Option Selection Report
Document: Version: 1.2
Whitehill Bordon Rail Study
Hampshire County Council
1st February 2010
Halcrow Group Limited
Elms House, 43 Brook Green, London, W6 7EF
Tel +44 20 3479 8000 Fax +44 20 3479 8001
halcrow.com
Halcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance with
the instructions of client Hampshire County Council for the client’s sole and specific use.
Any other persons who use any information contained herein do so at their own risk.
© Halcrow Group Limited 2011
Option Selection Report
Whitehill Bordon Rail Study
Hampshire County Council
1st February 2010
Option Selection Report
Document history
Option Selection Report
Whitehill Bordon Rail Study
Hampshire County Council
This document has been issued and amended as follows:
Version Date Description Created by Verified by Approved by
1.0 19/10/2010 Draft – For Steering Group
Comment
SG
1.1 22/12/2010 Draft Final SG
1.2 01/02/2011 Final SG DC RS
Option Selection Report
Contents
1 Executive Summary 5
2 Introduction 7
2.1 Background 7
2.2 Business Case Structure 7
3 Problems & Objectives 8
3.1 Introduction 8
3.2 Transport Problems 9
3.3 Option Development 10 3.3.1 Bus 10 3.3.2 Light Rail 11 3.3.3 Heavy Rail 12 3.3.4 Scheme Options 12 3.3.5 LR1 and ML1 – Whitehill Bordon to Bentley 15 3.3.6 ML5 – Whitehill Bordon to Alton 16 3.3.7 LR4 – Whitehill Bordon to Alton 16 3.3.8 LR6 & 6a – Whitehill Bordon to Farnham 16 3.3.9 ML4 – Whitehill Bordon to Liphook heavy rail 16 3.3.10 LR3 – Whitehill Bordon to Liphook light rail 17 3.3.11 ML2 & ML2a – Whitehill Bordon to Liss heavy rail 17 3.3.12 LR2 &LR2a – Whitehill Bordon to Liss light rail 17
4 Option Appraisal 18
4.1 Introduction 18
4.2 Appraisal Structure 18
5 Policy Integration 19
5.1 Transport Visions and Objectives 19
5.2 Regeneration and Railways 19 5.2.1 Value of Wider Economic Benefits 19
6 Operational Issues 21
6.1 Introduction 21
6.2 Alton Line Options 21
6.3 Portsmouth to Waterloo Main Line 24
6.4 Operational Summary 25
6.5 Light Rail 26
7 Environmental Planning Constraints 28
7.1 Introduction 28
Option Selection Report
7.2 Summary of Main Environmental and Planning Constraints in the Study Area 28
7.3 Whitehill Bordon to Alton Routes 30 7.3.1 Statutory Environmental and Planning Designations for ML5 30 7.3.2 Statutory Environmental and Planning Designations for LR4 30
7.4 Whitehill Bordon to Bentley Routes 31 7.4.1 Statutory Environmental and Planning Designations for ML1 and LR1 31
7.5 Whitehill Bordon to Farnham Route 31 7.5.1 Statutory Environmental and Planning Designations for LR6 31 7.5.2 Statutory Environmental and Planning Designations for LR6A 32
7.6 Whitehill Bordon to Liss Routes 33 7.6.1 Statutory Environmental and Planning Designations for ML2 and LR2 33 7.6.2 Statutory Environmental and Planning Designations for ML2A andLR2A 33
7.7 Whitehill Bordon to Liphook Routes 33 7.7.1 Statutory Environmental and Planning Designations for ML4 and LR3 33
7.8 Conclusions 34 7.8.1 Project Planning Implications 34 7.8.2 Preferred Option 36 7.8.3 Next stage of study 38
8 Cost Estimation 41
8.1 Engineering Assumptions 41 8.1.1 ML1 Whitehill Bordon to Bentley 41 8.1.2 Whitehill-ML2 Bordon to Liss (via old LMR route) 42 8.1.3 ML2A Whitehill Bordon to Liss (Direct Route) 43 8.1.4 ML4 Whitehill Bordon to Liphook 44 8.1.5 ML5 Whitehill Bordon to Alton 44
8.2 Cost Estimates 45
8.3 Optimism Bias 47
8.4 Financing 48
8.5 Cost Estimates (LRT and BRT) 48
8.6 Operating Costs 49
9 Demand Forecasting 51
9.1 Demand Forecasting Methodology 51
9.2 Eco-town Assumptions 54
9.3 Demand Forecasts 55
9.4 Parking Requirements 56
9.5 Benchmarking 57
10 Economic Appraisal 58
10.1 Introduction 58
10.2 Appraisal methodology 58
Option Selection Report
10.3 Revenue 59
10.4 Appraisal Indicators – Heavy Rail 59
10.5 Appraisal Indicators – Light Rail 61
10.6 Appraisal Indicators – BRT 61
10.7 Sensitivity Tests 62
10.8 Summary 63
11 Summary and Recommendations 65
11.1 Introduction 65
11.2 General points 65 11.2.1 Light Rail vs Heavy Rail 65 11.2.2 Analysis by Route Corridor 65
11.3 Route Option Summary 66 11.3.1 ML1 – Whitehill Bordon to Bentley – Heavy Rail 66 11.3.2 LR1 – Whitehill Bordon to Bentley – Light Rail 67 11.3.3 LR4 – Whitehill Bordon to Alton – Light Rail 67 11.3.4 ML5 – Whitehill Bordon to Alton – Heavy Rail 68 11.3.5 LR6 / 6a – Whitehill Bordon to Farnham – Light Rail 69 11.3.6 LR3 – Whitehill Bordon to Liphook – Light Rail 69 11.3.7 ML4 – Whitehill Bordon to Liphook Heavy Rail 70 11.3.8 LR2 / 2a – Whitehill Bordon to Liss – Light Rail 70 11.3.9 ML2 / 2a – Whitehill Bordon to Liss – Heavy Rail 71
11.4 Preferred Scheme 72
11.5 Check with Transport Strategy Objectives. 72
Appendix
Appendix A – Environmental Constraints Map
Appendix B – Vertical Alignments
5
1 Executive Summary
The Whitehill Bordon Transport Strategy (March 2010) sets out the expected travel
demands from the Whitehill Bordon Eco Town development. This estimated that
overall existing movement within the town will increase by up to 91,000 trips per
day, with 60% completed within the town, and so 36,000 external (with one end of the
trip in the town). Existing figures suggest there to be around 27,000 external trips at
present. Therefore the development will require us to handle up to an additional
9,000 trips per day into the wider region.
With the current levels of public transport provision such growth levels would be
unsustainable, would go against the principles of the Eco-town, and create traffic
impacts on the local and regional routes used.
Therefore a range of solutions including heavy rail, light rail and Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) to link Whitehill Bordon to Alton, Liphook, Bentley and Liss were tested to
ascertain the most viable and cost effective solution to this problem.
The study was conducted in line with Network Rails Guide to Railway Investment
Projects (GRIP) investment guidelines for the heavy rail solutions and DfT Appraisal
Guidance to ensure that all potential solutions to the identified problems and
objectives were considered. In summary, this covers the pre-feasibility process which
requires outline monetary appraisal for all potential options with the objective of
filtering out solutions which would not achieve the necessary value for money
criteria specified by the government for public funding.
On balance of the issues raised, the preferred option at this stage is the heavy rail
route via Bentley. This will generate demand levels of up to 1 million trips per
annum, with a capital cost of £130M and a Benefit to Cost Ratio of 2.14 which is high
value for money based on DfT Guidance. This provides the least environmental
impact, the best economic and financial case, presents engineering and operational
issues that are deliverable and are either the cheapest, or commensurate with the
other options.
Serving Whitehill Bordon via Liphook and Liss is much less attractive due to lower
levels of interpeak service frequency at these stations combined with increased
environmental constraints. Alton, although potentially providing the most viable
option from an operational perspective, is constrained by the high costs of delivering
the necessary infrastructure due to the topography in the area, with the costs almost
double that of connecting to the mainline at the other 3 stations. Through running
options show a higher value for money case than shuttle services to existing stations,
primarily due to the advantage associated with removing the uncertainty and
inconvenience of requiring interchange.
None of the proposed LRT and BRT alternative options exhibit a positive BCR due to
lower journey times than the heavy rail shuttle, relatively high infrastructure costs in
comparison to demand, and the costs associated with needing to acquire and run a
bespoke fleet of vehicles in the case of LRT.
The strength of the economic case suggests a heavy rail alignment via Bentley should
be explored further. Future option development should focus on the potential
environmental impacts of passing through the South Downs National Park,
confirming the engineering costs, and developing / optimising the operational case
6
more robustly including undertaking a full assessment of the service options on
current demand in terms of impacts on service quality to existing stations and train
loadings.
7
2 Introduction
2.1 Background
Halcrow was commissioned by Hampshire County Council in June 2010 to undertake
a GRIP2 level study to assess the business case for re-establishing a heavy rail link to
Whitehill - Bordon. The concept developed from the selection of the area as one of
the government’s new Eco-towns, and in that context it is recognised that a coherent
and sustainable transport strategy needs to be developed. Initial work has been
undertaken by Mott Gifford, this was developed at Network Rail GRIP 1 level, and
sets the initial thinking in relation to the project. The Halcrow work builds on the
findings of that research, and develops the business case and technical areas in more
detail.
2.2 Business Case Structure
The primary purpose of the business case is to understand the issues surrounding the
development of a rail line between Whitehill Bordon and the wider rail network. The
case itself needs to address the specific requirements of the Network Rail GRIP
feasibility stages (level 2) as well as slightly wider objectives relating to Local
Authority and DfT business cases which are aligned to WebTAG criteria.
The basic calculus in a WebTAG assessment and a GRIP assessment are the same, but
a key early stage in the WebTAG work is to establish the broader case for the scheme.
By this we mean to determine what problem the scheme is trying to address, and
what the objectives of providing the link are. The case should go further, and
determine non heavy rail alternatives to fulfil the identified problems and objectives,
as well as considering variations on the heavy rail option (different alignments and
service levels).
The purpose of this report is to present the wider case for the scheme in terms of the
WebTAG approach. The next section will consider the Problem and Objective setting,
as set out in the “Emerging Transport Strategy”. This will be followed by a section on
the potential options to meet them (Bus, Light Rail, Heavy Rail) and then a section
that develops the assessment criteria against which we should be comparing them.
Section four, outlines the policy fit of the proposals, five considers operational rail
issues and six the environmental considerations of each of the options. Sections
seven, eight and nine look at the business end of the issues, looking at cost estimates,
forecast passenger demand and appraisal issues respectively. Finally, section ten
draws together a summary of the findings and makes some tentative conclusions
from the work.
8
3 Problems & Objectives
3.1 Introduction
The Whitehill Bordon Transport Strategy doesn’t state specifically the purpose of
providing a rail link to the existing rail system other than a broad reference to
“Encourage Sustainable Travel”. This is a laudable objective, but it doesn’t specify
the problem we are trying to address in providing the facility. The Strategy does
however identify 3 fundamental types of transport that exist now, and will continue
to exist once the development is built:
• Travel within the Town – Town Wide Routes;
• Travel within the area as a whole – Local Routes;
• Travel to and from the area to the Wider Region – Strategic Routes.
Clearly the rail link will support the latter of these two, and the assessment here will
focus on the ability of the scheme options to support that.
The Whitehill Bordon Transport Strategy has six objectives in the “Emerging”
document of March 2010 – specifically:
• Support exemplar sustainable economic regeneration and town growth;
• Improve the environment by reducing congestion and pollution;
• Enable sustainable movement by developing high quality public transport,
walking and cycling alternatives to the private car;
• Balance the needs for people to travel against the importance of protecting the
environment;
• Reduce journey length and the need to travel outside of the town; and,
• Manage car demand within, through and outside of the town, maximising the use
of existing assets.
In assessing scheme options therefore, we should consider each case in light of the
criteria. The table below provides a high level framework against which the options
can be considered. The aim is to consider each option in turn, and provide a brief
commentary on how the option compares, providing quantitative analysis where
relevant to support the text.
Objective Description Score +3 / -3
Manage Transport Demand How does the option perform -
indicators from the modelling -
mode shift/total demand
Use of Existing Assets New line / re-open disused line
- integration with other assets -
re-use of disused infrastructure
- km's number of station
9
Objective Description Score +3 / -3
Support Sustainable Economic
Regeneration
Indicators on % work within
town, extent of out-commuting
- use of Whitehill Bordon as a
destination station.
Improve the Environment by reducing
congestion and pollution
Mode shift related
environment indicators -
noise/air quality - extent of
highway congestion reduction
Enable sustainable movement –
alternatives to the car
Indicators on % work within
town, extent of out-commuting
- use of Whitehill Bordon as a
destination station.
Balance the need to travel against
protecting the environment
What does each option do to
the wider environment -
summary indicators
highlighting what impact on
the environment each option
has.
Reduce journey length and the
need to travel outside of the town
Comment on the scope to
encourage wider travel –
specifically for the longer
distance rail options.
Notes
+3 large positive: -3 large negative: 0 neutral
3.2 Transport Problems
The Whitehill Bordon Emerging Transport Strategy (March 2010) sets out the
expected travel demands from the development. This estimated that overall existing
movement within the town will increase by up to 91,000 trips per day, with 60%
completed within the town, and so 36,000 external (with one end of the trip in the
town). Existing figures suggest there to be around 27,000 external trips at present.
Therefore the development will require us to handle an additional 9,000 trips per day
into the wider region.
With the current levels of public transport provision such growth levels would be
unsustainable, would go against the principles of the Eco-town, and create traffic
impacts on the local and regional routes used.
10
The Transport Strategy sets out the concept of bus services to meet the needs of the
growing Whitehill Bordon area. This is focussed on 3 types of service:
• Strategic Routes: at least 2 buses an hour to serve the surrounding region and link
to the rail network;
• Local Routes: four buses an hour serving the towns and villages around
Whitehill Bordon; and,
• Town wide route: six buses an hour operating within the town itself.
The concern is that the Strategic Route bus services in particular may not have the
capacity or attractiveness in terms of journey time or quality of service to meet the
aspirations of Whitehill Bordon as an Eco-town, especially in terms of the higher end
mode share aspiration. Simple analysis of the figures within the strategy would
imply that of the 9,000 external trips, around 29% would be by bus – around 2600.
For those wishing to meet rail services to get to work, this would focus demand on a
couple of buses only, and likely lead to overcrowding for short periods.
Moreover, the attractiveness of bus rail interchange over an all rail service is inferior,
and the relative time advantages of the rail service, especially on the comparatively
slow local roads would enhance the scope to achieve the mode share targets set for
the Eco-town.
In summary:
• Bus capacity at peak times is a concern;
• Bus rail interchange is not particularly attractive;
• Bus and car based journey times have slow average journey times.
3.3 Option Development
Generic options to meet the problems and objectives set above include, further
improvements to the bus services, light rail and heavy rail options. At the heart of all
the development options is the provision of an integrated multi-modal transport hub.
Given the potential transport problems created by the development, we have
generated a series of potential solutions. These are a combination of Heavy Rail,
Light Rail and Bus Rapid Transit solutions that serve different corridors originating
from the centre of Whitehill Bordon. The principal behind each of the options is that
the infrastructure should provide access to the wider rail network, and thus provide
the greatest potential to serve external trips in its widest sense.
A brief description of the current public transport provision, schemes proposed as
part of the Emerging Transport Strategy and potential options considered are
discussed below.
3.3.1 Bus
The proposed transport strategy for Whitehill Bordon provides for reasonably
substantial levels of service provision. Operating at 3 levels – within the town at high
levels of frequency (10 minutes) between the town and the surrounding villages at 15
minute frequencies, and to the wider region with half hourly service, but specifically
designed to meet half hourly rail services at the connection points.
11
With this level of service, and levels of bus priority being offered to support
operation, it is difficult to see how we could offer a meaningful bus based
improvement over that being proposed in the base.
The only viable enhanced bus based alternative would be as above with extensive
segregation measures including construction beyond the highway providing contra
flow bus lanes, bus only sections, bus gates and bus lanes delimited by raised kerbs
prohibiting access for other user.
Although there is evidence to suggest that guided bus systems show a lower cost per
km than light or heavy rail systems, the overall scheme capital costs are more
dependent upon contextual factors such as the scale of earthworks required, the
number and scale of required structures and the degree of utilities diversions. These
factors are likely to be similar for most of the technologies under consideration so that
any differences in, for instance, the unit cost of light rail track compared to busway
are likely to be offset by other factors. This is particularly pertinent to consideration
of such a system at Whitehill Bordon given the substantial civil engineering costs
required for the alignments.
Although some options use a previous alignment, the change in land use and
ownership will result in a large proportion of these costs being necessary for a bus
based system as well as heavy rail. As will be shown in the cost estimates, between
40%-50% of the costs relate to civil engineering works to form the alignment and thus
would be needed to provide clearance for a guided bus system along the proposed
alignments.
As part of the study, demand forecasts, cost estimates and economic appraisals were
conducted BRT based solutions along the identified heavy rail corridors were
considered and the key Value for Money indicators are shown in Section 10.6.
3.3.2 Light Rail
Light rail schemes can bring significant benefits for passengers and the wider
community, delivering quicker, more reliable journeys. Light rail systems also create
a positive image in the area they operate in, bringing benefits in terms of regeneration
and inward investment.
On busy urban corridors light rail services can offer:
• A high quality of ride throughout the entire journey.
• Short dwell-times.
• Park and Ride facilities at a number of stations which can be attractive to car
users.
• High passenger carrying capacity into urban areas provided in an
environmentally-friendly way.
• Predictable, reliable and regular service times with easy to understand routes.
• Low-levels of noise with electric-power.
• More stops and higher frequencies tend to improve the service catchment areas
and when combined with dedicated routes and multiple stops in an urban centre
12
avoid a congestion build-up at rail termini plus reduced walk times due to ability
to provide additional stops in urban areas.
Light rail systems represent a specific solution to a transport problem, and will
therefore not always be an appropriate system for all transport corridors. The choice
of a light rail system over competing public transport systems depends on a number
of factors such as travel demand on the corridor, capital and operating costs. Light
rail systems are generally more suited to high-patronage corridors (due to higher
capacity compared to bus alternatives), although lack the flexibility to re-route due to
any land-use and demand changes along the route (which bus services can offer).
Light rail systems are also usually more expensive and take longer to construct and
develop (requiring a long-term planning process), compared to alternative road-
based systems.
As part of the study, demand forecasts, cost estimates and economic appraisals were
conducted for Light Rail based solutions along the identified heavy rail corridors
were considered and the key Value for Money indicators are shown in Section 10.5.
3.3.3 Heavy Rail
The location of Whitehill Bordon is between rail lines that terminate at Alton to the
north and west of the town, and provide half hourly services to London, and the
Portsmouth/London mainline to the east of the town. With minimum distances of
less than 10km from the town, and with a couple of the routes having the potential to
use historic rail alignments, the heavy rail option is certainly appealing.
The advantages of heavy rail options are their ability to maximise the potential
offered by this infrastructure and to feed on the network economies that this could
provide. The potential for operational efficiencies over the light rail options
(maintenance, depot, timetabling efficiencies) all present as an attractive proposition.
Of course heavy rail is not a cheap option, the operating conditions and engineering
rigour required are typically greater than light rail options. In that trade-off between
the two modes lies the focus for much of this study.
As part of the study, demand forecasts, cost estimates and economic appraisals were
conducted for Heavy based solutions along the identified heavy rail corridors were
considered and the key Value for Money indicators are shown in Section 10.4.
3.3.4 Scheme Options
The alignments have been split into 4 corridors, and build on the previous work,
reference numbers below are consistent with those in the Mott Gifford report.
• North West:
- ML1 – Whitehill Bordon to Bentley heavy rail
- LR1 – Whitehill Bordon to Bentley light rail
- LR4 – Whitehill Bordon to Alton light rail
13
- ML5 – Whitehill Bordon to Alton heavy rail
• North East:
- LR6 & LR6a - Whitehill Bordon to Farnham light rail
• South East:
- LR3 – Whitehill Bordon to Liphook light rail
- ML4 – Whitehill Bordon to Liphook heavy rail
• South West:
- LR2 &LR2a – Whitehill Bordon to Liss light rail
- ML2 & ML2a – Whitehill Bordon to Liss heavy rail
14
Figure 2.1 shows the heavy rail alignments and Figure 2.2 shows the Light Rail
Alignments.
Figure 2.1 – Heavy Rail Alignments
15
Figure 2.2 – Light Rail Alignments
3.3.5 LR1 and ML1 – Whitehill Bordon to Bentley
The Whitehill Bordon to Bentley route follows the same alignment for light and
heavy rail options. This option largely follows the trackbed of the old Bentley to
Whitehill Bordon branch line which had diverged from the existing line between
Bentley and Alton station just to the west of Blacknest Road.
Beginning from Bentley the vertical alignment is proposed to remain at-grade for the
first 400 metres before entering a 0.5km cutting on a moderate 0.9% rising gradient.
The next 8km is proposed to be mostly on embankment fill on a gently falling or level
16
gradient into Whitehill Bordon. At this point it will connect at-grade with the
integrated transport hub.
3.3.6 ML5 – Whitehill Bordon to Alton
This will be a new rail corridor running from a connection with the existing railway
to the south west of Alton – currently being used for the Watercress Line – to the
integrated transport hub at Whitehill Bordon.
From Alton station the vertical alignment will remain level for the first 0.8km, with
progressively more embankment fill to 10m in height in localised areas. This
provides sufficient elevation for a grade separated bridge crossing with the A31.
Beyond this the route remains on a reducing embankment fill for the next 1km. From
here the route rises significantly for 2km – the rise is too significant to follow at
surface, and a tunnel would be required , for 2.5km in length. Beyond the tunnel a
SSSI is encountered and unless tunnelling is longer and deeper, this cannot be
avoided. Beyond the SSSI the route continues on falling ground and on embankment
to allow crossing of Oakhanger, Gibbs lane and Oakhanger road.
3.3.7 LR4 – Whitehill Bordon to Alton
This will be a new light rail corridor running from the southeast side of Alton station
to the integrated transport hub at Whitehill Bordon. The route runs parallel and
approximately 2km to the north of the ML5 alignment. The key issues of the vertical
alignment are similar to ML5, a shorter tunnel could be used as the route avoids the
wider part of the SSSI.
3.3.8 LR6 & 6a – Whitehill Bordon to Farnham
This route runs from the integrated transport hub in Whitehill Bordon to the railway
station in Farnham almost 15km to the north. LR6 goes direct to Farnham, whilst 6a
goes via Kingsley. These are the longest of the options considered.
The route contours through the countryside adjacent to roads in some areas, and
through the wider landscape in others. The route passes over common land to the
north of Whitehill Bordon, and whilst avoiding SSSI areas throughout, the route does
pass near and through areas of ancient monuments. At the Farnham end of the route
a number of road crossings need to be negotiated as the route enters the town
running parallel with the A31.
3.3.9 ML4 – Whitehill Bordon to Liphook heavy rail
This option is formed using sections of the dismantled Longmoor Military Railway
and sections of new railway corridor. The route from Whitehill Bordon would be
connected at Liphook station in the London bound direction only.
From Liphook the route would be connected to the Portsmouth mainline via double
junction of a single lead turnout with a crossover preceding it between the up and
down lines – the final layout would be dependent on the operational
requirements/constraints. On leaving Liphook the route falls at a max gradient of 2%
on progressively higher embankment for 2km providing sufficient elevation to cross
the various roads (Portsmouth Road, Bohut Manor access, Longmoor Road). Beyond
Longmoor road the route will follow a rising gradient on the approach to crossing the
A3. Beyond this point, without the need for further road crossing over the next
17
3.5km the vertical alignment will contour existing topography on up to 10m of
embankment to minimise the impact of gradient. The route then joins ML2 along for
the run into Whitehill Bordon.
3.3.10 LR3 – Whitehill Bordon to Liphook light rail
LR3 follows the route of ML4 for much of its length. LR3 runs from the integrated
transport hub in Whitehill Bordon south east to Liphook. The route follows ML2 as it
leaves Whitehill Bordon, and then cuts east to skirt the northern edge of the special
conservation area of Woolmer Forest. The variation comes on the approaches to
Liphook, where the light rail line is able to follow a more direct route into Liphook
adjacent to the existing highway.
3.3.11 ML2 & ML2a – Whitehill Bordon to Liss heavy rail
This route primarily follows the course of the LMR. Connection to the station at Liss
would depend on operational constraints, but could be a combination of links to
London bound, Portsmouth bound or as shuttle operation. In all scenarios the
vertical alignment from Liss will be required to immediately enter a 0.4km shallow
cutting on a rising gradient of 2%, and thence for 4km at a 0.8% gradient on
embankment for a further 4km to carry the route over Liss Forest Road, then onto
viaduct for 0.6km up to 18m in height on the approaches to the A3. Beyond this the
route runs on falling gradient 0.95% for 2.6km contouring with the topography.
Beyond here problems with light manufacturing usage and road crossings lead to the
need for some sharp 2% inclines , before falling gradient brings the route back to
existing topography. Route option 2A takes a more direct route through Longmoor
forest.
3.3.12 LR2 &LR2a – Whitehill Bordon to Liss light rail
These options broadly follow ML2. Differences occur on the approaches to Liss,
where the route takes a more easterly direction rather than following the LMR. LR2a
avoids Longmoor Forest entirely by pushing out to the west as the route enters the
forest and runs via Greatham before tying back into ML2 once it has crossed the A3.
18
4 Option Appraisal
4.1 Introduction
This section provides a summary of how the case for improved Public Transport
Access to Whitehill Bordon has been prepared, and how this ties in with the appraisal
requirements of both the DfT through WebTAG, and Network Rail through GRIP.
4.2 Appraisal Structure
In setting the appraisal framework it is first important to set the baseline position for
the scheme. In common parlance – what is the do-minimum situation, and what are
the schemes we are proposing to test against it?
For the Whitehill Bordon project, the do-minimum has been taken from the transport
strategy documents – specifically in terms of:
• Housing growth and timing;
• Employment growth and timing;
• Supporting PT infrastructure – we have assumed the basic bus, walk, cycle and
planning strategies are in place.
In effect we have undertaken the appraisal to understand whether there is a case to
go beyond the already extensive planned bus based strategy, and employ mass
transit based solutions (heavy rail / light rail) to the transport problems presented.
The broad structure of DfT style appraisals use the following headings:
• Environment
• Safety
• Economy
• Accessibility
• Integration (policy)
The GRIP assessment focuses more directly on the economic case, but also considers
detail on the engineering and operational considerations that feed into such a case.
The following sections outline the appraisal in each of these areas.
19
5 Policy Integration
5.1 Transport Visions and Objectives
As identified in the Emerging Transport Strategy for Whitehill Bordon:
The designation of Whitehill Bordon as one of the Country’s first four Eco Towns provides an exciting opportunity for essential re-development of the town, regenerating its core and creating a town that people can be proud of for years to come….
A high-quality transport system is essential to support the town’s expansion, and to the future success and economic viability of the town….. integral to the strategy is to reduce the need to travel, particularly by car, and re-focus the transport system, giving priority to non-car based transport…
The concept for the Eco-town is to allow development and regeneration of the area, in
a sustainable way, in a way that focuses travel away from the private car, but also in a
way that does not stifle economic growth, and indeed actively supports it.
In setting the Transport Vision for Whitehill Bordon the Emerging Strategy
recognises that each form of transport plays a part (including the car).
5.2 Regeneration and Railways
Transport schemes have the potential to provide the additional economic stimulus for
an area to enhance its commercial and economic hubs.
This highlights a series of situations where opening or enhancing rail connections
have impacted on regional development. The case studies presented are a
combination of major city centre developments – Kings Cross, Ashford in Kent – as
well as smaller town based schemes such as the opening of through services to Alloa
from Stirling.
The latter example seems particularly pertinent to the Whitehill Bordon case, given its
size, and proximity to a major conurbation in Glasgow. The findings in the short time
since re-opening only 2 years ago are striking – financial/business sectors focussing
on the town (up from 31% to 45%) with total employment in the town up 16% against
a background of declining employment in the region.
The dichotomy of course is that improved public transport accessibility per se can
provide such stimulus, but that the overall quality and design of the infrastructure is
as relevant, particularly with attracting investment to an area – perception of
accessibility being as important as the reality of journey times. On that basis, rail or
light rail connectivity would provide a considerable additional economic stimulus
over and above the base levels of public transport being developed within the
strategy.
Of course the dilemma for the Eco-town concept is striking the balance between
connectivity to allow regeneration of the area and attract investment – with
connectivity to more major centres in London and Portsmouth. No one is suggesting
that an Eco-town should develop in isolation of the wider economy, but the drive for
increasingly fast connections to the major economic centres of the south east needs to
be balanced with the potential out-commuting stimulus that may provide.
5.2.1 Value of Wider Economic Benefits
20
Building on the good practice recommendations for capturing economic benefits of
infrastructure projects, including the DfT’s WEB TAG and the HM Treasury’s Green
Book, indicative wider economic benefits were calculated for the provision of the rail
link in Whitehill Bordon.
The proposed rail link and associated infrastructure are an integral part of the
development of the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town. Given the current availability of
information, the analysis follows an approach for valuing the direct employment and
economic impacts (in terms of Gross Value Added) associated with the Eco-town’s
‘preferred option’. Using the appropriate proportioning factor derived from cost
estimates for the Eco-town and the rail link, the relevant economic benefits were
attributed to the latter.
The masterplan for the Eco-town suggests that up to 155,000 sq of commercial (gross
external) floorspace could be delivered as part of the Eco-town. Applying good
practice employment densities sourced from the Homes and Communities Agency's
Employment Density Guide (2010) to the gross internal floorspace estimates, the
analysis derived the gross employment impacts of the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town
Development.
Evidence available in the public domain suggests that major rail infrastructure
schemes such as the proposed rail link are likely to have the greatest impact on the
professional services sector. Such employees will generally be accommodated in B1a
type floorspace. Of the additional jobs, 3,200 B1a gross jobs are envisaged to be
created in the Eco-town which relate to some £207 million of annual contributions to
the GDP.
The recent Research to Improve Assessment of Additionallity, BIS 2009 suggests that
some 53% of the gross impacts associated with capital expenditure based physical
infrastructure projects are not additional i.e. lost as a result of deadweight, leakage,
displacement and substitution effects. Using this benchmark, it is appropriate to infer
that only 47% of the gross economic outputs will be accounted as actual (net) impacts
of the proposed Eco-town and the rail link.
The analysis concludes that some £9.1 million of annual contributions to the regional
GDP (proxy for Gross Value Added or GVA) will be derived from the proposed
provision of the rail link in the station. These benefits have been assumed to persist
for 10 years based on the assumptions outlined in the BIS Practical Guideline on
Implementing the Impact Evaluation Framework.
Although this needs to be included as a sensitivity test based on current DfT
guidance, the committed development of the infrastructure at the outset would in
effect provide a catalyst to develop the Eco-town. Further discussion of the treatment
of this figure in terms of value for money will be covered in Chapter 10.
21
6 Operational Issues
6.1 Introduction
In order to inform the business case it is necessary to understand what options could
realistically be delivered from an operational rail perspective. This section examines
the heavy rail operational issues of providing an enhanced link and also examines the
issues surrounding the provision of light rail connections.
The section considers the options for integration of services with those in the vicinity
of Whitehill Bordon. Options to the north of the Eco-town focus on the Alton line
and those to the south consider options from the Portsmouth to Waterloo Mainline.
6.2 Alton Line Options
There are a number of realistic possibilities for running trains through to Whitehill
Bordon and stations on the wider network via the Alton line either from Bentley or
from Alton itself.
The current standard hour train plan is shown in Figure 6.1
Figure 6.1 – Alton Line Train Plan
This shows that trains are scheduled to cross at Farnham Station (40.4 miles from
Waterloo), on the double track section of the line. The double track extends as far
west as the entrance to Farnham EMU depot (41 miles from Waterloo), where there is
an estimated a 3 minute separation between the up and down trains at the start of the
single track section. Whilst there is a loop at Bentley, Alton passenger services do not
cross there at any time of the day.
The current timetable is arranged so that train 2 arrives at Alton (49.3 miles from
Waterloo) 4 minutes before train 1 leaves for London, i.e. for 8 minutes each hour
both platforms at Alton are occupied and the turn-round time is 34 minutes.
22
This inefficient use of rolling stock means that it would be relatively straightforward
to extend trains from Alton to Bordon, the 34 minute turnaround time being reduced
to 18 if trains run non-stop between Alton and Bordon (estimated 8 minute run time
each way). At current timings trains would pass just west of Alton, requiring a
section of double electrified track extending along the Mid Hants Railway, probably
to the point at which the routes separate.
While this appears a simple way of running a through rail service to Whitehill
Bordon, there are a number of disadvantages:
• The route is circuitous as trains will travel 5 miles east from Bordon before
turning towards London and thus long – nearly 57 miles, an estimated 75
minutes in the peaks (fast Waterloo to Woking) and 81 minutes off-peak (calls at
Surbiton and Clapham in the current timetable);
• Alton services are not split or joined on route at present, even in the peaks (when
12-car 450s and 10-car 444s are used on the route). Full length trains thus operate
through to Bentley (main platform 6 cars long) and Alton where platforms can
accommodate 8-car trains. It is assumed that Selective Door Opening is used with
the London end unit on longer trains locked out of use west of Farnham. With
through running Whitehill Bordon would need to be able to accommodate a 12-
car train even if Selective Door Opening/locking was used here as well.
• An alternative through service could operate via Bentley. Although splitting and
joining at Bentley is not desirable, there is the potential to split services at
Farnham or more suitably at Aldershot as there are three platform roads.
Apart from the need to roster a shunter to be on duty throughout the operating day at
the split/join location, this option has a number of advantages over through running
via Alton:
• Shorter route to Whitehill Bordon (50 miles to Waterloo), with a shorter journey
time of 71 minutes peak and 77 minutes off-peak;
• Shorter train lengths (8-car max) at the short platforms of Bentley and Alton;
• Shorter trains at Whitehill Bordon, and thus shorter platforms / loops if peak
demand per train at Whitehill Bordon exceeds the capacity of a single unit.
A 4 minute signalling separation between the first and second portions of the train
has been assumed.
Operational constraints west of Bentley and in particular at Alton station mean that
the Alton portion of each split-join train would have to run as now to avoid trains
crossing on the long single-track stretch between Bentley and Alton. We have
therefore assumed that the down Whitehill Bordon portion follows 4 minutes behind
(irrespective of whether splitting was at Aldershot or Farnham), with the up
Whitehill Bordon portion preceding the Alton train by 4 minutes. As can be seen, the
down Whitehill Bordon train leaves the 2-track section through Bentley station and
Bentley Junction only 9 minutes before the next up Whitehill Bordon section arrives
at Bentley Junction, so double-track or a passing loop on the Whitehill Bordon branch
may be needed.
23
With 7 minutes travel time from Whitehill Bordon to Bentley and a 4 minute wait at
the split/join location, a through time Whitehill Bordon to Waterloo of 71 minutes
peak and 77 minutes off-peak should be possible, 4 minutes faster than via Alton.
Other service options are possible and considered in outline below:
• Routing the main train to Whitehill Bordon, with a shuttle to Alton (as noted,
sending the second portion of a split-join to Alton is not possible without a
passing loop) this reduces the Whitehill Bordon to Waterloo journey time by 4
minutes, but the Whitehill Bordon branch needs to be able to accommodate 12-car
trains and the 34 minute layover issue currently present at Alton is transferred to
Whitehill Bordon;
• Alternate services and shuttles – 1tph of each to Alton, 1tph of each to Whitehill
Bordon;
• Separate through services to Whitehill Bordon and Alton, as suggested by Mott
Gifford. This involves diverting the current Ascot to Aldershot (reverse) to
Guildford service.
Diversion of Ascot Services
Mott Gifford envisaged Ascot to Bentley (a 4-car train at all times of the day) and
assuming current timings east of Aldershot are maintained (given peak period
congestion east of Woking), with a 17 minute gap between a down London train
passing Bentley Junction and the next up London train arriving there is plenty of
scope to separate the Ascot and London services, with the latter crossing in the loop
at Bentley as shown in Figure 6.2.
Figure 6.2 – Ascot Train Plan
In this chart the London train is shown going to Alton and the Ascot to Whitehill
Bordon but with similar times from Bentley to either station these could easily be
switched round. Here the Ascot train is shown running 9.5 minutes later than the
24
London train down and 9.5 minutes earlier up. In reality a short, safety margin,
layover for both in the platforms at Bentley may be required.
Allowing 16 minutes running time to Whitehill Bordon and back, trains crossing at
Bentley can have a 14 minute layover, adequate for a longer distance service.
Other Issues
In addition to timing issues for through services the main 3rd party operational issue
concerns the 3-5 days a week crude oil train between Fawley refinery and
Holybourne Oil Sidings on the Alton branch.
The train of empty tanks from the refinery runs through to Alton (platform 2), where
the locomotive runs round. This takes 32 minutes as the passenger train in platform 1
needs to leave first. The train then runs back to Holybourne and reverses into the oil
sidings drops the empty tanks, picks up loaded tanks and departs for Aldershot at
with a layover in platform 1 at Bentley to allow a down passenger to pass. This is the
only daytime service scheduled to use platform 2 at present.
To accommodate this train the 10:23 from Waterloo terminates at Farnham and the
12:15 departure starts from Farnham, resulting in a 1 hour gap between trains at
Bentley and Alton even on days when the oil train does not run. If through services
to Whitehill Bordon are to run on this line, this freight movement could cause
significant inter-peak disruption
Given that output from the Humbly Grove oil field is in decline as 15 years ago there
were 5 trains a week with now there are only being 2-3 per week, it may be possible
to rationalise the oil sidings, creating locomotive run-round facilities there. The train
could then run direct to Holybourne, avoiding the disruptive run-round and reversal
at Alton.
While a detailed timetabling exercise will be required to determine how this service
can be accommodated in future without too much disruption to the enhanced
passenger service is required, Peak Oil theory suggests that output from Humbly
Grove will continue to decline and by the time additional Whitehill Bordon services
would commence there may be insufficient oil produced at Humbly Grove to justify
continued operation of the oil field or the train.
6.3 Portsmouth to Waterloo Main Line
There are fewer realistic possibilities for running trains through to Whitehill Bordon
and the wider network via Liss or Liphook.
In terms of connectivity the Portsmouth line is a better way out of the new town as it
links to sizeable communities both north and south. But additional cross-overs
would be needed at either station to connect the branch with the down line as well as
the up, probably requiring extensive re-signalling.
At the existing station at Liss, a Whitehill Bordon branch would connect with the
main line facing Havant, making through running to the south possible. While, with
only 4tph, the line is capacity constrained given the different stopping patterns of the
all-stations (calling at Liss) and semi-fast services (the down slow has a 10 minute lay-
over at Haslemere for a fast to overtake) south of Liss the slow and fast stopping
patterns are not too dissimilar and it should be possible to fit in an hourly inter-peak
service to Havant and beyond in the path of 2nd slow service (which terminates at
25
Haslemere inter-peak). A practical approach may be 2tph shuttle to Liss in the peaks
(when 2 main line trains per hour call) and an hourly through service plus an hourly
shuttle off-peak.
Portsmouth is a more likely destination than Southampton - given the difference in
transit time between the Southampton-Portsmouth (all stations) service and the
Cardiff-Portsmouth, Southampton-Brighton and Southampton-Victoria (non-stop)
services, Fareham-Southampton, while double track, is close to capacity. A second
slow service per hour is possible but would require wholesale re-timetabling of
services via Fareham.
At Liphook the connection would face London, raising the prospect of a through train
to Waterloo in around 72 minutes. However, the journey time differential between
fast and slow services is greater as there are more small stations only served by slow
services. As Mott Gifford note, extra trains to London are not possible due to
capacity constraints east of Woking, but an off-peak service could be created by
starting back the Haslemere slow at Whitehill Bordon (with some re-timing). As at
Liss, the service may be a 2tph shuttle in the peaks with an hourly through train plus
hourly shuttle off-peak.
In the peaks the 2nd slow train runs to/from Portsmouth, Hilsea or Havant.
Depending on peak train loadings south of Liphook it might be possible to divert
these trains to Whitehill Bordon in the peak as well as off-peak. If so, this would
reduce the number of units needed to run the Portsmouth line. The Whitehill Bordon
branch would need to be able to accommodate a 12-car train, as there is nowhere safe
to split/join south of Guildford and 12-car trains are needed north of Guildford (trains
on this route are some of the most overcrowded on South West trains).
6.4 Operational Summary
A number of potential options have been identified which could be used to provide
direct services to Whitehill Bordon.
From deliverability perspective, running through via Alton would be the most
achievable but the main drawback is that the route is circuitous as trains will travel 5
miles east from Bordon before turning towards London
From a quality of service perspective, through running via Bentley would provide the
quickest journey time to London, and provide a 2 trains per hour service both peak
and off peak. This would not be as straightforward to deliver as an extension though
Alton as to ensure that the service frequency to all existing stations along the line is
maintained it would require splitting or diverting services.
It is though acknowledged that this option would have potential impacts on journey
times for existing passengers. For example splitting of services at either Aldershot or
Farnham is likely to result in additional journey time at stations to the west of where
services are split due to additional layover time required to separate the units.
Further consideration of such issues will be conducted at the next study stage where
a more detailed assessment of potential service options for a more refined list of
options will be considered and service options which minimise the adverse effects on
existing passengers will be developed.
26
Opportunities for peak through running services to Liss and Liphook are limited by
capacity although there may be some potential to extend interpeak services which
terminate at Haslemere to Whitehill Bordon.
What the assessment has shown is that there are clear possibilities for each of the rail
options in operational terms, though in each case there are constraints that would
have to be dealt with.
In terms of journey times, the journey times shown in Table 6.1 between Whitehill
Bordon and the adjoining stations have been assumed.
Option Journey Time
Whitehill Bordon via Bentley (ML1) 7 minutes
Whitehill Bordon via Liss (ML2) 7 minutes
Whitehill Bordon via Liss via Longmoor (ML2a) 8 minutes
Whitehill Bordon via Alton (ML5) 8 minutes
Whitehill Bordon via Liphook (ML4) 7 minutes
Table 6.1 – Rail Journey Time Assumptions
These assume a design line-speed of 70mph with few restrictions along the route. As
the project progresses, these estimates will need to be verified by detailed modelling
of the actual performance of the intended rolling stock given the planned alignments
for each option considering the grade, curves, crossings. While the routes to Bentley
and Liss (direct) only have tight curves close to the terminal stations where trains
would be decelerating on the approach to the station. Alton, Liss via Longmoor
Camp and Liphook feature relatively low radius curves mid-route.
6.5 Light Rail
Although the envisaged LRT schemes have no operational issues in terms of conflicts
with the heavy rail network, there are number of factors which need to be considered
when considering light rail as a potential solution. There are three main issues which
need to be considered.
Light rail systems represent a specific solution to a transport problem, and will
therefore not always be an appropriate system for all transport corridors. The choice
of a light rail system over competing public transport systems depends on a number
of factors such as travel demand on the corridor, capital and operating costs. Light
rail systems are generally more suited to high-patronage corridors (due to higher
capacity compared to bus alternatives), although lack the flexibility to re-route due to
any land-use and demand changes along the route (which bus services can offer).
Light rail systems are also usually more expensive and take longer to construct and
develop (requiring a long-term planning process), compared to alternative road-
based systems.
LRT schemes historically have been implemented in urban areas. Although generally
LRT vehicles do not have the maximum speed of heavy rail vehicles one of the main
27
benefits is the ability to provide a more intensive service in built up areas with
improved penetration in the central business district through the potential for on-
street running. Given a large proportion of trips would either be internal within
Whitehill Bordon or facilitating links to the national rail network, large sections of the
route would have limited demand due to the low population density. Therefore this
immediately place light rail at a disadvantage in terms of economic benefits
compared to heavy rail due to the lower vehicle speeds.
There would also be significant additional costs of providing a stand alone LRT
system even compared to a heavy rail ‘shuttle’ service which requires interchange at
existing stations.
• There would be the need to procure a new fleet specifically for use on the LRT
alignment, construct and staff a new depot. Therefore any economies of scale
which could be achieved by utilising South West Trains fleet, depots and staff
would not be achievable using a light rail system.
• The form of the contracts procuring light rail systems also has a bearing on costs.
Although different types of contract have been used, most have been design,
build, operate and maintain type contracts. Under these types of contracts
operators have been left to bear all of the revenue risks. Escalating costs on
proposed schemes suggested that operators were building premia into their bids
to cover risks over which they had no control. These risks included, for example,
fares policy, local parking provision, traffic priorities, planning consents along the
light rail route and competing public and road transport provision.
• A light rail scheme which stacks up in economic terms may not necessarily stack
up financially without cross subsidisation of revenues. For example the total
revenue generated may include heavy rail revenue from LRT/heavy rail
interchange and the LRT system in isolation will be running at a deficit. Without
the means to capture the additional wider revenues, the scheme could not
proceed on financial grounds.
A further option would be the consideration of tram-train. Track-sharing, as the name
suggests, represents the shared operation of a heavy rail line between light and
heavy-rail systems. Track sharing has the significant benefit of being able to use
existing railway infrastructure, rather than requiring the expensive construction of
new alignments.
In terms of disadvantages, in addition to the issues indentified above relating to LRT,
the main additional drawback of tram-train is the performance impacts of running
slower vehicles with more stops conflicting with the heavy rail network
Therefore tram-train is a more appropriate solution compared to an LRT system
operating in isolation where there is the ability to utilise existing heavy rail
infrastructure and without providing significant impacts on the existing rail system
in terms of performance.
Given the both the need to provide a substantial quantity of new infrastructure and
the capacity constraints identified above which will have significant performance
impacts on the existing wider network, a tram-train operation will not be preferable
to providing a segregated LRT system.
28
7 Environmental Planning Constraints
7.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section is to summarise the findings of the high level appraisal in
terms of the key environmental and planning constraints associated with each
proposed route corridor. The findings of the environmental appraisal will be used to
inform the option selection process.
This initial stage of the environmental appraisal process identifies what the statutory
environmental and planning designations are within the study area and recommends
which option should be taken forward for further consideration and assessment
during the preferred option development stage.
The selection process has considered which option would have the fewest potential
environmental and planning constraints, based on whether it would pass through or
require direct land take from the statutory environmental and planning designations.
The environmental features and constraints are identified within the study area
which includes a 500m boundary around the proposed heavy rail and light rail
routes. The environmental study area and environmental and planning constraints
can be seen in Appendix A.
The appraisal has been carried out through a desk based assessment. At this stage, a
site visit has not been carried out and consultation has not been undertaken with the
Statutory Consultees. Information has been obtained from on line data sources
provided by Consultees which include Natural England, Multi-Agency Geographic
Information for the Countryside (MAGIC), the Environment Agency and English
Heritage. Following the selection of preferred option, an environmental appraisal of
the preferred rail option will be carried out and consultation will be undertaken as
part of the GRIP3 Study.
7.2 Summary of Main Environmental and Planning Constraints in the Study Area
The study area falls within the East Hampshire District of Hampshire County
Council. Whitehill Bordon is located in the centre of the study area, as the objective of
this rail feasibility study is to identify appropriate public transport options for the
future development of the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town.
There are a number of other villages and towns in the study area, including Liss and
Liphook, which are located in the southern part of the study area and Alton and
Bentley which are located in the northern part of the study area. The study area is an
environmentally sensitive area. There a number of statutory environmental and
planning designations within it with the intention of protecting these sensitive areas.
A large part of the study area falls within the South Downs National Park (SDNP).
National parks are designated for their landscape value and for encouraging visitors
to these areas. The objectives of the SDNP are to ‘conserve and enhance the natural
beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage and to promote opportunities for the
understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities’. The boundary of the park
was extended in 2009, confirmed in March 2010 and comes into force from April 2011.
29
In addition, the study area includes the following statutory environmental and
planning designations:
• Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW), Access Layer
• Countryside and Rights Of Way Act (CRoW), Section 15 Land
• Local Nature Reserves
• Registered Common Land
• Village Greens
• Scheduled Monuments
• Sites of Special Scientific Interest, which are national designations
• Special Areas of Conservation, which are European designations in accordance
with the European Habitats Directive
• Special Protection Areas, which are European designations in accordance with the
European Habitats Directive
There are no other statutory designations (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
Bathing Waters Directive, Biosphere Reserves, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Less
Favoured Areas, Moorland, National Nature Reserves, Nitrate Sensitive Areas,
Ramsar Sites or World Heritage Sites) within in the study area.
In terms of other significant environmental features in the study area, the junction of
A325 and Chalet Hill in Whitehill Bordon has been recently (9th July 2010) declared a
Local Air Quality Management Area (LAQMA) by East Hampshire District Council,
due to the elevated concentration of nitrogen dioxide at this junction. There are no
other LAQMAs within the study area.
There are a number of surface water features including ponds, streams (Kingsley
stream, Oakhanger stream) and rivers (River Slea, River Wey). There are fluvial flood
risk areas associated some of these rivers where the flood risk varies from moderate
to significant risk. A moderate risk is a risk of 1.3% (1 in 75) or less but greater than
0.5% (1 in 200) and a significant risk is a risk of 1.3% (1 in 75) or greater in accordance
with the Environment Agency classification.
In terms of the sensitivity of the underlying ground conditions, British Geological
Survey, Solid Drift and Geology Map Sheet 300 1:50,000 scale indicates that the
naturally occurring sub soil in the study area is Gault Clay, underlain by Chalk and
in tern the Folkestone Beds Formation which consists of ferruginous sand. The
groundwater beneath the site is sensitive to potential contamination as the Chalk
formation is considered to be a principal and secondary aquifer. There are also two
inner groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs) within the study area to protect
groundwater for abstraction purposes. There are a number of potentially
contaminative land uses within the study area including the Defence Estates training
areas and a number of historical and active landfill sites. There is also potential for
unexploded ordnance to be present within the study area due to its historical land
use.
30
Even though these features would not present a planning constraint, they have been
taken into consideration for the engineering and economic appraisal of the options,
presented within this report.
7.3 Whitehill Bordon to Alton Routes
7.3.1 Statutory Environmental and Planning Designations for ML5
This option passes along the southern boundary of Shortheath common, a CRoW Act
2000, Access Layer. It also passes 600 metres south of Binswood Common. The
location of these sites should be taken into consideration at the design stage in order
to ensure that there is no land take from these areas.
This option has direct land take requirements from a number of European and
national ecological designations within the study area. It passes through Wickwood
and Worldham Hangers SSSI and through the southern boundary of Shortheath
Common SSSI and is approximately 600 metres south of a second area of Binswood
SSSI. It passes through East Hampshire Hangers SAC and along the southern
boundary of Shortheath Common SAC. The ecological areas will have to be taken
into consideration at the option development stage in order to ensure that there are
no adverse impacts on ecology and biodiversity. The location of these ecological
designations would present a constraint in terms of development of the design of this
option.
This option does not pass through scheduled monuments or through Village Greens.
It passes south of a Shortheath Common which is a Village Green and Registered
Common Land and so would have to be aligned to ensure that there is no direct land
take required from Shortheath Common.
Landtake from statutory designations presents a significant constraint in terms of
development of the design of this option
Approximately half of this alignment runs through the South Downs National Park
(SDNP). The environmental appraisal at the next stage will need to include a
landscape and visual impact assessment and the design will need to ensure
integration with the surrounding landscape. In addition access for users of the SDNP
would have to be maintained
7.3.2 Statutory Environmental and Planning Designations for LR4
This option passes along the northern boundary of Binswood Common, a CRoW Act
2000, Access Layer. The location of this site should be taken into consideration at the
design stage in order to ensure that there is no land take from these areas.
This option passes through an area designated as the East Hampshire Hangers SAC
and Wick Wood and Worldham Hangers SSSI. This option does not pass through
scheduled monuments or through Village Greens. The ecological areas will have to be
taken into consideration at the option development stage in order to ensure that there
are no adverse impacts on ecology and biodiversity. The location of these ecological
designations would present a constraint in terms of development of the design of this
option.
Approximately half of this alignment runs through the SDNP. The environmental
appraisal at the next stage will need to include a landscape and visual impact
31
assessment and the design will need to ensure integration with the surrounding
landscape.
7.4 Whitehill Bordon to Bentley Routes
7.4.1 Statutory Environmental and Planning Designations for ML1 and LR1
This option passes through the least number of statutory environmental designations
and environmental planning sites, as it only passes through the SDNP.
The alignment of this option does not pass through areas of Countryside and Rights
of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 Access Layer or through CRoW Section 15 Land.
This option does not have any direct land take requirements from ecological
designated sites or pass through ecological designated sites within the study area.
However, there are a number of designated ecological areas located in close
proximity of the route alignment. These include Shortheath Common SSSI and SAC,
Wickwood and Worldham Hangers SSSI, East Hampshire Hangers SAC. These
ecological areas will have to be taken into consideration at the options development
stage in order to ensure that there are no indirect impacts on ecology and
biodiversity. This would present a constraint in terms of development of the design
of this option.
This option does not pass through any areas of Registered Common Land, Village
Greens or scheduled monuments within the study area.
The majority of this option passes through the SDNP. The environmental assessment
at the next stage will need to include a landscape and visual impact assessment to
understand the potential implications on the character of the area and the possible
implications for visual receptors from various view points. This will enable the
design, if the option is taken forward, to integrate with the surrounding landscape.
7.5 Whitehill Bordon to Farnham Route
7.5.1 Statutory Environmental and Planning Designations for LR6
This option passes through the greatest number of statutory environmental
designation and environmental planning sites as it passes through or is adjacent to
seven statutory designations.
This option passes along the southern boundary of Broxhead Common, a CRoW Act
2000, Access Layer. This site is also a Local Nature Reserve. The location of this site
would provide a constraint and should be taken into consideration at the design stage
in order to ensure that there is no land take from the site.
This option has direct land take requirements from European and national ecological
designations within the study area. It passes through Broxhead and Kingsley
Common SSSI and Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA. The ecological areas will have to
be taken into consideration at the option development stage in order to ensure that
there are no adverse impacts on ecology and biodiversity. The location of these
ecological designations would present a constraint in terms of development of the
design of this option.
32
This option passes through a scheduled monument area at Alice Holt Forest, a
Roman British Kiln Site. This would have to be taken into consideration at the next
stage of the design process and would provide a constraint in terms of land take in
this area. It does not pass through any areas of Village Green.
This option is aligned adjacent to the A325, which passes through Broxhead Common
an area of Registered Common Land. This would provide a constraint in terms of
land take in this area.
Landtake from statutory designations presents a significant constraint in terms of
development of the design of this option.
Less than half of this alignment runs through the SDNP. The environmental
assessment at the next stage will need to include a landscape and visual impact
assessment and the design will need to ensure integration with the surrounding
landscape.
7.5.2 Statutory Environmental and Planning Designations for LR6A
This option does not pass through any areas of CRoW Act 2000 Access Layer.
Broxhead Common CRoW Act 2000 Access Layer and Local Nature Reserve is
located less than 100 meters from this proposed alignment and should be taken into
consideration at the option development stage. If the alignment is changed it should
be ensured that there is no land take from this area.
This option has direct land take requirements from ecological designations within the
study area. It passes through Kingsley Common SSSI. It is also adjacent to the B3004
road, which passes through Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA. Shortheath Common SAC
is located 200 meters from this alignment and should be taken into consideration at
the design stage of the project. The ecological areas will have to be taken into
consideration at the option development stage in order to ensure that there are no
adverse impacts on ecology and biodiversity. The location of these ecological
designations would present a constraint in terms of development of the design of this
option. This would present a constraint in terms of development of the design of this
option.
This option passes through a scheduled monument area at Alice Holt Forest, a
Roman British Kiln Site. This option also passes through Kingsley Common which is
Registered Common Land and an area of Village Greens. It should be aligned to
ensure that it does not require direct land take from Kingsley Common. These areas
would have to be taken into consideration at the next stage of the design process and
would provide an environmental and planning constraint. The archaeology and
heritage assessment carried out would need to take into consideration the scheduled
monument area adjacent to the route alignment in order to avoid any potential
impacts.
Landtake from statutory designations presents a significant constraint in terms of
development of the design of this option.
Less than half of this alignment runs through the SDNP. The environmental
assessment at the next stage will need to include a landscape and visual impact
assessment and the design will need to ensure integration with the surrounding
landscape.
33
7.6 Whitehill Bordon to Liss Routes
7.6.1 Statutory Environmental and Planning Designations for ML2 and LR2
The alignment of this option does not pass through areas of CRoW Act 2000 Access
Layer or through CRoW Section 15 Land.
This option would require direct land take from European and nationally designated
ecological sites. It passes along the western boundary and through the southern area
of Woolmer Forest, which is a SSSI and SAC. It also passes through the western
boundary of Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA. It passes through Liss Riverside Railway
Walk (North), a Local Nature Reserve. LR2 has a slightly different alignment and
does not pass through this Local Nature Reserve. The ecological areas will have to be
taken into consideration at the options development stage in order to ensure that
there are no adverse impacts on ecology and biodiversity.
This option does not pass through Village Greens, Registered Common Land or
scheduled monuments designations. It passes south of scheduled monument areas in
Longmore Common which will have to be taken into consideration at the detailed
design stage to ensure that there are no indirect impacts from the design or
construction of this option.
Landtake from statutory designations presents a significant constraint in terms of
development of the design of this option.
With the exception of the Whitehill Bordon area, this majority of this option passes
through the South Downs National Park. The environmental assessment at the next
stage will need to include a landscape and visual impact assessment and the design
will need to ensure integration with the surrounding landscape in particular.
7.6.2 Statutory Environmental and Planning Designations for ML2A and LR2A
This option is a minor variation of Option ML2 and LR2, which are described above.
Similarly to Option ML2, it passes through four statutory environmental planning
designations, has the same other environmental issues and risks and the same
assessment required at the next stage, which are described above. The differences are:
• LR2A is adjacent to two areas of Village Green, which would be taken into
consideration at the detailed design stage in order to ensure that there is no land
take from this area.
• ML2A and LR2A do not pass through the southern area of Wealden Heaths Phase
II SPA and therefore have less land take requirements from this ecological
designation
• ML2A and LR2A do not pass through the scheduled monument areas in
Longmore Common
7.7 Whitehill Bordon to Liphook Routes
7.7.1 Statutory Environmental and Planning Designations for ML4 and LR3
34
Similarly to LR6, this option passes through the greatest number of statutory
environmental designation and environmental planning sites as it passes through or
is adjacent to seven statutory designations. It would present the greatest number of
environmental and planning constraints.
This option passes along the southern boundary of Passfield Common, a CRoW Act
2000 Access Layer and CRoW Section 15 land. The location of this site should be
taken into consideration at the option development stage in order to ensure that there
is no land take from this area. This would represent a constraint in terms of the
development of this option.
This option has direct land take requirements from ecological designations within the
study area. It passes through the eastern area of Woolmer Forest, which is an SSSI
and SAC and through an area of Wealden Heaths Phase II SPA. This option would
therefore require direct land take from European designated ecological sites and a
national designated site. The ecological areas will have to taken into consideration at
the options development stage in order to ensure that there are no adverse impacts
on ecology and biodiversity. This would present a constraint in terms of development
of the design of this option
This option does not have any land take requirements through scheduled
monuments or Village Greens. It passes along the southern boundary of Passfield
Common, which is Registered Common Land, which would represent a design
constraint if this option were taken forward to the detailed design stage and its
location would need to be taken into consideration in order to ensure that there are
no potential impacts on this land.
Landtake from statutory designations presents a significant constraint in terms of
development of the design of this option.
The majority of the alignment of this option passes through the SDNP. The
environmental assessment at the next stage will need to include a landscape and
visual impact assessment and the design will need to ensure integration with the
surrounding landscape.
7.8 Conclusions
7.8.1 Project Planning Implications
7.8.1.1 South Downs National Park Authority
All proposed option alignments pass through the SDNP. In selecting the preferred
option, consultation will be required with the SDNP Authority, who is the planning
authority for all developments which fall within the park boundary. The members of
the Authority include local council representatives, parish councils and national
members. From April 2011, the National Park Authority will be the sole local
planning authority for the major developments within the South Downs National
Park.
The development of rail options through this area may serve to encourage visitors to
the SDNP and be seen as a benefit of developing public transport rail options.
However, agreement and support from the SDNP is required in order to pursue any
proposed major development through this area.
35
7.8.1.2 European designated sites
All options would have potential impacts on European designated sites (SACs and
SPAs) as each route passes in close proximity or directly through designated sites.
Potential adverse impacts on these sites must be removed in order to ensure support
from Natural England, one of the Statutory Consultees. A Habitat Regulations
Assessment would be required to demonstrate this.
It is recommended that options which pass directly through SACs or SPAs are
avoided as demonstrating that no adverse impacts on the integrity of these sites
would be a required.
However, if any options which do pass through these designated sites are taken
forward, there would be a requirement to demonstrate that there are no other feasible
alternatives which would to avoid these areas.
This is supported by the consultation already undertaken by East Hampshire District
Council in relation to the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development. East Hampshire
District Council undertook consultation with Natural England in relation to the East
Hampshire District Local Development Framework, Core Strategy Preferred Policies,
in February 2010. In their response, Natural England has provided the following
relevant points:
• Adverse impacts on European sites (SPAs and SACs) should not only be
minimised but removed entirely. Without removal of adverse impacts
development cannot go ahead.
• While the use of Suitable Alternative Greenspaces (SANGS) is likely to be very
important, there will be other useful techniques such as access management that
can help to mitigate for the impacts of development.
• Compensation for European designated sites can only be provided in the
exceptional circumstances of imperative reasons of overriding public interest.
• Natural England were also consulted by the Department for Communities and
Local Government in relation to the Eco-town programme, in June 2008. In
relation to Whitehill Bordon Eco-town development, Natural England has raised
concerns that there would be impacts, particularly from increased recreation on
important areas of lowland heath (Walden Heaths SPA) and Woolmer Forest
SSSI.
7.8.1.3 Planning Framework
This rail feasibility study is supported by the planning framework and any project
planning decisions will need to made in accordance with the policies set out in out
within it.
The key planning documents include the East Hampshire District Local Development
Framework Core Strategy Preferred Policies for Whitehill Bordon. The findings of
this study will also feed into the final policies within the Local Development
Framework. Within this document, the Preferred Policy Approach for Transport sets
out a policy for safeguarding land from development that lies along the route of the
former Bordon to Bentley railway line.
Other key planning documents and guidance include the Whitehill Bordon
Masterplan as set out in the Supplementary Planning Documents, National Planning
36
Statement and Guidance, South East Plan, Policies WB1 to WB13 in the Core Strategy
and the European Habitats Directive.
7.8.1.4 Transport and Works Act 2006 Order
If the Transport and Works Act 2006 Order is required in relation to this project in the
future, the project should seek to avoid , or otherwise have compelling justification
for, carrying out works within environmentally sensitive sites or adversely affecting
sensitive sites (1). The definition of environmentally sensitive sites includes a number
of sites which would be potentially impacted by the proposed options; European
Sites, land in a National Parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, common or other
land to which section 19 of Acquisition of land Act 1981 applies. Applicants should
also seek to avoid the demolition, alteration of, damage to the setting of listed
buildings, buildings within a designated conservation area, or a scheduled
monument.
If the proposals would require the compulsory purchase of 210 square meters or
more of common land, the applicant would need to provide comparable land to give
in exchange.
Where a project would have an adverse impact on the integrity of a European Site,
the Secretary of State would agree to the project only if there were no viable
alternative solutions and the project had to be carried out for reasons of ‘overriding
public interest’ of a social or economic nature. In these circumstances the reason must
be related to human health, public safety or benefit the environment.
Where a project would involve the compulsory acquisition of land or rights to the
land the prospective applicant should normally consultant the owners, lessees,
tenants and occupiers of such land at an early stage.
7.8.2 Preferred Option
Taking the project planning implications into consideration, it is considered that the
alignment of Option ML1 / LR1 presents the least number of environmental
constraints as it does not require land take from any statutory environmental and
environmental planning designated areas. However, the majority of the alignment
passes through the SDNP, which would require planning approval from the SDNP
Authority. As it also located in close proximity to a number of European
designations, in particular the East Hampshire Hangers SAC, it would need to be
demonstrated that there are no potential impacts on these sites. The remaining
options would present a number of constraints at the option development stage as
1 Department for Transport, A Guide to Transport and Works Act Procedures 2006
37
they would require land take from statutory environmental designations and/or
statutory planning designations.
38
7.8.3 Next stage of study
7.8.3.1 Environmental appraisal
During the preferred option development stage (Stage 2), a high level environmental
appraisal will be carried out. This will assess the potential issues that have already
been identified for the preferred option and will include:
• Landscape and visual impact -the route passes through the SDNP and in
addition, in accordance with the East Hampshire district Council Local
Development Framework emerging Core Strategy Preferred Policy CP16,
Landscape Character Assessment should underpin planning decisions for
developments.
• Ecology and Nature Conservation- a desk based assessment of potential impacts
on ecology and conservation, with particular reference to the SSSIs and European
designated sites within the study area. The findings of the Whitehill Bordon
Habitats Regulation Assessment Pre- Screening Data Report2 will be reviewed in
relation to the proposals. If required at this stage Habitats Regulation Assessment
will also need to be carried out at a later stage, in order to asses any potential
implications on protected species and habitats.
• Noise and Vibration- a high level appraisal of the potential noise and vibration
impacts on noise sensitive receptors will be carried out.
• Air quality-a high level appraisal of the potential impacts on air quality will
carried out.
• Ground conditions - this assessment will include a desk based contaminated land
study to identify additional areas of potentially contaminated land and areas of
unexploded ordnance risk. This will ensure that any potential impacts from
contamination are minimised through the design and construction process.
• Flood risk- the location of the flood risk areas will have to be taken into
consideration at the option design stage.
• Archaeology and heritage- a desk based archaeology and heritage study will be
carried out which will include scheduled monuments and listed buildings
information.
• Community and non motorised users- an assessment of the impacts on
community and non motorised users in the area will need to be undertaken,
including how the proposals would contribute to Whitehill Bordon Eco-town
2 Whitehill Bordon Opportunity Habitats Regulation Assessment Pre-Screening Data
Report, March 2009, UE Associates, University of Brighton
39
transport objectives. This assessment will link with the transport planning study
being carried out by Halcrow as part of the rail feasibility study. Land ownership
and changes in land use will be assessed as part of the economic and engineering
study but any potential impacts on the community will be assessed as part of this
environmental appraisal topic.
The level of detail of the environmental appraisal at the next stage will reflect the
level of detail of the route design and will be carried out to meet the environmental
appraisal guidelines of the Network Rail GRIP 3.
If the project is taken forward past GRIP3, it would require a statutory environmental
impact assessment (EIA) to be carried out, as the project would fall under EIA
Directive (3). The statutory EIA is outside the scope of this feasibility study but the
information from the environmental appraisal can be used to inform the EIA at a later
stage. Public consultation would be required as part of the statutory EIA process but
is not required as part of this study.
7.8.3.2 Consultation
The result of the next stage of the study will reduce the study corridor and allow
more detailed environmental information to be obtained. Once the study corridor is
reduced, consultation will be undertaken with key stakeholders. Statutory
stakeholders and key stakeholders will include:
• Hampshire County Council relevant planning and environmental departments
• East Hampshire District Council relevant planning and environmental
departments
• SDNP Authority
• Natural England
• English Heritage
• Environment Agency
• Network Rail
• South West Trains
The potential non-statutory key stakeholders identified at this stage include:
• Defence Estate
3 Directive 85/338/EEC as amended by Directives 97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC
40
• County Wildlife Trust
• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
• Parish Councils
• Ramblers association and other user groups in the study area.
The Consultee list will be confirmed through agreement with the Hampshire County
Council. Consultation carried out at an early stage would help ensure project support
and is less likely to lead to objections in the future.
41
8 Cost Estimation
This section provides a brief description of the build up of capital costs, and the
engineering assumptions that underpin them.
8.1 Engineering Assumptions
Horizontal alignment, trackwork at interchanges with existing lines, and signalling
were covered with in the GRIP 1 study. These were reviewed and generally accepted
as no major issues were found which required them to be amended.
There is still an outstanding issue regarding the capacity of resignalling work in the
area and potential cost to be born by the Whitehill Bordon Link. Current costs have
not allowed for any exceptional costs. Potential power demand was estimated for
each heavy rail route option, using the vertical alignments generated in for this study,
and costs based on the equipment requirements estimated from these.
A vertical alignment was developed for each horizontal alignment using
topographical and contour information obtained from Ordnance Survey 1:250,000
landform contours and OS 1:50,000 mapping tiles. The principles used in developing
the vertical alignments were:
• Maximum rail longitudinal grade of 2%.
• Vertical profile should be smooth in conformance with accepted norms.
“Switchback” alignments are undesirable for railways as they may interfere with
signal sighting distances, increase operational costs and adversely affect
passenger comfort. This generally resulted in the alignments passing over all
roads at grade separated junctions.
• Providing 7.2m clearance between road and proposed rail level at all locations
where rail over road bridges were required. All road rail crossings indicated in
the GRIP 1 study were provided with grade separated crossings as level crossings
are unlikely to gain approval for new rail works. Generally the rail alignment was
taken over the existing roads as this suited the existing topography better than
road over rail and will cause less disruption during construction.
• Maximum fill heights of 10m, but locally higher values accepted over very short
lengths where it was unclear whether these would actually exist within the
accuracy of survey information.
• Viaducts were used where the differences in proposed and existing levels were
greater than 10m over significant lengths or where the width of land available
was restricted, e.g. by existing urban development. The first stage was to establish
the vertical alignment design, ground levels and topography required to develop
costing up to GRIP 2. Full vertical alignment drawings are contained in Appendix
B, but this section contains a commentary of the routes for each option.
With these assumptions as a starting point, issues relating to each of the heavy rail
route options are outlined below.
8.1.1 ML1 Whitehill Bordon to Bentley
This option largely follows the trackbed alignment of the old Bentley to Bordon
branch line which had diverged from the existing operational single track line
42
between Bentley and Alton stations just to the west of Blacknest Road. In the design
development of this option, the horizontal alignment proposed at GRIP stage 1 has
been retained whilst further consideration has been given to the possible civil
engineering requirements and demands in the development of the proposed vertical
alignment.
Beginning from the Bentley station end of the route, the proposed vertical alignment
remains at-grade for the first 0.4km before entering a 0.5km cutting, all on a
moderate, 0.9%, rising gradient. The next 8km is mostly on embankment on a gently
falling or level gradient which will take the alignment into Bordon where it will
connect at-grade with one of the two proposed integrated transport hub locations.
The vertical alignment has been lifted from the old track bed in order to replace the
original level crossings, at the locations identified at GRIP stage 1 report, with road
over rail grade separated crossings. The reason for this is that relevant authorities are
unlikely to accept level crossings on new rail construction. The crossings occur at
Binstead Road, Sickles Road, B3004 Forge Road and Oakhanger Road. 7.2m vertical
clearance has been provided at each location between the existing road surface level
and the proposed top of rail level.
At this stage of development, fill and cutting heights have been based on contours
beneath the alignment centreline taken from OS 1:50,000 map tiles. Fill heights
generally do not exceed 10m but greater heights have been accepted over some
localised lengths, e.g. the B3004 Forge Road. More detailed design work with the
benefit of detailed topographic survey will be required to establish the best form of
construction at these locations. The vertical alignment has been designed as the best
compromise for smooth bi-directional running without resorting to the highest
permitted gradients or continual steep rising and falling grades. The latter would
adversely affect rail operations and passenger comfort.
8.1.2 Whitehill-ML2 Bordon to Liss (via old LMR route)
This option primarily follows the course taken by the old, and now dismantled,
Longmoor Military Railway (LMR) through the Longmoor Training area. The route
to Whitehill Bordon would be connected at Liss station in one or a combination of
ways as described in the GRIP 1 Report. These are:
• in the London-bound direction,
• in the Portsmouth-bound direction, or
• as a separate shuttle route with the route having its own platform at Liss station
while maintaining a connection in the Portsmouth-bound direction only, for the
purpose of rolling stock movements etc.
As for the alignment design development methodology for all the various route
options, the horizontal alignment proposed at GRIP1 has been retained whilst further
consideration has been given to the possible civil engineering requirements and
demands in the development of the proposed vertical alignment.
Beginning from the Liss station end, the proposed Whitehill Bordon route connects
with the current twin track railway of the Woking-Guildford-Portsmouth mainline.
Depending on factors such as operational requirements and the favoured direction of
43
the proposed connection, the connection could either be in the form of a double
junction or a single lead turnout with a crossover preceding it between the Up and
Down mainlines, to allow access onto the route.
In all scenarios the vertical alignment will immediately enter a 0.4km long shallow
cutting on an assumed maximum 2% rising gradient before entering a 4km long
shallower 0.80% rising gradient on embankment to carry the alignment over Liss
Forest Road. The alignment will then on a viaduct for the next 0.6km which will take
the line over the A3 Dual carriageway. This will be up to 18m in height above the
existing topography at the highest location, on the approach to the crossing with the
A3. The alignment then falls on a 0.95% gradient for the next 2.6km on embankment
which will take it back to the level of the existing topography.
The route continues at-grade for the next 0.5km. On the approach to the proposed
crossing with Firgrove Road/Liphook Road, the existing land use in the area becomes
progressively more built up with residential or light manufacturing land use. The
vertical alignment rises from the existing topography on embankment for 0.8km at a
maximum 2% gradient to allow it to adequately bridge over the road with the
shortest ramp possible. Beyond the proposed bridge a combination of viaduct and
embankment is required on a falling gradient of 2%. The viaduct is used where it is
necessary to restrict construction width to avoid existing development either side of
the route. A further 0.7km is required on embankment to take the route over a local
depression in the ground levels before connecting at-grade with one of the two
proposed integrated transport hub locations in Bordon.
In common with the other heavy rail alignment options the vertical alignment has
been designed to eliminate the need for level crossings by providing road over rail
crossings at the locations identified at GRIP stage 1 report. 7.2m vertical clearance has
been provided between the existing road surface level and the proposed top of rail
level which is considered adequate and realistic at this stage of design development.
The vertical alignment has been designed to be as favourable as practicably possible
in both directions and is kept reasonably smooth without multiple steep rising and
falling grades.
8.1.3 ML2A Whitehill Bordon to Liss (Direct Route)
This option is a derivative of the main alignment option ML2. However instead of
maximising the potential use of the dismantled LMR as in alignment option ML2, this
option diverges further north at approximately 1.5km from Liss station to provide a
more direct route to Whitehill Bordon.
Beginning from the Liss station end of this derivative section of the route, the
alignment starts on a rising 0.80% gradient on embankment to carry the alignment
over Liss Forest Road. Over the next 0.5km the alignment becomes more level to
minimise the required embankment height before rising at a steeper 1.6% gradient for
the next 0.5km to gain sufficient height to cross the A3 Dual carriageway. From the
north side of the A3 crossing to just north of the crossing with Longmoor Road, a
0.6km long viaduct is required. This is to allow the route to be carried over a localised
depression in the ground level midway between the A3 and Longmoor Road
crossings where 23m in height above the existing topography will need to be bridged.
The use of a viaduct in this location has the added bonus of minimising intrusion into
the adjacent SSSI. Beyond the proposed bridge at Longmoor Road the alignment is on
embankment falling at a 1.5% gradient for the next 1km This will keep the route at a
44
sufficient elevation to cross over Woolmer Road before connecting back with the
main ML2 alignment at chainage 7000.000 on the main ML2 route.
8.1.4 ML4 Whitehill Bordon to Liphook
This option is formed using sections of the dismantled LMR and sections of a newly
constructed railway corridor. The route to Whitehill Bordon would be connected at
Liphook station in the London bound direction only. The GRIP stage 1 report
identified space constraints in the layout and area surrounding the existing station at
Liphook and concluded that a separate additional platform to provide a shuttle style
service or a connection in the Portsmouth bound direction should not be considered.
As with the alignment design development methodology for all the heavy rail route
options, the horizontal alignment proposed at GRIP stage 1 has been retained whilst
further consideration has been given to the possible civil engineering requirements
and demands in the development of the proposed vertical alignment.
Beginning from the Liphook station end, the route connects with the current twin-
track railway of the Woking-Guildford-Portsmouth mainline. Depending on factors
such as operational requirements and space constraints, the type of connection could
either be in the form of a double junction or a single lead turnout with a crossover
between the Up and Down mainlines preceding it.
Upon leaving Liphook station, the vertical alignment will immediately fall on a 2%
gradient on progressively higher embankment for the initial 0.1km to tie-in with the
existing topography at Liphook. Still on embankment the route becomes more level,
then on a gentle falling gradient for the next 2km providing sufficient elevation to
cross the Portsmouth Road, Bohut Manor Access Roads and Longmoor Road. Beyond
Longmoor Road, the route immediately follows a 2% rising gradient on the approach
to the crossing with the A3 dual carriageway where the alignment peaks before
falling at a 2% gradient, gradually reducing to a falling 1.3%.
Without any further crossings likely to be required for the next 3.5km the vertical
alignment follows, as closely as possible, the existing topography. This does require
up to 10m high embankments to avoid “switch back” changes in gradient. At
chainage 3000.000m, approximately 0.25km beyond the crossing with the A3, the
horizontal alignment connects with the northern side of the old LMR loop and then
follows route of old dismantled track bed, until it meets and takes the same route as
the ML2 alignment at chainage 6500.000m. This is just before the crossing of Firgrove
Road/Liphook Road.
8.1.5 ML5 Whitehill Bordon to Alton
This option will be a completely new railway corridor from a connection to the
existing single line railway just to the south-west side of Alton station (currently
being used for operations on the Watercress steam railway), to the transport hubs in
Whitehill Bordon. As with the alignment design development methodology for all
the route options, the horizontal alignment proposed at GRIP stage 1 has been
retained whilst further consideration has been given to the possible civil engineering
requirements and demands in the development of the proposed vertical alignment.
Beginning from the Alton station end, the vertical alignment will remain
approximately level for the first 0.8km of the route with progressively higher
45
embankment up to 10m in height in localised areas. This provides sufficient elevation
for a grade separated bridge crossing with the A31 dual carriageway.
Beyond the A31, the route remains on embankment but this gradually reduces in
height over the next 1km. At this point, chainage 2000.000m, the existing topography
rises from 110.000m to over 160.000m above datum over a plan distance of 2.0km.
The only realistic construction option here is to tunnel through the high ground as it
rises too steeply to keep the railway in open cut on a rising grade. Neither are there
sensible alignment options for avoiding the highest ground.
The tunnel would need to be at least 2.5km long, including 25m length portals at each
end, on a gently falling gradient. It would be 55m below ground at its deepest
location, chainage 4000.000m, and the majority of the length of the tunnel would be
greater than 15m deep. This indicates that a bored tunnel is likely to be the most
economic form of construction.
Beyond the southern end of the tunnel, the route encounters an SSSI. We have used
the most economic alignment and tunnel length which involves some surface
alignment through the SSSI. The surface construction impacts of bored tunnels tend
to be concentrated at portals, or locations of vertical intervention shafts, as these are
where excavated materials are brought out and construction materials are sent into
the tunnel. Further studies should concentrate on the tunnel construction
methodology with particular reference to environmental impacts. These may indicate
that it is preferable to have a lower, longer tunnel in order to reduce adverse impacts.
The route beyond the tunnel continues on a falling then level gradient, still on
embankment, to achieve sufficient elevation to cross Oakhanger, Gibbs Lane and
Oakhanger Road, whilst maintaining a sensible balance of embankment volume with
comfortable, practical vertical alignment for running in both directions.
8.2 Cost Estimates
This section provides a summary of the infrastructure costs for the heavy rail options
which formed the input into the business case.
Table 8.1 shows a breakdown of the costs for each option.
ML1 to Bentley
(8.9km)
£m
ML2 to Liss
(10.7km)
£m
ML2A to Liss
(8.7km)
£m
ML4 to Liphook
(8.3km)
£m
ML5 to Alton
(10.7km)
£m
Stations 7.200 9.000 9.000 8.000 7.750
46
ML1 to Bentley
(8.9km)
£m
ML2 to Liss
(10.7km)
£m
ML2A to Liss
(8.7km)
£m
ML4 to Liphook
(8.3km)
£m
ML5 to Alton
(10.7km)
£m
Civils
Civils works in forming
embankments, cuttings, etc
Grassing and planting
Route crossings and realignment of
existing footways and bridleways
Works to adjoining boundaries,
acoustic measures etc
Bridges
28.839
1.477
1.459
0.449
6.300
24.567
1.631
2.440
0.513
21.700
21.948
1.275
1.982
0.513
16.350
31.063
1.726
1.917
0.375
17.200
106.667
1.409
1.162
0.626
4.550
P- Way and Associated Works 21.252 26.038 21.109 21.278 26.829
Works at depot (notional allowance
only)
0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250
Contractors preliminaries 13.445 17.228 14.485 16.632 32.834
Railway systems works by Network
Rail
Traction Power
Signalling
10.930
11.114
15.3238
14.078
6.751
12.535
12.319
12.226
16.455
17.783
Total Construction Costs 102.715 132.683 106.198 122.716 216.315
Design and Management Costs 9.967 12.668 10.563 11.903 20.106
Risk Contingency 16.902 21.803 17.514 20.193 47.284
TOTAL INDICATIVE COST at
4Q 2010 prices
129.585 167.153 134.275 154.812 283.705
Table 8.1 – Cost Summary (Excluding Optimism Bias)
In each case it has been assumed that a connection would be provided to the mainline
rail network as a connection would be required for rolling stock to access the depot at
Farnham. As a result the same cost estimates for both through running services and
shuttle services have been assumed.
In terms of the phasing, the cost build up shown in Table 8.2 has been assumed.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
ML1 Bentley
Design and management costs 37% 26% 8% 13% 16% 0% 0%
Civils 0% 0% 0% 44% 56% 0% 0%
47
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Railway systems works 0% 0% 0% 0% 44% 56% 0%
ML2a Liss
Design and management costs 37% 25% 8% 10% 8% 12% 0%
Civils 0% 0% 0% 25% 39% 36% 0%
Railway systems works 0% 0% 0% 0% 16% 64% 19%
ML2 Liss Via Longmoor
Design and management costs 37% 25% 8% 13% 17% 0% 0%
Civils 0% 0% 0% 44% 56% 0% 0%
Railway systems works 0% 0% 0% 0% 44% 56% 0%
ML4 Liphook
Design and management costs 37% 25% 8% 10% 8% 12% 0%
Civils 0% 0% 0% 25% 39% 36% 0%
Railway systems works 0% 0% 0% 0% 16% 64% 19%
ML5 Alton
Design and management costs 37% 25% 8% 9% 11% 10% 0%
Civils 0% 0% 0% 15% 32% 41% 12%
Railway systems works 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 44% 56%
Table 8.2 – Cost Phasing
This assumes approximately 3 years for detailed design, funding approval and TWA
with 4-5 years to undertake the civil engineering and railway systems works.
Therefore based on this assumption, the earliest which the station could open to
passenger services would be 2018 for the Bentley alignment, with 2019 for Alton, Liss
and Liphook.
8.3 Optimism Bias
As per DfT Guidance optimism bias has been applied to the costs in the appraisal.
Given that the costs are at GRIP 2 level of detail a level of optimism bias of 50% has
been adopted for capital costs. As there is some overlap between the elements of
uncertainty captured within contingency and those within optimism bias, the
contingency has been removed from the capital estimates for appraisal purposes but
reported here for comparison. Table 8.3 shows the totals used in the economic
appraisal.
48
ML1 to Bentley
(8.9km)
£m
ML2 to Liss
(10.7km)
£m
ML2A to Liss
(8.7km)
£m
ML4 to Liphook
(8.3km)
£m
ML5 to Alton
(10.7km)
£m
Capital Costs Estimates 129.585 167.153 134.275 154.812 283.705
Costs Excluding Contingency 112.683 145.35 116.761 134.619 236.421
Costs Including Optimism Bias 169.024 218.025 175.141 201.928 354.631
Table 8.3 – Optimism Bias Adjustments
Provisions for land ownership at this stage have been captured within the optimism
bias figures. Further consideration will be given at GRIP3 to developing land costs
associated with alignments which are progressed from GRIP2.
At GRIP 4 which is the final option selection stage, the more detailed work related to
land can be undertaken as this information will form a key part of the TWA
application and the final alignment will be fully determined.
8.4 Financing
Unless there is good reason to assume alternative financing we would expect the
central case in the appraisal to assume Regulatory Asset Base (RAB) financing
according to ORR's determination. The construction of the new connection would be
funded by an increase in Network Rail’s RAB. This currently requires a rate of return
of 4.7% on capital, with depreciation occurring over a 30 year period. In the economic
appraisal, this implies a 30 year (declining, and concave) repayment schedule that
must be discounted (as per the scheme benefits) at the standard 3.5%.
In servicing capital, the rail industry could in theory capture the benefits to
passengers of station improvements by raising fares. Network Rail could then extract
this from the TOCs through increases in station or track access charges. In reality, rail
fares are regulated, and there is no linkage between quality of service and the price
paid by rail users. Moreover, if rail demand is highly responsive to fare levels (i.e.
‘price-elastic’), then the benefits of rail enhancements (in terms of revenue plus user
benefits) are maximised if fares are left unchanged.
However, the franchising process represents a ready mechanism for the DfT to
capture generated fares’ revenue on infrastructure projects which are implemented
outside of the current franchises. Thus, there is a substantial element of revenue
‘clawback’ which is in effect a transfer payment from the private sector to the public
sector within the TEE table. This approach is fully consistent with DfT appraisal
guidance and GRIP investment requirements.
8.5 Cost Estimates (LRT and BRT)
The detailed work conducted examining the heavy rail alignments was also used to
derive high level costs for the provision of LRT and BRT options. Table 8.4 shows the
cost assumptions used for the assessment of LRT and BRT alternative options.
49
Option Capital Cost (LRT)
Capital Cost (BRT)
Whitehill Bordon via Bentley (ML1) £104.7M £76.7M
Whitehill Bordon via Liss (ML2) £94.1M £79.5M
Whitehill Bordon via Liss via Longmoor (ML2a) £117.2M £94.9M
Whitehill Bordon via Liphook (ML4) £136.5M £87.9M
Whitehill Bordon via Alton (ML5) £193.4M £147.8M
Table 8.4 – LRT and BRT Operating Costs (2010 prices)
8.6 Operating Costs
An operating cost model commensurate with GRIP2 was developed to estimate the
incremental operating costs as a result of the additional services and extension for
existing services to provide rail services to the new station. This model captured
• Capital and maintenance costs of additional rolling stock required;
• Cost of additional driver hours to operate the trains;
• Variable Track Access Charges (VTAC);
• Electricity Costs (EC4T);
• Electricity Asset Usage Charge; and
• Station Access Charges.
Annual operating cost estimates in current prices are shown in Table 8.5.
Option Annual Operating Cost
Whitehill Bordon via Bentley (ML1) £1.13 Million
Whitehill Bordon via Liss (ML2) £1.13 Million
Whitehill Bordon via Liss via Longmoor (ML2a) £1.20 Million
Whitehill Bordon via Alton (ML5) £1.19 Million
Whitehill Bordon via Liphook (ML4) £1.12 Million
Table 8.5 – Heavy Rail Operating Costs (2010 prices)
At this stage it was assumed that for all options the incremental cost of operating the
shuttle service would be approximately the same as operating through services.
This assumption was made predominantly because without the MOIRA or
performance model, it was not possible to model the impacts of any changes of
service patterns on the existing network. Thus it would not be possible to accurately
trade off changes in operating costs of potential through services with reliability
50
benefits and benefits/disbenefits across the wider rail network of changing stopping
patterns.
Tables 8.6 and 8.7 show the annual operating costs assumed as part of the LRT and
BRT options tested. This is based upon units rates derived from currently
implemented LRT schemes, and generic bus operating costs based upon the number
of vehicles required to operate a half hourly frequency.
Option Annual Operating Cost
Whitehill Bordon via Bentley (ML1) £2.90 million
Whitehill Bordon via Liss (ML2) £2.82 million
Whitehill Bordon via Liss via Longmoor (ML2a) £3.4 million
Whitehill Bordon via Alton (ML5) £3.5 million
Whitehill Bordon via Liphook (ML4) £2.7 million
Table 8.6 - Light Rail Operating Costs
Option Annual Operating Cost
Whitehill Bordon via Bentley (ML1) £203,000
Whitehill Bordon via Liss (ML2) £203,000
Whitehill Bordon via Liss via Longmoor (ML2a) £406,000
Whitehill Bordon via Alton (ML5) £406,000
Whitehill Bordon via Liphook (ML4) £203,000
Table 8.7 - BRT Operating Costs
51
9 Demand Forecasting
This section provides the methodology and the outputs used for the demand
forecasting for the options.
9.1 Demand Forecasting Methodology
The approach to demand forecasting is based on experience from other rail station
studies and the procedures that are set out in the PDFH – Passenger Demand
Forecasting Handbook, and is based on available data and information for the local
area and relating to the proposed Eco-town.
In order to understand the current level of demand for rail journeys a detailed
assessment of Census and London Area Travel Survey (LATS) was conducted for the
study area. In summary Whitehill Bordon at present generates about 91,000 rail trips
per annum (or 300 per day). These trips are using car or bus to access the rail
stations at one of the local towns, namely Liss, Liphook, Alton or Aldershot. Over
80% of trips access the local station by car (driver or passenger) and 9% by bus. Some
60% of rail trips are for commuting purposes, and 15% for education with only 8% of
trips are for leisure purposes.
The Transport Strategy for the town estimates rail use at 18,000 trips per day, or 5.4m
pa. This represents 50% of all external trips to and from the town. Overall 46% of
trips will come from bus, with 28% from each of car driver and car passenger. This
level of demand is high for a station in the local area and the size of town on the
proposed size of Whitehill Bordon.
The forecasting method is defined in two stages, as described below:
• Estimated passenger demand at the station using a forecasting model based on
the size of the population catchment of the station and the cost (in terms of
service time, frequency and direct / indirect service) to travel to key destinations
by rail.
• Assess the impacts of the forecast demand in terms of transfer from existing
modes, including rail, change in travel time and costs, change in car travel
distance and mileage on the highway network and change in public transport
operator revenues. These breakdown results are required as an input to the
economic appraisal of the scheme.
Following a review of the Transport Strategy, and given a number of concerns with
the assumptions and projections of the rail station within the strategy, a more robust
method of demand forecasts was developed using standard methods applied in the
rail industry.
The demand forecasting model is based on the relationship between the population
within 2.0km of a station and the generalised journey time (GJT) to travel a
destination. This is a standard size catchment area used in modelling and appraisal
and provides a robust estimate of the population surrounding each station for use in
the modelling.
Although a boundary of 2.0km was used as the basis of the validation, it should be
pointed out that this does not exclude trips which are outside of this boundary nor
inbound trips. Taking a smaller or wider catchment would result in different
52
forecasts, however the impact of forecasts is small as the same rail demand data is
used in each case. i.e. a smaller catchment and population generates higher trip rates,
and the wider catchment generates lower trip rates.
Based on analysis of existing rail demand for Whitehill Bordon and the local towns,
the following destinations were defined, namely:
• London
• Woking
• Basingstoke
• Aldershot
• Guildford
• Local area – representing other destinations.
Rail demand data for origin station in the models was taken from LENNON, and was
checked to ORR (Office of Rail Regulator) statistics. The 2008/09 data was adjusted to
a 2010 base for input to the model.
The population of each catchment was taken from Census adjusted estimates for
2008. The GJT values have been checked to current timetables. The GJT is assumed
to be same in the peak and off peak hours of the day. GJT = on train time + service
frequency penalty + interchange penalty.
Two forecast models were developed, based on trip destination. One model covered
London and the other model the non-London destinations. The former has a much
higher mode share of trips, and hence rail demand, for the same GJT. Non-London
destinations are more attractive for car users as congestion and parking (spaces and
fees) are less.
The models use total rail demand data at existing stations, so forecast two-way
demand to and from the town not just outbound trips. They also reflect inbound
trips for people living outside of the town for all trip purposes.
The two models are illustrated in Figures 9.1 and 9.2. The co-efficient and fit of each
to the data is summarised in Table 9.1. Both models take the classic form of a power
curve, with the level of demand decreasing as cost increases. The size of the origin
and destination stations, in terms of population and employment, also influences the
forecast of demand with the larger the town or city, the greater the rail demand.
53
Model 1: London
y = 5.474x-2.8231
R2 = 0.6484
0.000000
0.000010
0.000020
0.000030
0.000040
0.000050
0.000060
0.000070
0 50 100 150 200 250
GJT
Jou
rneys
/ P
op
x p
op
to London Power (to London)
Figure 9.1: Demand Forecasting Model – London Destinations
Model 2: Non-London
y = 0.2715x-2.4608
R2 = 0.714
0.000000
0.000020
0.000040
0.000060
0.000080
0.000100
0.000120
0.000140
0.000160
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
GJT
Jou
rne
ys
/ P
op
x p
op
Series1 Power (Series1)
Figure 9.2: Demand Forecasting Model – Non-London Destinations
Model Constant Power Function
Fit of Model
London 5.47 -2.82 0.65
Non-London 0.27 -2.46 0.71
Table 9.1: Demand Forecasting Model – Co-Efficient and Fit Parameters
54
The model forecasts rail trips / origin population * destination employment (T), using
the formula as below, with generalised journey time (GJT) as input:
T = Constant * GJT ^ Power Function
The constants show higher level of rail demand to London than for the non-London
locations. Both models show a robustness of fit to observed data.
The estimate of trips to other local destination is based on non-London rail trip rate
per person, based on current rates in towns with a station, and the proportion of rail
trips not going to one of the main destinations considered in the model. The rate
assumed is 0.02 trips per person and 55% of trips are to other local destinations. In
2020, the estimate of other local trips is 45,000 trips, and in 2030 is estimated to 73,000
trips per day.
The demand forecasts from the model have been uplifted by 13% to reflect the full
range of longer distance destinations accessed by rail. The input data to the models is
based on local data, and when checked to sources such as ORR statistics, reported an
average shortfall of 13%.
9.2 Eco-town Assumptions
For the Central Case, the population of the town is assumed to be 14,000 in 2010,
rising to 19,000 by 2019 and 25,000 by 2030. These assumptions on future size and
total trip demand for the town are based on the values in the “Whitehill Bordon
Masterplan” published in June 2010.
• The town will increase in size from its current population of approximately 14,000
to in the region of 25,000 with the current stock of around 6,000 homes being
supplemented by up to a maximum of 5,300;
• Increased investment will lead to up to a further 5,500 jobs being created within
the town;
• A new secondary school and primary schools will be provided;
• A designated town centre will be established with an improved retail offering;
and
• Walking and cycling facilities will be dramatically enhanced with a view to
reducing the need to travel by private car.
Public transport links will be improved as follows and form the basis of the Do
Minimum assumptions:
• A high frequency (every 10 to 15 minutes) circular bus service will be operated
around the town that will link residential areas with the town’s key destinations;
• A series of services will enhance Whitehill Bordon’s connections with the key
local market towns of East Hampshire that include Alton, Liphook and Farnham.
These services are likely to be a combination of demand responsive and
conventional services that will operate every 20-30 minutes; and
• Sub-regional services will connect Whitehill Bordon with key centres of
commerce and retail, including the Blackwater Valley, Basingstoke and
55
Guildford. These will be limited stop services that operate every 20 to 30 minutes
and will seek to provide an attractive alternative to the private car.
The Transport Strategy recognises that the significant amount of planned
development will give rise to greater demand for transport. It is anticipated that total
demand for transport will be up to 80% more than currently exists. A key objective is
to minimise the use of the private car by where possible containing trips within the
town through appropriate planning measures, but also providing improved public
transport links.
9.3 Demand Forecasts
Table 9.2 shows the total demand for the different options in 2030 when the Eco-town
is fully built out. This shows that the option generating the most demand is the
through option via Bentley with approximately 1 million trips per annum with the
worst performing option the shuttle service via Liss.
Option London Other Destinations
Total
Shuttle
Whitehill Bordon to Bentley (ML1) 503,162 158,655 661,817
Whitehill Bordon to Liss (ML2) 252,603 131,824 384,427
Whitehill Bordon via Liss via Longmoor
(ML2a)
237,755 127,586 365,341
Whitehill Bordon to Alton (ML5) 281,408 130,779 412,187
Whitehill Bordon to Liphook (ML4) 293,752 139,211 432,963
Through
Whitehill Bordon via Bentley (ML1) 765,140 230,354 995,495
Whitehill Bordon via Liss (ML2) 349,204 162,813 512,017
Whitehill Bordon via Liss via Longmoor
(ML2a)
326,320 154,922 481,242
Whitehill Bordon via Alton (ML5) 394,219 164,242 558,461
Whitehill Bordon via Liphook (ML4) 413,753 178,265 592,018
Table 9.2- Demand Forecast for Each Option in 2030 – Heavy Rail
Table 9.3 and Table 9.4 show the demand for the LRT and BRT options. These deliver
less demand than the corresponding heavy rail shuttle services due to extended
journey times due to slower vehicle speeds.
Option London Other Destinations
Total
56
Option London Other Destinations
Total
Whitehill Bordon to Bentley (ML1) 322,791 104,017 426,808
Whitehill Bordon to Liss (ML2) 162,497 87,450 249,948
Liss via Longmoor Camp (ML2a) 150,498 84,154 234,651
Whitehill Bordon to Alton (ML5) 179,453 86,365 265,818
Whitehill Bordon to Liphook (ML4) 188,294 91,844 280,138
Table 9.3- Demand Forecast for Each Option in 2030 – Light Rail
Option London Other Destinations
Total
Whitehill Bordon to Bentley (ML1) 273,022 93,916 366,938
Whitehill Bordon to Liss (ML2) 141,261 81,702 222,963
Liss via Longmoor Camp (ML2a) 129,858 78,778 208,636
Whitehill Bordon to Alton (ML5) 154,640 80,477 235,117
Whitehill Bordon to Liphook (ML4) 162,506 84,962 247,468
Table 9.4 – Demand Forecast for Each Option in 2030 – BRT
.
9.4 Parking Requirements
Table 9.5 shows the parking requirements for the heavy rail options. These forecasts
are based on the 25,000 maximum populations. The annual demand has been split
into car driver daily demand assuming 300 days per year and 17% of rail trips are by
car drivers (a further 6% are car passenger). These values are from the National Rail
Travel Survey 2006.
Option Daily Demand
One-way Trips to the station
Trips by Car Driver needing to Park
Heavy Rail – Shuttle
Whitehill Bordon to Bentley (ML1) 2,203 1102 187
Whitehill Bordon to Liss (ML2) 1,280 640 109
Liss via Longmoor Camp (ML2a) 1,370 685 116
Whitehill Bordon to Alton (ML5) 1,443 722 123
57
Option Daily Demand
One-way Trips to the station
Trips by Car Driver needing to Park
Whitehill Bordon to Liphook (ML4) 1,217 608 103
Heavy Rail – Through
Whitehill Bordon to Bentley (ML1) 3,317 1658 282
Whitehill Bordon to Liss (ML2) 1,703 852 145
Liss via Longmoor Camp (ML2a) 1,860 930 158
Whitehill Bordon to Alton (ML5) 1,973 987 168
Whitehill Bordon to Liphook (ML4) 1,600 800 136
Table 9.5 – Forecast Parking Requirements
This shows that demand for car parking ranges from 282 to 103. This figure captures
total daily car park entries thus some provision for car park churn would need to be
taken into account. Therefore, a car park of around 250 spaces at Bentley would fully
cater for demand for rail P&R trips.
9.5 Benchmarking
The forecast of demand at proposed station are summarised below and compared to
other local stations. The values in Table 9.6 are for 2010, so reflect current population
and observed demands at other stations. The rail trip rate is less than other stations
due to longer GJT to local centres and illustrates that the magnitude of demand
modelled is realistic compared to other stations in the area.
Table 9.6 - Demand Comparison to Other Local Stations
A population catchment of 1.5km was used for the benchmarking as opposed to 2km
as identified the demand forecasting methodology as it enables a more consistent
comparison across stations with varying population densities and different levels of
parking provision.
Station 1.5km Population
Total Trips
Percentage London
Trips/ Population
Aldershot 29,100 1,441,000 34% 50
Liss 4,400 239,000 41% 54
Alton 13,700 651,000 51% 48
Liphook 8,900 522,000 43% 59
Whitehill Bordon 10,400 463,000 62% 44
58
10 Economic Appraisal
10.1 Introduction
Any transport schemes which seek public funding should contain a section on value
for money (VfM). This should
• Set out the estimated Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of the project
• Assess whether it has any significant benefits or costs which cannot be put in
money terms ("non-monetised impacts") and
• On the basis of this analysis, describe the project as "poor", "low", "medium" or
"high" value for money.
The DfT currently assess the value for money of a scheme
• ‘Poor’ value for money if a scheme’s VfM BCR is less than 1.
• ‘Low’ value for money if a scheme’s VfM BCR is between 1 and 1.5.
• ‘Medium’ value for money if a scheme’s VfM BCR is between 1.5 and 2.
• ‘High’ value for money if a scheme’s VfM BCR is between 2 and 4.
• ‘Very High’ value for money if a scheme’s VfM BCR is greater than 4.
Value for money is only one of a number of key factors which will influence whether
a proposal should be recommended for acceptance. However, given tight financial
constraints, it is a very important consideration.
The remainder of this section provides the assumptions and the BCR’s for the options
considered in the study, and sensitivity tests to ascertain the variations of Value for
Money around key assumptions.
10.2 Appraisal methodology
General appraisal assumptions are consistent with those outlined in the DfT’s
Transport Appraisal Guidance and NR GRIP Investment Regulations. In summary
these are:
• 60 year appraisal period;
• 2002 price and discounting base;
• Discount rate of 3.5% for first 30 years, with 3.0% thereafter;
• Unit of account is market prices and therefore any factor prices are uplifted by
20.9% which is the average rate of indirect taxation in the economy.
As per DfT guidance, the appraisal was conducted over a 60 period.
Journey time benefits were derived from the outputs of the demand forecasts based
upon modelled changes in GJT. Values of time are based on those contained in
WebTAG which are £36.96 per hour for business rail user, £5.04 for commuter and
£4.46 for leisure. The values of time have been grown throughout the appraisal
59
period in line real growth per capita in GDP, with an elasticity of 1 for business trips
and 0.8 for leisure and commuter trips.
The GJT benefits capture all elements of journey time including in vehicle time,
waiting time and interchange penalty. Waiting time is valued as being two times the
value of in-vehicle time plus there is an additional penalty for the need to
interchange, hence the higher benefits of the through services due to the removed
need to interchange and wait for connecting services.
In terms of opening year, it has been assumed that the new station opens in 2031,
consistent with the anticipated full build out of the Eco-town. This ensures
consistency of approach across all options and ensures that the business case in not
negatively influenced by slow demand build up by commencing the appraisal period
before a suitable amount of demand has been generated by the Eco-town
development. Sensitivity tests will also be conducted which show the impact of
opening the station as soon as physically possible, which in transport planning terms
would clearly be desirable.
The capital and operating cost inputs into the appraisal are directly based upon those
outlined in Chapter 8.
10.3 Revenue
Fare revenue has been derived from the following sources.
• Ticket prices for full, reduced and season tickets from national rail enquiries;
• Ticket type splits for full, reduced and season tickets for Alton, Bentley, Liss and
Liphook from ORR station usage data; and
• Modelled demand split by origin/destination to ascertain destination splits from
potential link to the existing rail network (e.g. Liss and Liphook will have a
greater proportion of trips to South Hampshire than Alton and Bentley due to a
higher quality of rail links to this area).
The additional revenue has been based upon the incremental trips forecast as a result
of the provision of a new station at Whitehill Bordon. It will therefore not include
revenue generated in the Do Minimum where passengers generated as a result of the
Eco town without a new station, will access existing rail stations via car or public
transport switch to using the new station.
In terms of future revenue growth, revenue has been assumed to grow at RPI+1%
consistent with DfT Rail Demand Forecasting Guidance. Given the recent
announcement that from January 2012, there will an RPI+3% increase for three years,
this scenario has been presented in a sensitivity test.
10.4 Appraisal Indicators – Heavy Rail
The key WebTAG value for money indicators are shown in Table 10.1. This shows the
Present Value of Benefits (PVB), Present Value of Costs (PVC) and Benefit to Cost
Ratio (BCR).
Option PVB PVC BCR
Shuttle Services
60
Option PVB PVC BCR
Whitehill Bordon via Bentley (ML1) £29.3M £50.8M 0.58
Whitehill Bordon via Liss (ML2) £13.1M £64.8M 0.20
Whitehill Bordon via Liss via Longmoor
(ML2a) £11.7M £87.6M 0.13
Whitehill Bordon via Alton (ML5) £18.1M £152.5M 0.12
Whitehill Bordon via Liphook (ML4) £16.9M £78.9M 0.22
Through Services
Whitehill Bordon via Bentley (ML1) £61.4M
£28.7M
2.14
Whitehill Bordon via Liss (ML2) £21.9M £53.8M 0.41
Whitehill Bordon via Liss via Longmoor
(ML2a) £19.8M £77.4M 0.26
Whitehill Bordon via Alton (ML5) £31.7M £142.0M 0.22
Whitehill Bordon via Liphook (ML4) £29.9M £67.1M 0.45
Combined Options (Direct)
Bentley via Whitehill Bordon via Liphook £61.9M £140.7M 0.44
Bentley via Whitehill Bordon via Liss £61.6M £127.9M 0.48
Alton via Whitehill Bordon via Liphook £32.2M £268.9M 0.12
Alton via Whitehill Bordon via Liss £32.1M £269.9M 0.12
Table 10.1 – Key Economic Indicators (Heavy Rail Options)
It should be noted that the PVB contains monetised journey time benefits to both
users of transport system and non users through mode shift.
The PVC captures costs, plus the additional revenue is netted off against this figure
hence where schemes generate more benefits, the impact is to generate more revenue
which in turn reduced the PVC.
The figures show that from a value for money perspective, operating a through
service via Bentley is the strongest case in Value for Money terms with a BCR of 2.14
and is the only option which could realistically achieve a positive business case going
forwards as the remainder have costs that exceed the benefits, and in all others cases
costs are at least double the benefits generated.
The level of capital costs required to deliver a connection to Alton results in this
having the worst value for money of all the options despite delivering the second
highest time savings due to the 2 tph service operating all day.
Although providing a connection to Liss is not as expensive as Alton, the journey
times benefits are significantly less than other options due to the 1 tph interpeak
61
service and the majority of trips are towards the east the town, thus the location of the
town makes accessing the other stations via an alternative mode such a car or bus a
more attractive option.
In appraisal terms, running direct services through Liphook is the second ranking
scheme with a BCR of 0.45 which is some way off the current requirement of a BCR of
2 required to be classed a high value for money. This has both higher capital costs
than Bentley plus does not deliver the same of time savings or revenue due to the
lower service frequency interpeak.
The shuttle services show a similar ranking although the best shuttle option which is
to Bentley only has a BCR of 0.6 and is thus classed as poor value for money.
10.5 Appraisal Indicators – Light Rail
Table 10.2 shows the appraisal indicators for LRT based upon the demand and cost
assumptions. This shows that none of the proposed LRT schemes have a positive
business case and should not be considered further.
LRT PVB PVC BCR
Whitehill Bordon via Bentley (ML1) £15.7M £80.2M 0.20
Whitehill Bordon via Liss (ML2) £3.5M £94.6M 0.04
Whitehill Bordon via Liss via Longmoor (ML2a) £2.6M £101.0M 0.03
Whitehill Bordon via Alton (ML5) £10.5M £187.0M 0.06
Whitehill Bordon via Liphook (ML4) £6.9M £105.8M 0.07
Table 10.2 – Key Economic Indicators (Light Rail Options)
The additional costs of acquiring and running an independent fleet combined with
the journey time impacts of slower journey time for people travelling from the centre
of Whitehill Bordon to connect to the rail network is not outweighed by the
additional benefits of being able to provide more stops on the network. Hence none
of these schemes perform better than a heavy rail based shuttle service. Additionally
any LRT scheme which includes elements of on-street running would also need to
have highway modelling undertake to assess the impact of road space reallocation or
LRT priority which would reduce the benefits further.
10.6 Appraisal Indicators – BRT
Table 10.3 shows that none of the proposed BRT schemes have a positive business
case and should not be considered further.
BRT PVB PVC BCR
Whitehill Bordon via Bentley (ML1) £8.115 £34.621 0.23
Whitehill Bordon via Liss (ML2) £3.434 £41.809 0.08
Whitehill Bordon via Liss via Longmoor (ML2a) £3.057 £57.936 0.05
Whitehill Bordon via Alton (ML5) £4.678 £92.391 0.05
62
BRT PVB PVC BCR
Whitehill Bordon via Liphook (ML4) £4.437 £47.665 0.09
Table 10.3 – Key Economic Indicators (BRT)
Although the lower capital and operating costs give BRT an advantage over a LRT
from a value for money perspective, the level of additional demand generated due to
the higher journey times and the modal constant is not sufficient to generate a
positive business case on any of the proposed alignments.
10.7 Sensitivity Tests
As the strongest value for money case was shown on the direct services via Bentley,
sensitivity tests would be conducted around this BCR.
These include:
• A reduced level of development with a level of development capped at 4,000
units in 2028;
• A reduced level of development assuming 1,700 units are delivered by 2017 with
no further development after this year;
• A fares increase of RPI+3% between 2012 and 2015 as recently announced by the
government.
• Opening of the station at the earliest opportunity therefore the opening is driven
by construction timescales. Based on funding approval, TWA timescales and
construction, this has assumed to be in 2018.
• Opening the station as early as possible with Wider Economic Benefits. Although
this needs to be included as a sensitivity test based on current DfT guidance and
therefore is not included in the central case, the committed development of the
infrastructure at the outset would in effect provide a catalyst to develop the Eco-
town which wouldn’t be fully captured without Wider Economic Benefits being
included.
• Provision of single track alignment to Bentley with passing loop. Preliminary
estimates indicate this has the potential to cut 18% off the capital costs.
Table 10.4 shows the sensitivity tests. Each test is conducted in isolation, therefore the
variations in PVB, PVC, BCR between the individual sensitivity tests and the central
case, show only the impact of that sensitivity test.
Option PVB PVC BCR
Central Case £61.397M £28.715M 2.14
Reduced level of development of 4,000
units by 2031 £54.030M £36.825M 1.47
63
Option PVB PVC BCR
Reduced level of development of 1,700
units by 2019 £42.924M £48.409M 0.89
Fares of RPI+3% from 2012 to 2015 £59.596M £27.174M 2.19
Station opening in 2018 without Wider
Economic Benefits £71.013M £52.803M 1.34
Station opening in 2018 with Wider
Economic Benefits £108.103M £52.803M 2.05
Single Track Alignment £61.397M £13.397M 4.58
Table 10.4 – Sensitivity Tests on Bentley through Running Scenario
This indicates that there are a number of both upside and downside risks to achieving
a satisfactory level of value for money. The first tests shows that a reduction of
number of units proposed would decrease the BCR from high value for money, to
medium.
As previously discussed, although current DfT appraisal guidance currently
recommends using Wider Economic Benefits as a sensitivity test, the committed
development of the infrastructure would in effect provide a catalyst to develop the
Eco-town thus would be a significant benefit of providing the station at the outset of
the development as opposed to basing the opening year on when maximum demand
is reached. Therefore although assuming the station opens in 2018 would drop the
BCR to 1.3 due to the lower benefits and revenue over the 60 year appraisal period,
including the Wider Economic Benefits would increase the BCR to 2.0.
One of the most sensitive elements from both an economic appraisal and affordability
is the cost estimates. To ensure consistency across options, minimisation of
performance impacts on the wider network, and consistency with the Mott Gifford
Pre Feasibility study, double track extension to Whitehill Bordon was assumed in the
capital cost estimation.
Although any provision of single track line would have some performance impacts
which have not been quantified reducing the economic benefits and revenue
generated, this test indicates the potential for the BCR to rise above 4, thus providing
significant scope for refinements of the capital and operational cost estimates at
GRIP3 to deliver increases in value for money criteria of the scheme.
10.8 Summary
The through service to Bentley is the only option which has a positive business case
with a BCR of 2.14 which is significantly better that the next best through service via
Liphook with a BCR of 0.45.
None of the shuttle services achieve a BCR greater than 0.6 due to the disbenefits of
interchanging, whilst none of the proposed LRT and BRT alternative options have a
BCR exceeding 0.2 due to lower journey times than the shuttle, relatively high
infrastructure costs in comparison to demand, and the costs associated with needing
to acquire and run a bespoke fleet of vehicles in the case of LRT.
64
In terms of the sensitivity tests carried out on the Bentley option, there is both upside
and downside risks. Should the level of development only be 4,000 units, the BCR
would reduce to 1.5, dropping further to 0.9 should only 1,700 units be delivered. The
test which examined lowering the capital costs to capture single track alignment,
although not capturing the subsequent performance impacts, showed an increase in
BCR of up to 4.5. This suggests that the further development of the engineering
assessment at GRIP3 could provide some scope for cost reductions whilst still
delivering the necessary infrastructure to achieve the transport and wider economic
objectives.
65
11 Summary and Recommendations
11.1 Introduction
This section provides an overview of the findings from the GRIP 2 level feasibility
studies that have been reported above. It focuses on the specific tasks outlined at the
start of this document, and draws conclusions relating to the issues arising from each
of the technical tasks.
The next section will raise some general points in relation to the broad routes
considered and the specific modes relating to that. Following this will be a summary
of the findings by line before drawing together the conclusions, and reviewing the fit
of the preferred option with the transport objectives as set out in the Whitehill
Bordon Emerging Transport Strategy.
11.2 General points
11.2.1 Light Rail vs Heavy Rail
What is clear in the assessment is that the ability to “sweat” existing assets is a key
driver in the potential success of new rail schemes. The heavy rail options developed
link well with the onward services, and where there is potential for through running
of existing services the financial case is strongly improved. The key determinant is
not the provision of rolling stock per se however, but the fact that provision already
exists for depot related facilities for such vehicles with the related capital cost saving,
and economies of scale related to maintenance within a much wider vehicle fleet. It is
in this area that the light rail options fall down. In general the overall capital costs are
not dissimilar (some savings on route construction, but offset by the need to provide
depot facilities) numbers of vehicles would typically be larger however due to lower
running speeds and the lack of scale economies for providing spare vehicles during
maintenance and vehicle failure. Operation of a depot site for a very small bespoke
fleet is a real problem as well and these maintenance and fleet scale issues really
count against the light rail options.
11.2.2 Analysis by Route Corridor
Four broad corridors were considered.
The North West links to either Bentley or Alton where rail services run north to
London. This has the advantage of being on a branch line itself, and whilst that
restricts southbound destinations it allows much more flexibility in terms of
integrating any Whitehill Bordon services in the timetable. The Bentley options
broadly follow the line of the old railway to Bordon and hence the topography lends
itself to railway operation.
The South West option links through the railway station at Liss. The route is around
a kilometre longer than those to Bentley. At Liss trains run both north to London and
south to the coast. Opportunities for through running from this line are restricted
and the only sensible solution is to provide shuttle services in the peak periods. A
key obstacle on this corridor is crossing the A3 dual carriageway.
66
The South East corridor links in at Liphook. Again on the London – Portsmouth
mainline. The route is the shortest of the corridors considered at around 7km, as with
the South West corridor the key engineering obstacle is crossing the A3 dual
carriageway.
The North East corridor links to Bentley and Farnham. This is by far the longest
route at around twice the length of the options to Liphook. The advantage is linking
into the current major town of the area at Farnham, and from there rail services to
London.
11.3 Route Option Summary
This section summarises the key findings of the options within the technical
categories discussed above:
• Strategic fit;
• Operational assessment;
• Engineering assessment;
• Environmental assessment; and,
• Economic assessment.
11.3.1 ML1 – Whitehill Bordon to Bentley – Heavy Rail
11.3.1.1 Strategic Fit
The provision of mass transit whether it’s heavy or light rail based fits well with the
overall strategy and objectives for the Eco-town. Focussing on trips outside of the
immediate vicinity of Whitehill Bordon, such linkages allow residents and visitors to
have choices for sustainable travel beyond the realms of the town itself, and should
ensure residents in particular actively seek non-car alternatives through such
education.
The ability for the option to link to rail services far beyond the region is considered
important, though we need to ensure there is a balance with making out commuting
too attractive and the potential to make Whitehill Bordon a commuter town in
general.
11.3.1.2 Operational Assessment
There are a number of alternative operational options for this service. A shuttle
service would be the simplest to operate, with services scheduled to meet the Alton-
Waterloo trains. Through running options either through splitting trains north of
Bentley (a number of alternatives possible) or by alternating through services with
Alton on the half hour. The key message though is that the ability to run through
trains increases rolling stock efficiency and hence the business case. Assessments
thus far indicate this could be a possibility, but detailed timetabling assessment
would be required at the next stage to confirm this view.
11.3.1.3 Engineering Assessment
None of the options considered present insurmountable engineering constraints.
Each requires a number of general considerations whether this is a grade separated
crossing of major highways, or significant costs associated with avoidance of
67
environmentally sensitive areas (tunnelling). Of all the routes ML1 presents the least
obstacles aided by broadly following historic rail alignment.
The estimated capital cost of the scheme - £129.6m at Q4 2010
11.3.1.4 Environmental Assessment
This option passes through the SDNP. Impact on landscape and visual intrusion will
be required at the detailed assessment stage. The route passes near, but not through a
number of SSSI’s and SAC’s, and potential impacts on them of the route would need
to be considered.
11.3.1.5 Economic Assessment
Positive business case for direct service with high BCR of 2.14 but shuttle service
shows poor VfM with BCR of 0.58
11.3.2 LR1 – Whitehill Bordon to Bentley – Light Rail
11.3.2.1 Strategic Fit
See ML1
11.3.2.2 Operational Assessment
There are no light rail conflicts of operation with the existing heavy rail service.
However, operating a relatively short and low density system in isolation of a wider
network will give inefficient operation of rolling stock, and of stock maintenance.
These issues will play against light rail in the overall analysis.
11.3.2.3 Engineering Assessment
None of the options considered present insurmountable engineering constraints.
Each requires a number of general considerations whether this is a grade separated
crossing of major highways, or significant costs associated with avoidance of
environmentally sensitive areas (tunnelling). Of all the routes ML1 presents the least
obstacles aided by broadly following historic rail alignment.
Route Length – 9.1km
The estimated capital cost of the scheme circa - £120m at Q4 2010
11.3.2.4 Environmental Assessment
This option passes through the SDNP. Impact on landscape and visual intrusion will
be required at the detailed assessment stage. The route passes near, but not through a
number of SSSI’s and SAC’s, and potential impacts on them of the route would need
to be considered.
11.3.2.5 Economic Assessment
Poor VfM with BCR of 0.2
11.3.3 LR4 – Whitehill Bordon to Alton – Light Rail
11.3.3.1 Strategic Fit
See ML1
68
11.3.3.2 Operational Assessment
See LR1
11.3.3.3 Engineering Assessment
See ML1. Estimate Capex circa £200M at Q4 2010
11.3.3.4 Environmental Assessment
The route passes along the northern boundary of Binswood Common, with
associated access issues that would need to be accounted for in design. It also passes
through a SAC and two SSSI’s. Finally the route runs through the SDNP.
11.3.3.5 Economic Assessment
Poor VfM with BCR of 0.06
11.3.4 ML5 – Whitehill Bordon to Alton – Heavy Rail
11.3.4.1 Strategic Fit
See ML1
11.3.4.2 Operational Assessment
There are a number of alternative operational options for this service. A shuttle
service would be the simplest to operate, with services scheduled to meet the Alton-
Waterloo trains. Through running services between Alton and Whitehill Bordon
would increase stock efficiency significantly. The key message though is that the
ability to run through trains increases rolling stock efficiency and hence the business
case. Assessments thus far indicate this could be a possibility, but detailed
timetabling assessment would be required at the next stage to confirm this view.
11.3.4.3 Engineering Assessment
None of the options considered present insurmountable engineering constraints.
Each requires a number of general considerations whether this is a grade separated
crossing of major highways, or significant costs associated with avoidance of
environmentally sensitive areas (tunnelling). Of all the routes ML5 presents arguably
the most significant obstacle. The need to avoid SSSI, has been engineered with
tunnelling through undulating topography. This in itself adds significantly to the
capital costs of the scheme.
Route Length – 10.7km
The estimated capital cost of the scheme - £283.7m at Q4 2010
11.3.4.4 Environmental Assessment
The route passes along the southern boundary of Shorheath Common with associated
access issues that need to be accommodated in scheme design. The route has direct
land take requirements from a number of European and Nationally designated sites –
a number of SSSI’s and SAC’s. Finally the route runs through the SDNP.
11.3.4.5 Economic Assessment
Poor VfM for both through and shuttle services with BCR’s of 0.22 and 0.12
respectively.
69
11.3.5 LR6 / 6a – Whitehill Bordon to Farnham – Light Rail
11.3.5.1 Strategic Fit
See ML1
11.3.5.2 Operational Assessment
See LR1
11.3.5.3 Engineering Assessment
None of the options considered present insurmountable engineering constraints.
Each requires a number of general considerations whether this is a grade separated
crossing of major highways, or significant costs associated with avoidance of
environmentally sensitive areas (tunnelling). Of all the routes LR6 is by far the
longest, and although specific obstacles are not an issue, the length of the route
increases the capital cost estimates significantly.
The estimate capital cost of the scheme - £200m at Q4 2010
11.3.5.4 Environmental Assessment
This route passes through the largest number of environmental designated, and
planning sites – through or adjacent to 7 in total. Access issues need to be considered
to Broxhead Common, SSSI’s a Phase II SPA. It also affects a scheduled monument at
Alice Holt Forest. Finally the route runs through the SDNP.
11.3.5.5 Economic Assessment
Poor VfM with BCR of less than 0.1.
11.3.6 LR3 – Whitehill Bordon to Liphook – Light Rail
11.3.6.1 Strategic Fit
See ML1
11.3.6.2 Operational Assessment
See LR1
11.3.6.3 Engineering Assessment
None of the options considered present insurmountable engineering constraints.
Each requires a number of general considerations whether this is a grade separated
crossing of major highways, or significant costs associated with avoidance of
environmentally sensitive areas (tunnelling). LR3 has only minor issues in the main.
The exception is the need to raise the alignment to allow for crossing of the A3. This
is the shortest route considered.
The estimated capital cost of the scheme - circa £160m at Q4 2010
11.3.6.4 Environmental Assessment
Similarly with LR6, this route passes through seven areas with statutory designations,
having direct land take impacts on a number of SSSi’s, SAC and SPA. It presents
potential access issues to two areas of Common Land. There is no impact on
scheduled monuments. Finally the route runs through the SDNP.
70
11.3.6.5 Economic Assessment
Poor VfM with BCR of 0.07.
11.3.7 ML4 – Whitehill Bordon to Liphook Heavy Rail
11.3.7.1 Strategic Fit
See ML1
11.3.7.2 Operational Assessment
There are fewer, if any, realistic opportunities for running through trains between
Whitehill Bordon and the wider rail network via Liss or Liphook. The practical
solution would be a 2tph shuttle service timed to link with the Portsmouth-London
trains in the peaks, with potential through services off peak on the hour, though it is
doubtful the case for additional tie-in infrastructure at either Liss or Liphook stations
would be strong based on off-peak operation only.
The advantages of this option over those on the Alton line are the potential linkages
to the south coast, but the operational flexibility of this line is not as great as the Alton
branch given the intensity of existing usage.
11.3.7.3 Engineering Assessment
None of the options considered present insurmountable engineering constraints.
Each requires a number of general considerations whether this is a grade separated
crossing of major highways, or significant costs associated with avoidance of
environmentally sensitive areas (tunnelling). ML4 has only minor issues in the main.
The exception is the need to raise the alignment to allow for crossing of the A3.
Route Length – 8.2km
The estimated capital cost of the scheme – circa £154.8m at Q4 2010
11.3.7.4 Environmental Assessment
Similarly with LR6, this route passes through seven areas with statutory designations,
having direct land take impacts on a number of SSSi’s, SAC and SPA. It presents
potential access issues to two areas of Common Land. There is no impact on
scheduled monuments. Finally the route runs through the SDNP.
11.3.7.5 Economic Assessment
Poor VfM for both through and shuttle services with BCR’s of 0.45 and 0.22
respectively.
11.3.8 LR2 / 2a – Whitehill Bordon to Liss – Light Rail
11.3.8.1 Strategic Fit
See ML1
11.3.8.2 Operational Assessment
See LR1
71
11.3.8.3 Engineering Assessment
None of the options considered present insurmountable engineering constraints.
Each requires a number of general considerations whether this is a grade separated
crossing of major highways, or significant costs associated with avoidance of
environmentally sensitive areas (tunnelling). LR2 has only minor issues in the main.
The exception is the need to raise the alignment to allow for crossing of the A3.
The estimate capital cost of the scheme – circa £136m at Q4 2010
11.3.8.4 Environmental Assessment
This option would require direct landtake from European and Nationally designated
sites. It passes through or adjacent to SSSI’s, SAC and SPA, as well as adjacent to
scheduled monument areas on Longmore Common. LR2 affects the Railway walk
along the old rail alignment. Finally the route runs through the SDNP.
LR2a is a slight variation on LR2 it is adjacent to areas of village green, but avoids the
southern area of Wealds Heath SPA, and therefore has less landtake in designated
areas.
11.3.8.5 Economic Assessment
Poor VfM with BCR of 0.04.
11.3.9 ML2 / 2a – Whitehill Bordon to Liss – Heavy Rail
11.3.9.1 Strategic Fit
See ML1
11.3.9.2 Operational Assessment
See ML4
11.3.9.3 Engineering Assessment
None of the options considered present insurmountable engineering constraints.
Each requires a number of general considerations whether this is a grade separated
crossing of major highways, or significant costs associated with avoidance of
environmentally sensitive areas (tunnelling). ML2 has only minor issues in the main.
The exception is the need to raise the alignment to allow for crossing of the A3. This
is the shortest route considered.
Route Length – 10.7/8.7km
The estimated capital cost of the scheme - £167.2m / £134.3m at Q4 2010
11.3.9.4 Environmental Assessment
This option would require direct landtake from European and Nationally designated
sites. It passes through or adjacent to SSSI’s, SAC and SPA, as well as adjacent to
scheduled monument areas on Longmore Common. ML2 affects the Railway walk
along the old rail alignment. Finally the route runs through the SDNP.
ML2a is a slight variation on ML2 it is adjacent to areas of village green, but avoids
the southern area of Wealds Heath SPA, and therefore has less landtake in designated
areas.
72
11.3.9.5 Economic Assessment
Poor VfM for both through and shuttle services with BCR’s of 0.20 and 0.41
respectively.
11.4 Preferred Scheme
On balance of the issues raised, the preferred option at this stage is the heavy rail
route to Bentley ML1. This provides the least environmental impact, the best
economic and financial case, presents engineering and operational issues that are
deliverable and are either the cheapest, or commensurate with the other options.
The strength of the economic case suggests the option should be explored further.
Future option development should focus on the potential environmental impacts of
passing through the SDNP, confirming the engineering costs, and developing /
optimising the operational case more robustly.
11.5 Check with Transport Strategy Objectives.
Finally it is worth reflecting on how the Whitehill Bordon-Bentley (ML1) heavy rail
option fits with the objectives for transport as set out in the transport strategy
documents and referred to at the start of the report.
The table below re-visits the specific objectives and provides some commentary and
high level assessment of the level of fit.
Objective Description Score +3 / -3
Manage Transport
Demand
ML1 carries over 1mill passengers
per annum with through running
services. Much of this will be
transferred from bus – impact on
highway will be small overall.
+1
Use of Existing Assets Whilst the route uses the historic
line over much of it’s length, its
dubious to suggest this is really
an existing asset. However the
ability of the service to increase
efficiency of use of existing
rolling stock is a strong element
in the case.
+2
Support Sustainable
Economic Regeneration
Case study analysis has shown
that rail linkages can play a
strong part in economic
regeneration per se. They are
not sufficient drivers of growth
in their own right however, and
need wider economic support to
fulfil the potential.
+2
73
Objective Description Score +3 / -3
Improve the
Environment by
reducing congestion and
pollution
As suggested above, mode shift
from car is not expected to be
significant. But this area is still
positive.
+1
Enable sustainable
movement – alternatives
to the car
The provision of public transport
based alternatives to the car for
all trip types is seen as an
important factor in providing
strong linkages to the wider rail
network, and thus the ability of
Bordon residents to consistently
use PT instead of the car.
+1
Balance the need to
travel against protecting
the environment
This option has been shown to
have limited exposure to
environmentally sensitive areas.
The whole area is based within
SDNP however, and we need to
be conscious of this in the next
stage of development.
0
Reduce journey length
and the need to travel
outside of the town
The concern here is that
provision of direct rail services
to London can lead to the
development of Bordon as
another London commuter
town. That concern needs to be
balanced with the ability to offer
a range of sustainable travel
options across journey types
(within and out with) the area.
We consider this option strikes
that balance.
0
Notes
+3 large positive
-3 large negative
0 neutral