Railways Present

8/4/2019 Railways Present

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/railways-present 1/322

Presented to the

Minister for Regional Development

and the

Board of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company

September 2000

Appraisal Working Group

Report

Appraisal of Four Illustrative Strategic

Scenarios for Railways in Northern Ireland

1

Appraisal of Four Illustrative Strategic Scenarios for

Railways in Northern Ireland

Contents

Contents .........................................................................................................................1

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................2

2.0 Transport Demand Forecasts used in the Appraisal ..............................................6

3.0 Sub-Objective Appraisals ......................................................................................9

4.0 Appraisal Summary Tables (ASTs) .....................................................................11

5.0 Supporting Analyses ............................................................................................17

5.1. Introduction......................................................................................................17

5.2. Distribution and Equity....................................................................................18

5.2.1. Introduction..............................................................................................18

5.2.2. Equality....................................................................................................18

5.2.3. New TSN .................................................................................................19

5.2.4. Summary..................................................................................................20

5.2.5. Conclusions..............................................................................................21

5.3. Affordability and Financial Sustainability.......................................................22



5.3.1. Introduction..............................................................................................22

5.3.2. Financial Sustainability and Affordability..............................................22

5.3.3. Financial Sustainability and Affordability - the Four Scenarios .............22

5.3.4. What is Affordable? - the Need for Decision ..........................................23

5.3.5. The Programme for Government and 2000 Spending Review................23

5.3.6. Making the Case ......................................................................................24

5.3.7. Conclusions..............................................................................................25

5.4. Practicality and Public Acceptability...............................................................26

5.4.1. Introduction..............................................................................................26

5.4.2. Scenario 1 (Enhancement):-.....................................................................26

5.4.3. Scenario 2 (based on A D Little):- ...........................................................27

5.4.4. Scenario 3 (Truncation):- .........................................................................27

5.4.5. Scenario 4 (Mothball):-............................................................................28

6.0 Sensitivity of Results to Key Parameters.............................................................30

6.1. Introduction......................................................................................................30

6.2. Financial (Cost and Revenue) Sensitivity Checks ...........................................30

6.2.1. Introduction..............................................................................................30

6.2.2. Detailed Results for Cost and Revenue Sensitivity Checks.....................31

6.2.3. Results Summary for Cost and Revenue Sensitivity Checks...................32

6.2.4. Conclusions for Cost and Revenue Sensitivity Checks ...........................34

6.3. Modal Split Sensitivity Checks........................................................................36

6.3.1. Introduction..............................................................................................36

6.3.2. Results for Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Economic Impact...............37

6.3.3. Conclusions for Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Economic Impact.......38

6.3.4. Introduction to Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Environmental Impact.38

6.3.5. Results for Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Environmental Impact .......39

6.3.6. Conclusions for Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Environmental Impact40



7.0 Appraisal Results .................................................................................................42

Appendices A - V

Annexes 1 - 2

2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Terms of Reference for the Railways Task Force (RTF) included the

requirement to quantify the costs and benefits (monetary and non-monetary)

of the range of scenarios, taking account of:

• considerations of value for money and affordability within the context of

the Governmentís public expenditure plans and priorities; and

• an agreed framework for appraisal which reflects current best practice.

The RTF therefore charged the Director of Regional Transportation Strategy

Division in the Department for Regional Development with overseeing and

delivering the appraisal of four strategically different scenarios for the future

of the railways. An Appraisal Working Group (AWG) was established

comprising staff from Translink, the General Consumer Council for

Northern Ireland (GCC), the Department of Environment (DOE), the

Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) and the Department for

Regional Development (DRD). The AWG created 24 sub-groups, each with

the relevant expertise, to assess the impact of each scenario on the 21 subobjectives and 3

supporting analyses (See Tables 1.1 and 1.2).

As stated in Chapter 5 of the Interim Report of the Railways Task Force

(hereafter referred to as the RTF Interim Report) the proposal by the AWG to

adopt the Appraisal Summary Table and supporting analyses as included in

the DETR Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies

(GOMMMS) of March 2000 was accepted by the Task Force and the Panel

of Experts as reflecting current best practice and as the most appropriate for

this study.



Appraisal of the four illustrative scenarios selected (see Chapter 6 of the RTF

Interim Report) was undertaken against the five main criteria which are

couched as objectives in GOMMMS (Section 5.2 of the RTF Interim

Report). These five objectives are in turn broken down into the 21 subobjectives (Chapter 3) and it

was against these that the scenarios were

appraised. The outputs from the appraisals are then brought together on

Appraisal Summary Tables (ASTs) (Chapter 4) and must be considered in

conjunction with important supporting analyses (Chapter 5).

The ASTs for Scenarios 1-3 (Enhancement, AD Little and Truncation

respectively) present a comparison of each of these scenarios against

Scenario 4 (Mothball), the base case. Scenario 4 (Mothball) effectively

represents the consequence of no increase in the current level of investment

in the railways. It was not possible to use the existing situation itself as the

base case, as maintenance works to allow existing rolling stock to be utilised

and reasonable track speeds to be maintained until 2010 are not technically

feasible and therefore, costs could not be estimated reliably.

3

The AST for Scenario 4 (Mothball) presents its comparison with the existing

situation to help the reader appreciate the broad implications. It is important

to note that in comparing Scenario 4 (Mothball) to the existing situation, the

impacts of the increase in car ownership and hence car usage that are

expected to occur up to 2010 in any event, are not specifically included. The

Scenario 4 (Mothball) AST entries are, in effect, a subjective comparison

against the existing situation (year 2000) with some commentary on likely

impact trends, caused by the mothballing, up to 2010.

In the ASTs, the data and textual scores in the Assessment and Quantitative

Measure columns for each sub-objective are supported by comments in the

Qualitative Impacts column. For each sub-objective (except Greenhouse



Gases, Accidents and Transport Economic Efficiency), the Assessment

column contains a textual score. Textual scores take account of the

qualitative comments and any quantitative measures and are on a seven-point

scale ñ Slight, Moderate or Large Adverse effect, Neutral and Slight,

Moderate or Large Beneficial effect.

In completing ASTs, written submissions and other feedback resulting from

the public consultation exercise were taken into account.

The ASTs take the perspective of the overall public interest at regional level.

In accordance with GOMMMS, important separate, supporting analysis was

undertaken for three additional groups of issues (Chapter 5) that reflect a

more focused view of the implications of the scenarios. These are

Distribution and Equity, Affordability and Financial Sustainability and

Practicality and Public Acceptability.

The final chapters in this report contain comments on the sensitivity of the

appraisal results to key parameters, (including costs, revenues and modal

splits ñ Chapter 6), and advice on how the appraisal information should be

considered (Chapter 7).

4

OBJECTIVE SUB-OBJECTIVE LEAD AWG CONTRIBUTOR/S

Environment Noise Helen Anderson DOE Granville Lavin Translink

Local Air Quality Helen Anderson DOE Mal McGreevy

James Erwin

Stephen Wood

Translink

Translink

DRD

Greenhouse Gases Helen Anderson DOE Mal McGreevy



Stephen Wood

Translink

DRD

Landscape, Townscape and

Heritage of Historic Resources

Helen Anderson

DOE John Barnett

Trevor Gordon

Anne Given

Joyce McCormick

Translink

DRD

DOE

DOE

Biodiversity Helen Anderson DOE John Barnett

Robert Bleakley

Ian Enlander

Joyce McCormick

Translink

DOE

DOE

DOE

Water Environment Helen Anderson DOE Mal McGreevy

James Erwin

Clifford Henry

Translink



Translink

DOE

Physical Fitness Stephen Wood DRD Irvine Lavery Translink

Journey Ambience Ciaran Rogan Translink Lillian Buchanan

Norman Maynes

Stephen Wood

GCC

Translink

DRD

Safety Accidents Granville Lavin

Stephen Wood

Translink

DRD

Tim Irwin DRD

Security Mal McGreevy Translink Peter McWilliams DRD

Economy Transport Economic

Efficiency

Brenda Burke DRD Bernard Clarke

Peter Moore

Norman Taylor

Paddy Toal

Stephen Wood

Translink

Translink

DFP

DRD

DRD



Reliability Stephen Wood DRD Seamus Scallon Translink

Wider Economic Impacts Trevor Gordon DRD Brenda Burke

Bernard Clarke

Stewart Matthews

Peter Moore

Patrick Neeson

DRD

Translink

DRD

Translink

DRD

Accessibility Option Values Stephen Wood DRD Irvine Lavery

Oliver McKenna

Translink

Translink

Severance Stephen Wood DRD Irvine Lavery Translink

Access to Transport System Stephen Wood DRD Irvine Lavery Translink

Integration Transport Interchange Bernard Clarke Translink Stephen Wood

Irvine Lavery

DRD

Translink

Land-Use Policy Trevor Gordon DRD Bernard Clarke

Irvine Lavery

Stephen Wood

Translink

Translink

DRD



Other Government Policies Peter Barbour DRD Peter McWilliams DRD

Table 1.1: Appraisal Working Group Leaders and Contributors to AST Sub-Objective Appraisals.

5

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS LEAD AWG CONTRIBUTOR/S

Distribution and Equity

Affordability and Financial Sustainability

Practicality and Public Acceptability

Peter Barbour

David Sterling

Andy Watt

DRD

DFP

Translink

Tracy Power

Norman Taylor

Stephen Armstrong

Brenda Burke

Lillian Buchanan

Irvine Lavery

Norman Maynes

Eddie McMillan

Peter McWilliams

Seamus Scallon

DRD

DFP

Translink

DRD



GCC

Translink

Translink

Translink

DRD

Translink

Table 1.2: Appraisal Working Group Leaders and Contributors to Supporting

Analyses.

6

2.0 TRANSPORT DEMAND FORECASTS USED IN THE APPRAISAL

Three transportation models have been used in forecasting travel demand and

in quantifying impacts against the appraisal sub-objectives.

The models are:

• NISTRM (Northern Ireland Strategic Transportation Model);

• OFE Review (Oscar Faber Elasticity model and Review);

• BTM (Belfast Transportation Model).

The principal features of each model have been explained in Section 5.5 of

the RTF Interim Report.

Initially both NISTRM and BTM were used in order to investigate the

robustness of NISTRM results in the Belfast urban area (within which BTM

specification was more detailed). Those tests showed general agreement

between NISTRM and BTM and, therefore, BTM was not used in

subsequent testing.

However, in view of the relatively small magnitude of the impacts resulting

between scenarios, a review of the NISTRM results was undertaken. The

review concluded:

• a separate external process would be needed to forecast the effects of trip



suppression (for Mothball and Truncation scenarios) and trip generation

(for A D Little and Enhancement scenarios);

• the part of the NISTRM model, which controls switching between car

and public transport modes, was not sufficiently sensitive.

Within the time constraints of the study it was not possible to refine

NISTRM to take account of these conclusions. In addition, the Task Force

held the view that an independent review, not constrained by the functional

limitations of NISTRM, should be used to develop an additional set of travel

demand forecasts.

Oscar Faber was, therefore, commissioned to prepare travel demand

projections for car, bus and rail under each scenario. This work was based

on:-

i. the use of empirical evidence from Northern Ireland and elsewhere and

research literature on the effects of rail closures and re-openings;

ii. the Antrim-Bleach Green Study of New Stations, 1995;

iii. research undertaken for the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising into

the impact on patronage of new rolling stock and infrastructure

improvements, reported in 1997;

7

iv. a forecasting model developed for Translink in 1999 designed to assess

the impact of changes to fare and service levels on the NIR network;

v. review of profile of NIR passengers and travel alternatives open to

them.

The Panel of Experts endorsed the approach and considered that, based on

existing model techniques and experience, the projected increased rail

patronage demands from Oscar Faber were reasonable and represented a

more realistic estimate than those provided by NISTRM. However, Panel



Members Lord Bradshaw and Professor Perry further commented that as the

Northern Ireland railway service had become so degraded, there was the

potential in Scenario 1 for a much greater increase in rail patronage as a

result of the introduction of state of the art rolling stock, good infrastructure

and the consequential higher speeds and frequency. (See Annexes 1 and 2)

The Oscar Faber 2010 future network demand changes (%), compared to

current, for car, bus and rail are shown in Table 2.1. (This includes projected

traffic growth for each mode of travel over the 10-year period)

Scenario 1

Enhancement

Scenario 2

A D Little

Scenario 3

Truncation

Scenario 4

Mothball

1,2

Rail 55.8% 40.1% 23.6% No services

Bus 10.1% 11.3% 12.5% 25.8%

Car

Patronage

19.3% 19.4% 19.6% 20.3%

Note 1: Rail patronage excludes cross-border services

Note 2: The effect of each scenario on cross-border ëEnterpriseí patronage is uncertain and

has been excluded.

Table 2.1: Oscar Faber Travel Forecasts (NI total journeys % increase from

current journeys)



It should be noted that these Northern Ireland totals contain substantial

variations at a local level. For example, under Scenario 1, (Enhancement)

rail patronage would increase by 350% on the Londonderry/Derry line and

by 37% on the Whitehead line.

Under the same scenario, bus patronage would increase by 17% on the

Londonderry/Derry line and 9% on the Whitehead line.

It is worth observing that, in the case of a line being mothballed, Oscar Faber

assume that the average travel demand will be altered as follows:-

• 20% of trips will no longer be undertaken;

• 55% of travellers will use the bus substitution services;

• 25% of travellers will use cars.

8

These average figures for bus and car have been derived from the summation

of individual rail corridor figures which again show significant variations,

e.g., only 40% transfer to bus substitution services on the Londonderry/Derry

line.

The primary determinant of choice between bus and car is their comparative

travel times, whilst car usage is further governed by forecast estimates of

local car ownership. Bus substitution on shorter journeys is more attractive

than on longer trips, especially those involving interchanges.

Variations on the effect of mothballing on travel demand are commented on

in Chapter 6.

9

3.0 SUB-OBJECTIVE APPRAISALS

This chapter outlines the structure of the technical reports for all of the subobjectives within

GOMMMS. Each of these reports comprises the following

components:

• Data Sources



• Methodology and its Application

• Key Statistics and/or Results

• Scenarios Assessment

Data Sources: a list of information sources utilised in the completion of the

assessment including Government policy documents, output from

consultants, available market research, relevant databases, census

information etc.

Methodology and its Application: an outline of the methodology employed

in the completion of the assessment. This frequently follows the guidance

within the relevant section of GOMMMS. Any deviation from GOMMMS

that is required for the special circumstances pertaining to Northern Ireland is

outlined and the justification for it is explained.

Key Statistics and/or Results: a record of key quantitative information

utilised in the completion of the assessment. This includes transport statistics,

assessment of railway stations and structures, completed GOMMMS

worksheets, output from consultants (and subsequent calculation of

passenger numbers), train frequencies etc.

Scenarios Assessment: a report of the assessment of the 4 different

scenarios with regard to that sub-objective. As stated in the introduction

(Chapter 1), Scenario 4 is treated as the base case. Hence the assessment is

reported under the following headings:

• Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation

• Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4



Each of these headings contains the comments that are inserted into the ASTs

that give an overview of the scenarios under all of the sub-objectives.



The sub-objective appraisal reports are presented in a series of appendices as

detailed below:

10

Appendix Objective Sub-Objective

A Noise

B Local Air Quality

C Greenhouse Gases

D Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources

E Biodiversity

F Water Environment

G Physical Fitness

H

Environment

Journey Ambience

I Accidents

J

Safety

Security

K Transport Economic Efficiency

L Reliability

M

Economy

Wider Economic Impacts

N Option Values

O Severance

P

Accessibility



Accessibility to the Transport System

Q Transport Interchange

R Land-Use Policy

S

Integration

Other Government Policies

11

4.0 APPRAISAL SUMMARY TABLES (ASTs)

Each AST presents the implications of each scenario against the five main

objectives by way of a summary of the impacts on each of the 21 subobjectives.

Table 4.1 compares Scenario 1 (Enhancement) to the base case Scenario 4

(Mothball).

Table 4.2 compares Scenario 2 (A D Little) to the base case Scenario 4

(Mothball).

Table 4.3 compares Scenario 3 (Truncation) to the base case Scenario 4

(Mothball).

Table 4.4 compares Scenario 4 (Mothballing) to the existing situation.

The net present values associated with each scenario have been taken from

data presented in Chapter 8 of the RTF Interim Report.

12

This page has been intentionally left blank APPRAISAL SUMMARY TABLE

1

Scenario 1 (Enhancement)

vs Scenario 4 (Mothball)

ENHANCEMENT TABLE 4.1

OBJECTIVE SUB-OBJECTIVE QUALITATIVE IMPACTS QUANTITATIVE MEASURE ASSESSMENT

Noise No significant reduction in road traffic noise levels. Introduction of rail noise to the Bangor,Larne, Antrim and



Londonderry/Derry Lines. Note: Compared to the existing situation, this scenario will have slightly

lower noise levels on rail

corridors.

Neutral

Local Air Quality No significant improvement in local air quality on road network generally, but

beneficial impact at five locations (including

Belfast City Centre) and some air quality ‘hotspots’.

Slight beneficial effect

Greenhouse Gases Significant reduction due to reduced car use. 2.004 million tonnes of CO2

annually

1.1% reduction in CO2 levels annually

-0.023 million tonnes of CO2 in

2010

Landscape

Townscape


Utilises all stations and structures contributing to townscape and heritage value. Securing the long-

term preservation of

stations/structures, particularly those listed under the Planning (NI) Order 1991, is of particular

importance. Some potential

for further slight beneficial landscape effect if development of D5 and Park and Ride facilities is

sensitive.

Utilises:

7 (100% of existing) listed stations

21 (100% of existing) listed structures

27 (100% of existing) stations of heritage value

26 (100% of existing) of stations of townscape value

Moderate beneficial effect

Biodiversity Slight disturbance to waterfowl in 3 protected areas. However, the birds will habituate

very quickly. Location of Airport Park



and Ride and D5 station crucial as they could result in serious loss of habitat if sited within Belfast

Lough Special Protected

Area.

Minor adverse effect. Possible

Large Adverse Effect if

Airport Park and Ride or D5

station are located within the

Belfast Lough Special

Protected Area

Water Environment No significant positive or negative effects on water environment. Neutral

Physical Fitness Persons switching from car to rail should achieve the recommended minimum level

of activity for health benefits. Passengers

switching from bus to rail should achieve slight benefit due to increased walk distances.

In the weekday AM peak period, approximately 2900

persons switch from car to rail and a further 4000

switch from bus to rail every day.


ENVIRONMENT

Journey Ambience Rail passengers will experience very significant benefits. New rolling stock is the

key factor, and is clearly superior to bus. circa 7.4 million rail passengers per annum on ‘new’

rolling stock.

Large beneficial effect

SAFETY Accidents Significant saving due to reduction in all casualties by car, and minor accidents by

bus Reduction of 162 casualties in 2010 Present Value Benefit £58M

Security Rail trips have a slightly greater security deficit than bus trips, which have a greater security

deficit than car trips. Since most

rail trips occur at peak periods, when passenger flows are highest, the change in security deficit is

not significantly different.

Approximately 24,150 rail users affected per average

12-hour weekday.



Neutral

Transport Economic Efficiency Small car user benefits arising from the highway decongestion effects

of the mode shift from car to rail.

Introduction of an enhanced rail service, incorporating park and ride and the reinstatement of Antrim – Knockmore, results in

significant additional benefits to public transport users in terms of journey times.

The rail network overall provides slightly cheaper fares on average than bus substitution.

The increase in revenue is more than offset by the higher Operating Costs, Investment Costs and

other Government Impacts,

resulting in a negative Net Present Value (NPV).

Travel time benefits: £M

Car Users 4.6

Public Transport 27.5

32.1

Fare savings: Public transport user charges =

£2.5M

£M

User benefits 36.4

T/link impacts –264.6

Govt. Impacts –36.2

Net Present Value

(NPV) -264.4

Reliability Improvement due to new rolling stock, track improvements and potentially due to staff

morale. 9 million rail passengers per annum. Large beneficial effect

ECONOMY

Wider Economic Impacts Improves means of access to important regional gateways (especially

Belfast City Airport). Sustains important regional towns

and strengthens Londonderry/Derry’s focus for employment in the North West. Improves

connections to the Universities and



Institutes of Technologies. Positive impact on tourism. Significantly fosters labour mobility,

strengthens housing market and

improves perception of local economy.

Positive employment impact.

407 jobs created in Translink – 56 more than existing

2206 man-years of employment created in train and

bus construction


Option values Rail accessibility provided to residents in the vicinity of suburban Belfast lines and the

Northern and Eastern Seaboard

transportation corridors. Significant increase in frequencies on suburban Belfast lines of value to

occasional users. Wheelchair

access provided to public transport network.

Local rail access provided to over 710,000 residents. Large beneficial effect

Severance Severance effects arise due to rail crossings and are spread across NI network with key

impacts in urban locations noted in

‘Quantitative Measure’. Also there is significant and increased severance at Lurgan, Moira andDunmurry due to additional

train frequencies. Severance introduced at University access to Jordanstown and at the new barrier

crossing on A57 route

to/from Belfast International Airport on Antrim Bleach Green section. Potential severance arising

from provision of D5 spur.

Level crossings introduce severance for 73,000

residents of Coleraine, Cullybackey Ballymena and

Antrim.

Slight adverse effect

ACCESSIBILITY

Access to the Transport System May be localised impacts of improved or worsened accessibility

where railway and bus stations locations are significantly far

apart and therefore serve different catchment areas. Rail services will generally not improve

frequencies over that offered by



substitute bus.

Neutral

Transport Interchange Very large number of train travellers use greatly improved facilities following

switch from bus to rail, and travellers using

Park & Ride facilities at strategic locations.

Approximate no. of daily users benefiting = 54,000

No. of interchanges improved = 25

No. new interchanges created = 2


Land-Use Policy Provides strong support for the Draft Regional Development Strategy as a result of the operation of the Belfast suburban

network and the lines to Londonderry/Derry and Larne, the opening of the Antrim/Bleach Green line

and the

Antrim/Knockmore lines, the provision of a link to Belfast City Airport, improved running times,

additional new rolling stock

and increased frequencies. Scenario 1 thereby reduces regional imbalance, increases alternatives for

reducing car dependency

and improves the infrastructure deficit.


INTEGRATION

Other Government Policies Supportive of a wide range of other Government Policies due to

significantly increased quality rail provision in Belfast

commuter corridors, Antrim to Knockmore and to both Larne and Londonderry/Derry. This brings

benefits in terms of

accessibility, social inclusion, development corridors, north and north west tourism, links to

gateways and indirect and direct

congestion effects. Some policies in the following Departments will benefit – DHSS&PS, DOE, DETI,

DRD, DE, DHFETE and

OFMDFM.

Slight beneficial effect APPRAISAL SUMMARY TABLE

2



Scenario 2 (AD Little) vs

Scenario 4 (Mothball)

AD LITTLE TABLE 4.2


Noise No significant reduction in road traffic noise levels. Introduction of rail noise to Bangor, Larne,

Antrim and

Londonderry/Derry lines. Note: Compared to the existing situation, this scenario will have slightly

lower noise levels

on rail corridors.

Neutral


beneficial impact at three locations

and some air quality ‘hotspots’.

Neutral


annually


-0.019 million tonnes of

CO2 in 2010

Landscape

Townscape


Utilises a significant number of stations and all structures contributing to townscape and heritage

value. Securing

the long-term preservation of stations/structures, particularly those listed under Planning (NI) Order

1991, is of

particular importance.

Utilises:






23 (88% of existing) stations of townscape value

Moderate beneficial

effect


very quickly. Minor adverse effect.



of activity for health benefits.

Passengers switching from bus to rail should achieve slight benefit due to increased walk distances.

In the AM peak period, approximately 2,500 persons

switch from car to rail and a further 3,700 switch from

bus to rail every day.


ENVIRONMENT

Journey Ambience Rail passengers will experience very significant benefits. New rolling stock is thekey factor, and is clearly superior

to bus.

circa 5.9 million rail passengers per annum on ‘new’

rolling stock.


Accidents Significant saving due to reduction in all casualties by car, and minor accidents by bus

Reduction of 136 casualties in 2010 Present value Benefit

£47M

SAFETY

Security Rail trips have a slightly greater security deficit than bus trips, which have a greater security

deficit than car trips.

Since most rail trips occur at peak periods when passenger flows are highest, the change in security

deficit is not

significantly different.



Approximately 21,800 rail users affected per average 12-

hour weekday.

Neutral

Transport Economic Efficiency Very small car user travel time benefits arising from the highway

decongestion effects of the mode shift from car to

rail.

Public transport traveller time benefits on key corridor movements including Coleraine – Belfast and

Londonderry/Derry – Belfast.

Slightly cheaper fares on average than bus substitution.

The increase in revenue is more than offset by the higher Operating Costs, Investment Costs andother Government

Impacts, resulting in a negative Net Present Value (NPV).


Car users 2.4

Public transport 20.4

22.8

Fare savings: Public transport user charges = £2.5M

£M

User benefits 26.7


Govt. impacts –32.1

Net Present Value

(NPV) –197.8

Reliability Improvement due to new rolling stock, track improvements and potentially due to staff

morale. 8 million rail passengers per annum. Large beneficial effect

ECONOMY

Wider Economic Impacts Improves means of access to important regional gateways. Sustains

important regional towns and strengthens



Londonderry/Derry’s focus for employment in the North West. Improves connections to the

Universities and

Institutes of Technologies. Positive impact on tourism. Significantly fosters labour mobility,

strengthens housing

market and improves perception of local economy.


367 jobs created in Translink – 16 more than existing

1494 man-years of employment created in train and bus

construction

Moderate beneficial

effect

Option values Rail accessibility provided to residents in the vicinity of suburban Belfast lines and the

Northern and Eastern

Seaboard transportation corridors. Slightly increased frequencies on suburban Belfast lines of value

to occasional

users. Wheelchair access provided to public transport network.

Local rail access provided to approximately 710,000

residents.


Severance Severance effects arise due to rail crossings and are spread across NI network with key

impacts in urban locations

noted in ‘Quantitative Measure’. Also, there is significant and increased severance at Lurgan, Moira

and

Dunmurry due to additional train frequencies. Severance introduced at University access to

Jordanstown and at

new barrier crossing on A57 route to/from Belfast International Airport on Antrim Bleach Green

section.

Level crossings introduce severance for 73,000 residents

of Coleraine, Cullybackey Ballymena and Antrim.


ACCESSIBILITY




where railway and bus stations locations are

significantly far apart and therefore serve different catchment areas. Rail service will generally not

improve

frequencies over that offered by substitute buses.

Neutral

Transport Interchange Very large number of train travellers use greatly improved facilities following

switch from bus to rail. Approximate no. of daily users benefiting = 48,000


No. new interchanges created = Nil


Land Use Policy Provides strong support for the Draft Regional Development Strategy as a result of

the operation of the Belfast

suburban network and the lines to Londonderry/Derry and Larne, the opening of Antrim – Bleach

Green line,

improved running times, new rolling stock.

Moderate beneficial

effect

INTEGRATION

Other Government Policies Supportive of a wide range of other Government Policies due to

increased quality rail provision in Belfast commuter

corridors and to both Larne and Londonderry/Derry. This brings benefits in terms of accessibility,

social inclusion,

development corridors, north and north west tourism, links to gateways and indirect and directcongestion effects.

Some policies in the following Departments will benefit – DHSS&PS, DOE, DETI, DRD, DE, DHFETE and

OFMDFM.


3

Scenario 3 (Truncation) vs

Scenario 4 (Mothball)



TRUNCATION TABLE 4.3


Noise No significant reduction in road traffic noise levels. Introduction of rail noise to the Belfast -

Bangor, Belfast - Whitehead,

Antrim Bleach Green and Antrim – Ballymena lines. Note: Compared to the existing situation, this

scenario will have

slightly lower noise levels on rail corridors.

Neutral


beneficial at two locations and some air

quality ‘hotspots’.

Neutral


annually


-0.013 million tonnes of

CO2 in 2010

Landscape

Townscape


Utilises a significant number of stations and structures contributing to townscape and heritage

value. Securing the long-term

preservation of stations/structures, particularly those listed under Planning (NI) Order 1991, is of

particular importance.

Utilises:





Moderate beneficial



effect


quickly. Minor adverse effect.



of activity for health benefits.

Passengers switching from bus to rail should achieve slight benefit due to increased walk distances.

In the AM peak period, approximately 2,000 persons

switch from car to rail and a further 3,400 switch

from bus to rail every day.


ENVIRONMENT

Journey Ambience Rail passengers will experience very significant benefits. New rolling stock is the

key factor, and is clearly superior to bus. circa 4.1 million rail passengers per annum on ‘new’

rolling stock.


Accidents Significant saving due to reduction in all casualties by car, and minor accidents by bus

Reduction of 114 casualties in 2010 Present Value Benefit

£45M

SAFETY

Security Rail trips have a slightly greater security deficit than bus trips which have a greater security

deficit than car trips. Since

most rail trips occur at peak periods, when passenger flows are highest, the change in security deficit

is not significantly

different.

Approximately 19,150 rail users affected per average

12-hour weekday.

Neutral

Transport Economic Efficiency Minimal car user travel time benefits arising from highway

decongestion effects of the mode shift from car to rail.



Public transport traveller time benefits – notably from Bangor, Jordanstown and Ballymena into

Belfast.

Small net user disbenefit in user charges because of higher (relative to bus) rail fares – notably on

the Bangor and Lisburn

lines.

The increase in revenue is more than offset by the higher Operating Costs, Investment Costs and

other Government

Impacts, resulting in a negative Net Present Value (NPV).


Car users 0.3

Public transport 14.4

14.7

Fare increases: Public transport user charges =-£1.8M

£M

User benefits 14.2


Govt. Impacts –18.5

Net Present Value

(NPV) –209.5

Reliability Improvement due to new rolling stock and track improvements. 7 million rail passengers

per annum. Large beneficial effect

ECONOMY

Wider Economic Impacts Services provided on Belfast suburban lines marginally increase economic

opportunity, but absence of rail services north of

Ballymena and Whitehead constrains economic opportunities for better regional balance between

urban and rural

regeneration. Fosters labour mobility, strengthens housing market and improves perception of local

economy.


343 jobs created in Translink – 8 less than existing



1289 man-years of employment created in train and

bus construction


Option values Rail accessibility provided to residents in the vicinity of suburban Belfast lines.

Wheelchair access provided to Belfast

suburban public transport network.

Local rail access provided to approximately 580,000

residents.


Severance Severance effects arise due to rail crossings and are spread across NI network with keyimpacts in urban locations noted in

‘Quantitative Measure’. Also, there is significant and increased severance at Lurgan, Moira and

Dunmurry due to

additional train frequencies. Severance introduced at University access to Jordanstown and at new

barrier crossing on A57

route to/from Belfast International Airport on Antrim Bleach Green section.

Level crossings introduce severance for 50,000

residents of Ballymena and Antrim.


ACCESSIBILITY


where railway and bus stations locations are significantly

far apart and therefore serve different catchment areas. Rail service will generally not improve

frequencies over that

offered by substitute buses.

Neutral

Transport Interchange Large number of train travellers use greatly improved facilities following

switch from bus to rail. Approximate no. of daily users benefiting = 43,000


No. new interchanges created = Nil



Moderate beneficial

effect

Land-Use Policy Offers benefits as a result of the operation of the Belfast suburban network, the

opening of the Antrim – Bleach Green line,

improved running times and additional rolling stock. Failure to offer rail choice to significant parts of

the North and North

West, particularly with the lack of stations at Londonderry/Derry, Coleraine, Ballymoney and Larne,

weakens the Draft

Regional Development Strategy.


INTEGRATION

Other Government Policies Supportive of a wide range of other Government Policies due to quality

rail provision mainly in Belfast commuter corridors

and the benefits that brings in terms of accessibility and indirect and direct congestion effects. Some

policies in the

following Departments will benefit – DHSS&PS, DOE, DETI, DRD, DE, DHFETE and OFMDFM.


4

Scenario 4 (Mothball) vs

Existing Situation

MOTHBALL EXCEPT BELFAST / DUBLIN

TABLE 4.4

OBJECTIVE SUB-OBJECTIVE QUALITATIVE IMPACTS

Noise No significant change in road traffic noise levels. Very slight improvement in noise climate on

mothballed lines.

Local Air Quality No significant worsening in local air quality on road network generally, but adverse

impact at three locations and some air quality ‘hotspots’.

Greenhouse Gases Compared to the existing situation, Scenario 4 produces an 11.9% increase in

CO2. This increase can be attributed primarily to background growth in car

ownership and use. Compared to continuation of current trend, Scenario 4 will produce

approximately 1% additional CO2.



Landscape

Townscape


Mothballing would have an adverse impact on human interaction and cultural features, and would

result in dead buildings and the loss of most of the ‘live’

historic rail routes. It retains only 3 stations out of the existing 58 no.

Retains:

No listed stations (currently 7)



No stations of townscape value (currently 26)

Biodiversity Creates fewer disturbances to wildfowl on tidal flats and salt marshes of sea loughs.

Slightly increased value of mothballed lines as wildlife corridors.

Water Environment No change in impact on any water feature types.

Physical Fitness The effect of mothballing the railways will be slight adverse. A significant

proportion of rail users will divert to car or choose not to travel, leading to reductions in

level of physical activity.

ENVIRONMENT

Journey Ambience Rail users transferring to car would benefit while the greater number of rail users

transferring to bus would be slightly adversely affected. Overall, the net impact

is neutral.

Accidents Compared to estimates of (current) 1997 accidents, the number of persons killed is

forecast to increase by 25 to 169, and all casualty groupings by 17%. These

increases are due in part to aggregate increases in travel by bus and car and in part to casualty rats

by bus and car being higher than rail. The estimates assume

that there will be no decrease in casualty rates over time.

SAFETY

Security While Scenario 4 gives fewer rail trips than the existing situation, since most rail trips occur

at peak periods when passenger flows are highest, the change in

security deficit is assessed as neutral.



Transport Economic Efficiency The transport economic efficiency objective is better achieved

through the base scenario i.e. providing an enhanced bus service to meet transport demand.

Reliability The Base case scenario will result in the transfer of the current rail passengers onto bus

services and car. Whilst current reliability can be reduced, at times, by the

condition of the current (elderly) rolling stock, it is satisfactory (by Passenger Charter standards), and

significantly better than bus and car reliability which are

affected by congestion effects. The 2010 Base case therefore represents a large adverse change

from the Existing situation.

ECONOMY

Wider Economic Impacts Adverse impact resulting from loss of links to Belfast, Londonderry/Derry

and other urban regeneration initiatives, to gateways and from reduction in rural

regeneration potential due to extensive station closures. Loss of choice of means of access to a wide

range of tourism assets. Net loss of 351 jobs in Translink.

Decreases labour mobility, weakens housing market and lowers perception of local economy.

Option values Large adverse impact on residents in Belfast and beyond. Rail access removed from

approximately 400,000 residents. Wheelchair access to the local public

transport network removed.

Severance Severance effects arise due to rail crossings and increased train frequencies and arelimited in this scenario to the Belfast – Dublin. There is reduced severance at

Lurgan, Moira and Dunmurry due to reduction in train frequencies. No requirement for crossing A57

route to/from Belfast International Airport on Antrim

Bleach Green section due to mothballing. Current severance removed for 73k residents of Coleraine,

Cullybackey, Ballymena and Antrim, and University access

at Jordanstown.

ACCESSIBILITY


where railway and bus stations locations are significantly far apart and therefore serve different

catchment areas. Bus substitution proposals will generally ensure no net decrease in frequency of

public transport services. Neutral effect.

Transport Interchange The standards of facilities at bus substitution interchange locations compare

poorly with those at permanent stations and railway halts. Approximately 34,000

train travellers daily experience the large adverse impact of switching from 25 no. rail interchange

locations to substitute bus.



Land-Use Policy Overall assessment: Large Adverse. Large scale reduction in the rail network

threatens the Draft Regional Development Strategy, widens regional imbalance,

limits alternatives for reducing car dependency and worsens infrastructure deficit.

INTEGRATION

Other Government Policies Overall this scenario adversely affects a broad range of other

Government Policies and damages the credibility of the Draft Regional Development Strategy. This

is mainly as a result of withdrawal of rail services, the relatively lower attraction of bus substitution

and indirect and direct congestion effects. Some policies in the

following Departments will be undermined – DHSS&PS, DOE, DETI, DRD, DE, DHFETE and OFMDFM.

17

5.0 SUPPORTING ANALYSES

5.1. Introduction

This chapter presents three additional groups of issues that are very relevant

to the decision making process but do not fit easily within the AST format.

This is because the AST takes the perspective of the overall public interest at

a regional level, whereas the following issues reflect a more focused view of

the implications of each scenario for particular groups of users, non-users,

public sector bodies and Government Departments.

Further details and the supporting data behind these analyses are in

appendices:

T ñ Distribution and Equity

U ñ Affordability and Financial Sustainability

V ñ Practicality and Public Acceptability

18

5.2. Distribution and Equity

Introduction

This Distribution and Equity supporting analysis has been prepared in

accordance with the principles underpinning Section 75 of the Northern

Ireland Act. The issues of Equality and New Targeting Social Need (New



TSN) are considered separately.

The focus of this appraisal is solely on the benefits/disbenefits associated

with investment in rail infrastructure. It does not consider the wider

opportunity costs associated with such investment i.e. the benefits/disbenefits

that could accrue to society, including non-rail users, from investing in

alternative spending programmes.

Equality

For the consideration of Equality issues each scenario was assessed in terms

of whether it was consistent with the Equality Obligation.

It was noted that it would be neither possible nor necessary to undertake a

thorough quantitative analysis of each scenario at this stage. The Department

for Regional Developmentís draft Equality Scheme, as submitted to the

Equality Commission on 30

th

June 2000, contains a commitment to a full

equality impact assessment on the preferred option emerging from

Ministerial considerations. Accordingly, a qualitative approach was followed

at this stage with the objective of identifying potential impacts which would

merit further investigation later. The impacts on the groups identified here

(see Table 5.2.2.1) are likely to be the largest impacts in terms of numbers of

people affected, but it is acknowledged that a full impact assessment may

reveal impacts upon some of the other groups. In other words, if there is an

impact upon the religious dimension then there is likely to be an impact on

the political opinion group. Similarly if there is an impact upon age, there

may be a link to those with dependants. At this point there is information on

rail users only in terms of their age and gender compared to the population as

a whole. Considerations were also informed by the ASTs.



An overall summary of potentially the greatest areas of equality impact

emerging from this exercise is set out at Table 5.2.2.1. Impacts are likely to

be concentrated on females and the young who use rail to e.g. travel to

educational establishments, the elderly and people with disabilities.

19

Scenario 1

(Enhancement)

2

(AD Little)

3

(Truncation)

4

(Mothball)

Religion - - Yes -

Politics - - - -

Race - - - -

Age Yes Yes Yes Yes

Marital status - - - -

Sexual

orientation

- - - -

Gender Yes Yes Yes Yes

Disability Yes Yes Yes Yes

Dependants - - - -

Table 5.2.2.1: Overall summary of potentially the greatest areas of equality

impact by scenario.

Reduced railway provision from the existing situation will have a negative



equality impact, particularly in terms of accessibility, public transport

integration and journey ambience. In general terms, the greater the railway

provision, the more positive is the impact on the groups.

As this is a preliminary assessment, no attempt has been made at this stage to

assess the degree of the impacts. However, it demonstrates that the appraisal

process has been sensitive to the requirements of Section 75 of the Northern

Ireland Act 1998 and points towards those issues that should be addressed in

a full equality impact assessment on the chosen option. That assessment will

utilise existing and, if necessary, commission new, statistical evidence on

railway usage.

New TSN

Consideration was given to the expected impacts on rail patronage for each

socio-economic group (SEG) under the various scenarios. The calculations

for the various scenarios were dependent on which stations would remain

operative, and the resultant socio-economic profile of the passengers inferred

from the available data.

Table 5.2.3.1 shows the expected breakdown in rail passengers by SEG for

the four scenarios.

20

Scenario/SEG AB C1 C2 DE

Scenario 1 14.0% 39.6% 18.4% 28.0%

Scenario 2 14.0% 39.7% 18.4% 28.0%

Scenario 3 14.5% 41.8% 17.1% 26.6%

Scenario 4 18.5% 39.5% 14.2% 27.8%

Existing 14.2% 40.0% 17.6% 28.2%

Table 5.2.3.1: Expected breakdown of rail passengers by socio-economic group

by scenario.



Summary

In summary, under Scenarios 3 (Truncation) and 4 (Mothball), when rail

services are withdrawn relative to existing provision, although the actual

number travelling from each SEG decreases, the decrease is proportionately

less in the most affluent (AB) group, and this shift, although small, is

statistically significant. In addition, the AB group is likely to gain slightly

under Scenarios 1 (Enhancement) and 2 (A D Little), but this is not

quantifiable since no information is available for likely boardings/alightings

on the Antrim-Bleach Green line which is scheduled to open in Spring 2001.

Intuitively they will gain because it will serve a more affluent area.

Under Scenario 3 (Truncation), the poorest group (DE) loses out

significantly, due to the closure of the Londonderry/Derry-Portrush line on

which this group is currently over-represented (i.e. disproportionately high

compared to the population served) - 35% of DE are rail users but only 8%

of the population. Data shows that this poorest socio-economic group is

generally over-represented in the existing profile of rail users in Northern

Ireland as a whole compared to the population (based on the 1991 census),

indicating the greater reliance of the poorest group on rail provision.

A full New TSN analysis would include the effect of bus substitution

proposals. However, it is premature to examine this effect since, although

the extent of bus substitution has been considered, this did not extend to the

detailed scheduling of the full range of services. Bus substitution would have

an overall mitigating effect compared to the situation where it was not

provided at all. It is known that some current rail travellers would transfer to

cars if they had access to one, and that the poorer SEGs have less access to

cars ñ of the AB and C1 groups, 40% have no access to a car, while 56% of

C2 and DE rail travellers have no car access



1

. The Oscar Faber modal splits

predict that when a line is mothballed, on average 25% of the previous rail

trips will be undertaken by car and these will be disproportionately made by

those in the higher SEGs.

1

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) Customer Satisfaction Survey 1999

21

It is clear that when decisions are made regarding the future of the railways:

• a full equality impact assessment will need to be carried out, and

• a detailed New TSN appraisal will need to be undertaken.

Conclusions

The largest equality impacts are likely to be under Scenarios 3 (Truncation)

or 4 (Mothball), and particularly concern women, the young and elderly who

are most reliant on rail services and people with disabilities. A full equality

impact assessment will be required to be carried out once the decisions on

the future of rail services have been made.

The most socially-disadvantaged are most reliant on the rail network and

least in a position to transfer from rail to private transport.

Any reduction in rail provision from the existing situation will have negative

New TSN implications caused by the widening of existing mobility

differentials between the disadvantaged and advantaged socio-economic

groups. This would run counter to the New TSN policy objectives of

increasing mobility and access to goods, services, training and employment

opportunities for disadvantaged sections of society and communities.

22



5.3. Affordability and Financial Sustainability

Introduction

As an aid to decision-making, this section of the Task Force Report

compares the financial implications of the four modelling scenarios in order

to provide an assessment of the funding that would be required to ensure the

delivery of each model.

Financial Sustainability and Affordability

Financial sustainability is a measure of the extent to which each scenario

under consideration is self-supporting from revenues. Affordability is a

measure of the likelihood that public funds of the scale required will be made

available to deliver a particular option.

Financial Sustainability and Affordability - the Four Scenarios

The Affordability and Financial Sustainability (AFS) of each of the four

scenarios has been calculated using the rail demand estimates provided by

the transport models. Impacts have been measured relative to the agreed

base case, ie, the mothballing of all but Belfast - Dublin services. The

impacts represent changes in costs and revenues measured against this

scenario. The main findings are presented below (and may be seen in more

detail in Chapter 8). The entries in the tables include the initial investment

costs associated with each scenario and the changes in operator costs and

revenues:

Scenario 1.

Enhancement

£000

01/2 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11

Capital costs 38,310 93,129 62,878 19,080 21,243 7,035 3,210 3,200 10,200 3,200

Revenue deficit 13,477 14,754 18,595 14,904 13,169 12,788 11,064 10,949 10,476 9,838



Total funding

requirement

51,787 107,883 81,473 33,984 34,412 19,823 14,274 14,149 20,676 13,038

Scenario 2.

A.D.Little

£000

01/2 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11

Capital costs 23,857 64,406 44,279 18,580 20,706 6,535 2,710 2,700 9,700 2,700

Revenue deficit 13,544 14,195 16,473 13,117 11,926 11,907 10,339 10,224 9,759 9,113

Total funding

requirement

37,401 78,601 60,752 31,697 32,632 18,442 13,049 12,924 19,459 11,813

Scenario 3.

Truncation

£000

01/2 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11

Capital costs 24,902 50,469 31,984 4,841 5,597 2,148 2,148 2,143 9,143 2,143

Revenue deficit 16,191 15,483 15,867 12,365 11,515 12,365 11,091 11,002 10,561 9,942

Total funding

requirement

41,093 65,952 47,851 17,206 17,112 14,513 13,239 13,145 19,704 12,085

23

Scenario 4.

Belfast - Dublin

Only

£000

01/2 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11



Capital costs 14,613 3,054 2,016 504 500 500 500 500 7,500 500

Revenue deficit 18,665 13,218 6,153 3,003 3,003 4,053 3,003 2,653 3,003 3,003

Total funding

requirement

33,328 16,272 8,169 3,507 3,503 4,553 3,503 3,153 10,503 3,503

What is Affordable? - the Need for Decision

These findings show that significant levels of subvention will be required no

matter which scenario forms the foundation for the future structure of the rail

network in Northern Ireland. The financial modelling shows conclusively

that none of the four scenarios is self-sustaining. In every case revenues are

not sufficient to meet operator costs. Consequently there would be no

contribution from revenues to the investment costs necessary to deliver each

option, even in the base case. As none of the four modelling scenarios is

sustainable in purely commercial terms, the issue therefore becomes one of

determining what can be afforded and what priority should be given to rail

investment.

Chapter 8 shows that funding sources, particularly during the short to

medium term, will be limited. This will be particularly problematical because

all three scenarios beyond the base case require considerable capital

investment and subsidy in the first three years. What is affordable will

therefore primarily be a matter for political judgement, based on analysis of

the economic arguments and competing priorities. In this regard the timing

of the Task Force Report is critical for it is to be published a matter of weeks

before the Executive Committee and the Assembly decide on public

expenditure allocations for all devolved Northern Ireland public services for

the next three years.

The Programme for Government and 2000 Spending Review



Under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, a Programme for Government for

Northern Ireland drawn up by the Executive Committee will contain

objectives, priorities and policies for the next few years. The Programme

will be presented in draft form for the Assembly and its Committees to

consider in mid October. At the same time the Minister of Finance and

Personnel will present a draft budget, with the agreement of the Executive

Committee, to the Assembly. This budget will set public expenditure plans

for 2001/2002 and influence spending priorities for the following two years.

It is within this short and rigid timetable that decisions on future funding of

the railways will be taken by the Executive Committee and ultimately the

Assembly. These decisions will not be taken in isolation but as part of a

comprehensive consideration of what should be the optimum distribution of

public expenditure across all public services for which the Assembly is

responsible.

24

Making the Case

Decisions about future investment in the railways, including levels of public

subsidy, fall in the first instance to the Department for Regional

Development (DRD). On receipt of the Task Force report the first priority for

the Minister for Regional Development will be to examine the results of the

detailed analyses and consider the decisions which need to be taken. When a

preferred option has been selected a case will need to be submitted to the

Department of Finance and Personnel for the resources required to deliver

that option as part of the 2000 Spending Review process.

The preparation of a bid will in large part have been facilitated by the work

of the Task Force but will need to address a number of additional factors

beyond those considered here. For example, the role of railways will need to



be considered in the context of the emerging regional transport strategy. It

may not be possible to take final decisions about optimum levels of long

term railway funding in isolation from a wider consideration of future public

transport and road investment needs. Within this strategic context the value

for money provided from investment in the railways will need to be

compared with the value for money provided from investment in alternative

transport solutions, including the roads infrastructure and other forms of

public transport. For example decision-takers may wish to consider the

impact of improving the road-base transport between Belfast and

Londonderry/Derry as opposed to investing in the Londonderry/DerryBelfast rail link.

Long term funding solutions which minimise the need for upfront capital

funding must also be further investigated. For example operational leasing

solutions potentially offer a realistic means of spreading capital investment

requirements thereby reducing up-front funding pressures. However

uncertainty over the accounting treatment of operational leasing schemes still

casts doubt about their efficacy - these require further study.

Securing private sector input will also be essential. A 1999 study by

PriceWaterhouseCoopers into public transport commissioned by the DRD

confirmed a need to attract private sector finance for future investment in

public transport through the establishment of a Public Private Partnership.

The Report concluded that an operating concession which would transfer

responsibility for the delivery of all aspects of public transport services to a

private sector operator under fixed term contracts would offer the most

effective means of accessing private finance and meeting departmental

objectives for public transport. This report should provide the context from

which future investment strategies for the railways are developed.

Phasing infrastructure investment, perhaps over a longer period of time than



envisaged in the illustrative scenarios may make more expansive solutions

more affordable. This would, however, presuppose that certain services may

need to be discontinued on safety grounds until necessary levels of

investment could be secured. Lastly, the potential for increasing funding

from alternative sources requires further investigation.

25

Conclusions

The analysis presented here shows that none of the four modelling scenarios

is sustainable in purely commercial terms. New capital investment and long

term subsidy would be required for all scenarios, including the base case.

Given the scarcity of public expenditure and the pressure on other public

services, further analysis will be required to optimise the affordability of

whatever option is considered to provide the best value for money and

achieve strategic transport objectives. Compromises may need to be sought

between what is deliverable now and what is desirable in the longer run.

26

5.4. Practicality and Public Acceptability

Introduction

GOMMMS (Section 6.5.23) notes that in the past some studies have been

less effective than they might have been, because their recommendations

breached some constraint. For example, some strategies may be desirable but

not affordable. Others would be considered likely to create a majority of

winners and minority of losers who would form a vocal opposition. There

therefore needs to be an overall assessment of the practicality of each

strategy.

Such analyses should also give clues to public acceptability and the level of

support from key stakeholders. The consultation process helped greatly in



this regard.

Before the most salient points of the Practicality and Public Acceptability

Supporting Analysis are presented, three general points need to be

highlighted:

i. There is a need to make decisions at an early stage if the existing

services are to continue. Failure to make early investment decisions

would result in the managed withdrawal of rail services and in the

case of the Belfast-Bangor line, the possible loss of a European Union

Grant.

ii. It is necessary to maximise the ëbenefitsí resulting from any decision.

To ensure these benefits are realised, performance criteria should be

set for the operator, a review of governance and regulatory structures

undertaken, measures taken to ensure value for money and greater

customer focus and relevant legislation reviewed and updated.

iii. Written and verbal submissions from the public consultation exercise

have been used to inform this analysis. The extent and limitations of

this process are presented in Chapter 7 of the RTF Interim Report.

Scenario 1 (Enhancement):-

• was not considered to be visionary enough (particularly by elected

representatives and political parties) but otherwise received strong

support as it was viewed as a platform that would facilitate future

strategic development of the transportation system in Northern Ireland.

• would allow benefits of investment to be assessed. This could then

inform future investment considerations.

• would build on recent investment in new stations, station refurbishment

and track upgrades.

• would support the Draft Regional Development Strategy and a wide



range of other Government Policies and Strategies, e.g., planning,

27

environment, health, tourism, economy, safety, energy, social inclusion

and equity.

• would bring a spectrum of benefits to the key transportation and

development corridors particularly in the Belfast Metropolitan Area, the

Northern Corridor and the Eastern Seaboard Corridor.

• would, according to those who expressed an opinion, demonstrate

forward thinking in the devolved administration and show commitment

to invest in the long-term development of the region.

• would not have complex implementation issues. However, the

implementation of some of the additions, e.g., new rail spurs, stations,

park and ride facilities or stations, could be influenced by the statutory

planning processes.

Scenario 2 (based on A D Little):-

• would, according to those who expressed an opinion, be a fall back

position, in that it would largely safe-guard current services but would

not sufficiently improve public transport services.

• would allow benefits of investment to be assessed. This could be used to

inform future investment considerations.

• would protect recent investment in new stations, station refurbishment

and track upgrades.

• would be broadly supportive of Draft Regional Development Strategy

and other Government policies (as identified in Scenario 1), at least in the

short term.

• would retain transport choice in key transportation and sustainable

development corridors.



• would show the devolved administrationís intention to protect the

existing transportation system and allows time to consider future

investment decisions.

• could result in a legal challenge to mothballing of the Antrim-Lisburn

line. If a challenge were to be received this could result in delay in the

full scenario implementation and would incur additional costs.

Scenario 3 (Truncation):-

• is considered as unacceptable by 99% of those who expressed a view

during the public consultation process. The Northern Group of Councils

representing 8 Districts, and the Councils along the Larne line all

consider the retention and enhancement of the Londonderry/Derry and

Larne lines as vital to the future of the region as a whole and to their area

in particular.

28

• would be incompatible with stated Government policy of improving

transport choice and public transport services throughout Northern

Ireland, although it would improve services on the main Belfast

commuter lines.

• would devalue the benefits of previous and current investment.

• would be in significant conflict with the Draft Regional Development

Strategy and would undermine other Government policies (see

Scenario 1) particularly in the North and North West of the region.

• would have a level of mothballing which would disadvantage significant

sections of the community in the affected corridors, particularly school

children, elderly, females, people with disabilities and low-income

groups.

• would result in the devolved administration being perceived, by those



expressing an opinion, as having a short term rather than long term view

and being accused of not appreciating the importance of the rail network

in an island of Ireland, United Kingdom or European context.

• would cause some damage to the image of Northern Ireland, and areas

where services are withdrawn would suffer increased peripherality.

• would very likely receive a legal challenge on the mothballing proposals

for sections of the Londonderry/Derry and Larne lines. Delay to

implementation of the full scenario would be likely and would incur

additional costs.

• would adversely affect the east-west socio-economic balance.

Scenario 4 (Mothball):-

• would conflict with stated Government transportation policies

• would result in the benefits of previous investment being very

significantly devalued

• would conflict with the Draft Regional Development Strategy and would

damage the credibility of other Government policies (see Scenario1).

• would mothball most of the network and would disadvantage many

sections of the community in the affected corridors, particularly school

children, females, the elderly, people with disabilities and low income

groups

• would be expected to result in a legal challenge to the mothballing

proposals. Significant delay to full scenario implementation would be

anticipated and additional costs would be incurred

29

• would attract significant concern over the practicality for implementation

of bus substitution measures on the Belfast commuter corridors.

Significant numbers of additional buses would be required and station



alterations, traffic management measures, scheduling details will be

problematical.

• was unanimously considered as unacceptable by the public and elected

representatives who contributed to the rail debate.

• would result in the devolved administration being perceived by many of

those who expressed an opinion, as having a short term rather than long

term view and being accused of not appreciating the importance of the

rail network in an island of Ireland, United Kingdom or European

context.

• would damage the image of Northern Ireland, and areas would suffer

increased peripherality.

30

6.0 SENSITIVITY OF RESULTS TO KEY PARAMETERS

6.1. Introduction

In view of the complexity of the scenarios (which have required many key

parameters to be estimated), and in the knowledge that many of the impacts

may be affected substantially by changes in the modal split, it was

considered prudent to undertake a range of sensitivity checks covering all 4

scenarios. This is standard practice for transportation planning studies

involving medium or long-term horizons and the application of

transportation models.

Initial testing and appraisal of the 4 scenarios, together with comments

received during the consultation process allowed several key issues to be

identified:

• financial performance is determined principally by the following

parameters:

- costs of public transport improvements, in particular capital costs of



infrastructure and new trains and also the capital and operating costs

of bus substitution proposals;

- public transport revenue, in particular rail revenue (derived directly

from rail demand) for Scenarios 1, 2 and 3;

• environmental and economic performance is determined principally by

the following parameter:

- modal split, in particular the switching of travellers from rail to car in

Scenarios 4 and 3, where lines are mothballed, and also switching

from car to rail in Scenarios 1 and 2, where services are improved.

Separate financial and environmental/economic sensitivity checks were

devised and undertaken by varying the key parameters identified above and

recording changes in key outputs. The checks are explained in the following

sections.

6.2. Financial (Cost and Revenue) Sensitivity Checks

6.2.1. Introduction

In general, the economic performance of Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 when

compared to Scenario 4 shows large negative net present values (NPV), ie.

the revenue and monetised benefits are outweighed by the capital and

operating costs of providing the rail services over the full 30 year appraisal

period. Sensitivity parameters were therefore chosen to investigate how the

performance of the scenarios would improve and their relative rankings

change if more optimistic estimates were made concerning rail performance

(or worsening of bus substitution performance). The parameters were

identified after consideration of views expressed by members of the

31

Appraisal Working Group and the Panel of Experts surrounding the accuracy

of input assumptions, or of model outputs.



Financial sensitivity checks have been undertaken by modifying the

Translink costs and revenues for the ìstandard testsî in order to estimate new

NPV results. (This simplified procedure ignores the lesser changes which

will occur in user travel time benefits and taxation, and therefore the results

should be regarded as indicative only). The checks were specified as follows:

• Costs

- Bus Substitution Capital and Operating Costs + 50%, affecting

Scenario 4 (Mothball), in particular; this additional cost reflects the

possible costs of supplementary traffic management measures needed

to facilitate the large numbers of additional buses accessing town

centres and Belfast City Centre coinciding with peak traffic periods;

- Rail Capital Costs +/ñ 30%, affecting Scenarios 1,2 and 3; these costs

matched the uncertainty attached to the cost estimates presented in

the AD Little report;

• Revenue

- Rail Revenue + 25%, affecting Scenarios 1,2 and 3; this reflects

additional induced patronage which may be attracted to rail by new

services, and acknowledges the view expressed by some members of

the Expert Panel that future rail patronage may be understated;

- Rail Revenue + 50%, affecting Scenarios 1,2 and 3; this reflects an

approximate upper limit for additional induced rail patronage,

without incurring additional capital or operating costs in purchasing

additional rolling stock and running additional services, and

acknowledges the view expressed by some members of the Expert

Panel that future rail patronage may be understated;

• Combined Revenue and Cost (sensitivity changes which complement

each other need to be tested)



- Rail Revenue +25%, Bus Substitution Costs +50%, Rail Capital Costs

ñ30%;

- Rail Revenue +50%, Bus Substitution Costs +50%, Rail Capital Costs

ñ30%.

6.2.2. Detailed Results for Cost and Revenue Sensitivity Checks

The detailed results are presented in Tables 6.2.2.1, 6.2.2.2 and 6.2.2.3.

32

Standard Test Bus Subs +50% Rail Capital -30% Rail Capital +30% Rail -30%, Bus +50%

Scenario versus

Mothball (4)

Investment &

Operating

Costs

Total

NPV

Rank Investment &

Operating

Costs

Total

NPV

Rank Investment &

Operating

Costs

Total

NPV

Rank Investment &

Operating



Costs

Total

NPV

Rank Investment &

Operating

Costs

Total

NPV

Rank

Enhancement (1)

-468 -264 4 -425 -221 4 -392 -189 4 -543 -340 4 -349 -146 3=

AD Little (2)

-374 -198 2 -333 -156 2 -317 -140 2 -432 -255 2= -275 -99 2

Truncation (3)

-309 -210 3 -280 -181 3 -267 -168 3 -350 -251 2= -238 -139 3=

Note: Mothball (4) is ranking 1 ñ Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 return negative NPVs compared to Mothball

Table 6.2.2.1: Cost and Revenue Sensitivity – Costs

Standard Test Rail Revenue +25% Rail Revenue +50%

Scenario versus

Mothball (4)

Public Transport

Revenue

Total NPV Rank Public Transport

Revenue

Total NPV Rank Public Transport



Revenue

Total NPV Rank

Enhancement (1) 203 -264 4 272 -195 4 342 -126 3=

AD Little (2) 182 -198 2 244 -135 2 307 -73 2

Truncation (3) 103 -210 3 144 -169 3 185 -128 3=


Table 6.2.2.2: Cost and Revenue Sensitivity – Revenue

Standard Test Rail Costs -30%, Bus Substitution Costs

+50% plus Rail Revenue +25%

Rail Costs -30%, Bus Substitution Costs +50%

plus Rail Revenue +50%

Scenario versus

Mothball (4)

Operating &

Investment

Costs

Translink

Revenue

Total NPV Rank Operating &

Investment

Costs

Translink

Revenue

Total NPV Rank Operating &

Investment



Costs

Translink

Revenue

Total NPV Rank

Enhancement (1)

-468 203 -264 4 -349 272 -76 3 -349 342 -7 2=

AD Little (2)

-374 182 -198 2 -275 244 -36 2 -275 307 +26 1

Truncation (3)

-309 103 -210 3 -238 144 -98 4 -238 185 -58 4


(except final test)

Table 6.2.2.3: Cost and Revenue Sensitivity – Combined Costs & Revenues

6.2.3. Results Summary for Cost and Revenue Sensitivity Checks

The principal results are summarised below:

33

• Costs, Bus Substitution (+50%)

- improves NPV relatively uniformly for all scenarios by about £40M;

- NPV still considerably negative for all scenarios;

- no change in scenario ranking ñ 1: Mothball, 2: AD Little,

3: Truncation, 4: Enhancement.

• Costs, Rail Capital (-30%)

- improves NPV by approximately £80M for Enhancement, £60M for

AD Little and £40M for Truncation;






• Costs, Rail Capital (+30%)

- worsens NPV by approximately £80M for Enhancement, £60M for AD

Little and £40M for Truncation;


- change in scenario ranking ñ 1: Mothball, 2=: AD Little and

Truncation, 4: Enhancement.

• Revenue, Rail (+25%)






• Revenue, Rail (+50%)




- change in scenario ranking ñ 1: Mothball, 2: AD Little,

3=: Enhancement and Truncation.

34

• Combined, Rail Revenue (+25%), Bus Substitution Costs (+ 50%),

Rail Capital ( –30%)



- NPV negative for all scenarios and still considerably negative for

Enhancement and Truncation;



- change in scenario ranking ñ 1: Mothball, 2: AD Little,

3: Enhancement, 4: Truncation.

• Combined, Rail Revenue (+50%), Bus Substitution Costs (+ 50%),

Rail Capital ( –30%)



- NPV now positive for AD Little, almost zero for Enhancement, still

negative for Truncation;

- change in scenario ranking ñ 1: AD Little, 2=: Mothball and

Enhancement, 4: Truncation.

6.2.4. Conclusions for Cost and Revenue Sensitivity Checks

The following principal conclusions have been drawn from consideration of

the results:

• The results for the ìstandard testsî show:

- considerably negative NPVs for all scenarios;

- NPV ranking 1: Mothball, 2: AD Little, 3: Truncation,

4: Enhancement.

• The increase in Bus Substitution costs has no significant bearing on the

TEE results other than to reduce negativity of the NPVs;

• The changes in rail costs and increases in revenue have greatest

improvement effects on the Enhancement scenario:

- increases in Rail Capital costs result in Truncation moving to equal

second with AD Little in NPV rankings;

- reduction in Rail Capital costs does not result in change in NPV

rankings;

- 50% increase in Rail Revenue results in Enhancement passing

Truncation in NPV ranking.



35

• The combined effects of the cost and revenue sensitivity checks show

that:

- only the most optimistic combination (+50% rail revenue, +50% bus

substitution costs, -30% rail capital costs) produces positive NPV;

- Enhancement clearly outperforms Truncation in terms of NPV.

In general, the sensitivity parameters have been chosen to investigate how

the relative performance of the scenarios would change if more optimistic

estimates were made concerning rail performance (or worsening of bus

substitution performance). In summary:

• Scenario 2 (AD Little), of the three rail scenarios, returns the best ranking

in overall NPV in all sensitivity checks. However, compared to the Base,

Scenario 4 (Mothball), Scenario 2 (AD Little) returns a negative NPV, in

all but the most optimistic combination of sensitivity checks;

• The performance of Scenario 1 (Enhancement) is affected significantly

by improvements to rail parameters, eg. an increase in rail revenue of

50% will lead to Scenario 1 (Enhancement) having a similar NPV to

Scenario 3 (Truncation) although NPV will still be negative.

36

6.3. Modal Split Sensitivity Checks

6.3.1. Introduction

Environmental and economic performance is determined principally by the

modal split, in particular the switching of travellers from rail to car as lines

are mothballed in Scenario 4 (Mothball) and Scenario 3 (Truncation). The

greatest congestion occurs in Scenario 4 (Mothball). As rail services are

progressively introduced in Scenarios 3, 2 and 1, benefits increase as

travellers switch from car to rail relieving congestion and provide net



benefits for car and bus travellers and savings in costs of operation (in

addition to travel time benefits for rail users).

A sensitivity test was devised to test the economic and environmental

performance as follows:

• ìstandard testsî for Scenarios 4 and 3 were modified by assuming the

following proportions switching from rail:

- 55% to car;

- 25% to bus;

- 20% travel suppressed.

• ìstandard testsî for Scenarios 1 and 2 were modified by adding a further

50% to rail patronage and assuming the following proportions switching

to rail:

- 55% from car;

- 25% from bus;

- 20% travel generated.

The proportions switching from rail were selected to take account of the

following:

• the proportion to car exceeded the largest value obtained from research

(44% of respondents on the Barnstaple line) and for a single line from the

Oscar Faber forecasts;

• the proportion to bus was comparable with the lowest values obtained

from research (21% on Barnstaple);

• the proportion suppressing travel was fixed and the proportions must, of

course, sum to 100%.

The proportions switching to rail were selected to take account of the

following:

37



• the proportion from car exceeded the largest value obtained from

research (approximately 40% on the Robin Hood line) and for a single

line from the Oscar Faber forecasts;

• the proportion to bus was comparable with the lowest values obtained

from research (27% on Robin Hood);

• the proportion suppressing travel was fixed and the proportions must, of

course, sum to 100%.

It was considered that this represented an extreme test that would be unlikely

to occur in practice as less than one quarter of current rail users have access

to cars. However, it was considered that the test was useful in setting the

bounds of the possible effects.

It should be noted that this sensitivity test is structurally different from the

earlier revenue sensitivity checks (+25% and +50% rail) which assumed

additional induced patronage on improved rail services. By contrast, the

modal split sensitivity test will capture effects of travellers switching from

car to rail and hence provide further potential for additional benefits.

6.3.2. Results for Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Economic Impact

Table 6.3.2.1 presents summary results of the sensitivity check, alongside the

results of the standard test. In addition to the NPV figure, the Travel

Benefits and Translink Revenues have been provided in order to help explain

the changes.

Standard Test Sensitivity

Transfer to/from Car

Scenario

Travel

Time



Benefits

Translink

Revenue NPV

Travel

Time

Benefits

Translink

Revenue NPV

1 ñ Enhancement 32 203 -264 91 390 -48

2 ñ AD Little 23 182 -198 80 353 +2

3 ñ Truncation 15 103 -210 43 219 -89

Table 6.3.2.1: Economic Results (30 year Discounted £M 2000 prices and values)

Inspection of the results provides the following principal findings arising

from the sensitivity change in modal split:

• improvement in NPV by approximately £200M for Scenarios 1 and 2 and

by £120M for Scenario 3;

• increase in Travel Time Benefits by approximately £60M for Scenarios 1

and 2 (due to increased congestion applied on Scenario 4 (Mothball) and

38

increased congestion relief in Scenarios 1 and 2), focussed on bus and car

travellers;

• lesser increase of approximately £30M in Travel Time Benefits for

Scenario 3 due to lesser highway congestion relief;

• increases in Translink Revenue arising from loss of revenue in the Base

Scenario (due to switching to car rather than to bus) and rising through

Scenarios 3, 2 and 1 with increasing numbers transferring from car

(rather than bus);



• Scenarios 3 (Truncation) and 1 (Enhancement) still return substantially

negative NPVs, however Scenario 2 (AD Little) now returns a slightly

positive NPV;

• NPV ranking changes to move AD Little to first position in place of

Mothball, now second, with Enhancement moving to equal third with

Truncation.

6.3.3. Conclusions for Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Economic Impact

It can be concluded therefore that the sensitivity change in modal split:

• will substantially improve NPV in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 by increasing car

and bus Travel Time Benefits (due to increased congestion applied on

Scenario 4 (Mothball) and additional congestion relief in Scenarios 1, 2

and 3);

• will improve Translink Revenue and therefore the financial sustainability

of the scenarios;

• moves Scenario 2 ñ AD Little to the first ranking scenario, with a now

slightly positive NPV.

6.3.4. Introduction to Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Environmental Impact

It is not possible to estimate environmental impacts (ie. noise levels and air

quality) directly. Rather, changes in traffic levels which exceed standard

threshold values have been used to assess whether the potential exists for

significant environmental impacts. Assessment of the modal split sensitivity

check is hence undertaken by comparing link-by-link forecasts of traffic

flows for the modified Scenario 4 (Mothball) as follows:

• with Scenario 2 (AD Little), representing a reasonable approximation to

continuation of current rail services ñ this identifies the impact of

Mothballing lines;

• with Scenario 1 (Enhancement) ñ this identifies the maximum impact of



rail improvements (over Mothballing).

The assessment is undertaken in two stages:

39

• firstly, identify ìimpactî links where traffic flows change by values

exceeding the noise (+/- 20%) and air quality (+/- 10%) thresholds;

• secondly, compare the number and location of these ìimpactî links with

those identified using the standard Scenario 4 (Mothball) assessment.

It is this comparison with the standard Scenario 4 (Mothball) assessment

which is reported below in the results.

Finally, a further assessment is undertaken with the modified Scenario 4

(Mothball) alone, using the link-by-link Volume/Capacity estimates to

identify congestion ìhotspotsî.

It should be noted that the NISTRM model does not include all links in the

Northern Ireland highway network, though it does include all strategic links.

In particular it provides a relatively coarse representation of the network in

Greater Belfast. Therefore, whilst individual links are identified below, these

links should be considered as indicative only ñ ie. representative of the

general scale and location of the impacts.

6.3.5. Results for Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Environmental Impact

The principal results drawn from each of the assessments are summarised

separately below. In each case comparisons are drawn with the ìstandard

testsî.

2010 Modified Mothball versus Scenario 2 (AD Little)

• impacts more widespread and more intense than Standard Test;

• several new incidences of the noise threshold (+20%) being exceeded on

parts of key rural routes (in rail corridors) including: A2 Coleraineñ

Portrush/Portstewart; B90 Greenisland; and B90 Whitehead;



• a number of new incidences of the air quality threshold (+10%) being

exceeded on:

- parts of key rural routes (in rail corridors) including: A26 Coleraineñ

Ballymoney; M1 MoirañSprucefield; A2 HolywoodñTillysburn; A2

Whitehead-Carrickfergus; A30 (and B101) GlenavyñLisburn; and M2

AntrimñTemplepatrick;

- key routes in Greater Belfast, including: Castlereagh Road; Boucher

Road; Antrim Road; and Newtownards Road;

2010 Modified Mothball versus Scenario 1 (Enhancement)

• very similar to AD Little comparison described above, with some slight

changes on key routes in Greater Belfast, but changes are reversed (ie.

decreases);

• therefore impacts more widespread and intense than Standard Test.

40

2010 Mothball Volume/Capacity

• distribution of congestion ìhotspotsî similar in coverage to Standard

Test;

• more intense effects than Standard Test in Greater Belfast Area;

• additional links exceeding capacity and hence resulting in heavy

congestion including:

- A2 Holywood;

- A6/A57 Templepatrick;

- A26 AntrimñBelfast International Airport;

- several key radial links in Greater Belfast including: Lisburn Road;

Antrim Road; Shore Road; M2 Fortwilliam; and Crumlin Road.

• additional key links in Greater Belfast approaching capacity and hence

resulting in congestion including: Ravenhill Road; M5 Cross Harbour;



A55 Outer Ring and West Circular Road.

6.3.6. Conclusions for Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Environmental Impact

It must be borne in mind that the sensitivity test, as specified, is by nature

extreme ñ it has been assumed that more than one half of rail users would

divert to car in the Modified Mothball scenario and that more than one half

of new rail users will divert from car in the Modified AD Little and

Enhancement scenarios. The use of the Modified Mothball scenario as the

Base scenario provides the potential for large impacts in the appraisal of the

other 3 scenarios. The assessment therefore provides an upper estimate for

the environmental impacts.

The following conclusions may be drawn under the sensitivity assumptions:

• Modified Scenario 4 (Mothball) (as opposed to continuation of current

trends) will lead to significant worsening of environmental conditions as

signalled by noise (+20%) and air quality (+10%) thresholds being

exceeded. These will be limited to localised links in rail corridors in rural

areas, and to isolated links on key routes in Greater Belfast;

• Modified Scenario 4 (Mothball) will also lead to a small number of

additional traffic congestion ìhotspotsî; however, these will be focussed

on key radial routes in Greater Belfast; existing congestion ìhotspotsî

will further deteriorate;

• Scenario 2 (AD Little), as compared to Scenario 4 (Mothball) will lead to

significant improvements in environmental conditions. These will be

limited to localised links in rail corridors in rural areas and to isolated

links on key routes in Greater Belfast.

41

• Scenario 1 (Enhancement) results in slight improvements in

environmental conditions over and above those resulting from Scenario 2



(AD Little) ñ these are limited to key routes in the Greater Belfast area.

42

7.0 APPRAISAL RESULTS

The results of the appraisal of the impacts of the illustrative scenarios have

been presented in four separate chapters in this report:

• Chapter 3 with Appendices A-S: detailed appraisal against five main

criteria which are in turn broken down into 21 sub-objectives:-

• Chapter 4: Appraisal Summary Tables, which present a summary of the

implications of each scenario against the five main criteria by way of the

impacts on the 21 sub-objectives;

• Chapter 5 with Appendices T-V: supporting analyses of three additional

groups of issues which are very relevant to the decision making process;

• Chapter 6: the sensitivity of the results to key parameters.

These four chapters should be considered together, and as such they present a

package of information designed to assist in the identification of decisions

which need to be taken on the future of the railway network in Northern

Ireland, and to provide a rational basis that will inform the decision making

process.

Appendix A: Environment - Noise Environment Noise

A1

ENVIRONMENT OBJECTIVE

A. Noise Sub-Objective

Data Sources

Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of

the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000

Translink records of previous noise complaints

Belfast City Council Environmental Health Department



Belfast City Council, Investigation of Noise Complaints Procedure 1999

Adtrans data

Methodology and its Application

The GOMMMS approach is based on a determination of the difference in the estimated

population who are annoyed by noise, from both road and rail sources, between the dominimum

and do-something scenarios (GOMMMS 4.3.4). Furthermore the guidance

states that relatively large changes in traffic flows are required to bring about

perceivable changes in noise levels (i.e. 3dB) (GOMMMS 4.3.5). It advises that:

• A perceivable noise level increase may result where there is a doubling in railway

movements.

• Where traffic flow increases of >25% or decreases of <20% are encountered,

judgement needs to be exercised as to whether the impact of the scenario(s) on noise

should be ignored, unless particular sensitivities are involved.

• There may be particular sensitivities to increased night-time noise levels

• The World Health Organisation suggest an onset of community noise impact at

None of the scenarios in this appraisal involved road traffic flow changes of >25% or <-

20%. In fact, there were only a small number of instances (5) where traffic flow changes

exceeded 10%. In addition, Translink and Belfast City Council complaints records

indicated that there were no outstanding noise complaints. It was therefore deemed

reasonable to assume that there were no particularly sensitive receptors on any of the

extant lines under current operating conditions. Given the location of properties

relevant to the railtrack, Translink staff considered that there would be no anticipated

noise sensitive properties on the Antrim Bleach Green line. Furthermore, none of the

scenarios included night-time operations.

Using Scenario 4 as the baseline results in a number of lines being opened under the

other scenarios. Hypothetically this results in a more than doubling in use and, under the

guidance in GOMMMS 4.3.5, may result in perceivable noise level increases.



However, as against the existing situation,

(1) given that none of the scenarios double current rail journey numbers on any of the

lines, except for the Antrim Bleach Green line;

(2) currently Translink are not aware of any on-going noise complaint situations and

therefore there are unlikely to be any ëannoyedí populations; and

(3) given the location of properties relevant to the railtrack, Translink staff considered

that there would be no anticipated noise sensitive properties on the Antrim Bleach

Green line; Environment Noise

A2

(4) the fact that relatively few journeys would be involved and that trains would pass all

of the receptors very quickly; and

(5) the combination of new quieter trains and continuously welded track being extended

throughout the network would result in noise level decreases of approximately 2dB

at the source (this is a significant reduction as a reduction of 3dB equates to a

halving of the sound level);

it was decided that the application of a quantitative approach involving the generation of

noise levels, contour maps and estimation of affected populations was not warranted. It

was judged that a note under the relevant scenarios would record the lower noise levels

in rail corridors for Scenarios 1-3 when compare to the existing situation.

Scenarios Assessment

Qualitative Summary

None of the scenarios give rise to road traffic changes of >25% / <-20%, therefore

noise levels from this source are unlikely to be perceivably altered.

In terms of rail, Scenario 4 results in rail services being removed from mothballed

lines and hence there would be a slight improvement in noise climate relative to the

existing situation. However, for the overall road/rail network a neutral assessment

was thought appropriate.



Relative to Scenario 4, Scenarios 3 to 1 result in increasing line openings and

additional train services. This will introduce rail noise and have an adverse effect on

the rail corridors. However, in the current situation populations on these lines are

already subject to noise levels and indeed, noise levels will be reduced due to the

quieter operation of the new trains on the continuously welded track under Scenarios

3-1.

Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation

This was the baseline for the purposes of this study. However, relative to the

existing situation:

Scenario 4 results in an improved noise climate on the mothballed lines (Bangor,

Larne, Antrim, Londonderry/Derry), however, as detailed above this is regarded

as slight. Taking Scenario 4 as the baseline means that the other scenarios result

in the introduction of rail noise, against a backdrop where none is assumed to

exist. No significant increase in road traffic would occur under Scenario 4

compared to the existing situation in 2010 resulting in no significant changes in

noise climate on the roads.

Qualitative Impacts: No significant change in road traffic noise levels.

Very slight improvement in noise climate on

mothballed lines.

Assessment Score: Neutral

Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4

No significant reduction in road traffic flow occurs resulting in no significant

alteration in noise climate. The provision of the Belfast to Bangor, Belfast to

Whitehead, Antrim Bleach Green and Antrim to Ballymena lines will result in rail

noise being introduced where under Scenario 4 there had been none. However,

for the reasons detailed above this is not thought to be significant. Environment Noise

A3



Qualitative Impacts: No significant reduction in road traffic noise

levels. Introduction of rail noise to the Belfast to

Bangor, Belfast to Whitehead, Antrim Bleach

Green and Antrim to Ballymena lines.

Note: Compared to the existing situation, this

scenario will have slightly lower noise levels on

rail corridors.



No significant reduction in traffic flow occurs resulting in no significant alteration

in noise climate. The provision of the Bangor, Larne, Antrim Bleach Green and

Londonderry/Derry lines will result in rail noise being introduced where under

Scenario 4 there had been none. However, for the reasons detailed above this is

not thought to be significant.


levels. Introduction of rail noise to the Bangor,

Larne, Antrim and Londonderry/Derry lines.



No significant reduction in road traffic flow occurs resulting in no significant

alteration in noise climate. The provision of the Bangor, Larne, Antrim and

Londonderry/Derry lines will result in rail noise being introduced where under

Scenario 4 there had been none. However, for the reasons detailed above this is

not thought to be significant.


levels. Introduction of rail noise to the Bangor,

Larne, Antrim and Londonderry/Derry lines.



Note: Compared to the existing situation, this

scenario will have slightly lower noise levels on

rail corridors.


Appendix B: Environment - Local Air Quality Environment Local Air Quality

B1


B. Local Air Quality Sub-Objective

Data Sources



Assessment of the Impact of Changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal Demand

and Market Shares, Oscar Faber, August 2000

Calculation of Projected Roadside NO2 Concentrations in Northern Ireland, Katie King

and John Steadman draft 2/5/00

First Stage Review and Assessment of Local Air Quality, Belfast City Council

First Stage Review and Assessment of Local Air Quality, Castlereagh Borough Council

Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, January 2000

Arthur D Little Report


In relation to local air quality GOMMMS focuses on two particular pollutants: nitrogen

dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 microns (PM10)

(GOMMMS 4.4.3). It is recognised that nationally, road traffic contributes significantly

to both of these (although the percentage contribution from this source in Northern

Ireland will be much less due to the correspondingly higher contribution from domestic

solid fuel heating systems). GOMMMS states that relatively sizable changes in traffic



are required to bring about significant changes in air quality and suggests that scenarios

which change road traffic flows by less than 10% can usually be scoped out, unless

there are particular sensitivities (e.g. traffic queuing) (GOMMMS 4.4.3). Where traffic

flows change by more than 10%, the GOMMMS approach involves a quantitative

assessment of the change in the number of properties exposed under each of the

scenarios relative to the base scenario.

GOMMMS promotes the use of rigorous, detailed mapping techniques to estimate the

impact of changes in air quality on residential populations. However, this approach was

not adopted because:

- few links/routes exceeding the thresholds were identified in any of the scenarios;

- the coarseness of the model network would have led to spurious accuracy in the

identification of road lengths affected by significant changes;

- lack of local measurements mean all estimates would be theoretically based only

and may not relate closely to actual conditions;

- paucity of information on ìhotspotsî (where any changes in air quality may be of

greater impact) would have led to disproportionate effort being applied at this

stage.

In conclusion, therefore, the analyses have identified road links/routes where the air

quality thresholds of +/- 10% traffic volumes have been exceeded. This has allowed a

comparison of scenarios on a common basis. However, no further detailed analyses

have been undertaken.

Although, in general, the results do not indicate sizeable changes in traffic flow across

the scenarios, it was noted that where rail is improved, traffic reduction occurs and Environment

Local Air Quality

B2

congestion is decreased. This has beneficial effects on local air quality in the vicinity of

locations experiencing the traffic reductions. It is acknowledged that these variations

will be slight in the overall context, however, they may still be of local significance



where particular pollution hotspots occur.

In England, Wales and Scotland local authorities are engaging in reviews and

assessments of the air quality in their areas. In many instances this is resulting in the

identification of a considerable number of pollution hotspots. Unfortunately, as

Northern Ireland (N.I.) is behind the rest of the United Kingdom with its legislation,

there is no requirement for District Councils here to undertake similar exercises.

Voluntary preliminary screening undertaken by Belfast City Council and Castlereagh

Borough Council has indicated widespread potential for pollution hotspots on roads

within their council boundaries. A further, preliminary, but more robust study

commissioned by Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) and conducted by King and

Steadman, preliminary draft May 2000 (further refinement ongoing), indicated that on

the basis of traffic count data available for N.I., it was likely that 2 road links on the

A12 (West Link) will exceed the Air Quality Strategy (AQS) objective for nitrogen

dioxide. In addition a number of other links (including A55 Outer Ring Road, M1,

central Belfast, A501 Falls Road / Glen Road) are forecast to record levels very close to

the AQS objective. It is likely that the actual number of hotspots will be much lower

than that indicated by the preliminary studies undertaken by the two Councils. However

it is not until all Councils have undertaken the full review and assessment procedure that

information on the number and location of hotspots will be available. Where pollution

hotspots do occur, District Councils in association with Roads Service, Planning Service

etc will have to develop management plans to ensure compliance with the AQS.

It is also acknowledged that increases in car use will be offset by advancements in

engine technology and fuel composition within the next 10 years, which will result in

reduced emission levels per vehicle.

In order to identify locations where traffic congestion and hence pollution hotspots may

occur in year 2010, traffic flow/capacity ratios were plotted. It was acknowledged,

however, that without detailed data on topography effects, residential settlement



patterns and background pollution levels, pollution impacts could not be estimated and,

therefore, air quality hotspots confirmed.

The analysis of traffic congestion confirmed ìcongestion hotspotsî will be confined to

the following generic list of locations:

- Belfast City Centre

- Belfast Radial Commuting Routes

- Approaches to principal towns in Northern Ireland.


Qualitative Summary

None of the scenarios produced substantial number of incidences of the 10% traffic

threshold being exceeded. As the Mothball scenario was used as the Base for

comparisons, all the other scenarios provided beneficial impacts in local air quality.

In general the Mothball scenario results in localised adverse impacts on only 3 routes

(in the wider Belfast area), these in turn are counter-acted by beneficial impacts in Environment

Local Air Quality

B3

the other scenarios. The Enhancement scenario also provided beneficial impacts in

air quality in central Belfast, see Table B ñ 1 below.

Road Location Scenario 1

Enhancement

Scenario 2

AD Little

Scenario 3

Truncation

Scenario 4

Mothball against

2010 Trend

A30 GlenavyñLisburn B B B A



B90 Upper Greenisland Road B B B A

A2 Whitehead B

Belfast: Castle Street B

Belfast: Lisburn Road B

B531 OíNeill Road / Station Road,

Carnmoney / Whiteabbey

B A

Key: A = Adverse; B = Beneficial

Table B – 1: Links where Traffic Flow Changes exceed 10%

It should be noted, however, that it is likely that air quality ìhotspotsî currently exist

or will develop up to 2010 in Belfast City Centre, Belfast Radial Community Routes

or Approaches to principal towns in Northern Ireland. At these ìhotspotsî, the

Mothball scenario will produce adverse impacts as compared to continuation of

current trends, whilst the other scenarios will produce beneficial impacts compared

to the Mothball scenario.


Relative to the existing situation, the scenario includes widespread traffic growth

averaging 20% approximately. However, this level of growth is due primarily to

growth in car ownership that is common to all scenarios under test.

The impacts of the Mothball scenario as compared to continuation of current

trends are limited to incidences of the +10% air quality threshold being exceeded

at the following three locations, giving adverse impacts:

- A30 Glenavy-Lisburn

- B90 Upper Greenisland Road

- B531 OíNeill Road / Station Road, Carnmoney / Whiteabbey

Qualitative Impacts: No significant worsening in local air quality on

road network generally, but adverse impact at 3



locations and some air quality ìhotspotsî.

Assessment Score: Slight Adverse Effect. Environment Local Air Quality

B4


Truncation scenario compared to Mothball Base scenario provides small

reductions in traffic levels overall, but exceeds the ñ10% air quality threshold at

the following locations, remedying impacts arising from Mothball:



Qualitative Impacts: No significant improvement in local air quality on

road network generally, but beneficial impact at 2


Assessment Score: Neutral.


A D Little scenario compared to Mothball Base scenario provides small


the following locations, remedying impacts arising from Mothball:



- B531 OíNeill Road / Station Road, Carnmoney / Whiteabbey




Assessment Score: Neutral.


Enhancement scenario compared to Mothball Base scenario provides small




the following locations, remedying impacts arising from Mothball and providing

further improvement in Belfast City Centre.



- A2 Whitehead

- Belfast: Castle Street

- Belfast: Lisburn Road



locations including Belfast City Centre and some

air quality ìhotspotsî.

Assessment Score: Slight Beneficial Effect.

Appendix C: Environment - Greenhouse Gases Environment Greenhouse Gases

C1


C. Greenhouse Gases Sub-Objective

Data Sources



Assessment of the Impact of Changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal

Demand and Market Shares, Oscar Faber, August 2000

Annual Traffic Census, Roads Service, 1996


CO2 is considered the most important greenhouse gas and is therefore used as a key

indicator for assessing impacts. Estimates of CO2 for road traffic have been calculated

directly from outputs from the model using an annualisation factor (7.41 x 365

(=2705)) derived from the Annual Traffic Census. Estimates of CO2 from train



services were calculated using the ìRegional Trainsî figure of 467 g/km presented in

GOMMMS (Volume 2, Chapter 4, Table 4.4). The result of the calculations showed

that compared to the absolute level and relative change in road emissions, rail

emissions are very small, approximately 2000 tonnes per annum for Scenarios 1,2,

and 3.

Under the Kyoto agreement, the UK has committed to reducing greenhouse gas

emissions by 12.5% from 1990 levels by 2010. In addition, the UK has set a goal of

reducing CO2 by 20% below 1990 levels. Whilst, it is noted that Northern Ireland is

not a primary contributor to UK totals of greenhouse gases, Northern Ireland will seek

to achieve the UK targets.

Key Results

Scenario Annual Tonnes CO2 % Change

1996 Existing 1.812 million -

2010 Scenario 4 (Mothball) 2.027 million + 11.9% (from Existing)

2010 Scenario 3 (Truncation) 2.014 million -0.6% (from Scenario 4)

2010 Scenario 2 (AD Little) 2.008 million -0.9% (from Scenario 4)

2010 Scenario 1 (Enhancement) 2.004 million -1.1% (from Scenario 4)

Table C – 1: CO2 Emission Levels using Oscar Faber Model


Qualitative Summary

CO2 emissions from train are very small but have been included in the assessment.

Scenario 4 produces a 11.9% increase in CO2 over Existing (1996) values ñ this Environment

Greenhouse Gases

C2

substantial increase runs contrary to the Kyoto requirement to reduce CO2 levels

and is due primarily to background growth in car ownership and use.

Compared to continuation of current trends, Scenario 4 will produce approximately

1% additional CO2.



Compared to the base Mothball scenario, each of the other scenarios (which add

rail services and reduce car flows) reduce CO2 by approximately 1%.


Qualitative Impacts: Compared to the existing situation, Scenario 4

produces a 11.9% increase in CO2. This increase

can be attributed primarily to background

growth in car ownership and use. Compared to

continuation of current trend, Scenario 4 will

produce approximately 1% additional CO2.


Qualitative Impacts: Significant reduction due to reduced car use.

Quantitative Measure: 2.014 million tonnes of CO2 annually

0.6% reduction in CO2 levels annually.

Assessment Score: -0.013 million tonnes of CO2 in 2010











Appendix D: Environment - Landscape, Townscape and

Heritage of Historic Resources Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic

Resources

D1




D. Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources Sub-Objectives

Data Sources



Monuments and Buildings databases, Environment and Heritage Service

Structures Database, Translink

Landscape Character Assessments, Environment and Heritage Service


While GOMMMS deals with landscape, townscape and (man-made/built) heritage as

separate entities, it acknowledges that considerable overlap exists between landscape

and townscape and between townscape and heritage to the extent that it specifically

warns against double counting (GOMMMS 4.8.4). This separation of issues reflects the

division of responsibilities in England between the Countryside Agency, English Nature

and English Heritage. However, a more integrated approach to these related subjects is

adopted in Northern Ireland. Here, the main responsibility for identification and

statutory protection, of natural and man-made/built heritage, resides with a single

agency, Environment and Heritage Service (EHS). This work is complemented and reinforced by the

development control policies and practices of Planning Service, a

relationship which is strengthened by the two services operating within a single

government department (DOE). This means that heritage (whether natural or man-made

/built) is considered in its landscape (countryside) or townscape (settlement) context,

with the balance of these resources determining the character of our living environment.

This is particularly important where the heritage resource is the entire railway network,

but the values are based on analysis of its different facets. It was therefore proposed that

these three sub-objectives be appraised together. Mr Bruce Davison, Environmental

Resources Management, principal author of the Environmental assessment chapters in

GOMMMS, agreed with this approach.



GOMMMS utilises an environmental capital approach whereby a description and

valuation of the existing situation is documented on the appropriate worksheet on a

feature by feature basis, and the effects of each of the scenarios are then registered

against this baseline. Given that the various scenarios affect a total of 60 train stations

and 21 listed railway structures, it was not deemed feasible to employ this detailed

approach in this study.

Instead, two matrices were drawn up (see Appendices D ñ I and D ñ II). One identified

all of the stations and scored those deemed to have heritage and townscape significance.

None of the stations were considered to have a significant landscape value. The second

scored those railway features, listed for their special architectural or historical interest

under the Planning (NI) Order 1991, for landscape, townscape and heritage value.

Those included under each of the scenarios were also indicated on the matrices. The

team considered this approach to provide a reasonable quantifiable measure for each of

the scenarios. It could be argued that additional information might be adduced to

indicate that some stations/features were more significant than others, but a more

detailed qualitative analysis of the extensive area covered by the present network was Environment

Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources

D2

not possible in the timeframe available. The GOMMMS guidance for the scoring of

landscape, townscape and heritage of historical resources was followed. Stations were

ascribed townscape value where they had significant architectural style, key features or

prominence within the physical characteristics of the town. Their value as a cultural

focus and a place which stimulated human interaction, sustaining an associated built

environment, was also taken into account. The contribution of the railway to the

community ësense of placeí ñ the feeling of both ownership and belonging, experienced

by a people bound by cultural heritage and to a common territory - was also taken into

consideration in attributing worth under this criterion as recommended by GOMMMS

4.8.1.



Those features, such as bridges and viaducts, which are not within the boundaries of

towns were attributed with landscape value where they were deemed to add to the

distinctive physical character of the area.

The effect which ëmothballingí the railtracks would have on the physical character and

sense of place, from a landscape perspective, was also included under this criterion.

Heritage value of stations and other railway features was based on two criteria:

(i) Whether they were listed for statutory protection as buildings of special architectural

or historical interest, under the Planning (NI) Order 1991.

(ii) Whether they were regarded as being of general historic significance locally or

regionally.

The additional historical significance which could be attached to particular rail routes,

because of their role in the economic and social development of communities and

places, was recognised eg:

BelfastñBangor : the sea-side line

Larne : importance for maritime trade

BelfastñLisburnñNewry : linen industry

North West : influenced the development of the present settlement

pattern, by reinforcing the economies of places with rail links to

agricultural markets

These effects are so diverse in character that they cannot easily be compared for any

scoring purpose. Therefore, it was agreed that they should be considered as part of the

overall heritage value of the railway.

On the basis of the results obtained under landscape, townscape and heritage the

scenarios were scored against the seven-point scale, making reference to the descriptors

contained in GOMMMS Tables 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8.

It was considered that mothballing of the rail lines would only result in them becoming



slightly wilder/ more overgrown. From a landscape perspective this was considered to

be neither beneficial nor adverse. Those listed structures that were in the countryside

were deemed to be of landscape significance, contributing to the characteristic

appearance of the landscape. While mothballing would not materially affect their

contribution to the landscape character, concern was expressed regarding their longterm survival.

Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources

D3

Mothballing those stations deemed to be of townscape significance would ensure

retention of their visual impact, as long as there was on-going maintenance. However,

it was deemed that their value as a focus for human activity, contributing to the social

and economic patterns sustaining the local built environment, was of significance from

a townscape perspective. Mothballing of stations was therefore deemed to have a

negative effect. Listed railway structures that were within towns/villages were

considered to contribute to the townscape, but mothballing of these would have no

effect, so long as their long-term survival was ensured.

The physical / visible presence of stations and other railway structures, as items of

heritage value, would be maintained by mothballing. However, the continuing use of

the historic railway system, that is buildings and rail routes, was considered to be of

very high significance. Historic buildings that cease to be occupied are vulnerable to

dereliction and vandalism. Conservation policy and practice emphasises the need to

keep buildings in use, that is, in their original use as far as this is possible and otherwise

by finding an appropriate other use. While the destruction of the stations and other

railway structures would obviously represent the greatest possible loss, it must be

recognised that there is a heritage loss when properties go out of use. Unused, they

become ornaments or curiosities whose value may be challenged, rather than viable

facilities, valued for their functional as well as their historical value. Based on

experience, the potential for vandalism of mothballed stations/structures was identified

as an issue of real concern in the context of both townscape and heritage value.



Whilst it was recognised that there was opportunity to use mothballed stations for other

purposes (eg. community centres, bars / restaurants, retail outlets etc.), this could not be

considered in detail within the assessment. However, it was concluded that it would not

alter the overall conclusions.

Key Results

Details regarding the townscape and heritage value of the stations is given in Appendix

D - I. Details of the landscape, townscape and heritage value of the railway structures

is given in Appendix D - II. A summary table of all evaluations is given in Appendix D

- III.


Qualitative Summary

Landscape is relatively unaffected across the scenarios. However, Scenario 4 retains

very little of the townscape and heritage value associated with the stations on the

current rail network. The other scenarios witness substantial improvements, with

Scenario 3 retaining over two-thirds of the stations with townscape and heritage

value and almost three-quarters of the listed stations in current use. Scenarios 2 and

1 show further, though much less marked, improvement as more stations are used.

The impact on the value of the structures, i.e. bridges/viaducts etc, will be similar,

though to a lesser extent. However, vandalism and the long-term preservation of both

stations and structures were regarded as an issue of great concern, particularly for

listed buildings. Under Scenario 1, there is some potential for a slight benefit in land

pattern if the new station at D5 and the Park and Ride developments are sensitively

planned and landscaped. Under Scenarios 3, 2 and 1, the new stations at Mossley

West and Templepatrick may benefit townscape values through regeneration of the

existing fabric and community culture. It was considered that the scale of changes in Environment

Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources

D4

traffic flows across the scenarios would be unlikely to put pressure on localised



townscape structures through vibration, pollution staining of buildings etc.


Retains 3 stations out of existing 58

Landscape - Mothballs 50% of listed railway structures deemed to be

characteristic of the landscape, however these would not be

devalued so long as their long term preservation was ensured.

Mothballed tracks will develop wilder vegetation; this will be

neither adverse nor beneficial, simply providing different

landcover.

Townscape - Mothballs all 26 stations with townscape value. Closure will have

adverse impact on human interaction and thus built cultural

features as many of the stations form the focus of the town e.g.

Scarva, Lambeg, Finaghy, Dunmurry.

Heritage - Mothballs all 7 listed railway stations and 1 under consideration

for Conservation Area status. Retains only 7% of stations likely to

be of significant historic interest. Mothballing results in ëdeadí

buildings ñ contrary to good conservation practice. Also loss of

social history, with loss of live historic rail travel routes currently

in use e.g. North Down, Larne, Belfast/Lisburn/Newry .

- Mothballs 48 % of listed railway structures

Overall - Scenario 4 compared to existing

On the basis of the descriptors set out in Tables 4.7 and 4.8 of GOMMMS it was

judged that Scenario 4 would represent a Slight Adverse Effect in respect of

Heritage, and Townscape values.

Qualitative Impacts: Mothballing would have an adverse impact on

human interaction and cultural features, and would

result in dead buildings and the loss of most of the



ëliveí historic rail routes.

Quantitative Measure: Retains:

No listed stations (currently 7)



No stations of townscape value (currently 26)

Assessment Score: Slight Adverse Effect


Utilises an additional 40 stations (including 2 not in existing use)

Landscape - No change with respect to railtracks, and retains 16 (89% of

existing) listed railway structures of landscape value. Environment Landscape, Townscape and


D5

Townscape - Utilises 18 stations of townscape value (69% of existing) such as

Cultra, Moira, Dunmurry, and Scarva. Style and historic role of

stations and associated buildings form cultural focus of number of

the locations. Utilisation of increased number of stations equates to

increased opportunities for human interaction impacting on built

environment. If sympathetically designed, Templepatrick and

Mossley West could benefit townscape, through regeneration of

fabric and stimulating community culture/physical development.

Heritage - utilises 5 (71% of existing) listed stations, 19 (70% of existing)

stations likely to be of significant historical interest and 19 (90% of

existing) listed railway structures.

Qualitative Impacts: Utilises a significant number of stations and

structures contributing to townscape and heritage

value. Securing the long-term preservation of

stations/structures, particularly those listed under



Planning (NI) Order 1991, is of particular

importance.

Quantitative Measure: Utilises:





Assessment Score: Moderate Beneficial Effect



Landscape - no change with respect to railtrack value and utilises 18 (all

existing) listed railway structures contributing to landscape.

Townscape - utilises 23 (88% of existing) stations with townscape value.

Utilises a large number of existing stations which form cultural and

human interaction, and thus built environment as a focus within

their locality e.g. Londonderry/Derry, Castlerock, and Larne town.

If sympathetically designed Templepatrick and Mossley West

could benefit townscape through regeneration of fabric and

community culture.

Heritage - utilises all 7 listed station buildings, 24 (89% of existing) stations

likely to be of significant historical interest and all 21 existing

listed railway structures.

Qualitative Impacts: Utilises a significant number of stations and all

structures contributing to townscape and heritage

value. Securing the long-term preservation of

stations/structures, particularly those listed under

Planning (NI) Order 1991, is of particular



importance. Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources

D6









Landscape - No change in value of railtracks. Utilises 18 (all existing) listed

railway structures. There could be slight beneficial effects if the

planning and landscape treatment of the station at D5, and Park and

Ride developments were done sympathetically. These could reenforce the inherited landscape

pattern.

Townscape - utilises 26 (all existing) stations, significantly Crumlin, Glenavy,

Ballinderry which have particular townscape value due to their

visual appearance and their actual position in the town. Enhanced

opportunities for cultural value and human interaction reflected in

built environment, due to utilisation of stations and increased use of

stations as additional train journeys on Newry, Bangor, Larne and

Antrim lines.

In relation to the Park and Ride sites, only the Belfast City Airport

site is of significant extent but as it will be on a landfill site, there is

no negative landscape or heritage value. The proposed Moira site

will be a greenfield development but the other Park and ride sites

are all brown field and appropriate mitigation measures are

assumed (detailed plans required for fuller appraisal).



Heritage - all stations utilised so buildings and railtrack kept in designed use.

Park and ride ñ all sites apart from Belfast City Airport will require

archaeological assessment. Moira site will be most sensitive, with

potential for buried archaeological remains beneath greenfield.

Moira station itself is in State care. Ballyhenry site is in an area of

known archaeological interest. However, it was deemed that the

retention of historic buildings in current (proper) use outweighs the

potential destruction of buried remains.

Qualitative Impacts: Utilises all stations and structures contributing to

townscape and heritage value. Securing the longterm preservation of stations/structures,

particularly those listed under Planning (NI) Order

1991, is of particular importance. Some potential

for further slight beneficial effect if development

of D5 Station and Park and Ride Facilities is

sensitive.


7 (100% of existing) listed stations Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic

Resources

D7





Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources

D8

Appendix D - I: Heritage and Townscape Value of Train Stations

Key: Under: Heritage ñ H =heritage value; Townscape-Y=townscape value; Scenarios- ! = open

L = listed building X= closed



STATIONS HERITAGE TOWNSCAPE Scenario

4

Scenario

3

Scenario

2

Scenario

1

BANGOR BANGOR H X ! ! !

BANGOR WEST X ! ! !

CARNALEA X ! ! !

CRAWFORDSBURN H Y X ! ! !

HELENíS BAY L Y X ! ! !

SEAHILL X ! ! !

CULTRA H Y X ! ! !

MARINO X ! ! !

HOLYWOOD H Y X ! ! !

D5 X X X !

SYDENHAM X ! ! X

BRIDGE END X ! ! !

NEWRY LINE BELFAST CENTRAL ! ! ! !

GREAT VICTORIA STREET Y X ! ! !

BOTANIC H Y X ! ! !

CITY HOSPITAL X ! ! !

ADELAIDE X ! ! !

BALMORAL Y X ! ! !



FINAGHY H X ! ! !

DUNMURRY H Y X ! ! !

DERRIAGHY H X ! ! !

LAMBEG H Y X ! ! !

HILDEN H Y X ! ! !

LISBURN L Y X ! ! !

KNOCKMORE H Y X ! ! !

MOIRA L X ! ! !

LURGAN H X ! ! !

PORTADOWN H ! ! ! !

SCARVA H Y X ! ! !

PONTZPASS H Y X ! ! !

NEWRY H ! ! ! !

LONDONDERRY

/DERRY LINE

LONDONDERRY/DERRY L Y X X ! !

BELLARENA H X X ! !

CASTLEROCK X X ! !

COLERAINE L Y X X ! !

PORTRUSH X X ! !

DHU VARREN X X ! !

UNIVERSITY X X ! !

BALLYMONEY H Y X X ! !

CULLYBACKEY X X ! !

BALLYMENA H Y X ! ! !

ANTRIM LINE ANTRIM H X ! ! !

CRUMLIN H Y X X X !



GLENAVY H Y X X X !

BALLINDERRY H Y X X X !

TEMPLEPATRICK X ! ! !

MOSSLEY WEST X ! ! !

LARNE LINE LARNE HARBOUR X X ! !

LARNE TOWN H Y X X ! !

GLYNN H Y X X ! !

MAGHERAMOURNE H X X ! !

BALLYCARRY X X ! !

WHITEHEAD L Y X ! ! !

DOWNSHIRE X ! ! !

CARRICKFERGUS L Y X ! ! !

CLIPPERSTOWN X ! ! !

TROOPERSLANE X ! ! !

GREENISLAND H Y X ! ! !

JORDANSTOWN X ! ! !

WHITEABBEY X ! ! !

YORKGATE X ! ! !Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources

D9

Appendix D - II

Heritage, Townscape and Landscape Value of Listed Railway Structures

Key: Under: Heritage ñ L = listed structure; Townscape-Y=townscape value;

Landscape ñ Y=landscape value; Scenarios- ! = open, X= closed

Line Translink

Structure

Reference

Local Name Heritage Townscape Landscape Scenario



1

Scenario

2

Scenario

3

Scenario

4

Newry 01.174 Meigh, Killeen

and Faughilletra

L Y ! ! ! !

Newry 01.192 Egyptian Arch L Y ! ! ! !

Newry 01.193 Bessbrook/

Craigmore

Viaduct

L Y

! ! ! !

Newry 01.196 Newry and

Armagh Road

L Y ! ! ! !

Newry 01.197 Mullaghglass L Y ! ! ! !

Newry 01.202 Henrys L Y ! ! ! !

Newry 01.203 Jerretspass L Y ! ! ! !

Newry 02.287 Milligans L Y ! ! ! !

Newry 02.288 L Y ! ! ! !

Newry 02.292 L Y ! ! ! !

Newry 02.295 Glen River L Y ! ! ! !



Bangor 02.296 L Y ! ! ! X

Bangor 04.358 L Y ! ! ! X

Bangor 04.363 Crawfordsburn

Viaduct

L Y ! ! ! X

Antrim 05.017 Bleach Green

Viaduct

L Y ! ! ! X

Antrim 05.018 Three Mile

Water

L Y ! ! ! X

Antrim 05.031 Aulds Bridge L Y ! ! ! X

Antrim 05.064 Six Mile water L Y ! ! ! X

Antrim 05.073 County Road at

Muckamore

L Y ! ! ! X

Londonderry/

Derry

10.196 Castlerock

Tunnel

L Y ! ! X X

Londonderry/

Derry

10.197 Downhill

Tunnel

L Y ! ! X X Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources

D10



Appendix D - III

Summary Table of Landscape, Townscape and Heritage Value of Scenarios

(Landscape, Townscape and Heritage rows show percentages and numbers of stations

and listed structures retained in use)

Scenario 4 Scenario 3 Scenario 2 Scenario 1

Landscape Neutral re track

50% structures

(9/18)

Neutral re track

89% structures

(16/18)

Neutral re track

100% structures

(18/18)

Neutral re track

100% structures

(18/18)

Ballyhenry P&R

and D5

development -

limited/potential

positive impact

Townscape 0% stations

(0/26)

67% structures

(2/3)

69% stations



(18/26)

100% structures

(3/3)

88% stations

(23/26)

100% structures

(3/3)

100% stations

(26/26)

100% structures

(3/3)

P&R

developmentlimited impact

Heritage 0% listed stations

(0/7)

7% stations of

heritage value

(2/27)

52% structures

(11/21)

71% listed stations

(5/7)

70% stations of

heritage value

(19/27)

90% structures

(19/21)



100% listed stations

(7/7)

89% stations of

heritage value

(24/27)

100% structures

(21/21)

100% listed stations

(7/7)

100% stations of

heritage value

(27/27)

100% structures

(21/21)

AST Score MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

EFFECT

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

EFFECT

MODERATE

BENEFICIAL

EFFECT Appendix E: Environment - Biodiversity Environment Biodiversity

E1


E. Biodiversity Sub-Objective

Data Sources



Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department for

the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000

Assessment of the Impact of changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal Demand


Natural Heritage Databases


The methodology as detailed in GOMMMS was applied. This recognises both

biodiversity and earth heritage value, however, as none of the scenarios were considered

to affect the latter, no comments in relation to it are included. Each of the areas of

recognised biodiversity value was listed in the appropriate worksheet and described by

its classification (eg. Area of Special Scientific Interest/ RAMSAR site of wetlands

importance/ Special Protection Area/ candidate for Special Area of Conservation/

Country Park/ Nature Park/ etc). The scale at which the attribute matters was recorded,

and its importance scaled from high to low as per GOMMMS 4.10.8. The biodiversity

value of each of the areas was then scored using GOMMMS Table 4.10. The

magnitude of the scenario relative to the baseline was then scored using GOMMMS

Table 4.11. On the basis of the comments in the preceding columns the overall

assessment score was then determined using GOMMMS Table 4.14.

Railway Network

Those areas of biodiversity value affected by railway are listed below-

• Bangor line goes through Crawfordsburn Country Park and skirts Belfast Lough

• Larne line skirts Belfast Lough and, from north of Whitehead, Larne Lough

• Newry line skirts Lough Shark, Brackagh Moss, and goes through the Slieve

Gullion area from south of Newry

• Londonderry/Derry line skirts Lough Foyle

In general, where the rail follows the coastline it is closer to the areas of biodiversity

interest than the road.



Key Results

Details of the appraisal for each of the scenarios relative to the base, and an appraisal of

the base relative to the existing situation are given in the completed worksheets in

Appendix E - I.


Qualitative Summary

The qualitative comment sections on the worksheets indicate that as you move from

Scenario 4 to Scenario 1, increased provision and use of the network results in

increased disturbance to waterfowl. However, it should be noted that the birds would

very quickly become habituated to the noise of the passing trains. In addition,

although of much less importance, it is also indicated that as you progress from

Scenario 4 to Scenario 1 increased use of the tracks will result in slight decrease in Environment

Biodiversity

E2

their value as wildlife corridors. Changes in road wildlife causalities were also

considered, but as relatively little variation in traffic numbers over the four scenarios

is predicted, this was not considered significant.


This was the baseline for the purposes of this study. However, relative to the

existing situation:

Scenario 4 creates fewer disturbances to waterfowl on the tidal flats and salt

marshes of sea loughs - as a result, when the other scenarios are scored relative to

this scenario they are recorded as having a Minor Adverse Effect. Had Scenarios

1 (excluding the landtake for the Park and Ride at the City Airport and station/halt

at D5), 2 and 3 been scored relative to the existing situation they would have

registered as Neutral. Mothballing most of the lines will result in wilder

vegetation on these sections and a slight increase in their value as wildlife

corridors.



Qualitative Impacts: Creates fewer disturbances to wildfowl on tidal

flats and salt marshes of sea loughs. Slightly

increased value of mothballed lines as wildlife

corridors.



Opening of the Bangor and Larne lines will result in slight disturbance to

waterfowl in Belfast Lough and Larne Lough. However, the birds will habituate

very quickly. The opened railway lines will reduce slightly in value as wildlife

corridors.

Qualitative Impacts: Slight disturbance to waterfowl in 2 protected

areas. However, the birds will habituate very

quickly.

Assessment Score: Minor Adverse Effect


Opening of the Bangor, Larne and Londonderry/Derry (beyond Cullybackey)

lines will result in slight disturbance to waterfowl in Belfast Lough, Larne Lough

and Lough Foyle. However, the birds will habituate very quickly. The opened

railway lines will reduce slightly in value as wildlife corridors.



quickly.



Opening of the Bangor, Larne and Londonderry/Derry (beyond Cullybackey)

lines will result in slight disturbance to waterfowl in Belfast Lough, Larne Lough

and Lough Foyle. However, the birds will habituate very quickly. The opened



railway lines will reduce slightly in value as wildlife corridors.

The Park and Ride sites at Moira and Ballyhenry will result in a loss in green land

that will be of slight local value. A major consideration will be the location of the

proposed City Airport Park and Ride and D5 station. If the Airport Park and Ride

is within Belfast Nature Park this could result in a minor loss of habitat and Environment Biodiversity

E3

register as a minor adverse effect on this feature. However, if the Park and Ride

or D5 station were within the Belfast Lough protected area this could result in a

serious loss of habitat and register as a serious adverse effect on this feature.



quickly. Location of Belfast City Airport Park and

Ride and D5 station crucial as they could result in

serious loss of habitat if within Belfast Lough

Special Protected Area.


Possibly Large Adverse Effect if Belfast City

Airport Park and Ride or D5 station are located

within Belfast Lough Special Protected Area.

Environment Biodiversity

E4

Appendix E - I

WorksheetsEnvironment Biodiversity

E5

Worksheet 4.10 Environment: Biodiversity – Plan Level Key: ASSI - Area of Special Scientific Interest

(Habitat)

SPA - Special Protection Area (Birds)

RAMSAR- Wetlands importance



c SAC - Candidate for Special Area of Conservation (Habitat)

Scheme/option: Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4

Area

Description of

Feature/attribute

Scale (at which

Attribute matters)

Importance

(of attribute)

Biodiversity and earth

heritage value

Magnitude

of impact

Assessment

Score

Slieve Gullion ASSI-heath habitat National Medium Medium Neutral Neutral

Belfast Lough RAMSAR, ASSI, SPA ñ

birds and habitat

International High High Minor Negative Minor Adverse

Lough Shark ASSI ñ birds National High Medium Neutral Neutral

Larne Lough RAMSAR, ASSI, SPA ñ



birds and habitat


Lough Foyle ASSI, SPA, c SAC ñ birds

and habitat

National/Candidate

International

High High Neutral Neutral

Brackagh Moss Nature Reserve ñ flora and

fauna

National Medium Medium Neutral Neutral

Crawfordsburn Country

Park

Country Park Regional Low Low Neutral Neutral

Belfast Nature Park Nature Park Local Low Low Neutral Neutral

Reference Source(s): EHS Natural Heritage database, EHS staff knowledge

Summary assessment score: Minor Adverse Effect

Qualitative comments: " Bangor and Larne lines result in slight disturbance to waterfowl in 2 SPAs

but birds will habituate very quickly.

" Open railway lines will have slightly less value as wildlife corridors. Environment Biodiversity

E6

Worksheet 4.10 Environment: Biodiversity – Plan Level Key: ASSI - Area of Special Scientific

Interest (Habitat)







Area

Description of

Feature/attribute

Scale (at which

attribute matters)

Importance

(of attribute)

Biodiversity and

earth heritage value

Magnitude

of impact

Assessment

Score


Belfast Lough RAMSAR, ASSI, SPA ñ birds

and habitat



Larne Lough RAMSAR, ASSI, SPA ñ birds



and habitat


Lough Foyle ASSI, SPA, c SAC ñ birds and

habitat

National/Candidate

International

High High Minor Negative Minor Adverse


fauna


Crawfordsburn Country

Park




Summary assessment score: Minor Adverse Effect

Qualitative comments: " Bangor, Larne, and Londonderry/Derry lines will result in slight disturbance

to waterfowl in 3 SPAs but birds will

habituate very quickly.

" Open railway lines will have slightly less value as wildlife corridors. Environment Biodiversity

E7

Worksheet 4.10 Environment: Biodiversity – Plan Level Key: ASSI - Area of Special Scientific Interest

(Habitat)







Area Description of

feature/attribute

Scale (at which

attribute matters)

Importance

(of attribute)

Biodiversity and earth

heritage value

Magnitude

of impact

Assessment

Score

If Airport P&R or

D5 on designated

area


Belfast Lough RAMSAR, ASSI, SPA ñ

birds and habitat

International High High Minor Negative Minor Adverse Possibly Serious

Adverse



Lough Shark ASSI ñ birds National High Medium Neutral Neutral Neutral

Larne Lough RAMSAR, ASSI, SPA ñ

birds and habitat


Lough Foyle ASSI, SPA, c SAC ñ

birds and habitat

National/Candidate

International

High High Minor Negative Minor Adverse

Brackagh Moss Nature Reserve ñ flora

and fauna


Crawfordsburn

Country Park


Belfast Nature Park Nature Park Local Medium Low Neutral Neutral Minor Adverse


Summary assessment score: Minor Adverse Effect (Minor Adverse Effect if Airport P&R on Belfast

Nature Park)

(Possibly Serious Effect if Airport P&R or D5 on Belfast Lough RASpecial Protected Area)

Environment Biodiversity

E8



Qualitative comments: " Bangor, Larne and Londonderry/Derry lines will result in slight disturbance

to waterfowl in 3 SPAs but birds will

habituate very quickly.

" Open railway lines and increased use of, will result in less value as wildlife corridors.

" Park and ride sites at Moira and Ballyhenry result in loss of green land (of slight local value).

" If park and ride site at City Airport in Belfast Nature Park or Belfast Lough protected area; or if D5

station in Belfast

Lough protected area could be serious adverse effect. Environment Biodiversity

E9

Worksheet 4.10 Environment: Biodiversity – Plan Level

Scheme/option: Scenario 4

Area

Description of

Feature/attribute

Scale (at which

Attribute matters)

Importance

(of attribute)

Biodiversity and

earth heritage value

Magnitude

of impact

Assessment

Score




Belfast Lough RAMSAR, ASSI, SPA ñ birds

and habitat

International High High Neutral Neutral


Larne Lough RAMSAR, ASSI, SPA ñ birds

and habitat

International High High Neutral Neutral

Lough Foyle ASSI, SPA, c SAC ñ birds and

habitat

National/Candidate

International

High High Neutral Neutral


fauna


Crawfordsburn

Country Park









The general methodology as detailed in GOMMMS was applied. However, GOMMMS

follows the environmental capital approach, naming each of the specific water

environment features, indicating their value and recording the impact of each of the

scenarios relative to the base. Preliminary discussions amongst the team indicated that

none of the scenarios were likely to involve water environment impacts and that the

methodical noting of each feature would be unnecessarily laborious. It was therefore

decided to detail the various water environment types, as opposed to listing specific

water features. Given the nature of this study, this variation from the stated

methodology was not considered to compromise the GOMMMS approach.

The three main water types: ground waters, surface water (including still waters) and

coastal/estuarine were listed in worksheet 4.12 (see Appendix F ñ II). As directed by

the GOMMMS methodology, the uses of each of these were noted. A number of the

more detailed columns in the worksheet (i.e. quality, scale, rarity, substitutability and

importance) were omitted (i) as it would have been difficult to complete them given the

composite approach adopted, and (ii) given there were deemed to be insignificant

impacts they were regarded as unnecessary detail. Using the classifications in

GOMMMS Table 4.17 the magnitude of each of the scenarios on the 3 water types was

then recorded and the significance of the scenario on each filled in using the descriptors

in GOMMMS Table 4.18.

Four main sources of water pollution were considered:

(1) pollution load from vehicles on the road (carbon, rubber, oil, etc.)

(2) leakage (oil, coolant, fuel) and toilet discharges from trains

(3) use of herbicides for controlling vegetation

(4) pollution load from vehicles in Park and Ride car parks

Key Results

Details of the appraisal for each of the scenarios relative to the base, and an appraisal of



the base, are given in the completed worksheets. These worksheets are contained in

Appendix F - I.


Qualitative Summary

The very small changes in overall road traffic numbers under the 3 scenarios will not

result in any significant differences in pollution loads on the roads. While it is Environment Water

Environment

F2

unlikely there would be any appreciable pollution from car park run-off, this could

be mitigated against if interceptors/sustainable urban drainage measures were

incorporated in these. The new trains in Scenarios 3, 2 and 1 will have better seals

etc. reducing leakage and will contain retention tanks for toilet waste which will be

discharged to sewer. The Class 450 trains, which will still be in operation under

these three scenarios will continue to discharge onto the tracks. However the

discharge is considered insignificant as it involves very small amounts spread over a

sizeable area. In relation to the use of herbicides, there will only be a very minor

decrease in their use on railbeds under mothballing conditions and Ministry of

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food approved substances (Bromacil, Glyphosate, Diuron,

and Fettel (triclopyr + dicamba +CMPP) are used. Having appraised the three

scenarios it was not considered that any of them resulted in significant positive or

negative effects on the water environment.


This was the baseline for the purposes of this study. The worksheets indicate that

there is no significant impact on any of the water feature types under Scenario 4.

Had the existing situation been appraised a similar result would have been found.

In Scenario 4 only the enterprise trains are running and these have minimal seal

leakage and no toilet discharge to track. Currently, 28 trains (19 no. Class 80 2-

and 3-car sets and 9 no. Class 450 sets together representing approximately 90%



of the rolling stock) have fluid and toilet discharges to track. However the small

amounts of leakage/discharge and the area of track involved were considered to

render these insignificant.

Qualitative Impacts: No change in impact on any water feature types.



A negligible decrease (0.6%) in road traffic was predicted. The new trains will

reduce fuel, oil and coolant leakage and prevent toilet discharge onto the tracks,

but 9 no. Class 450 train sets (approximately 20% of the rail stock) will permit

such discharges. This was considered to amount to in an insignificant change

compared to Scenario 4.

Qualitative Impacts: No significant positive or negative effects on

water environment.




reduce fuel, oil and coolant leakage and prevent toilet discharge onto the tracks,


such discharges. This was considered to amount to an insignificant change



water environment.




reduce fuel, oil and coolant leakage and prevent toilet discharge onto the tracks, Environment

Water Environment

F3




such discharges. These were considered to amount to in an insignificant change


Park and Ride facilities are unlikely to add to the pollution load, especially if

pollution mitigation measures such as interceptors/sustainable urban drainage are

incorporated in their design.


water environment.

Assessment Score: Neutral Environment Water Environment

Appendix F - I

Worksheets

F4 Environment Water Environment

Worksheet 4.12 Environment: Water Environment – Plan Level

Scheme Option: Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4

Summary of potential impacts Feature Attributes/

Services

Magnitude Significance

Road pollution load,

discharge/leakage from trains, use

of herbicides

Ground Water 18% used for drinking

water abstraction

Negligible Insignificant



of herbicides

Surface Water



(including still)

Drinking water

abstraction, recreation,

fisheries




of herbicides

Coastal/Estuaries Recreation, fisheries Negligible Insignificant

Reference Source(s): EHS Water Quality Unit (WQU) Records, WQU and Translink staff knowledge

Summary Assessment score: Neutral

Qualitative comments: " Existing trains will discharge toilets onto the track. However, no

appreciable change in pollution from trains

(leakage and toilet discharge onto tracks) as very small quantities and spread over large area.

" New trains will reduce fuel, coolant or oil leakage and will have toilet retention tanks so no

discharge onto tracks.

" No appreciable change in road pollution load (carbon, rubber, oil)





Services




of herbicides




water abstraction




of herbicides

Surface Water

(including still)

Drinking water


fisheries




of herbicides




Qualitative comments: " Existing trains will discharge toilets onto the track. However, no

appreciable change in pollution from trains











Services


Road and car park pollution load,


of herbicides


water abstraction




of herbicides

Surface Water

(including still)

Drinking water


fisheries




of herbicides

Coastal/Estuaries Recreation fisheries Negligible Insignificant



Qualitative comments: " Existing trains will discharge toilets onto the track. However, noappreciable change in pollution from trains







Park and Ride car parks should contain pollution mitigation (interceptors/sustainable urban

drainage) to reduce

pollution load.



Scheme Option: Scenario 4

Description of study area/

Summary of potential impacts

Feature Attributes/

Services




of herbicides


water abstraction




of herbicides

Surface Water

(including still)

Drinking water

abstraction, recreation



fisheries




of herbicides




Qualitative comments: Compared to existing:-

" Will reduce train leakage and eliminate toilet discharge onto tracks


" Will still use herbicides in mothballed situations therefore little change in pollution from this

source

F8

Appendix G: Environment - Physical Fitness Environment Physical Fitness

G1


G. Physical Fitness Sub-Objective

Data Sources




and Market Share, Oscar Faber, August 2000


GOMMMS suggests that significant beneficial increases in physical fitness will arise



when travellers undertake 30 minutes or more physical activity per day. Therefore,

scenarios which will encourage or result in increases in walking or cycling may result in

a Beneficial assessment ñ the scale of the benefit will depend on the number of persons

walking and cycling and the length of journeys (or time duration).

None of the scenarios under test provide explicitly for increases in walking or cycling ñ

for example none include cycle facilities or road traffic calming. However, it is noted

that where travellers switch from car to public transport, there will likely be an increase

in walking of 30 minutes per day ñ for example 10 minutes walk from home to station

and 5 minutes walk from station to place of work each morning, and the same in reverse

in the evening.

The methodology identifies the number of persons switching between car and public

transport. This number is used as an estimate of the number of persons who will obtain

significant Physical Fitness benefits. Separate assessment will be made of persons

switching to/from bus and to/from rail in order that any differences in walk times

to/from rail stations and to/from bus stops can be assessed at a later stage if necessary.

Key Statistics and Results

Appendix G ñ I contains results showing (i) the peak period journeys by mode for the

Base Case: Scenario 4 and the existing situation and (ii) peak period modal switches

from the Base Case to the other scenarios.



The effect of mothballing the railways will be slight adverse. A significant

proportion of rail users will divert to car or choose not to travel leading to

reductions in levels of physical activity.


Qualitative Impacts: Persons switching from car to rail should achieve



the recommended minimum level of activity for

health benefits. Passengers switching from bus to

rail should achieve slight benefit due to increased

walk distances. Environment Physical Fitness

G2

Quantitative Measure: In the AM peak period, approximately 2000



Assessment Score: Slight Beneficial Effect






walk distances.










walk distances.






Assessment Score: Slight Beneficial Effect Environment Physical Fitness

G3

Appendix G – I: Results showing Peak Period Modal Journey Numbers and

Switches

AM Peak Period Journeys by Mode

Mode 1996 Existing 2010 Scenario 4 Base

Rail 5300 0

Bus 25200 31800

Car 289400 348100

Total 319900 379900

2010 AM Peak Period Modal Switches from Scenario 4 Base

Mode Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Rail +8200 +7400 +6500

Bus -4000 -3700 -3400

Car -2900 -2500 -2000

Total +1300 +1200 +1100 Environment Physical Fitness

Appendix H: Environment - Journey Ambience Environment Journey Ambience

H1


H. Journey Ambience Sub-Objective

Data Sources



Internal Translink Market Research

Group Annual review: Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company: 1998/99



Rail Passengers: Transport Statistics 1997/98, Department of the Environment for

Northern Ireland




The quality of a journey can be affected, positively or negatively, by travellers

themselves, by network providers and by operators. Travellers can affect journey

quality in a number of ways, the most significant influences being their choice of mode.

These choices can affect ride quality, the environmental quality that they experience e.g.

noise levels & warmth, interior decor, quality of seating, ventilation etc.

For car drivers and passengers the quality of journey can be affected by mechanical

condition and cleanliness of the vehicle and by driving style. For public transport

travellers the same factors may also be applicable. Modes considered are car, new train,

old train and bus, as the complete set of those considered within the models.

The most effective way to improve journey quality is normally to reduce travellersí

journey times. However, this sub-objective does not consider journey times or other

elements such as safety and reliability. The sub-objective focuses on measures under

the control of network providers and operators that improve en route journey quality or

journey ambience. These measures are considered under three journey ambience

factors:

(i) Traveller Care

(ii) Travellersí Views

(iii) Traveller Stress

A scoring system has been devised to identify passenger preferences with each mode in

relation to the factors/sub factors under consideration.

+ve value = good

0 = neutral



-ve value = bad

Scores are then totalled for each mode and assessment made as to the numbers of

travellers impacted, ie. to which mode (new/old trains, bus or car) current rail users (old

train) shift. Environment Journey Ambience

H2

In addition, GOMMMS defines an impact as ëlargeí if more than 10,000 passengers are

affected per day (3,000,000 p.a.); ësmallí if the figure is less than 500 per day and

ëmoderateí if between .

The relative mode weightings and scores for individual factors are contained in

Appendices H - I and H - II respectively. Weightings considered with numbers impacted

generate the overall quantitative assessment.

Key Results

The key results for the strategic modelling scenarios analyses are shown in Appendix H

- III.



Qualitative Impacts: Rail users transferring to car would benefit while

the greater number of rail users transferring to bus

would be slightly adversely affected. Overall, the

net impact is neutral.



Qualitative Impacts: Rail passengers will experience very significant

benefits. New rolling stock is the key factor and is

clearly superior to bus.

Quantitative Measure: circa 4.1 million rail passengers per annum on new

rolling stock



Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect






rolling stock







rolling stock

Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect Environment Journey Ambience

H3

Appendix H - I: Relative Mode Weighting

FACTOR SUB FACTOR NEW TRAINS OLD TRAINS BUSES CARS

TRAVELLER

CARE

Cleanliness 2 -1 0 1

Facilities 2 0 -1 1

Information 1 -1 0 1

Environment 2 -1 0 1

TRAVELLERS’

VIEWS

2 2 0 -1



TRAVELLER

STRESS

Frustration 1 0 0 -1

Fear of potential

accidents

1 0 0 -1

Route

Uncertainty

1 0 -1 1

TOTAL - 12 -1 -2 2 Environment Journey Ambience

H4

Appendix H - II: Scores for Individual Factors

FACTOR Traveller Care

SUB FACTOR Cleanliness

DESCRIPTION Internal and external cleanliness and graffiti, the

condition of the seats; tables; appropriateness of

internal lighting.

MODE SCORE

New Trains 2 Designed to be easily maintained. Will create a high visual

impact. Will have less graffiti and enhanced standards of

internal lighting. Seats will be of latest materials for a

combination of ease of cleaning and appeal.

Car 1 Personal ownership encourages cleanliness. The environment is

personally controlled and therefore likely to be acceptable.

Buses 0 Frequently have litter and graffiti due to high usage from school

children.

Old Trains -1 Permanently look worn and unclean. Seats are more likely to



be ripped and tables, where provided, are grubby.


SUB FACTOR Facilities

DESCRIPTION Types of seats; handles; luggage racks and storage;

toilets; buffet/restaurant facilities and level of staff

customer service.

MODE SCORE

New Trains 2 Comfortable, lumbar supporting and attractive seating.

Functional toilets which are acceptable to use and are accessible

to all. Customer service levels will improve due to enhanced

levels of staff morale. Luggage racks and storage facilities

would be of latest industry standard.

Cars 1 Seats are personally adjustable and generally of a high standard.

Adequate storage space. No toilets. Radio/Cassette/CD Player

normally available.

Old Trains 0 Have toilets although not desirable to use for many passengers.

Seating is spacious, with tables being provided on some trains.

Good storage facilities.

Buses -1 Relatively cramped, particularly when full or nearly full. Little

adjustment, if any, for seats. No toilet provision particularly

impacting very young, elderly and disabled on longer journeys.

Storage is limited and considered to be inconvenient. Environment Journey Ambience

H5


SUB FACTOR Information

DESCRIPTION Audibility; frequency and usefulness of on-board PA

announcements; the provision of general travel



information and customer magazines.

MODE SCORE

New Trains 1 Considered that functional PA systems would be provided.

Cars 1 Contact with radio travel news. Travel information for

motorists has improved considerably in recent years.

Buses 0 Immediate contact with driver for travel information. No

contact for delays en-route.

Old Trains -1 Conductor is frequently difficult to locate to obtain travel

information. No provision of visual displays. PA Systems are

often non-functional.


SUB FACTOR Environment

DESCRIPTION Extent of overcrowding, ventilation, temperature,

noise; overall condition and smoothness of ride.

MODE SCORE

New Trains 2 Improved ride quality resulting from upgraded track and

modern bogies on trains. Would be able to work on train.

Effective ventilation control system with moderated

temperature control. Freedom to move around at own

discretion.

Cars 1 Control own levels of temperature and ventilation. Restricted

freedom. Quality of ride dependent on quality of car and road

surface condition.

Buses 0 Frequently experience problems with ventilation and

temperature. Noise levels from other passengers is high. Close

proximity of other passenger is frequently undesirable.

Restricted freedom of movement.



Old Trains -1 Quality of ride is less than desirable. Ventilation is often

lacking and temperature control is difficult on occasions.

Freedom to move around. Environment Journey Ambience

H6

FACTOR Travellersí Views

SUB FACTOR N/A

DESCRIPTION Views of surrounding landscape and townscape.

MODE SCORE

New Trains 2 The majority of the N I Railways network provides scenic

views and virtually all passengers will have access to a good

view due to panoramic windows.

Old Trains 2 As for new trains.

Buses 0 Better potential views of surrounding landscape and townscape

than seen from a car. However, buses frequently suffer from

high levels of condensation which prohibit viewing

opportunities. Also, passengers in aisle seats have restricted

vision of external environment.

Cars -1 Since most journeys are made by single occupancy

configurations the opportunities to enjoy surrounding scenery is

very restricted. Even for passengers, the vistas are seldom as

interesting than those viewed from a train.

FACTOR Traveller Stress

SUB FACTOR Frustration

DESCRIPTION Ability to make good progress on a route relative to

delays on public transport; road layout and

geometry; condition of road network; in-vehicle

noise; night time conditions and access/egress to



mode.

MODE SCORE

New Trains 1 Greater ability to adhere to timetable. Limited influence of

factors such as time of day and prevailing weather. Enhanced

immediate access to vehicles. Not subject to road congestion.

Old Trains 0 Similar to above with exception of immediate access to

vehicles.

Buses 0 Lower levels of frustration than driving a private car. Ability to

make good progress en route subject to several other factors.

Frustration due to buses failing to stop to permit access.

Improved provision of bus priority measures will reduce levels

of frustration.

Cars -1 Significant levels of frustration due to road alignment and

traffic levels/mix reducing overtaking opportunities, and

difficult driving conditions e.g. spray on roads and dazzle from

on coming vehicles at night. Increasing levels of road

congestion will result in enhanced frustration on a progressive

basis. Incidents of road rage are becoming more common. Environment Journey Ambience

H7


SUB FACTOR Fear of Potential Accidents

DESCRIPTION Fear of accidents from other vehicles, inadequate

sight distances, contra flow traffic without physical

separation, inadequate lighting, high permissible

speeds, adverse weather conditions.

MODE SCORE

New Trains 1 Investment in new rolling stock and upgrading of infrastructure



will enhance confidence in this safe mode of travel. Dedicated

track. Excellent safety record. Considerably safer than roads.

Old Trains 0 Fear of potential accidents due to lack of investment being

highlighted and knowledge of rail accidents in Great Britain and

Europe in recent years. Dedicated track. Excellent safety

record of N I Railways.

Buses 0 Excellent safety record. Protective environment compared with

cars. Subject to road condition and other motorists. Knowledge

of bus/coach accidents through media in other parts.

Cars -1 Relatively poor safety record, particularly in Northern Ireland,

due to excessive speeding and relatively high levels of drink

driving. Night time driving is frequently difficult. Car drivers

and passengers are never in total control due to close proximity

of other drivers.


SUB FACTOR Route Uncertainty.

DESCRIPTION Provision and quality of specific route information

provided prior to commencement of journey and

en route; unfamiliarity of information; accessibility

of information; more detailed route information.

MODE SCORE

Cars 1 Drivers are in control of their own journey planning. Road sign

marking is generally of a very high standard in Northern

Ireland. Road maps are easily accessible. But, on road incidents

may contribute to detours, etc.

New Trains 1 Improved provision of in-vehicle information. Route planning

information is increasingly being made more accessible e.g.



Internet, Call Centre, bespoke timetables. Public transport

timetables have been described as the best in the United

Kingdom (Lord Dubs) and is easily understood by passengers

(source PWC). Relatively simple route network.

Old Trains 0 Little in-vehicle information. Often difficult to know exact

location of train on dark evenings. Other comments as per New

Trains. Relatively simple route network.

Buses -1 Scope for confusion due to elaborate network and routing of

some services. Route Changes due to seasonality and time of

day. Other comments as per New Trains. Environment Journey Ambience

Appendix H - III: Key Results for the Strategic Modelling Scenarios Analysis

SCENARIO 1

ENHANCEMENT

SCENARIO 2

A.D. LITTLE

SCENARIO 3

TRUNCATION

SCENARIO 4

BF/DN ONLY

COMMENTARY

• C.A. 85% of rolling

stock is new

• Impacting 85% of 8.7

million passenger

journeys (pax) i.e. 7.4

million

• New rolling stock



clearly beneficial over

car or bus or old

rolling stock

• CA 75% of rolling

stock is new


million pax i.e. 5.9

million pax



car or bus or old

rolling stock

• 60% of rolling stock

new


million pax i.e. 4.1

million



car or bus or old

rolling stock

• Base

• Movement of 5.6

million users of old

trains to cars and bus

creates an almost net

neutral impact - car



users slightly better

off, bus users worse

off.

FACTOR SUB FACTOR

TRAVELLER CARE Cleanliness Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Neutral

Facilities Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Neutral

Information Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Neutral

Environment Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Neutral

TRAVELLERS’ VIEWS

-

Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Neutral

TRAVELLER STRESS Frustration Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Neutral

Fear of potential accidents Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Neutral

Route Uncertainty Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Neutral

H8 Appendix I: Safety – Accidents Safety Accidents

I1

SAFETY OBJECTIVE

I. Accidents Sub-Objective

Data Sources



Assessment of the Impact of changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal Demand


Strategic Safety Review of Northern Ireland Railways, Arthur D Little, March 2000

Highways Economics Note No 1: 1998, Department of the Environment, Transport and

the Regions

Transport Statistics Great Britain: 1999, Department of the Environment, Transport and



the Regions

Transport Statistics: 1997/98, Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland

Road Traffic Accident Statistics: 1997/98 Annual Report, Royal Ulster Constabulary

(RUC)

Accident Records: 1997, Northern Ireland Railways (NIR), Citybus, Ulsterbus

Vehicle Kilometre of Travel Survey: 1997, Roads Service Transportation Unit


GOMMMS suggests that road accidents should be assessed using standard processes,

whilst assistance from the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority (SSRA) should be sought

where there are expected to be significant rail impacts. The standard processes for road

accidents involve:

• assessment of changes in vehicle kilometres by car and bus, by scenario under test;

• application of standard (GB research) casualty or accident rates by severity class;

• application of standard (GB research) casualty costs by severity class.

Subsequent assistance from the SSRA suggested that casualty rates per passenger km

for rail could be applied on a similar basis to that used for road accidents.

The principal effect to be included in the assessment was change in choice of mode of

travel, between the statistically safest (rail) and the less safe (bus and car). It was

considered essential that a common approach was used for rail, bus and car.

Preliminary assessment identified the following key issues affecting the approach to be

adopted:

• Northern Ireland road and rail casualty rates differ significantly from those

researched in GB;

• There were no fatalities on Northern Ireland Railways in the period 1990 ñ 1999

other than those related to trespassing, suicides / misadventure and accidents at level

crossings;

• The AD Little review confirms that risk levels at crossings currently lie within



acceptable criteria bands. Notwithstanding this, the review suggests, and hence

Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 include, significant investment to further reduce the level of

risk;

• 1997 was the latest available year at which statistics were available in Northern

Ireland. Safety Accidents

I2

It was decided that the most robust forecasts of rail casualties for each of the scenarios

would be calculated by focussing on NIR passengers and deriving a casualty rate per

million passenger kilometres. This approach excludes the casualties arising from

trespassing, suicide / misadventure and from accidents at crossings for the following

reasons:

• trespassing and suicide / misadventure ñ not under direct control of NIR or due to

level of rail operations;

• casualties at accommodation crossings and level crossings ñ assumed not to be

statistically significant as a result of the measures included in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3

(the issue does not arise in Scenario 4).

The forecasts of highway casualties have been calculated using the following approach:

• casualties attributed to bus usage = current bus driver and passenger casualty rate

per passenger kilometres multiplied by bus passenger kilometres;

• casualties attributed to car usage = current all road user casualty rate per car

driver/passenger kilometres multiplied by car driver/passenger kilometres.

It was noted that this approach introduced a degree of inconsistency between the rail

and highway casualties and between bus and car casualties and overestimated the

numbers and cost of casualties attributed to car usage. (Not all road user casualties may

be attributable to car usage, rather, a small proportion may be attributable to bus usage -

detailed statistics were not available to allow this to be calculated.) It was felt that this

inconsistency would not have a significant effect and was preferred to the alternative of



omitting pedestrian, pedal cyclist and motorcyclist / pillion passenger casualties from

the car calculation. It should be noted that published 1997 RUC accident statistics

revealed that 57 of 144 fatalities and 455 of 1548 serious injury casualties occurred to

pedestrians, pedal cyclists and motorcyclists/pillion passengers.

Key Statistics

Severity Rail Bus Car (/ Light Vehicle)

NI GB NI GB NI GB

Fatal (death within 30 days) 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.3 8.3 5.8

Serious (hospital ëin-patientí) 31.1 12.0 13.3 89.6 69.0

Slight (no hospital treatment) 66.6

66.4

462.5 200.8 636.9 442.3

Table I – 1: NI Researched Casualty Rates (per Billion passenger kilometres) - GB

shown for comparison only Safety Accidents

I3

Fatal Serious Slight

1998 values & prices £1,047,240 £117,670 £9,070

2000 values & prices £1,147,610 £128,950 £9,870

Sources: Highways Economic Note and RPI 1998 and 2000

Table I – 2: Costs per casualty All Modes

Key Results

The annual passenger kilometres by mode and the monetary values of costs of accidents

are displayed in Appendix I ñ II.


Qualitative Summary

The principal impacts arise from the transfer of travellers between modes of differing

casualty rates. Rail is the safest mode, then bus and car/light vehicle being the least



safe. The Oscar Faber estimates forecasts significant changes in modal demand

between rail and car / bus. These changes lead to savings compared to Scenario 4 ñ

Mothball, in car casualties in general, and also in minor injuries by bus. In strategic

terms, the changes from Scenario 4 - Mothball are identical for each scenario:

• Significant saving due to reduction in all casualties by car, and minor accidents

by bus.

In more detailed terms, the savings increase from Scenario 3, through 2 to 1, as

transfer from car to rail increases.


The Base case scenario involves the effective closure of local rail services and

transfer of passengers to bus services and car, with a proportion of trips

suppressed.

Qualitative Impacts: Compared to estimates of (current) 1997

accidents, the number of persons killed is forecast

to increase by 25 to 169, and all casualty

groupings by 17%. These increases are due in part

to aggregate increases in travel by bus and car and

in part to casualty rates by bus and car being

higher than rail. The estimates assume that there

will be no decrease in casualty rates over time.


Qualitative Impacts: Significant saving due to reduction in all casualties

by car, and minor accidents by bus

Quantitative Measure: Reduction of 114 casualties in 2010

Assessment Score: Present Value Benefit £45M







Assessment Score: Present Value Benefit £47M Safety Accidents

I4





Assessment Score: Present Value Benefit £58M Safety Accidents

I5

Appendix I – I: Derivation of Casualty Rates

Rail – 1997 Figures

Casualties (Source Translink)

Fatal 0.11* *Previous fatality in 1990 equates to 0.11 fatalities per year

Serious 7

Minor 15

Passenger Miles (Source Transport Statistics ñ Table 3.2)

140.1 million miles. Converts to 225.4 million kms

Accident Rates

Fatal 0.11/0.2254 = 0.49 (GB 0.6)

Serious 7/0.2254 = 31.06 (GB N/A)

Minor 15/0.2254 = 66.55 (GB 66.4)

Bus – 1997 Figures

Casualties (Source RUC Central Statistics Unit 1997 Serious & Minor. Fatal info )

Fatal 0.08* *Previous fatality in 1987 equates to 0.08 fatalities per year.

Serious 7



Minor 271

Passenger Miles (Source Translink)

Ulsterbus 299244904 miles

Citybus 67070864 miles

Total 366,315,768 miles converts to 586,105,228 Pass.kms (0.586 billion

passenger kms)

Accident Rates

Fatal 0.08/0.586 = 0.14 (GB 0.3)

Serious 7/0.586 = 11.95 (GB 13.3)

Minor 271/0.586 = 462.46 (GB 200.8)

Car – 1997 Figures

Casualties (Source RUC Traffic Statistics 1997 Table 8)

Fatal 144

Serious 1548

Minor 11006

Passenger Kilometres (Source Vehicle Kilometres of Travel Report 1997)

Vehicle Kilometres = 13.295 billion kms multiplied by 1.3 to convert to Passenger Kms

= 17.28

Accident Rates

Fatal 144/17.28 = 8.33 (GB 5.84)

Serious 1548/17.28 = 89.58 (GB 69.00)

Minor 11006/17.28 = 636.92 (GB 442.25) Safety Accidents

I6

Appendix I – II

Annual Passenger Kilometres by Mode (Billion)

Rail Bus Car (/ Light Vehicle) Total

1997 Surveyed 0.23 0.59 17.28 18.10



2010 Scenario 1 ñ Enhancement 0.51 0.62 20.00 21.13

2010 Scenario 2 ñ AD Little 0.47 0.63 20.03 21.13

2010 Scenario 3 ñ Truncation 0.20 0.65 20.09 20.94

2010 Scenario 4 ñ Closure 0.00 0.74 20.21 20.95

Monetary Values of Costs of Accidents

(£M 2000 prices Present Values over 30 years)

Year and Scenario Rail Bus Car (/ Light Vehicle) Total

Scenario 1 ñ Enhancement 42 67 8234 8344

(1)

Scenario 2 ñ AD Little 38 68 8249 8355

Scenario 3 ñ Truncation 17 71 8270 8357

(1)

Scenario 4 ñ Mothball 0 80 8322 8402

(1): numbers do not total due to roundingSafety Accidents

I7

Appendix I – III: Costs

2000

RPI

1.0478821

INPUT RATES/kmB 2000

Values

1.0457721 MODEL INPUTS Trains Buses Cars Total

Trains Buses Cars INPUT 1998 COMPUTED 2000 1996 paxkmB 0.23 0.59 17.28 18.10

Killed 0.49 0.14 8.33 COSTS &

VALUES

COSTS &

VALUES



Model 1996 116960 237523 4902062 5256545

Seriously Injured 31.1 12.0 89.6 PER

CASUALTY(£M)

PER

CASUALTY(£M)

Model Scenario 1 266819 251605 5672172 6190596

Other Injury 66.6 462.5 636.9 1.047240 1.147614 Model Scenario 2 241560 256008 5682043

6179611

0.117670 0.128948 Model Scenario 3 106023 263926 5696818 6066767

0.009007 0.009870 Model Scenario 4 0 298384 5732866 6031250

1996 Estimate 1996

Passengers Trains Buses Cars Total Pax est Trains Buses Cars Total

Killed 0.1 0.1 144.0 144.2 0.23 0.59 17.28 18.10

Seriously Injured 7.0 7.0 1548.3 1562.3

Other Injury 15.0 271.1 11007.9 11293.9

13000.3

Scenario 1 Scenario 1 ESTIMATE


Killed 0.3 0.1 166.6 166.9 0.51 0.62 20.00 21.13


Other Injury 34.2 287.1 12737.2 13058.5

15040.4



Killed 0.2 0.1 166.9 167.2 0.47 0.63 20.03 21.13




Other Injury 31.0 292.1 12759.4 13082.5

15066.3



Killed 0.1 0.1 167.3 167.5 0.20 0.65 20.09 20.94


Other Injury 13.6 301.2 12792.5 13107.3

15088.2



Killed 0.0 0.1 168.4 168.5 0.00 0.74 20.21 20.95


Other Injury 0.0 340.5 12873.5 13214.0

15201.9

1996 Estimate

Casualty Costs Trains Buses Cars Total

Killed 0.127 0.094 165.224 165.445


Other Injury 0.148 2.675 108.651 111.474

Total 1.178 3.673 473.519 478.370

Scenario 1 cf 4 Scenario 1

Passengers Trains Buses Cars Total Cost (£m) Casualty Costs Trains Buses Cars Total

Killed 0.3 0.0 -1.8 -1.5 -1.8 Killed 0.289 0.100 191.180 191.569



Seriously Injured 16.0 -1.4 -19.2 -4.6 -0.6 Seriously Injured 2.060 0.957 231.009 234.026

Other Injury 34.2 -53.4 -136.3 -155.4 -1.5 Other Injury 0.338 2.834 125.720 128.892

-161.6 -3.9 Total 2.688 3.890 547.909 554.487



Killed 0.2 0.0 -1.5 -1.3 -1.5 Killed 0.262 0.101 191.513 191.876



-135.6 -3.1 Total 2.433 3.958 548.862 555.254



Killed 0.1 0.0 -1.1 -1.0 -1.1 Killed 0.115 0.105 192.011 192.231



-113.7 -2.9 Total 1.068 4.081 550.289 555.438



Killed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Killed 0.000 0.118 193.226 193.344

Seriously Injured 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Seriously Injured 0.000 1.135 233.481 234.615

Other Injury 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Injury 0.000 3.361 127.065 130.426

0.0 0.0 Total 0.000 4.614 553.772 558.385 Safety Accidents

Appendix I – IV: Discounting

MODEL INPUTS Trains Buses Cars Total

Model 1996 116960 237523 4902062 5256545



2010 AD Little (no sparkle) 166010 433474 5964637 6564121 1.0253 1.0439 1.0141 1.0160

Annual Growth Rates

casualties 1.0253 1.0439 1.0141 1.0253 1.0439 1.0141 1.0253 1.0439 1.0141 1.0253 1.0439 1.0141

costs 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210

combined 1.0469 1.0658 1.0354 1.0469 1.0658 1.0354 1.0469 1.0658 1.0354 1.0469 1.0658 1.0354

Undiscounted Costs (2000 Prices, inflated values)

Year Scenario 4 Base Scenario 1 Enhancement Scenario 2 AD Little Scenario 3 Truncation

rail bus car rail bus car rail bus car rail bus car

2001 0.000 2.600 404.878 1.780 2.192 400.592 1.611 2.230 401.288 0.707 2.299 402.332

2002 0.000 2.771 419.215 1.863 2.336 414.776 1.687 2.377 415.498 0.740 2.451 416.578

2003 0.000 2.953 434.058 1.951 2.490 429.463 1.766 2.533 430.210 0.775 2.612 431.328

2004 0.000 3.147 449.428 2.042 2.654 444.670 1.848 2.700 445.443 0.811 2.784 446.601

2005 0.000 3.355 465.342 2.138 2.828 460.415 1.935 2.878 461.216 0.849 2.967 462.415

2006 0.000 3.575 481.819 2.238 3.014 476.718 2.026 3.067 477.547 0.889 3.162 478.788

2007 0.000 3.811 498.879 2.343 3.213 493.597 2.121 3.269 494.456 0.931 3.371 495.742

2008 0.000 4.062 516.544 2.453 3.424 511.075 2.220 3.484 511.964 0.975 3.592 513.295

2009 0.000 4.329 534.834 2.568 3.650 529.172 2.324 3.714 530.092 1.020 3.829 531.470

2010 0.000 4.614 553.772 2.688 3.890 547.909 2.433 3.958 548.862 1.068 4.081 550.289

2011 0.000 4.918 573.380 2.814 4.146 567.310 2.547 4.219 568.297 1.118 4.350 569.774

2012 0.000 5.241 593.683 2.946 4.419 587.397 2.666 4.496 588.419 1.170 4.636 589.949

2013 0.000 5.586 614.705 3.084 4.710 608.197 2.791 4.792 609.254 1.225 4.941 610.838

2014 0.000 5.954 636.471 3.228 5.020 629.732 2.922 5.108 630.827 1.283 5.266 632.467

2015 0.000 6.346 659.007 3.380 5.350 652.030 3.059 5.444 653.164 1.343 5.613 654.862

2016 0.000 6.764 682.342 3.538 5.703 675.118 3.202 5.802 676.292 1.406 5.983 678.050

2017 0.000 7.209 706.503 3.704 6.078 699.023 3.353 6.184 700.238 1.472 6.376 702.059



2018 0.000 7.684 731.519 3.877 6.478 723.774 3.510 6.591 725.033 1.541 6.796 726.918

2019 0.000 8.190 757.421 4.059 6.905 749.402 3.674 7.025 750.706 1.613 7.244 752.657

2020 0.000 8.729 784.241 4.249 7.359 775.937 3.846 7.488 777.287 1.688 7.720 779.308

2021 0.000 9.303 812.010 4.449 7.843 803.412 4.027 7.981 804.810 1.767 8.229 806.902

2022 0.000 9.916 840.762 4.657 8.360 831.860 4.215 8.506 833.307 1.850 8.770 835.474

2023 0.000 10.568 870.532 4.875 8.910 861.315 4.413 9.066 862.814 1.937 9.348 865.057

2024 0.000 11.264 901.357 5.104 9.497 891.813 4.620 9.663 893.365 2.028 9.963 895.687

2025 0.000 12.006 933.272 5.343 10.122 923.391 4.836 10.299 924.998 2.123 10.619 927.403

2026 0.000 12.796 966.318 5.593 10.788 956.088 5.063 10.977 957.751 2.222 11.318 960.241

2027 0.000 13.638 1000.535 5.855 11.498 989.941 5.300 11.699 991.663 2.326 12.063 994.242

2028 0.000 14.536 1035.962 6.130 12.255 1024.994 5.548 12.469 1026.777 2.435 12.857 1029.446

2029 0.000 15.493 1072.644 6.417 13.062 1061.288 5.808 13.290 1063.134 2.550 13.703 1065.898

2030 0.000 16.513 1110.625 6.718 13.922 1098.867 6.080 14.165 1100.778 2.669 14.605 1103.640

Total 0.000 227.870 21042.057 112.084 192.114 20819.277 101.451 195.472 20855.488 44.533

201.547 20909.711

I8 Safety Accidents

Annual Discount Rate

0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943

Present Value Discounted Costs (2000 Prices and Values)

Year Scenario 4 Base Scenario 1 Enhancement Scenario 2 AD Little Scenario 3 Truncation

rail bus car rail bus car rail bus car rail bus car

2001 0.000 2.452 381.961 1.679 2.068 377.917 1.520 2.104 378.574 0.667 2.169 379.558

2002 0.000 2.466 373.099 1.658 2.079 369.149 1.501 2.115 369.791 0.659 2.181 370.753

2003 0.000 2.479 364.444 1.638 2.090 360.585 1.483 2.127 361.212 0.651 2.193 362.152

2004 0.000 2.493 355.989 1.618 2.102 352.220 1.464 2.139 352.833 0.643 2.205 353.750



2005 0.000 2.507 347.730 1.598 2.113 344.049 1.446 2.150 344.647 0.635 2.217 345.543

2006 0.000 2.521 339.663 1.578 2.125 336.067 1.428 2.162 336.652 0.627 2.229 337.527

2007 0.000 2.534 331.783 1.558 2.137 328.271 1.410 2.174 328.841 0.619 2.242 329.696

2008 0.000 2.548 324.086 1.539 2.148 320.655 1.393 2.186 321.213 0.611 2.254 322.048

2009 0.000 2.562 316.568 1.520 2.160 313.216 1.376 2.198 313.761 0.604 2.266 314.576

2010 0.000 2.576 309.223 1.501 2.172 305.950 1.359 2.210 306.482 0.596 2.279 307.279

2011 0.000 2.591 302.050 1.482 2.184 298.852 1.342 2.222 299.372 0.589 2.291 300.150

2012 0.000 2.605 295.042 1.464 2.196 291.919 1.325 2.234 292.426 0.582 2.304 293.187

2013 0.000 2.619 288.198 1.446 2.208 285.146 1.309 2.247 285.642 0.574 2.317 286.385

2014 0.000 2.634 281.512 1.428 2.220 278.531 1.292 2.259 279.016 0.567 2.329 279.741

2015 0.000 2.648 274.981 1.410 2.233 272.069 1.276 2.272 272.543 0.560 2.342 273.251

2016 0.000 2.663 268.601 1.393 2.245 265.758 1.261 2.284 266.220 0.553 2.355 266.912

2017 0.000 2.677 262.370 1.375 2.257 259.592 1.245 2.297 260.044 0.547 2.368 260.720

2018 0.000 2.692 256.283 1.358 2.270 253.570 1.230 2.309 254.011 0.540 2.381 254.671

2019 0.000 2.707 250.338 1.342 2.282 247.687 1.214 2.322 248.118 0.533 2.394 248.763

2020 0.000 2.722 244.530 1.325 2.295 241.941 1.199 2.335 242.362 0.526 2.407 242.992

2021 0.000 2.737 238.857 1.309 2.307 236.328 1.184 2.348 236.739 0.520 2.420 237.355

2022 0.000 2.752 233.316 1.292 2.320 230.845 1.170 2.360 231.247 0.513 2.434 231.848

2023 0.000 2.767 227.903 1.276 2.333 225.490 1.155 2.373 225.882 0.507 2.447 226.469

2024 0.000 2.782 222.616 1.261 2.345 220.259 1.141 2.386 220.642 0.501 2.461 221.216

2025 0.000 2.797 217.451 1.245 2.358 215.149 1.127 2.400 215.523 0.495 2.474 216.084

2026 0.000 2.813 212.406 1.229 2.371 210.158 1.113 2.413 210.523 0.488 2.488 211.071

2027 0.000 2.828 207.479 1.214 2.384 205.282 1.099 2.426 205.639 0.482 2.501 206.174

2028 0.000 2.844 202.665 1.199 2.397 200.520 1.085 2.439 200.869 0.476 2.515 201.391

2029 0.000 2.859 197.964 1.184 2.411 195.868 1.072 2.453 196.209 0.471 2.529 196.719

2030 0.000 2.875 193.371 1.170 2.424 191.324 1.059 2.466 191.657 0.465 2.543 192.155

Total 0.000 79.749 8322.478 42.289 67.235 8234.365 38.277 68.411 8248.687 16.802 70.5378270.133



Total All Modes 8402.227 8343.890 8355.375 8357.472

Total cf Base 0.000 -58.338 -46.852 -44.755

I9 Appendix J: Safety – Security Safety Security

J1

SAFETY OBJECTIVE

J. Security Sub-Objective

Data Sources





Personal Security on Public Transport, DETR, September 1996

Women and Public Transport, DETR, May 2000

Secure Stations Scheme, DETR, April 1998


GOMMMS appraisal methodology was reviewed in respect of above sub-objective.

The formats of Table 5.1 and Worksheet 5.1 were considered to be more appropriate for

interchange security assessment and less suitable for journey types security assessment.

Furthermore, specific interchange security measures would be considered under the

ìTransport Integrationî objective.

The approach taken was to identify a range of primary journey types with each being

analysed to assess the relative security deficit of key elements of that journey type. The

attached table (Appendix J - I) schedules each primary journey type by element and

assigns to each element the considered security deficit on a scale of 1 (low security

deficit, i.e. ìsafestî) to 10.

As an example, a station halt is considered to offer the highest security deficit due to

seclusion, absence of alternative departure routes (escape routes) and lack of passing



traffic. A station halt has a higher security deficit when used as a waiting point prior to

boarding a train compared to use when alighting from a train and not waiting. Security

deficit scores for other elements of journey types were similarly assigned.

The total assessed change in security deficit for scenarios is the product of the

respective difference in modal shift indices (detailed in Chapter 5.4) for those scenarios

compared to Scenario 4 by the value of security deficits for each mode of travel (see

Appendix J -II). This scoring process identifies car travel to offer the most secure travel

option (average score 9.0 units) with bus and rail averaging 13.5 units and 15.0 units

respectively. These are ranking scores only and are not intended to be quantitative

security measures. No reliable data is known to exist to confirm the number of offvehicle

incidents/assaults per journey type. Numbers of incidents are considered to be

very low for all aspects and the resultant scores simply show a comparative ranking of

perceived security deficits which cannot be easily quantified. In terms of reporting these

assessments on the Appraisal Summary Table (AST) any changes in total passenger

security offered between test models are therefore considered as marginal.

Key Results

The values shown in the table represent small but increasing security deficits for

Scenarios 3, 2, and 1 respectively. However, since most rail trips are in the peak periods

when passenger flows are highest, the changes in security deficits between scenarios are Safety

Security

J2

not significantly different. It is not considered that even the greatest overall value of

security deficit (that related to Scenario 1) would require specific mitigating measures

or changes to policy. It is also considered that changes significantly in excess of those

shown would be required to trigger a change in the overall scores in the AST.

GOMMMS suggests that the estimated number of users affected should be entered in

the Quantitative column of the AST. These values have been determined by expanding

projected AM Peak Period rail passenger flows based to Average 12-hour (0700hrs-





periods when passenger flows are highest, the

change in security deficit is not significantly

different.

Quantitative Measure: Approximately 21,800 rail users affected per

average 12-hour weekday.



Qualitative Impacts: Rail trips have a slightly greater security deficit

than bus trips, which have a greater security deficit

than car trips. Since most rail trips occur at peak Safety Security

J3

periods when passenger flows are highest, the

change in security deficit is not significantly

different.

Quantitative Measure: Approximately 24,150 rail users affected per

average 12-hour weekday.

Assessment Score: Neutral Safety Security

J4

Appendix J - I: Identification of Trip Types and Security Deficits

MAIN TRIP TYPES

LEGEND

Car Park/ing

Space 4 (1)

Drive 2 Walk 3

Origin



Home

--------

Other

Walk 4 Bus Stop 5

Bus Ride 2

Bus Stop /

Station 0 (3) Walk 3

Walk 3

Walk 4

Main Station 3

Railway Halt 8 (4)

Rail Ride 3

Rail Ride 3

Main Station

/ Halt 1

Main Station

/ Halt 1

Drive 2 Main Station 3 Rail Ride 3 Main Station 1

Walk 3

Walk 3

Walk 3

Walk 3

Walk 3

Walk 3

Walk 3

Walk 3

Bus Stop/



Station 4

Main Station

/ Halt 4

Main Station

/ Halt 4

Main Station 3

Bus Ride 2

Rail Ride 3

Rail Ride 3

Rail Ride 3

Bus Stop 0

Main Station 0

Railway Halt 4

Main Station 0

Walk 4

Walk 3

Walk 4

Drive 2

Car Park/ing

Space 4

Drive 2

Dest'n

Other

--------

Home

9

14



13

19

12

13

16

18

11

9

Walk 4

Main Station

/ Halt 1 (4)

= Mode or Interchange / Perceived Security Deficit / Note 9 = Total

perceived Safety Security

J5

Appendix J – II: Assessment of Security Deficits for Scenarios

(Changes in Oscar Faber indices x modal security deficit)


Rail 1.236 x 15 = 18.54

Bus -0.133 x 13.5 = -1.80

Car -0.007 x 9 = -0.06

Total 16.68 units




Rail 1.401 x 15 = 21.02

Bus -0.145 x 13.5 = -1.96

Car -0.009 x 9 = -0.08

Total 18.98 units


Rail 1.558 x 15 = 23.37

Bus -0.157 x 13.5 = -2.12

Car -0.01 x 9 = -0.09

Total 21.16 units

NOTES:

- Value of perceived security deficit (psd) reflects high value for multi-storey car parks;

- Walk to bus stop / railway halt perceived to be slightly higher risk than other walk trips;

- No waiting involved;

- psd reflects remoteness of railway halts when used for waiting before boarding as opposed to

alighting;

- psd is highest for remote locations, principally during hours of darkness;

- None of the scenarios under test include any explicit measures to improve security (other than

possibly at interchanges,

and this will be addressed by the Integration ñ Transport Interchange sub-objective appraisal.

- Perceived Security Deficit Value by travel mode: Car = 9 Bus = 13.5 Rail = 15

Appendix K: Economy – Transport Economic Efficiency Economy Transport Economic Efficiency

K1

ECONOMY OBJECTIVE

K. Transport Economic Efficiency Sub-Objective

Data Sources

Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department for

the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000.





NISTRM (2010) Model outputs

Highways Economics Note 2 (HEN2) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB)

Volume 13, Section2, DETR.

Common Appraisal Framework for Urban Transport Projects MVA et al, Feb 1994


The assessment of the achievement of the transport economic efficiency sub-objective is

made by conducting a "Transport" Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). In general, CBA can

be defined as an "analysis, which seeks to quantify in money terms as many of the costs

and benefits of a proposal as possible.

In the past, cost benefit analysis of transport schemes (particularly road schemes) has

been based on an assumption that the total travel demand on each mode of transport

remains constant for every origin-destination pair (O-D pair) being considered. In this

ëFixed Matrixí world it is relatively simple to assess traveller benefits, simply by

estimating the time and money spend travelling in the Base case scenario and

comparing it with the corresponding time and money ëconsumptioní in the Do

Something scenario.

However, where multi-modal modelling is required, and in particular where the demand

for travel may change in response to the transport scenario being tested (e.g. due to trip

generation/suppression/redistribution effects), a more-sophisticated approach is

required. The analysis used was the so-called Common Appraisal Framework (CAF)

methodology developed especially to handle multi-modal and variable demand

situations (Ref. ëCommon Appraisal Framework for Urban Transport Projectsí), as

implemented in MVAís TREVAL software suite. Note that this methodology is almost

identical to the so-called ëSugden Approachí which is currently being developed by the

DETR for multi-modal assessment in the UK. CAF and Sugden implement the same



concepts, but differ in the way results are presented.

The relevant inputs to the CAF methodology (money and time costs for each O-D pair,

travel demand etc) have been derived using the NISTRM multi-modal strategic model

of Northern Ireland amended to incorporate modal splits derived from Oscar Faber

Elasticity Model and Review.

The base scenario for the cost benefit analysis is Scenario 4, in which the existing rail

services (other than cross-Border), are ëmothballedí and replaced by a quality bus

service. The aim is to estimate and compare the net costs and benefits of replacing these

substitute bus services with the ënewí rail services in Scenarios 3,2 and1. Economy Transport

Economic Efficiency

K2

The costs include the additional capital investment costs and the operating costs of the

alternative scenarios. The benefits include traveller benefits, revenue impacts for the

public transport operator (Translink) and the secondary impacts on Government (e.g.

the effects on indirect tax revenues from changes in traveller expenditure, changes in

fuel duty etc).

Traveller benefits include both time and monetary aspects of the journey costs. Journey

times include time to access the public transport network, the time spent waiting for the

service (which is a function of service frequency), the time actually spent in the vehicle

(bus, car or train) and the inconvenience penalty (as derived from research) of

transferring between vehicles in multi-leg journeys. Money benefits consist of changes

in ëUser Chargesí which include public transport fares, road tolls (if any) and, in theory,

car park charges. (In practice, while the effect of car parking charges is included in both

the mode-choice decision and the destination choice within the NISTRM model, the

effect of changes in car parking charges are omitted from the economic assessment

carried out here. Given the fact that changes in car park charges paid by travellers will



appear as equal but opposite public or private sector revenues, this omission will have

little effect on the conclusions reached.)

Note that under the GOMMMS AST methodology, road accident/road safety impacts

are assessed elsewhere and are therefore not included in the standard Transport

Economic Efficiency (TEE) table cost benefit analysis.

It should be noted that the substitute bus services have been estimated on the basis of

predicted 2010 train passenger flows and have therefore been constructed to replace, as

closely as possible, the main pattern of rail movements. However, the following

differences between bus and train options will affect the travellers journey and hence

their mode-choice and their travel benefits/disbenefits.

Frequency ñ in order to deliver the seating capacity implied by the forecast 2010 rail

flows on busy rail corridors, multiple buses are usually required ñ these have been

assumed to be evenly spaced, resulting in a more frequent bus service. Re-introducing

the train in these corridors will therefore have the effect of reducing service frequency

and hence will increase traveller wait-times. (It is recognised, however, that commuters

wishing to travel (and arrive) at specific times may feel that the provision of services

allowing them to do this is a more important issue than frequency of service.)

Fare – the substitute bus fare is often lower than the corresponding train fare.

However, where a 2-stage bus journey (or a feeder bus/rail journey) is replaced by a

single train journey, then the effect of re-introducing rail may be to reduce the relevant

fares. There are also a number of corridors where the current rail fare is lower than the

corresponding modelled bus fare. It has been assumed for modelling purposes that the

fare structure will remain unchanged in real terms. However, it is recognised that on

some routes fares are comparatively low and there could be potential for increases in the

future - particularly if better quality services are introduced.

Journey time – the actual journey time of the bus and rail services will differ ñ where



there is significant congestion and the train route is direct, the in-vehicle section of the

train journey will generally be significantly less than the bus, and probably the car,

alternatives. Economy Transport Economic Efficiency

K3

Perceived Attractiveness of New Rail Rolling Stock ñThe three rail scenarios

modelled here assume (and pay for) new rail rolling stock. The Oscar Faber work has

included a ësparkle effectí equivalent to a 15% fare reduction in deriving the patronage

on improved rail services. This figure of 15% was derived from GB research and takes

account of:

• rolling stock ;

• N. Ireland values of time and fares paid;

• track upgrade; and

• other packaged improvements such as station facilities and marketing.

The Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) Tables

The Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) tables (Appendix K - I) aim to summarise

and present the results of the transport cost/benefit analyses.

The TEE tables present the results disaggregated by group (i.e. users, operators and

others), by mode of transport (car,bus, rail) and by impact (time, vehicle operating costs,

etc). All the impacts in the TEE table are expressed in money terms.

A TEE table has been completed for Scenarios 1,2 and 3. In common with the AST, the

TEE tables show the changes brought about by the scenario in question, relative to the

base ñ in this case, relative to Scenario 4.

All entries in the TEE table are present values ñ that is, streams of costs and benefits

occurring over the appraisal period (30 years) discounted to a common base year (Year

2000). The discount rate used to discount future costs and benefits is 6% - Treasury's

recommended discount rate. The discount rate is the annual percentage rate at which the



present value of a future pound is assumed to fall away through time.

The most important figures contained in the TEE table are the Totals for Net Present

Value (NPV) and Present Value of Costs (PVC). These summarise, in monetary terms,

the overall impact of the scenario relative to the base scenario and these two figures will

feed directly into the final Appraisal Summary Table.

All of the individual impact values in each of the three Groups (User Benefits, Translink

Impacts and other Government Impacts) feed into these two values.

The total NPV is simply the sum of the ëNet Impactsí for each Group. The PVC total is

the present value of the costs i.e. the 30 year sum of the operating costs and investment

costs.

Each of the individual terms used in the TEE is explained below:

1. User Benefits Group

The phrase user benefits in the TEE table is used to denote user benefits net of the costs

incurred by users. This Group consists of present value impact cells for Travel Time,

Vehicle Operating Costs and User Charges. A negative value for any particular cell

indicates that users will incur a disbenefit, i.e. they will be made worse off compared to

the base case, if this scenario is adopted.Economy Transport Economic Efficiency

K4

Traveller and non-traveller benefits/disbenefits have been calculated on the basis of

outputs derived from NISTRM amended to incorporate modal splits derived from the

Oscar Faber Elasticity Model and Review (OFR). The scale of these benefits/disbenefits

depends on the modal shifts from car and bus to rail.

Travel Time

The economic benefit or disbenefit accruing to passengers arising from the

implementation of varying levels of rail service is estimated in terms of the value to the

passengers of the time saved, or lost, travelling to and from locations relative to the time

which the journey would take under Scenario 4. The so-called ëRule of a Halfí is used



to cancel the effects created purely by any changes in the travel demand ñ GOMMMS,

Volume 2, Appendix F4.7. The values of time adopted for quantifying working and

non-working time for the various travel modes are those given in DETR's Highways

Economics Note 2.

Vehicle Operating Costs

The use of the road system by private cars and lorries gives rise to vehicle operating

costs for the user. These include the obvious costs of fuel, oil and tyres and an element

of vehicle maintenance. These vehicle operating costs are derived using a U-shaped

relationship between cost and speed, so that increases in traffic levels can either increase

or decrease VOC depending on whether the effect is to reduce speeds from efficient

medium to less-efficient slow speeds or from inefficient high speeds to more-efficient

medium speeds. The parameters used in this relationship are set out in the methodology

outlined in the DETR Highways Economics Note 2.

User Charges

The TEE table entries for User Charges cover the monetary aspects of travel costs and

include road-user charges (if any), car parking charges and public transport fares.

However, since none of the tests involve introduction of road-user charges or changes in

car parking charges, these are omitted from the economic analysis (though they are

taken account of in the mode-choice and destination-choice). Therefore, in the

scenarios, this category of benefit relates purely to public transport fares. The Common

Appraisal Framework assesses traveller benefit as the so-called consumer surplus (the

benefit which a consumer enjoys, in excess of the costs which he or she perceives),

rather than simply the total amount of money spent on fares. As a result, traveller

benefits will only be generated for travellers moving from A to B if the Do Something

scenario results in a change in the monetary cost of the best public transport path from

A to B. This remains true even if the number of travellers moving between A and B by

public transport changes between the Base and Do Something scenarios.



A net benefit in the User Charges public transport cell of the TEE table implies that the

set of best paths through the Do Something public transport network is, on average,

cheaper (i.e. incurs lower fares) than through the corresponding Base Case network.

The number in the TEE table is, of course, a weighted sum of all A to B movements.

Some of these will incur more expensive journeys (e.g. where the rail fare is higher than

the bus fare) and for others the journey will be cheaper (either because the Base Case

scenario involves a two-leg public transport journey or because the rail fare is lower

than the corresponding bus fare). Economy Transport Economic Efficiency

K5

2. Translink Impacts Group

ëTranslink Impactsí in the TEE table provides details of the impacts on the transport

provider ñ Translink. This Group consists of present value impact cells to record

changes in Revenue, Operating Costs and Investment Costs. A negative value for any

particular cell indicates that Translink will incur a disbenefit, i.e. they will be made

worse off compared to the base case, if the scenario is adopted.

Revenues

Revenues are related to the user charges discussed earlier, since user charges (fares,

tolls etc) represent money transfers from users to operators which become revenues

from the operators point of view. Under fixed matrix assumptions the user benefit (in

terms of reductions in money spent on fares) appears as a corresponding Public

Transport (PT) Operator disbenefit (in terms of loss of revenue), though the traveller

benefit is deflated to take account of indirect taxation which appears as a corresponding

Government impact. Under variable matrix assumptions the situation is more

complicated for the traveller benefit calculation but remains as simply the net change in

public transport fare revenue for the PT Operator.

Note that trips which switch from bus to rail will result in a decrease in bus revenue and

an increase in rail revenue and vice versa. The methodology used to derive the



economic analysis makes it difficult to accurately identify these sub-mode revenues

separately (though the combined PT Operator revenue is correct and consistent). This

difficulty is primarily because the assessment of fares for each A to B movement is

based on the best public transport path through the network which may be by bus, rail or

a combination of the two. While the model endeavours to label public transport

travellers by their main-sub-mode this is only approximate. Accordingly, bus and rail

revenues have been combined in the TEE tables under a ëPublic Transportí heading.

The ëOtherí revenue impacts shown in the TEE tables are associated with elements such

as advertising, parcels and rail freight revenues which do not come directly from the

model.

The economics calculated here adopts a theoretical ëbroad brushí approach in order to

establish the costs and benefits of each of the scenarios. The approach uses common

general assumptions about the provision and operation of each scenario and provides a

common appraisal of all modes of transport. This is an appropriate approach for the

relative comparison of the 4 strategic scenarios.

The modal split forecasts and economic analysis are largely based on a ësnap shotí of

2010 conditions and therefore ignore both the effects of construction and the subsequent

profile of patronage build-up/loss over time. The economic assessment model used is

also unable to accurately disaggregate the revenue effects between bus and rail services.

It is therefore not practicable to compare directly the disaggregated results in the TEE

tables with the more detailed financial analyses presented elsewhere in the report.

Operating Costs

All costs, other than investment costs (see next definition), have been recorded in the

"Operating Costs" row of the TEE table. These include the following: Economy Transport Economic

Efficiency

K6

♦ Rail infrastructure running costs

♦ Rolling stock overhaul and maintenance costs



♦ Operating and maintenance costs associated with bus substitution

♦ Running costs associated with Park & Ride schemes Scenario 1

♦ Marketing, HR Costs etc.

Full details for each scenario are provided in Appendix K - II.

Investment Costs

The full investment costs for each scenario and the assumptions associated with these

costs are detailed in Appendix K - II.

All costs associated with the various scenarios have been provided by Translink. As for

other entries, the investment and operating costs recorded in the TEE tables are present

values assessed over a 30-year period, discounted to Year 2000 using a 6% real discount

rate.

3. Other Government Impacts

ëOther Government Impactsí in the TEE table consists of Grant Subsidy Payments and

Indirect Tax Revenue.

Indirect tax revenues come from fuel duty and from VAT on non-travel-related

purchases incurred by travellers spending their money on consumer goods rather than

on PT fares.


Overall Net Present Value of Scenarios

The results of the Oscar Faber transport CBA for Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 are illustrated in

the TEE tables - Appendix K - I. The incidence and magnitude of the costs of each

scenario over the 30-year appraisal period are illustrated in Appendix K -III.

An incremental approach has been adopted and the present values presented in the TEE

tables represent increases or decreases in net present values brought about by each

scenario relative to the base case. Table K - 1 summarises the NPV positions relative to

the base.

Scenario 1



£m

Scenario 2

£m

Scenario 3

£m

Net Present Values -264.4 -197.8 -209.5

30-year present values in 2000 prices and values

Table K - 1: NPV Positions relative to the Base Case

The negative NPVs associated with each of the scenarios indicate that the transport

economic efficiency objective is best achieved through the base scenario, i.e. the Economy

Transport Economic Efficiency

K7

economic benefits calculated by the model for Scenario 1,2 and 3 do not meet the

operating and investment costs required to provide them.

The most efficient of these scenarios, in terms of the least-negative NPV, is Scenario 2.

The primary factors impacting on the ranking of NPVs are Operating Costs and

Investment Costs. As the rail network grows, both these factors become larger and more

negative due to the increased investment and operating costs. The decline in bus costs

cannot offset these increasing rail costs, as bus costs are much lower in absolute terms.

This is illustrated in Table K - 2.

Scenario 1

Present Value £m

Scenario 2

Present Value £m

Scenario 3

Present Value £m

Operating Costs:

Rail -301.8 -265.6 -229.4



Bus 71.3 68.2 48.0

Net Impact (Op) -230.5 -197.4 -181.4

Investment Costs

Rail -252.4 -191.6 -137.2

Bus 15.1 14.7 10.1

Net Impact (In) -237.2 -176.9 -127.1

TOTAL (Op+In) -467.7 -374.3 -308.6


Table K - 2: Operating Costs and Investment Costs

(Full details of the operating and investment costs over the 30-Year period for each

scenario are provided in Appendix K - II. The impact of discounting these costs to Year

2000 prices is given in Appendix K - III.)


This section aims to compare Scenarios 1,2 and 3 to the base - Scenario 4.

In all cases where rail services are ëmothballedí they are assumed to be replaced by

express bus services with sufficient capacity to meet the corresponding rail demands.

Scenario 3 Compared to Scenario 4

The NPV for Scenario 3 is -£209.5m when compared to Scenario 4; i.e. it would cost an

additional £209.5m in NPV terms to provide the truncated network. This consists of

increased Operating Costs (-£181.4m), increased Investment Costs (-£127.1m), an

increase in Revenue (£103.3m), positive User Benefits (£14.2m) and negative Indirect

Tax Revenues (-£18.5m).


The NPV for Scenario 2 is -£197.8m when compared to Scenario 4. This consists of

increased Operating Costs (-£197.4m), increased Investment Costs (-£176.9m), an EconomyTransport Economic Efficiency



K8

increase in Revenue (£181.9m), positive User Benefits (£26.7m) and negative Indirect



The NPV for Scenario 1 is -£264.4m when compared to Scenario 4. This consists of

increased Operating Costs (-£230.5m), increased Investment Costs (-£237.2m), an

increase in Revenue (£203.1m), positive User Benefits (£36.4) and negative Indirect


Detailed Assessment of Separate Impacts

1. User Benefits

The user benefits/disbenefits attributed to specific scenarios as illustrated in the TEE

tables are discussed below.

Travel Time

Table K - 3 summarises the net impact on travel time, disaggregated by transport

modes, for each of the scenarios.

Travel Time

Benefits

Car Users

£m

Public Transport

£m

All Users

£m

Scenario 1 4.6 27.5 32.1

Scenario 2 2.4 20.4 22.8

Scenario 3 0.3 14.4 14.7




Table K - 3: Travel Time Benefits

Car User Travel Time

The car user time benefits come from the highway decongestion effects of the mode

shift from car to rail predicted by the Oscar Faber model and are therefore roughly

proportional to the scale of the mode shift predicted. These second order effects are of

course significantly lower than the benefits to the public transport travellers who benefit

directly.

Public Transport Travel Time

Scenario 3: The 30-year present value of benefits accruing to public transport users

under Scenario 3 is around £14.4m. The benefits to the ëwinnersí (notably from

Bangor, Jordanstown and Ballymena into Belfast) are partially cancelled out by the

ëlosersí (notably Lisburn-Belfast travellers, certain movements within the Belfast area

(who could make use of the substitute bus services) and Larne-Belfast travellers) who

the model predicts were better off under the high-frequency and cheaper substitute bus

services.

Scenario 2: Public transport traveller time benefits under Scenario 2 are predicted to be

worth over £20m over the 30-year assessment period. Under this scenario, the ëwinnersí

are as for Scenario 3, plus a number of key corridor movements including Coleraine-Economy

Transport Economic Efficiency

K9

Belfast and Londonderry/Derry-Belfast. These extra ëwinnersí generate the £6m

additional PT traveller time benefits from the full Scenario 2 rail service.

Scenario 1: The introduction of an enhanced rail service (Scenario 1), incorporating

park and ride and the reinstatement of Antrim/Knockmore results in significant

additional benefits to public transport users in terms of journey time. The ëwinnersí are

broadly as for Scenario 2 (only more so), while the ëlosersí are also the same, only lessso, resulting in

30-year PT traveller time benefits of around £27.5m.





30-year Present Value of Benefits in 2000 prices and values

Table K - 5: User Charges

The £2.5m benefits for Scenarios 1 and 2 suggest that the rail network overall provides

slightly cheaper fares on average than bus substitution (Scenario 4). This is slightly

counter-intuitive, since rail is generally considered to be more expensive (in terms of

fares) than bus. However, investigation reveals that these benefits are due to a

combination of single through rail journeys replacing more expensive 2-legged bus

journeys and the very low rail fares currently being charged for certain journeys on the

NIR network.

Scenario 3 results in a small net disbenefit because of the relatively higher rail fares on

the remaining lines - notably on the Bangor and Lisburn lines.

Freight

The model does not separately identify road freight movements, since the goods vehicle

flow is included within the single vehicle class. The model is therefore unable to Economy Transport

Economic Efficiency

K10

separately identify benefits for road freight traffic. However, it should be noted that

where car users experience benefit or disbenefit (e.g. Travel Time or Vehicle Operating

Costs) similar, but unquantifiable, impacts will apply to freight.

As rail freight operations are currently limited to the cross-border line and to the

Adelaide handling facility, which will be unaffected by the scenarios, no separate

assessment of rail freight economics has been included.

However, in Oscar Faber small rail freight revenue impacts arising from parcel

operations have been derived from Translink estimates and are included in the ëOtherí

Revenue category of the TEE tables.

User Benefits - Summary

Table K - 6 summarises the overall traveller benefits for the three scenarios.

Scenario 1





comfortably exceed the corresponding decreases in bus revenue. The small changes in

ëOther Revenueí are, by comparison, insignificant.

The gain in rail revenue without a corresponding loss in bus revenue is due to a

combination of effects:

• induced rail demand in Scenarios 1 and 2 (and suppressed demand in Scenario 4);

• in general, premium fares paid for rail travel as compared to bus; Economy Transport Economic

Efficiency

K11

• transfer to rail of a relatively high proportion of car travellers for the longer more

expensive journeys, (e.g. Londonderry/Derry line) in Scenarios 1 and 2.

In order to further understand the effects, the revenues calculated by the model, and

attributed (approximately) to rail and bus separately, were inspected and compared to

Scenario 2 (which is closest in content to existing conditions). The comparisons

confirmed:

• compared to Scenario 2, rail revenues increase by approximately 10% for Scenario

1, and decrease by approximately 30% for Scenario 3;

• compared to Scenario 2, bus revenues decrease by approximately 1% for Scenario 1,

and increase by approximately 2% for Scenario 3. (Note that the small size of this

increase may be attributed to the small proportion of the complete network formed

by the bus substitution services.)

Note 1: Land Values

The NI Preface to ëAppraisal and Evaluation in Central Governmentí (HM Treasury) ñ

(ëThe Green Bookí), states that costs and benefits should generally be valued on an

economic cost or opportunity costs basis so that all the resources used or released by the

options are considered regardless of ownership. Under the four scenarios examined as

part of the review, it has been assumed that all NIR assets will be retained. For

Scenarios 3 & 4, this is to ensure that the option of reopening rail services some time in

the future would be retained. While the analysis does allow for NIR assets to be leased,





Appendix K - I: TEE Tables

Scenario 1 (Enhancement)

Economy: Economic Efficiency of the Transport System (TEE)

Scenario 1 (Enhancement) vs Scenario 4

Price Base Year = 2000

Discount Year = 2000

Impact Total Present Value

User Benefits

Personal Travel Car Public Transport Other

Travel Time 32.0 4.6 27.5 0.0

Vehicle Operating Costs 1.9 1.9 X X

User Charges 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0

NET IMPACTS 36.4

[1]

6.5 29.9 0.0

Translink Impacts Public Transport Bus and Coach Rail Other

Revenue 203.1 197.2 5.9

Operating Costs -230.5

(a)



-230.5 71.3 -301.8

Investment Costs -237.2

(b)

-237.2 15.1 -252.4

NET IMPACTS -264.6

[2]

Other Government Impacts Road Infrastructure Bus and Coach Rail Other

Grant/subsidy payments 0.0

( c )

Indirect tax Revenues -36.2

-2.1 13.8 -47.9

NET IMPACTS -36.2

[3]

-2.1 13.8 -47.9 0.0

TOTAL

Net Present Value, NPV -264.4

[4] = (1) + (2) + (3)



Present Value of Costs, PVC -467.7

[5] = (a) + (b) + (c)

Economy Transport Economic Efficiency

K14

Scenario 2 (AD Little)


Scenario 2 (AD Little) vs Scenario 4




User Benefits


Travel Time 22.8 2.4 20.4 0.0


User Charges 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0

NET IMPACTS 26.7

[1]

3.7 23.0 0.0




Revenue 181.9 176.0 5.9


(a)

-197.4 68.2 -265.6


(b)

-176.9 14.7 -191.6

NET IMPACTS -192.4

[2]



( c )


-1.7 12.8 -43.2

NET IMPACTS -32.1

[3]

-1.7 12.8 -43.2 0.0



TOTAL


[4] = (1) + (2) + (3)


[5] = (a) + (b) + (c) Economy Transport Economic Efficiency

K15

Scenario 3 (Truncation)


Scenario 3 (Truncation) vs Scenario 4




User Benefits


Travel Time 14.7 0.3 14.4 0.0


User Charges -1.8 0.0 -1.8 0.0

NET IMPACTS 14.2

[1]

1.6 12.6 0.0




Revenue 103.3 99.1 4.3


(a)

-181.4 48.0 -229.4


(b)

-127.1 10.1 -137.2

NET IMPACTS -205.3

[2]



( c )


-1.3 11.2 -28.3

NET IMPACTS -18.5

[3]

-1.3 11.2 -28.3 0.0



TOTAL


[4] = (1) + (2) + (3)


[5] = (a) + (b) + (c) Economy Transport Economic Efficiency

K16

Appendix K – II: Details of Operating and Investment Costs

SCENARIO 1: ENHANCEMENT

Opportunity Cost

• Open Market Value of NIR assets at June 2000 is £46.008 million.

• Market value of cross-border rolling stock at June 2000 is estimated at £6.290m.

• The remaining rolling stock is estimated to have a zero market value.

Capital Costs

• The costs for the development of Park and Ride and the Halt at Belfast City Airport

are based on estimated land values of identified sites plus construction costs. These

were provided by NITHCo property consultants and approved by VLA for use in

appraisal.

• Infrastructure Costs, which include an element of EU funding, have been provided

by Translink ñ see Chapter 8 RTF Interim Report.

• Rolling Stock costs have been provided by Translink ñ see Chapter 8 RTF Interim

Report .

• Costs for dualling of track Kilroot to Whitehead provided by Translink.

• At April 2001, it is estimated that approximately £2.6m to be incurred on Central

Station refurbishment This includes £1.95m of EU funding.



• 450 Class replaced in year 11 at a cost of £32.4 million.

• In year 22, it will be necessary to replace 14 cross-border coaches and 2 crossborder locomotives

at a cost of £14m and £4m respectively. Translink have

confirmed that new cross-border rolling stock is likely to cost the same in

1999/2000 as they were in 1996/1997.

• Translink estimated costs for 1/2 year rebuild of 14 cross-border coaches in year 9 at

£7 million.

• AD Little Revenue Costs are based on AD Little Report. These are the costs

associated with implementing the works recommended in the AD Little report, for

example, project management costs and safety related costs, i.e. training etc. It is

estimated that revenue costs for the Enhancement scenario would be broadly the

same as for the AD Little scenario.

• Other Capital Costs ñ These are costs which are not included in AD Little costs but

are considered by Translink to be essential works. These costs cover: public

information system, bridge works, sea defence work, signalling, minor relay,

infrastructure and mechanical engineering equipment, station/depot refurbishment

and sundries. The costs associated with integrated ticketing (£600,000) have been

excluded from the economic analysis, as the impact of integrated ticketing was not

taken into account in the analysis of benefits for each scenario.Economy Transport Economic

Efficiency

K17

Annual Costs

• Annual Operating Costs of Line have been provided by Translink

• Annual overhaul and maintenance costs for Cross-Border and Other Rolling Stock

are detailed in Appendix K - IV.

• Infrastructure Running Costs and other running costs have been provided by

Translink and are detailed in Chapter 8 RTF Interim Report.

• Bus Substitution Costs- It is assumed that bus substitution services will be provided



while track is being relayed ñ these costs have been provided by Translink. Economy Transport

Economic Efficiency

K18

SCENARIO 2: AD LITTLE

Opportunity Cost




Capital Costs


by Translink ñ see Chapter 8 RTF Interim Report.

• Rolling Stock costs have been provided by Translink ñ see Chapter 8 RTF Interim

Report.

• At April 2001, it is estimated that approximately £2.6m to be incurred on Central

Station refurbishment This includes £1.95m of EU funding.

• 450 Class replaced in year 11 at a cost of £32.4 million.

• In year 22, it will be necessary to replace 14 cross-border coaches and 2 crossborder locomotives

at a cost of £14m and £4m respectively. Translink have

confirmed that new cross-border rolling stock is likely to cost the same in

1999/2000 as they were in 1996/1997.

• Translink estimated costs for 1/2 year rebuild of 14 cross-border coaches in year 9 at

£7 million.

• AD Little Revenue Costs are based on AD Little Report. These are the costs

associated with implementing the works recommended in the AD Little report, for

example, project management costs and safety related costs, i.e. training etc. It is

estimated that revenue costs for the Truncation scenario would be broadly the same

as for the AD Little scenario.

• Other Capital Costs ñ These are costs which are not included in AD Little costs but



are considered by Translink to be essential works. These costs cover: public

information system, bridge works, sea defence work, signalling, minor relay,

infrastructure and mechanical engineering equipment, station/depot refurbishment

and sundries. The costs associated with integrated ticketing (£600,000) have been

excluded from the economic analysis, as the impact of integrated ticketing was not

taken into account in the analysis of benefits for each scenario.

Annual Costs

• Annual Operating Costs of Line have been provided by Translink

• Annual overhaul and maintenance costs for Cross-Border and Other Rolling Stock

are detailed in Appendix K - IV.


Translink and are detailed in Chapter 8 RTF Interim Report. Economy Transport Economic Efficiency

K19

Bus Substitution Costs

Purchase of new Buses (Antrim Line) - £360,000 (It is estimated that in year 15, these

buses will be replaced).

Annual Maintenance/Running Costs of Buses - £246,000. Economy Transport Economic Efficiency

K20

SCENARIO 3: TRUNCATION

Opportunity Cost




Capital Costs

• Fencing costs provided by Translink. It is assumed that replacement fencing will be

required in 15 years.







Translink and are detailed in Chapter 8 RTF Interim Report. Economy Transport Economic Efficiency

K21


Purchase of new Buses - £3.6 million (It is estimated that in year 15, these buses will be

replaced).

Purchase of new Wayfarer Machines - £55,000.

Total Capital Costs - £3.655m

Initial Driver Recruitment Training - £87,000.

Annual Maintenance/Running Costs of Buses - £1.838 million.

Annual Recruitment/Training Costs - £9,000

Annual Maintenance of Wayfarer Machines - £3,000.

Rental Income from Leasing

NITHCo Property Consultants estimate rental income form leasing at £23,000 pa. VLA

has approved this figure. Economy Transport Economic Efficiency

K22

SCENARIO 4: MOTHBALLING

Opportunity Cost




Capital Costs

• It is assumed that Translink would retain full public liability and therefore would

undertake the full fencing programme as outlined in AD Little. Although fencing

should last approximately 20 years, it is assumed that due to vandalism, replacement

fencing will be required in 15 years.

• Capital Infrastructure costs for the cross-border line are based on AD Little Report.





be replaced).

Land costs for additional bus parking capacity (Bangor) estimated at £700,000.

Purchase of new Wayfarer Machines - £165,000.

Initial Driver Recruitment Training - £262,000.

Annual Maintenance/Running Costs of Buses - £5.416 million.

Annual Recruitment/Training Costs - £26,000.

Annual Maintenance of Wayfarer Machines - £8,000.

Rental Income from Leasing

NITHCo Property Consultants estimate rental income form leasing at £34,000 pa. VLA

has approved this figure. K24

Appendix K – III: Costs over the 30 year Appraisal Period

Scenario 1:

Enhancement - Costs

All Costs are

expressed at 2000

Prices

2001/02

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's

000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's

Costs

Opportunity Cost

Land/Buildings/Track 46,008



Cross Border Rolling

Stock

6,290

Other Rolling Stock 0

Capital Costs

Development of Park &

Ride

2,060

City Airport Halt With

Park & Ride

4,500

Infrastructure (including

Antrim Knockmore)

17,920 42,034 25,279 15,880 18,243 4035 210 200 200 200

AD Little Rolling Stock

Plus 8 3-car sets

16,300 50,600 33,600 200

Central Station

Refurbishment

2,600

Class 450 Replacement 32,400


Stock Replacement

18,000

1/2 life rebuild (Cross

Border)



7000

AD Little Revenue Costs 1,723 1,613 1,373 1,373 978 978 978 878 878 0

Dualling of Track (Kilroot

to Whitehead)

2,764

Other Capital Costs 716 495 4,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

3,000

Operating costs

NIR 10,957 11,380 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802

11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802

11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802

Running Costs

Overhaul (cross border) 379 379 3529 379 379 1429 379 379 29 379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529

379 379 1,429 379 379 379 379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529 379

Overhaul Costs (Class

80 & 450)

4,663 4,663 7,066 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748

8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748

Infrastructure Running

Costs

4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079

4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079

Other 3,742 3,742 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767

3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767

Bus Substitution (Relay) 520 1,503 952 624 624 156

TOTAL COSTS 125,221 120,488 95,447 49,164 50,932 37,306 32,275 32,165 38,815 31,287 64,175

31,775 32,825 31,775 31,775 34,925 31,775 31,775 32,825 31,775 31,775 31,775 49,775 31,775

31,775 32,825 31,775 31,775 34,925 31,775 K25



Scenario 2: AD Little -

Costs

All Costs are expressed

at 2000 Prices

2001/02

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's

000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's

Costs

Opportunity Cost

NIR Assets 46,008


Stock

6,290

Other Rolling Stock 0

Capital Costs

Infrastructure Costs 17,801 29,080 14,772 15,880 18,206 4035 210 200 200 200

AD Little Rolling Stock 10,900 34,800 26,000 200

Central Station

Refurbishment

2,600





Stock Replacement

18,000


Border)

7000



2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,5002,500

Operating costs

NIR 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958

10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958

10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958

Running Costs

Overhaul (cross border) 379 379 3529 379 379 1429 379 379 29 379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529

379 379 1,429 379 379 379 379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529 379

Overhaul & Maintenance

Costs (other rolling stock)

4,663 4,663 5,351 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804

6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804


Costs

3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899

3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899

Other 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742

3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742





Capital Costs

Fencing Costs 294 294 59 294 294 59

Infrastructure Costs 16,387 19,580 7,925 2,641 3,597 148 148 143 143 143

AD Little Rolling Stock

less 3 3-car sets

9,800 30,100 21,000 200

Central Station

Refurbishment

2,600



Stock Replacement

18,000


Border)

7,000



2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

2,000

Operating Costs

NIR 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518

9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518

Running Costs


(Cross Border rolling

Stock)



379 379 3529 379 379 1429 379 379 29 379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529 379 379 1,429 379 379 379

379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529 379


Costs (other rolling

stock)

4,163 4,163 4,775 5,387 5,387 5,387 5,387 5,387 5,387 5,387 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075

6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075


Costs

3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302

3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302

Other 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842

3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842


Capital Costs 3,655 3,655

Operating/Maintenance

Buses

1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838

1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838

Other one-off

Expenditure

87

Other annual expenditure 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

12 12 12 12 12 12

Bus Substitution (Relay) 520 910 351

TOTAL COSTS 111,134 76,046 60,524 30,492 30,853 28,454 27,404 27,299 33,949 26,421 59,366

26,966 28,016 26,966 30,915 30,410 27,025 26,966 28,016 26,966 26,966 26,966 44,966 26,966

26,966 28,016 26,966 26,966 30,116 26,966 K27

Scenario 4: Mothballing -

Costs





1/2 life rebuild 7,000

Other Capital Costs 716 495 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Contractual Liabilities 50

Operating Costs

Cross Border Line 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261

2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261

2,261

Running Costs

Fencing/Vegetation

Control

250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250

250 250 250 250 250 250 250


Costs

379 379 3529 379 379 1429 379 379 29 379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529 379 379 1,429 379 379 379

379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529 379

Infrastructure Costs 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965

1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965

1,965

Other 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 10271027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027


Capital Costs 10,945 10,945

Operating/Maintenance

Buses



5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416

5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416

Other one-off

Expenditure

262

Other annual expenditure 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34

34 34 34 34 34 34

TOTAL COSTS 80,355 14,386 16,498 11,836 11,832 12,882 11,832 11,832 18,482 11,832 11,832

11,832 12,882 11,832 23,713 15,919 12,047 11,832 12,882 11,832 11,832 29,832 11,832 11,832

11,832 12,882 11,832 11,832 14,982 11,832 K28

Capital

Costs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Do Nothing 5,518 3,054 2,016 504 500 500 500 500 7,500 500 500 500 500 500 1,436 1,437 715 500

500 500 500 18,500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Truncated 31,520 52,082 33,357 6,214 6,575 3,126 3,126 3,021 10,021 2,143 34,400 2,000 2,000

2,000 2,294 2,294 2,059 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 20,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

2,000

AD Little 33,740 65,988 45,645 19,953 21,684 7,513 3,688 3,578 10,578 2,700 34,900 2,500 2,500

2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 20,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

2,500

Enhancement 48,583 94,742 64,252 20,453 22,221 8,013 4,188 4,078 11,078 3,200 35,400 3,000

3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 21,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

3,000 3,000

Operating

Costs



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Do Nothing 5,882 5,882 9,032 5,882 5,882 6,932 5,882 5,882 5,532 5,882 5,882 5,882 6,932 5,882

5,882 9,032 5,882 5,882 6,932 5,882 5,882 5,882 5,882 5,882 5,882 6,932 5,882 5,882 9,032 5,882

Truncated 21,204 21,204 24,966 22,428 22,428 23,478 22,428 22,428 22,078 22,428 23,116 23,116

24,166 23,116 23,116 26,266 23,116 23,116 24,166 23,116 23,116 23,116 23,116 23,116 23,116

24,166 23,116 23,116 26,266 23,116

AD Little 23,641 23,641 27,479 25,094 25,094 26,144 25,094 25,094 24,744 25,094 25,782 25,782

26,832 25,782 25,782 28,932 25,782 25,782 26,832 25,782 25,782 25,782 25,782 25,782 25,782

26,832 25,782 25,782 28,932 25,782

Enhancement 23,820 24,243 30,243 28,087 28,087 29,137 28,087 28,087 27,737 28,087 28,775

28,775 29,825 28,775 28,775 31,925 28,775 28,775 29,825 28,775 28,775 28,775 28,775 28,775

28,775 29,825 28,775 28,775 31,925 28,775

Substitute

Bus Capital

Costs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Do Nothing 11,207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Truncated 3,742 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,655 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AD Little 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Enhancement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bus

Operating/M



aintenance

costs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Do Nothing 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450

5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450

Truncated 2,370 2,760 2,201 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850

1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850

AD Little 766 1,546 1,104 870 870 402 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246

246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246

Enhancement 520 1,503 952 624 624 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K29

Capital Costs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Total

Discounted

Costs

Total Costs

Do Nothing 5,518 3,054 2,016 504 500 500 500 500 7,500 500 500 500 500 500 1,436 1,437 715 500

500 500 500 18,500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 £25,143.09 £51,180.00

Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268

0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470

0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741

Discounted Costs 5,206 2,718 1,693 399 374 352 333 314 4,439 279 263 248 234 221 599 566 266

175 165 156 147 5,134 131 123 116 110 104 98 92 87 25,143

Truncated 31,520 52,082 33,357 6,214 6,575 3,126 3,126 3,021 10,021 2,143 34,400 2,000 2,000

2,000 2,294 2,294 2,059 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 20,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

2,000 £162,370.07 £242,232.00

Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268

0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470

0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741



Discounted Costs 29,736 46,353 28,007 4,922 4,913 2,204 2,079 1,895 5,931 1,197 18,121 994 938

885 957 903 765 701 661 624 588 5,550 524 494 466 440 415 391 369 348 162,370 -137,227

AD Little 33,740 65,988 45,645 19,953 21,684 7,513 3,688 3,578 10,578 2,700 34,900 2,500 2,5002,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 20,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

2,500 £216,729.50 £315,467.00

Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268

0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470

0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741

Discounted Costs 31,830 58,729 38,324 15,805 16,204 5,296 2,453 2,245 6,261 1,508 18,385 1,242

1,172 1,106 1,043 984 928 876 826 780 735 5,689 654 617 582 550 518 489 461 435 216,730 -

191,586

Enhancement 48,583 94,742 64,252 20,453 22,221 8,013 4,188 4,078 11,078 3,200 35,400 3,000

3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 21,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

3,000 3,000 £277,519.65 £391,208.00

Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268

0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470

0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741

Discounted Costs 45,833 84,320 53,947 16,201 16,605 5,649 2,785 2,559 6,557 1,787 18,648 1,491

1,407 1,327 1,252 1,181 1,114 1,051 992 935 882 5,828 785 741 699 659 622 587 554 522 277,520 -

252,377

Operating Costs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Do Nothing 5,882 5,882 9,032 5,882 5,882 6,932 5,882 5,882 5,532 5,882 5,882 5,882 6,932 5,882

5,882 9,032 5,882 5,882 6,932 5,882 5,882 5,882 5,882 5,882 5,882 6,932 5,882 5,882 9,032 5,882

£87,034.04 £189,760.00

Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268

0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470

0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741

Discounted Costs 5,549 5,235 7,583 4,659 4,395 4,887 3,912 3,690 3,274 3,284 3,099 2,923 3,250

2,602 2,454 3,555 2,184 2,061 2,291 1,834 1,730 1,632 1,540 1,453 1,370 1,524 1,220 1,151 1,6671,024 87,034





1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Do Nothing 11,207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £15,139.61 £22,152.00

Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268

0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470

0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741

Discounted Costs 10,573 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,140

Truncated 3,742 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,655 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £5,055.29 £7,397.00

Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268

0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470

0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741

Discounted Costs 3,530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,525 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,055 10,084

AD Little 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £489.84 £720.00

Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.52680.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470

0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741

Discounted Costs 340 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 490 14,650

Enhancement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £0.00 £0.00

Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268

0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.24700.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741

Discounted Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,140

Bus

Operating/Maint

enance costs



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Do Nothing 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450

5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450£75,018.33 £163,500.00

Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268

0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470

0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741

Discounted Costs 5,142 4,850 4,576 4,317 4,073 3,842 3,625 3,419 3,226 3,043 2,871 2,708 2,555

2,411 2,274 2,145 2,024 1,909 1,801 1,699 1,603 1,512 1,427 1,346 1,270 1,198 1,130 1,066 1,006

949 75,018

Truncated 2,370 2,760 2,201 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850

1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850

£27,060.11 £57,281.00

Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268

0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470

0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741

Discounted Costs 2,236 2,456 1,848 1,465 1,382 1,304 1,230 1,161 1,095 1,033 975 919 867 818 772

728 687 648 611 577 544 513 484 457 431 407 384 362 341 322 27,060 47,958

AD Little 766 1,546 1,104 870 870 402 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246

246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 £6,824.63 £11,462.00

Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268

0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470

0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741

Discounted Costs 723 1,376 927 689 650 283 164 154 146 137 130 122 115 109 103 97 91 86 81 77

72 68 64 61 57 54 51 48 45 43 6,825 68,194

Enhancement 520 1,503 952 624 624 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £3,698.08

£4,379.00

Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268

0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470

0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741



Discounted Costs 491 1,338 799 494 466 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,698

71,320 K30

Appendix K – IV: Annual Overhaul and Maintenance Costs

Scenario 1: Annual Overhaul & Maintenance Costs for Class 80 &

450 Rolling Stock

Running Maintenance & Overhaul Costs for 27x3

Car Suburban Train Sets (Class 80)

2001/02

(£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's)

(£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 3,164 3,164 5,567 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561


Car Surburban Train Sets (Class 450)



2001/02

(000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's)

(000's) (000's)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187

Running Maintenance & Overhaul

Costs for Class 80 & 450 Rolling

Stock

2001/02

(000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's)

(000's) (000's)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 4,663 4,663 7,066 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748



Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748

K31


450 Rolling Stock



2001/02

(£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's)

(£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 3,164 3,164 3,852 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617

Running Maintenance & Overhaul Costs for 9x3 Car

Surburban Train Sets (Class 450)



2001/02

(000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's)

(000's) (000's)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187



Stock

2001/02

(000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's)

(000's) (000's)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 4,663 4,663 5,351 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804



Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804

K32


450 Rolling Stock



2001/02

(£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's)

(£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 2,664 2,664 3,276 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888

Running Maintenance & Overhaul Costs for 9x3 Car



Surburban Train Sets (Class 450)

2001/02

(000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's)

(000's) (000's)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187



Stock

2001/02

(000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's)

(000's) (000's)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 4,163 4,163 4,775 5,387 5,387 5,387 5,387 5,387 5,387 5,387 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075



Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075

K33

Scenario 4: Annual Overhaul & Maintenance Costs for Cross

Border Rolling Stock

Annual Overhaul & Maintenance

Costs for 14 Cross Border Coaches

2001/02

(£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's)

(£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Annual Cost 350 350 3,500 350 350 1,400 350 350 0 350 350 350 1,400 350 350

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Annual Cost 3,500 350 350 1,400 350 350 350 350 350 350 1,400 350 350 3,500 350

Annual Overhaul Costs for 2 Cross



Border Locomotives

2001/02

(£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's)

(£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Annual Cost 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Annual Cost 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29

Annual Overhaul & Maintenance

Costs for All Cross Border Rolling

Stock

2001/02

(£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's)

(£000's) (£000's) (£000's) (£000's)

Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Annual Cost 379 379 3,529 379 379 1,429 379 379 29 379 379 379 1,429 379 379



Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Annual Cost 3,529 379 379 1,429 379 379 379 379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529 379 K34

Appendix L: Economy – Reliability Economy Reliability

L1

ECONOMY OBJECTIVE

L. Reliability Sub-Objective

Data Sources

Rail Services Delay data: 1

st

Quarter 2000, Northern Ireland Railways

Current passenger journeys to Belfast: Belfast Transportation Model (Model)



Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company: Group Annual Review: 1998/99

Rail Passengers: Transport Statistics 1997/98, Department of the Environment for

Northern Ireland




Reliability refers to the variability of journey times. For trains, reliability is measured

using lateness (delays) and cancellations, for which NIR retain full records. For road

transport (bus and car) changes in reliability result from variations in average delay, due

to, for example, roadworks or accidents. There are no data records relating to road

reliability. However, reliability by road is most likely to change where road links are

operating close to capacity. In general, and especially during periods of peak travel



demand, trains are much more reliable than buses and cars, due to their tracks providing

an exclusive right-of-way.

The principal potential determinants of changes in reliability as experienced by the

travelling public are:

• modal switching between rail (which is generally reliable) and bus or car (which are

generally unreliable);

• modernisation of rail infrastructure and vehicles (trains) reducing delays due to

breakdowns etc;

• increasing congestion on the road network (affecting bus and car).

Whilst GOMMMS notes that road transport, including bus, should be assessed

separately to rail, it is important to have a balanced methodology for rail and road ñ ie

equally precise for both. In addition, whilst GOMMMS promotes the use of a monetarybased

approach for rail reliability, the inability to estimate monetarised effects for road

transport leads to a qualitative methodology overall.

Road transport (bus and car) reliability will relate to how congested the road network is

at peak times. The model results show that whilst there is significant switching between

car and rail, the changes in traffic levels were deemed not sufficiently large to

significantly change reliability. Hence the principal effect to bus and car users involves

modal switching between train and bus. In general terms, rail is currently significantly

more reliable than bus. This is primarily due to road congestion effects, and is true

despite current (high) rates of mechanical breakdown due to elderly rolling stock. In

Scenarios 1,2 and 3 new rolling stock will be provided and selected infrastructure

improvements made which will reduce delays and hence improve reliability by rail. Economy

Reliability

L2

The methodology applied was as follows:

• research annual estimates of travellers using both rail, and of bus and car, affected

by road congestion related reliability problems;



• research current levels of rail delays taking account of causes and location;

• confirm, using Oscar Faber Review results, annual forecasts of travellers using rail,

bus and car;

• estimate changes in future rail reliability by scenario, taking account of new rolling

stock, signalling enhancements and track changes;

• estimate changes in road transport reliability taking account of modelled increases in

car and bus.

It should be noted that the estimation of future rail reliability, as outlined above, will

likely under-estimate reliability improvements as the following impacts could not be

quantified:

• new rolling stock may reduce accident related delays;

• track relays may reduce Civil Engineering related delays;

It should also be noted that delays experienced when track improvements are carried out

have been ignored.

Key Results and Statistics

Appendix L - I contains statistics relating to current rail delays (cause of delay and

location of delay) and estimated changes in rail delays from current situation.

Appendix L - II contains a qualitative assessment of reliability problems and estimates

of annual numbers affected by congestion and related reliability problems.


Appendix L - III contains Scenarios Assessment by Mode (Rail, Bus and Car).

Qualitative Summary

In view of the relatively small changes forecast in traffic levels, no significant

change in congestion-related reliability by bus and car is estimated between

scenarios. Therefore the dominant determinants of changes in reliability are the

improvement in rail reliability resulting from rolling stock and infrastructure

improvements, and the numbers of persons travelling by rail. Compared to the Base



Mothball scenario, all other Scenarios (1,2 & 3) will provide large beneficial

impacts, with each of the scenarios carrying 7 million passengers per annum or more.

It should be noted however, that in Scenario 3 ñ Truncation, public transport users in

the Larne, Coleraine and Londonderry/Derry areas will not gain reliability benefits.


The Base case scenario will result in the transfer of the current rail passengers

onto bus services and car. Whilst current rail reliability can be reduced, at times,

by the condition of the current (elderly) rolling stock, it is satisfactory (by

Passenger Charter standards), and significantly better than bus and car reliability

which are affected by congestion effects. The 2010 Base case therefore represents

a large adverse change from the Existing situation. Economy Reliability

L3


Qualitative Impacts: Improvement due to new rolling stock and track

improvements.

Quantitative Measure: 7 million rail passengers per annum.



Qualitative Impacts: Improvement due to new rolling stock, track

improvements and potentially due to staff morale




Qualitative Impacts: Improvement due to new rolling stock, track

improvements and potentially due to staff morale





The rationale behind the use of the terms ëlarge adverse changeí and ëLarge Beneficial

Effectí in the Scenario assessments is that:-

• In the case of Scenario 4, compared to the existing situation, all current rail

travellers ñ approximately 5.8 million per annum - would be forced to switch to

modes with lower levels of reliability, or to suppress their journeys. This is assessed

as a large adverse change;

• In the cases of Scenarios 1-3, compared to Scenario 4, more than 7 million travellers

switch to the rail, which has a higher level of reliability than the modes that they

switch from. This number exceeds the scale of the ëlarge adverseí switch from rail

to other modes under Scenario 4 compared to the existing, and the change is

therefore deemed to be of ëLarge Beneficial Effectí in each case. Economy Reliability

L4

Appendix L - I: Key Statistics on Rail Delays

Current Rail Delays by Cause (% of total)

Cause % of network total delay

Mechanical 53

Operations 13

Signalling & Electrical 11

Customer 8

Vandalism / Civil Disturbance 5

Other 10

Total 100

Current Rail Delays by line (% of total)

Line % of network total delay

Bangor 21

Larne 33



Londonderry/Derry 17

Portadown 19

Portrush 10

All lines 100

Estimated Changes in Rail Delays from Current Situation

Scenario Approximate

Change

Comment

1 -50% new rolling stock, removes delays due to mechanical failure



4 not applicable no rail services Economy Reliability

L5

Appendix L - II: Estimates of annual numbers affected by congestion and related

reliability problems

Estimates of Persons (millions per year) affected by Congestion related Reliability

Problems

Scenario Bus Car

1997 AM Peak Hour (1000’s) 9.6 53.7

1997 Annual Persons 11.5 64.4

2010 Scenario 1 ñ Enhancement 12.7 76.8

2010 Scenario 2 ñ AD Little 12.8 76.9

2010 Scenario 3 ñ Truncation 12.9 77.0

2010 Scenario 4 ñ Mothball 14.5 77.5

(Figures are ëPersons to Belfast City Centreí: source 1997 BTM with 2010 Oscar Faber

projected growths) Economy Reliability

L6



Appendix L - III: Scenarios Assessment by Mode (Rail, Bus and Car)

Qualitative Assessment of Reliability

Scenario Rail Reliability Bus Reliability Car Reliability

1997 Existing satisfactory slight problem slight problem

2010 Mothball (4) not applicable moderate problem moderate problem

2010 Truncation (3) good moderate problem moderate problem

2010 AD Little (2) good moderate problem moderate problem

2010 Enhancement (1) good moderate problem moderate problem

Notes: (i) changes in rail reliability assessed from Appendix L - I

(ii) reduction in bus and car reliability from 1997 to 2010 assumed to grow with

traffic levels as shown in Appendix L - II

(iii) no change in bus and car reliability between 2010 Scenarios, due to

relatively small changes in car flows

Scenario Assessment by Mode from Base Scenario 4 – Mothball

Rail Bus Car

Scenario Pax

(M)

Reliability

Pax

(M)

Reliability

Pax

(M)

Reliability

Overall

Truncation (3) +7 Moderate



Benefit

-1 Neutral 0 Neutral Large

Benefit

AD Little (2) +8 Moderate

Benefit


Benefit

Enhancement (1) +9 Moderate

Benefit


Benefit

Notes: (i) annual rail passenger estimates derived from Oscar Faber growth factors

and observed 6.2 M (1997/98 source NITHC)

(ii) changes in bus and car volumes assessed from Appendix L - II

(iii) changes in reliability from Appendix L - III (above)

Appendix M: Economy - Wider Economic Impacts Economy Wider Economic Impacts

M1

ECONOMY OBJECTIVE

M. Wider Economic Impacts Sub-Objective

Data Sources





Appropriate Statutory Area Plans, DOE

Draft Regional Development Strategy, DRD

Rural Development Programme, DARD



CRISP and CERS Programme, Regional Development Office, DOE

English Tourism Council

Northern Ireland Tourist Board


GOMMMS (Volume 2 ñ Section 6.4) states DETR has yet to decide on how to take

account of the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road

Assessment on Transport and the Economy (August 1999). Until such time GOMMMS

advises recording rather than scoring whether a scenario:

♦ Benefits designated regeneration areas; and

♦ Assists the implementation of developments within or adjacent to regeneration

areas.

The Wider Economic Impacts sub-objective covers a number of distinct areas where

Public Transport in general and rail travel in particular can have a significant impact. As

these areas of impact are diverse, it was decided to consider each of these individually

before making an overall assessment of the Wider Economic Impacts for each scenario.

The structure of this report reflects the fact that it covers 4 discrete areas:

1. Regeneration

2. Tourism

3. Employment

4. Other Issues

Each of these sections describes the individual methodology employed, results obtained

and scenario assessments conducted. A summary at the end of this appendix highlights

the main issues from each of these impacts and provides comments for inclusion in the

AST.

1. REGENERATION


GOMMMS refers to designated regeneration areas such as Assisted Areas, Single



Regeneration Budget Areas, and European Structural Funds. These translate into the

following designations for Northern Ireland: Economy Wider Economic Impacts

M2

Rural Regeneration

♦ Rural Development Programme ñ area based regeneration strategies to strengthen the

rural economy;

♦ Community Regeneration and Improvement Special Programme (CRISP) and

Community Economic Regeneration Schemes (CERS) ñ community led

regeneration in the most disadvantaged towns and villages.

Urban Regeneration

♦ Major regeneration schemes in the Belfast Metropolitan Area and

Londonderry/Derry including EU Special support programme for Peace and

Reconciliation through the Belfast Partnership Board and the District Partnership

Board for Derry City Council.

Trans-Regional Regeneration

TransñRegional opportunities were considered appropriate to wider economic benefits:

♦ North/South cross-border and East/west co-operative regeneration opportunities;

and

♦ Regional gateways ñ ports and airports with employment potential.

It was agreed that regeneration impacts should be assessed for the scenarios in terms of

whether:

♦ An improved rail service passed through a regeneration area and/or a station was

accessible to it;

♦ A key development site in or close to a regeneration area had direct access to the rail

network; and

♦ Consistency with regional and/or local regeneration objectives including ñ

relationship to gateways, economic development corridors and labour market



flexibility.



Adverse Neutral Beneficial

Rural Regeneration Yes reduces choice and

quality of accessibility

to places of work

because of extensive

station closure

Urban Regeneration Yes hinders development of

a modern city

environment and crosscity labour market in

Belfast

Trans-Regional Yes poor external image,

harms investment and

tourism opportunities

Regeneration Economy Wider Economic Impacts

M3

Overall Assessment:

Adverse – judged against the existing situation, Scenario 4 has an adverse impact

with loss of:

♦ Potential links to Belfast and Londonderry/Derry urban regeneration

initiatives with likely harmful impacts on other related infrastructure

improvements;

♦ Choice of means of access to regional gateways and their potential

opportunities as major employment locations at Larne, Londonderry/Derry,

Belfast City Airport and the opportunity for a link to Belfast International



Airport; and

♦ Rural regeneration potential due to extensive station closures especially in

regional towns, which are central to the rural economy.

♦ Reduces opportunity for linking regeneration initiatives to tourism in

Londonderry/Derry, Coleraine and to the World Heritage Site at the Giantsí

Causeway.

The potential to enhance Northern Irelandís external image and investment

opportunities would be adversely affected by Scenario 4.



Rural Regeneration Yes

Urban Regeneration Yes

Trans-Regional Yes

Regeneration

Overall Assessment:

Slightly beneficial – commuter services provided using new rolling stock and

Antrim Bleach Green section opened. Absence of rail services north of Ballymena

and Whitehead constrains economic opportunities for better regional balance

between urban and rural regeneration. Absence of rail services, in particular north

of Ballymena, reduces opportunity for linking regeneration initiatives to tourism

in Londonderry/Derry, Coleraine and to the World Heritage Site at the Giantís

Causeway.





Trans-Regional Yes



Regeneration

Overall Assessment:

Moderately beneficial – new rolling stock and services foster labour mobility,

particularly in the Belfast Metropolitan Area. Benefit to both urban and rural

regeneration helping to improve access to labour markets and competitiveness, Economy Wider

Economic Impacts

M4

reduce sub-regional variations, and offset peripherality. Provides means of access

to other important regional gateways ñ Londonderry/Derry and Larne. Helps

sustain important regional towns with the opening of the Bleach Green section of

the Londonderry/Derry line strengthening the Cityís focus for employment in the

NW and the wider economic corridor extending into Co. Donegal. Provides

connections to more Universities and Institutes of Technologies.





Trans-Regional Yes

Regeneration

Overall Assessment:

Large beneficial – extensive new rolling stock, a high level of service and park

and ride provision foster labour mobility, particularly in the Belfast Metropolitan

Area. Benefit to both urban and rural regeneration helping to improve access to

labour markets and competitiveness, reduce sub-regional variations, and offset

peripherality. Supports the wider potential of Belfast Harbour and Belfast City

Airport and provides means of access to other important regional gateways ñ

Londonderry/Derry and Larne. Helps sustain important regional towns with the

opening of the Bleach Green section of the Londonderry/Derry line strengthening



the Cityís focus for employment in the NW and the wider economic corridor

extending into Co. Donegal. Provides connections to more Universities and

Institutes of Technologies.

2. TOURISM


One of the key roles of the Regional Development Strategy is to provide a spatial

framework for tourism that supports the strategy of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board

(NITB). The RDS states that one means of achieving this is the establishment of a

modern transportation system in Northern Ireland that underpins tourism development

by improving access to important tourism resources.

The Draft RDS spatial framework for tourism shows the main assets of the tourism

infrastructure within Northern Ireland. It is possible to examine each of the railway lines

and ascertain which of these tourism assets are served by each line ñ these are shown

below. The railway lines also serve to bring people into Belfast and provide a choice of

access to the range of tourist attractions that the City offers. The assets may be served

directly by the railway line or the railway line may only serve the general area of the

identified tourism asset. Economy Wider Economic Impacts

M5

BANGOR LINE

Belfast City Airport

Ulster Folk and Transport Museum (Major Tourism Site)

Bangor (Seaside Resort and Marina)

LARNE LINE

Carrickfergus (Heritage Town, Castle and Marina)

Larne (Port)

LONDONDERRY/DERRY LINE

Coleraine/access to North Antrim Coast (Marina and Tourism Destination Resort)



Portrush (Seaside Resort)

Londonderry/Derry (Tourism Destination Resort, Heritage Town, Historic Walled City,

Airport and Port)

BELFAST

A range of tourist attractions

Each scenario was examined to identify the facilities that would be available to tourists

and also any of the above tourism assets that would no longer be accessible by rail, just

bus and car. It was then possible to conduct a qualitative assessment of each scenario.

Key Results and Statistics

Some research was conducted to investigate the level of rail based tourism within

Northern Ireland. The English Tourism Council advised that the UK Tourism Survey

(covers all travel of 1 night or more ñ hence, this includes business travel as well as

tourism) states that 122 million trips were made in 1998. As a UK average, 9% of these

trips were made by rail (in NI the average was 1% compared to 5% in Wales and 10%

in Scotland and England). NITB advised that the NI Visitor Survey found that 0.4% of

people surveyed stated that train was their main form of travel whilst in NI. None stated

that it was their form of entry (not surprising as the survey was conducted at air and sea

ports).

The UK Tourism Survey also indicated that the total expenditure by UK tourists (on

travel, accommodation, food etc.) in 1998 was £14,030 million and again 9% of that

was on train travel. In their submission to the Railways Task Force, NITB stated that

inbound tourism is currently worth £265 million to the NI economy with in excess of

1.65 million visitors coming to the region in 1999.

The NITB also stated that with an increasingly stable political environment, there is

great potential for substantial increases in tourism and that these greater numbers of

visitors would want to enjoy a quality railway infrastructure.

The NITB also stated that certain sections of the rail network in NI are extremely scenic



with unique views from the train. However, it should be noted that to date, these railway

journeys have not been substantially promoted as part of the tourism offering in their

own right. Economy Wider Economic Impacts

M6



Overall assessment: Adverse ñ judged against the existing situation, Scenario 4

has an adverse impact with the loss of:

• Choice of means of access to/egress from tourism points of entry such as Belfast

City Airport, Larne port and the Londonderry/Derry area that includes an airport

and port.

• Choice of means of access to/egress from significant tourism destinations:

- Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

- Bangor (Seaside Resort and Marina)

- Carrickfergus (Heritage Town, Castle and Marina)

- Coleraine/North Antrim Coast (Marina and Tourism Destination Resort)

- Portrush (Seaside Resort)

- Londonderry/Derry (Heritage Town and Historic Walled City)

- A range of tourist attractions in Belfast

The potential to enhance NIís external image and visitor expenditure opportunities

would be adversely affected by Scenario 4. However, it should be borne in mind

that the figures quoted above show that rail use by tourists in NI is at a low level

compared to other parts of the UK.


Overall assessment: Slight beneficial effect ñ tourists would be able to avail of

new rolling stock and benefit from:

• Choice of means of access to/egress from Belfast City Airport as a tourism point



of entry.







Overall assessment: Moderate beneficial effect ñ tourists would be able to avail

of new rolling stock and improved frequency. Tourists would also benefit from:


City Airport, Larne port and the Londonderry/Derry area that includes an airport

and port.









Overall assessment: Moderate beneficial effect ñ tourists would be able to avail

of new rolling stock and services. Tourists would also benefit from: Economy Wider Economic

Impacts

M7


City Airport (complete with its own station with Park and Ride facilities), Larne

port and the Londonderry/Derry area that includes an airport and port.











3. EMPLOYMENT


The employment impact under each scenario is described in full in Appendix M-I. The

impact consists of both a direct and indirect change in employment. The direct

employment effects relate to Translink employees. An indirect employment effect exists

through the construction of bus vehicles and railway carriages. It is assumed that

railway carriages are most likely to be built within GB and bus bodies within Northern

Ireland. Increasing the total railway provision in Northern Ireland over the base case

will have positive indirect employment benefits within the UK for the construction of

railway carriages. However, it will create a lesser negative indirect employment impact

within Northern Ireland as less bus construction will be required.

Key Results

The direct employment impact ranges from 343 additional jobs within Translink under

Scenario 3 to 407 under Scenario 1 when compared to Scenario 4. The indirect

employment impact is given in Appendix M-I in terms of man-years of employment

within train and bus builders. This shows a net impact ranging from 1289 additional

man-years under Scenario 3 to 2206 under Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4.



Compared to the existing situation, the closure of lines under the mothballing



scenario will have an immediate negative impact on direct employment levels

with the loss of 544 NIR jobs. The 193 jobs gained through the expansion of bus

services will, though, reduce the overall impact to a net loss of 351 jobs.


Positive Employment Impact: 343 jobs created in Translink (8 less than existing

situation)

1289 man-years created (in train and bus builders)


Positive Employment Impact: 367 jobs created in Translink (16 more than

existing situation)

1494 man-years created (in train and bus builders) Economy Wider Economic Impacts

M8


Positive Employment Impact: 407 jobs created in Translink (56 more than

existing situation)

2206 man-years created (in train and bus builders)

4. OTHER ISSUES


As indicated in the Methodology and Application section (see page M1), GOMMMS

advises that DETR has yet to consider the final report of the Standing Advisory

Committee on Trunk Road Assessment on Transport and the Economy (August 1999)

and decide whether to accept the Committeeís recommendations and how to implement

those that are accepted. Hence this report covers a number of distinct areas where Public

Transport in general and rail travel in particular can have a significant impact. The

report has already examined the areas of regeneration, tourism and employment.

However, there are a number of other wider economic impacts, which can arise as a

result of investment in transport infrastructure. These include:



Labour Market: improvements in transport efficiency increase the supply of skilled

workers available to a firm. It can also weaken local labour monopolies, applying

downward pressure to wage rates. In addition, the time savings from reduced congestion

can result in increased productivity for the firm.

DETIís view is that Northern Ireland needs a transport infrastructure that allows the

labour market to operate as efficiently as possible. People need to get to and from work

as efficiently as possible taking into consideration factors such as speed, cost and

convenience for issues such as shift work.

Housing Market: the ability of individuals to live further away from centres of

employment and services should reduce the pressure on the housing market, particularly

in urban areas. Investment in transport may also open up areas for development that

previously had poor accessibility.

Business Sector: as well as improved labour market conditions, the increased efficiency

of the transport network should reduce generalised input costs for firms. It will also

provide firms with access to wider markets. The distribution of goods should become

more efficient as the freight sector develops and logistical improvements are made.

Perception of Local Economy: the improved perception of the local economy as a

result of investments in transport infrastructure may encourage potential inward

investors to locate in Northern Ireland. A further impact would be the reduced negative

effect of Northern Irelandís peripheral location in the EU.

Whilst it is possible to make a comparison of the extent of the impact under each of the

four scenarios, this can only be a largely subjective comparison based on considerations

such as the public consultation process, a review of existing literature and experience of

previous investment projects. Economy Wider Economic Impacts

M9


Appendix M-II contains an impact assessment of each of the above factors for Scenarios



1-3 in comparison with the base case: Scenario 4 and for Scenario 4 relative to the

existing situation.


Labour Market

Scenario 4 will remove rail services and will have a negative effect on the ability

of some individuals to travel to work. It will also discourage the widening of job

search activity and decrease the pool of available skilled labour open to firms.

However, this impact will be mitigated by bus substitution and it should be

appreciated that rail only accounts for approximately 1% of total passenger kms

travelled per year.

Housing Market

The removal of the rail network will adversely affect the incentive for housing

development on the corridors that lose their rail services.

Business Sector

The negative effects will be minimal as there is currently a very small amount of

rail freight traffic (approximately 1%) and the Dublin line will still be retained.

Perception of Local Economy

Removal of rail services will result in decreased confidence in the public transport

system and the Draft Regional Development Strategy from both the travelling

public and business community. The adverse labour market conditions and

restricted access to product and input markets would appear to mean increased

costs to firms and a lack of competitiveness as a result. The international image of

Northern Ireland as a place to do business would be tarnished, as would its image

of peripherality. The SDLP, for example, in their submission to the Task Force

commented that any decision to close the railway ìÖ would make the

North/North West more peripheral and a less attractive region for inward

investmentî.



Scenarios 3,2 and 1 compared to Scenario 4

Labour Market

Scenarios 3, 2 and 1 will introduce rail services and will have a positive effect on

the ability of some individuals to travel to work. They will also encourage the

widening of job search activity and increase the pool of available skilled labour

open to firms. As more rail services are provided from Scenario 3 to Scenario 1,

the positive impact of the improved and higher frequency services increases.

Housing Market

Additional rail services, in the longer term, can act as an incentive for individuals

to reside on the rail transport corridors further away from the main urban areas,

particularly greater Belfast. As the extent of the rail network and the frequency of

services increases, the incentive for housing development on the rail corridors also

increases. Economy Wider Economic Impacts

M10

Business Sector

Additional rail services and higher frequency has a limited effect on overall road

traffic (eg. decrease in road network under Scenario 1 is less than 1%). In

addition, any additional rail freight traffic likely to be generated will be minimal.

The CBI, for instance, in their submission to the Task Force suggested that ìthe

potential for a modal shift from road to rail is not economically attractiveî and

added that ìcurrently 1% of freight uses rail ñ on an optimistic assessment this

may double over the next 10 yearsî.

Perception of Local Economy

The high level of publicity generated by the review of NIR should mean that

increasing investment will result in increased confidence in the public transport

system and the Draft Regional Development Strategy from both the travelling

public and business community. Improvements in the rail system that bring it



more into line with comparable European city services should also support the

promotion of inward investment.

Several submissions to the Task Force felt that an improved rail network could

support the work of the IDB in encouraging new companies to locate in Northern

Ireland and that a failure to do so would exacerbate the effects of peripherality ñ

see previous reference to the SDLP submission.

Summary of all Wider Economic Impacts


Qualitative Impacts: Adverse impact resulting from loss of links to Belfast,

Londonderry/Derry and other urban regeneration

initiatives, to gateways and from reduction in rural

regeneration potential due to extensive station closures.

Loss of choice of means of access to a wide range of

tourism assets. Net loss of 351 jobs in Translink.

Decreases labour mobility, weakens housing market and

lowers perception of local economy.


Qualitative Impacts: Services provided on Belfast suburban lines marginally

increase economic opportunity, but absence of rail

services north of Ballymena and Whitehead constrains

economic opportunities for better regional balance

between urban and rural regeneration. Fosters labour

mobility, strengthens housing market and improves

perception of local economy.

Quantitative Measure: Positive employment impact

343 jobs created in Translink (8 less than existing

situation)



1289 man-years of employment created (in train and bus

construction)

Assessment Score: Slight Beneficial Effect Economy Wider Economic Impacts

M11


Qualitative Impacts: Improves means of access to important regional gateways.

Sustains important regional towns and strengthens

Londonderry/Derryís focus for employment in the North

West. Improves connections to the Universities and

Institutes of Technologies. Positive impact on tourism.

Significantly fosters labour mobility, strengthens housing

market and improves perception of local economy.


367 jobs created in Translink (16 more than existing

situation)


construction)



Qualitative Impacts: Improves means of access to important regional gateways

(especially Belfast City Airport). Sustains important

regional towns and strengthens Londonderry/Derryís

focus for employment in the North West. Improves

connections to the Universities and Institutes of

Technologies. Positive impact on tourism. Significantly

fosters labour mobility, strengthens housing market and

improves perception of local economy.




407 jobs created in Translink (56 more than existing

situation)


construction)

Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect Economy Wider Economic Impacts

M12

Appendix M-I: Employment Impacts

Employment Impacts Associated with Scenarios

Enhancement AD Little Truncation Mothballing

Drivers 103 85 78 9

Conductors 78 60 53 0

Cross Border Conductors 10 10 10 10

Signalmen 30 30 19 4

Porters 86 86 76 21

Supervisors 43 43 37 1

Foremen 18 18 18 2

Clerical 84 84 78 15

Civil Engineers 30 30 23 10

Mechanical 110 96 90 41

Apprentices 13 13 13 0

Shunters 6 6 6 1

Other 11 11 9 4

Technician 22 22 21 3

Trackmen 59 59 46 23



Overseers 13 13 8 6

Foremen 8 8 5 3

Managers 35 35 35 6

Total NIR Jobs 759 709 625 159

Existing = 703

(at 30/06/00)

Enhanced Bus Services

Drivers 0 8 56 154

Support 0 2 14 39

Net Impact 759 719 695 352

Net Impact relative to

Base Case: Scenario 4

+407 +367 +343 -

Net Impact relative to

Existing Situation

+56 +16 -8 -351 Economy Wider Economic Impacts

M13

Indirect Employment Impacts - Total Man Years Created

Change on Base case

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3



Indirect - Railway

Carriages*

2430 1710 1440

Indirect -Bus Carriages -224 -215.6 -151.2

Total Man Years 2,206 1,494 1,289

NI Only -200 -196 -166

* - Indirect employment impacts on GB

economy

Assumptions

Employment Impact Per Railway Carriage

10 man years direct employment in GB

20 man years indirect in GB (Sub

contracted)

Source: Mr Stewart, Sales Manager, Adtranz Ltd, Derby

Number of carriages associated with each

scenario

Scenario 1: 27 x 3 = 81

Scenario 2: 19 x 3 = 57

Scenario 3: 16 x 3 = 48

Scenario 4: 0 0



Indirect Employment Impacts - Buses

Wrights employ 525 people and produce 600 buses per year

1 Bus equates to:

1 man year direct employment in NI

0.3 man year direct sub contract NI

0.5 man year sub-contracted in GB

1 man year indirect subcontracted in EU

No. Buses Total Man

Years

NI Only

Scenario 1 0 0 0

Scenario 2 3 8.4 3.9

Scenario 3 26 72.8 33.8

Scenario 4 80 224 104 Economy Wider Economic Impacts

M14

Appendix M-II: Impact Assessment of Other Issues

Scenario Assessment against Base Case

Assessment

against

Existing

Situation

1 2 3 4

IMPACT

Labour Market + + + + + -



Housing Market + + + + + - -

Business Sector / / / -

Perception of local

economy

++ + + + -

Key:

- - - = large adverse impact

- - = moderate adverse impact

- = slight adverse impact

/ = neutral impact

+ = slight beneficial impact

+ + = moderate beneficial impact

+ + + = large beneficial impact

Appendix N: Accessibility – Option Values Accessibility Option Values

N1

ACCESSIBILITY OBJECTIVE

N. Option Values Sub-Objective

Data Sources



1991 Census: Towns and Villages Booklet, Department of Finance and Personnel

Rail Stations: An Access Guide, Translink June 2000


The GOMMMS guidance confirms that total accessibility benefits of a new public

transport service will be captured by the ëuser benefitsí included in the Transport

Economic and Efficiency Table under the Economy Objective. However, research has

shown that an additional benefit is perceived by non-users arising from the new



opportunities provided by the new service. (Conversely, where services are removed,

the opportunity and therefore those perceived benefits are also removed.) These

benefits are termed Option Values and monetary estimates can be assigned on a caseby-case basis,

by specialist research and using methodologies discussed in an

unpublished report by the Institute of Transport Studies. However, the guidance

recognises that on many studies, it will not be possible or appropriate to undertake

specific research or detailed analysis and therefore recommends an alternative

qualitative procedure. That qualitative procedure was adopted for the RTF appraisal,

and is explained below. It should be noted that the assessment is dependent on the level

of public transport service delivered by the scenario and is not dependent on patronage

levels.

The GOMMMS qualitative procedure assigns scores related to the size of the total

resident community affected by service additions or withdrawals. The procedure

highlights that ìWithdrawal of rail services replaced by bus should be counted as a

withdrawal of service, given the lower level of accessibility offered to significant

groups of users.î

The methodology adopted used the following steps:

• compile an inventory of current and future rail stations on the network and the

population served by each (source: 1991 Census Towns and Villages Booklet);

• annotate each station on the basis of whether or not it is wheelchair accessible ñ ie

ramps etc (source: Rail Stations ñ An Access Guide, Translink 2000);

• annotate each station on the basis of whether or not it is operational in each

scenario;

• total the population served by wheelchair accessible stations under each scenario

(taking care not to double-count population where there is more than one station in a

town or City);

• compare the total population served with the GOMMMS Scoring Scale to provide

an assessment for each scenario.



The spreadsheet used to undertake the assessment is provided as Appendix N - I. Accessibility

Option Values

N2


Community Service Withdrawn Service Added

> 2000 people Strong adverse Large beneficial

500 ñ 1999 people Moderate adverse Moderate beneficial

1 ñ 499 people Slight adverse Slight beneficial

0 people Neutral Neutral

Table N – 1: GOMMMS Scoring Scale



The assessment calculations show that residents of Belfast, Newry and Portadown

only, totalling approximately 320,000, will have access to rail services ñ this

represents a reduction of approximately 400,000 residents from the current

situation. This represents a Large Adverse impact. The impact will be especially

large for persons using wheelchairs, who are normally unable to use buses.

Qualitative Impacts: Loss of access to rail for residents in Belfast, the

North East, North and North West of the Region.

Wheelchair access to the local public transport

network removed.

Quantitative Measure: Rail access removed from approximately 400,000

residents.

Assessment Score: Large Adverse Effect


Qualitative Impacts: Rail accessibility provided to residents in vicinity

of suburban Belfast lines. Wheelchair access



provided to Belfast suburban public transport

network.

Quantitative Measure: Local rail access provided to approximately

580,000 residents.




of suburban Belfast lines and the Northern and

Eastern Seaboard transportation corridors. Slightly

increased frequencies on suburban Belfast lines of

value to occasional users. Wheelchair access

provided to public transport network.

Quantitative Measure: Local rail access provided to approximately

710,000 residents.

Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect Accessibility Option Values

N3



of suburban Belfast lines and the Northern and

Eastern Seaboard transportation corridors.

Significant increase in frequencies on suburban

Belfast lines of value to occasional users.

Wheelchair access provided to public transport

network.

Quantitative Measure: Local rail access provided to over 710,000

residents.

Assessment Score: Large Beneficial EffectAccessibility Option Values



N4

Appendix N - I: Spreadsheet Of Calculations

No Station Wheelchair

Access

Population

Served

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

flag score flag Score flag score Flag score

1 Antrim 1 20878 1 20878 1 20878 1 20878 0 0

2 Ballinderry 1 537 1 537 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 Ballycarry 1 1010 1 1010 1 1010 0 0 0 0

4 Ballymena 1 28717 1 28717 1 28717 1 28717 0 0

5 Ballymoney 1 8242 1 8242 1 8242 0 0 0 0

6 Bangor 1 26219 1 26219 1 26219 1 26219 0 0

7 Bangor West 1 26219 1 26219 1 26219 1 26219 0 0

8 Adelaide 0 31026 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

9 Balmoral 1 31026 1 39891 1 39891 1 39891 0 0

10 Botanic 1 31026 1 39891 1 39891 1 39891 0 0

11 Bridge End 0 31026 1 0 1 39891 1 39891 0 0

12 Central 1 31026 1 39891 1 39891 1 39891 1 279237

13 City Hospital 1 31026 1 39891 1 39891 1 39891 0 0

14 Belfast - GVS 1 31026 1 39891 1 39891 1 39891 0 0

15 Sydenham 1 31026 0 0 1 39891 1 39891 0 0

16 Yorkgate 1 31026 1 39891 1 39891 1 39891 0 0

17 Bellarena 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0 0 0

18 Carnalea 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0



19 Carrickfergus 1 22885 1 22885 1 22885 1 22885 0 0

20 Castlerock 1 1023 1 1023 1 1023 0 0 0 0

21 Clipperstown 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0

22 Coleraine 1 10361 1 10361 1 10361 0 0 0 0

23 Círaine Univ 1 10361 1 10361 1 10361 0 0 0 0

24 Crumlin 1 2697 1 2697 0 0 0 0 0 0

25 Cullybackey 1 2434 1 2434 1 2434 0 0 0 0

26 Cultra 0 100 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

27 Derriaghy 1 1696 1 1696 1 1696 1 1696 0 0

28 Downshire 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0

29 Dunmurry 1 12771 1 12771 1 12771 1 12771 0 0

30 Finaghy 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0

31 Glenavy 1 497 1 497 0 0 0 0 0 0

32 Glynn 1 384 1 384 1 384 0 0 0 0

33 Greenisland 1 4967 1 4967 1 4967 1 4967 0 0

34 Helen's Bay 0 1268 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

35 Hilden 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0

36 Holywood 1 9252 1 9252 1 9252 1 9252 0 0

37 Jordanstown 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0

38 Knockmore 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0

39 Lambeg 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0

40 Larne Harbour 1 8788 1 8788 1 8788 0 0 0 0

41 Larne Town 1 8788 1 8788 1 8788 0 0 0 0

42 Lisburn 1 42110 1 21055 1 42110 1 42110 0 0

43 Londonderry/Derry 1 72334 1 72334 1 72334 0 0 0 0

44 Lurgan 1 21905 1 21905 1 21905 1 21905 0 0

45 Magheramourne 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0 0 0



46 Marino 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0

47 Moira 1 2772 1 2772 1 2772 1 2772 0 0

48 Newry 1 22975 1 22975 1 22975 1 22975 1 22975

49 Portadown 1 21299 1 21299 1 21299 1 21299 1 21299

50 Portrush 1 5703 1 5703 1 5703 0 0 0 0

51 Dhu Varren 1 5703 1 5703 1 5703 0 0 0 0

52 Poyntzpass 1 380 1 380 1 380 1 380 0 0

53 Scarva 1 322 1 322 1 322 1 322 0 0

54 Seahill 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0

55 Trooperslane 1 22885 1 22885 1 22885 1 22885 0 0

56 Whiteabbey 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0

57 Whitehead 1 3761 1 3761 1 3761 1 3761 0 0

Templepatrick 1 1414 1 1414 1 1414 1 1414 0 0

Mossley West 1 1420 1 1420 1 1420 1 1420 0 0

Lisburn West 1 42110 1 21055 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ballyhenry 1 100 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0

City Airport 1 31026 1 39891 0 0 0 0 0 0

61 714347 56 710513 42 575184 3 323511

Appendix O: Accessibility – Severance Accessibility Severance

O1


O. Severance Sub-Objective

Data Sources



Design Manual for Roads and Bridges




Ordnance Survey NI: 1:50,000 maps


The Severance sub-objective is assessed in terms of the impacts on non-motorised

modes of travel (ie cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians). The GOMMMS guidance and

the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) suggest that the effects of traffic

should be assessed where traffic levels change by +/-30%, whilst rail impacts should be

assessed for individual road closures or level crossings (where applicable). For rail, the

severity of impact will increase with the number and speed of trains using the crossings.

The guidance notes that whilst it may be appropriate to undertake surveys of pedestrian

and cyclist demand for detailed scheme assessment, the application of standard datasets

or professional judgement will be more appropriate to the assessment of strategies.

The severance score is presented using the seven point textual scale. GOMMMS

provides the following four broad levels of severance:

• ìNone - Little or no hindrance to pedestrian movementî

• ìSlight - All people wishing to make pedestrian movements will be able to do

so, but there will probably be some hindrance to movementî

• ìModerate - Some people, particularly children and old people, are likely to be

dissuaded from making journeys on foot. For others, pedestrian journeys will be

longer or less attractive.î

• ìSevere - People are likely to be deterred from making pedestrian journeys to the

extent sufficient to induce an reorganisation of their activities. Ö. Those who do

make journeys on foot will experience considerable hindrance.î

Results from the Oscar Faber analysis confirmed that traffic changes of +/- 30% would

not result from the scenarios to be assessed, therefore the methodology focussed on rail

impacts. The methodology was constructed of the following sequential steps:

• confirm current crossings on the rail network, noting detailed location on Ordnance

Survey 1:50,000 maps;



• prepare inventory of current crossings, noting the following features which will

reflect possible level of usage:

- location ñ either ëisolated ruralí, ëruralí, ëvillageí or ëtowní;

- road class ñ minor, B or A (it was considered that, especially in rural areas,

pedestrian usage was highest on the higher road classes - partly due to the key

land uses and facilities linked by the roads and partly due to improved pedestrian

facilities [eg footways and lighting] provided);

- trains crossing each weekday ñ train speeds would not change between

scenarios, whilst weekday frequencies were considered to represent the ëworst

caseí (ie Saturday and Sunday services would be less frequent); Accessibility Severance

O2

- in addition, where location is ëtowní or ëvillageí, rather than ëruralí or ëisolated

ruralí, population (taken from 1991 Census) was recorded in order to enable

some quantification of the possible numbers of persons affected i.e. population

was used as an indicator or proxy for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.

• assign a numerical code to each of the features noted above allowing a numerical

score to be calculated for each crossing, see Table 1.

It should be noted therefore that, if all other features of the rail network remain

unchanged, then the severance score for the scenarios increases with frequency of

services. The severance score is not affected by modal switching or by level of rail

usage.


See Appendix O - I for inventory and impact results assessment.

Line Location Existing

Situation

(tpd)

Scenario



1

(tpd)

Scenario

2

(tpd)

Scenario

3

(tpd)

Scenario

4

(tpd)

Londonderry/

Derry

Ballymena 18 18 18 18 0

X Border +

Portadown

Lurgan 56 69 56 56 16

Larne Jordanstown 67 74 67 67 0

Portrush Artillery Road 37 40 37 0 0

AntrimBleach Green

Antrim 0 18 18 18 0

Note: tpd = trains per weekday

Table O – 1: Typical Train Frequencies by Line


Qualitative Summary

The major impacts arise from the complete removal of rail services or addition of

new rail services on previously unused lines. Lesser impacts arise from significant



decreases or increases in train service frequencies. Locations close to village or town

centres will impact on the greatest numbers of pedestrians. Due to the relatively low

frequencies of train services, whilst pedestrian and cyclists movements may be

hindered, they are unlikely to be dissuaded from making journeys and therefore the

assessment score is ìSlightî for all scenarios. Using Scenario 4 ëMothballí as the

Base scenario, all of the scenarios return ìSlight Adverseî assessments. Accessibility Severance

O3


Qualitative Impacts: Severance effects arise due to rail crossings and

increased train frequencies and are limited in this

scenario to the BelfastñDublin line. There is

reduced severance at Lurgan, Moira and

Dunmurry due to reduction in train frequencies.

No requirement for crossing on A57 route to/from

Belfast International Airport on Antrim Bleach

Green section due to mothballing.

Quantitative Measure: Current severance removed for 73k residents of

Coleraine, Cullybackey, Ballymena and Antrim,

and University access at Jordanstown.




increased train frequencies and are spread across

NI network with key impacts in urban locations

noted in ëQuantitative Measureí. Also, there is

significant and increased severance at Lurgan,

Moira and Dunmurry due to additional train



frequencies. Severance introduced at University

access at Jordanstown and at the new barrier

crossing on A57 route to/from Belfast

International Airport on Antrim Bleach Green

section.

Quantitative Measure: Level crossings introduce severance for 50k

residents of Ballymena and Antrim.




increased train frequencies and are spread across






access at Jordanstown and at a new barrier



section.


residents of Coleraine, Cullybackey Ballymena

and Antrim.




increased train frequencies and are spread across Accessibility Severance



O4






access at Jordanstown and at a new barrier



section. Potential severance arising from provision

of D5 spur.


residents of Coleraine, Cullybackey Ballymena

and Antrim.

Assessment Score: Slight Adverse EffectAccessibility Severance

O5

Appendix O - I: Spreadsheet showing Calculation of Severance Impacts by

Crossing Location

Location Road Existing Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Line Xing Description Population Code Code tpd score tpd score tpd score tpd score tpd score

Londonderry/Derry Line

1 1 Nutt's NA 1 1 14 14 14 14 14 14 0 0 0 0

1 2 Bellarena Station 100 2 5 14 140 14 140 14 140 0 0 0 0

1 3 Duncrun West Farms 2 1 14 28 14 28 14 28 0 0 0 0

1 4 Duncrun East Farms 2 1 14 28 14 28 14 28 0 0 0 0

1 5 Clooney Farms 2 1 14 28 14 28 14 28 0 0 0 0

1 6 Magilligan 100 2 1 14 28 14 28 14 28 0 0 0 0



1 7 Umbra 100 2 5 14 140 14 140 14 140 0 0 0 0

1 8 Castlerock Station 1023 5 1 14 70 14 70 14 70 0 0 0 0

1 9 Coleraine Station 20721 10 2 22 440 22 440 22 440 0 0 0 0

1 10 Damhead 100 2 1 22 44 22 44 22 44 0 0 0 0

1 11 Macfin 100 2 1 22 44 22 44 22 44 0 0 0 0

1 12 Balnamore 189 2 1 22 44 22 44 22 44 0 0 0 0

1 13 Coldagh 100 2 1 22 44 22 44 22 44 0 0 0 0

1 14 Ballyboyland 100 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 0 0

1 15 Galdanagh 100 1 1 18 18 18 18 18 18 0 0 0 0

1 16 Dunloy 1119 5 1 18 90 18 90 18 90 0 0 0 0

1 17 Killagan 100 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 0 0

1 18 Glaryford 99 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 0 0

1 19 Broughdone 100 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 0 0

1 20 Martinstown 2434 5 2 18 180 18 180 18 180 0 0 0 0

1 21 Cullbackey Station 2434 5 2 18 180 18 180 18 180 0 0 0 0

1 22 Cullybackey North 2434 5 2 18 180 18 180 18 180 0 0 0 0

1 23 Cullybackey South 2434 5 2 18 180 18 180 18 180 0 0 0 0

1 24 Galgorm 681 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 0 0

1 25 Spenctown 28717 10 2 18 360 18 360 18 360 18 360 0 0

1 26 New Grave Yard 28717 10 2 18 360 18 360 18 360 18 360 0 0

1 27 Slaght 28717 10 2 18 360 18 360 18 360 18 360 0 0

1 28 Steele's Farms 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0

1 29 Drumsough 100 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0

1 30 Carngranny 100 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0

1 31 Niblock 20878 10 2 18 360 18 360 18 360 18 360 0 0

1 32 Springfarm 20878 10 2 18 360 18 360 18 360 18 360 0 0

1 33 Antrim Station 20878 10 2 18 360 18 360 18 360 18 360 0 0



1 34 Deerpark Hotel 20878 10 2 18 360 18 360 18 360 18 360 0 0

1 35 Molyneaux 100 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0

1 36 McKillop's 100 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0

1 37 Fletcher's 100 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0

1 38 Blair's Field Access 1 2 18 36 18 36 18 36 18 36 0 0

1 39 Frazer's Field Access 1 2 18 36 18 36 18 36 18 36 0 0

5304 5304 5304 3024 0

X Border + Portadown Line

2 1 Meigh 578 2 1 16 32 23 32 16 32 0 0 16 32

2 2 Poyntzpass 380 5 1 20 100 29 100 20 100 0 0 16 80

2 3 Lurgan Station 21905 10 1 56 560 69 720 56 560 56 560 16 160

2 4 Lake Street 21905 10 1 56 560 69 720 56 560 56 560 16 160

2 5 Bell's Row 21905 10 1 56 560 69 720 56 560 56 560 16 160

2 6 Kilmore 100 2 1 56 112 69 144 56 112 56 112 16 32

2 7 Drumbane 100 2 1 56 112 69 144 56 112 56 112 16 32

2 8 Moira Station 2792 5 2 56 560 69 720 56 560 56 560 16 160

2 9 Trummery 100 2 1 56 112 69 144 56 112 56 112 16 32

2 10 Damhead 100 2 1 56 112 69 144 56 112 56 112 16 32

2 11 Maze 100 2 1 56 112 69 144 56 112 56 112 16 32

2 12 Lissue 100 2 1 56 112 65 144 56 112 56 112 16 32

2 13 Dunmurry 12771 10 1 56 560 99 1200 56 560 56 560 16 160

3604 5076 3604 3472 1104

Larne Line

3 1 Jordanstown Station Univ. Access 5 1 67 335 74 495 67 335 67 335 0 0

3 1 Trooperslane Station 100 5 2 67 670 74 990 67 670 67 670 0 0

1005 1485 1005 1005 0

Portrush Line



4 1 Ballyreagh 100 2 1 37 74 38 74 37 74 0 0 0 0

4 2 Cromore 100 2 1 37 74 38 74 37 74 0 0 0 0

4 3 Artillery Road 20721 10 1 37 350 40 350 37 370 0 0 0 0

498 498 518 0 0

Antrim Bleach Green

5 1 20878 10 1 0 0 18 180 18 180 18 180 0 0

5 2 House Access 2 1 0 0 18 36 18 36 18 36 0 0

5 3 Farm Access 2 1 0 0 18 36 18 36 18 36 0 0

5 4 Farm Access 2 2 0 0 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0

5 5 A'port Access 2 5 0 0 18 180 18 180 18 180 0 0

5 6 Kingsbog NA 2 2 0 0 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0

5 7 NA 2 2 0 0 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0

5 8 Farm Access 2 2 0 0 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0

0 720 720 720 0

10411 13083 11151 8221 1104

Notes

Assign Codes as follows: Scenarios 1, 2 and 4: Population affected = Coleraine (20721), Cullybackey

(2434),

Ballymena (28717) and Antrim (20878) = Total (72750)

Line Code - 1=Londonderry/Derry, 2=Xborder, 3=Larne, 4=Portrush

Xing No - internal code Scenarios 1, 2 and 4: Population affected = Ballymena (28717) and Antrim

(20878)

Population - Population of Town/village, with 100 for 'passing' = Total (49595)

Location Code - 1= isolated rural, 2 = rural, 5 = village, 10 = town

Road Code - 1= minor (or unclassified), 2 = B, 5 = A

tpd = Trains per day (both directions)

Appendix P: Accessibility – Access to the Transport System Accessibility Access to the TransportSystem



P1


P. Access to the Transport System Sub-Objective

Data Sources




Translink Timetables


The GOMMMS guidance confirms that the most important determinant of access to the

transport system is the availability of a vehicle for private use. In addition, persons

living beyond convenient walking distance from a regular bus or train service can be

considered to have unacceptable access to transport system. The guidance suggests that

ideally, the assessment will total the number of non car available population living

beyond 250 metres of a daytime hourly public transport service, for each scenario. A

comparison of these totals between the scenario under test and the Base scenario would

then be used to ëscoreí each scenario. The assessment of each scenario is therefore

dependent on the level of public transport service provided and is not related to modal

demand.

Consideration of the scenario specifications with respect to the level of public transport

(combined bus and rail) service was confirmed as the most appropriate methodology.

Scenarios 1 and 2 do not represent major changes in level of public transport service

(from the current situation) ñ the new stations in Scenario 1 are provided in residential

areas (Templepatrick, Mossley West and Lisburn West) already served by Ulsterbus.

Scenarios 3 and 4 remove rail services, however in general terms, bus substitution will

ensure that there is no net change in level of service. It was concluded therefore that the

overall effect would be Neutral and that it was not necessary to undertake a detailed



quantitative assessment. It was noted, however, that it would be useful to document

instances for each scenario, where minor changes to accessibility might result.



Qualitative Impacts: May be localised impacts of improved or

worsened accessibility where railway and bus

stations locations are significantly far apart and

therefore serve different catchment areas. Bus

Substitution proposals will generally ensure no net

decrease in frequency of public transport services.






therefore serve different catchment areas. Rail Accessibility Access to the Transport System

P2

service will generally not improve frequencies

over that offered by substitute buses.






therefore serve different catchment areas. Rail










therefore serve different catchment areas. Rail




Appendix Q: Integration – Transport Interchange Integration Transport Interchange

Q1

INTEGRATION OBJECTIVE

Q. Transport Interchange Sub-Objective

Data Sources


the Environment, Transport and the Regions, March 2000

1998/99 NIR passenger journey data as used in concomitant TENS Study:

Translink Research Unit, 1995/96 Passenger Surveys

Translink Research Unit, NIR Facility Audits (2000)

Translink Rail & Bus Station Access Guides




For the most part, the approach used mirrors that recommended in paras. 8.2.2. to 8.2.5

of the GOMMMS manual. The only significant departure is that whereas GOMMMS

recommends the use of low and high thresholds of 500 and 10,000 respectively, the

Integration Sub-group elected for an Average Week Day Flow (AWDF) of 350 or



greater for the passenger interchange assessment. The primary reasons for doing so,

were that:-

(a) we would ensure the principal unmanned halts, as well as the manned stations, came

within scope of the assessment, and

(b) it was recognised that the passenger numbers for the 1998/99 base year were

distorted as a result of the extensive engineering works ongoing at that time, which

disrupted many services.

The determination was done by applying the annualisation factors, derived for the

TENS study, to the 58 railway stations for which passenger journey information for

1998/99 exists, to give average weekday daily passenger flows (boarders and alighters).

The aspects of service for the 6 passenger indicators recommended by GOMMMS and

agreed by the Group are shown in Appendix Q - I.

Through a combination of site inspections and the Translink bus and rail access guides,

an audit was undertaken of the existing standards for the 28 halts/stations that came

within the daily usage threshold referred to above, using the net score for each indicator

to determine how it should be assigned i.e. ìPoorî (No >= 2), ìModerateî, or ìHighî

(Yes >=2). See Appendix Q ñ II.

An assessment of the impact of each scenario against the existing situation was then

undertaken and is reported in Appendix Q - III. This analysis was then reworked using

Scenario 4 as the base case (see Scenarios Assessment below). The quantitative entries

are populated from the Oscar Faber Impact Analysis and the absolute changes to the

halts / stations affected by each scenario.

The impact on the freight indicators as described in paras. 8.2.6 to 8.2.10 of GOMMMS

was deemed not to be sufficient to warrant inclusion in any subsequent analysis of the

scenarios under current consideration (see Appendix Q - V for details). Integration Transport

Interchange

Q2

Key Results



See Appendix Q - IV for Passenger Interchange Indicators and impact assessments for

each scenario against the Base case: Scenario 4.


Qualitative Summary

The forecasts of the numbers of daily users affected does not cause a significant

variation in the scale of impact.


There is a basic policy to introduce complementary improvements to public

transport journeys and to sustain or increase public transport patronage. The first

principle of passenger interchange is that it should never be imposed and at best

be avoided or at least optimised by arranging for a short walk, short wait, and a

guaranteed connection as well as providing those facilities that offer acceptable

levels of comfort and convenience. This has particular significance in the context

of those scenarios that have as an element, station or halt closure, because there

will be locations at which the bus substitute will be accessed at interchanges at the

lower end of the hierarchy, eg, hail and ride or some on-street bus stops that

compare poorly with permanent rail halt or station locations that have facilities

that accord with the standards given in the current Translink passenger charter.

This particularly applies to Scenario 4 which mothballs extensive sections of the

rail network. Approximately 34,000 travellers daily experience the large adverse

impact of switching from 25 no. rail interchange locations to substitute bus.


Qualitative Impacts: Large number of train travellers use greatly

improved facilities following switch from bus to

rail.

Quantitative Measure: Approx. nos. of daily users benefiting = 43,000




No. of new interchanges created = 0



Qualitative Impacts: Very large number of train travellers use greatly


rail.






Qualitative Impacts: Very large number of train travellers use greatly


rail and travellers using Park & Ride facilities at

strategic locations.


No. of interchanges improved = 25 Integration Transport Interchange

Q3



The rationale behind the use of the terms ëvery large number of train travellersí and

ëlarge number of train travellersí in the Quantitative Measure is that the number of users

for Scenarios 1 and 2 (i.e. 54,000 and 48,000) is significantly greater than that for

Scenario 3 (i.e. 43,000). Integration Transport Interchange

Q4

Appendix Q - I: Passenger Indicators recommended by GOMMMS

PASSENGER INDICATOR ASPECT OF SERVICE



Waiting Environment Comfortable Seating

Protection from Weather

Heated Waiting Room

Non-Smoking Area

Toilet

Level of Facilities Well-lit, Clean Public Service Areas

Litter Bins

Public Pay Phone

Food / Drink Dispenser

Clock

Induction Loops, Minicoms

Facilities for Passengers with Special Needs

Lockers

Cycle Parking

Level of Information Directions for Passengers

Announcements

Rail Timetables

Automatic Display

Enquiry / Sales Desk

Bus Timetable (Interchange)

Visible Staff Staff Wearing Uniform

Staff Wearing Badge

Physical Linkage for Next Stage of Journey Physically Separate Terminal

Bridge / Subway

Shared Site

Ramps for Passengers with Special Needs

Reliability of Connection Secure Park & Ride Car Park



Taxi Rank

Linkline Bus Service

Co-ordinated Timetable

CCTV

Disabled Parking Priority Integration Transport Interchange

Q5

Appendix Q – II: Interchange Quality Assessments

In-Scope Interchange

Quality

Assessment

Scenario

1

Scenario

2

Scenario

3

Scenario

4

Botanic Moderate √ √ √

Central High √ √ √ √

Great Victoria St. High √ √ √

Ballymena High √ √ √

Bangor High √ √ √

Coleraine High √ √

Larne High √ √

Lisburn High √ √ √

Londonderry/Derry Moderate √ √



Lurgan High √ √ √

Newry Moderate to

High

√ √ √ √

Portadown Moderate to

High

√ √ √ √

Portrush Poor to

Moderate

√ √

Yorkgate High √ √ √

Antrim Moderate to

High

√ √ √

Ballymoney Moderate √ √

Carrickfergus High √ √ √

Whiteabbey Poor √ √ √

Jordanstown Moderate √ √ √

Greenisland Poor √ √ √

Clipperstown Poor √ √ √

Downshire Poor √ √ √

Whitehead Moderate to

High

√ √ √

Bangor West Poor to

Moderate

√ √ √



Holywood Poor √ √ √

Sydenham Poor √ √ √

City Hospital Poor √ √ √

University Poor to

Moderate

√ √

Belfast City Airport √

Moira √

Nos. = 28 Nos. = 30 Nos. = 28 Nos. = 22 Nos. = 3

- In Scenario 1, it is assumed that as a result of the P & R improvements only 2

new locations will satisfy the threshold of AWDF >= 350.

- The assessment of standards assumes the completion of committed infrastructure

schemes at Bangor, Central and Coleraine. Integration Transport Interchange

Q6

Appendix Q - III: Scenarios Impact Assessment against the Existing Situation

Passenger Interchange With Strategy Scenario 1 With Strategy Scenario 2 With Strategy Scenario 3

With Strategy Scenario 4

Indicator (POOR/MODERATE/HIGH) (POOR/MODERATE/HIGH) (POOR/MODERATE/HIGH)

(POOR/MODERATE/HIGH)

Waiting Environment High High High High

Level of Facilities High High High High

Levels of Information High High High High

Visible Staff Presence High High High High

Physical Linkage for next stage of journey Moderate to High Moderate to High Moderate Moderate

to Poor

Reliability of Connection High High Moderate Moderate to High

Approximate numbers of daily users affected*: = 34,385 Anticipated increase

in users = 56 %

Anticipated increase



in users = 40 %

Anticipated increase

in users = 24 %

Marked decrease

in users = -100%

Overall assessment of passenger interchange impact

(slight/moderate/large positive/negative or neutral)

Moderately Positive Neutral Neutral Largely Negative

* Figure taken from 1998/99 NIR passenger journey data as used in concomitant TENS Study

Integration Transport Interchange

Q7

Appendix Q - IV: Passenger Interchange Indicators and Impact Assessments for each Scenario against

Base Case: Scenario 4

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Passenger Interchange Indicator Enhancement, additional sets, reopening of Antrim/Knockmore, etc

Existing with new Rolling

Stock, ie, A D Little Report

Truncation at Whitehead and

Ballymena Bus Substitution

Waiting Environment B B b

Level of Facilities B B b

Levels of Information B B b

Visible Staff Presence b b b

Physical Linkage for next stage of journey n n n

Reliability of Connection n n n

Overall Score = Large Beneficial Large Beneficial Moderate Beneficial



Key:

B = Large Beneficial, b = Moderate Beneficial, b = Slight Beneficial, n = Neutral Integration Transport

Interchange

Q8

Appendix Q - V: Freight Interchange

In respect of assessing freight interchange as part of the Integration Objective, the

Group concluded that it was not necessary to consider it further as:-

(1) Rail freight facilities are limited due to the small size of the Province and the

relatively small railway network. (Apart from the Adelaide Road Freight Terminal

in Belfast operated by NIR there are freight sidings south of Portadown, adjacent to

Larne Town station and south of Coleraine with a goods depot at

Londonderry/Derry.)

(2) NIR does not operate any rail freight services. (Irish Rail provide the locomotives

and usually the wagons)

(3) The only rail freight services in Northern Ireland are between Dublin and the

Adelaide Road Freight Terminal in Belfast. The commodities carried are:-

• Containers between Belfast and the Irish Rail container terminal at Dublin North

Wall. (Irish Rail provides a daily train in each direction.)

• Beer on behalf of Guinness Ireland from Dublin to the companyís rail terminal

at Adelaide

• Cement to the cement terminal at Adelaide on behalf of Irish Cement

• Fertilisers on behalf of Irish Fertiliser Industries via the Adelaide terminal.

Therefore, the impact on the freight indicators as described in paragraphs 8.2.6 to 8.2.10

of GOMMMS was deemed not to be sufficient to warrant inclusion in any subsequent

analysis of the scenarios under current consideration.

Appendix R: Integration – Land-Use Policy Integration Land-Use Policy

R1




R. Land-Use Policy Sub-Objective

Data Sources

The Draft Regional Development Strategy referred to as Shaping Our Future - the Draft

Regional Strategic Framework, December 1998

The Report of the Panel Conducting the Public Examination, February 2000

The Response by the Department for Regional Development to the Report of the

Independent Panel following the Public Examination, April 2000


This sub-objective assesses the extent scenarios integrate with land use. It also provides

an overall assessment taking account of the balance between policies and proposals,

which are facilitated, hindered or unaffected. In line with GOMMMS, a three-point

scale of impact comprising adverse, neutral and beneficial is used.

GOMMMS advises that a broad assessment of planning policies as set out in national,

regional or local plans is sufficient. It is also states that:

♦ Marginal differences should be ignored;

♦ Key policies should be given greater weight; and

♦ Geographically specific policies should be taken into account.

Many of the statutory Area Plans in Northern Ireland are out of date and do not take full

account of changes in national and regional policies. The Draft Regional Development

Strategy, covering 1998 to 2025 and which has now been tested at an Examination in

Public, provides a comprehensive and up-to-date basis for this assessment. In particular

it refers to regional transportation policies.

To enable judgements on the impacts to be made in a structured way, the core policies

of the Draft Regional Development Strategy have been divided into five main planning

criteria. These are:

♦ Key Transport Corridors, Link Corridors and Metropolitan Corridors as the

skeletal framework for future physical development and primary access to port and



airport gateways;

♦ A compact and thriving metropolitan core centred on Belfast as the major

regional gateway at the hub of the regionís transportation network. (It includes, in

addition to Belfast, the urban centres of Bangor, Carrickfergus, Lisburn,

Castlereagh and Newtownabbey);

♦ A strong north-west regional centre based on Londonderry/Derry as the

transport pivot and regional gateway for the NW corner of the island;

♦ A network of strong regional towns as Main and Local Hubs as main service

centres for urban and rural communities strategically located on Key Transportation

Corridors with capacity to accommodate a wide range of services for large scale

population and housing growth; and

♦ A vibrant rural community comprising small rural towns and villages with

enhanced accessibility to regional facilities via the Key Transportation Corridors. Integration Land-

Use Policy

R2

Key Results

Appendix R - I contains the impact assessments for each scenario under the main

planning criteria outlined above.



Overall assessment: Large Adverse. Large scale reduction in the rail network

threatens the Draft Regional Development Strategy, widens regional imbalance,

limits alternatives for reducing car dependency and worsens infrastructure deficit.


Qualitative Impacts: Offers benefits as a result of the operation of the

Belfast suburban network, the opening of the

Antrim-Bleach Green line, improved running

times and additional rolling stock. Failure to offer



a rail choice to significant parts of the North and

North-West, particularly with lack of stations at

Londonderry/Derry, Coleraine, Ballymoney and

Larne, undermines the Draft Regional

Development Strategy.



Qualitative Impacts: Provides support for the Draft Regional

Development Strategy as a result of the operation

of the Belfast suburban network and the lines to

Londonderry/Derry and Larne, the opening of the

Antrim-Bleach Green line, improved running

times and additional new rolling stock.



Qualitative Impacts: Provides strong support for the Draft Regional

Development Strategy as a result of the operation

of the Belfast suburban network and the lines to

Londonderry/Derry and Larne, the opening of the

Antrim-Bleach Green line and Antrim-Knockmore

lines, the provision of a link to Belfast City

Airport, improved running times, additional new

rolling stock and increased frequencies. Scenario 1

thereby reduces regional imbalance, increases

alternatives for reducing car dependency and

improves the infrastructure deficit.

Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect Integration Land-Use Policy







Transportation Corridors Yes

Belfast Metropolitan Area Yes

Londonderry/Derry Yes

Regional Towns Yes

Rural Community Yes

Overall Assessment:

Slight Beneficial Effect – The operation of the Belfast suburban network, the opening

of the Antrim-Bleach Green line, improved running times and additional rolling stock

offer benefits compared to the base scenario. However, the Draft Regional Development

Strategy would not be fully supported since the mothballing of Londonderry/Derry, Integration

Land-Use Policy

R4

Coleraine, Ballymoney and Larne stations would impair its ability to deliver balanced

development.






Regional Towns Yes

Rural Community Yes

Overall Assessment:

Moderate Beneficial Effect ñ The operation of the Belfast suburban network and the

lines to Londonderry/Derry and Larne, the opening of the Antrim-Bleach Green line,

improved running times and additional rolling stock offer significant benefits compared

to the base scenario. While the AntrimñKnockmore line remains mothballed, this



scenario supports the balanced development opportunities in the Draft Regional

Development Strategy.






Regional Towns Yes

Rural Community Yes

Overall Assessment:

Large Beneficial Effect ñ The operation of the Belfast suburban network and the lines

to Londonderry/Derry and Larne, the opening of the Antrim-Bleach Green line and

Antrim-Knockmore lines, the provision of a link to Belfast City Airport, improved

running times, additional new rolling stock and increased frequencies offer very

significant benefits compared to the base scenario. Scenario 1 significantly supports the

Draft Regional Development Strategy.

Appendix S: Integration – Other Government Policies Integration Other Government Policies

S1


S. Other Government Policies Sub-Objective

Data Sources


the Environment, Transport and the Regions, March 2000

NICS Departmental Corporate/Business Plans


GOMMMS prompts for the impact of transport proposals on other Government policies

to be considered, in order to assess the effect on overall policy integration within



Government. It suggests that reviews should be carried out to identify whether a

proposal (i) contributes to and is consistent with (ii) has no overall contribution, or (iii)

is inconsistent with other Government policies beyond transport. GOMMMS advises

that the AST scores are to be Beneficial, Neutral or Adverse.

To assist with the process of identifying likely impacts, GOMMMS lists GB

Government Departments and their respective policies. These were not considered to be

representative of Northern Ireland ëGovernment policiesí. The appraisal of this

particular sub-objective considered that all external (to Northern Ireland) Government

policies essentially impact through Northern Ireland Departments. Consequently each

NI Department was contacted, and the relevant policies identified (See Appendix S - II).

Appendix S - II lists all NI Departments and the respective policies suggested by

Departmental contacts, and records the perceived key points.


Qualitative Summary

The withdrawal of rail service under Scenario 4 generally has an adverse effect on a

wide range of Government policies. In contrast, when compared against Scenario 4,

the other scenarios which progressively introduce rail would have a beneficial effect.

The impact on New TSN and equity relevant to OFMDFM policies is detailed in the

Equity and Distribution Supporting Analysis, and public expenditure issues relevant

to DFP are detailed in the Affordability and Financial Sustainability Supporting

analysis.

Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation:

In Scenario 4, the most significant policy impacts are:

• there are environmental disbenefits such as increased pollution levels and

greenhouse gases. These would adversely affect policies in DHSSPS and

DOE.

• there are negative impacts on townscape and heritage that would adversely



affect policies in DOE.

• the increased use of car results in reduced physical fitness and risk of

accidents and hence policies in DHSSPS and DOE would be undermined.

• the economy will suffer as a result of increased congestion costs, more freight

on road, less reliable and longer journey times, the negative impact on

tourism, reduced impact of urban regeneration issues, reduction in rural Integration Other

Government Policies

S2

regeneration potential, less efficient E-W, N-S links and increased perception

of peripherality. This would adversely affect policies in DRD, DETI, DOE,

DARD and OFMDFM.

• reduced transport choice and reduced attractiveness of bus substitution will

impact on accessibility (eg, students and the disabled) and increase social

exclusion and hence adversely affect policies in DETI, DHSSPS, DE and

DHFETE.

• there would be an adverse impact on the Draft Regional Development Strategy

developed by DRD.

• increased unemployment (within Translink) and decreased labour mobility

would impact negatively on policies in DETI.

The AST entry for Scenario 4 is shown in Appendix S ñ I.

Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 compared to Scenario 4

The benefits increase with increasing rail services, ie, Scenario 1 has greater

benefits than Scenario 2 which has greater benefits than Scenario 3 when each is

compared with Scenario 4. The most significant policy impacts are:

• there are environmental benefits such as decreased pollution levels and

greenhouse gases. This helps policies in DHSSPS and DOE.

• the utilisation of more stations has positive impacts on townscape and heritage

thus supporting DOE policies.



• increased use of public transport results in more exercise with the associated

health benefits and also reduced safety risks. Policies in DHSSPS and DOE

are supported.

• the economy will benefit as a result of reduced congestion, potentially more

freight carried on rail, more reliable and shorter journey times, better facilities

for tourists, opportunities for urban and rural regeneration, improved E-W and

N-S links (particularly under Scenarios 1 and 2) and an improved image for

the region. These impacts will support policies in DETI, DOE, DARD and

OFMDFM.

• greater transport choice will improve accessibility and help reduce social

exclusion and, therefore, help policies in DETI, DHSSPS, DE and DHFE,

T&E.

• the provision of rail services will contribute to DRDís Draft Regional

Development Strategy

• the increase in employment (within Translink) and labour mobility helps

DETI policies.

The AST entries for Scenarios 1,2 and 3 are shown in Appendix S ñ I.Integration Other Government

Policies

S3

Appendix S – I: AST Entries

Scenario Qualitative Impacts Assessment

1 Supportive of a wide range of other Government Policies

due to significantly increased quality rail provision in

Belfast commuter corridors, Antrim to Knockmore and to

both Larne and Londonderry/Derry. This brings benefits

in terms of accessibility, social inclusion, development

corridors, north and north west tourism, links to gateways

and indirect and direct decongestion effects.



Some policies in the following Departments will benefit:

DHSSPS, DOE, DETI, DRD, DE, DHFETE and

OFMDFM.

Slight Beneficial

Effect


due to increased quality rail provision in Belfast commuter

corridors and to both Larne and Londonderry/Derry. This

brings benefits in terms of accessibility, social inclusion,

development corridors, north and north west tourism, links

to gateways and indirect and direct decongestion effects.



OFMDFM.

Slight Beneficial

Effect


due to quality rail provision mainly in Belfast commuter

corridors and the benefits that brings in terms of

accessibility and indirect and direct congestion effects.



OFMDFM.

Slight Beneficial

Effect

4 Overall this scenario adversely affects a broad range of

Other Government Policies and damages the credibility of



the Draft Regional Development Strategy. This is mainly

as a result of withdrawal of rail services, the relatively

lower attraction of bus substitution and indirect and direct

congestion effects.

Some Policies in the following Departments will be

undermined: DHSSPS, DOE, DETI, DRD, DE, DHFETE

and OFMDFM.

Slight Adverse

Effect

Although the benefits against some policies, or elements of policies, can be very

significant, the overall assessment against ëother government policiesí is assessed as

slightly beneficial for Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 when compared to Scenario 4. Using the

same rationale, the overall assessment for Scenario 4 is slightly adverse when compared

to the existing situation. Integration Other Government Policies

S4

SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4

DEPARTMENT POLICIES - all considered as

'Key' by respective Departments

KEY POINTS Enhancement - additional sets,

Antrim-Knockmore reopened,

selective dual tracking for

single, City Airport

Existing with new DMU rolling

stock

Truncation at Whitehead &

Ballymena, with bus substitution



Mothball all but stations serving

Belfast-Dublin service, with bus

substitution

DARD (Department Rural development Rail network/stations do not penetrate/serve all rural areas

of Agriculture and

Rural Development)

Stations provide interchange points for rural buses

b b b a

DCAL (Department of Siting of libraries & museums Rail network only serves small no. of libraries

and museums

Culture, Arts and

Leisure)

N N N N

DE (Department of Open enrolment Provides direct cross-Belfast links

Education) School provision School trips should be attractive to walk & cycle as well as public

transport

School transportation framework Rail provides efficient ‘trunk haul’ for large numbers

b b b a

DETI (Department of Economic growth Congestion, Tourism

Enterprise, Trade and

Investment)

Attracting, siting & sustaining

industrial development

A modern rail system presents a good image to external investors

North/South dimension (BelfastDublin corridor)

Rail network provides Londonderry/Derry /Belfast /Dublin connection

Labour market flexibility Rail provides direct cross-Belfast links, labour mobility

B B b a



DFP (Department of Public Expenditure Appraised under Affordability & Financial Sustainability

Finance and EU Funding Historic EU rail projects

Personnel) Civil Service accommodation Rail provides direct cross-Belfast links

b b b a

DHFETE Accessibility to work Provides direct cross-Belfast links

(Department of

Higher and Further

Widening of access to Higher and

Further Education

Low density of such locations and limited penetration by rail network

Education, Training

and Employment)

Siting & development of university

campuses

Low density of such locations and limited penetration by rail network

b b b a

DHSSPS

(Department of

Health, Social

Attendance at health centres and

hospitals

Rail is wheelchair accessible for people without cars. Bus substitution is

impracticable

Services and Public

Safety)

b b b a

DOE Heritage Utilises stations



(Department of the Road Safety Accidents

Environment) Local Development Plans Land Use

b b b a

DSD (Department for Regeneration Housing Railway network has limited penetration

Social Development)

N N N N

DRD RDS RDS foresees expanded rail provision

(Department for

Regional

Regional Transportation Strategy Considered not to be 'beyond transport'

Development) Roads programmes Considered not to be 'beyond transport'

Transport, inc Rural Policy Rural Bus Policy covered by Rural Development appraisal

B b b A

OFMDFM (Office of New TSN Disadvantaged being further disadvantaged

the First Minister and Equality Appraised under Distribution and Equity

Deputy First Minister) Human Rights Appraised under Distribution and Equity

Social inclusion Transport Choice and accessibility

N/S, E/W, BIC issues Links to Belfast/Dublin and gateways

b b b a

N = Neutral a = Slightly adverse effect A = Moderate adverse effect b = Slightly beneficial effect B =

Moderate beneficial effect

Appendix S- II: Northern Ireland Government Departments – Policies

Appendix T: Supporting Analysis – Distribution and Equity Supporting Analysis Distribution and

Equity

T1

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS

T. Distribution and Equity



Introduction

This Distribution and Equity supporting analysis has been prepared in accordance with

the principles underpinning Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. The issues of

Equality and New Targeting Social Need (New TSN) are considered separately.

The focus of this appraisal is solely on the benefits/disbenefits associated with

investment in rail infrastructure. It does not consider the wider opportunity costs

associated with such investment i.e. the benefits/disbenefits that could accrue to society,

including non-rail users, from investing in alternative spending programmes.

Equality

Data Sources

Guidance on Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the

Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000

Northern Ireland Act 1998: Section 75


GOMMMS suggests undertaking a supporting analysis to enable a judgement to be

made about the fairness and where relevant, geographical distribution of the impacts on

those affected by the strategy or plan under consideration.

It was considered that the principles underpinning Section 75 of the Northern Ireland

Act 1998 and the related requirements of GOMMMS placed a responsibility on the subobjective

appraisers to consider whether each scenario is consistent with the Equality

obligation.

It was noted that it would be neither possible nor necessary to undertake a thorough

quantitative analysis of each scenario at this stage. The Department for Regional

Developmentís draft Equality Scheme, as submitted to the Equality Commission on 30

th

June 2000, contains a commitment to a full equality impact assessment on the preferred

option emerging from Ministerial considerations. Accordingly, a qualitative approach

was followed at this stage with the objective of identifying potential impacts which



would merit further investigation later. The impacts on the groups identified here are

likely to be the largest impacts in terms of numbers of people affected, but it is

acknowledged that a full impact assessment may reveal impacts upon the other groups.

In other words, if there is an impact upon the religious dimension then there is likely to

be an impact on the political opinion group, and if there is an impact upon age, there

may be a link to those with dependants. At this point, there is information on rail users

in terms only of their age and gender compared to the population as a whole as outlined

in Table T - 1. Supporting Analysis Distribution and Equity

T2

Pop 16+ PWC Survey 1999

Rail Users

NI Mid-year population

1999

Male 46.6% 48.3%

Female 53.4% 51.7%

16-64 91.1% 82.8%

65+ 8.9% 17.2%

Table T - 1: Rail users in terms of age and gender compared to the population as a whole

As a working approach, each sub-objective appraisal considered how the various

scenarios might contribute to equality of opportunity for the dimensions referred to in

Section 75. Each scenario was compared to the existing situation. The assessments were

informed by the Appraisal Summary Tables.

Key Results

An overall summary of potentially the greatest areas of equality impact emerging from

this exercise is set out at Table T - 2. Impacts are likely to be concentrated on females

and the young who use rail to e.g. travel to educational establishments, and people with

disabilities.



Scenario

1 2 3 4

Religion - - Yes -

Politics - - - -

Race - - - -

Age Yes Yes Yes Yes

Marital status - - - -

Sexual

orientation

- - - -

Gender Yes Yes Yes Yes

Disability Yes Yes Yes Yes

Dependants - - - -

Table T - 2: Overall summary of potentially the greatest areas of equality impact by Scenario

Reduced railway provision from the existing situation will have a negative equality

impact, particularly in terms of accessibility, public transport integration and journey

ambience. In general terms, the greater the railway provision, the more the negative

impact on the groups is reduced.

As this is a preliminary assessment, no attempt has been made at this stage to assess the

degree of the impacts. However, it demonstrates that the appraisal process has been

sensitive to the requirements of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and points

towards those issues that should be addressed in a full equality impact assessment on the

option decided by the Minister. This assessment will utilise existing and, if necessary,

commission new, statistical evidence on railway usage. Supporting Analysis Distribution and Equity

T3


Scenario 4



This scenario has a large adverse impact on the accessibility to the transport system by

approximately 400,000 residents who would no longer have access to rail services.

There is accordingly an adverse impact on females (who account for over 53% of rail

users) and those age groups most reliant on rail travel. The poorer transport interchange

provision is likely to impact disproportionately on disabled travellers.

Scenario 3

This scenario has the potential for negative impact on the religious equality dimension

given the potential removal of rail choice from discrete geographical areas of Northern

Ireland (the North-West and East Antrim) compared to the existing rail provision. In

addition, as in Scenario 4, when rail services are withdrawn, there will be a

disproportionate effect on females, those age groups most reliant on rail travel, and the

disabled (i.e. mainly in the areas of the AntrimñKnockmore, WhiteheadñLarne,

BallymenañLondonderry/Derry and ColeraineñPortrush lines).

However, when compared to the existing situation, rail travellers on the Belfast

commuter corridors experience improved journey ambience and reliability resulting

from the provision of new rolling stock and track improvements, and improved

transport interchange facilities. Again, there is likely to be a disproportionate impact on

females, those age groups most reliant on rail travel, and the disabled.

Scenario 2

The benefits in terms of journey ambience, reliability, accessibility to the transport

system and transport interchange are increased under this scenario compared to existing

rail provision. Once again, these benefits are likely to have a disproportionate impact on

females, the age groups most reliant on rail travel, and the disabled.

A negative impact is associated with the mothballing of the AntrimñKnockmore line

which would have the same impacts as noted in Scenario 3.

Scenario 1

The impacts in respect of journey ambience, reliability and accessibility assessed in



respect of Scenario 2 are further enhanced under this scenario with additional rail

services being provided.

New TSN

Data Sources

Guidance on Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the

Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000

Equality Commission for Northern Ireland: Guide to Statutory Duties

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) Customer Satisfaction Survey 1999

Translink Boarding/Alighting Data 1998/99


and Market Shares, Oscar Faber, August 2000 Supporting Analysis Distribution and Equity

T4


Consideration was given to the expected impacts on rail patronage for each socioeconomic group

(SEG) under the various scenarios. The calculations for the various

scenarios were dependent on which stations would remain operative, and the resultant

socio-economic profile of the passengers inferred from the available data. Appendix T -

I gives detailed background figures.

Key Results

Table T - 3 shows the expected breakdown in rail passengers by socio-economic group

for the four scenarios. The larger the percentage of rail travellers under a particular

scenario, the more adequate is the service provided for that SEG:

Scenario / SEG AB C1 C2 DE

Scenario 1 14.0% 39.6% 18.4% 28.0%

Scenario 2 14.0% 39.7% 18.4% 28.0%

Scenario 3 14.5% 41.8% 17.1% 26.6%

Scenario 4 18.5% 39.5% 14.2% 27.8%

Existing 14.2% 40.0% 17.6% 28.2%



Table T - 3: Expected breakdown of rail passengers by socio-economic group by scenario

Assumption: If a station is closed, passengers do not transfer to other stations.

Note: There is relatively little difference between Scenario 1 (Enhancement)

and Scenario 2 (AD Little) as only a further three relatively little-used

stations open under the former.

In summary, under Scenarios 3 and 4, when rail services are withdrawn relative to

existing provision, although the actual number travelling from each SEG decreases, the

decrease is proportionately less in the most affluent (AB) group, and this shift, although

small, is statistically significant ñ see Appendix T - II. In addition, the AB group is

likely to gain slightly under Scenarios 1 and 2, but this is not quantifiable since no

information is available for likely boardings/alightings on the Antrim-Bleach Green line

which is scheduled to open in Spring 2001. Intuitively they will gain because it will

serve an affluent area.

Under Scenario 3 (Truncation), the poorest group (DE) loses out significantly, due to

the closure of the Londonderry/Derry-Portrush line on which this group is currently

over-represented (i.e. disproportionately high compared to the population served) - 35%

of DE rail users (PWC source) but only 8% of the population. Indeed, Table T - 4

shows that this poorest socio-economic group is generally over-represented in the

existing profile of rail users in Northern Ireland as a whole compared to the population

(based on the 1991 census), indicating the greater reliance of the poorest group on rail

provision. Supporting Analysis Distribution and Equity

T5

SEG Rail users 1999 Northern Ireland 1991

AB 14% 16%

C1 40% 37%

C2 18% 39%

DE 28% 8%



Total 100% 100%

Table T - 4: Socio-economic group representation in existing profile of rail users in

Northern Ireland as a whole compared to the population (based on the 1991 Census)

A full New TSN analysis would include the effect of bus substitution proposals.

However, it is premature to examine this effect since, although the extent of bus

substitution has been considered, no consideration has been given to the detailed

scheduling of the range of services, including existing services. Bus substitution would

have an overall mitigating effect compared to the situation where it was not provided at

all. It is known that some current rail travellers would transfer to cars if they had access

to one, and that the poorer SEGs have less access to cars ñ of the AB and C1 groups,

40% have no access to a car, while 56% of C2 and DE rail travellers have no car access

(PWC data). The Oscar Faber model results predict that when a line is mothballed some

trips will no longer be taken and that, on average, approximately a third of the

remaining journeys will be undertaken by car, and these will be disproportionately made

by those in the higher SEGs.

General

It is clear that when decisions are made regarding the future of the railways:

• a full equality impact assessment will require to be carried, and

• a detailed New TSN appraisal will require to be undertaken. Supporting Analysis Distribution and

Equity

T6

Appendix T - 1

1998/99 Boardings/Alightings (plus Belfast share) - Translink

Scenario 1 Estimated Boardings/Alightings by SEG

Enhance AB C1 C2 DE AB C1 C2 DE

Larne/Carrick 2554732 0.112 0.381 0.183 0.324 286130 973353 467516 827733

Portadown 4190315 0.17 0.427 0.167 0.236 712354 1789265 699783 988914

Londonderry/



Derry /Portrush

2243525 0.111 0.289 0.249 0.351 249031 648379 558638 787477

Bangor 2422908 0.138 0.457 0.159 0.246 334361 1107269 385242 596035

Dublin 211834 0.185 0.395 0.142 0.278 39189 83674 30080 58890

Total 11623314 1621065 4601940 2141259 3259050

13.95% 39.59% 18.42% 28.04%


Existing AB C1 C2 DE AB C1 C2 DE

Larne/Carrick 2554732 0.112 0.381 0.183 0.324 286130 973353 467516 827733

Portadown 4190315 0.17 0.427 0.167 0.236 712354 1789265 699783 988914

Londonderry/

Derry /Portrush

2148517 0.111 0.289 0.249 0.351 238485 620921 534981 754129

Bangor 2422908 0.138 0.457 0.159 0.246 334361 1107269 385242 596035

Dublin 211834 0.185 0.395 0.142 0.278 39189 83674 30080 58890

Total 11528306 1610520 4574482 2117602 3225702.2

13.97% 39.68% 18.37% 27.98%


Truncate AB C1 C2 DE AB C1 C2 DE

Larne/Carrick 2478823 0.112 0.381 0.183 0.324 277628 944431 453625 803139

Portadown 4190315 0.17 0.427 0.167 0.236 712354 1789265 699783 988914

Londonderry/

Derry /Portrush

367572 0.111 0.289 0.249 0.351 40800 106228 91525 129018

Bangor 2677187 0.138 0.457 0.159 0.246 369452 1223474 425673 658588



Dublin 234065 0.185 0.395 0.142 0.278 43302 92456 33237 65070

Total 9947962 1443536 4155855 1703843 2644728.8

14.51% 41.78% 17.13% 26.59%


Mothballing AB C1 C2 DE AB C1 C2 DE

Larne/Carrick 0 0.112 0.381 0.183 0.324 0 0 0 0

Portadown 0 0.17 0.427 0.167 0.236 0 0 0 0

Londonderry /

Derry/Portrush

0 0.111 0.289 0.249 0.351 0 0 0 0

Bangor 0 0.138 0.457 0.159 0.246 0 0 0 0

Dublin 149765 0.185 0.395 0.142 0.278 27707 59157 21267 41635

Total 149765 27706.5 59157.18 21266.6 41634.67

18.50% 39.50% 14.20% 27.80%

SUMMARY

AB C1 C2 DE

Scenario 1 13.95% 39.59% 18.42% 28.04%

Scenario 2 13.97% 39.68% 18.37% 27.98%

Scenario 3 14.51% 41.78% 17.13% 26.59%

Scenario 4 18.50% 39.50% 14.20% 27.80% Supporting Analysis Distribution and Equity

T7

Appendix T - II

Scenarios & SEGs with attached errors due to sample survey

AB Min Max Av

1 12.82 14.79 13.95



2 12.84 14.81 13.97

3 13.48 15.29 14.51

4 14.51 22.49 18.5

Existing 12.84 15.56 14.2

C1 Min Max Av

1 38.36 41.22 39.59

2 38.44 41.31 39.68

3 40.35 43.65 41.78

4 34.47 44.53 39.5

Existing 38.1 41.9 40

C2 Min Max Av

1 17.67 18.99 18.42

2 17.61 18.94 18.37

3 16.27 16.83 17.13

4 10.61 17.79 14.2

Existing 16.12 19.08 17.6

DE Min Max Av

1 27.86 28.3 28.04

2 27.81 28.23 27.98

3 26.57 26.6 26.59

4 23.19 32.41 27.8

Existing 26.45 29.95 28.2

0

5

10

15

20



25

1 2 3 4 Existing

Min

Max

Av

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 4 Existing

Min

Max

Av

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 Existing

Min

Max

Av

0

5



10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 Existing

Min

Max

Av

Appendix U: Supporting Analysis – Affordability and

Financial Sustainability Supporting Analysis Affordability and Financial Sustainability

U1

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS

U. Affordability and Financial Sustainability

Introduction

As an aid to decision-making, this section of the Task Force Report compares the

financial implications of the four modelling scenarios in order to provide an assessment

of the funding that would be required to ensure the delivery of each model.

The analysis here should be read carefully alongside Chapter 8 of the RTF Interim

Report which identified the sources of funding potentially available for investment in

railways. These included:

• EU Funding

• Funding from Regional Rates

• Asset Leasing including PFI schemes

• Public Private Partnerships

• Congestion Charging, Workplace Parking Levies and Road Tolls



• Planning Gain

• Sale of Assets

• Community Rail Partnerships

The extent to which each of these might realistically provide funding for railway

investment was also considered. Building on this analysis, this section of the report

examines the extent to which each of the four scenarios is affordable and sustainable. It

concludes by considering how the findings of the Task Force Report can inform

decisions about future public spending priorities over the next three years, and beyond.

Financial Sustainability and Affordability

The Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS) suggests that

when considering financial sustainability the key question to be addressed is the extent

to which each scenario under consideration is self-supporting from revenues. To meet

this requirement the revenues, operating costs and investment costs have been

calculated for each of the four scenarios appraised by the Task Force throughout the

assessment period. The results of this exercise identify the level of grant and subsidy

necessary to deliver each scenario. Affordability is a measure of the likelihood that

public funds of the scale required will be made available to deliver a particular option.

Financial Sustainability - the Four Scenarios

The Affordability and Financial Sustainability (AFS) of each of the four scenarios were

modelled. Impacts have been measured relative to the agreed base scenario, i.e. the

discontinuance of all but Belfast-Dublin services. The impacts therefore represent

changes in costs and revenues measured against this scenario. This information is useful

for the consideration of affordability and financial sustainability since it enables the

timing of costs and the build up of revenues to be assessed. The following summarises

the financial impacts for each scenario: Supporting Analysis Affordability and Financial Sustainability

U2

Scenario 1.



Enhancement

£000

01/2 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11

Capital costs 38,310 93,129 62,878 19,080 21,243 7,035 3,210 3,200 10,200 3,200

Revenue deficit 13,477 14,754 18,595 14,904 13,169 12,788 11,064 10,949 10,476 9,838

Total funding

requirement

51,787 107,883 81,473 33,984 34,412 19,823 14,274 14,149 20,676 13,038

Scenario 2.

A.D.Little

£000

01/2 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11

Capital costs 23,857 64,406 44,279 18,580 20,706 6,535 2,710 2,700 9,700 2,700

Revenue deficit 13,544 14,195 16,473 13,117 11,926 11,907 10,339 10,224 9,759 9,113

Total funding

requirement

37,401 78,601 60,752 31,697 32,632 18,442 13,049 12,924 19,459 11,813

Scenario 3.

Truncation

£000

01/2 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11

Capital costs 24,902 50,469 31,984 4,841 5,597 2,148 2,148 2,143 9,143 2,143

Revenue deficit 16,191 15,483 15,867 12,365 11,515 12,365 11,091 11,002 10,561 9,942

Total funding

requirement

41,093 65,952 47,851 17,206 17,112 14,513 13,239 13,145 19,704 12,085

Scenario 4.



Belfast-Dublin

Only

£000

01/2 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11

Capital costs 14,613 3,054 2,016 504 500 500 500 500 7,500 500

Revenue deficit 18,665 13,218 6,153 3,003 3,003 4,053 3,003 2,653 3,003 3,003

Total funding

requirement

33,328 16,272 8,169 3,507 3,503 4,553 3,503 3,153 10,503 3,503

Sustainability - the Results

The results of this modelling exercise show conclusively that none of the four scenarios

are self-sustaining. In every case revenues are not sufficient to meet operator costs.

Consequently there would be no contribution from revenues to the investment costs

necessary to deliver each scenario, even in the base case.

What is Affordable? - the Need for Decision

These findings show that significant levels of subvention will be required no matter

which scenario forms the foundation for the future structure of the rail network in

Northern Ireland. As none of the four modelling scenarios for the future of the railways

is sustainable in commercial terms, the issue therefore becomes one of determining

which scenario offers the best basis for securing a railway infrastructure which meets

agreed strategic transport objectives; produces other social, economic and

environmental benefits; provides value for money; and is affordable. However the

analysis in Chapter 8 of the RTF Interim Report shows that funding sources, particularly

during the short to medium term, will be limited. This will be particularly problematical

because all three scenarios beyond the base case require considerable capital investment

and subsidy in the first three years.

Chapter 8 shows that raising significant amounts of revenue through road tolls,



congestion charging or work place car park levies would not be achievable in a short

timescale. Such schemes would require political consensus, new legislation and would

take time to introduce. PFI and PPP schemes can also have a lead time of several years Supporting

Analysis Affordability and Financial Sustainability

U3

and may not provide a practicable solution to the affordability problem in the short

term, even though they offer considerable attractions in the longer run.

Operational asset leasing arrangements offer the attraction of spreading rolling stock

investment costs over the lifetime of assets but accounting rules may mean this

advantage is not realisable. Asset leasing may also be unlikely to provide a value for

money benefit over outright purchase. Inevitably therefore public expenditure will be

seen as the only realistic and practical means of funding the levels of investment

necessary, at least in the short term.

What is affordable will primarily be a matter for political judgement based on analysis

of the economic arguments and competing priorities. But it is vital that firm decisions

are taken, and taken urgently. Elsewhere this report highlights the inevitability of

discontinuation of service of large sections of the rail network unless necessary safety

work is urgently carried out.

There is therefore a pressing urgency to give full and proper consideration to the

railways question when future public expenditure priorities are being decided in

Autumn 2000.

In this regard the timing of the Task Force Report is critical. It is to be published a

matter of weeks before the Executive Committee and the Assembly, are required to

decide on public expenditure allocations for all devolved Northern Ireland public

services for the next three years. The remainder of this section of the Report considers

the context in which decisions must be taken and suggests how the matter might best be

taken forward.

Spending Review 2000 - The Public Expenditure Context.



On 18 July 2000 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced public expenditure

allocations for the three year period from April 2001 for all UK Government

Departments and the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Chapter 8 of the RTF Interim Report explains how this settlement has provided

Northern Ireland with a ìblockî of public expenditure which may be allocated to public

services at the discretion of the Northern Ireland Executive Committee and Assembly.

Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the

Minister of Finance and Personnel, with the agreement of the Executive Committee, is

required to present a draft budget to the Assembly before each financial year. To meet

this deadline it is expected that the Executive Committee would need to agree a Draft

Budget by early October 2000.

This budget will set public expenditure plans for 2001/2002 and influence spending

priorities for the following two years. It is within this short and rigid timetable that

decisions on future funding of the railways will be taken by the Executive Committee

and ultimately the Assembly. These decisions will not be taken in isolation but as part

of a comprehensive consideration of what should be the optimum distribution of public

expenditure across all public services for which the Assembly is responsible.

Northern Ireland departments will have to compete for a share of the Barnett Block at a

time when there will be many demands to enhance services. Over the three years it will

not be possible to match the substantial improvements in service which the spending Supporting


U4

plans will allow in England, particularly on health, education and transport, unless there

are major cutbacks in other spending programmes. There is already considerable

pressure on resources across the public service and it is expected that hard choices will

have to be made such are the competing demands for the limited additional spending

power available.

Programme for Government



The 2000 Spending Review will be conducted on a parallel process with that leading to

the agreement of a Programme for Government for Northern Ireland. Under the terms

of the Belfast Agreement, the Programme drawn up by the Executive Committee will

contain objectives, priorities and policies for the next few years. In its preparation, the

Executive will also decide on how to make best use of the resources available within

the 2000 Spending Review to support the Programme. Transport will undoubtedly be

one of the many issues considered.

The Programme will be presented in draft form for the Assembly and its Committees to

consider in mid October in association with the draft budget which will result from the

2000 Spending Review. It is within these inter-linked financial and strategic planning

processes that any case for the future needs of the railway network must be articulated.

Making the Case

Decisions about future investment in the railways, including levels of public subsidy,

fall in the first instance to the Department for Regional Development (DRD). The

Department is responsible for roads and public transport matters but it does not have

unlimited discretion to spend from its budget It must, under Government Accounting

Rules, obtain approval from the Department of Finance and Personnel for capital

investments above £1 million, and the payment of subsidies such as the Public Service

Obligation which meets shortfalls between revenue and expenditure.

Approvals are only meaningful if the Department has secured the necessary level of

public expenditure in its funding allocations. It would be unrealistic to expect that any

of the four scenarios could be fully funded from existing DRD baseline provisions

without severely compromising other services for which the Department is responsible

e.g. roads, or water and sewerage.

On receipt of the Task Force report the first priority for the Minister for Regional

Development will be to develop a preferred option on the basis of the analysis contained

in this report. This will be necessary because the Task Force was charged with



identifying a range of options for the future of the railways and not with recommending

a preferred solution - that further dimension is a matter for DRD in the first instance.

The construction of a bid for an appropriate funding allocation from the Spending

Review will in large part have been facilitated by the work of the Task Force. However

while the bid will be a logical development of the Task Force Report it will need to

address a number of additional factors beyond those considered here.

Firstly it will be important to see how future options for the railways fit within wider

regional development and transport strategies. Secondly, given the scarcity of public

expenditure and the pressure on all public services, further analysis will be required to Supporting


U5

optimise the affordability of whatever option is considered to provide the best value for

money and achieve strategic transport objectives.

It will be essential to ensure that a proper balance is struck between the need to achieve

long-term strategic objectives and yet live within shorter term spending constraints.

That is why decision-takers may need to seek out compromises between what is

deliverable now and what may be desirable in the longer run.

Central to this will be the need to identify ways in which the level of investment

required for the preferred option can best be spread over the operating period in order to

minimise the pressure placed on scarce public funds. The Spending Review bid will

therefore need to address a range of issues including:

• Regional Transportation Strategy - The role of the railways will need to be

considered in the context of the emerging regional transportation strategy. It is not

possible to reach robust conclusions about optimum levels of railway funding in

isolation from a wider consideration of future public transport and road investment;

• Other Transport requirements - Within this strategic context it is reasonable to

expect that the value for money provided from investment in the railways would be

compared with investments in alternative transport solutions, including other forms



of public transport and the roads infrastructure. For example decision-takers may

wish to consider the impact of improving the road between Belfast and

Londonderry/Derry and, perhaps, enhancing the existing coach services as opposed

to investing in the Londonderry/Derry-Belfast rail link;

• Private Sector Funding Sources - Long term funding solutions which minimise the

need for upfront capital funding should be further investigated. For example

operational leasing solutions potentially offer a realistic means of spreading capital

investment requirements thereby reducing up-front funding pressures. However

uncertainty over the accounting treatment of operational leasing schemes still casts

doubt about their efficacy - these require further study;

• PFI/PPP Schemes - A 1999 study by PricewaterhouseCoopers into public transport

commissioned by the DRD confirmed a need to attract private sector finance for

future investment in public transport through the establishment of a Public Private

Partnership. The Report concluded that an operating concession which would

transfer responsibility for the delivery of all aspects of public transport services to a

private sector operator under fixed term contracts, would offer the most effective

means of accessing private finance and meeting departmental objectives for public

transport. Importantly DRD would know in advance, and with certainty, how much

a particular level of public transport service would cost the public purse. Failure to

deliver the required service would result in penalties for the operator, unlike the

present situation where all additional costs arising from whatever reason ultimately

fall to the public purse. This report should provide the context from which future

investment strategies for the railways are developed;

• Phasing of Infrastructure Investment - Phasing infrastructure investment, perhaps

over a longer period of time than envisaged in the modelling scenarios identified in

the Task Force may make more expansive solutions more affordable. This would, Supporting Analysis

Affordability and Financial Sustainability

U6



however, presuppose that certain services may need to be discontinued on safety

grounds until necessary levels of investment could be secured; and

• Alternative Funding Sources - The potential for alternative funding sources e.g.

congestion charging, road tolls, etc. requires further investigation. Realistic and

achievable plans which lead to the development and implementation of workable

alternative funding sources will be needed.

Conclusion

The results of the Affordability and Sustainability forecasting show that none of the four

modelling scenarios are sustainable in purely commercial terms. New capital

investment and long term subsidy, of different orders of magnitude, would be required

for all scenarios, including the base case. It is also clear that the increased capital

investment required in the more expansive scenarios does not produce proportionately

higher levels of income. Indeed, as investment increases from the base case to the

enhancement scenario, so too does the level of subsidy needed in the future.

Building on the analysis of the Task Force, urgent political decisions are now required

to determine what level of investment Northern Ireland can afford within available

resources and competing priorities. This poses a challenge for the Department for

Regional Development, working with the Department of Finance and Personnel, the

Executive Committee and the Assembly, within the Programme for Government and the

constraints of the 2000 Spending Review, to identify what is affordable and sustainable

over the short and longer terms.

Appendix V: Supporting Analysis – Practicality and Public

Acceptability Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability

V1

SUPPORTING ANALYSIS

V. Practicality and Public Acceptability

Data Sources



No detailed data sources were used. However, the following Government policy

documents provide the planning context within which the scenarios were evaluated:

• ìDraft Regional Development Strategy - Shaping Our Future: December

1998î.

• ìMoving Forward ñ Northern Ireland Transport Policy Statement: November

1998î.

• ìGuidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS),

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March

2000î.

Written and verbal submissions to the RTF during the Public Consultation Process also

informed the analysis.


The following ìbackground guidanceî is abstracted from page 73 of GOMMMS

Volume 1:

ìIn the past, some studies have been less effective than they might have been because

their recommendations breached some constraint. Thus strategies or plans may be

desirable but not fundable, or may create a majority of winners with a minority of

uncompensated losers who will form a vocal opposition, or may be contingent on future

funding to complete a network which cannot be guaranteed, or may be risky against

certain scenarios. There therefore needs to be an overall assessment of the practicability

of each strategy or plan and where relevant, what countervailing or complementary

measures are needed to make the strategy or plan practical. Ideally, these measures

should be built into the strategy, but it is recognised that this may not always be

possibleî.

Thus it could be said that the practicality analysis is essentially subjective in nature and

pages 73 and 74 of GOMMMS Volume 1 gives the following checklist as a guide in

assessing practicality of options:



- Feasibility - what is the likelihood of the decision being implemented?

- Enforcement ñ does the option require other, supporting enforcement measures to

ensure that it is effective?

- Area of interest, ie, ìbreadthî of the decision.

- Complexity, ie, ìdepthî of the decision.

- Timescale - for the implementation and of the effects of the options.

- Phasing ñ implications of postponing decisions.

- Partitioning - can the options be broken down into discrete components?

- Complementarity - are the proposals complementary or independent?

- Conflicts - with other measures.

- Public and Political Acceptability. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability

V2

Practicality Assessment

It was agreed that a quantitative scoring system was inappropriate for ìPracticalityî but

that a qualitative statement using the above checklist should be developed for each of

the four scenarios.

Some comments are common to several scenarios and, to avoid repetition, these

common points are made prior to the consideration of individual scenarios (see

ìGeneralî section). Comments on individual scenarios should be read in conjunction

with these general comments.

The scenarios were not scored against a base scenario, thus, each scenario description

coupled with the general section comments is a ìstand aloneî statement and from both

practicality and public/political viewpoints the comments are against the existing

situation.

General

Feasibility and Enforcement: To ensure the benefits of investment are fully realised,

performance criteria should be established for the operator (eg, public service



contracts), a review of the governance and regulation arrangements undertaken and

railways legislation updated (particularly with respect to rail safety).

In addition, measures should also be considered to maximise the effectiveness of

revenue support by ensuring the cost effectiveness of service delivery and giving

customers or their representatives a greater say in service delivery.

Mothballing of a line or section of a line raises amongst others, legal, technical, equity

and social issues, but in terms of feasibility, the legal issues are likely to be most

relevant. Mothballing can effectively be interpreted as ìdiscontinuanceî as described in

Section 60, Transport Act, 1967.

As the extent of proposed mothballing grows the likelihood of a legal challenge by

communities or other stakeholders increases. It is felt in Scenarios 3 and 4 there would

be objections and a legal challenge. Such a challenge could cause a significant delay to

implementation and may not be fully implemented even after a period of long and costly

legal arguments.

Area of interest: Once resources have been allocated, DRD, NITHCo and NIR are the

main bodies involved in implementation.

Complexity: The decision making process is complex because it involves the

assessment and rationalisation of a wide range of quite different impacts, eg, financial,

social, economic and environmental. Decisions must also be taken in context of other

very significant and pressing public sector demands on resources, the relative priorities

of which are not yet known.

In the case of scenarios that include mothballing, the greater the extent of the

mothballing, the more difficult it will be to obtain consensus and agreement. Supporting Analysis

Practicality and Public Acceptability

V3

In addition, there are both political and wider European and British Isles Strategic

policy issues to be considered.

Timescale: In Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 implementation of new rolling stock and track



upgrades would largely be effected in the next 3 to 4 years and thereafter there would be

the completion of the track upgrading programme and further network and service

enhancements up to 2010.

With all rail investment scenarios (ie, Scenarios 1, 2 and 3) there will be a significant

benefit when new trains and track upgrades are provided and thereafter benefits will

gradually increase as rail patronage grows.

Phasing: In Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 the A D Little Report has indicated the necessary

phasing of investment to ensure the delivery of rail services continues to be safe.

Decisions are required at an early stage if the existing services are to continue to be

operated. Failure to make early investment decisions will result in the managed

withdrawal of rail services and in the case of the Belfast-Bangor line, the possible loss

of a European Union Grant.

More specifically, deferral of the necessary safety related investment will mean services

will be progressively reduced and the benefits associated with an improved service will

not be realised, eg, improved safety levels, enhanced frequency, greater proportion of

new rolling stock, additional capacity, further journey time savings, the benefits of park

and ride, modern image of public transport in Northern Ireland etc. In addition, the

message that investment in transport is a high Government priority and that it is serious

about getting people to use more sustainable forms of transport will be diluted.

(Financial phasing is dealt with in detail in the Affordability and Sustainability

supporting analysis.)

Partitioning: The structured approach of building from a largely mothballed rail

network, through the Truncation, A D Little and Enhancement scenarios facilitates the

division of the investment requirements into discrete components.

Complementarity: As the rail investment scenarios (Scenarios 1, 2 and 3) are

designed, amongst other things, to increase rail patronage with an improved cost

effective quality service, the separate elements of these scenarios (with the exception of



any mothballing), are considered to have excellent synergy.

Conflict: The outcomes predicted to arise from rail investment proposals do not

conflict with the draft Regional Development Strategy (RDS), Transportation Policies

or other key Government Policies, except when sections of the network are mothballed.

Public and Political Acceptability: The consultation process described in Chapter 7 of

the RTF Interim Report has made a very significant contribution to assessing likely

political and public reaction to the various scenarios. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public

Acceptability

V4

Relevant common themes from all groups of consultees included:

(i) A repeated call for the abandonment of ìshort-termismî. Financial pressures

should not force decisions that seriously undermine and damage the credibility

of other key Government policies and strategies designed to improve the quality

of life for all in Northern Ireland. Frequent reference was also made to policies

affecting regional development, transportation, environment, health, economy,

tourism, safety, energy, accessibility, social inclusion and equity.

It was felt that the new devolved administration has the opportunity to show that

it is not taking individual policy decisions in a vacuum but is forward thinking

and aware of the interdependencies of different policies and the need for an

integrated approach. A clear need was identified for a long term and visionary

plan for the development of the railway network. It was generally felt that any

decision other than to secure immediate investment, avoid mothballing lines and

plan for increased future development to realise the full potential of the network

would be a retrograde step and undermine a range of Government policies. It is

important that the railway network be seen in the context of the island of Ireland

and beyond if this full potential is to be realised.

(ii) Northern Ireland should have a level of public transport on a par with any region

in Europe. It must not be the only region in Europe that is failing to improve its



public transport services. Lack of investment means that Northern Ireland will

be the only region that is not benefiting from the rail renaissance being observed

throughout Europe and would demonstrate an inequity of treatment with other

European countries. The public believe that mothballed lines would not be reopened and the image

that Northern Ireland is trying to create, that of a modern

European region, would be damaged.

(iii) Governmentís message that people should move to more sustainable transport

modes and adopt a more responsible travel culture could be irreparably

damaged.

(iv) As the population grows and ages, public transport choice, quantity and quality

should be increased.

(v) Some groups, particularly elected representatives and Councils, considered the

scenarios put forward by the Task Force as lacking vision and the full potential

of the rail network was, therefore, not being realised. More visionary

improvements could include:

• better feeder services, parking facilities and accessibility at stations;

• more frequent and higher capacity services;

• an extended network from Portadown to the West and North of the region

along with additional cross border services to Monaghan and Donegal;

• increased commuter rail services;

• new rail spurs (with freight heads) to sea and air gateways;

• dual rather than single tracks; and

• rail services linked to a light rapid transit service serving areas of the Belfast

Metropolitan area. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability

V5

In addition, in connection with rail freight, the necessary legislative changes to

introduce Freight Facilities Grants and Track Access Grants should be advanced.

(vi) Failure to invest means that some recent investment in track and station



upgrades will be devalued.

(vii) Frequent reference was made to the perceived devastating effects that closure

would have on the social strata of the region. The disadvantaged and

marginalised groups would suffer the most. Mothballing lines has a detrimental

effect on communities both socially (eg, by increasing social exclusion of

households without access to a car and this is particularly relevant to school

children, students, elderly, disabled and low income groups) and economically

(eg, restricting the growth of tourism as the railways not only cater for

independent travel but are part of the visitors experience). Bus substitution is not

perceived as a suitable alternative for current rail users as this mode of transport

is unacceptable in terms of congestion, pollution, health issues, travel times,

comfort and convenience.

(viii) An equitable and accessible integrated rail system as part of a ìjoined-upî

approach to public transport, and indeed transportation, is essential. A town not

on the rail network suffers from the perception of peripherality as the network is

considered to provide corridors for sustainable development and the stations can

act as hubs for social and business communities.

(ix) To ensure delivery of quality public transport services the delivery structures in

the Department for Regional Development, NITHC and Translink, should be

reviewed.

Further detail on public and political acceptability can be obtained in Chapter 7:

Consultation of the RTF Interim Report. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability

V6

Scenario 1 - Enhancement

In brief, Scenario 1 is the enhancement of current services in the peak periods, the

retention of the Lisburn/Antrim line, the opening of two new stations on the Bleach

Green/Antrim Line (Mossley and Templepatrick) and additional trains sets for the



network, in addition to the investment outlined in the A D Little report.

Feasibility and Enforcement: In general, funding considerations apart, it is feasible

for this scenario to be implemented. Some issues to note are:

- Technical training programmes would be required for mechanical engineers;

- Additional staff would be required to deliver and service the additional rail services

and infrastructure;

- The provision of some Park and Ride facilities may be dependent on Public Inquiry

processes.

- No mothballing of lines is required and, therefore, no legal obstacles are anticipated.

Area of interest: Improved rail services will be provided in the Belfast Metropolitan

Area, the Northern Corridor and the Eastern Seaboard transportation corridors.

Complexity: Implementation issues are not unduly complex. The proposal builds upon

existing rail operations with no major changes to bus operations.

Timescale: The timing of the delivery of elements of the proposal that have significant

planning implications is uncertain, eg, the rail spur and station at D5/Belfast City

Airport and Park and Ride facilities. Implementation of such elements may be in the

middle of the 2000-2010 period rather than in the first 3 years.

Phasing: There are no major phasing issues. However, it should be noted that:

- Lisburn ñ Antrim line is operated currently and therefore flexibility exists as to

when it could be improved and re-launched;

- Antrim ñ Bleach Green upgrade is under construction currently and is scheduled to

open in Spring 2001;

- New rolling stock would ideally be required in batches of 6 x 3 car sets. It will be

advisable to ensure maximum marketing impact is made when Antrim Bleach

Green, or other line improvements, are implemented by introducing new rolling

stock concurrently. Therefore launching of improvements will be related to the

delivery schedule of the new trains.



Partitioning: The partitioning of components in this scenario is possible. The

following components can be considered as separate ëschemesí:

1. AntrimñLisburn retention/improvement;

2. Additional new trains for Greater Belfast services;

3. Park and Ride provision at Lisburn West, Belfast City Airport and Ballyhenry;

4. AntrimñBleach Green plus new stations;

5. New rolling stock and track improvements required for safety reasons as identified

in the AD Little report. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability

V7

Whilst there should be significant synergy in implementing all 5 ëschemesí, any of the

first 4 schemes could be ëdroppedí but this would adversely effect the impact of the

scenario. However, it should be noted that the incremental nature of the 4 scenarios

means that the removal of schemes 1, 2 and 3 effectively equates this scenario to

Scenario 2.

In operational terms, it should also be noted that the retention of the Lisburn/Antrim line

will require a train set in the morning and evening peaks due to the redirection of trains

following the opening of the Bleach Green/Antrim line.

Complementarity: The relay of track and the arrival of the new trains sets complement

each other and their introduction should be timed to ensure maximum marketing impact

and hence use. The additional train services and new track will complement each other

in providing an enhanced service and a more extensive rail network for

Northern Ireland. Taken together the components should provide significant synergy

resulting in marked increases in rail patronage and additional opportunities for moving

freight from road to rail.

Conflict: There is no conflict with other measures proposed in the draft Regional

Development Strategy or ìMoving Forwardî, which seek to provide key transportation



corridors with high quality public transport services and to promote public transport

choice.

Public and Political Acceptability: This scenario has the greatest synergy with other

Government policies, although over the longer term, many consultees did not consider it

to be visionary enough. It is believed this scenario would have a relatively high level of

public and to a slightly lesser extent, political acceptability and would allow the benefits

of increased rail investment in Northern Ireland to be further assessed before any

additional investment is undertaken.

There was strong support for this scenario by the attendees of the public meetings. It

was seen as a starting-point and considered to be the basis for the future vision and

strategic development of the regionís transport network. Of the 196 written responses

analysed, 190 commented on the future ëshapeí of the network and service. This

scenario, and/or greater development, was argued for by 68 submitters, approximately

36% of those who expressed an opinion. Popular supporting arguments included

economic development, accessibility, policy integration and impact on the environment.

Investment as per this scenario would send very positive signals to all that the

Government is forward thinking, is serious about the adoption of a more responsible

travel culture and it would also add credibility and reinforce other key Government

strategies and policies. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability

V8

Scenario 2 – Based on A D Little Report

In brief, Scenario 2 proposes the retention of the present railway network, the

mothballing of the Lisburn/Antrim line, the building of new stations at Mossley West

and Templepatrick and the renewal of most of the train sets.

Feasibility and Enforcement: In general this scenario, which is based on the

A D Little report, is feasible. As in Scenario 1, technical training programmes would be

required for mechanical engineers.



The mothballing of the Lisburn/Antrim line may be subject to a legal challenge. The

required level of mothballed track maintenance and the extent of measures necessary to

protect assets is unclear, as stations and infrastructure would be more susceptible to

vandalism. Bus substitution on Lisburn/Antrim line is feasible.

Area of interest: This scenario retains the existing network (with the exception of

Lisburn-Antrim line) and will impact on the Belfast Metropolitan Area, the Northern

and Eastern Seaboard transportation corridors. The scenario will have an adverse effect

on small, but growing, local communities on the Lisburn-Antrim line where

interest/opposition will be greatest.

Complexity: Implementation issues are not complex as proposed operations are similar

to existing ones with the exception of the Lisburn/Antrim line.

Timescale: No additional comments to those in ìGeneralî section.

Phasing:








Partitioning: There is very limited scope for partitioning of components in this

scenario, eg, components can be considered as separate ëschemesí:

1. Antrim-Bleach Green plus new stations.

2. Other new rolling stock and track improvements required for safety reasons.

Complementarity: The proposed new stations at Mossley and Templepatrick will

complement the new railway line that is being built between Bleach Green/Antrim and,

thus, the network.



Conflict: The scenario which provides a more attractive service than currently exists is

generally supportive of the RDS and transportation policies which promote public

transport use, but to a lesser extent than Scenario 1. However, it should be noted that

the mothballing of the Lisburn-Antrim line would reduce public transport choice in that

area. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability

V9

Public and Political Acceptability: The proposals may be perceived as falling short of

Governmentís aspirations to improve and enhance public transport, but seen rather as a

matter of largely safeguarding current services. In addition, there will be dissatisfaction

from residents in the area of the mothballed Lisburn-Antrim line.

The attendees at the public meetings often saw this as the ìfallbackî position, to secure

the network for future development. Of the 190 written submitters who commented,

this was the most supported scenario with 121 people, approximately 62%, stressing the

need for maintaining the current network. However, it would be incorrect to assume

that the attendees at the meetings or submitters supported mothballing the LisburnAntrim line as

most of these people were simply calling for the network to be

maintained as it currently operates.

However, with the exception of the Lisburn-Antrim line, new rolling stock, signalling

and track upgrades will provide a much more attractive service and will allow the

benefits of investment to be assessed with a view to justification of additional

investment in the future. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability

V10

Scenario 3 - Truncation of Network

In brief, Scenario 3 mothballs the lines between Whitehead/Larne, Lisburn/Antrim,

Ballymena/ Londonderry/Derry and Coleraine/Portrush. Two new stations are to be

provided at Mossley and Templepatrick.

Feasibility and Enforcement: The proposed mothballing of the Londonderry/Derry



and Larne lines are very likely to be subject to a legal challenge.

As in Scenario 2 the required level of mothballed track maintenance and the extent of

measures necessary to protect assets is unclear. However, because the extent of

proposed mothballing is considerably greater, this uncertainty is a bigger factor.

Bus substitution is considered to be feasible in this scenario.

Area of interest: Rail services will be retained in the Belfast Metropolitan Area and

parts of the Northern and Eastern Seaboard transportation corridors. The fact that the

North West Region would be left remote from the rail system would create significant

ëinterestí in the Northern Corridor as would the withdrawal of the railway from East

Antrim as it is a ìgateway routeî to Scotland and a Trans European Network (TENS)

route.

Complexity: The issues raised in the feasibility and enforcement section add to the

complexity of the decision making process and the prospect of mothballing strategic

sections of rail network will make achieving consensus much more difficult.

Timescale: The proposals are likely to be the subject of a legal challenge and this could

add significantly to the implementation timescale on those lines which are to be

mothballed.

Phasing:








- The delivery of new buses for bus substitution services should be achievable.

Partitioning: Limited partitioning of components in this model is possible. However,



inability to implement mothballing on one line as opposed to another could have

significant cost implications for the line(s) that were not mothballed.

Complementarity: Only parts of this scenario can be viewed as complementary, eg,

rationalising the network, upgrading tracks and providing new trains and a uniformly

high level of service. However, the mothballing of lines will reduce the extent of the

rail network and reduce synergy effects even though it is proposed to use bus

substitution on the mothballed sections. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability

V11

Conflict: This mothballing of lines conflicts with the draft RDS and transportation

policies which seek to enhance and promote the use of public transport. In particular,

the removal of rail services in parts of the Northern Transport Corridor removes public

transport choice.

Mothballing would also undermine other key government policies relating to the

environment, safety, social inclusion, accessibility, etc.

Public and Political Acceptability: This scenario was almost universally seen as

unacceptable by those who attended the meetings and made submissions. Of the 190

submissions that included relevant comments, this scenario was supported, albeit

hesitantly, by only one person. There will be very significant opposition from a variety

of sources, eg, political parties, local Councils, community, voluntary and business

groups, pressure groups, key stakeholder groups and some members of the general

public. In addition, other jurisdictions including the Republic of Ireland and probably

the Scottish devolved administration would have serious concerns over the mothballing

proposals.

For instance, the Northern Group of Councils representing 8 District Council areas

(Antrim, Ballymena, Ballymoney, Coleraine, Derry City, Limavady, Moyle and

Strabane) with a combined population of over 400,000 people regard it as unacceptable

that the Northern Corridor rail network be closed or serviced reduced. In addition, the



Taoiseach has publicly spoken about the strategic significance of this link in an island of

Ireland context.

It is believed that this link should be seen as a strategic transportation corridor between

the North Western corner of the island of Ireland and other urban centres such as Dublin

and Cork, as well as Belfast and other urban centres within Northern Ireland. Currently,

because of the journey time and the condition of rolling stock and track it is used more

as an internal travel facility for the towns along its route. The view has also been

widely expressed that this line must be considered in micro terms as an essential

component of any localised North-West transport strategy. This would highlight the

series of short journeys that can be made along the line, rather than merely focussing

paramount attention on the Londonderry/Derry-Belfast journey.

The mothballing of the line is seen as damaging the image of Londonderry/Derry by

increasing the perception of peripherality and as increasing the west-east socioeconomic imbalance.

For instance, from a social exclusion viewpoint, many of the

Councils on the Londonderry/Derry line have relatively low Robson indices and this

withdrawal of services would be seen as further disadvantaging the already

disadvantaged. From an economic viewpoint, it is believed tourism growth would be

adversely affected along the Northern Rail Corridor as tourists are considered to be

more predisposed to rail rather than bus and the loss of services would undermine the

ability to capitalise on the regionís tourism magnets such as the Antrim Coast, Portrush

and the cross border Council areas of Derry City/Donegal.

It is felt that the level of current rail service is so low that potential benefits in terms of

both patronage and freight movement are not being realised and never will be if the line

is mothballed. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability

V12

Much of the arguments applicable to the Londonderry/Derry line are equally applicable

to the Larne line and Councils along this route believe this TENS route should also be

fully retained, maintained and upgraded. Again it is believed the potential of the line is



not being realised either in patronage terms or freight (eg, Freight head at Larne port,

Stena Line conventional ferry services returning to Larne and possible waste transfer to

Magheramorne).

Even though there will be new trains and new track on the retained network this

scenario will be seen to undermine other key Government policies such as illustrated in

the ëGeneralí section.

The effects of withdrawal of train services were seen as operating on both the micro and

macro levels: effects would be seen on different sections of the community and parts of

the region and would have an overall impact on the region and its image.

As stated in the enforcement section it is believed there would be legal challenge to any

proposals for mothballing along these lines. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability

V13

Scenario 4 - Belfast/Dublin Service only - other lines mothballed

In brief, Scenario 4 is to retain the Belfast/Dublin service only with all other lines

mothballed. There would be no local service between Belfast and Portadown/Newry.

Feasibility and Enforcement: As in Scenario 3 these two points are linked and the

points raised under Scenario 3 regarding mothballing apply to Scenario 4 also but to a

much greater extent as many more parts of the network are affected.

The feasibility of bus substitution on some of the Belfast commuter corridors is

questionable. However, outside these corridors, it is feasible to operate bus services at

the required frequencies to ensure seating capacity is maintained.

It is clear that the form of operation of the bus substitution services will not directly

mirror that provided by the rail services they replace. For example, in the case of the

Bangor to Belfast services, to replace trains between 07.45 and 08.25 would require

about 17 buses. It is unlikely that it will be feasible or desirable to operate all services

from Bangor rail station to Belfast Central. Buses would have to leave earlier than the

scheduled train departure because of the longer on road journey times. It is more likely



that the additional bus services will be rationalised with existing local Bangor Link-Line

services and Belfast Express services to provide integrated services from outlying

residential areas to separate transport termini in Belfast City Centre. Therefore

passengers on these ëthroughí services will board and alight from/to their local roadside

stops rather than from/to rail station platforms, as currently.

However, it will still be necessary to operate a considerable number of bus services

from Bangor bus/rail station to Belfast Central. There will probably be a need for

station alterations and implementation of traffic management measures (including some

reassignment of priority or capacity from car to bus) to minimise vehicular access and

egress problems at the stations.

Consequently the substitution of rail services on the Belfast commuter corridors with

high frequency bus services will require significant changes in the operation of current

bus services, additional operational staff and will lead to the removal of highway

capacity.

Area of interest: This scenario only retains inter-city services on the Belfast-Dublin

line. Mothballing of most of the existing rail network will provoke great interest.

Complexity: The widespread impact of this scenario coupled with the points raised in

the feasibility and enforcement section add further to the complexity of the decision

making process.

Timescale: Mid-term, but potential for further delay due to the defence of the

anticipated legal challenges.

Phasing: The phasing of this scenario is likely to be dependent on a possible Public

Inquiry or separate local Public Inquiries. It is also dependent on the requirement to

acquire additional buses; this could take up to 2 years. Additionally, a severe shortage Supporting

Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability

V14

of bus drivers and mechanical engineers could potentially affect phasing and the overall

practicality of the scenario.



Partitioning: It is probably not practical to partition this scenario. The key feature of

the is the cessation of suburban rail services operated exclusively by NIR. In the event

that some lines could not be mothballed, or that mothballing would be significantly

delayed, additional costs will be incurred.

Conflict: This scenario is in conflict with the draft RDS and transportation policies

which seek to enhance and promote the use of public transport and would be contrary to

public transport investment decisions that are being made by other jurisdictions in the

United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland and in the rest of Europe. The removal of rail

services would considerably weaken the Key Transportation Corridors concept

proposed in the Regional Development Strategy and undermine the credibility of both

the draft RDS and transportation policies.

It would also undermine other key government policies relating to the environment,

safety, social inclusion, accessibility, etc.

Public and Political Acceptability: The comments made in Scenario 3 are also

relevant here but they would also be mirrored in the additional areas affected by the

further mothballed sections. It is likely that the principle of the removal or suspension

of rail services will be opposed almost unanimously by political parties, local

authorities, commercial, voluntary, pressure and business groups and a significant

proportion of the general public, throughout Northern Ireland. The unanimous reaction

of those who attended the public meetings and those making submission was that this

scenario was unacceptable.

Arguments that bus substitution would offer comparable levels of service would be

strongly challenged. Of the 196 written responses analysed, 161 commented on the

acceptability of alternative transport methods. Of the 70 submitters who commented on

bus as an alternative, only 7 (10%) thought this to be acceptable. Of the 91 submitters

who commented on private car as an alternative, only 5 (approximately 5%) deemed

this to be acceptable.



Documents

Railways Present