the strongest
economic cases.
The study employed a regression based forecasting methodology with a Trip End model
used to produce forecasted income for a new station at Sea View South. In 2013 the
Department for Transport launched the competitive New Stations Fund to be managed by
Network Rail with a funding pot of £20m. Durham County Council submitted a funding bid
based on this work produced which illustrated the strong strategic, commercial, economic
and environmental case for a new station. Although the bid was well received by Network
Rail it ultimately opted to decline the application for station funding given the feasibility
process had not yet reached GRIP3 status.
Since this point, however, and following further discussions with Network Rail, Durham
County Council elected to halt progress with the Sea View South site which was the subject
of the New Stations Fund Bid, as the site had shown to have unforeseen barriers to
development.
Durham County Council saw fit to widen the scope of the proposed scheme to look at five
possible station sites within Horden, with Network Rail commissioned to provide a pre-GRIP
feasibility study in which only two sites were identified as viable and the original preferred
site of Sea View South was ruled out. South East View was selected as the preferred option
and will be progressed through the GRIP process.
5 Connecting Communities, ATOC, 2009 6 Regeneration Statement, Durham County Council, 2012 7 Connecting Communities: Expanding Access to the Rail Network, ATOC, 2009
12
To date, Horden Peterlee station has been selected as one of the six transport schemes
prioritised by The North East Local Transport Board with a, £3.4m share of committed Local
Major Scheme funding totalling £31.1m as outlined in the North East Strategic Economic
Plan (SEP)8 Durham County Council have also reiterated their commitment to the scheme in
the latest iteration of the Regeneration Statement and in identifying Horden Peterlee as one
of the Council’s six foremost priority projects.
2.3 Existing Situation
2.3.1 Existing Transport Network and Public Transport Services
The key transport networks surrounding the vicinity of the scheme are comprised of the following routes:
The A19 dual carriageway between North Tyneside and Thirsk via the Tyne Tunnel, South Tyneside, Sunderland, Tees Valley and Peterlee. This is a strategic alternative to the other main north – south corridor (the A1 / A1(M);
The A1086 single carriageway road from Easington to Hartlepool via Horden and the Durham Coast. This route primarily fulfils a local function between Peterlee and Hartlepool; and
The A689 from Billingham and Hartlepool, the A66 dual carriageway between Thornaby and Middlesbrough, plus the A184 dual carriageway between Sunderland and Newcastle.
The approaches to the main urban areas in the Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley city regions
are affected by significant congestion, which leads to slower, less reliable journey speeds.
These negative impacts on car and bus travel serve to make the proposed station at Horden
Peterlee on the Durham Coast Line rail services more competitive.
Existing bus services take 35 minutes for the journey between Peterlee and Sunderland
which compares poorly with the timing of alternative modes. An express bus service runs
between Newcastle, Peterlee and Middlesbrough via the A19 with an 80 minute end to end
journey time. Journey times between Peterlee and Newcastle are roughly 45 minutes. The
X9/X10 services, operated by Go North East, are branded as the Tyne Tees Xpress9.
Although there are two services per hour between Newcastle and Middlesbrough, only one
operates via Peterlee town centre. The other service diverts from the A19 to call at a bus
stop in a location which is relatively isolated from the town centre, and hence offers limited
integration with the wider public transport network. There are no direct services from Horden
to either of the Tyne and Wear or Tees Valley conurbations, excepting the hourly 23 Arriva
Service to Sunderland originating at Hartlepool with a 70 minute journey time, commuters
from Horden would otherwise be required to make the 20 minute bus journey to Peterlee
before their onward journey north or southbound.
Given the congestion issues affecting the A19 at approaches to the main urban areas
highlighted above there is an increasing risk that buses will be affected by heavy and
worsening traffic congestion at junctions and on strategic routes within the Tyne & Wear and
Tees Valley conurbations. This inevitably influences journey time reliability and becomes
increasingly prevalent during peak periods. In conclusion journey times by rail from the
proposed Horden Peterlee Station would be faster and more reliable than competing modes
8 More and Better Jobs: North East Strategic Economic Plan, North East LEP, 2014 9 Traveline, 2015
13
of public transport, especially during peak periods and would significantly aid in reducing
some of the access constraints of the area.
2.3.2 Existing Rail Provision
The existing weekday Durham Coast Line timetable comprises a service between
Middlesbrough and Newcastle operating at hourly intervals for the majority of the day - 15
services per day in the northbound direction and 16 services per day in the southbound.
Northbound, trains depart Middlesbrough at 32 minutes past the hour between 07.32 and
16.32. Outside this period, there are departures at 06.55 and 17.39, 18.32, 19.40, 21.01.
Southbound, there are departures from Newcastle at 30 minutes past the hour between
07.30 and 20.30, with further services at 07.00 and 21.18.
The existing Saturday timetable is broadly similar to the weekday service pattern, although
there are minor revisions to the timing of trains. However, on Sundays, services operate
every 1-2 hours, with just six through trains between Middlesbrough and Newcastle.
As noted above due to traffic congestion issues at approaches to the main urban areas in
the Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley conurbations, coupled with the relatively poor provision
and lengthy journey times of the public bus network and prohibitive parking charges within
the urban centres, rail as a mode of transport, particularly during peak periods, could be
seen as a favourable mode of transport for many residents of East Durham.
However, at present for those in the Horden Peterlee catchment the necessity to access bus
feeder services to access rail services at Seaham and Hartlepool as well as a lack of readily
available park and ride facilities results in extended journey times (direct bus journey time is
slightly more competitive compared to the bus/rail option) and a lack of incentive to use rail
as a means of commuting. Construction of a new station at Horden Peterlee with an
associated park and ride facility would vastly increase the incentive to use rail for the
catchment area both in respect to associated cost and reduced journey time.
2.3.3 Demand & Catchment
The importance of improving strategic connections to enable the catchment area associated
with the scheme to access a wider range of jobs or training opportunities is well understood,
particularly, given the limitations of existing travel choices outlined above.
The opportunities to improve existing modes has been considered in the past, however, the
fact that limited potential improvements exist meant such proposals would be unlikely to
realise transformational changes to support economic growth in comparison with those
realised by the construction of a new rail station. Ultimately, this lack of ability to improve
existing modes and the limited effect improvements would realise resulted in each option
being deemed less attractive than the construction of a new station operating the existing
Middlesbrough to Newcastle upon Tyne, via Hartlepool and Sunderland service.
At present there are around 3,400 people living within 800m of the proposed Horden
Peterlee station, with a further 36,921 living within a 5km catchment of the proposed station
site, including the settlements of Horden, Peterlee, Easington Colliery, Easington Village,
Blackhall Colliery and Blackhall Rocks to the west. However, there is no catchment to the
east, given the proximity of the scheme to Durham’s heritage coastline. It is also worth
noting that approximately 8% of the total catchment is located within the 800m from the
proposed station site which is generally used as a proxy for an acceptable walking distance.
14
This reinforces the importance of providing convenient access to the station, through the
availability of car park and ride facilities and enhanced bus routes.
There is a considerable level of both current and future demand for the use of the proposed
station with prospective housing and employment growth, indicating the scope to increase
the total number of people likely to use the new station and associated rail services.
The Economic Assessment and Demand and Revenue forecasts for a new station in Horden
Peterlee produced by the consultants Mott MacDonald10 and explored in detail in The
Economic Case details how the introduction of the proposed station will facilitate 71,000 trips
from the newly construction station per annum by 2024, representing 100% demand build up
reducing vehicle kilometres by 850,000km per annum in the North East region.
Furthermore, based on the assumed catchment for the proposed station site none of these
trips are assumed to be abstracted from neighbouring stations. The forecast revenue
(£265,461) considering modal shift associated with additional stopping time at Horden, was
also expected to exceed the typical annual operating costs (£57,916) of the station thereby
generating a financial surplus of over £200,000 per annum by 2024.
In addition to the catchment and demand forecasts provided by Mott MacDonald for the
proposed station, it can be assumed that other areas will benefit from the proposed scheme.
Opportunities to interchange with the Tyne & Wear Metro and other stations along the
Durham Coast Line exist to expand the immediate travel catchment. As such the following
areas can be expected to register a net gain from the introduction of a new station along the
Durham Coast Line at Horden Peterlee:
Newcastle;
Gateshead;
Middlesbrough;
County Durham;
Hartlepool;
Stockton-on-Tees;
South Tyneside;
North Tyneside;
Sunderland;
Darlington; and
Further afield.
As noted previously, the catchment to the east of the proposed station is reduced
comparative to similar sized stations by its proximity to the Durham heritage coast (a notable
proportion of the 800m catchment east of the proposed station site extends into the North
Sea) as a result, some of the station’s potential walk-in catchment from an 800m radius is
effectively zero.
However, whilst this outcome is clearly a constraint in terms of attracting a potential
residential catchment for work related trips, it does create an opportunity to attract inward
visitors to the Durham heritage coast from a tourism prospective.
10 Horden Peterlee Railway Station, Demand Forecasting and Economic Assessment Report, Mott MacDonald
for Durham County Council, November 2016
15
2.3.4 Local Area
Population Over half of East Durham’s population of 94,200 live in areas designated as ‘urban’ in
nature, using the former District of Easington as a proxy for East Durham the area has a
population density of 6.6 (people/hectare) which is nearly three times that of that of the
County average (2.3)11. Peterlee is one of the two major urban centres of the area, the other
being Seaham, the rest of the area is primarily comprised of large former colliery
settlements, of which Horden is one.
Peterlee was formed in 1948 as part of the New Towns legislation. Peterlee’s influence, and
catchment extends to around 27,900 people, this makes it one of the largest centres of
population in England without access to the rail network12. The population of Horden (MSOA:
E02004327, 6,548) has seen recent decline of 1.7% as areas such as Seaham have seen
significant growth between 2005-2010 (12%)13 it is also worth noting that Seaham has its
own station and is far better connected to the large Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley
conurbations. There has also been a significant efforts made to regenerate the area over this
period with associated housing development.
Labour Market The East of Durham in general, like most of County Durham has suffered from the decline of
the coal mining industry. Since the 1970s until the last colliery closure in 1993, the area has
been undergoing a period of economic restructuring, however, this period also saw the
reduction of manufacturing, heavy engineering and textiles in tandem with the loss of mining
which made up the bulk of employment opportunities in the area. Indeed, the 1981 Census
showed 53% of all employed males worked in coal mining, understandably the loss of coal
mining, has resulted in large scale issues in relation to unemployment.
Since the decline in mining activities, measures to diversify the economy have been
progressively introduced. Sites within Peterlee have been developed into new commercial
and manufacturing centres for the area, with a growing employment base on its large
industrial estates. However, despite these efforts the majority of businesses in the area are
classified as small, with ten or fewer employees and more generally the economic structure
of the area remains weak, with an unemployment rate of 7%, significantly higher than the
rest of County Durham (4.8%) and Great Britain (3.7%)14.
It is also worth noting that the area, and in particular Horden has a considerable issue with
youth unemployment. The proportion of Job Seekers Allowance claimants under 25 years of
age is significantly higher than the rest of the county, the region and England and Wales. In
Horden 41.9% of the total claimant count were aged under 25, while in Peterlee this figure
dropped to 34.6% the average for County Durham as whole is 33.4% while the average for
the North East and England and Wales is 31.2% and 28.1% respectively.
Opportunities for young people remain a concern as Horden Medium Super Output Area
(MSOA) has the highest percentage of JSA claimants in the 18 to 24 population at 21.3% in
East Durham, and one of the highest in the County, with the average at 9.8% for the County
11 ONS, 2015 12 Connecting Communities, ATOC, 2009 13 Experimental LSOA and MSOA population estimates, ONS, 2010 14 ONS, NOMIS, 2015
16
and 7.2% for E0ngland and Wales.15 Furthermore, in June 2012, the last date data was
made available, there were 6 people claiming Job Seekers Allowance (ONS) in East Durham
for each local Jobcentre Plus advertised, vacancy16. It is expected that the proposed scheme
will offer enhanced employment opportunities to those in the catchment area in order to
begin to tackle these structural challenges.
Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) Understandably, this higher than average level of unemployment bares a significant impact
on household income, the average household income in comparison to the rest of the
County can be seen in the table below:
Household Income in East Durham:
Area Lower Quartile Average (Median) Income
Upper Quartile
East Durham £16,500 £20,900 £27,200
County Durham £18,400 £24,500 £32,900
Source: CACI 2012, Durham County Council
In addition, the average weekly household income per household for the catchment served
by the proposed Horden Peterlee station is just £438 which is significantly lower than other
stations on the Durham Coast Rail Line.
However, it cannot be assumed that the presence of comparatively low levels of household
income is solely due to a higher instance of benefit claimants. In reality this is due to a
combination of the high levels of unemployment and relatively large numbers of those
employed in elementary occupations17 . The scheme will also offer the opportunity of
enhanced linkages to a wider pool of employment opportunities, particularly higher value
jobs.
The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) can be used to highlight other significant challenges
for the area. Nearly two thirds (61.9%) of the Lower Super Output Areas (LSOA) in the
station catchment are in the top 20% of deprived areas in the UK, whilst about 90% of the
employment domain of the LSOAs are in the top 20% deprived areas in the Country18.
Levels of crime are higher than average and access to education, skills and training is lower.
These indicators highlight the challenges and add to a strong case to improve connectivity
from East Durham to enhance access to a broader range of services and opportunities.
Car ownership & Travel to Work
East Durham occupies a strategic location between the North East’s two city regions; the
A19 trunk road forms the main route through the area linking it to the conurbations of Tyne &
Wear in the north and Tees Valley in the south. Over 600 households within 800m of the
proposed station have no access to a car, with nearly 6,100 households within 5km having
15 ONS JSA Claimant Count, NOMIS, 2015 16 Jobcentre Plus, Notified vacancies by occupational group, June 2012 17 The Business Register and Employment Survey, ONS, DCC, 2015 18 English Indices of Multiple Deprivation, 2010
17
no car available. This is the equivalent to approximately one-third of households having no
access to a car or van and can be seen below in the comparative table:
Car ownership and travel to work 800m v 5km isochrones
Statistic 800m 5km
Car ownership (no car) 622 6,098
Population 3,370 41,486
Travel to work 1,026 14,816
Working population 1,000 4,470
Source: Durham County Council Car ownership therefore can be adjudged to be comparatively low, however, residents of the area who do own a car are far more likely to use a car to travel to work, below is a summary of the primary commuting modes for residents of the area likely to be influenced by the construction of a new station at Horden Peterlee:
Rail: the proportion of commuting journeys by rail in the North East is significantly lower than the average for England & Wales. The overall total reflects the much higher levels of rail commuting to other major cities including London, Leeds and Manchester. However, the results indicate the performance of Districts served by the Durham Coast Line are achieving a significantly lower rail mode share compared with the overall average;
Bus: in contrast to the results for rail travel, the North East achieves a higher
average mode share for bus compared with the overall total for England & Wales. This outcome is being influenced by high usage in both Newcastle and Gateshead which are served by more extensive bus networks. Other parts of East Durham have a bus mode share which is comparable to the average for England & Wales including County Durham, Hartlepool, Stockton and Middlesbrough;
Car: travel by this mode in the North East is generally higher than the average for
England & Wales. This outcome reflects the limitations of rail and bus services in some areas, which has increased the importance of car usage for commuting trips, in spite of the reduced car household ownership; and
Other: the proportion of trips by ‘other’ modes the North East is similar to the total for
England & Wales. However, this is still higher than the County Durham average which would suggest a greater prevalence of walking and cycling in the Region than the County average.
Given the low levels of car ownership and the instance of car ownership as a primary mode
of commuting it can be determined that the relatively poor public transport offer to areas of
employment opportunity in the Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley conurbations is a significant
barrier for those seeking work.
2.4 Identified Problems and Issues
As noted there are a number of existing constraints that the proposed scheme is seeking to
address these include:
18
Lack of direct rail connectivity from the Horden Peterlee catchment to the major
employment centres in Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough;
Poor existing public transport journey times to access these employment centres,
particularly, using existing bus services to access rail services via the Durham Coast
Line at Seaham and Hartlepool;
Inability of public transport services including current rail and bus services to
compete effectively with private transport journey times for this catchment, this
constraint is exacerbated by the higher percentage of households without access to a
car relative to the rest of England and Wales as demonstrated above;
Resulting reduced likelihood that residents are unable to access higher paid jobs in
the major employment centres, since the alternative local opportunities in Peterlee
are relatively restricted; and
The restricted public transport ‘offer’ from Horden Peterlee leading to increased
levels of car usage along the A19 corridor for those households which do have
access to a car, which has resulted in deteriorating journey time reliability,
particularly, at the outskirts of the major Tyne and Wear, Tees Valley conurbations
and increased levels of emissions.
The proposed construction of a new station at Horden Peterlee will relieve or eradicate these
issues.
However, the scheme itself is subject to a number of potential constraints. Although there
are no specific technological issues effecting the construction of the station or the site itself,
constraints and dependencies which need to be addressed include:
At present there is an ‘Existing User Work Crossing’ at Blackhills Farm, the proposed
scheme is located close enough to the existing level crossing at Blackhills Farm (and
the associated whistle boards) to detrimentally effect its safe functioning. The
acquisition of the farm would neutralise the level crossing. Positive discussions have
taken place between Durham County Council and the landowner with regards to
transferring the ownership of the land, with a view to the Council completing the
purchase by March 2018 at the latest;
The requirement to identify a robust operational solution that enables trains on the
Durham Coast line to call additionally at Horden Peterlee. With the current services
operating from Nunthorpe to Hexham via Middlesbrough and Newcastle, there are
timing constraints to consider which would prevent an extra stop at the new station
unless the timetable was revised. Durham County Council has held discussions with
the Northern franchisee, Arriva Rail North who are confident the timetable can be
condensed by up to three minutes in order to call at the new station, either through
line speed enhancements or an alternative pattern for services on the Durham Coast
Line; and
The key inter dependency to the proposed scheme is the Durham Coast Re-
signalling & Re-control project. This project has already installed the infrastructure on
site for the re-signalling element of the works identified and is within GRIP4 for the
re-control of the infrastructure to York ROC As such discussions are ongoing
between Durham County Council and the Durham Coast Re-signalling & Re-control
19
project to understand mutual proposals and timescales. It is considered that
economies of scale may be gained by working with the aforementioned project
These issues will be carefully reviewed and monitored throughout the development of the
scheme in order to understand the resulting implications for the scope of the works and the
subsequent impact on the design and construction of the station.
2.5 Case for Change
2.5.1 Comparable Schemes
There are number of existing comparable rail schemes the success of which helps to
reinforce the case that a station at Horden and Peterlee would tackle the considerable
access constraints evident in the catchment area of the proposed site and deliver benefits in
relation to economic regeneration.
Four schemes have been reviewed and are summarised below:
1. Monitoring data compiled on behalf of Welsh Government including a number of
schemes in South Wales: A report19 featuring various case studies in South Wales
and elsewhere indicated that access to rail services can contribute to higher
population and employment growth, since the improved transport could help to re-
distribute economic activity around nodes. The relationship between rail
improvements and house prices, deprivation or changes in car ownership, however
was less apparent;
2. Monitoring reports produced on behalf of Transport Scotland: Two monitoring reports
have recently been produced which examine the impact of two recently opened lines
(Larkhall to Milngavie south of Glasgow20 and Airdrie to Bathgate in the Central
Belt21). For the Larkhall scheme, increasing the attractiveness of the surrounding
area for inward investment and land development. This indicated that 1,800 new
homes are expected to be built, although the increase in employment land has been
very limited. However, there is evidence to suggest the scheme has contributed to
retaining and attracting residents to the area, albeit spending some of their money
elsewhere. The assessment of the Airdrie to Bathgate scheme did not show any
material changes in GVA for the specific local authority areas that have benefited by
the proposals, although the rail corridor only covers a relatively small part of each
geographic area. However, the monitoring data indicated that the scheme has
contributed to promoting social inclusion to communities in North Lanarkshire and
West Lothian. The scheme has also helped to increase the number of public
transport trips;
3. Robin Hood Line (RHL) in Nottinghamshire22: The line from Nottingham to Worksop
via Mansfield was re-opened in three phases. This case study is particularly relevant
to the Horden Peterlee example since part of the catchment area served by the RHL
included locations affected by mining and the decline in traditional industries. Until
19 Regional and Local Economic Impacts of Rail Investment, Mott MacDonald for Welsh Government 20 Larkhall – Milngavie Railway Project Evaluation Study, Scottish Transport Applications Research 2015 21 Airdrie –Bathgate Railway Project Evaluation Study, Scottish Transport Applications Research 2015 22 Case of Rail, Nottinghamshire County Council, Steer Davies Gleave 2002
20
the RHL was reopened, the absence of convenient travel options to access
employment opportunities in Nottingham and elsewhere resulted in high
unemployment. Once services on the RHL had restarted, surveys confirmed the
following benefits:
40% of work related trips were not previously made;
28% of work trips have changed as a result of the improved travel choices
offered by the RHL;
It was not possible to complete 7% of trips by any other mode than the RHL;
and
42% of passengers using the RHL were attracted by the speed of the rail
service; there was evidence that the proximity of the RHL to an industrial park
adjacent to Sutton Parkway has led to inward investment being secured at a
faster rate. The resulting employment creation has helped to regenerate the
local economy as well as delivering wider social and environmental benefits.
4. Comparison of observed versus modelled demand using newly opened railway
stations23: This study for the DfT reviewed a number of examples where demand was
significantly higher or lower than the original forecasts, along with an analysis of the
contributory factors. The review of contributory factors confirms there is no evidence
that stations located in relatively deprived areas will necessarily under-perform
relative to the initial forecasts assuming the input assumptions are correct. It is also
worthwhile reiterating that the forecast demand using Horden Peterlee is significantly
lower compared with many of the examples cited in the evaluation report. This
comparative analysis indicates the forecasts for Horden Peterlee appear relatively
cautious compared with other examples.
It can be concluded, then, that there is evidence that the availability of travel opportunities
has contributed to higher population and employment growth rates in contrast to the rates
seen in comparable areas, there is also some evidence to suggest that new rail schemes
can act as a catalyst for inward investment. However, perhaps of most relevance to the
proposed scheme is the evidence gained from the assessment of the Robin Hood Line in
Nottingham, in particular, the high percentage of respondents who indicated that they have
been able to access jobs that they would not otherwise been able to which serves to
reinforce the case for the construction of a scheme at Horden Peterlee.
2.5.2 Housing Growth
County Durham Partnership’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) sets out a long term
vision and the priorities for a better future for County Durham and its communities. The
spatial expression of this vision is the Local Development Framework Core Strategy or
‘County Durham Plan’ (CDP).
The CDP will seek to identify the requirements and the spatial locations affected, by
identifying those areas which will attract new and long lasting investment. CDP Policy 48
(Provision of New Transport Infrastructure) permits new transport infrastructure identified in
the County Durham Infrastructure Delivery Plan that enhances connectivity both within the
23DfT Station Usage and Demand Forecasts for Newly Opened Railway Lines and Stations, Steer Davies Gleave
2010
21
County and other parts of the region and beyond to deliver economic growth, regeneration
and tourism. The County Durham Plan identifies Peterlee as a main town and Horden as a
secondary settlement. Land has been allocated within the Peterlee area, with the proposed
wide range of upgraded and new houses acting as a catalyst for wider community
regeneration. Such development will help to ensure that East Durham is a competitive place
to do business allowing residents to take advantage of the new opportunities that
development brings.
Some of the specific sites identified in the CDP which would potentially fall within the
catchment of the proposed scheme include:
A site in Horden to accommodate 390 new homes to be delivered in the medium
term;
A site adjacent to Shotton school for 70 homes (medium term);
A site adjacent to Dene House school for 70 homes (short term);
North Blunts – 85 homes (long term);
South of Edenhill Community Centre – 90 homes (long term); and
South of Passfield Way – 35 homes (medium term).
The delivery of these new sites would boost the potential in-scope catchment serving the
proposed station. Evidence from the evaluation of rail schemes analysed in the above
section suggests that a higher growth rate could be achieved following the completion of
measures to improve connectivity. Planned housing developments, then, only serve to add
to the case for the development of the proposed station. In reality the scheme would be likely
to offer additional economic benefits to the proposed developments, which in turn would
serve to enhance the viability of the station itself.
2.5.3 Employment Growth
The policy context for improved connectivity for a new station in East Durham is clearly
identified in the suite of policy documents prepared by Durham County Council. This
includes the County Durham Regeneration Statement covering the ten year period from
2012 to 2022 which provides an overview of the current economic development picture in
the County and what is required to make County Durham a better place to live, work, invest
and visit, outlining the spatial, social and economic priorities for regenerating County
Durham. To supplement the planned housing growth described above, several strategic
sites for employment growth have also been provisionally identified, including:
15.2 hectares of land north west of Peterlee, 10.8 hectares south west of Peterlee;
and
1.6 hectares in Horden.
The creation of additional jobs would help to boost the existing number of jobs adjacent to
the site, helping to expand the number of employees able to work in the Horden Peterlee
area, with measures to improve connectivity acting as a catalyst for investment and
potentially encouraging inward travel into the area from along the Durham Coast Line.
2.5.4 Additional Factors
The Durham Heritage Coast between Sunderland and Hartlepool has emerged from its
industrial past to act as a catalyst for economic revitalisation through tourism. This £10m
renaissance scheme started in the 1980’s and has led to much of the coast being
22
designated as either of national or international significance. It is growing into a major visitor
attraction albeit with limitations on access. It is expected that a new station on the Durham
Coast Line would help create a new access point, complementing those existing links and
create ‘walk out – train back’ leisure opportunities. The scheme will provide pedestrian
connectivity from the station to the Heritage Coast and coastal footpath; this would feasibly
act to support the wider economy by attracting a wider range of visitors to the area
particularly during the weekends for leisure and recreational activities.
2.6 Strategic Fit
This section provides an overview of how the scheme aligns with the vision and policies
contained within national, regional and local plans and strategies.
2.6.1 National Fit
Central Government has placed a strong emphasis on the role that infrastructure has to play
in delivering economic growth in recent years. Although, estimates indicate that over £375bn
of investment is needed to fully upgrade the UK’s key infrastructure to an adequate level24.
Infrastructure investment is undoubtedly a key economic driver, providing a multiplier effect
for the economy helping to attract and retain business and jobs.
Nationally, it is recognised that our transport infrastructure needs to support UK business
growth, not only in terms of supporting the movement of people and goods but also in
respects to providing more efficient forms of transport, reducing journey times. Connectivity
between cities and markets is pivotal in realising business potential and boosting growth
within the UK’s economy, rail services are fundamentally central to this task.
The scheme at Horden Peterlee, then, provides a strategic fit with many of the Government’s
policies relating to transport, growth and infrastructure through improving access by rail
within the East of County Durham and improving equality of access to employment
opportunities in the wider city region both to the north and south of Horden Peterlee.
As stated, economic growth is one of the main drivers of National Government policy, The
Plan for Growth (2011) sets out the Government’s economic policy objective:
“To achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth that is more evenly shared across the
country and between industries.”
One of the four key ambitions stated within the Plan for Growth is to encourage investment
and exports as a route to a more balanced economy, under this ambition are the aims of:
Increasing private sector employment, especially in regions outside London and the
South East; and
Increasing investment in low carbon technologies.
In addition, the National Planning Policy Framework recommends that plans address
barriers to investment, promote accessible development and exploit opportunities for the use
of sustainable transport. The new station at Horden Peterlee, clearly, provides a strong
strategic fit with the Government’s established aim of increasing employment, removing
barriers to work and investing in sustainable transport and low carbon modes of transport.
24 Investment: Impact on Consumers Bills, Public Accounts Committee, 2015
23
Furthermore, The Transport Act (2000) requires strategic transport authorities to produce
local transport plans that provide a strategy that supports economic growth, whilst
maintaining transport assets and reducing the impact of climate change. The Making
Sustainable Local Transport Happen (2011) White Paper illustrates how well connected
infrastructure is essential in helping grow the UK economy. Asserting that sustainable
transport needs to be made more attractive for business and individuals, recognise their
needs, consider modal shifts and enable better routes to market.
The National Transport Strategy states that transport investment should support private
sector investment and support a rebalanced economy to ensure sustainable prosperity for
all. In addition, the White Paper Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon (2011) sets out a vision
for: “A transport system that is an engine for economic growth but one that is also greener
and safer and improves quality of life in our communities”. There are also a number of
further national policies which relate to improving accessibility to, and integration of public
transport, especially for the mobility impaired. These include: Transport for everyone: an
action plan to improve accessibility for all; and Door to door: a strategy for improving
sustainable transport integration.
By providing a new station in Horden Peterlee, public transport accessibility will be improved
for all sections of the population, especially for those who have no access to a private
vehicle. Bus stops and outside the station and the incorporation of a park and ride facility will
allow for cross-mode interchange offering not only an important opportunity for residents to
access a wider labour market with better paid jobs but also offering a green and sustainable
means of doing so, contributing to improved GVA in the Horden Peterlee catchment with the
additional benefit of reducing congestion and emissions, clearly this scheme achieves a
strong strategic fit with national priorities.
2.6.2 Regional Fit
The National Transport Strategy & Supplementary: Transport Constraints and Opportunities
in the North of England report recognises that city-focussed growth across the North will lead
to growth in the demand for travel between cities, city regions and their surrounds.
Enhanced connectivity within the North therefore is the foremost priority: improving the
existing rail network and creating new capacity allowing improved labour market efficiency,
enabling firms to access a larger labour supply, and wider employment opportunities for
workers and those seeking work
Enhancing rail travel between the North’s city regions and between the North and other city
regions across the country will support the North’s city regions to exploit their comparative
advantages and so secure economic growth. It will do this by:
Facilitating greater business to business interaction;
Extending labour markets;
Supporting cities’ retail, leisure and visitor economies; and
Providing an alternative to what will be a more congested Strategic Road Network.
Onward connectivity however is crucial to these aims and this is provided by the local
Journey to Work networks in each city region. Improvements to the connectivity of these
networks would strengthen the benefits that further enhancements to inter-city connectivity in
the North would deliver. It’s clear that the Horden Peterlee scheme strongly aligns with this
24
aims by improving a local journey to work network namely the Durham Coast Line
supporting the economic success of the region by increasing the efficient movement of
people, providing a low carbon alternative to travel and ensure the equality of travel
opportunity for all, allowing people to connect with employment and other essential services.
Commissioned by the North East LEP and published in April 2013, an Independent
Economic Review was carried out by a team of independent experts led by Lord Adonis. The
Economic Review outlined an “agenda” for the future of the North East, focussing on five
priorities:
Championing “North East International”, promoting the region at home and abroad as
a magnet for trade, talent, tourism and inward investment;
A doubling in the number of youth apprenticeships to tackle low skills and high youth
unemployment, alongside higher school standards and an increase in the proportion
of young people going on to higher education;
Development of strong “innovation and growth clusters”, stimulating universities and
their graduates, existing companies, and public institutions, to create and finance
new high growth enterprises and jobs;
Improved transport infrastructure and services to overcome the relative national and
international isolation of the North East and to improve connections within the North
East so that people can get to and from work more easily and affordably;
The creation of stronger public institutions, including the location of key national
institutions – such as the new British Business Bank – in the North East.
A review of transport was part of the overall Economic Review, with the aim of supporting its
central objective “to create more and better jobs”. The transport review recommended
setting up Transport North East, a new transport agency to serve the new Combined
Authority in the North East, the latter focusing on economic growth, job creation, skills
development and improved transport links. Furthermore, the transport review recommended
the region’s partners should adopt the recommended intermediate transport priorities for
roads, public transport, air and sea.
In terms of rail, the transport review recommended that rail becomes the natural choice for
business trips. Rail was also stated as helping to deliver an area-wide commuter catchment,
particularly to support the four Newcastle-Gateshead Accelerated Development Zone sites.
Developing the full potential of rail freight was also identified as an issue.
A new station at Horden Peterlee could help to achieve a number of these objectives by
contributing to an expanded commuter catchment area, whilst the stops at Heworth and
Newcastle Central would offer convenient access to the four Newcastle – Gateshead
Accelerated Development Zone sites, as well as the Tyne & Wear Metro for employment
opportunities elsewhere, whilst more broadly the scheme will contribute to tackling the
considerable youth unemployment problem in East Durham by offering enhanced
connectivity to a larger more vibrant labour market and tackling the relative isolation from
services by offering quality of access.
The North East LEP published the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) for the North East in
March 2014. The SEP is identified as an essential part of the development of an Agenda for
Growth. The plan sets out a clear economic vision and ambition for the North East to 2030,
25
based on the available evidence including the North East Independent Economic Review
Report. The SEP aims to inform how the economy of the North East develops over the next
10 years. The vision states that “by 2024, our economy will provide over one million jobs”
compared with the 750,000 currently provided. Supporting the vision, the SEP aims to halve
the gap between the North East and the national average (excluding London) on three
quantifiable measures:
Gross Value Added (GVA) per Full Time Equivalent (FTE), with wages and profits
rewarding workers and investors and sustaining high levels of employment;
Private sector employment density, with more companies and jobs driving a high
growth economy; and,
Activity rate, with no one left behind, and those distant from or disadvantaged in the
labour market helped to take advantage of the opportunities created by a successful,
growing economy.
The SEP aims to close the gap in terms of the scale and quality of employment, matching a
workforce which is increasingly better qualified with a higher skilled workforce. There are
plans to create an additional 60,000 private sector jobs by 2024, over and above the 40,000
new jobs forecast in the absence of any of the Plan’s interventions. The SEP (Section I:
Transport and Connectivity) identifies a role for improved transport accessibility and
connectivity in a number of areas, as it:
‘Improves the area’s strategic connectivity – an area targeting smart specialisation,
trading and exporting needs fast, reliable and resilient connectivity to external
markets by road, rail, air and sea. It is equally about facilitating visitors to come to the
area’; and
‘Improves access from all parts of the area to the priority locations for economic
growth, getting people to jobs. Transport plays an important part in ensuring that
urban centres with the greatest economic potential can thrive, and everyone can
participate in the area’s job market’.
The SEP also commits to reducing carbon emissions from transport. It therefore supports
active travel for shorter trips, improving the efficiency and reducing demand on the road
network, and promoting greater use of public transport. On rail specifically, the SEP raises
the requirement for better local rail services into Newcastle from a number of locations
including County Durham. Although the 2014 SEP is currently being refreshed, the Local
Enterprise Partnership has reconfirmed their commitment to these aspirations. The delivery
of these targets and outcomes will boost both the number and quality of employment
opportunities in the North East. As a result, the accessibility improvements that would be
offered by a new station at Horden Peterlee will enable people living close to the station to
secure these jobs without incurring slow journey times. The proposed scheme therefore also
demonstrates a strong strategic alignment with regional strategies as well as national ones.
2.6.3 Local Fit
The County Durham Regeneration Statement (2012 - 2022) outlines five ambitions:
Thriving Durham City;
Vibrant and Successful Towns;
Sustainable Neighbourhoods and Rural Communities;
26
Competitive and Successful People; and
A Top Location for Business.
The statement pledges to lift constraints on development and stimulate investment in the
infrastructure needed to increase economic activity and wealth, as such the statement
highlights the need for greater connectivity stating: transport infrastructure improvements will
enable and ensure the successful development of employment and housing sites and help
residents to access opportunities across the County and the region.
The creation of a new station at Horden Peterlee will create an economically sustainable
solution to the access constraints of the area helping all residents to access employment,
education and training opportunities, this aligns with the regeneration statement’s ambitions
to create sustainable neighbourhoods and rural communities by improving equality of access
to employment and services, and competitive and successful people by helping
economically inactive or underactive residents access a wider labour market and
opportunities to increase their skills in the regional service hubs both north and south of the
station.
The Local Transport Plan 3 and The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) for County Durham
describe County Durham's policy transport policy objectives and infrastructure requirements
until 2030.
The Plan states that transport and accessibility infrastructure inherently supports the
economy, promotes social inclusion and can deliver solutions that address the causes of
climate change. The infrastructure requirements outlined within the delivery plan therefore
aim to support economic growth and enhance connectivity either within the County or with
other parts of the region.
With regards to rail the outside of the East Coast Main Line the plan states that the County’s
remaining passenger routes have low line speeds and infrequent services which can make
them uncompetitive with other modes and are therefore primed for enhancement. However
the railways in County Durham are well placed to make a significant contribution to
economic regeneration goals in key areas and furthermore offer, unlike road and air, the
potential to contribute positively to a wide range of other policy objectives including climate
change, quality of life, equality of opportunity and security.
The Council's vision for rail therefore is to develop and promote a sustainable and integrated
rail network which is able to provide for the current and future needs of residents,
businesses and visitors to County Durham and that will contribute to the economic growth
and regeneration of the County.
The proposed station at Horden is reaffirmed as priority for the County Council in the
delivery plan, as the scheme seeks to connect deprived communities in the County with
areas of opportunity as well as maximising inward investment opportunities by facilitating
access to a wider labour market, it is clear then that the proposed scheme not only
represents a good strategic fit nationally and regionally but meets local priorities and fits with
the vision and priorities of the Council going forward.
27
2.7 Aims and SMART objectives
It is necessary to clearly state the desired objectives of the scheme in order to identify the
full range of options that may be available for delivery, helping to evaluate potential
investments.
The following aims were therefore developed; aligning closely with the strategic objectives
detailed above it is expected that the scheme will:
Facilitate economic activity, employment growth and more convenient access to
employment opportunities across the North East Local Enterprise Partnership
(NELEP) area, encouraging equality of opportunity for local residents;
Connect some of the most deprived communities in the County with areas of
opportunity for employment and training;
Support business investment and productivity growth to increase Gross Value Added
per full time equivalent in the NELEP area, including enhanced access to
opportunities in the Tyne & Wear and Tees Valley City Regions, as well as
maximising inward investment opportunities by facilitating access to the wider labour
market in other city region areas;
Minimise the impact of future traffic growth using the highway network, especially the
A19 corridor given the wider congestion issues that affect the Tyne & Wear and Tees
Valley city regions;
Support lower carbon travel by encouraging sustainable travel choices which are
competitive versus car; and
Improve accessibility for households without access to car, providing more
convenient links for essential social, education and leisure activities.
However, these aims can often be difficult to measure directly, in which case it is essential to
specify appropriate objectives that can be clearly measured and relatable to the desired
outcomes of the scheme. SMART objectives were therefore developed to help progress in
terms of producing outputs, delivering outcomes and meeting the aims of the scheme.
SMART objectives are:
Specific; Measurable; Achievable; Relevant; and, Time-bound.
The SMART objectives developed for the proposed scheme are:
Facilitate 71,000 trips from the newly constructed station per annum by 2024,
representing 100% of demand built up
Generate £960,000 (undiscounted in 2016/17 prices) of revenue from 2020- 2024,
representing 100% of demand built up;
Increase the park and ride capacity along the Durham Coast Line by 100 parking
spaces;
Reduced vehicle kilometres by 850,000 km annually per annum in the North East
region;
28
Reduce public transport journey times (in comparison to bus journeys) during peak
periods of at least 3 minutes from Horden Peterlee to/from Newcastle;
Reduce public transport journey times (in comparison to bus journeys) during peak
periods of at least 10 minutes from Horden Peterlee to/from Sunderland; and
Reduce public transport journey times (in comparison to bus journeys) during peak
periods of at least 13 minutes from Horden Peterlee to/from Hartlepool.
These objectives will be monitored and evaluated in order to ensure that the desired benefits
of the scheme are realised, the detail of which will be expanded on in The Management
Case.
2.8 Scope
Determining the scope of the scheme is a vital means of providing context for the relevant
costs and benefits when considering the potential options for the scheme’s delivery.
As such an assessment was undertaken in order to consider the parameters and the key
service requirements necessary to achieve the strategic objectives outlined in the above
section, a summary of the assessment is detailed in the table below:
Po
ten
tial B
usin
es
s S
co
pe
& A
ss
ess
men
t
Do nothing –
This option would fail to address the planning, regenerative and environment objectives described which require improved transport connections to fully achieve these outcomes.
Improve existing public transport services - The
dispersed nature of the travel demand along with the size of the market would result in the introduction of feeder services being unlikely to contributing towards overarching objectives Infrastructure improvements would be required to ensure vehicles are not affected by traffic congestion causing journey time reliability problems during peak periods – the diversity of travel markets served would be relatively limited.
Investing in the road network – The
cost of delivering improvements in line with the benefits generated by the introduction of a new station would be prohibitive. Infrastructure improvements would be further complicated by the fact that the trunk highway network is not owned by Durham County Council.
New station elsewhere in East Durham –
An additional station serving the Durham Coast Line would enable the catchment regular links to Sunderland, Middlesbrough and Newcastle. However, potential sites in Blackhall Colliery or Easington Colliery were discounted as sites for a rail station in East Durham as they are not central to East Durham’s population resulting in lower predicted patronage reducing the viability of the scheme.
New station serving Horden Peterlee catchment -
An additional station serving the Durham Coast Line would enable the catchment regular links to Sunderland, Middlesbrough and Newcastle. Travel opportunities could be further increased through interchange at Sunderland, Heworth or Newcastle which provides access to the Tyne and Wear metro network Journey times would be faster and more reliable than competing modes especially during peak periods
Key S
erv
ice
Req
uir
em
en
ts
Maintain existing public transport services.
Provide feeder bus services to stations along the Durham Coast Line. Provide Express coach improvements and improved bus services to major employment centres.
Invest in road network in order to alleviate traffic congestion during peak periods.
Construction of a station operating on the existing Durham Coast Line with available land and patronage requirements.
Construction of a new station operating on the existing Durham Coast Line both north and south bound with one service per hour in both directions. The construction of a 100 space park and ride facility at the site of the proposed station.
29
It was determined that only the construction of a new station along the Durham Coast Line at
Horden Peterlee would be financially viable and achieve the desired strategic objectives
outlined above.
In order to frame the delivery of the scheme and in order to help realise the aims, objectives
and benefits it was concluded that the newly constructed station must:
Be comprised of a two platform railway station, with a minimal operational length of
100m;
Provide a 100 space car park and ride facility;
Have readily available public transport access; and
Ensure appropriate pedestrian and cycle links into Horden and the Coastal Path.
2.9 Scheme Benefits
The scheme will improve accessibility in the East of Durham, providing a new public transport option for the local catchment associated with Horden Peterlee. It will offer improved public transport choices into the major conurbations in Tyne and Wear and Tees Valley as well as the wider regional transport network and therefore will contribute towards improved access to employment, education and leisure facilities. The proposed park and ride facility at the station is likely to provide an alternative, key park and ride facility for commuting trips along the Durham Coast Line. Its location, easily accessible from the A19 will be relatively attractive for passengers who already commute to the major employment centres of the region. The construction of a new station is therefore likely to have several major impacts:
Generate in excess of 71,00025 trips per year to and from the new rail station Provide enhanced employment and skills opportunities Encourage commuters who currently drive to park and ride at the new station Provide access to leisure facilities and increase inbound visitation to the Durham
Heritage coast This scheme also has the potential to produce marginal economic benefits, through reductions in congestion and therefore improved reliability of car journey times. The monetised economic assessment of the scheme is detailed in The Economic Case,
shows how by 2024, the station will generate an operational surplus against costs of
£960,000 highlighting the viability of the proposed scheme.
2.10 Synergy with other Schemes
A new semi-fast service on the Durham Coast Line would complement the new station
proposal at Horden Peterlee. It is assumed that this service would only stop at major centres
and not Horden allowing passengers to avail themselves of the increased stopping times.
This proposed frequency improvement would deliver a significant reduction in generalised
journey time compared with the existing hourly service. The resulting journey time benefits
would undoubtedly help to support many of the economic objectives of the scheme, most
25 Horden Peterlee Railway Station, Demand Forecasting and Economic Assessment Report, Mott MacDonald
for Durham County Council, November 2016
30
notably increasing the public transport choices between Horden Peterlee and catchments in
the Tyne & Wear and Tees Valley conurbations which attract a more diverse number of well
paid jobs, allowing equality of access for residents.
This aspiration to operate two trains per hour was not included in the Northern Rail Invitation
to Tender, although stakeholders will continue to make the case for frequency
improvements. However, the replacement of the existing Class 14X diesel units, which are
generally deployed on the Durham Coast Line, with a higher specification alternative will
take place from the start of 2020. This improvement will enhance the service quality and
capacity for existing passengers.
2.11 Political Support for the Scheme
The Council’s Regeneration Statement states that a station in this area of County Durham
will create an economically sustainable solution to some of the access constraints of the
area and is essential in order to raise its profile in relation to business and leisure as well as
offering residents wider travel horizons and greater opportunities in relation to employment
and access to services. Durham County Council are fully committed to the success of the
scheme, this is demonstrated by the Council identifying Horden Peterlee as one of the
Council’s six foremost priority projects and providing funding via the capital programme.
Horden Peterlee station has also been selected as one of the six transport major schemes
prioritised by The North East Local Transport Board with a £3.4m share of committed Local
Major Scheme funding totalling £31.1m as outlined in the North East Strategic Economic
Plan (SEP) on the basis that the scheme aligns with the SEP’s target of improving the North
East’s strategic connectivity, improving access from all parts of the North East to priority
locations for economic growth helping access to areas of employment opportunity.
Network Rail, Northern Rail, British Transport Police and the Department for Transport (DfT)
have all been consulted during the process of project development and are key stakeholders
supportive of the scheme. The provision of a new station to assist with regeneration
aspirations closely matches the DfT’s priorities of reducing transport carbon emissions and
creating economic growth. The proposed site of the station is also the preferred option of
both Network Rail and Northern Rail.
2.12 Conclusions
The Strategic Case has presented an analysis of the existing situation, identifying the need
for the scheme by detailing the social and economic characteristics of the area and the
relatively poor availability of existing transport links. In particular, this section has highlighted
a major accessibility gap affecting the Horden Peterlee catchment area, which in turn has a
negative impact on the ability of residents to access higher paid jobs in the main
employment centres of the region in Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Sunderland.
The current public transport travel options from Horden Peterlee are 25% slower than
driving, resulting in journey times which are too slow to offer a viable commutable option.
Although there are railway stations at Seaham and Hartlepool, local buses linking Peterlee
and Horden with these stations are slow and infrequent and provide inconvenient timings
with rail departures. This results in very slow end-to-end times.
The Strategic Economic Plan for the North East outlines a vision to provide over 1 million
jobs by 2024, along with the creation of higher value jobs. If the residents of the Horden
31
Peterlee catchment are able to benefit from new investment and job opportunities,
accessibility to these opportunities must be improved.
The construction of a new railway station, has a strong strategic fit with national, regional
and local plans and strategies and is best placed to meet the underlying aims of the scheme:
facilitating economic activity, employment growth, connecting the most deprived
communities, supporting business investment and productivity growth, supporting lower
carbon travel and improving accessibility for households without access to car. The station
will significantly assist in removing the barriers to accessibility to the larger employment
centres of Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Sunderland and offer equality of opportunity for
residents in East Durham.
32
3 Economic Case
3.1 Introduction
This section covers The Economic Case for the scheme; The Economic Case
demonstrates that the spending proposal optimises public value for money. Explaining how
this requirement is achieved by, identifying and appraising a range of realistic and
achievable options, in terms of how well they meet the spending objectives and the critical
success factors agreed for the scheme.
This section, therefore, provides a ‘preferred way forward’ which is subjected to a Value for
Money (VfM) assessment, this monetised economic assessment has been prepared in
compliance with the guidance contained within the Government’s web-based Transport
Analysis Guidance (WebTAG)26 and Her Majesty’s Treasury Green Book27.
In summary this section will:
Assess options to identify all of their impacts, and the resultant value for money, to fulfil HM Treasury’s requirements for appraisal and demonstrate value for money in the use of taxpayers’ money;
Set out the methodology for the demand forecasts and economic appraisal Examine the economic, environmental, social and distributional impacts of the
proposal using qualitative, quantitative and monetised information; Provide a range of economic appraisal sensitivity tests; and Determine the extent to which the proposal’s benefits outweigh its costs.
Additionally, in accordance with best practice as outlined in The Green Book, this section will determine:
Critical Success Factors; Longlisted and Short Listed Options; and The Preferred Way Forward.
The Economic Case will, therefore, be structured around the following headings:
Critical Success Factors; Options Appraisal; Demand Forecasting; Appraisal Methodology; Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits; Appraisal Results; Preferred Option; Value for Money Statement; and Conclusions.
In addition to these factors the impact of the proposed Station at Horden Peterlee of additional patronage for leisure, health, education and events should not be underestimated
3.2 Critical Success Factors
Critical success factors are the attributes which are essential to the successful delivery of the
preferred option. The critical success factors form part of the set of criteria for the initial
26 Transport analysis guidance: WebTAG, DFT, 2014 27 The Green Book: appraisal and evaluation in central government, HM Treasury, 2015
33
assessment of each potential option, along with the investment objectives and potential
benefits, costs and risks. The critical success factors should be identified and agreed by key
stakeholders, but should not be set at a level which could potentially bias or exclude
important options at an early stage of options analysis.
The overriding point is that Critical Success Factors should be crucial, not desirable,
however, they do not form direct spending objectives. As such, in addition to the investment
objectives set out in the Strategic Case a number of factors critical to the success of the
project and relevant in judging the relative desirability of options were drawn up.
The aforementioned Critical Success Factors are shown in the table below:
Key Critical Success Factors Description
1. Strategic Fit & Business Need The project will be assessed on how well it:
Meets the agreed investment objectives,
related business needs and service
requirements
Fits with local, regional and national strategy,
policy and objectives as outlined in the
Strategic Case
2. Value for Money The project will be assessed on how well it:
Optimises value for money – providing the
optimal mix of benefits costs and associated
risk
3. Supplier Capacity and Capability The project will be assessed on how well it:
Matches the ability of suppliers/contractors to
deliver the required services
Is likely to result in a sustainable
arrangement that optimises value for money
over the full term of any contract
4. Achievability The project will be assessed on how well it:
Is likely to be delivered given the ability to respond to the changes required
Is likely the option is to be delivered successfully in practice, taking into account the skills and capacity to deliver the project
5. Affordability The project will be assessed on:
The extent to which the option fits within the
likely resource available
Matches any other funding constraints
3.3 Options Appraisal
An options appraisal is a technique for reviewing various options towards achieving a
specified end goal and analysing the costs and benefits of each one. It helps to ensure
informed decision making by providing a process that requires:
Key objectives that must be achieved;
Description of the various ways of achieving the key objectives;
Pros and cons of each of the proposed solutions along with a consideration of
the respective benefits that they may deliver.
As such, it is crucial, early on in the inception of a proposal to determine – what you are
seeking to achieve and undertake preliminary reviews of existing information before arriving
at a short list of options.
34
The Strategic Case outlined above clearly fulfils these requirements detailing the aims and
SMART objectives of the proposed scheme, whilst taking heed of the policy context, local
need and strategic priorities of the Council.
As noted in The Strategic Case, the aims of the proposed project are to:
Facilitate economic activity, employment growth and more convenient access to
employment opportunities across the North East Local Enterprise Partnership
(NELEP) area, encouraging equality of opportunity for local residents;
Connect some of the most deprived communities in the County with areas of
opportunity for employment and training;
Support business investment and productivity growth to increase Gross Value Added
per full time equivalent in the NELEP area, including enhanced access to
opportunities in the Tyne & Wear and Tees Valley City Regions, as well as
maximising inward investment opportunities by facilitating access to the wider labour
market in other city region areas;
Minimise the impact of future traffic growth using the highway network, especially the
A19 corridor given the wider congestion issues that affect the Tyne & Wear and Tees
Valley city regions;
Support lower carbon travel by encouraging sustainable travel choices which are
competitive versus car; and
Improve accessibility for households without access to car, providing more
convenient links for essential social, education and leisure activities.
Whilst, the SMART objectives of the proposed project are to:
Facilitate 71,000 trips from the newly constructed station per annum by 2024,
representing 100% of demand built up
Generate £960,000 (undiscounted in 2015 prices) of revenue from 2020- 2024,
representing 100% of demand built up;
Increase the park and ride capacity along the Durham Coast Line by 100 parking
spaces;
Reduced vehicle kilometres by 850,000 km annually per annum in the North East
region;
Reduce public transport journey times (in comparison to bus journeys) during peak
periods of at least 3 minutes from Horden Peterlee to/from Newcastle;
Reduce public transport journey times (in comparison to bus journeys) during peak
periods of at least 10 minutes from Horden Peterlee to/from Sunderland; and
Reduce public transport journey times (in comparison to bus journeys) during peak
periods of at least 13 minutes from Horden Peterlee to/from Hartlepool.
3.3.1 Longlisted Options
The identification and appraisal of a range of options that will deliver the service changes
and outputs required is critical. This effectively takes the form of a long list of options, Value
For Money (VFM) needs to be secured through looking creatively at all the opportunities and
systematically identifying and comparing the alternative ways of delivering project objectives
to determine the option which best meets the requirements at optimum cost.
35
To start this process initial options relating to the delivery of the strategic aims noted above
were considered and subsequently sieved on the basis of issues relating to feasibility,
funding, acceptability (public and political) and scope. This not only removed certain options
but allowed certain options to be further developed and clarified.
As such, early in the inception of the proposed scheme the Council discounted investing
either in the road network or the provision of additional bus services for residents as an
alternative owing to concerns with issues of state aid, the complexity of the relationship with
current service operators and the potentially weak cost benefit ratio of doing so.
Investments outside the scope of the scheme were also considered in the long listing this
can be viewed in section 2.8 Scope, however, given the long-term strategic imperative for
Horden, as outlined in The Strategic Case, it was deemed that developing an option which
addressed the strategic priorities for Horden, met the aforementioned objectives as well as
meeting criteria for feasibility, was in reality impractical.
3.3.2 Shortlisted Options
The remaining options were subjected to a further sieving process which primarily
considered the critical success factors outlined in the section above in addition to the factors
outlined below:
Consideration of previously proposed schemes and ongoing initiatives;
Consideration of identified problems & issues;
Consideration of outcomes;
Consideration of opportunities;
Consideration of implementation; and
Discussions with consultees.
The remaining options were taken forward into a more detailed qualitative assessment to
ensure full alignment with the policy objectives, problems & issues, VFM and the five
national objectives for transport: economy, safety, environment, accessibility and integration
in addition to the factors noted above.
Ultimately, it was determined that only the construction of a rail station at Horden Peterlee
could adequately fulfil the selection criteria, meet the strategic objectives and key critical
success factors whilst still producing VFM for the taxpayer. Furthermore, it also held that the
development of a rail station at Horden would feasibly act as a catalyst to further growth in
the town and should be seen as an early enabler of the Council’s investment priorities within
Horden and the wider East Durham area.
3.3.3 Preferred Way Forward
Upon determining that a rail station at Horden Peterlee best met the selection criteria an
intermediate preferred way forward became clear. An assessment was then undertaken to
consider the potential scope, parameters and options for the preferred option to best achieve
the overall strategic aims of the project. For the purpose of this exercise it was agreed that
the range of options to take this proposal forward should meet both the aforementioned
Critical Success Factors in addition to the four foremost objectives outlined below:
1. Achieve design standards prescribed by Network Rail; 2. Capable of achieving patronage expectations of the train operating company; 3. Ensure the futureproofing of station design; and
36
4. Design in keeping with stations of similar magnitude and appropriate to the level of anticipated demand.
The four options are presented in the following table: Proposed Station at Horden Peterlee: Option Appraisal
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Do Nothing Small scale Preferred Proposal Large Scale
Des
crip
tio
n
Assumes no public sector investment is possible, resulting in a failure to enable the development of station at Horden Peterlee.
Construction of a double platform station, though without a car park, bus turning circle, taxi drop off points and appropriate cycle lanes.
Construction of a double platform station with infrastructure consistent with similar new stations including car park and ride facility, bus layby facility, taxi drop off point and appropriate pedestrian and cycle links.
Construction of a double platform station with a manned information booth, enclosed passenger waiting facilities, toilets and concession stands.
Co
sts
£0 £8m £10.55 £16.2m
Just
ific
atio
n
There would be a loss of opportunity for private sector investment and accessibility would remain an issue for the town.
Though the station would be serviceable without the inclusion of a park and ride facility, bus turning circle, taxi drop off points and appropriate cycle lanes there would be an inevitable reduction in patronage reducing the station’s viability.
The proposal adequately meets all the spending objectives and critical success factors and would provide the best balance between benefits and costs.
Costs outweighs benefits in terms of VFM to taxpayer, increased costs lower BCR hindering the viability of the proposal.
Ob
ject
ives
O 1
O2
O3
O4
Cri
tica
l Su
cces
s Fa
cto
rs C
SF1
CSF
2
CSF
3
CSF
4
CSF
5
Sum
mar
y
Discounted Discounted Preferred Discounted
Source: Durham County Council
37
The four options ranged from `Do Nothing’ to a `Large Scale’ intervention. This Large Scale option was ruled out due to excessive costs for the additional works in comparison with the other cheaper options, whilst the ‘Do Nothing’ option or status quo was deemed unactable to the County Council. On merit, a preferred option was reached, referred to as option 3 in the table. This option
includes:
Two opposing platforms of 100m length, consistent with the longer trains specified in
the Northern Franchise;
Modular platform construction (steel or precast concrete) with typical platform
furniture including: waiting shelters, benches, lighting columns, help points, CCTV,
CIS screens etc;
Pedestrian steel footbridge with stairs and ramps;
100 space car park and ride facility with associated taxi, drop off and bus route;
Two Lane vehicular access road to the station, via Deene Street (off Blackhills Road)
with improvements to allow busses to pass in opposite directions;
Appropriate walking and cycling links to Horden and Peterlee, with cycle parking
provided; and
Walking links provided to the existing Durham Heritage Coastal Path.
The selected option aims to create an economically sustainable solution to some of the
access constraints within the east of the County outlined in The Strategic Case, helping
connecting communities to areas of opportunity by simultaneously raising the profile of the
area in relation to business and leisure and offering residents wider travel horizons and
greater opportunities in relation to employment and access to services. Furthermore, this
option will maximise both demand and viability therefore resulting in the best value for
money (VFM) for the taxpayer.
Having considered the available options, determining that only the development of a rail
station could meet the critical success factors and selecting a station option that best meets
VFM requirements, it became necessary to consider station site options and the associated
delivery challenges. The sections below detail this process, though in short, only two site
options were deemed viable for the construction of the proposed station.
As such, it was decided to undertake the economic appraisal for both options to determine
which site was preferable. The preferred option will be identified in section 3.8 whilst the
benefits and, importantly, the VFM (Value for Money) and affordability of the project will be
outlined in the summation of this chapter. In conclusion the options appraisal has indicated
there is a sound case for the selected route whilst the following sections will explore the
practical suitability and feasibility for a final selected site.
3.4 Demand Forecasting
3.4.1 Background
Durham County Council have previously commissioned studies for the proposed scheme,
the most recent being the production of Outline Demand Forecasts and an economic
assessment for a station located, specifically, at Horden Sea View. However, following
discussions with Network Rail Durham County Council saw fit to widen the scope of the
proposed scheme to look at five possible station sites within Horden. Upon conducting the
38
rigorous ‘Option Appraisal’ outlined above and following a Pre-Grip Feasibility study by
Network Rail, two sites were identified as viable:
South East View: considered a good location for a new station, offering level ground
with no significant land contamination or rail industry risks; and
Old Horden: considered a good location for a new station, offering similar conditions
to South East View.
As such consultants Mott Macdonald were commissioned to provide Demand Forecasting
and an Economic Assessment with a brief to determine the viability of the remaining options.
3.4.2 Introduction
Demand forecasts have been developed using two distinct methodologies. The first uses a
simple trip rate model, whilst the second uses a more complex gravity model. The outputs of
the gravity model have been used in the production of the economic assessment, whilst the
trip rate model has been produced to give comfort that the gravity model is producing
demand in the right order of magnitude.
3.4.3 Existing Demand
Existing demand has been sourced from the Northern Rail version of the MOIRA rail
demand forecasting program (NT03). This models demand at all stations on the Northern
network, with demand at stations outside the area of interest aggregated (for example
demand to/from Edinburgh includes that for Edinburgh Waverley, Haymarket and 40 other
intermediate stations in the south east of Scotland). Using MOIRA, demand for stations
along the Durham Coast Line, between Sunderland and Stockton has been analysed. The
first table below shows demand by origin / destination (rounded to nearest 50) whilst, the
second shows, demand by ticket type:
Total demand at stations along the Durham Coast Line:
Sunderland Seaham Hartlepool Seaton Carew
Billingham Stockton
Origin 323,400 90,650 420,350 35,800 44,550 34,450
Destination 273,700 33,550 194,800 21,600 31,450 38,500
Total 597,100 124,200 615,150 57,400 76,000 72,950
% Origin 54.2% 73.0% 68.3% 62.4% 58.6% 47.2%
% Destination 45.8% 27.0% 31.7% 37.6% 41.4% 52.8%
Source: Moira MT03 Journeys March 14 – March 15. Mott Macdonald.
Total demand by ticket type at stations along the Durham Coast Line:
Sunderland Seaham Hartlepool Seaton Carew
Billingham Stockton
Full 210,350 54,850 246,750 29,100 46,450 46,650
Reduced 215,150 41,850 273,300 14,150 16,600 13,200
Season 171,600 27,500 95,100 14,150 12,950 13,100
Total 597,100 124,200 615,150 57,400 76,000 72,950
% full 35.2% 44.2% 40.1% 50.6% 61.1% 63.9%
% reduced 36.0% 33.7% 44.4% 24.7% 21.8% 18.1%
% season 28.8% 22.1% 15.5% 24.7% 17.1% 18.0%
Source: Moira MT03 Journeys March 14 – March 15. Mott Macdonald.
39
The data indicates that all stations between Sunderland and Stockton are net passenger
generators (i.e. there are more passengers originating at the station) with the exception of
Stockton. This may be due to complex station choice issues in the area (i.e. longer distance
travellers are likely to use Eaglescliffe and Thornaby stations rather than Stockton).
Full ticket types dominate at the southern end of the route at Billingham and Stockton, with
reduced and season tickets contributing a higher proportion of demand at Sunderland,
Seaham and Seaton Carew.
The most popular destinations from the six stations were investigated, and top ten flows are
shown in the series of tables below:
Top ten flows from Sunderland and Seaham:
Destination Sunderland Demand
Cumulative% Destination Seaham Demand
Cumulative%
Newcastle 108,850 33.8% Newcastle 42,000 46.7% London BR 52,900 50.2% Sunderland 23,100 72.3% York 34,150 60.8% Hartlepool 8,050 81.3% Hartlepool 24,700 68.4% Middlesbrough 5,200 87.1% Metro Centre 15,750 73.3% Metro Centre 5,000 92.6% Middlesbrough 13,700 77.6% Stockton 1,250 94.0% Edinburgh 7,350 79.9% Heworth 800 94.9% Seaham 6,550 81.9% Thornaby 700 95.7% Stockton 3,650 83.0% Billingham 450 96.2% Thornaby 3,550 84.1% Aberdeen 350 96.6% Edinburgh 350 96.9%
Source: Moira MT03 Journeys March 14 – March 15. Mott Macdonald.
Top ten flows from Hartlepool and Seaton Carew:
Destination Hartlepool Demand
Cumulative% Destination Seaton Carew Demand
Cumulative%
Newcastle 124,550 29.7% Newcastle 10,450 29.4% Middlesbrough 57,700 43.5% Middlesbrough 7,700 51.1% Sunderland 47,200 54.7% Sunderland 3,500 60.9% York 46,000 65.7% Stockton 3,150 69.8% London BR 33,200 73.6% Thornaby 2,550 76.9% Metro Centre 24,050 79.4% Billingham 2,200 83.1% Thornaby 17,550 83.6% Metro Centre 2,000 88.7% Stockton 14,850 87.1% Darlington 650 90.6% Darlington 6,750 88.7% Heworth 650 92.4% Billingham 5,250 90.0% Hartlepool 650 94.2%
Source: Moira MT03 Journeys March 14 – March 15. Mott Macdonald.
Top ten flows from Billingham and Stockton:
Destination Billingham Demand
Cumulative% Destination Stockton Demand
Cumulative%
Newcastle 13,500 30.6% Hartlepool 9,450 27.9% Middlesbrough 5,550 43.2% Newcastle 6,500 47.1% Sunderland 4,800 54.1% Sunderland 6,150 65.2% Hartlepool 4,650 64.6% Middlesbrough 3,700 76.1% Seaton Carew 3,750 73.1% Seaton Carew 2,750 84.2% Metro Centre 2,250 78.2% Billingham 1,350 88.2% Darlington 1,500 81.6% Metro Centre 900 90.9% Thornaby 1,100 84.1% James Cook 350 91.9% Redcar 950 86.3% Leeds 350 92.9% Abderdeen 950 88.1% Darlington 300 93.8%
Source: Moira MT03 Journeys March 14 – March 15. Mott Macdonald.
40
Top ten flows from Thornaby and Middlesbrough:
Destination Thornaby Demand
Cumulative% Destination Middlesbrough Demand
Cumulative%
York 65,300 18.4% York 91,850 17.1% Middlesbrough 36,300 28.6% Darlington 49,150 26.3%
Newcastle 35,650 38.6% Newcastle 44,250 34.5% Darlington 35,100 48.5% Redcar 39,600 41.9% Redcar 27,950 56.4% Hartlepool 23,600 46.3% Leeds 25,550 63.6% Saltburn 22,000 50.4% Hartlepool 13,550 67.4% Leeds 21,050 54.3% Saltburn 11,800 70.7% Whitby 20,500 58.1% Manchester 9,600 73.4% Thornaby 18,700 61.6%
London BR 6,900 75.4% London BR 15,650 64.5%
Source: Moira MT03 Journeys March 14 – March 15. Mott Macdonald.
The data shows that Newcastle is the largest destination in terms of demand for all five
stations north of Billingham inclusive. However, Newcastle does not form one dominant
destination, and at none of the stations does it account for more than 50% of demand.
Sunderland and Middlesbrough are also important destinations from stations on the coast
line, along with Hartlepool and (from station at the northern end of the line) Metro Centre.
Many of the top ten flows from stations are relatively self-contained either to destinations on
the Durham Coast, or to destinations beyond Newcastle and Middlesbrough which are
served by direct trains. Sunderland and Hartlepool show more inter-regional demand as
compared to the intermediate stations. Both record strong flows to York and London, and
this is likely to be as a result of having direct trains to these destinations via Grand Central
services The existing rail trip rates per thousand-population for commuting to work journeys
is shown below, the illustration shows that the highest trip rates are observed around
Durham. On the Durham Coast Line, the areas around Seaham and Hartlepool show
reasonable trip rates. The areas of Peterlee and Horden currently have low rail trip rates as
would be expected for an area with no local railway station.
Commuting trip rates by rail in the North East:
Source: 2011 Census, Courtesy of Mott Macdonalnd.
41
3.4.4 Forecasting Methodology
The different types of model which can be used in the production of station demand
forecasts are summarised in the DfT’s ‘Guidance note on passenger demand forecasting for
third party funded local rail schemes’ (2011)28.
These are ordered by complexity and cost (showing the simplest model first) as follows:
Trip rate model;
Trip end model;
Gravity model;
Mode choice model; and
Four stage model (trip generation, distribution, mode choice, assignment).
Further guidance is also given in the UK rail industry’s Passenger Demand Forecasting
Handbook (PDFH)29.
For the purpose of this economic assessment demand forecasts have been developed using
two distinct methodologies, as previously noted. Using the two separate methodologies
ensures that the appraisal results are robust allowing for some element of substantiation and
assuring both the Council and the potential operator of the long term viability of the proposed
scheme.
The first model developed was a simple trip rate model for the station, whilst the second was
the development of a more complex gravity model which takes better account of the
attractiveness of major centres and the competitiveness of alternative modes. The outputs of
the gravity model have been used in the production of the economic assessment work and
the appraisal results which will be outlined later in this chapter, whilst the trip rate model has
been produced to give comfort that the gravity model is producing aggregate demand in the
right order of magnitude.
3.4.5 Trip Rate Model
In order to develop demand forecasts for the two viable station sites at South East View and
Old Horden a simple trip rate model was developed, using a trip rate per thousand-
population and three different isochrones from the station sites, as follows:
0-800m of the site, to represent a walk-up catchment;
800m-2km of the site, to represent walk-up and cycle catchments; and
2-5km of the site, to represent a drive-up catchment.
The isochrones were calculated using accessibility modelling software which developed a
walking network, based on the road network, footpaths and cut-trough’s. Although distances
are based on the walking network the demand calculated represents demand by all modes.
Using assumed speeds, the catchments represent the following typical journey times:
800m – a journey time of 11 minutes, assuming a walk speed of 1.2m/s;
28 Guidance note on passenger demand forecasting for third party funded local rail schemes, Department for
Transport, December 2011 29 GB Rail Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook v5.1, April 2013
42
2km – a journey time of 27 minutes, assuming a walk speed of 1.2m/s, or a journey
time of 10 minutes, assuming a cycle speed of 12kph; and
5km – a journey time of nearly 7 minutes assuming an average car journey time of
42.9kph.
To develop trip rates for the two proposed station sites, nearby stations along the Durham
Coast Line, between Newcastle in the north and Nunthorpe in the south were identified and
assessed as comparator stations for Horden.
The following table details this process:
Stations considered as comparators for Horden:
Station Comments Comparator
Newcastle Large City Centre station – poorer comparator No Heworth Competition with Metro services – poorer comparator No Sunderland Large City Centre station – poorer comparator No Seaham Similar socio-economics – potential comparator Yes Hartlepool Large Town Centre station – poorer comparator No Seaton Carew Similar socio-economics– potential comparator Yes Billingham Similar socio-economics – potential comparator Yes Stockton Catchment overlap with Thornaby– poorer comparator No Thornaby Includes long distance services – poorer comparator No Middlesbrough Large Town Centre station – poorer comparator No James Cook Suburban type area – probably a poorer comparator No Marton Suburban type area – probably a poorer comparator No Gypsy Lane Suburban type area – probably a poorer comparator No Nunthorpe Suburban type area – probably a poorer comparator No
Source: Mott Macdonald.
From this list Seaham, Seaton Carew and Billingham were identified as possible
comparators for Horden. However, following initial investigation it was revealed that National
Rail Travel Survey (NRTS) data contains very few records for Seaton Carew (N = 10),
therefore that station was removed from the list of comparator stations. Trip rates derived
using NRTS are summarised below:
Derived daily boarding rates per thousand population at comparator stations using NRTS data:
0-800m 800m-2km 2km-5km Uplift beyond 5km
Seaham (N=174) 39.7 9.0 0.3 1.7%
Seaton Carew (removed N=10) 36.4 1.6 - 0%
Billingham (N=94) 13.0 5.1 0.8 0%
Average 26.4 7.1 0.6 0.9%
Source: NRTS (2005) and 2014 mid-year population estimate, Mott Macdonald.
As a sense check a trip rate by way of Census Travel To Work (TTW) data for the
comparator stations Seaham, Seaton Carew and Billingham was also determined. Using rail
commute trips within the distance isochrones before constraining total demand at each
station as observed in the MOIRA data. In effect this assumes that all trips generated by the
station are within 5km of the station. The resulting trip rates are shown on the next page:
43
Derived daily boarding rates per thousand population at comparator stations using Census TTW data:
0-800m 800m-2km 2km-5km Beyond 5km
Seaham 21.1 9.9 6.7 -
Seaton Carew 3.3 2.3 1.9 -
Billingham 2.5 2.5 2.5 -
Average 9.0 4.9 3.7 -
Source: Census 2011 and 2014 mid-year population estimate, Mott Macdonald.
In comparison to NRTS data, the Census data produces a lower trip rate in the 0-800m and
800m-2km isochrones, with a higher trip rate in the 2-5km isochrone. No uplift factor for trips
beyond 5km of the station has been included.
The trip rates can then be applied to the population at the two proposed station sites within
the distance isochrones, as shown below:
Population within distance isochrones at proposed station sites
0-800m 800m-2km 2km-5km
South East View 3,334 7,818 28,191
Old Horden 2,769 7,800 25,814
Source: 2014 mid-year population estimate, Mott Macdonald.
The following shows the resulting daily demand forecasts using the two methods described
above:
Forecast daily boarders in 2015 at proposed station sites using trip rates derived from NRTS data
0-800m 800m-2km 2km-5km Beyond 5km
TOTAL
South East View 88 55 16 1 160
Old Horden 73 55 14 1 144
Source: Mott Macdonald.
Forecast daily boarders in 2015 at proposed station sites using trip rates derived from census TTW data
0-800m 800m-2km 2km-5km Beyond 5km
TOTAL
South East View 30 38 104 - 172
Old Horden 25 38 95 - 158
Source: Mott Macdonald.
The above shows that demand figures derived using both methodologies are of a similar
magnitude. However, it is noted that the geographical decay of trips is greater where NRTS
data has been used; this suggests that the majority of trips are likely to originate close to the
station site. In comparison, where Census TTW data has been used the majority of trips are
predicted to be in the 2-5km distance band. This is perhaps more likely to occur at Horden,
where the main residential areas of Peterlee are slightly further from the station. Therefore
these forecasts were considered more suitable as a comparison between the station sites.
To account for two-way travel we have analysed demand data from MOIRA to show the
number of productions and attractions at each of the comparator stations. This shows that
on average total demand is a factor of 1.51 higher than productions at Seaham, Seaton
44
Carew and Billingham. We have applied this factor to our generated number of boarders
above to calculate total demand at the proposed station.
In order to annualise daily demand a factor of 312 was used; this accounts for all days of the
year, minus Christmas Day and Boxing Day when no rail service is operated whilst weighting
each weekday as one, Saturday at two thirds of a weekday, Sunday as half of a weekday
and Bank Holidays as one third of a weekday.
Forecast annualised demand, calculated using the Census TTW trip rates, for the two
proposed sites is shown below, together with observed data for the comparator stations:
Forecast annualised demand in 2015 (using census TTW data) at the proposed station sites compared to existing stations along the Durham Coast line
Proposed Station Site Productions Attractions TOTAL DEMAND
South East View 53,800 27,250 81,050
Old Horden 49,450 25,050 74,500
Existing Station Productions Attractions TOTAL DEMAND
Seaham 90,650 33,550 124,200
Seaton Carew 35,800 21,600 57,400
Billingham 44,550 31,450 76,000
Source: Mott Macdonald
The data above suggests that forecast demand at the two proposed station sites is of a
similar magnitude to demand observed at Billingham. The Old Horden site is predicted to
have marginally lower demand because it is not as centrally located within Horden, though
based on the simple trip rate model outlined above both proposed sites have a healthy
enough demand to be considered viable.
3.4.6 Gravity Model
As noted above, the more complex gravity model was developed to inform the production of
the economic assessment with the simpler trip rate model detailed above used to give
comfort that the gravity model produced demand in the right order of magnitude.
The gravity model uses an analogy with Newton’s Laws of Gravity, allowing for an
explanation of trips between various origins and destinations giving a fuller picture of
demand.
The Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH)30 section C10 provides a typical
gravity model form. The model parameters are estimated using least squares regression. In
addition, PDFH B10 suggests that the following are included:
Distance from station;
Socio-economic characteristics of population;
Rail service quality, measured by frequency, journey times, speed or fare;
Quality of competing services; and
Attractiveness of destination.
30 GB Rail Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook v5.1, April 2013
45
In the development of the model - full, reduced and season ticket demand was considered
separately. Additionally, station pairs along the Durham Coast Line, plus Hexham and Metro
Centre which have direct services from the Coast Line were also considered. This includes
all stations between Sunderland and Middlesbrough, plus Newcastle, Metro Centre and
Hexham. Journeys between those station pairs which do not touch the Coast Line (i.e. Metro
Centre-Newcastle) have been excluded.
During development of the model the decision to use the double log-linear formulation
common to PDFH was taken.
The typical model form therefore is:
Vij = μ + αGC + δP + γ NC
Where:
Vij = log of demand between i and j; i = origin, j = destination
GC = log of rail generalised cost, P= log of population
NC = % households with no car available
μ = intercept, α δ γ = model coefficients
Linear regression calculations were undertaken using IBM’s software Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS). This predicts both the model coefficients, as well as estimating
the level of demand using the predicted model form.
3.4.7 Full Tickets
As noted above the three ticket types (full, reduced and season ticket) were modelled
separately, with a regression model produced for each separate ticket type before
incorporating the results in to the gravity model, in order to give a rounded picture of
demand.
The full price ticket model was developed with the variables shown in the table below – it is
noted that the demand on the Newcastle-Sunderland and Sunderland-Newcastle
movements has been excluded from the regression model, as these flows were particularly
high, and not necessarily representative of the levels of demand at a station at Horden-
Peterlee.
Model parameters for the full ticket segment
Variable Standardised Coefficient t-test of significance
Constant 18.516 5.695 Rail Generalised Cost -2.588 -7.429 Rail/Car Generalised Cost -0.084 -3.561 Economically active population at origin 0.560 5.723 Workplace population at destination 0.767 10.677 % households with no car at origin 4.579 7.808 Car parking spaces at origin station 0.239 4.413 Jobs to population ratio at origin 0.161 2.761 Concessions at origin -0.468 -4.584 Middlesbrough destination dummy 0.772 2.671
Adjusted R-squared value 0.808
Source: Mott Macdonald
46
*Note: the model coefficients were investigated and found to be significant at the 5% level -
in that the t-statistics reported are greater than 1.96 or less than -1.96. The coefficient
predicted for concessions at origin is negative; this is considered acceptable as the English
National Concessionary Travel Scheme (ENCTS) pass allows free bus travel as opposed to
varying levels of discount on local rail services, favouring demand for the former.
The model has been used to predict demand in 2015 which has been compared to observed
demand from MOIRA as shown below:
Observed demand versus model predicted demand – full ticket segment
Station Observed Predicted Difference % Difference
Hexham 4,000 3,400 -600 -15%
Metro Centre 19,150 8,850 -10,300 -54%
Newcastle 151,700 180,950 29,250 19%
Sunderland 110,050 109,050 -1,000 -1%
Seaham 51,150 42,750 -8,400 -16%
Hartlepool 198,650 220,500 21,850 11%
Seaton Carew 26,250 21,950 -4,300 -16%
Billingham 38,050 48,200 10,150 27%
Stockton 41,550 48,150 6,600 16%
Thornaby 102,450 55,650 -46,800 -46%
Middlesbrough 177,600 148,000 -29,600 -17%
Overall 920,600 887,400 -33,200 -4%
Source: Mott Macdonald and MOIRA
In total the full ticket model under-predicts demand by around 4% on the modelled
movements. Much of this difference is recorded at stations at the southern end of the
Durham Coast Line, including Thornaby and Middlesbrough.
Using the gravity model forecast full price ticket demand in 2015, at the two proposed station
sites in Horden can therefore be shown as:
Forecast annualised demand on full tickets in 2015 to/from stations within the gravity model
Proposed Station Site Productions Attractions Two-way Demand
South East View 42,650 13,600 56,250
Old Horden 31,750 9,850 41,600
Source: Mott Macdonald
3.4.8 Reduced Price Tickets
The reduced price ticket model has been developed using the variables highlighted below.
As above it is again noted that Sunderland-Newcastle and return have been removed from
the analysis, together with Hartlepool-Newcastle and return. These movements contained
very high levels of demand which were not well predicted by the model and were therefore
considered to be outliers.
47
Model parameters for the reduced ticket segment
Variable Standardised Coefficient t-test of significance
Constant 21.933 4.905 Rail Generalised Cost -3.212 -5.847 Rail/Bus Generalised Cost -1.269 -4.469 Economically active population at origin 1.075 4.469 Retail floor space at destination 0.610 6.507 % households with no car at origin 2.409 2.558 Car parking spaces at origin station 0.213 3.549 Concessions at origin -0.411 -3.018 Metro Centre destination dummy 1.740 3.835 Middlesbrough destination dummy 1.289 3.055 Newcastle destination dummy 1.821 3.218
Adjusted R-squared value 0.702
Source: Mott Macdonald
*Note: dummy variables were used for Middlesbrough, Newcastle and Metro Centre on the
destination end to better distribute demand. These have the effect of increasing demand to
these three destinations to varying degrees. All variables including the destination dummies
used in the model were found to be significant using the t-test of significance.
The model was found to be consistently under-reporting demand by 22.3% across the total
modelled flow. In order to improve the predicted values in the model an uplift factor of 1.223
was added to the predicted values to more closely represent observed values the results can
be observed below:
Observed demand versus model predicted demand – reduced ticket segment
Station Observed Predicted Difference % Difference
Hexham 2,200 850 -1,350 -61%
Metro Centre 42,650 47,050 4,400 10%
Newcastle 76,000 65,450 -10,550 -14%
Sunderland 33,150 31,350 -1,800 -5%
Seaham 36,850 26,700 -10,150 -28%
Hartlepool 55,600 55,900 300 1%
Seaton Carew 12,450 8,250 -4,200 -34%
Billingham 11,600 18,050 6,450 56%
Stockton 8,750 15,550 6,800 77%
Thornaby 24,150 21,400 -2,750 -11%
Middlesbrough 55,700 50,700 -5,000 -9%
Overall 359,100 341,250 -17,850 -5%
Source: Mott Macdonald and MOIRA
Overall the reduced ticket model under-predicts demand on the modelled movements by
around 5%, with demand at Hartlepool closely matching observed values. Forecast demand
on the reduced ticket segment is, therefore, shown over:
48
Forecast annualised demand on reduced tickets in 2015 to/from stations within the gravity model
Proposed Station Site Productions Attractions Two-way Demand
South East View 6,550 200 6,750
Old Horden 5,850 200 6,050
Source: Mott Macdonald
3.4.9 Season Tickets
The season ticket model was developed using the variables shown below. All coefficients
were found to be significant using the t-test, with exception of rail/bus generalised cost. This
coefficient is not significant using the t-test. However, the model went on to predict better
with the inclusion of the variable than without it, it was also felt to be important to retain a
variable which represented inter-modal competition.
Model parameters for the season ticket segment
Variable Standardised Coefficient t-test of significance
Constant 17.220 3.904 Rail Generalised Cost -4.019 -6.317 Rail/Bus Generalised Cost -0.319 -1.406 Economically active population at origin 1.068 5.439 Workplace population at destination 1.026 8.711 % households with no car at origin 8.073 4.526 % social class A or B at origin 20.541 5.071 Concessions at origin -0.583 -4.449
Adjusted R-squared value 0.641
Source: Mott Macdonald
The model has been used to predict demand in 2015, which has been compared to
observed demand from MOIRA as shown below:
Observed demand versus model predicted demand – season ticket segment
Station Observed Predicted Difference % Difference
Hexham 4,000 2,300 1,900 454%
Metro Centre 4,050 10,550 6,500 161%
Newcastle 192,000 177,350 -14,650 -8%
Sunderland 164,350 146,550 -17,800 -11%
Seaham 27,350 30,150 2,800 10%
Hartlepool 84,400 61,100 -23,300 -28%
Seaton Carew 12,850 14,150 1,300 10%
Billingham 9,500 12,500 3,000 31%
Stockton 11,700 21,150 9,450 81%
Thornaby 28,450 28,350 -100 0%
Middlesbrough 43,650 34,600 -9,050 -21%
Overall 578,700 538,650 -40,050 -7%
Source: Mott Macdonald and MOIRA
Predicted demand from the model is shown as 7% lower than the demand which is
observed. It is noted that a large difference between predicted and observed values occurs
49
at Hartlepool, although other stations which are likely to be similar to Horden- Peterlee,
including Seaham, Seaton Carew and Billingham all show slight over predictions in demand.
Forecast demand on season tickets for the two proposed station sites at Horden is,
therefore, shown below:
Forecast annualised demand on season tickets in 2015 to/from stations within the gravity model
Proposed Station Site Productions Attractions Two-way Demand
South East View 1,750 1,200 2,950
Old Horden 1,750 1,150 2,900
Source: Mott Macdonald
3.4.10 Forecast Demand
The gravity model was used to predict demand between Horden and stations along the
Durham Coast line, with the addition of the Metro Centre and Hexham. Percentage uplifts
have been applied to account for demand to and from other stations; based on MOIRA
demand data for Seaham. The uplift factors were disaggregated by ticket type and
production / attraction and are shown below:
Uplift factors to produce total modelled demand
Full Tickets Reduced Tickets Season Tickets
Uplift for demand from Horden 1.051 1.086 1.008
Uplift for demand to Horden 1.046 1.045 1.002
Source: MOIRA, based on demand at Seaham
Finally, total forecast demand at the two proposed station sites (together with observed
demand at selected stations) is shown below:
Forecast annualised demand in 2015 (using the gravity model) at the proposed station sites compared to existing stations along the Durham Coast line
Proposed Station Site Productions Attractions TOTAL DEMAND
South East View 53,750 15,650 69,400
Old Horden 41,450 11,700 53,100
Existing Station Productions Attractions TOTAL DEMAND
Seaham 90,650 33,550 124,200
Seaton Carew 35,800 21,600 57,400
Billingham 44,550 31,450 76,000
Source: Mott Macdonald
Forecasts from the gravity model suggest a significant difference in demand between South
East View and Old Horden. Demand at South East View is anticipated to be of a similar
magnitude to that of Billingham, where Old Horden is notably lower.
50
The proportional split of demand by ticket type for reference is shown below:
Demand split by ticket type in 2015 with observed demand at comparator stations
South East View
Old Horden Seaham Seaton Carew Billingham
Full 59,050 43,650 54,850 29,100 46,450
Reduced 7,350 6,550 41,850 14,150 16,600
Season 3,000 2,900 27,500 14,150 12,950
TOTAL 69,400 53,100 124,200 57,400 76,000
% full 85.1% 82.2% 44.2% 50.6% 61.1%
% reduced 10.6% 12.3% 33.7% 24.7% 21.8%
% season 4.3% 5.5% 22.1% 24.7% 17.1%
Source: Mott Macdonald (predicted) and MOIRA (observed)
As shown the gravity model suggests a large proportion of demand (~80% of total) will be on
full ticket types in comparison to 44% of existing demand at Seaham and 61% of existing
demand at Billingham. This is a particular function of the gravity model, with the socio-
economic indicators around Horden (in particular economic activity and social class) driving
very low levels of season ticket demand. Disaggregating demand by trip purposes produces
very similar proportional splits at both the proposed Horden station sites and Seaham.
It should also be noted that the gravity model is considered to be a more robust forecasting
methodology, as it is based on observed socioeconomic indicators in a given local area.
However, some indicators, which may represent specific trip purposes (e.g. education,
healthcare, football and other specific leisure trips), have not been included in the model
employed, nevertheless across all segments the model predicts demand to within 7% of the
observed values.
The top ten destinations from the two proposed station sites at Horden were also been
compared, with a summary provided below:
Modelled flows from South East View and Old Horden
Destination South East View
Demand
Cumulative % Destination Old Horden Demand
Cumulative %
Newcastle 22,200 41.3% Newcastle 17,300 41.7%
Sunderland 11,000 61.8% Sunderland 8,350 61.9%
Hartlepool 5,350 71.8% Hartlepool 4,050 71.7%
Middlesbrough 4,700 80.6% Middlesbrough 3,600 80.4%
Metro Centre 1,650 83.6% Metro Centre 1,350 83.7%
Stockton 1,450 86.3% Stockton 1,100 86.3%
Seaham 1,350 88.8% Seaham 1,050 88.8%
Billingham 1,300 91.2% Billingham 1,000 91.2%
Seaton Carew 1,150 93.4% Seaton Carew 850 93.3%
Thornaby 700 94.6% Thornaby 550 94.6%
Hexham 150 94.9% Hexham 100 94.8%
All others 2,750 100% All others 2,150 100%
Source: Mott Macdonald
51
The above shows that for both the proposed station options Newcastle is the biggest
destination, accounting for just over 40% of total demand from Horden-Peterlee. Sunderland
is the second largest destination, whilst Hartlepool is generally a slightly bigger destination
than Middlesbrough. A comparison with observed flows shows similar proportions of demand
from Seaham to Newcastle (47%) and Sunderland (26%), which gives comfort that the
model is predicting accurate demand flows.
3.4.11 Comparison with Trip Rate Model
As noted previously, the trip rate model was developed to give a level of reassurance that
demand predicted by the gravity model is in the right order of magnitude. A comparison
between the demand predicted using the two different methods is detailed below:
Difference in forecast demand in 2015 using trip rate and gravity model methods
Productions Demand predicted by trip
rate
Demand predicted by
Gravity Model
Difference % Difference
South East View 53,800 53,750 -50 0%
Old Horden 49,450 41,450 -8,00 -16%
Attractions Demand predicted by trip
rate
Demand predicted by
Gravity Model
Difference % Difference
South East View 27,250 15,650 -11,600 -43%
Old Horden 25,050 11,700 -13,350 -53%
Total Demand Demand predicted by trip
rate
Demand predicted by
Gravity Model
Difference % Difference
South East View 81,050 69,400 -11,650 -14%
Old Horden 74,500 53,100 -21,400 -29%
Source: Mott Macdonald
The table above shows that the gravity model forecasts less demand than the trip rate
model. The more central site of the two proposed, South East View - shows the least
variation between the two models. It is also noted that the gravity model produces a greater
variation in demand across the station sites.
There is also some degree of variation between productions and attractions; the difference in
demand forecast by trip rate and gravity model is much lower proportionally for production
than for attractions. At South East View the forecast trip productions using the two methods
are almost identical. Much larger percentage differences between the two sets of figures are
observed for trips attracted to the station.
Using the gravity model provides a far more robust analysis, being based on competition
with other modes as well as local socio-economic variables; the demand forecasts used by
this method will therefore be carried forward into the economic assessment.
3.4.12 Abstraction
In the development of the gravity model a number of issues and assumptions were
considered which will feed through into the economic appraisal of the proposed station. The
potential for abstraction was evaluated between the existing stations at Seaham, Hartlepool
and Horden. Initial analysis using crow fly distance isochrones suggested that only
Seaham’s existing catchment area would marginally overlap with the 5km isochrone at
52
Horden. However, more detailed analysis based on distance isochrones showed that in
reality there will be no overlap in the 5km catchment area at Seaham. As there is no overlap
in the 5km isochrones no abstraction assessment has been undertaken and as such the
assessment was conducted assuming a station at Horden will not abstract demand from the
neighbouring stations Seaham and Hartlepool.
3.4.13 Impact on Through Travellers
Through travellers are those rail passengers who currently use the section of line between
Seaham and Hartlepool and are likely to be impacted by travel time changes as a result of a
new station at Horden Peterlee. This takes the form of a time penalty for all services which
call at Horden, for the purposes of the economic assessment the assumption that calling at
Horden will incur an additional three minutes of journey time was made – as specified by
Arriva Rail North.
In order to assess the likely impact of calling at the proposed station the MOIRA rail demand
forecasting program was used. This was the Northern version of MOIRA (NT03) and was
obtained with permission from the Northern franchisee. MOIRA allows the modelling of the
impact of the additional journey time on through travellers, with outputs recorded in four
ways:
Loss of rail demand due to additional travel time;
Loss of rail revenue associated with changes in demand;
Transfer of a proportion of the lost rail demand to travel by car, resulting in an
increase of vehicle kilometres; and
Additional journey times for that demand which remains on the railway.
Arriva Rail North Ltd – the newly appointed Northern franchisee has committed to providing
an hourly service in both directions between Middlesbrough and Newcastle as part of the
new Northern franchise. Arriva have confirmed that a proposed new semi-fast service is very
likely to route via the Coast Line, instead of the original proposal for using the freight line
between Stockton and Ferryhill via Stillington, because of the strong likelihood of the semi-
fast service routing on the coast line, but not stopping at Horden, it is notable that through
travellers originating from the major population centres, will be able to avail themselves of
the additional three minutes noted above.
Therefore for the purposes of this assessment it was assumed:
16 trains in either direction calling at Newcastle, Durham, Stockton, Thornaby and
Middlesbrough;
Journey times quicker by two minutes for each intermediary station not called at,
resulting in a total IVT reduction of 6 to 8 minutes; and
An evenly spaced timetable at intermediary stations between Middlesbrough and
Newcastle, i.e. Hartlepool would see two departures in each direction 30minutes
apart.
Using this methodology it was estimated that the demand and revenue impacts of calling
services at Horden, this is summarised in the table below:
53
Demand and revenue impacts on through travellers in 2015
Ticket Type Demand Impacts Revenue Impacts
Existing service stopping service calls at Horden
- -
Total -6,105 -£35,838
Source: MOIRA, revenue presented in 2015 prices, Mott Macdonald
This suggests a loss of £35,838 per annum as a result of lost demand due to calling trains at
Horden. The main flows which are impacted will be Hartlepool to/from Sunderland and
Newcastle.
3.4.14 Demand and Revenue Forecasts
Guidance contained within TAG Unit M4 Forecasting and Uncertainty31 suggests that
demand and revenue forecasts should be produced for three different years. However, the
gravity model which was developed uses cross-sectional data – i.e. data from a single year.
It has not been tested using data over a period of time (i.e. longitudinal data). Therefore the
decision was taken to use the gravity model to develop forecasts for 2015 and factor
forwards using an aggregated growth factor.
Future year forecasts have been calculated by taking the 2015 base year forecasts and
applying the relevant underlying growth factors using elasticities specified in the Passenger
Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH)32 forecasts for the following years were
subsequently developed:
Base year – 2015;
Opening year – 2020;
Intermediate year – 2026; and
Demand cap year – 2036.
Demand in intermediate years was calculated through interpolating demand in the four
forecast years. Data sources and elasticities used in the demand forecasts are summarised
in below:
Data sources and elasticities used in growth forecasts
Element Data source Elasticity source
Population TEMPRO 7.0 PDFH 5.1 table B1.6 Employment TEMPRO 7.0 PDFH 5.1 table B1.6 GDP per capita TAG data book annual parameters (Summer
2016) PDFH 5.1 table B1.6
Rail fares RPI +0% PDFH 4 table 2.6 Car ownership TEMPRO 7.0 PDFH 5.1 table B2.4 Car fuel cost TAG data book M4.2.3 (Summer 2016) PDFH 5.1 table B2.4 Car journey time TAG data book M4.2.3 (Summer 2016) PDFH 5.1 table B2.4 Bus journey time TAG data book M4.2.3 (Summer 2016) PDFH 5.1 table B2.4 Bus fares RPI +2% PDFH 5.1 table B2.4
Source: Mott Macdonald
Car ownership, population and employment statistics are taken from planning data and have
been sourced from TEMPRO v7.0. This is based on a study area which is representative of
31 TAG unit M4 forecasting and uncertainty, Department for Transport, November 2014 32 GB Rail Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook v5.1, April 2013
54
the Horden and Peterlee areas, including the zones of Blackhall Colliery, Easington,
Easington (rural), Peterlee, and Shotton Colliery.
GDP, car fuel, car journey time and bus journey times are sourced from the TAG data book
of summer 2016. These are given either as annual parameters or as a series for use in rail
demand forecasting. In accordance with TAG Unit M4 (paragraph 8.3.3)33 real percentage
GDP growth has been reduced by 0.2% each year to account for switching between the RPI
(retail price index) and CPI (consumer price index) measures of inflation within the GDP
forecasts.
Rail fares and bus fares are both subject to high level assumptions. Regulated rail fares are
subject to a cap on increases of +0% above the rate of inflation measured by RPI. The
Conservative Party Manifesto for the 2015 General Election34 committed the Conservative
Government to freeze commuter rail fares (i.e. regulated fares) in real terms for the life of the
Parliament. Without further guidance, the assumption that rail fares rise at a rate of RPI+0%
until 2020, and thereafter at RPI+1% until the demand cap year was made. There is little
available guidance on bus fare increases; as bus fares are unregulated, for the purposes of
the economic assessment an assumption that bus fares rise at RPI+2% until the demand
cap year was made. For both rail and bus fares it was assumed that there are no further
changes after the demand cap year 20 years in the future.
In rail demand forecasting elasticities are applied to changes in exogenous factors, and the
elasticity is applied as a power to the rate of change. Many of these elasticities are sourced
from Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH) 5.135. As such rail fare elasticities
were sourced from PDFH4 in accordance with the requirements of TAG Unit M436,
paragraph 8.3.18.
Revenues per passenger were calculated using current ticket prices between the relevant
stations. These have been converted and discounted to 2010 prices so as to be in the
correct price base for input into the economic appraisal. For Horden it was assumed that
revenue per journey will fall exactly halfway between that for Seaham and Hartlepool (i.e. if
Seaham-Sunderland is priced at £3.60 and Hartlepool-Sunderland at £6.60 then it is fair to
assume that Horden-Sunderland would be priced at £5.10). Horden-Seaham and Horden-
Hartlepool revenues have both been assumed to be half of the Hartlepool-Seaham revenue.
Revenue growth is based on the current fares policy which specifies growth of RPI+0% per
annum. Based on discussions with the franchisee Arriva, it has been assumed that beyond
2020 fares rise at RPI+1%. Revenues have been converted to real terms prices using the
GDP deflator in the TAG data book. In line with guidance in TAG Unit A5.337 revenue
increases assume the same cap year as for demand growth.
3.5 Appraisal Methodology
The following section highlights the main high level assumptions which have been made for
the economic appraisal of the proposed scheme. It includes details on growth rates, discount
33 TAG unit M4 forecasting and uncertainty, Department for Transport, November 2014 34 https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto, page 14, accessed 6th January 2016 35 GB Rail Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook v5.1, April 2013 36 TAG unit M4 forecasting and uncertainty, Department for Transport, November 2014 37 TAG unit A5-3 rail appraisal, Department for Transport, December 2015
55
rates and the methodology used to calculate both user and non-user benefits over the
standard 60 year transport appraisal period. Further detail can be found in the Demand
Forecasting and Economic Assessment Report provided by Mott MacDonald38 which can be
found attached.
3.5.1 Assumptions
The methodology used in the economic appraisal has closely followed the guidance set out
in the Government’s Transport Appraisal Guidance (TAG) for railway business cases. This is
primarily contained in TAG Units A1.1 Cost-Benefit Analysis39 and A5.3 Rail Appraisal40. As
such, a number of high level assumptions were made, including:
Base forecast year: 2015
Scheme opening year: 2020
Demand growth cap: 2036 (20 years from current year)
Appraisal period: 60 years
Price base: 2010 market prices
Discounting: 3.5% for 30 years (to 2046), then 3.0% thereafter
The rail industry standard Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH)41 has also
been referenced throughout. This provides a series of recommended values for use in
demand forecasting based on a range of evidence. Table B12.1 of PDFH5.1 provides
recommended lag values, assuming that not all demand, revenue and benefit will accrue in
the opening year of the scheme and that people will change their behaviour over a period of
time.
For new to rail demand we have assumed the following (taking into account the different trip
purposes):
Year 1 (end of 2020) – 70% of demand, revenue and benefits realised;
Year 2 (end of 2021) – 85% of demand, revenue and benefits realised;
Year 3 (end of 2022) – 95% of demand, revenue and benefits realised; and
Year 4 (end of 2023) and thereafter – 100% of demand, revenue and benefits
realised.
This follows the advice contained in B12.1 of PDFH 5.142 regarding demand lags and the
build-up of demand for major new services. For through travellers the same guidance has
been followed but this time relating to deteriorations in generalised journey times. The
resulting build-up of demand is:
Year 1 (end of 2020) – 80% commute and 100% non-commute demand, revenue
and benefits realised;
Year 2 (end of 2021) – 95% commute and 100% non-commute demand, revenue
and benefits realised; and
38 Horden Peterlee Railway Station, Demand Forecasting and Economic Assessment Report, Mott MacDonald
for Durham County Council, November 2016 39 TAG unit A1.1 cost benefit analysis, Department for Transport, November 2014 40 TAG unit A5-3 rail appraisal, Department for Transport, December 2015 41 GB Rail Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook v5.1, April 2013 42GB Rail Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook v5.1, April 2013
56
Year 3 (end of 2022) and thereafter – 100% of demand, revenue and benefits
realised.
3.5.2 Methodology
Benefits of the scheme have been calculated using a simple spreadsheet model. User
benefits take the form of time savings, and are calculated in accordance with the change in
consumer surplus as specified in TAG Unit A1.3 User and Provider Impacts43. This uses the
so called rule of a half, where new passengers attracted to the railway as a result of an
improvement, in this case the provision of a new station, are assumed to enjoy half of the
total number of minutes saved. This uses the following formula:
Change in Consumer Surplus = ½ Σ (T0ijm + T1ijm) (P0ijm – P1ijm)
Where:
T = time; P = perceived costs
i = origin, j = destination, m = mode
0 = without scheme, 1 = with scheme
Standard monetary values for different journey purposes (detailed in TAG data book A1.3.1,
Summer 2016)44 are then applied for each year to convert the total number of minutes saved
into a financial value according to the purpose of the journey (i.e. commute, works business
or other). Values of time are also assumed to grow in line with forecasts included in the TAG
data book A1.3.245 (dated December 2014).
For the proposed scheme at Horden the benefits to new to rail users have been assessed.
This has looked at all elements of the rail journey, including access times.
Non-user benefits come under two main categories; time saving to road users as a result of
road decongestion (itself a function of some road traffic diverting to rail), and reduction in the
social cost of car use – again as a result of road traffic diverting to rail. These are referred to
as Marginal External Costs (MEC) and are assessed using the methodology detailed in TAG
Unit A5.4 Marginal External Costs46.
3.6 Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits
This section provides an analysis which quantifies in monetary terms as many of the costs
and benefits of the proposal as is feasible, including items for which the market does not
provide a satisfactory measure of economic value, where this is the case a detailed
explanation is provided as to how the factors have been quantified.
43 TAG unit A1.3 user and provider impacts, Department for Transport, November 2014 44 TAG Data Book A1.3.1, Department for Transport, Summer 2016 45 TAG Data Book A1.3.2, Department for Transport, December 2014 46 TAG unit A5-4 marginal external costs, Department for Transport, December 2015
57
3.6.1 Benefits and Disbenefits
3.6.1.1 User Benefits
New to rail demand has been calculated using a gravity model for movements along the
Durham Coast Line. The average time savings were then applied based on the rule of a
half.
External costs of car use are applied using the net-change in vehicle-kilometres. This is the
difference between origin and destination (e.g. Horden-Newcastle) and the distance between
origin and Horden railway station. For new to rail demand it was assumed that 44% of trips
divert from driving the full origin-destination distance, whilst the access modal split from
Seaham to account for drive-up demand to the new station at Horden was taken.
Costs and benefits calculated for new to rail demand are therefore shown in the table below:
Sources of benefit for new to rail demand:
Application Result
Demand New station induces demand from local area
Induced demand at new station
Journey Time Saving
Change in access and on-train time applied using rule-of-a-half
Decrease in journey times, giving benefits to users
Revenue Apply average revenues from Seaham/Hartlepool to new demand
No overall change for private sector; increased revenue balanced by reduced subsidy. Reduced cost to public sector through reduction in subsidy. Loss of indirect tax to Government
Marginal Economic Costs
Assume 44% of new trips transfer from car. Apply distance to calculate kilometre change
Decrease in highway kilometres, so marginal benefits to congestion, accidents and environment Loss of indirect tax to Government through reduced use of fuel
Source: Mott Macdonald
In order to assess the likely impacts of the new station at Horden on through travellers (i.e.
all travellers who are currently using rail on the section between Seaham and Hartlepool) the
MOIRA rail demand forecasting program was used. MOIRA allows for the modelling of the
impacts of calling stopping services at Horden, by assuming an additional three minutes
journey time between Seaham and Hartlepool in both directions. Outputs from MOIRA
report, changes in demand, revenue, and rail mileage.
Demand changes as a result of the increased journey time can be used to calculate mode
switch and any change in vehicle-kilometres. Referencing TAG Unit A5.447 which suggests
that 26% of new to rail users are attracted from car drivers, this assumption was applied in
reverse to suggest that 26% of demand lost as a result of the increased journey time will
transfer to car drivers. This was then applied to forecast the annual change in mileage in
order to produce vehicle-kilometres and calculate the marginal external costs.
For the purposes of this assessment it was assumed that 85% of through traveller demand
would avail themselves of the semi-fast service, and 15% would be on the stopping service.
47 TAG unit A5-4 marginal external costs, Department for Transport, December 2015
58
Costs and benefits calculated for through rail travellers are therefore shown in the table
below:
Sources of benefit for through rail travellers:
Application Result
Demand Additional journey time to call at Horden results in some demand on through movements switching to alternative modes
Demand decrease on through movements
Journey Time Saving
Additional 3 minutes journey time between Hartlepool and Seaham to allow additional call at Horden
Increase in journey times, giving dis-benefits to through travellers who remain
Revenue Loss of demand leads to loss of revenue most likely on short distance, low revenue movements
No overall change for private sector; decreased revenue balanced by increase in subsidy. Increase cost to public sector through increase in subsidy. Gain of indirect tax to Government
Marginal Economic Costs
Assume 26% of rail kilometres lost switch mode as car drivers. Apply distance to calculate kilometre change
Increase in highway kilometres, so marginal dis-benefits to congestion, accidents and environment. Gain of indirect tax to Government through increased use of fuel
Source: Mott Macdonald
Growth to through traveller demand was not applied in this case, on the basis that the impact
of the additional three minutes journey time is limited to that demand which is already on the
network. Similarly revenue growth is limited to the real-terms increase in prices.
3.6.1.2 Non-User Benefits
Non-user benefits are referred to as Marginal External Costs (MEC); the following elements
have been counted according to valuations contained within the TAG data book A5.4 (dated
Summer 2016)48:
Congestion;
Road accidents;
Greenhouse gas emissions;
Local air quality;
Road traffic noise;
Road infrastructure repairs; and
Indirect taxation impacts.
External costs of car use resulting from demand at Horden have been applied with net
decongestion benefits and indirect tax costs calculated using the net change in vehicle
kilometres. This is shown in the table below, for the assumed scenario of the existing 2016
stopping service calling at Horden and the semi-fast service between Middlesbrough and
Newcastle routing via the Durham Coast Line.
48TAG unit A5-4 marginal external costs, Department for Transport, Summer 2016
59
Change in vehicle kilometres because of the scheme in 2020
South East View
Reduced highway distance from origin to destination because of mode shift to rail (new to rail demand) -865,482
Increased highway distance origin to destination because of mode shift to car (through traveller demand lost to rail) 30,000
Total Impact -835,482
Source: Mott MacDonald
This assumes that 44% of new users to rail formerly drive from their origin to destination. This guidance is contained within Appendix C of TAG Unit A5.4 Marginal External Costs. This figure was used as a change in trip numbers rather than a change in train kilometres was being forecast. For through travellers 26% of demand lost to rail transfers to car drivers was assumed, again using the guidance contained in TAG Unit A5.4; this figure is slightly different to that noted above as it relates to forecasting a change in train kilometres. Using outputs from MOIRA it is possible to calculate the total end-to-end journey distance for each movement in order to calculate annual vehicle kilometre changes. For new rail demand forecast demand to all stations on the Durham Coast Line (minus Heworth), plus Metro Centre and Hexham was completed. Road distances for the equivalent journey by car were calculated using the AA route planner website. Drive-up demand at Horden has also been considered. This has taken half of the distance of the trip isochrone as the average distance from origin to Horden – i.e. 400m as the average distance in the 800m isochrone, 1.4km as the average distance in the 0.8-2km isochrone and 3.5km in the 2-5km isochrone. The change in vehicle kilometres was then used to calculate the total benefit of marginal external costs. This uses pence per vehicle-km which are contained in A5.4.2 of the TAG data book (Summer 2016)49. Pence per vehicle-km are reported for several road types, so an assessment of the type of roads which are likely to see a change in vehicle-km was necessary. As a result the assumption that the majority of all journeys will take place on “average” roads was made, excepting the following elements:
The first 2km and last 2km of all journeys, which are assumed to be on “Inner and Outer Conurbations, other roads”; and
Where the origin or destination is: Metro Centre, Newcastle, Sunderland, Hartlepool, Stockton, or Middlesbrough it was assumed that 5km, instead of the usual 2km, at that end of the journey is on “Inner and Outer Conurbations, other roads”.
Applying the monetary values from the TAG data book therefore allowed the calculation of monetary impacts for the seven elements of Marginal External Costs, which is included in section 3.7 Appraisal Results.
3.6.1.3 Wider Economic Benefits
As part of the proposal for a new station at Horden to help create opportunities for
employment, the visitor economy and to stimulate the housing market, a better
understanding of the indirect wider economic impacts and benefits of the station was
required to provide a fuller appreciation for the economic assessment. This section
49 TAG unit A5-4.2 marginal external costs, Department for Transport, Summer 2016
60
summarises land use and economic development analysis which supports the traditional
transport appraisal undertaken as part of the BCR calculations in the economic assessment.
As noted throughout the preceding Strategic Case, the study area is characterised by a relatively small population and employment base – both of which have demonstrated a pattern of decline in recent years. The local economy is over-reliant on public sector jobs although there has been some growth in housing values over the last five years. A new rail station serving the area would bring the labour markets of Sunderland and Hartlepool/ Teesside to within 15 minutes of Peterlee-Horden by train. Improved connectivity to labour markets can also increase the attractiveness of locations for housing developers and for subsequent occupation of new housing by in-moving families. The proposed rail station, aligned with land-use planning, can support the area to mitigate against continued decline and be part of a package that supports modest growth, reflecting the scale of the area, in the longer term. Durham County Council’s Local Planning Framework remains under development. However, based upon studies elsewhere, wider economic benefits have been calculated. It is anticipated that these will be validated once the Local Plan has progressed to an ‘Issues and Options’ stage.
3.6.1.3.1 Employment Land
The usual approach is to correlate infrastructure development with positive expectations of
additional employment land take up, from which it is possible to calculate both an economic
value based on job generation and GVA uplift. To this wider social/community impacts in
terms of the positive benefits can be built in which flow from, for example, enhanced
pedestrian safety, accessibility to social and community infrastructure and any resulting
enhancements to sustainable transport.
The case studies used by Mott MacDonald in the preparation of the economic appraisal
indicate that similar economic benefits could be generated in Peterlee with the opening of a
new station:
The review of the evaluation of the March-Wisbech line found that by including additional employment land take up, the BCR of the line rose significantly;
The opening of the Laurencekirk station was found to have reduced congestion on the road network, freeing up capacity for freight and other business use;
Again for March-Wisbech, the expectation was that an additional 10% of employment land would be taken up with the station; and
Half of all local businesses surveyed along the Larkhall-Milngavie Line stated the scheme had had a positive effect on their business.
Based on other studies around new stations, it is assumed that there will be some additional economic activity, and there will likely be some additional economic stimulus, specifically in the SME and micro-sized (i.e. less than 10 employees) market. The provision of allocated development land and suitable employment premises would be required to support this growth but proximity to a rail station can increase labour market catchments which are attractive to small businesses and a combination of land-use and transport planning could combine to deliver a moderate level of employment growth in future. On the basis of 3.6ha per year take up as recently reported in Easington, a 10% uplift would yield additional economic benefits from an 0.36ha of additional employment land take up – about the size of a football pitch – per year. If the employment land yielded an additional 4.5
61
employees per hectare (as with the March-Wisbech study) the employment benefits are small. In addition, the GVA benefits would also be small – about £250,000 per year. However, this takes no account of the precise use (classification) of additional employment land, or any locally meaningful level of attribution and although these benefits are relatively small they are set within the context of a small geographic area making them important.
3.6.1.3.2 Housing
Across a five year period there were approximately 45 housing completions per year in the
study area, with over half (24) directly in Horden and Peterlee. Evidence suggests uplift in
housing demand following the introduction of a new station – particularly in the case of rural
stations:
Yorkshire the study by Blainey and Preston indicated the population of areas with a
new station grew 8% more than the population of similar control areas which lacked
such rail connectivity; and
The same study also found the opening of a new station leads to a 7-10% increase in
house prices in the station’s postcode sector – even if house prices increased by a
more modest amount, the increased confidence in Peterlee could trigger new
investment and economic confidence.
As with employment land, there was no attempt to make any such forecasts on a site by site basis. However, if population does grow by 8% over a twenty year period across the study area, then, as a high level indicator: Example of how Population Growth led to Growth in Demand for Housing:
Settlement Current Pop Current
Households
Pop/Household (Avg. Household
size)
8% Pop increase
anticipated linked to new
station
No. of Houses req’d to
accommodate Pop growth
over 20 years
Blackhall Rocks
1,276 662 1.93 1,378 715
Easington Colliery
4,855 2,509 1.94 5,243 2,710
Easington Village
2,718 1,250 2.17 2,935 1,350
Horden 7,309 3,724 1.96 7,894 4,022
Peterlee 20,443 9,403 2.17 22,078 10,155
Blackhall Colliery
3,720 1,985 1.87 4,018 2,144
TOTAL 40,321 19,533 2.06 43,547 21,096
Source: Mott MacDonald
Thus, assuming the size of each household remains constant, there will be a need for additional housing units of around 1,500-1,600 homes over that period. Modelling real house price growth at 1% per annum and assuming an additional 75-80 new houses are constructed each year then there are associated economic benefits to having a station. In 2016 prices, there would be an additional volume of sales valued at £145m-£155m over the 20 year period.
62
However, it should be reiterated that the precise quantum and location of sites brought forward for housing will be key determinates of the scale, value and type of housing which is likely to be constructed over this period.
3.6.1.3.3 Visitor Economy
In 2014, a study of the entire County Durham coastline50 found the following:
Tourism in the area was valued at just under £110m pa; This was the product of 2.97 million visitors per year, with an average day visitor
spend of £19.70; Overnight visitors spent an average of £142.98 per trip; and Over 1,500 people were employed in tourism along the Durham coastline.
It is impossible to deduce how many people from this latter survey visited the Heritage Coast specifically; however it should be assumed that a relatively high proportion of the 2.97m visitors to the Durham Coastline would be visitors of the Heritage Coast. It is also possible to say:
The 2014 study showed the opportunities to grow the visitor economy – the number of visitors to the
Durham Heritage Coast was about a tenth of those visiting the Northumberland Coast which has much better connectivity across the North East region, even from Durham;
Reports from the Durham Heritage Coast Partnership continue to highlight the lack of skills and facilities which serve the tourist and visitor market at present51; and
The area is an identified strategic asset for the sub region’s Tourist Strategy. Growing tourism is one way in which this station can have a significant economic impact In terms of examples and evidence from elsewhere:
Evidence from the Bamford Loop Environmental Statement in the Peak District shows how enhancements to rail services into key tourist destinations can add moderate, but beneficial, numbers of jobs and GVA to the local economy. It would not be unrealistic to see a similar scale of visitor economy benefits to the growing tourist economy of the County Durham coastline; and
The appraisal of the Moorlands and City heritage railway scheme in rural Staffordshire also demonstrated how increasing access to a tourist destination through rail service enhancements and new stations and lines can have significant local economic impacts on the visitor economy.
ONS figures52 suggest that across the region 3.9% of all jobs are in some way related to tourism. If applied to the study area, then across all sectors, about 380 jobs are in the visitor economy. Using the figures calculated for the Moorlands and City heritage railway scheme, which attributed an additional 20,000 visitors per annum to the area, directly as a result of the railway, then there could be a similar level of job (between 10 and 20 additional jobs) and GVA (£200k-300k per annum) creation. This is not unrealistic – evidence suggests there are now 3m annual visitors to the Durham Coastline in total. A 20,000 visitor increase only represents a 0.006% increase. The railway
50 Durham Tourism Management Plan, Visit County Durham, 2012-2016 51 Durham Heritage Coast Masterplan: Business Plan, Visit County Durham, April 2014 52 The Geography of Tourism Employment, Office for National Statistics, 2012
63
station would also fit into a broader sustainable tourist strategy, raising the proportion of nonlocal visitors and increasing additional visitor spend (and wider economic benefit) still further.
3.6.1.3.4 Option and Non-use Values
An option value is the willingness-to-pay to preserve the option of using a transport service
for trips not yet anticipated or currently undertaken by other modes, over and above the
expected value of any such future use. Option values are associated with uncertainty about
use of the transport facility. An option value may exist even if the option of using the
transport service is never taken-up, as they are related to each individual’s attitude to
uncertainty.
A non-use value is a value that may be placed on the continued existence of a good
regardless of any possibility of future use by the individual in question.
The motivation for the desire for the good to continue to exist may, however, vary from one
circumstance to another. For example, individuals may value a good for altruistic reasons or
for reasons associated with indirect use. Examples of situations where non-use values may
exist in a transport environment include:
A resident in a village deriving benefit from the knowledge that the elderly can use
public transport to access the facilities they need;
Where the vitality of a community may depend on the transport link - for example
where a substantial proportion of the economic activity in the community stems from
either passing trade or from business associated with the provision of transport
services; and
Where cultural heritage value of transport infrastructure is large.
There is Department for Transport guidance53 on assigning monetary equivalents as a
standard measure of option/non-use values. As such, it is straightforward to produce a range
of values estimating Option and Non-use values.
The values used are as referenced, it was decided to maintain the Department for
Transport’s recommendation for using only those households within 2km of station, even
though in this instance, a case for the inclusion of those communities slightly further away
could likely be made.
For reference the valuation across the entire study area, including those households
between 2km and 5km away from the station is provided in the table below:
53 TAG Unit A4.1: Social Impact Appraisal, Department for Transport, January 2014
64
Option & Non-use Valuations under various assumptions:
Option/Non-use valuation (£s, 2016 prices)
Households between
No. of Households
£5654 £7555 £25956 £27257
0-800m 2,274 £127,055 £169,996 £588,792 £618,569
801m-2km 5,356 £299,255 £400,395 £1,386,793 £1,456,928
2km-5km 12,850 £717,967 £960,618 £3,327,164 £3,495,430
Total (exc’ 2km-5km)
7’630 £426,310 £570,391 £1,975,585 £2,075,497
Total (incl’ 2km-5km)
20,480 £1,144,277 £1,531,009 £5,302,749 £5,570,927
Source: Mott MacDonald
Thus depending on the values assigned to the option and non-use valuation, a community benefit value of between £426,000 and £2.1m is derived for all households within 2km of the proposed station for a single year.
3.6.1.3.5 Summary of Wider Economic Benefits
The table detailed over summarises the various wider economic benefits outlined above. The figures given may, however, be conservative as:
The benchmarks used (often based on appraisals and business cases which have been peer assessed by funding organisations) are themselves conservative and use conservative assumptions;
There is no detailed visitor and tourist information on which to make any precise forecasts on visitor numbers;
Temporary construction benefits from either: (i) developing employment land; (ii) building houses; and,
(iii) constructing the station itself has not been calculated; and A wide range of option and non-use values have been set out to give an idea of the
values which could be used in any study or future funding application.
54 Review of Economic Assessment in Rural Transport Appraisal, Scottish Government Social Research, 2009 55 The Economic Value of Rail in the North of England, PTEG, July 2014 56 Review of Economic Assessment in Rural Transport Appraisal, Scottish Government Social Research, 2009 57 TAG Data Book A4.1.8, Department for Transport, Summer 2016
65
Summary of potential wider economic benefit impacts:
Impact/Benefit Benefit 1 Benefit 2 Benefit 3 Notes
Employment Land
0.36ha additional land developed
£250,000 GVA pa (estimate valid for 2016 prices)
15 additional employees (over a ten year period as land is developed)
Based on recent detailed studies elsewhere. Detailed site by site analysis would be expected to yield a greater impact
Housing 75-80 additional homes per year
Midpoint of resulting sales uplift: £149.6m (assuming 1% real house price growth pa, 2016 prices)
-
Depending on land and construction costs detailed temporary construction impact could be modelled using TEAM
Visitor Economy 20,000 additional visitors (direct attribution)
£230,000 GVA pa (estimate valid for 2016 prices)
10-20 employees in tourism/visitor economy
Based on recent detailed studies elsewhere. Station also creates an asset for the visitor economy which yield further economic benefit (e.g. shops and services around the station)
Option and use valuation
Mid –value of range in table for all homes within 2km of station: £1.25m pa. Value using DfT WebTAG Data Book: £2.08m
- -
Annual values per households at 2016 prices based on households within 2km from proposed station
Source: Mott MacDonald
3.6.1.4 Physical Activity Modelling
The scheme has the potential to impact on physical activity levels in two discrete ways:
Increasing walking and cycling levels where these active modes are used to access
and/or egress stations; and
Potentially, abstracting from existing, more localised, walking and cycling through a
simultaneous change in mode and destination, i.e. due to improved rail accessibility
opening opportunities for travel which were not previously available or considered.
As the extent of the latter is less well known due to dependency on standard UK rail industry
diversion factors values are provided separately.
To estimate the associated benefits, and potential disbenefits two modelling tools are
employed:
66
The World Health Organisation’s (WHO’s) Health Economic Assessment Tool
(HEAT); and
Sport England’s MOVES model.
Critically, these capture different health impacts with the former focussing on mortality and
the latter on wellbeing aspects and cost savings to the National Health Service (NHS).
Access and egress mode shares for both production and attraction stations are taken from
analysis of National Rail Traveller Survey (NRTS) data, and, for abstraction of local walk and
cycle trips to rail, average walk and cycle distances are taken from the Department for
Transport’s National Travel Survey (NTS) data for 2015.
3.6.1.4.1 HEAT
This tool provides an assessment of the economic value of the reduced mortality that arises
from an increase, or decrease, in walking and cycling. The calculation can be performed
using the following data:
Number of people walking or cycling;
Frequency of their walking or cycling; and
Duration or distance walked or cycled.
By using before and after scheme data, HEAT can be used to estimate the number of
premature deaths prevented by the additional walking and cycling, and the value of these
reductions. The advantage of the
HEAT is that it uses a methodology designed by the WHO and endorsed by the UK DfT in
TAG. This means that it carries the credibility needed to evidence the benefits of active
travel investment within the transport sector.
3.6.1.4.2 MOVES
MOVES looks at additional benefits achieved by the scheme, in terms of the Quality
Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) gained. This is the product of the years of life gained (as with
less disease, people live fuller, longer lives) and a value associated with the quality of life
during those additional years. In this case we use the NICE threshold value of £25,000 per
QALY gained as a measure of the amount that the NHS has said it is willing to pay for the
benefits.
67
3.6.1.4.3 Summary of Estimated Health Benefits
The table detailed below summarises the resulting physical activity benefits from the two
separate models:
Core Scenario Physical Activity Benefits (monetary values are discounted £s in 2010 values and prices) Impact Value
Access and Egress Changes
A- HEAT Analysis (Changes in Mortality) 690,526
B- MOVES Analysis (Changes in Wellbeing) 1,302,455
C- MOVES Analysis (Cost Savings to NHS) -238,357 (cost saving)
Change in Mode
D- HEAT Analysis (Changes in Mortality) -216,253
E- MOVES Analysis (Changes in Wellbeing) -363,024
F- MOVES Analysis (Cost Savings to NHS) 65,841 (cost increase)
TOTALS
A+B 1,992,981
C -238,357
A+B+D+E 1,413,704
C+F -12,516
Source: Mott MacDonald
3.6.2 Costs
3.6.2.1 Closure of Blackhills Farm Level Crossing
The operating costs for the Blackhills Farm level crossing have been estimated at £5,000 in
2016 prices. Future operating costs have been assumed to follow the trend for other OPEX
as detailed in the ‘Demand Forecasting Report’. No optimism bias is applied to these costs
as they are considered existing. Costs are converted to market prices using the standard
TAG adjustment factor, discounted to 2010, and converted to a 2010 price base. The
resulting stream of Present Value of Costs (PVC) saving is estimated to be -£100,800, which
applies to all scenarios and tests.
In addition, the reduction in the risk of accidents due to conflicts between trains and other
users of the crossing was considered using standard Rail Safety & Standards Board (RSSB)
values, based on guide values provided by Network Rail. The estimated annual safety
benefit from removing the crossing is £2,259 in 2016/17 values and prices.
The result is a Present Value of Benefits (PVB) of £57,506, which again applies equally to all
scenarios.
3.6.2.2 Capital Costs
Durham County Council is in an ongoing discussion with Network Rail; costs are currently
evolving for the station, based on budget costings and before any discussions on value
engineering have taken place. The table below provides a breakdown of the funding profile
for South East View. This has emerged as the preferred option in terms of engineering
feasibility following a pre GRIP 3 study by Network Rail.
68
Base capital costs for South East View
2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Total
Project Management 0.025 0.156 0.156 0.132 0.469
Project Design 0.278 0.404 0.261 - 0.943 Other Project Costs - - - 0.670 0.670 Preliminaries - - - 1.145 1.145
Overheads and Profits - - - 0.496 0.496 Construction - - - 3.816 3.816
Optimism Bias - - - 3.015 3.015 Total (£m) 0.303 0.560 0.417 9.274 10.554
Source: Network Rail – presented in 2016/17 prices to the nearest thousand, allowing possibilities for rounding
errors in the total
3.6.2.3 Operating Costs
High level operating costs for the scheme have been developed based on similar scheme
proposals for a simple, unstaffed, halt. These have been uplifted at a rate of 2.9% to account
for the assumed difference between construction and general inflation, general inflation itself
through an RPI forecast, as well as using the appropriate RPI factor to convert to 2016/17
prices.
A full breakdown of the assumed operating cost during the period of 2018 to 2024 is
provided below. This includes maintenance, renewals, and utility costs. Assuming the station
will be an unstaffed halt, similar to Seaham, Seaton Carew and Billingham. We have
therefore included costs for lighting, CCTV, help points and long-line public address.
In addition to these elements Mott MacDonald also cross-referenced against the Long Term
Charge (LTC) levied by Network Rail. The costs of the LTC over Control Period 5 (2014-19)
are published on the Network Rail website58. Assuming that the LTC for Horden will be
similar to that at other stations on the Durham Coast line; we the average values for
Seaham, Seaton Carew and Billingham was taken as a proxy for the LTC for Horden. This
equates to £12,357 per annum in 2016/17 prices.
TAG Unit A5.359 specifies that non-staff operating costs should rise in line with RPI and be
capped in the same year as demand growth, i.e. 2036.
As such, costs are inclusive of:
Preliminaries at 15%; and
Optimism bias at 1% per annum.
58 www.networkrail.co.uk/...charges/cp5-long-term-charges-for-franchised-stations.xls?cd=1 – Accessed 11
January 2016 59 TAG unit A5-3 rail appraisal, Department for Transport, December 2015
69
Base operating costs for South East View:
Element 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Electricity £3,009 £3,104 £3,200 £3,298 £3,397 £3,499 £3,604
Cleaning/Maintenance £21,065 £21,728 £22,402 £23,085 £23,778 £24,491 £25,226
Vandalism £7,523 £7,760 £8,001 £8,245 £8,492 £8,747 £9,009
Minor Repairs £3,009 £3,104 £3,200 £3,298 £3,397 £3,499 £3,604
Major Overhaul £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
Major Refurbishment £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
Patch Surfacing £0 £0 £8,641 £0 £0 £0 £0
Platform Resurfacing £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
M&E and Lighting £1,655 £1,707 £1,760 £1,814 £1,868 £1,924 £1,982
Lighting Renewals £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
Feeder Pillar £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
CCTV £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
Help Point Renewal £0 £0 £0 £0 £16,984 £0 £0
PA Renewal £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
TOTAL £36,262 £37,404 £47,204 £39,740 £57,916 £42,160 £43,425
Source: Mott MacDonald, 2016 prices.
It must be noted that all quoted operating costs are presented in 2016/17 prices. Values used within the economic appraisal were discounted, and deflated back to 2010 prices with a market price adjustment applied.
3.6.2.4 Scheme Costs for Appraisal
A number of adjustments are required to costs before they can be used in the economic
appraisal. This is documented in TAG Unit A1.2 Scheme Costs60 and includes the following
elements:
Optimism bias and risk;
Real price increases are accounted for by looking at comparative rates of inflation for
general costs and for construction costs. This assumes that general inflation rises at
2.5% per annum, whereas construction inflation rises at 5% per annum;
Re-basing to 2010 has been undertaken using the general inflation deflator (using
RPI from the TAG data book dated Summer 2016);
Discounting to 2010 using a discount rate of 3.5%for 30 years and 3% thereafter; and
Conversion to market prices using an indirect taxation factor of 1.19 (or 19%).
Optimism bias is defined as the historic tendency to underestimate scheme costs. TAG Unit
A5.3 Rail Appraisal61 provides differing rates of optimism bias dependent on which stage of
the Network Rail GRIP process the scheme is currently at. The level of optimism bias
decreases as the project progresses to completion.
In addition to optimism bias, risk also represents a potential source of error in scheme cost
estimates. This is defined as an event with ‘known probabilities’ and can be measured, using
Quantified Risk Assessments.
Horden is currently at GRIP stage 3, and as specified in TAG this should include optimism
bias of 40% for capital costs; no QRA contingency value should be included at this stage. In
60 TAG Unit A1.2 Scheme Costs for Appraisal, Department for Transport, January 2014 61 TAG unit A5-3 rail appraisal, Department for Transport, December 2015
70
addition, 1% optimism bias per annum should be included in the operating costs. This figure
is added each year and is not included as a cumulative impact.
The resulting costs of the scheme, as input into the economic appraisal are shown below:
Scheme capital costs used in the economic appraisal:
Source 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Total
Local Funding (DCC) - - - 2.840 2.840
Regional Funding (LGF) 0.303 0.560 0.417 2.060 3.340
National Funding (NSF) - - - 4.374 4.374
Total Capital Costs 0.303 0.560 0.417 9.274 10.554
Source: Network Rail and Durham County Council 2016/17 prices rounded £m’s.
3.6.3 Updated Values of Time
The Department for Transport commenced a consultation period in November 2015
concerned with recent research on values of time; the Department of Transport plan to
include this recent research in updates to TAG slated to be published in May 2016.
Several documents have been published, including one which specifies how sensitivity tests
can be undertaken using the updated values of time62. One method is to use the results of
the core appraisal and adjust them as follows:
Commute time saving values to be increased by 50% for car users and by 47% for
public transport users;
Business time saving values to be reduced by 33% for car users, 8% for rail users
and 39% for other public transport users;
Other non-work time saving values to be reduced by 18% for car users and by 24%
for public transport users; and
Marginal External Costs to be reduced by 10%.
As such the values for the core scenario were taken and adjusted as per above, as stated in
the appraisal results which are detailed in the following section.
3.7 Appraisal Results
The following section sets out the results of the economic appraisal of the proposed scheme.
It brings together the costs and various benefits of the scheme as detailed above,
summarising the overall value for money by quantifying the scheme in terms of a Benefit
Cost Ratio (BCR).
3.7.1 Core Results
It should be noted that for all the results detailed below benefit and cost data for the scheme
have been deflated to a common price base (2010 prices), whilst costs have been converted
from factor prices to market prices, discounted for the 60 year appraisal period, and
converted to 2010 prices.
At this stage, two tests have been considered for South East View:
1A Semi-fast service routed via the Durham Coast line; and
62https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470998/Understanding_and_Val
uing_Impacts_of_Transport_Investment.pdf - accessed 12 January 2016
71
1C Semi-fast service routed via the Durham Coast line, with mode shift from walking
and cycling for new rail travellers.
Both tests (A and C) represents the reference case, which includes 3 minutes stopping time
at Horden, the semi-fast service routing via the Durham Coast Line, £10.55m cost estimate
and modal shift away from rail. Test C, however, also considers the physical activity
disbenefits for travellers newly attracted to rail, i.e. reductions in walking and cycling for local
journeys (simultaneous change in mode and destination).
As noted in the preceding section values of time were also consulted upon by the
Department for Transport in 2015/16. Whilst not approved, it is anticipated that these
changes will be in place before the proposed station at Horden Peterlee is open.
Core results for the two testes are presented in the table below. Benefits are exclusive of
option and non-use values, and the indirect wider economic benefits associated with
employment land, housing and the visitor economy as outlined in 3.6 Analysis of Monetised
Costs and Benefits, instead these economic impacts will be subsequently outlined and
added to the core tests in the following sections.
Monetised costs and benefits for South East View station option (£m):
Test NPV BCR New VoT NPV New VoT BCR
1A Core + 3mins + Durham Coast semi-fast + £10.55m cost
3.17 1.59 3.35 1.62
1C Core + 3mins + Durham Coast semi-fast + £10.55m Cost + mode shift from walking and cycling for local journeys
2.98
1.55
3.16
1.58
Source: Mott MacDonald (Values and prices presented in a discounted 2010 base)
3.7.2 Wider Economic Benefits
As noted, the estimates of the Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs) for the scheme are detailed
above in section 3.6. Considering the WEBs relating to labour supply, the projected Present
Vale of Benefits (PVBs) over the 60-year appraisal period is:
£3.23M GVA from the delivery of employment land; and
£3.54M GVA to the visitor economy.
The inclusion of the employment land and visitor economy benefits is made on the
assumption of labour market failure, as per the WEBs in TAG, and, for Department of
Transport purposes, demonstrable net benefit to the UK (as opposed to displacement of
activity from other areas), i.e. that the jobs which are implicit in the GVA estimates are net
additional.
This is plausible on the basis of the deprivation and unemployment levels in the Horden-
Peterlee area, and as such they are added as a sensitivity line within the economic metrics.
To ensure compliance with TAG, the values are multiplied by a market price adjustment
factor and a labour supply multiplier63. The total PVB for the wider economic impacts
therefore rises to £3.27M. The effect of adding this is shown in the table below, with the Net
Present Value (NPV) and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) increasing accordingly.
63 TAG Unit A2.1 wider impacts, Department for Transport, January 2014
72
Monetised costs and benefits for South East View station option, adjusted for WEBs (£m):
Test PVB PVB+WEBs PVC NPV BCR
1A Core + 3mins + Durham Coast semi-fast + £10.55m cost
8.58 11.85 5.41 6.44 2.19
1C Core + 3mins + Durham Coast semi-fast + £10.55m Cost + mode shift from walking and cycling for local journeys
8.39
11.66
5.41
6.25
2.16
Source: Mott MacDonald (Values and prices presented in a discounted 2010 base)
3.7.3 Option & Non-Use Values
Due to the magnitude of the option and non-use values for the scheme relative to other
benefits, driven by the number of households within a recommended catchment
consideration of 2km from the new rail option, It is deemed sensible to report on these
benefits, outside of the core and WEBs adjusted NPVs and BCRs. The table below
summarises the relative impact on economic appraisal metrics and the subsequent increase
in BCR.
Monetised costs and benefits for South East View station option, adjusted for WEBs and Option and Non-use Values (£m):
Test PVB PVB+WEBs+OVs+NUV
PVC NPV BCR
1A Core + 3mins + Durham Coast semi-fast + £10.55m cost
8.58 31.06 5.41 25.65 5.74
1C Core + 3mins + Durham Coast semi-fast + £10.55m Cost + mode shift from walking and cycling for local journeys
8.39
30.87
5.41
25.46
5.71
Source: Mott MacDonald (Values and prices presented in a discounted 2010 base)
3.7.4 Operational Costs and Revenue Generated
The table detailed below shows the operating cost and passenger revenue forecasts for the
period from 2020 to 2024, the current expected end date of the Arriva North franchise, in
2016/17, undiscounted, prices.
Values in red under OPEX - Revenue indicate a surplus/clawback against operating costs,
including modal shift associated with the additional 3 minutes of stopping time at Horden
Peterlee, highlighting the viability of the proposed scheme.
South East View 2020 to 2024 Financial Case Test Results (undiscounted 2016/17 prices):
Test OPEX(£ms) Passenger Revenue (£ms)
OPEX – Revenue (£ms)
1A Core + 3mins + Durham Coast semi-fast + £10.55m cost
0.22 1.18 -0.96
Source: Mott MacDonald
73
The table below summarises the OPEX and revenue forecasts by year to 2024 for scenario
1A.
South East View 2020 to 2024 Financial Case OPEX and revenue by year (undiscounted 2016/17 prices):
Year OPEX (£s) Passenger Revenue (£s) OPEX – Revenue (£s)
2020 36,262 184,655 -148,393
2021 37,404 221,656 -184,252
2022 47,204 246,361 -199,157
2023 39,740 260,366 -220,626
2024 57,916 265,461 -207,545
Source: Mott MacDonald
3.8 Preferred Option
As noted in section 3.3 Options Appraisal only two site options were deemed viable for the
construction of the proposed station. This conclusion stemmed from the Pre-Grip Feasibility
Study conducted by Network Rail64 - which determined only two of a possible five station
sites entered in to the study were deemed viable owing to construction challenges,
contamination and risk elements of the three sites deemed unsuitable for development.
Although, it was decided to undertake the full economic appraisal for both the remaining
options to determine which site could be deemed as the ‘Preferred Option’ it became
immediately clear upon conducting the demand forecasting and the monetised assessment
of costs that South East View should be considered the ‘Preferred Option’ owing to the
reality that this site:
Is central to the population generating the greatest demand;
Delivered anticipated lower costs;
Sited in the most suitable location; and
All land required for the station’s development was either in Durham County Council
or Network Rail’s ownership.
The decision to name South East View as the ‘Preferred Option’ is in line with Treasury
Guidance65 which notes that selecting the preferred option should be a reasonably
straightforward step in the decision making process as generally the option with best NPV
should be considered the ‘Preferred Option’.
In this instance South East view not only delivered the greatest benefits but also possessed
the lowest cost. As such, throughout the economic appraisal the assessment uses South
View as the site option and is noted as such.
3.9 Value for Money Statement
Securing value for money from new public infrastructure requires careful consideration. With
newly built assets particular consideration has to be given to design, whole life costs, fitness
for purpose, operational efficiency, and end of life costs as well as the initial impact of the
capital payment. Clearly the detailed economic assessment outlined above provides comfort
64 Horden Station: Pre-FRIP Feasibility Study, Network Rail, March 2016 65 Greenbook Supplementary Guidance on Delivering Public Value from Spending Proposals, HM Treasury, 2015
74
that the proposed station at Horden Peterlee is viable both in terms of the benefits it delivers
and its operational sustainability.
The Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) which is outlined in the preceding sections is typically
classified into one of five bands detailed in the Government’s Value for Money (VfM)66
guidance for transport schemes these are:
Poor, if BCR is below 1.0;
Low, if BCR is between 1.0 and 1.5;
Medium, if BCR is between 1.5 and 2.0;
High, if BCR is between 2.0 and 4.0; and
Very High, if BCR is greater than 4.0.
The below table highlights the various tests conducted for the proposed scheme, their
respective BCR’s and an assessment of their Value for Money based on the government
guidance outlined above.
Value for Money Statement for different tests:
South East View (test 1A)
South East View (test 1A) +WEBs
South East View (test 1A) +WEBs
+Option/Non-use Values
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.59 2.19 5.74
Value for Money (VfM) Medium High Very High
Source: Mott MacDonald As such it can be conclude that the proposed scheme clearly fulfils HM Treasury’s
requirements for appraisal and demonstrates value for money in the use of taxpayers’
money.
3.10 Conclusions
The Economic Case has demonstrated that the spending proposal optimises public value for
money. It has identified and appraised a range of realistic and achievable options, in terms
of how well they meet the spending objectives and the critical success factors agreed for the
scheme before coming to a decision on the ‘Preferred Option’ which was subjected to a
Value for Money (VfM) assessment highlighting the compatibility the scheme has with the
Government’s requirements for value in the use of taxpayers money.
In summary, two viable sites for the proposed station were identified as a result of the
feasibility study by Network Rail, which reviewed five possible locations. These were South
East View and Old Horden, with South East View eventually emerging as the favourable site
or ‘Preferred Option’ based on demand forecasting and a subsequent economic
assessment.
The Economic Case detailed above provided a full economic assessment of the South East
View site considering a new station at this location to be developed as an unmanned ‘halt’
with passenger waiting facilities, footbridge, and a 100- space car park. The appraisal for the
proposed station at the South East View in Horden-Peterlee has been assessed based upon
the most likely scenario of a 3 minute calling time at Horden-Peterlee, and the introduction of
66 Value for Money Assessment: Advice for Local Transport Decision Makers, Department for Transport,
December 2013
75
Arriva’s hourly semi-fast service routing via the Durham Coast. This helps to ameliorate
some, but not all, of the time disbenefits for through travellers from calling at Horden.
With a current capital cost estimate of £10.54m (2016/17 prices) the:
Core appraisal generates a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.59 and a Net Present
Value (NPV) of £3.17m, exclusive of indirect wider economic benefits from
option/non-use values, employment land development and the visitor economy;
New values of time (VoT), released for consultation by the DfT, result in a BCR of
1.62 and a NPV of £3.35m; and
When WEBs and option/non-use values are separately added to the core appraisal,
the NPVs increase to £6.4m and £25.6m and the BCRs to 2.19 and 5.74.
The core scenario offers medium value for money, and high when WEBs are considered,
increasing to very high when option and non-use values are incorporated, as classified by
the Government’s Value for Money (VfM) guidance.
In conclusion the development of a new station at the South East View site in Horden offers
a unique opportunity for transport operators, the people of Horden and the wider community.
The scheme is not just presented as a transport scheme offering improved connectivity
throughout the local area, but also as a tool to draw additional investment into a declining
economic region and therefore provide both financial and social benefits for all parties. There
is a clear case for Durham County Council to develop a new railway station located at
Horden based on value for money.
76
4 Commercial Case
4.1 Introduction
This section forms The Commercial Case for the scheme; The Commercial Case is
concerned with issues of commercial feasibility and sets out to answer the question “can the
proposed scheme be effectively delivered through a workable commercial deal or deals?”
The Commercial Case, therefore, provides evidence on the commercial viability of the
proposal and the procurement strategy that will be used to engage the market. It presents
evidence on risk allocation and transfer, contract timescales and implementation timescales
as well as details on the capability and skills of the team delivering the project and any
personnel implications arising from the proposal.
In summary this section will:
Provide an initial assessment of the commercial viability of the proposal, both in
terms of attractiveness to potential suppliers and in terms of providing long-term
value for money;
Outline the envisaged deal structure/s, key contractual clauses and payment
mechanisms;
Provide a procurement strategy clearly defining the ownership of any assets;
Appropriately allocate risk and explain the steps which are being taken to mitigate
that risk; and
Set out the key contractual milestones and delivery dates.
The Commercial Case will, therefore, be structured around the following headings:
Output Based Specification;
Procurement Method;
Contract Management;
Project Milestones
Programme Implications and Risk; and
Conclusions.
4.2 Output Based Specification
At this stage of the proposed project’s development, a brief has been developed and has
informed Network Rail’s Pre-GRIP Feasibility Report67 with general layout drawings and a
detailed site plan, taking into account critical rail considerations; Building & Civils, Signalling,
Electrification & Plant and Track.
The design of the proposed station is to be in full compliance with Railway Group and
Network Rail Standards68 as well as DfT and European standards and guidelines e.g. DfT
document ‘Design Standards for Accessible Railway Stations’69. The station is to be fully
accessible and compliant with the Equality Act 2010.
67 Horden Station: Pre-FRIP Feasibility Study, Network Rail, March 2016 68 Catalogue of Network Rail Standards, Network Rail, Sept 02-Dec 16 69 Design Standards for Accessible Railway Stations, DfT, March 2015
77
The outputs of the scheme which were fully costed in Network Rail’s Pre-GRIP Feasibility
Report are also set to inform the brief for the Development Services Agreement between
Durham County Council and Network Rail.
Those output requirements are:
New unmanned railway station, with two opposing platforms of circa 100m length;
Platform construction to be modular (steel or precast concrete) and have all usual
platform furniture (waiting shelters, benches, lighting columns, help points, CCTV,
CIS screens etc.);
Steel footbridge with stairs and ramps;
Car park for 100 cars with associated taxi, drop off and bus layby;
New access roads (and footways) from nearby highways to be sufficient for two
passing buses;
General external lighting to the platforms, bridge and car parks;
Small power outlets for CIS, CCTV, PA, Ticket Machines, Help points etc.;
CCTV covering any public area, especially ticket machines, with either on site 30 day
storage of information or remote monitoring;
Customer information screens;
A Public Address System; and
Water Services: A new cold water mains service will be required and/or a water tap,
for cleaning only.
4.3 Procurement Method
The proposed scheme will be delivered by Network Rail under the instruction of Durham
County Council. Network Rail as the authority responsible for the UK’s railway network is
governed by a range of procurement rules; these rules will, ultimately, act to govern the
procurement of the proposed scheme.
As noted above Network Rail is accountable for the operation, maintenance and renewal of
railway assets. It therefore possesses a considerable interest in any proposed improvements
to the rail network, and as such, there are certain services that only Network Rail can supply,
these are described as non-contestable services. Non-contestable services include:
Protecting the railway network and its operations;
Information provision;
Safety management; and
Consents and access to the network.
There are two procurement routes that can be undertaken for the commissioning of any new
scheme on the railway network70, these are defined by the possible roles that Network Rail
will undertake in the delivery of the proposed scheme:
Network Rail commissioned directly to deliver the scheme; or
Promoter (in this instance Durham County Council) to deliver the scheme with
Network Rail offering an Asset Protection (ASPRO) role.
70 Investment in Stations: A guide for promoters and developers, Network Rail, December 2014
78
In the first scenario Network Rail works to develop a deliverable and standards-compliant
design in collaboration with the promoter. Network Rail then oversees construction prior to
handing over the asset to the selected operator. The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR)
identifies that Network Rail will in many cases act as the delivery agent, and will take on
risks that it is best placed to manage; this is inclusive of both design and construction risks.
The second scenario involves Network Rail working closely with the promoter to agree works
in principle before commencing on detailed design. Network Rail would approve plans in a
two tiered process and offer guidance on technical issues and interaction with other railway
schemes in the locality. Under this scenario any costs to Network Rail relating to asset
protection are charged back to the developer through mechanisms detailed in the ASPRO
contract. Under this scenario the third party can seek prices from suppliers for contestable
services, which include design and delivery of the scheme.
It is envisioned that the proposed scheme will follow the first scenario with Network Rail
responsible for the design and construction of the station on behalf of Durham County
Council. As such, the works relating to the new station will be governed solely by Network
Rail and their procurement rules, for this scheme (relating to the construction of the station)
there are no possibilities to use alternative procurement rules.
Where construction takes place outside of that specifically relating to the construction of the
station, for example, on the 100 space car park and the approach roads to the station the
procurement process will follow Durham County Council’s prescribed procurement strategy
which is based on a number of strategic outcomes:
Deliver the scheme within the available funding;
Deliver the scheme to programme;
Ensure stakeholders’ acceptance and support;
Ensure best value is delivered; and
Ensure that appropriate quality is delivered.
Delivery of these outcomes will be achieved by engaging the works contractor at an early-
stage in the planning and delivery of the scheme and mobilising appropriate strengths by:
Using the contractor’s experience and input in reviewing the construction estimates;
Obtaining the contractor’s experience and input to the design and construction
programme to ensure the programme is robust and achievable;
Using and building upon the partners’ in-house knowledge and experience from
engaging through consultation with all stakeholders; and
Engaging the contractor in the final detailed design process to improve buildability
and ensure value for money.
In house highway design and construction teams are available supported by relevant
frameworks, from which competitive tenders would be run if required. Durham County
Council has delivered approximately £50m of highway projects, employs 200 operational
and 40 design employees. Durham County Council utilise contractors via procured
frameworks to obtain best value for money. Coordination would be ensured throughout the
GRIP process to ensure consistency between the on and off-line infrastructure. One way of
ensuring this would be for Network Rail to design the car park up to the end of GRIP stage 4
following this Durham County Council would undertake the detailed design in GRIP stage 5.
79
4.4 Contract Management
Network Rail have developed, and The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) have approved, the
below template contracts which would be relevant for this project71. These are designed to
“offer a fair balance of risk” between the promoter (in this instance Durham County Council)
and Network Rail. The contracts as defined by the ORR are as follows:
Development Services Agreement: for development and design work undertaken
by Network Rail on behalf of the promoter; and
Implementation Agreement: with Network Rail acting as construction manager, this
is an agreement for enhancement works on or about the controlled railway
infrastructure to provide detailed design and implementation of the promoter’s
scheme with the contracting strategy agreed between Network Rail and the
promoter.
A Development Services Agreement (DSA) is already in place between Durham County
Council and Network Rail taking the project through to GRIP Stage 3.
Discussions have taken place between Network Rail and Durham County Council regarding
the option of adopting a design and build approach to the scheme. This would provide
optimum early engagement with the specialist contractors and mitigate the limited scheme
delivery timeframe. Should this approach be adopted a further Development Services
Agreement with Network Rail will be identified and entered into upon approval of funding for
the scheme. The entering into of any agreement is subject to the relevant Durham County
Council, North East Local Enterprise Partnership, New Stations Fund and Network Rail
Investment Panel approvals.
Upon arrival at the appropriate GRIP stage, for the implementation phase of the proposed
station, Durham County Council will enter into an Implementation Agreement with Network
Rail who will subsequently identify and appoint the appropriate contractor from their
competitively procured framework.
4.4.1 Durham County Council’s Contract Management
Any additional works related but not directly pertaining to the construction of the station itself
i.e. as noted above the proposed car park and associated highway works will fall under
Durham County Council’s contract management process.
Durham County Council has single supplier contracts for the next three years in traffic
management, road milling, carriageway resurfacing and road patching. Specialist surfacing
contracts and road marking contracts are in place for the next two years. Additionally, there
are three highway framework contracts ranging in value from <£50k, £50k-£250k and
£250k+ with 5 contractors in each lot, and a street lighting framework with 3 contractors.
Contracts are also in place for the purchase of materials with local quarries, builders
merchants and street lighting columns. The authority has an internal resource of Highway
and Street Lighting Designers and has the ability to obtain further assistance from
surrounding local authorities or procure via NEPRO Consultancy. Having established
framework providers will minimise any risk in delivery of the project.
71 The Policy Framework for Investments: Conclusions, ORR, October 2005
80
For any necessary statutory undertaken diversion works, work will be ordered directly by the
County Council, following the statutory C5 process. Durham County Council as the
anticipated contractor for the off-line works is supported by an established framework of
contractors. For these contracts pricing levels (either fixed prices or rates) and programme
delivery periods are transferred to the required sub-contractor. The key benefits of this are
that Durham County Council can manage the overall programme for the off-line works and
ensure flexibility of the network for all highway schemes throughout the period, thereby
reducing the risk of successful contractual claims or cost escalations.
4.4.2 Payment Mechanism
Durham County Council uses its systems to manage an annual budget in excess of £1billion
of revenue and capital expenditure and will manage the overall income and expenditure
elements of the scheme. The established procedures of the council are that payments will
be made by the council upon receipt of invoices related to agreed purchase orders.
Purchase orders will be issued in line with the progress of the scheme. Onsite inspection is
undertaken during the life of the scheme to ensure construction related costs are consistent
with the estimate of the design.
4.5 Project Milestones
Network rail have provided an indicative programme for a typical station construction, though
this does not include obtaining authorities and funding, key milestones are shown below:
Proposed Horden Station Programme
Milestone Projected Completion Date
Options Feasibility Report 08/04/16
Business Case submission to the Region 09/12/16 New Stations Fund submission 25/11/16 Completion of RRD document 31/01/17
Completion of GRIP3 option selection 31/07/17 Indicative schedule for Full GRIP 3 completion 31/03/18 Completion of land acquisition 31/03/18
Completion of GRIP4-5 outline design and detailed design 31/03/19 Source: Pre-GRIP Feasibility Study, Network Rail, April 16.
4.6 Risk, Constraints and Dependencies
4.6.1 Primary Risks, Constraints and Dependencies
4.6.1.1 Durham Coast Re-signalling & Re-Control Project
The key potential risk to the proposed scheme is the Durham Coast Re-signalling & Re-
control project72. This project has already installed the infrastructure on site for the re-
signalling element of the works identified and is within GRIP4 for the re-control of the
infrastructure to York ROC. As such discussions are ongoing between Durham County
Council and the Durham Coast Re-signalling & Re-control project to understand mutual
proposals and timescales. It is considered that economies of scale may be gained by
working with the aforementioned project.
72 Horden Station: Pre-GRIP Feasibility Study, Network Rail, March 2016
81
4.6.1.2 Level Crossing
At present there is an ‘Existing User Work Crossing’ at Blackhills Farm, the proposed
scheme is located close enough to the existing level crossing at Blackhills Farm (and the
associated whistle boards) to detrimentally effect its safe functioning. The acquisition of the
farm would neutralise the level crossing.
Positive discussions have taken place between Durham County Council and the landowner
with regards to transferring the ownership of the land, with a view to the Council completing
the purchase by March 2018 at the latest.
Please refer to the attached Risk Register, with the project subject to a Quantified Risk
Appraisal at the appropriate stage in GRIP.
4.6.2 Further Considered Risks
The below represents the principle risks identified:
Proposed car park position may lie partially over where Blackhills V Dene was infilled in the 1930s. Buildings also built on top since. Appropriate construction standards for car park.
Possibility of colliery spoils within historic eastern embankment. Allowance made within estimate and option of leaving it largely in situ.
Works adjacent to heritage coastline and nature reserve. Appropriate access not to impinge on these areas.
Land purchase of Blackhills Farm. Owner has indicated a willingness to sell.
Stakeholder engagement may increase project costs. Appropriate management of design and budget, in coordination with Network Rail.
There are other risks related to the proposed scheme these are covered in detail in The
Financial Case and can be viewed in the attached Risk Assessment. The below forms a brief
summary of the risks which have been identified:
Adaption of signalling equipment including moving of signals;
Timetable implications for rail services and future timetable aspirations;
Potential contamination issues;
Topographical surveys required to confirm local topography;
Works adjacent to operational railway;
Construction adjacent to a number of residential properties;
Third party and Local Authority interfaces;
Land purchases and land rental;
Construction access;
Unforeseen ground conditions including impact of historic mine working;
Lack of availability of possessions or short notice cancellations;
Insufficient power supplies in the area;
Interface with other NR projects;
Ecological constraints and presence of protected species; and
Proximity of dwellings and/or other non-rail infrastructure/boundaries to potential
station.
82
4.6.3 Network Rail Risk Fund
Network Rail possess a Rail Risk fund, however, funds only cover costs and risks which are
outlined at each strategic review, costs and risks associated with third party funded schemes
are not covered73.
Risk funds have been developed to pay for these elements, as follows:
Network Rail Fee Fund (NRFF): covers the potential liabilities arising from the
template agreements; and
Industry Risk Fund (IRF): covers low probability, high impact industry risks such as
operational emergencies on the network.
These funds are contributed through a percentage of scheme costs, which will be defined
within the template Agreements.
4.6.4 Land Issues
The scheme will be built upon land within either within Network Rail’s or Durham County
Council’s ownership. Upon completion of the works, sign-off / hand-back to Network Rail will
take place. No liability for the provisions of the rail related elements of the scheme will
remain with Durham County Council following hand-back to Network Rail.
In principle the parts of the scheme on rail owned land will pass into the ownership of
Network Rail. The station charge will reflect what is included in the station lease area and
the assets contained within it. The Annexes to the Station Lease will identify the
maintenance, repair and renewal responsibilities (Network Rail and Station Facility Owner)
for the assets introduced and the bearer of associated costs.
The car park on Durham County Council owned land will remain in Durham County Council
ownership, discussions with regards to the leasing, operation and maintenance of said car
park will take place upon completion of the project.
4.6.5 Planning Issues
A planning application for the scheme is yet to be submitted, however, there are no foreseen
issues pertaining to the planning which would hinder swift approval.
4.7 Conclusions
The Commercial Case has successfully highlighted the commercial viability of the proposed
scheme and detailed the procurement strategy that will be used to engage the market,
providing additional evidence on risk allocation and transfer, contract timescales and
implementation timescales.
In summary, the scheme will use Network Rail procurement methods for the direct
construction of the proposed station, whilst it is envisioned that Durham County Council will
be responsible for the delivery of the car park and approach roads and therefor follow
Durham County Council’s prescribed procurement strategy to this end.
Durham County Council has also entered into early discussions with Network Rail over
adopting a final design and build approach to the scheme. This will initially use a
Development Services Agreement between Durham County Council and Network Rail,
73 Stakeholder Relations Code of Practice: Investing in the Network, Network Rail, Accessed April 2016
83
leading on to an Implementation Agreement in order to construct the scheme. Early
discussions to this end will help to mitigate risk and expedite the programme suitably.
84
5 Financial Case
5.1 Introduction
This section details The Financial Case for the scheme; The Financial Case demonstrates
that the preferred option will result in a fundable and affordable deal.
The Financial Case is primarily concerned with issues of affordability, demonstrating that
funding has been secured and that it falls within appropriate spending and settlement limits.
The Financial Case covers the lifespan of the scheme and all attributable costs; it therefore,
requires the spending authority to set out the capital and revenue requirements for the
spending proposal over the expected life span of the service, together with an assessment of
how the deal will impact upon the finances of the public sector organisation as a whole.
In summary this section will:
Profile the current financial situation of the organisation and provide an assessment
of the ability of the organisation to provide on-going support;
Provide an initial assessment of the overall affordability of the preferred option and
outline possible funding sources and requirements;
Detail any capital and/or revenue constraints;
Offer statements of strategic and in-principle support from key stakeholders; and
Resolve any major issues, including: identifying funding gaps, provision for dealing
with the financing of any time or cost overruns and estimating any contingent
liabilities that may result from the proposal.
The Financial Case will, therefore, be structured around the following headings:
Overview;
Assumptions;
Costs;
Risk Assessment;
Funding Arrangements; and
Conclusions.
5.2 Overview
Capital costs for the scheme have been developed and agreed by Network Rail and Durham
County Council, based on the costs which were included in the Options Appraisal Report74
and Durham County Council’s subsequent liaison with the Project Team and the Associate
Sponsor for the project at Network Rail. It should be noted at this stage of the Business
Case, that all costs are indicative only. Network Rail will be commissioned to provide
detailed design and further itemised costings upon progress through the GRIP stages.
Furthermore, Durham County Council will be responsible for the full capital cost and risk of
delivery of the new station inclusive of any required operational subsidy to the Train
Operating Company until the station becomes self-financing, although as evidenced further
on in the Financial Case, this is not thought to be necessary.
74 Horden Station: Pre-FRIP Feasibility Study, Network Rail, March 2016
85
5.3 Assumptions
The financial appraisal was informed by Network Rail’s Pre-GRIP Feasibility Study75 which
covered the following key constraints:
Effects/implication of existing Track alignment;
Effects/implication on existing Signalling arrangement;
Local topography including earthworks, drainage and contaminated land risk;
Risks associated with various site options; and
Impact of/on known projects.
Positive outline discussions have been held with the prospective operator with regards to
input into the operating cost estimate. This input includes the costs of any increased staffing,
the impact of the three extra minutes required on the timetable and promotion – a
summation of these costs is provided below.
5.4 Costs
As noted above, the costings outlined below are high level costs, and will need to be refined
as the project develops, it is understood that these costs are likely to be revised on an
ongoing basis.
All costs where not otherwise stated are using 2016 prices and inclusive of VAT, a risk uplift
has been applied in accordance with the level of detail consistent with the current GRIP
stage as set out in Network Rail’s estimating guidelines and work instructions, whilst the
indirect costs have also been assessed on a percentage basis of the direct costs in
accordance with the GRIP level of detail.
5.4.1 Capital Costs
Capital costs for the scheme have been developed by Network Rail, based on the costs
which were included within the Option Appraisal Report76.
Costs have been adjusted for risk and Optimism Bias, this follows advice contained within
WebTAG Unit A5.3 Rail Appraisal77 which states that no Quantified Risk Assessment
contingency is required at GRIP Stage 3, but Optimism Bias should be applied at 40% of the
capital cost.
In order to include the costs for the economic appraisal, costs are presented relative
to the stage of development of the scheme further price conversions upon progress
to a latter GRIP stage may be required, at present costs use a base date of Q1 2016.
If further conversions are necessary WebTAG Unit A1.2 Scheme Costs78
recommends:
Retail price increases are taken account of by looking at the comparative rates of
inflation for general costs and for construction costs. This assumes that general
inflation rises at 2.5% per year, whereas construction inflation rises at 5% per year;
Discounting using a discount rate of 3.5% for 30 years and 3% thereafter; and
Conversion to market prices using an indirect taxation correction factor of 1.190.
75 Horden Station: Pre-GRIP Feasibility Study, Network Rail, March 2016 76 Horden Station: Pre-FRIP Feasibility Study, Network Rail, March 2016 77 TAG unit A5-3 Rail Appraisal, Department for Transport, December 2015 78 TAG unit A1.2 Scheme Costs, Department for Transport, January 2014
86
However, costs are currently evolving for the proposed station and are represented here
before further discussion on value engineering or detailed design has taken place. The
following table therefore, presents a breakdown of capital construction costs provided by
Network Rail relative to the stage of development of the proposed scheme.
Capital Costs summarised by element:
Volume REF
Element Total Cost (£)
% of Point Estimate
Comments
1 Direct Construction Works - -
1.01 Railway Control Systems 360,000 4.5% 1.02 Train Power Systems - 0.0% 1.03 Electric Power and Plant 55,00 0.7% 1.04 Permanent Way 140,000 1.7% 1.05 Telecommunication Systems 62,500 0.8% 1.06 Buildings and Property 1,961,800 24.3% 1.07 Civil Engineering 1,400,000 17.4%
1.08 Enabling Works 40,900 0.5% TOTAL DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS (A)
4,020,200 49.9%
2 Preliminaries, Overheads and Profit - - 2.01 Preliminaries 1,206,060 15.0% 2.02 Contractor Overheads and Profit 605,418 7.5% If zero include in rates
TOTAL INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS (B)
1,811,478 15.0%
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (A+B)
5,831,678 72.3%
3 Project Design/Development Costs - - 3.01 Project/Design Team Fees 827,915 10.3% 3.02 Project Management Team Fees 799,151 9.9%
3.03 Other Project Costs 603,168 7.5% TOTAL EMPLOYER INDIRECT COSTS (C)
2,230,234 27.7%
POINT ESTIMATE (A+B+C)
8,061,911 100%
4 Risk
4.01 Risk or PMean or P80 3,224,765 40.0% Point of estimate
TOTAL POINT ESTIMATE + RISK (D)
11,286,676 -
5 Inflation 5.01 Inflation (RPI Indices) - - TOTAL INFLATION ALLOWANCE (E)
- -
6 Taxation and Grants - - 6.01 Tax allowances and grants - - TOTAL CAPITAL COST ESTIMATE (F)
11,287,000 Excluding VAT
Source: Network Rail, Q1 2016 prices
Following further detailed discussions with Network Rail, Durham County Council were able to reduce the total cost estimate to £10,553,669.07, this revised estimate is based on the following assumptions, which differ from the pre-GRIP budget estimate produced by Network Rail and detailed above:
Durham County Council will undertake off-line civil elements, costs will therefore be borne at Durham County Council rates;
£166,000 increase in platform (inclusive) costs associated with 100m platforms, plus associated fees and optimism bias (Network Rail estimates);
87
Decrease in Network Rail’s associated add on costs; and Waived £20,000 charge for land transfer.
The revised cost estimate is therefore broken down as such:
Railway Control Systems £360k Electrical Power and Plant £55k Permanent Way £140k Telecommunications Systems £62.5k Building and Property £1,757.4k Civil Engineering £1,400k Enabling Works £40.9k Preliminaries £1,144.7k Contractor Overheads and Profits £496k Project design team and Fees £787k Project Management Team Fees £624k Sponsor £124.7k Allowance for TOC/FOC Compensation £545.7k Optimism Bias £3,015k Total £10,554K
The GRIP Stage 3 selection study will further work up costs, including any value engineering opportunities such as safe zone working or modification to the station scope including footbridge designs. Network Rail has confirmed their intention to actively engage with Durham County Council in order to identify methods to ensure financial efficiency for the project and to prioritise the best value for money.
5.4.2 Whole Life Costs
Consideration will be given to all phases of a station’s life during the GRIP process, from
design and procurement through operation, maintenance and end-of-life salvage to establish
the most effective allocation of fiscal resources. Optimising functionality of station design will
minimise operational costs and waste. This can deliver significant cost and energy savings
over the life span of the station and provide an improved economic return.
The following considerations will be taken into account in line with Network Rail’s Whole Life
Cost Manual79 in order to reduce the whole life cost of the proposed project:
A configuration plan and specification of materials and equipment to minimise
operational and maintenance costs;
Design for ease of access for replacement, repair and cleaning of fixtures and
components with minimal impact on station operations and users;
Design for preventative, as opposed to corrective, maintenance and a maintenance
strategy that is factored into the design;
Detail for weather resistance, protection against corrosion between dissimilar
materials;
Suitability of design to local climate and circumstances (in this instance Coastal);
Standardisation; and
Sustainability.
79 Whole Life Costing Manual (WLC), Network Rail, 2014
88
Further investigation of whole life costs and performance should be undertaken for the
Preferred Option taken forward for development in the latter GRIP design stages.
5.4.3 Operational Costs and Revenue Generated
Any new station should comply with DfT policy that the scheme should cover its on-going
costs from newly generated income. This evidence is provided by setting operating costs
(including station access charges) against generated income, revenue abstracted from
neighbouring stations, and revenue lost through longer journey times, for 30 years.
High level operating costs for the scheme based on similar proposals for an unstaffed halt
have also been provided with the addition of a 2.9% uplift to account for an assumed
difference between construction and general inflation, a breakdown of which is reproduced
below:
Base operating costs for South East View:
Element 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Electricity £3,009 £3,104 £3,200 £3,298 £3,397 £3,499 £3,604
Cleaning/Maintenance £21,065 £21,728 £22,402 £23,085 £23,778 £24,491 £25,226
Vandalism £7,523 £7,760 £8,001 £8,245 £8,492 £8,747 £9,009
Minor Repairs £3,009 £3,104 £3,200 £3,298 £3,397 £3,499 £3,604
Major Overhaul £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
Major Refurbishment £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
Patch Surfacing £0 £0 £8,641 £0 £0 £0 £0
Platform Resurfacing £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
M&E and Lighting £1,655 £1,707 £1,760 £1,814 £1,868 £1,924 £1,982
Lighting Renewals £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
Feeder Pillar £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
CCTV £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
Help Point Renewal £0 £0 £0 £0 £16,984 £0 £0
PA Renewal £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0
TOTAL £36,262 £37,404 £47,204 £39,740 £57,916 £42,160 £43,425
Source: Mott MacDonald, 2016 prices.
Nevertheless, taking both these operational costs and the through traveller demand loss into
account against the passenger revenue forecasts for the period from 2020 through to 2024
in 2016/17 undiscounted prices, provided by Mott MacDonald, there is a revenue surplus in
the year of opening of £148,39380 shown in the table below. This proves the proposed
station clearly meets the DfT’s stress test to cover its on-going costs from newly generated
income.
South East View 2020 to 2024 Financial Case OPEX and revenue by year (undiscounted 2016/17 prices):
Year OPEX (£s) Passenger Revenue (£s) OPEX – Revenue (£s)
2020 36,262 184,655 -148,393
2021 37,404 221,656 -184,252
2022 47,204 246,361 -199,157
2023 39,740 260,366 -220,626
2024 57,916 265,461 -207,545
Source: Mott MacDonald
80 Horden – Peterlee Railway Station, Demand Forecasting and Economic Assessment, Mott MacDonald, July
2016
89
5.4.4 Land Assembly Costs
The land on which the proposed project is to be constructed is either in ownership of
Network Rail or Durham County Council.
However, for the safe operation of the station, the selected option requires the permanent
closure of a level crossing in the immediate vicinity of the proposed station site via the
purchase of Blackhills Farm. Durham County Council has entered into discussions with the
owner, having conducted a valuation of the property and associated buildings. Durham
County Council intends to conclude this purchase by March 2018 at the latest. The cost will
sit outside of the budget for the station as the Council possesses an interest in purchasing
Blackhills Farm that is unrelated to the rail station proposal – namely in order to sanitise the
land on the otherwise unspoiled Heritage Coast and safety concerns relating to the nature of
the level crossing itself.
5.5 Risk Assessment
5.5.1 Risk Management Approach
There are always associated differences between what is expected and happens within a
project. As part of the development of a project it is important to identify measure and
allocate risk. The risk management approach shown in the cycle diagram below will be used
to identify, cost and manage project risks for the scheme and project. The methodology
follows a recurring process to be implemented across the project lifecycle. It aligns with
Office of Government Commerce ‘Management of Risk’ (MoR) best practice guidance81 to
benefit reliable and resilient cost estimation that delivers real Value for Money savings.
Risk Management Approach:
Source: Durham County Council
The following describes how the proposed project and the Project Delivery Team will identify and manage project risks for the proposal aligned with this approach to Risk Management:
81 Management of Risk Guidance for Practitioners, Office of Government Commerce, 2010
90
Identification - Delivery risks associated with the proposed project have been
identified during a risk workshop. This register contains both scheme specific risks and general risks to delivery
Analysis – The production of a risk register will enable the effective management and
communication of potential conflicts, ensuring appropriate mitigation is incorporated into subsequent design and development stages. The risk register identifies the potential causes and consequences of each risk identified. The register will be a ‘live’ document, maintained and owned by the Project Manager.
Costing – The cost estimation for the scheme considers additional design costs and
predicted costs for construction and operation. The cost estimation will be refined as the project progresses through the GRIP stages and is subject to value engineering.
Management - Actions to mitigate risk will be managed and monitored by the Project
Manager at Interim Reviews. Team members best placed to manage the identified risks will be assigned ownership of specific actions, with progress reported on a regular basis to the Project Manager. Risk workshops will be held to support the development of mitigation measures designed to lower the overall scheme risk.
Review – The risk register will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Where
the severity of a particular risk impact changes, the cost and programme implications will be revisited and future actions agreed in accordance with appropriate change management procedures. Mitigation performance and residual risk would be also subject to review at the end of commissions and inform the lesson learned process.
Risk Management is a specific role for the Project Team, with the Project Board ultimately having responsibility for the project. Risk Management is therefore owned by the Project Board. The project board includes representatives from suppliers and users; this will make sure that all main players of the project are able to contribute to the identification of key risks and management of risks. Effective communication (through the regular Project Board meetings) will ensure that all partners are updated on progress; issues are addressed as they arise and discussion with regards to risk takes place on a frequent basis.
5.5.2 Risk Register
The production of a Risk Register forms an integral task associated with standard project
management procedures that are conducted by both Durham County Council and Network
Rail.
A Risk Register for the proposed project was prepared through a Risk Workshop with the
Project Team and other Local Authority officers with responsibility for scheme delivery,
finance and procurement. This workshop considered risks for all delivery components of the
project. Each identified risk was assessed in terms of its impact on cost, time, quality and the
probability of the risk occurring.
The Risk Register for the proposed project will be reviewed regularly throughout the detailed
design, procurement, construction and post-construction phases of the project as a standard
item to be addressed by the Project Delivery Group, any unresolved, significant issues or
problems which are identified or that occur in development will be escalated through the
appropriate governance procedures that are in place.
91
Key components of the Risk Register are noted below:
The Risk register is used to record all risks and issues of the project;
The Risk Register is a live document and will be updated regularly throughout the life
span of the project. Each risk is to be designated to an individual owner who is
responsible for managing and mitigating the risk;
There will be regular risk workshops involving the Project Team to ensure risks are
robustly identified and considered;
The Risk Register will provide mitigation measures, with the risk review process to
continue to monitor and develop mitigation actions for all identified risks, including
action plans for major risks; and
The Risk Management Processes will follow Prince 2 practices and a ‘5x5’ matrix.
Further details on the Risk Assessment undertaken for the scheme are included in the
attached Appendices where key risk components have been identified together with
likelihood, impact on cost and also anticipated mitigation measures to address the risks. A
summary of the top risks that have been identified for the scheme and are set out below:
Top Project Risks:
Risk Event Consequence Mitigation Probability Impact
Failure to incorporate calls at Horden Peterlee into existing timetable
No station operating company, station built but no services to call at station
Ongoing discussions with Arriva/Northern Rail, in receipt of letter of support in principle
12.5%
5 (High)
Planning Application not Approved
Non approval at planning committee for proposals, delays or project terminated
Thorough preparation of planning application in dialogue with relevant officers and stakeholders
12.5% 5 (High)
Failure to Acquire Blackhills Farm
Failure to close level crossing which conflicts with whistle board issues. Time delays with potential increase in scheme costs
Ongoing discussions with landowner, who has indicated willingness to sell 12.5% 5 (High)
Delays During GRIP Process
Station opening delayed beyond timescales within New Stations Fund Bid Criteria
Programme contraction opportunities to be reviewed during GRIP Stage 3 Selection Study. Possible opportunities include design and build tender, as well as Green Zone construction method
35% 4
(Intermediate)
Source: Durham County Council
Of the top four risks, all have levels of probability well below 50%; however, the impact on
cost if they were to occur would be high. Mitigation measures must continue to be developed
and managed as the proposed project progresses in order to manage the likelihood of any of
the risks occurring.
92
5.5.3 Risk Allocation and Transfer
The Implementation Agreement, between Durham County Council and Network Rail, would
need to consider a pricing strategy. However it is provisionally envisaged a target price is
preferred, with an open and collaborative approach adopted by both parties. Durham County
Council considers an emerging cost as the most appropriate form of funding agreement
given the nature and complexity of the scheme. Therefore it is envisaged a contract between
Network Rail and the appointed subcontractor’s would be a target cost contract, following a
review of the most appropriate procurement strategy for the project.
Any ‘pain/gain’ share agreement between Network Rail and the contractor would need to be
considered at the appropriate stage of procurement as outlined in The Commercial Case.
In terms of individual risks staying with Durham County Council or going to Network Rail, this
would be considered before the design and construction package is tendered. Risks would
be managed and mitigated as the project moves through the GRIP Process, with remaining
risks to be transferred as part of a multi-risk disciplinary analysis.
The foreseen risks which are adjudged to remain with Durham County Council are:
Capital risks associated with unforeseeable events;
Development and design costs, should the project not go forward to construction;
Costs associated with the planning application, should the project not go forward to
construction; and
Underwriting of the revenue risks of the scheme, recognising that it is possible that
the revenue shortfall of the scheme could be recovered in future years/franchise
periods.
5.5.4 Optimism Bias
It should be noted that a Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) will be undertaken at the
appropriate stage in the GRIP Process with a subsequent reduction in Optimism Bias once
the QRA is complete. As such Costs have been adjusted for risk and optimism bias. This
follows the advice contained within TAG Unit A5.3 Rail Appraisal82 which suggests that no
Quantified Risk Assessment contingency is required at GRIP stage 3, but optimism bias
should be applied at 40% of the capital cost and 1% per annum for the operating costs. This
has been applied to the costs and is summarised in the section above.
5.6 Funding Arrangements
At present it is proposed that there will be three major sources of funding for Horden
Peterlee station, namely:
Department for Transport ‘New Stations Fund’83 – with an application for
£4,374,180.07 of funding submitted in November 2016;
North East Local Enterprise Partnership ‘Local Growth Fund’84 – with an award of
£3,340,000; and
Durham County Council, Capital Programme – with an allocation of £2,839,489 built
in to the Council’s capital programme.
82 TAG Unit A5.3 Rail Appraisal, Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG), Department for Transport, December 2015 83 New Stations Fund, Network Rail - http://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-partners/working-with-us/new-
stations-fund/, accessed July 2016 84 Transport and Digital Connectivity, North East Local Enterprise Partnership, 2014
93
The table below provides a proposed breakdown of the funding profile for the scheme:
Funding profile for proposed station at Horden Peterlee:
Source 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 Total
Local Funding (DCC) - - - 2.840 2.840
Regional Funding (LGF) 0.303 0.560 0.417 2.060 3.340
National Funding (NSF) - - - 4.374 4.374
Total Capital Costs 0.303 0.560 0.417 9.274 10.554
Source: Network Rail and Durham County Council 2016/17 prices rounded £m’s.
Although an award from the New Stations Fund is yet to be granted, and whilst this would
represent the County Council’s preferred funding scenario, there is the potential to seek a
further award from the Local Enterprise Partnership for an additional award of the Local
Growth Fund or likewise to seek a further allocation from the County Council’s capital
programme, if for any reason Horden Peterlee station is unsuccessful in its bid to the New
Stations Fund. It should be noted that whilst the submission to the New Stations Fund was
made in November 2016, the outcome of the bid should be known no later than April 2017.
5.7 Conclusions
The Financial Case outlined above has successfully established that the preferred option will
result in a fundable and affordable deal. In order to do so the capital and revenue
requirements for the spending proposal over the expected life span of the service have been
laid out in a level of detail consistent with the stage of development the proposed project is
at and as such the funding package outlined for the proposed scheme has been effectively
shown to be secure, falling within appropriate spending limits.
In summary, Overall capital costs for the proposed new station at Horden Peterlee are
estimated at £10,553,669, this includes an optimism bias set at a rate of 40%. Durham
County Council – the spending authority for the scheme – will provide 26% of the funding as
part of the Council’s capital programme, with the remaining funding covered by the Local
Enterprise Partnership and sought from the Department for Transport’s ‘New Stations Fund’.
Operating costs for the scheme between 2020 and 2024 are estimated at £220,000, which
accounts for additional costs, as well as long term charges, running and maintenance costs
for the station, whilst passenger revenue will total £1,180,000 resulting in a £960,000
surplus. A Risk Assessment has been undertaken, which shows that of the top four risks
identified all have levels of probability well below 50% in line with the relevant guidance
appropriate to this stage of the project’s development, though it is noted that optimism bias
as outlined above rather than a Quantified Risk Assessment estimate is included in the total
capital cost of the scheme, as is appropriate at GRIP stage 3.
94
6 Management Case
6.1 Introduction
This section forms The Management Case for the scheme; The Management Case
demonstrates that the “preferred option” is capable of being delivered successfully, in
accordance with recognised best practice.
This section of the business case will therefore demonstrate that the spending proposal is
being implemented in accordance with a recognised Programme and Project Management
(PPM) methodology, detailing the robust arrangements which are in place for
communications and stakeholder management, contract management and the identification,
management and mitigation of risk.
The Management Case will also outline the arrangements for monitoring during
implementation and the post implementation evaluation of the scheme whilst setting out a
plan to ensure that the benefits identified in The Economic Case are realised.
In summary this section will:
Provide an initial assessment of the capacity and capability of the organisation to
implement the preferred programme taking into account readiness and available
resources;
Clearly set out the programme for project delivery including key milestones and
decision points (including approval milestones) whilst identifying timescales for
related planning applications and approvals, track access periods and consultation
periods;
Provide a clear organisation chart identifying partners involved, their roles on the
project and the lines of accountability;
Show planned consultation periods, ensuring an appropriate level of stakeholder
engagement has been carried out with affected parties; and
Set out a clear monitoring and evaluation plan to assess the success of the scheme
alongside a benefits realisation plan.
The Management Case will, therefore, be structured around the following headings:
Governance;
Assurance;
Programme Delivery;
Risk Management Strategy;
Communications and Stakeholder Management;
Monitoring, Evaluation and Benefits Realisation; and
Conclusions.
6.2 Governance
6.2.1 Project Governance and Resourcing
The coordination and management of the scheme will lie with the designated Durham
County Council Project Manager for the scheme, whilst the design and development of the
scheme will be coordinated by Durham County Council, it will be overseen by the relevant
persons from the Network Rail Project Team.
95
As part of the ongoing development of the project a number of initial meetings have been
held between Durham County Council and Network Rail, in order to structure the scheme
and to establish the key requirements and objectives of the proposal. Durham County
Council have completed the Client Requirements Document which has been submitted to
Network Rail, with Network Rail consequently issuing a Development Services Agreement to
guide the governance of the scheme and initiate its further development and subsequent
implementation.
The Stakeholder Group for the scheme will be outward facing considering the number of key
stakeholders associated with the project, whilst the Project Delivery Group will have day to
day involvement in the project.
The Project Steering Group will be ultimately responsible for decisions on risk and budget,
as such the Stakeholder Group and the Project Delivery Group will report upwards to the
Project Steering Group.
The below represents a resourcing plan agreed with Network Rail detailing the frequency of
liaison and outlining the remit of both the County Council and Network Rail:
Resource Plan:
Group Remit Attendees Frequency
Project Steering Group
Liaise with DFT
Advise Funders
Advise Rail North
Receive highlight and exception reports from the Project Delivery Group.
Monitor scheme progress
Owners of scheme budget
Ultimate owners of risk
High level stakeholder management
Durham County Council Senior Officers Arriva Management Network Rail Project Sponsor Relevant Contractors Durham County Council Project Manager
Monthly
Stakeholder Group
Review risks with relevant stakeholders
Review programme and monitor progress.
Coordination and resolution of inputs from various stakeholders
Durham County Council Officers Network Rail Project Sponsor Stakeholders Durham County Council Project Manager
Six weekly
Project Delivery Group
Plan individual and collective tasks
Identify evolving risks to the programme and project and mitigating actions and owners.
Review and agree programme
Monitor delivery progress
Coordination of interface between Network Rail (on line works) and Durham County Council (off line works)
Durham County Council Officers Network Rail Contractors Durham County Council Project Manager
Fortnightly
Source: Durham County Council
96
6.2.2 Rail Industry Governance
Investment in the rail industry is governed by Governance in Rail Investment Process
(GRIP)85. This is summarised as an eight-stage process, the stages are presented below:
GRIP stage 1: Output Definition – Defines the needs and requirements of the project;
GRIP stage 2: Feasibility – Defines the scope of the investment and confirms the
project outputs can be delivered;
GRIP stage 3: Option Selection – Assesses and selects the most appropriate option
that delivers the stakeholder’s requirements;
GRIP stage 4: Single Option Development – Initiation of the development of the
chosen option;
GRIP stage 5: Detailed Design – Produces a complete engineering design;
GRIP stage 6: Construction, Test and Commission – Delivers to the specification
and test to confirm operation;
GRIP stage 7: Handback – Transfer asset responsibility to the operator and
maintainer; and
GRIP stage 8: Project Closeout – Closeout in an orderly manner with all contractual
accounts settled, assessment of benefits carried out.
The Office for Rail Regulation (ORR) provides guidance86 relating to Network Rail’s role in
facilitating, and where appropriate, delivering improvements proposed by operators,
Government or other third parties. Whilst Network Rail’s Investment in Stations document87
clearly sets out the design and approval process which is required from Network Rail for
building a new station.
6.3 Assurance
As noted, the scheme will be subject to the Governance for Railway Investment Projects
(GRIP) process. As the infrastructure manager of the national rail network, Network Rail
play a key role in ensuring that all schemes are compatible and integrated with existing
railway operations. The GRIP process details the management and control of projects that
enhance the national rail network and therefore provides an element of project assurance.
In order to minimise and mitigate the risks associated with delivering projects that enhance
or renew the operational railway, projects are subject to formal stage gate reviews that are
held at varying points within the GRIP lifecycle. The stage gate review process examines a
project at critical stages in order to provide assurance that it can successfully progress to the
next stage. The flow chart below details the stages and various reviews that the scheme will
pass through in relation to the GRIP stages, including the various outputs and necessary
actions at the end of each stage review:
85 Stakeholder Relations Code of Practice: Investing in the Network, Network Rail, Accessed April 2016 86 Investment framework consolidated policy and guidelines, ORR, October 2010 87 Investment in Stations: A guide for promoters and developers, Network Rail, December 2014
97
GRIP Process:
Source: Network Rail.
The proposed project will be subject to at least four mandatory stage/gateway reviews during
the project lifecycle. Two reviews have already taken place during the development phase,
which has produced an agreed single option for the scheme and agreed the project scope
ahead of the award of a detailed design and construction contract. The project will be subject
to two other reviews at scheme hand-back and project close out. Following the gateway
reviews, relevant reports will be submitted to the Project Steering Group by the Project
Manager.
The following represents further agreed assurance activity procedures for the project:
Assurance Activity Procedure:
Assurance Activity Assurance Details Responsibility Timescales
Viability
Check Value for Money Tracking benefits realisation Align with wider strategies Review business case
Project Manager
Monthly and end of respective GRIP Stage
Financial
Reconciliation of costs incurred and inclusion within reporting to Project Steering Group
Project Manager/Project Steering Group
Monthly
Health Check Review of documents including Project Initiation Document
Internal Audit Regular health check
Highlight and Exception reports
To the Project Steering Group
Project Manager/Project Steering Group
Monthly
Risks
Day to day management Monthly Review Quantified Risk Appraisal
Project Manager Project Steering Group Facilitated by Network Rail
Appropriate GRIP Stage
Source: Durham County Council
98
The key milestones for the scheme are clearly set out in the table below, supported by the
assurance and resourcing information set out above; together essentially form the project
delivery programme:
Key Scheme Milestones: Milestone Projected Completion Date
Options Feasibility Report 08/04/16
Business Case submission to the Region 09/12/16
New Stations Fund submission 25/11/16
Completion of RRD document 31/01/17
Completion of GRIP3 option selection 31/07/17
Indicative schedule for Full GRIP 3 completion 31/03/18
Completion of land acquisition 31/03/18
Completion of GRIP4-5 outline design and detailed design 31/03/19
Planning Application Approved 31/03/19
Completion of GRIP6 and 7 February 2020
Station Opens January 2020
Completion of GRIP 8 September 2020
Source: Durham County Council
6.3.1 Approvals
A range of approvals will be required in relation to the scheme and will be sought in keeping
with the timescales outlined above and where not explicitly stated, upon financial approval of
the scheme. The following details the key approvals which have been considered and
integrated into the project plan:
All activities undertaken by Durham County Council are governed by the Council’s
existing governance arrangements whilst the delivery of the scheme will follow the
Council’s approval process for managing capital portfolio, programmes and projects
which ensures quality delivery and transparency;
With regards to financial activity, for entering into the requisite agreements with
Network Rail approval will be required from Durham County Council or for activity
less than £100,000 through the Delegated Decision approvals process;
Network Rail will be required to apply for their own internal approvals to allow the
third party investment to take place and the necessary Agreements to be drawn up
and entered into;
Planning Approval will be required for the scheme;
Traffic Regulation Orders may be required for certain highway elements of the
scheme (i.e. on the approach roads); and
Relevant licences from utilities.
6.3.2 Station Operation
Network Rail’s ‘Investment in Stations’88 document which guides promoters on the
necessary processes and standards, as well as providing a planning framework which
promoters of investment in a new station can adopt, sets out a number of essential
requirements which need to be addressed and resolved upon considering the construction of
a new station - of particular note are:
88 Investment in Stations: A guide for promoters and developers, Network Rail, December 2014
99
Commitment from the train operator to call at the station and provide access to
revenue and ticketing arrangements;
Incorporation into the safety regime provided by the Railways and Other Guided
Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 200689;
Inclusion of the station within regulated access arrangements, permitting its use by
other train operators;
Provision of a licensed Station Facility Owner (SFO) to operate the station;
The creation of a property interest in the station, giving the operator the right to
manage the station and deal with station access arrangements; and
The position regarding responsibilities of ownership.
The proposed resolution of these issues are summarised in the table below:
Station issue resolution:
Issue Resolution
Contractual commitment from the train operator to call at the proposed station
Discussions with Northern rail franchisee Arriva concession agreement to include new station. Letter of support in principal included in Appendices
Discussions and agreement with Northern rail franchisee Arriva relating to timetable change to allow services to call at station. Arriva’s confirmation in Letter of support included in Appendices
Incorporation into the safety regime provided by the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006
Safety authorisation will be required from Office of Rail Regulation – liaising with Network Rail. Letter of support received from Network Rail included in Appendices, approved at investment panel.
Inclusion of the station within regulated access arrangements
Discussions with Office of Rail Regulation required – liaising with Network Rail. Confirmation included in letter of support included in Appendices
Provision of licenced Station Facility Owner (SFO)
SFO identified as Northern Rail Discussions with Office of Rail Regulation and Department For Transport if necessary required. Letter of support from Northern included in Appendices
Property Interest Station lease between Network Rail and the SFO to be drawn up and signed. Letter of support from Northern included in Appendices
Responsibilities of Ownership Detailing the responsibilities of maintenance to be dealt with in the station agreement.
Source: Durham County Council
6.4 Programme Delivery
Design, delivery and the construction of the scheme, excepting the car park, is to be
conducted by Network Rail with appropriate consultants/contractors identified and appointed
in accordance with Network Rail’s procurement process. As such, the development and
delivery of the scheme will accord with the requirements of the appropriate stages of GRIP
(Guide to Railway Investment Process). The design of the station environment itself is
89 The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations, ORR, 2006
100
governed by railway specific standards that are issued both by Network Rail and by the Rail
Safety and Standards Board (RSSB)90.
6.4.1 Design Stage
Network Rail’s design standards ensure that the provision of safe, accessible and inclusive
station environments are provided as a minimum. Allied to this basic requirement is a
sustainable whole life-whole system approach to asset design, construction, operation,
maintenance and decommissioning, all of which are required for effective asset
management.
The design stage for the rail related elements of the scheme will therefore follow the steps
outlined below:
Design to commence upon verification of preferred option with Network Rail;
Liaison with all internal disciplines to gain understanding of their requirements from
the scheme, ensure their buy in to scheme deliverables and efficient hand-back and
on-going maintenance upon completion of scheme;
Outline and detailed design in accordance with all relevant Network Rail Group
Standards, and complying with DfT Code of Practice for Accessible Train Station
Design91 and client requirements;
Undertaking of all relevant surveys;
Obtaining of all related internal design approvals;
Obtaining of all relevant planning approvals as applicable;
Promotion and undertaking of related Station Agreement; and
Issue of Approved for Construction drawings and liaison with contractor (and their
sub-contractors) during implementation.
6.4.2 Implementation Stage
There are minimum rail industry timescales for the preparation and implementation of certain
activities such as booking of possessions and the provision of certain materials, etc.
Therefore, the Implementation Programme must allow for the timescales specified by
Network Rail. Upon progressing through GRIP Stage 5 (detailed design) Durham County
Council will enter into an Implementation Agreement with Network Rail.
The GRIP process ensures that risks associated with delivering enhancement projects on an
operational railway are minimised and mitigated against in addition to covering the project
process from inception to post-implementation realisation of benefits. Furthermore, Network
Rail’s licence obligations require it to be confident that when scheme is completed, it can be
operated and maintained safely, reliably, efficiently and cost effectively.
The implementation stage of the rail related elements of the scheme will therefore include
the steps outlined below:
Implementation of designed scheme;
Co-ordination with contractor/s delivering other phases of the scheme;
Adherence to agreed phasing plan;
Discharge of any related Planning Approval conditions;
90 Station Design Principles for Network Rail, Network Rail, 2015 91 Design standards for accessible railway stations: a code of practice, Department for Transport, March 2015
101
Obtaining all necessary possessions / isolations;
Implementation of scheme in a safe and efficient manner minimizing disruption to
users of the station and the station’s neighbours; and
Successful sign-off / hand-back of the scheme to relevant Route Asset Stewards and
the identified Station Facilities Operator (SFO).
6.4.3 Exit Strategy
A cogent exit strategy is vital for establishing an effective collaborative programme; though
any exit strategy should not be confused with termination it should clearly address the
agreed guidelines for disengagement. When establishing any contract the parties involved
must consider how their involvement will come to an end, it is a fact that all contractual
relationships will end at some point.
This point may be reached when:
All requirements have been satisfactorily met;
The requirements have changed to such an extent that the arrangements need to be
revised;
The performance of the partners becomes unacceptable; or
One of the parties ceases trading for some reason.
As is the case with the proposed scheme, construction activity is generally established for a
finite and defined purpose, and a specific period of time. Since it is generally a means to an
end, the success of construction activity can usually only be judged after those who were
involved have disengaged.
Network Rail possesses corporate guidelines92 for the development of project exit strategies
which the proposed scheme will adhere to. As such, the contract agreement between
Durham County Council and Network Rail which sets out the objectives and deliverable of
the proposed scheme will inform the exit strategy; the exit strategy will be structured around
the achievement of the basic objectives that are set out in the contract.
The following checklist of issues will be used to conclude the project and will therefore form
the basis of the exit strategy:
Assess the extent to which the project outcomes have been successfully delivered
including any out performance or under performance;
Identify any outstanding contractual obligations including outstanding payments,
return of bonds, insurance arrangements etc;
Conduct Lessons Learned with all parties to the project involved to evaluate the
extent to which objectives have been achieved and the extent to which they would do
things differently in the future;
Identify any further or related projects that follow on from this one for which detailed
information and records should be prepared;
Determine if the handover of the project to the client organisation (including
Maintenance) been managed successfully, including any necessary training;
Handover of required documentation to include, the health and safety file, as-built
drawings and Operation and Maintenance manuals;
92 Network Rail Investment Projects: Corporate Relationship Management Plan, Network Rail, January 2012
102
Identify and provide all necessary spares to support operation and maintenance of
the constructed asset;
Identify formal handover stages so that everyone is clear about the effective dates of
the transition of responsibilities;
Archiving of all relevant information into the appropriate Network Rail information
system;
Return of source records of all descriptions;
Defects correction and the defects correction period;
Plant and equipment warranties to be lodged;
Asset data to be created and updated;
Key / specialist staff and knowledge to be identified; and
Where the project involved framework or partnering arrangements, suitable
arrangements should be put in place to take advantage of opportunities for
continuous improvement.
From a practical perspective the proposed station will be sited upon land in Network Rail’s
ownership, any required land not currently within Network Rail’s ownership is under the
current ownership of Durham County Council and will be transferred in to Network Rail’s
ownership on completion. Upon completion of the works a process of sign-off and hand back
to Network Rail will take place. No liability for the provisions of the scheme will remain with
Durham County Council following handback to Network Rail. In principle, the provisions of
the scheme on rail owned land will pass into the ownership of Network Rail.
The station agreement will reflect the Station Lease area and the assets within it consequent
to the scheme. The Annexes to the Station Lease will identify the maintenance, repair and
renewal responsibilities of Network Rail and/or the Station Facility Operator for the asset and
the related bearer of associated costs.
The station car park and park and ride facility will be located on Durham County Council
owned land at present it is not envisioned that the car park will be leased to the Train
Operating Company and will instead stay under Durham County Council control. As such,
the maintenance, repair and renewal liability for the car park will also stay with Durham
County Council, together with all costs and associated liabilities.
6.5 Risk Management Strategy
The production of a risk register forms an integral task associated with standard project
management procedures that are followed by both Durham County Council and Network
Rail. The risk register for the proposed scheme will be reviewed regularly throughout the
detailed design, procurement, construction and post construction phases of the scheme as a
standard item to be addressed by the Project Delivery Group. Any unresolved or significant
issues which are identified will be escalated through the appropriate governance
mechanisms in place which are outlined in detail above, under section 6.2.
6.5.1 Risk Assessment
The purpose of the risk register is to capture high level risks and identify any issues for the
different scheme elements during the development and implementation of the proposed
scheme. A risk workshop was undertaken by Durham County Council in order to:
Help identify and update any risks;
103
Identify appropriate mitigation measures; and
Allocate the perceived risks to the appropriate Officer within Durham County Council
to track during the course of the proposed scheme.
Further details on the Risk Assessment for the proposed scheme which was undertaken
after the initial risk workshop are included in The Financial Case under section 5.5. The Risk
Register identified key risk components analysing them by assessing likelihood, impact on
cost and the anticipated mitigation measures to address the risks.
A summary of the top risks that were identified for the proposed scheme are set out below:
Top Project Risks:
Risk Event Consequence Mitigation Probability Impact
Failure to incorporate calls at Horden Peterlee into existing timetable
No station operating company, station built but no services to call at station
Ongoing discussions with Arriva/Northern Rail, in receipt of letter of support in principle
12.5%
5 (High)
Planning Application not Approved
Non approval at planning committee for proposals, delays or project terminated
Thorough preparation of planning application in dialogue with relevant officers and stakeholders
12.5% 5 (High)
Failure to Acquire Blackhills Farm
Failure to close level crossing which conflicts with whistle board issues. Time delays with potential increase in scheme costs
Ongoing discussions with landowner, who has indicated willingness to sell 12.5% 5 (High)
Delays During GRIP Process
Station opening delayed beyond timescales within New Stations Fund Bid Criteria
Programme contraction opportunities to be reviewed during GRIP Stage 3 Selection Study. Possible opportunities include design and build tender, as well as Green Zone construction method
35% 4
(Intermediate)
Source: Durham County Council
6.6 Evidence of Delivery Capability
Durham County Council has an established and successful track record of delivery. The
Council’s approach to delivery is output and outcome based, ensuring that the core benefits
of projects maximise the social, environmental and economic benefit for residents and
businesses. Whilst the project management approach adopted by the council also ensures
that projects are appropriately planned, monitored, delivered and evaluated to timescales
and agreed budgets. Over recent years the County Council has successfully delivered the
following major schemes that have facilitated both economic and employment growth:
NETPark - Creation of an internationally recognised location for science and
technology companies in the UK. The project has been delivered in a number of
phases between 2000 and 2014 at a cost of over £19m. The funding sources
104
included Durham County Council, Single Programme and European Regional
Development Funding (ERDF).
The Witham, Barnard Castle - A conservation, restoration and development project of
a Grade II listed building. The project was delivered in phases between 2003 and
2013, at a cost of £3.1m, with Durham County Council, Single Programme and ERDF
funding sources.
Seaham Marina - The transformation of Seaham’s North Dock into a £3.2million
marina, consisting of berths for boats, units for businesses and a heritage centre.
The scheme was delivered between 2010 and 2013. The scheme cost was £4m
consisting of Durham County Council and ONE funding.
Junction 63 (A1) - Capacity enhancement measures were delivered at congested
junctions and on a key radial corridor between Durham and the A1. The scheme was
delivered in partnership with the Highways Agency and AonePlus in the 2014/15
financial year. The scheme cost was £3.172m consisting of Department for Transport
and Local Authority funding.
In addition, Durham County Council possesses an extensive track record of successfully
delivering a number of projects relating to improving access, expanding car parking facilities
and providing park and ride facilities. Given that Durham County Council will take specific
responsibility for the delivery of the approach roads and the car park/park and ride facility for
the proposed station, the following projects summarised in the table below highlights
Durham County Council’s experience in successfully delivering projects to these ends:
DCC Recent Projects:
Scheme Date Value Elements/Summary
Belmont Park and Ride, Durham
April 05 5m 533 space car park, interchange building, bus layby and junction
Sniperley Park and Ride, Durham
April 05 3.5m 294 space car park, interchange building, bus layby and junction
Howlands Park and Ride, Durham
April 05 3.5m 330 space car park, interchange building, bus layby and junction
North Bondgate car park, Bishop Auckland
April 16 0.5m 300 space car and bus layby
Source: Durham County Council
Network Rail owns and operates the majority of Britain’s rail infrastructure. This
infrastructure comprises 20,000 miles of track, 32,000 bridges and tunnels, 2,500 stations
and 8,200 commercial properties. Network Rail is responsible for maintaining, renewing,
replacing and enhancing the national rail infrastructure.
Network Rail plans its activity in five-year periods, called Control Periods, which are agreed
with its regulator, the Office of Rail and Road (formerly known as the Office of Rail
Regulation). In control period 5 between 2014 and 2019 Network Rail are investing more
105
than £25bn - lengthening platforms, untangling tracks, introducing electrification and building
stations93.
Network Rail can, therefore, be considered to poses a wealth of experience in delivering
complex rail projects – particularly in the development and delivery of new stations.
Examples of the major schemes Network Rail is currently involved in include:
Completion of the Thameslink and Crossrail projects to increase rail capacity on
cross London routes. Network Rail’s infrastructure funding for these in the current
planning period totals £3.1 billion;
Two other major capacity and connectivity schemes: the Northern Hub (to enable
faster and more frequent trains in the North West, and new connections across the
Pennines), and East-West Rail (the re-opening of the Bedford-Oxford line for
passenger and freight trains); and
Electrification of routes including the Great Western Main Line, Midland Main Lane
and the Trans Pennine route, which had been expected to cost £3.0 billion. These
projects also contribute to the introduction of Intercity Express Programme (IEP)
trains on the Great Western line, to the Northern Hub and to the ‘Electric Spine’
freight route between the Midlands and the Port of Southampton.
In addition, over the last two years Network Rail has successfully delivered numerous new
station projects including94:
Manchester Victoria station - £44m rebuild completed 2014;
30 miles of new railway and seven new stations open between the Scottish Borders
and Edinburgh, connecting to existing rail network at Newcraighall completed in
2015;
Bicester Village Station - rebuilt from the former Bicester Town station, to form part of
Chiltern Railway's new £130m Oxford to London Marylebone rail link in 2015;
Birmingham New Street station redevelopment - completed September 2015 with the
addition/refurbishment of 12 platforms with a project envelope totalling £600m; and
Kirkstall Forge - on the line between Leeds and Bradford, delivered in June 2016 to
serve a £400m mixed use development of the Old Forge site.
6.7 Communications and Stakeholder Management
Durham County Council has actively engaged with local community groups using a series of
planned consultation events, the most recent of which took place on 6th October 2016. The
events ensure local representatives are kept informed of the project during its development
in order to ensure potential issues can be addressed in a timely manner whilst also building
up demand for the station.
Due to the complex nature of both the proposed scheme and the rail industry more
generally, there are a number of recognised key stakeholders, the table below summarises
the key stakeholders which have been identified and their role in relation to the proposed
scheme:
93 Control Period 5 Delivery Plan 2014-2019, Network Rail, March 2015 94 Delivering a better railway for a better Britain: Our plans for 2014-2019, Network Rail, March 2015
106
Key Stakeholders:
Organisation/Individuals Role
North East Local Enterprise Partnership Local Enterprise Partnership and part funder of project through LGF
North East Combined Authority Strategic transport authority
Department for Transport Dept. responsible for transport network – potential part funder through NSF
Network Rail Authority for rail network – entered in to a DSA
Office of Rail Regulation Regulatory body
Arriva/Northern Rail Operator of potential service
Bus operators Service potential station
Homes and Communities Agency Non departmental body that funds affordable housing
Police and Fire Service Blue light services to provide input in to the design and safe operation of station
Highways Agency/Authority Responsible for the safe operation of public roads
Access Groups Consultee
Rail User Groups Consultee
Rail Users Consultee
Regeneration Partnership Consultee
Parish/Town Council Consultee
Public & Residents Consultee
Planning Authority Statutory town planning authority
Durham County Council Client
Source: Durham County Council
6.7.1 Communications Strategy
A communications strategy has been developed by Durham County Council, in order to
identify stakeholders and ensure continued engagement with them throughout the life of the
project. This communications strategy provides details on how engagement will take place
internally and how external organisations should be kept informed about progress with the
project.
Once the new station is complete there may be further opportunities for engagement with the
local community through station adoption. It is felt that doing so could help to maintain the
station in terms of aesthetic appearance and in the development of station facilities which
could help to attract additional passengers.
Durham County Council will develop an effective multi-media communication campaign for
the duration of the latter phases of the proposed project notably during design, construction
and beyond. The objective will be to advise local stakeholders of what is happening and to
help reinforce the collaborative nature of the emerging project. This communications
campaign will be supplemented by a marketing strategy to publicise the new rail journey
opportunities by describing the travel opportunities, both for commuting purposes to work as
well as education, leisure, healthcare and shopping purposes.
The plan detailed below gives a brief overview of the County Council’s overall
communications strategy:
107
Communications Plan:
Stakeholder Purpose of Communication
Communication Channel
Frequency of Communications
Network Rail
Leading the development of the project
Project group meetings, Emails, One to ones, Team meetings, Verbal
Continuous
North East LEP and any other funding partners
Development and appraisal
Stakeholder meetings Weekly in
development phases
North East Combined Authority
Awareness and appraisal
Emails, Verbal, Briefings
Key milestones then quarterly
Arriva (Northern Franchise holder)
Development, operation and planning
Emails, Verbal, Stakeholder meetings
Weekly in development phases
Police and Fire Service
Development, operation and planning
Emails, Stakeholder meetings, Briefings Key project milestones
Highways Agency Development, operation and planning
Emails, Stakeholder meetings, Briefings Key project milestones
Planning Authority Development, operation and planning
Emails, Stakeholder meetings, Briefings Key project milestones
Regeneration Partnership
Key Consultee Consultation events, Meetings, Email
Quarterly update
Parish Council Key Consultee Consultation events,
Meetings, Email Quarterly update
Public and Residents Key Consultee Consultation events Events at key
milestones
Rail Users Key Consultee Consultation events Events at key
milestones
Bus Operators Servicing Station Emails, Stakeholder
meetings Development phases
as needed Source: Durham County Council
6.7.2 Consultation
As noted above residents and community groups have been kept informed through early
stage consultation, whilst events are planned to be ongoing as the project progresses and
subsequently passes through the key GRIP gateways.
To date, consultation has taken place in order to explain the strategic and economic
reasoning behind the new station proposals and to articulate how decisions have been
reached. Feedback to the emerging proposals for a new station at Horden Peterlee has
been overwhelmingly positive. Garnering 98.6% support from the local community, from a
total of 1,297 responders during a recent consultation. Of which 92.9% strongly agreed with
the proposals for a new rail station in Horden, and a further 5.6% agreeing. Of those who
supported a new rail station, the following use frequencies were indicated:
14.9% - daily;
53.5% - weekly;
27.5% – monthly; and
4.1% – less often
A range of consultation methods are being considered in the future to provide updates of
project progression including newsletters, information disseminated via emails or Durham
108
County Council’s corporate website, face to face events with stakeholders or briefing
sessions convened as part of community groups or liaison with local schools. Following
liaison with other Councils who have successfully delivered stations, Durham County Council
will assess the suitability of each type of engagement in terms of the likely costs, time inputs
and effectiveness.
6.8 Monitoring and Evaluation
The Magenta Book95 provides guidance from HM Treasury; it is the central guidance for all
UK government departments on evaluation and therefore sets the standard in the public
sector on the evaluation of projects, detailing best practice to be followed. The Magenta
Book covers:
How evaluations should be designed and managed;
The different evaluation options available;
How evaluation improves policy making;
How evaluation results and evidence should be interpreted and presented; and
How thinking about evaluation before and during the policy design phase can help to
improve the quality of evaluation results.
A key tenet of The Magenta Book is that evaluation should be “proportionate to the risks,
scale and profile of the policy or project” as such; the book identifies the two types of
evaluation most appropriate to the proposed scheme as:
Process evaluation – how the policy was delivered; and
Impact evaluation – what difference the policy made.
Based on the economic assessment there are a number of headline demand forecasts for
(assessment year). These include:
100% (71,000) new-to-rail journeys at Horden Peterleee; and
0% rail journeys abstracted from other stations.
In terms of impact evaluation, a number of potential data sources have been identified which
could be of use in considering the effectiveness of the scheme. These are summarised in
the table provided below:
95 The Magenta Book: Guidance for Evaluation, HM Treasury, April 2011
109
Data Sources and Indicators:
Subject Data Source Measures Outcome
Overall demand at station
Data collection exercise
Boarding and alighting at station on surveyed trains
Monitoring of demand build and usage up at Horden Peterlee
Mode of access to station
Data collection exercise or NPS data
% of demand travel mode (car, bus, cycle, taxi, foot)
Calculate actual demand by mode and monitor over time
Level of use of park and ride facilities
Surveys at station % of demand travelling to station by car and parking at station car park % occupancy of car park
Calculate demand on park and ride facility
Satisfaction with park and ride facilities
National Passenger Surveys
% satisfied with car parking at station
Calculate success of park and ride facility and monitor over time
Congestion in local area
Data collection exercise
Traffic flows on key link roads around Horden
Calculate decrease in traffic flows on links around station
Source: Durham County Council
The National Rail Passenger Survey (NPS) provides a twice yearly survey on a
representative sample of journeys, undertaking in both spring and autumn. This looks at
specific details of the service and allows a comparison over time. There are some
weaknesses in the survey, in that in order to gain a representative sample the stations
included in one survey ‘wave’ may not necessarily be included in the next survey. In order to
be able to use the data to monitor changes on the Durham coast line it would be necessary
for the relevant stations to be included in both ‘before’ and ‘after’ survey waves.
Traffic and parking surveys will also be necessary in the local area. Car park occupancy
surveys both before and after the scheme at relevant stations will need to be undertaken to
establish the level of use of each station as a park and ride site.
The targets and measures of the scheme’s success need to be established once the
baseline data is available. Several data sources for monitoring the project have been
identified, although this data is either dated or has not been collated. An appropriate up-to-
date baseline position will need to be established before meaningful targets, with appropriate
timescales, are established.
Assessment of value for money of the project will be undertaken utilising these indicators to
inform an economic appraisal of the relative success of the scheme, again, the key elements
of this assessment will be:
Capital Costs – outcome from procurement of the scheme;
Operating Costs – outcome from commercial agreement on the services;
Demand / Revenue – derived from ticket sales data and surveys;
New Station Users;
User Benefits – derived from the data collection / passenger surveys;
110
Journey time savings informed from evidence of transfer from bus, transfer from car
and generated trips using the passenger interviews expanded to the counts.
Performance benefits – derived from rail performance data;
Non-user benefits – application of the Rail Appraisal Guidance utilising observed
data;
Wider Economic benefits – informed from the analysis of sub-factors; and
Improved Labour Supply – evidence of increased commuter trips and take up of
employment from the passenger surveys expanded to the counts.
6.8.1 Benefits Realisation Plan
The Benefits Realisation Plan is designed to enable benefits that are expected to be derived
from the scheme to be planned for, tracked and realised. The expected benefits are
identified and then the plan details the key activities that are required to manage the
successful realisation of these benefits.
The scheme objectives as identified and elaborated on in both The Strategic and Economic
Case have been used to develop the plan summarised in the table below.
The benefit column describes both the projects outputs which are those tangible effects that
are funded and produced directly as a result of the scheme and the outcomes of the scheme
which are the final impacts brought about by the scheme in the short, medium and long term.
To determine whether the scheme benefits are being realised the desired outputs and
outcomes have been converted into measurable indicators of scheme benefits, as set out
below. The data required to measure the extent to which benefits are being realised is also
shown.
111
Benefits Realisation Schedule:
Benefit Monitoring Data Measures/timescale Responsibility
Rail demand to/from stations
Arriva loading data
ORR station statistics
Annually for 5 years after implementation
Durham County Council/Network Rail/Train Operating Company
Demand on feeder bus service to the station
Operator data Annually for 5 years after implementation
Durham County Council
A19 car journey times
Trafficmaster Annually for 5 years after implementation, in comparison to before data.
Durham County Council
Employment levels
Employment statistics Identify change in employment numbers within the catchment area, annually for five years after implementation.
Durham County Council
Rental and property values
Land Registry
Commercial and residential agents
Changes in rental and property values within the station’s catchment. Annually for five years after implementation.
Durham County Council
Access to job opportunities and local services
Engagement of local business forums
Comparison of accessibility and travel demand metrics with qualitative data sourced from consultation with local business forums. Annually for five years after implementation.
Durham County Council
Facilitation of local development
Planning approvals
Monitoring of planning applications
Durham County Council
Mode shift Passenger interviews Before and after data interviews on how local residents make their journey to work. Annually for five years after implementation.
Durham County Council
Changes in trip destinations
Passenger interviews
Household surveys
Identify changes in trip destinations from household surveys compared to baseline responses. Annually for five years after implementation.
Durham County Council
Walking/cycling demand
Cordon counts On key approaches to the station. Annually for five years after implementation.
Durham County Council
Source: Durham County Council
6.8.2 Reporting
Both benefit realisation and monitoring and evaluation will be an ongoing process throughout
the implementation of the scheme and will continue once the proposed scheme has been
successfully delivered. The below forms an agreed reporting schedule:
Monitoring & Evaluation Plan (2017) – the collection of pre-opening baseline data
associated with the scheme to support a post opening evaluation.
One year after study (2020) – the production of a one year after report that sets out a
comparison of the forecast and outturn impacts of the scheme against each of the
key benefits.
Five years after study (2025) – expands on the findings of the one year report and
sets out a comparison of the forecast and outturn impacts of the scheme against
each key benefit.
112
6.9 Conclusions
The Management Case outlined above has successfully demonstrated that the “preferred
option” is capable of being delivered successfully, in accordance with recognised best
practice.
Detailing the robust arrangements which are in place for communications and stakeholder
management, contract management, monitoring, evaluation, benefits realisation and the
identification, management and mitigation of risk The Management Case has clearly
demonstrated that the proposal is being implemented in accordance with industry standard
Programme and Project Management (PPM) methodologies.
In summary, the proposed project will be delivered over a two year period with the station
due for opening in January 2020 consistent with the programme of delivery for the New
Stations Fund. The Management Case has evidenced that:
Robust Governance, assurance (following rail industry standard GRIP stages) and
risk management processes are both appropriate to the project and are suitably in
place to deliver the desired outcomes;
Both Durham County Council and Network Rail have a track record of successfully
delivering schemes of a similar magnitude to the proposals for Horden Peterlee
station;
The project has a detailed stakeholder Communication and Management Strategy in
order to ensure that effective engagement takes place through the different stages of
scheme delivery; and
A monitoring and evaluation framework proportionate to the risks, scale and profile of
the project to assess the relative success of the station in meeting its objectives is in
place with an agreed reporting timetable identified.
113
7 Summary and Conclusions
7.1 Introduction
This section summarises the main conclusions from the preceding ‘Five Case Model’
business case for a new passenger railway station at Horden Peterlee. The business case
has been compiled in line with Treasury Guidance on the Green Book (Treasury, 2011) and
WebTAG (Web-based Transport Analysis Guidance), the Department for Transport’s
transport appraisal guidance and toolkit outlined in: Transport Business Case Assessment
(DfT, 2011)
It should be noted that this business case is a working document which will be updated as
the scheme is implemented. The document will be kept under review throughout scheme
implementation. Furthermore, this document relates only to scheme implementation,
following the allocation of funds by the North East Local Enterprise Partnership’s Local
Growth Fund.
7.2 Summary
Overall the proposed station at Horden Peterlee performs strongly against each of the five
cases: providing a strong case for change, good value for money resulting in a fundable and
affordable deal and establishing that the scheme will result in a viable procurement as
summarised in the table below:
Business Case Summary:
Case Measure of Success
The Strategic Case The proposed scheme has a robust case for change with a number of clearly identified strategic drivers. The station will fill an appreciable gap in rail service provision, will support wider economic development goals and primarily give an economically sustainable solution to some of the access constraints within the East of County Durham.
Economic Case The proposed scheme demonstrates good value for money – the core scenario offers medium value for money (BCR 1.59) and high when Wider Economic Benefits are considered (BCR 2.19) as
classified by the Government’s Value for Money guidance. The Case provides a ‘preferred way forward’ demonstrating strong deliverability against spending objectives and critical success factors.
Commercial Case The proposed scheme is commercially viable and can be procured effectively by Network Rail. The case has set out key contractual milestones and delivery dates. To date Durham County Council has entered into early discussions with Network Rail over adopting a final design and build approach to the proposed project. This will initially use a Development Services Agreement between Durham County Council and Network Rail, leading on to an Implementation Agreement in order to construct the scheme.
Financial Case The capital and revenue requirements for the spending proposal over the expected life span of the service have been laid out in a level of detail consistent with the stage of development the proposed project is at and as such the funding package outlined for the proposed scheme has been effectively shown to be secure, falling within appropriate spending limits.
Management Case The case has outlined that the proposed scheme is capable of being delivered successfully and will be done so in accordance with recognised best practice. Detailing the robust arrangements which are in place for communications and stakeholder management, contract management, monitoring, evaluation, benefits realisation and the identification, management and mitigation of risk.
114
7.3 Conclusions
The findings of the business case as detailed over the course of the five cases suggest that
the delivery and implementation of the proposed station at Horden Peterlee will be a
success. The following key conclusions can be taken from the work which has been outlined
above:
There is a clearly identifiable market for rail demand for a station at Horden Peterlee,
owing to an appreciable gap in rail provision. At present there is a 13 mile gap
between Hartlepool and Seaham stations which restricts access, for a substantial
number of residents, to the rail network. In 2009 The Association of Train Operating
Companies (ATOC) produced the Connecting Communities Report; this found
Peterlee to be one of the largest centres of population in England without access to
the rail network;
Following a feasibility study of 5 sites within Horden, South East View was
determined to be the ‘preferred’ site. South East View is classed as a good site by
Network Rail. The proposed site is reasonably level with its immediate surroundings
making the installation of the various station structures relatively straight forward.
Furthermore, all required land is either in the ownership of Durham County Council or
Network Rail;
A number of direct benefits for local residents result from the introduction of a new
station at Horden Peterlee and the consequent reduction in travel times and costs,
including: Improved access to jobs and opportunities for residents in the East
Durham area, including higher value employment and enhanced connectivity to the
main regional centres of Sunderland, Newcastle and Teesside for business and
leisure;
The introduction of the proposed station will facilitate 71,000 trips from the newly
constructed station per annum by 2024, representing 100% of demand built up
reducing vehicle kilometres by 850,000 km per annum in the North East region;
The financial case for the scheme considered the new Northern franchise during
which the new station would be open, 2020 to 2024 inclusive. This analysis showed
that, in undiscounted, non-market, 2010 prices the scheme is expected to generate a
net operating surplus, revenue versus OPEX, of: £150,000 to £200,000 per annum,
when through traveller demand loss is included. As such the forecast revenue is
expected to exceed the typical annual operating costs of the station, thereby
generating an immediate financial surplus; and
To date, consultation has taken place in order to explain the strategic and economic
reasoning behind the new station proposals and to articulate how decisions have
been reached. Feedback to the emerging proposals for a new station at Horden
Peterlee has been overwhelmingly positive. Garnering 98.6% support from the local
community, from a total of 1,297 responders during a recent consultation. Of which
92.9% strongly agreed with the proposals for a new rail station in Horden, and a
further 5.6% agreeing.
115
As such, it can be determined that the business case for a new station at Horden Peterlee
provides robust evidence that investing in the proposal will:
Address key issues for the area in term of improving access to the rail network and
increasing opportunities for residents to access employment sites;
Deliver on core local, regional and national government objectives, holding political
and public support across County Durham and the wider region;
Has the potential to provide high value for money; and
Demonstrates that the processes in place and programme for developing and
implementing the scheme are robust, deliverable and achievable.
