Presented to the Minister for Regional Development and the Board of the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company

September 2000 Appraisal Working Group Report Appraisal of Four Illustrative Strategic Scenarios for Railways in Northern Ireland 1 Appraisal of Four Illustrative Strategic Scenarios for Railways in Northern Ireland Contents Contents .........................................................................................................................1 1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................2 2.0 Transport Demand Forecasts used in the Appraisal ..............................................6 3.0 Sub-Objective Appraisals ......................................................................................9 4.0 Appraisal Summary Tables (ASTs) .....................................................................11 5.0 Supporting Analyses ............................................................................................17 5.1. Introduction......................................................................................................17 5.2. Distribution and Equity....................................................................................18 5.2.1. Introduction..............................................................................................18 5.2.2. Equality....................................................................................................18 5.2.3. New TSN .................................................................................................19 5.2.4. Summary..................................................................................................20 5.2.5. Conclusions..............................................................................................21 5.3. Affordability and Financial Sustainability.......................................................22

5.3.1. Introduction..............................................................................................22 5.3.2. Financial Sustainability and Affordability..............................................22 5.3.3. Financial Sustainability and Affordability - the Four Scenarios .............22 5.3.4. What is Affordable? - the Need for Decision ..........................................23 5.3.5. The Programme for Government and 2000 Spending Review................23 5.3.6. Making the Case ......................................................................................24 5.3.7. Conclusions..............................................................................................25 5.4. Practicality and Public Acceptability...............................................................26 5.4.1. Introduction..............................................................................................26 5.4.2. Scenario 1 (Enhancement):-.....................................................................26 5.4.3. Scenario 2 (based on A D Little):- ...........................................................27 5.4.4. Scenario 3 (Truncation):- .........................................................................27 5.4.5. Scenario 4 (Mothball):-............................................................................28 6.0 Sensitivity of Results to Key Parameters.............................................................30 6.1. Introduction......................................................................................................30 6.2. Financial (Cost and Revenue) Sensitivity Checks ...........................................30 6.2.1. Introduction..............................................................................................30 6.2.2. Detailed Results for Cost and Revenue Sensitivity Checks.....................31 6.2.3. Results Summary for Cost and Revenue Sensitivity Checks...................32 6.2.4. Conclusions for Cost and Revenue Sensitivity Checks ...........................34 6.3. Modal Split Sensitivity Checks........................................................................36 6.3.1. Introduction..............................................................................................36 6.3.2. Results for Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Economic Impact...............37 6.3.3. Conclusions for Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Economic Impact.......38 6.3.4. Introduction to Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Environmental Impact.38 6.3.5. Results for Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Environmental Impact .......39 6.3.6. Conclusions for Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Environmental Impact40

7.0 Appraisal Results .................................................................................................42 Appendices A - V Annexes 1 - 2 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Terms of Reference for the Railways Task Force (RTF) included the requirement to quantify the costs and benefits (monetary and non-monetary) of the range of scenarios, taking account of: considerations of value for money and affordability within the context of the Governments public expenditure plans and priorities; and an agreed framework for appraisal which reflects current best practice. The RTF therefore charged the Director of Regional Transportation Strategy Division in the Department for Regional Development with overseeing and delivering the appraisal of four strategically different scenarios for the future of the railways. An Appraisal Working Group (AWG) was established comprising staff from Translink, the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland (GCC), the Department of Environment (DOE), the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) and the Department for Regional Development (DRD). The AWG created 24 sub-groups, each with the relevant expertise, to assess the impact of each scenario on the 21 subobjectives and 3 supporting analyses (See Tables 1.1 and 1.2). As stated in Chapter 5 of the Interim Report of the Railways Task Force (hereafter referred to as the RTF Interim Report) the proposal by the AWG to adopt the Appraisal Summary Table and supporting analyses as included in the DETR Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS) of March 2000 was accepted by the Task Force and the Panel of Experts as reflecting current best practice and as the most appropriate for this study.

Appraisal of the four illustrative scenarios selected (see Chapter 6 of the RTF Interim Report) was undertaken against the five main criteria which are couched as objectives in GOMMMS (Section 5.2 of the RTF Interim Report). These five objectives are in turn broken down into the 21 subobjectives (Chapter 3) and it was against these that the scenarios were appraised. The outputs from the appraisals are then brought together on Appraisal Summary Tables (ASTs) (Chapter 4) and must be considered in conjunction with important supporting analyses (Chapter 5). The ASTs for Scenarios 1-3 (Enhancement, AD Little and Truncation respectively) present a comparison of each of these scenarios against Scenario 4 (Mothball), the base case. Scenario 4 (Mothball) effectively represents the consequence of no increase in the current level of investment in the railways. It was not possible to use the existing situation itself as the base case, as maintenance works to allow existing rolling stock to be utilised and reasonable track speeds to be maintained until 2010 are not technically feasible and therefore, costs could not be estimated reliably. 3 The AST for Scenario 4 (Mothball) presents its comparison with the existing situation to help the reader appreciate the broad implications. It is important to note that in comparing Scenario 4 (Mothball) to the existing situation, the impacts of the increase in car ownership and hence car usage that are expected to occur up to 2010 in any event, are not specifically included. The Scenario 4 (Mothball) AST entries are, in effect, a subjective comparison against the existing situation (year 2000) with some commentary on likely impact trends, caused by the mothballing, up to 2010. In the ASTs, the data and textual scores in the Assessment and Quantitative Measure columns for each sub-objective are supported by comments in the Qualitative Impacts column. For each sub-objective (except Greenhouse

Gases, Accidents and Transport Economic Efficiency), the Assessment column contains a textual score. Textual scores take account of the qualitative comments and any quantitative measures and are on a seven-point scale Slight, Moderate or Large Adverse effect, Neutral and Slight, Moderate or Large Beneficial effect. In completing ASTs, written submissions and other feedback resulting from the public consultation exercise were taken into account. The ASTs take the perspective of the overall public interest at regional level. In accordance with GOMMMS, important separate, supporting analysis was undertaken for three additional groups of issues (Chapter 5) that reflect a more focused view of the implications of the scenarios. These are Distribution and Equity, Affordability and Financial Sustainability and Practicality and Public Acceptability. The final chapters in this report contain comments on the sensitivity of the appraisal results to key parameters, (including costs, revenues and modal splits Chapter 6), and advice on how the appraisal information should be considered (Chapter 7). 4 OBJECTIVE SUB-OBJECTIVE LEAD AWG CONTRIBUTOR/S Environment Noise Helen Anderson Local Air Quality Helen Anderson James Erwin Stephen Wood Translink Translink DRD Greenhouse Gases Helen Anderson DOE Mal McGreevy DOE Granville Lavin Translink DOE Mal McGreevy

Stephen Wood Translink DRD Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources Helen Anderson

DOE John Barnett Trevor Gordon Anne Given Joyce McCormick Translink DRD DOE DOE Biodiversity Helen Anderson Robert Bleakley Ian Enlander Joyce McCormick Translink DOE DOE DOE Water Environment Helen Anderson James Erwin Clifford Henry Translink DOE Mal McGreevy DOE John Barnett

Translink DOE Physical Fitness Stephen Wood Journey Ambience Ciaran Rogan Norman Maynes Stephen Wood GCC Translink DRD Safety Accidents Granville Lavin Stephen Wood Translink DRD Tim Irwin DRD Security Mal McGreevy Translink Peter McWilliams DRD DRD Irvine Lavery Translink Translink Lillian Buchanan

Economy Transport Economic Efficiency Brenda Burke Peter Moore Norman Taylor Paddy Toal Stephen Wood Translink Translink DFP DRD DRD DRD Bernard Clarke

Reliability Stephen Wood

DRD Seamus Scallon Translink DRD Brenda Burke

Wider Economic Impacts Trevor Gordon Bernard Clarke Stewart Matthews Peter Moore Patrick Neeson DRD Translink DRD Translink DRD Accessibility Option Values Stephen Wood Oliver McKenna Translink Translink

DRD Irvine Lavery

Severance Stephen Wood DRD Irvine Lavery Translink Access to Transport System Stephen Wood DRD Irvine Lavery Translink Integration Transport Interchange Bernard Clarke Translink Stephen Wood Irvine Lavery DRD Translink Land-Use Policy Trevor Gordon DRD Bernard Clarke Irvine Lavery Stephen Wood Translink Translink DRD

Other Government Policies Peter Barbour DRD Peter McWilliams DRD Table 1.1: Appraisal Working Group Leaders and Contributors to AST Sub-Objective Appraisals. 5 SUPPORTING ANALYSIS LEAD AWG CONTRIBUTOR/S Distribution and Equity Affordability and Financial Sustainability Practicality and Public Acceptability Peter Barbour David Sterling Andy Watt DRD DFP Translink Tracy Power Norman Taylor Stephen Armstrong Brenda Burke Lillian Buchanan Irvine Lavery Norman Maynes Eddie McMillan Peter McWilliams Seamus Scallon DRD DFP Translink DRD

GCC Translink Translink Translink DRD Translink Table 1.2: Appraisal Working Group Leaders and Contributors to Supporting Analyses. 6 2.0 TRANSPORT DEMAND FORECASTS USED IN THE APPRAISAL Three transportation models have been used in forecasting travel demand and in quantifying impacts against the appraisal sub-objectives. The models are: NISTRM (Northern Ireland Strategic Transportation Model); OFE Review (Oscar Faber Elasticity model and Review); BTM (Belfast Transportation Model). The principal features of each model have been explained in Section 5.5 of the RTF Interim Report. Initially both NISTRM and BTM were used in order to investigate the robustness of NISTRM results in the Belfast urban area (within which BTM specification was more detailed). Those tests showed general agreement between NISTRM and BTM and, therefore, BTM was not used in subsequent testing. However, in view of the relatively small magnitude of the impacts resulting between scenarios, a review of the NISTRM results was undertaken. The review concluded: a separate external process would be needed to forecast the effects of trip

suppression (for Mothball and Truncation scenarios) and trip generation (for A D Little and Enhancement scenarios); the part of the NISTRM model, which controls switching between car and public transport modes, was not sufficiently sensitive. Within the time constraints of the study it was not possible to refine NISTRM to take account of these conclusions. In addition, the Task Force held the view that an independent review, not constrained by the functional limitations of NISTRM, should be used to develop an additional set of travel demand forecasts. Oscar Faber was, therefore, commissioned to prepare travel demand projections for car, bus and rail under each scenario. This work was based on:i. the use of empirical evidence from Northern Ireland and elsewhere and research literature on the effects of rail closures and re-openings; ii. the Antrim-Bleach Green Study of New Stations, 1995; iii. research undertaken for the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising into the impact on patronage of new rolling stock and infrastructure improvements, reported in 1997; 7 iv. a forecasting model developed for Translink in 1999 designed to assess the impact of changes to fare and service levels on the NIR network; v. review of profile of NIR passengers and travel alternatives open to them. The Panel of Experts endorsed the approach and considered that, based on existing model techniques and experience, the projected increased rail patronage demands from Oscar Faber were reasonable and represented a more realistic estimate than those provided by NISTRM. However, Panel

Members Lord Bradshaw and Professor Perry further commented that as the Northern Ireland railway service had become so degraded, there was the potential in Scenario 1 for a much greater increase in rail patronage as a result of the introduction of state of the art rolling stock, good infrastructure and the consequential higher speeds and frequency. (See Annexes 1 and 2) The Oscar Faber 2010 future network demand changes (%), compared to current, for car, bus and rail are shown in Table 2.1. (This includes projected traffic growth for each mode of travel over the 10-year period) Scenario 1 Enhancement Scenario 2 A D Little Scenario 3 Truncation Scenario 4 Mothball 1,2 Rail 55.8% 40.1% 23.6% No services Bus 10.1% 11.3% 12.5% 25.8% Car Patronage 19.3% 19.4% 19.6% 20.3% Note 1: Rail patronage excludes cross-border services Note 2: The effect of each scenario on cross-border Enterprise patronage is uncertain and has been excluded. Table 2.1: Oscar Faber Travel Forecasts (NI total journeys % increase from current journeys)

It should be noted that these Northern Ireland totals contain substantial variations at a local level. For example, under Scenario 1, (Enhancement) rail patronage would increase by 350% on the Londonderry/Derry line and by 37% on the Whitehead line. Under the same scenario, bus patronage would increase by 17% on the Londonderry/Derry line and 9% on the Whitehead line. It is worth observing that, in the case of a line being mothballed, Oscar Faber assume that the average travel demand will be altered as follows: 20% of trips will no longer be undertaken; 55% of travellers will use the bus substitution services; 25% of travellers will use cars. 8 These average figures for bus and car have been derived from the summation of individual rail corridor figures which again show significant variations, e.g., only 40% transfer to bus substitution services on the Londonderry/Derry line. The primary determinant of choice between bus and car is their comparative travel times, whilst car usage is further governed by forecast estimates of local car ownership. Bus substitution on shorter journeys is more attractive than on longer trips, especially those involving interchanges. Variations on the effect of mothballing on travel demand are commented on in Chapter 6. 9 3.0 SUB-OBJECTIVE APPRAISALS This chapter outlines the structure of the technical reports for all of the subobjectives within GOMMMS. Each of these reports comprises the following components: Data Sources

 Methodology and its Application Key Statistics and/or Results Scenarios Assessment Data Sources: a list of information sources utilised in the completion of the assessment including Government policy documents, output from consultants, available market research, relevant databases, census information etc. Methodology and its Application: an outline of the methodology employed in the completion of the assessment. This frequently follows the guidance within the relevant section of GOMMMS. Any deviation from GOMMMS that is required for the special circumstances pertaining to Northern Ireland is outlined and the justification for it is explained. Key Statistics and/or Results: a record of key quantitative information utilised in the completion of the assessment. This includes transport statistics, assessment of railway stations and structures, completed GOMMMS worksheets, output from consultants (and subsequent calculation of passenger numbers), train frequencies etc. Scenarios Assessment: a report of the assessment of the 4 different scenarios with regard to that sub-objective. As stated in the introduction (Chapter 1), Scenario 4 is treated as the base case. Hence the assessment is reported under the following headings: Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Each of these headings contains the comments that are inserted into the ASTs that give an overview of the scenarios under all of the sub-objectives.

The sub-objective appraisal reports are presented in a series of appendices as detailed below: 10 Appendix Objective Sub-Objective A Noise B Local Air Quality C Greenhouse Gases D Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources E Biodiversity F Water Environment G Physical Fitness H Environment Journey Ambience I Accidents J Safety Security K Transport Economic Efficiency L Reliability M Economy Wider Economic Impacts N Option Values O Severance P Accessibility

Accessibility to the Transport System Q Transport Interchange R Land-Use Policy S Integration Other Government Policies 11 4.0 APPRAISAL SUMMARY TABLES (ASTs) Each AST presents the implications of each scenario against the five main objectives by way of a summary of the impacts on each of the 21 subobjectives. Table 4.1 compares Scenario 1 (Enhancement) to the base case Scenario 4 (Mothball). Table 4.2 compares Scenario 2 (A D Little) to the base case Scenario 4 (Mothball). Table 4.3 compares Scenario 3 (Truncation) to the base case Scenario 4 (Mothball). Table 4.4 compares Scenario 4 (Mothballing) to the existing situation. The net present values associated with each scenario have been taken from data presented in Chapter 8 of the RTF Interim Report. 12 This page has been intentionally left blank APPRAISAL SUMMARY TABLE 1 Scenario 1 (Enhancement) vs Scenario 4 (Mothball) ENHANCEMENT TABLE 4.1 OBJECTIVE SUB-OBJECTIVE QUALITATIVE IMPACTS QUANTITATIVE MEASURE ASSESSMENT Noise No significant reduction in road traffic noise levels. Introduction of rail noise to the Bangor, Larne, Antrim and

Londonderry/Derry Lines. Note: Compared to the existing situation, this scenario will have slightly lower noise levels on rail corridors. Neutral Local Air Quality No significant improvement in local air quality on road network generally, but beneficial impact at five locations (including Belfast City Centre) and some air quality hotspots. Slight beneficial effect Greenhouse Gases Significant reduction due to reduced car use. 2.004 million tonnes of CO2 annually 1.1% reduction in CO2 levels annually -0.023 million tonnes of CO2 in 2010 Landscape Townscape Heritage of Historic Resources Utilises all stations and structures contributing to townscape and heritage value. Securing the longterm preservation of stations/structures, particularly those listed under the Planning (NI) Order 1991, is of particular importance. Some potential for further slight beneficial landscape effect if development of D5 and Park and Ride facilities is sensitive. Utilises: 7 (100% of existing) listed stations 21 (100% of existing) listed structures 27 (100% of existing) stations of heritage value 26 (100% of existing) of stations of townscape value Moderate beneficial effect Biodiversity Slight disturbance to waterfowl in 3 protected areas. However, the birds will habituate very quickly. Location of Airport Park

and Ride and D5 station crucial as they could result in serious loss of habitat if sited within Belfast Lough Special Protected Area. Minor adverse effect. Possible Large Adverse Effect if Airport Park and Ride or D5 station are located within the Belfast Lough Special Protected Area Water Environment No significant positive or negative effects on water environment. Neutral Physical Fitness Persons switching from car to rail should achieve the recommended minimum level of activity for health benefits. Passengers switching from bus to rail should achieve slight benefit due to increased walk distances. In the weekday AM peak period, approximately 2900 persons switch from car to rail and a further 4000 switch from bus to rail every day. Slight beneficial effect ENVIRONMENT Journey Ambience Rail passengers will experience very significant benefits. New rolling stock is the key factor, and is clearly superior to bus. circa 7.4 million rail passengers per annum on new rolling stock. Large beneficial effect SAFETY Accidents Significant saving due to reduction in all casualties by car, and minor accidents by bus Reduction of 162 casualties in 2010 Present Value Benefit 58M Security Rail trips have a slightly greater security deficit than bus trips, which have a greater security deficit than car trips. Since most rail trips occur at peak periods, when passenger flows are highest, the change in security deficit is not significantly different. Approximately 24,150 rail users affected per average 12-hour weekday.

Neutral Transport Economic Efficiency Small car user benefits arising from the highway decongestion effects of the mode shift from car to rail. Introduction of an enhanced rail service, incorporating park and ride and the reinstatement of Antrim Knockmore, results in significant additional benefits to public transport users in terms of journey times. The rail network overall provides slightly cheaper fares on average than bus substitution. The increase in revenue is more than offset by the higher Operating Costs, Investment Costs and other Government Impacts, resulting in a negative Net Present Value (NPV). Travel time benefits: M Car Users 4.6 Public Transport 27.5 32.1 Fare savings: Public transport user charges = 2.5M M User benefits 36.4 T/link impacts 264.6 Govt. Impacts 36.2 Net Present Value (NPV) -264.4

Reliability Improvement due to new rolling stock, track improvements and potentially due to staff morale. 9 million rail passengers per annum. Large beneficial effect ECONOMY Wider Economic Impacts Improves means of access to important regional gateways (especially Belfast City Airport). Sustains important regional towns and strengthens Londonderry/Derrys focus for employment in the North West. Improves connections to the Universities and

Institutes of Technologies. Positive impact on tourism. Significantly fosters labour mobility, strengthens housing market and improves perception of local economy. Positive employment impact. 407 jobs created in Translink 56 more than existing 2206 man-years of employment created in train and bus construction Large beneficial effect Option values Rail accessibility provided to residents in the vicinity of suburban Belfast lines and the Northern and Eastern Seaboard transportation corridors. Significant increase in frequencies on suburban Belfast lines of value to occasional users. Wheelchair access provided to public transport network. Local rail access provided to over 710,000 residents. Large beneficial effect Severance Severance effects arise due to rail crossings and are spread across NI network with key impacts in urban locations noted in Quantitative Measure. Also there is significant and increased severance at Lurgan, Moira and Dunmurry due to additional train frequencies. Severance introduced at University access to Jordanstown and at the new barrier crossing on A57 route to/from Belfast International Airport on Antrim Bleach Green section. Potential severance arising from provision of D5 spur. Level crossings introduce severance for 73,000 residents of Coleraine, Cullybackey Ballymena and Antrim. Slight adverse effect ACCESSIBILITY Access to the Transport System May be localised impacts of improved or worsened accessibility where railway and bus stations locations are significantly far apart and therefore serve different catchment areas. Rail services will generally not improve frequencies over that offered by

substitute bus. Neutral Transport Interchange Very large number of train travellers use greatly improved facilities following switch from bus to rail, and travellers using Park & Ride facilities at strategic locations. Approximate no. of daily users benefiting = 54,000 No. of interchanges improved = 25 No. new interchanges created = 2 Large beneficial effect Land-Use Policy Provides strong support for the Draft Regional Development Strategy as a result of the operation of the Belfast suburban network and the lines to Londonderry/Derry and Larne, the opening of the Antrim/Bleach Green line and the Antrim/Knockmore lines, the provision of a link to Belfast City Airport, improved running times, additional new rolling stock and increased frequencies. Scenario 1 thereby reduces regional imbalance, increases alternatives for reducing car dependency and improves the infrastructure deficit. Large beneficial effect INTEGRATION Other Government Policies Supportive of a wide range of other Government Policies due to significantly increased quality rail provision in Belfast commuter corridors, Antrim to Knockmore and to both Larne and Londonderry/Derry. This brings benefits in terms of accessibility, social inclusion, development corridors, north and north west tourism, links to gateways and indirect and direct congestion effects. Some policies in the following Departments will benefit DHSS&PS, DOE, DETI, DRD, DE, DHFETE and OFMDFM. Slight beneficial effect APPRAISAL SUMMARY TABLE 2

Scenario 2 (AD Little) vs Scenario 4 (Mothball) AD LITTLE TABLE 4.2 OBJECTIVE SUB-OBJECTIVE QUALITATIVE IMPACTS QUANTITATIVE MEASURE ASSESSMENT Noise No significant reduction in road traffic noise levels. Introduction of rail noise to Bangor, Larne, Antrim and Londonderry/Derry lines. Note: Compared to the existing situation, this scenario will have slightly lower noise levels on rail corridors. Neutral Local Air Quality No significant improvement in local air quality on road network generally, but beneficial impact at three locations and some air quality hotspots. Neutral Greenhouse Gases Significant reduction due to reduced car use. 2.008 million tonnes of CO2 annually 0.9% reduction in CO2 levels annually -0.019 million tonnes of CO2 in 2010 Landscape Townscape Heritage of Historic Resources Utilises a significant number of stations and all structures contributing to townscape and heritage value. Securing the long-term preservation of stations/structures, particularly those listed under Planning (NI) Order 1991, is of particular importance. Utilises: 7 (100% of existing) listed stations 21 (100% of existing) listed structures

24 (89% of existing) stations of heritage value 23 (88% of existing) stations of townscape value Moderate beneficial effect Biodiversity Slight disturbance to waterfowl in 3 protected areas. However, the birds will habituate very quickly. Minor adverse effect. Water Environment No significant positive or negative effects on water environment. Neutral Physical Fitness Persons switching from car to rail should achieve the recommended minimum level of activity for health benefits. Passengers switching from bus to rail should achieve slight benefit due to increased walk distances. In the AM peak period, approximately 2,500 persons switch from car to rail and a further 3,700 switch from bus to rail every day. Slight beneficial effect ENVIRONMENT Journey Ambience Rail passengers will experience very significant benefits. New rolling stock is the key factor, and is clearly superior to bus. circa 5.9 million rail passengers per annum on new rolling stock. Large beneficial effect Accidents Significant saving due to reduction in all casualties by car, and minor accidents by bus Reduction of 136 casualties in 2010 Present value Benefit 47M SAFETY Security Rail trips have a slightly greater security deficit than bus trips, which have a greater security deficit than car trips. Since most rail trips occur at peak periods when passenger flows are highest, the change in security deficit is not significantly different.

Approximately 21,800 rail users affected per average 12hour weekday. Neutral Transport Economic Efficiency Very small car user travel time benefits arising from the highway decongestion effects of the mode shift from car to rail. Public transport traveller time benefits on key corridor movements including Coleraine Belfast and Londonderry/Derry Belfast. Slightly cheaper fares on average than bus substitution. The increase in revenue is more than offset by the higher Operating Costs, Investment Costs and other Government Impacts, resulting in a negative Net Present Value (NPV). Travel time benefits: M Car users 2.4 Public transport 20.4 22.8 Fare savings: Public transport user charges = 2.5M M User benefits 26.7 T/link impacts 192.4 Govt. impacts 32.1 Net Present Value (NPV) 197.8

Reliability Improvement due to new rolling stock, track improvements and potentially due to staff morale. 8 million rail passengers per annum. Large beneficial effect ECONOMY Wider Economic Impacts Improves means of access to important regional gateways. Sustains important regional towns and strengthens

Londonderry/Derrys focus for employment in the North West. Improves connections to the Universities and Institutes of Technologies. Positive impact on tourism. Significantly fosters labour mobility, strengthens housing market and improves perception of local economy. Positive employment impact. 367 jobs created in Translink 16 more than existing 1494 man-years of employment created in train and bus construction Moderate beneficial effect Option values Rail accessibility provided to residents in the vicinity of suburban Belfast lines and the Northern and Eastern Seaboard transportation corridors. Slightly increased frequencies on suburban Belfast lines of value to occasional users. Wheelchair access provided to public transport network. Local rail access provided to approximately 710,000 residents. Large beneficial effect Severance Severance effects arise due to rail crossings and are spread across NI network with key impacts in urban locations noted in Quantitative Measure. Also, there is significant and increased severance at Lurgan, Moira and Dunmurry due to additional train frequencies. Severance introduced at University access to Jordanstown and at new barrier crossing on A57 route to/from Belfast International Airport on Antrim Bleach Green section. Level crossings introduce severance for 73,000 residents of Coleraine, Cullybackey Ballymena and Antrim. Slight adverse effect ACCESSIBILITY

Access to the Transport System May be localised impacts of improved or worsened accessibility where railway and bus stations locations are significantly far apart and therefore serve different catchment areas. Rail service will generally not improve frequencies over that offered by substitute buses. Neutral Transport Interchange Very large number of train travellers use greatly improved facilities following switch from bus to rail. Approximate no. of daily users benefiting = 48,000 No. of interchanges improved = 25 No. new interchanges created = Nil Large beneficial effect Land Use Policy Provides strong support for the Draft Regional Development Strategy as a result of the operation of the Belfast suburban network and the lines to Londonderry/Derry and Larne, the opening of Antrim Bleach Green line, improved running times, new rolling stock. Moderate beneficial effect INTEGRATION Other Government Policies Supportive of a wide range of other Government Policies due to increased quality rail provision in Belfast commuter corridors and to both Larne and Londonderry/Derry. This brings benefits in terms of accessibility, social inclusion, development corridors, north and north west tourism, links to gateways and indirect and direct congestion effects. Some policies in the following Departments will benefit DHSS&PS, DOE, DETI, DRD, DE, DHFETE and OFMDFM. Slight beneficial effect APPRAISAL SUMMARY TABLE 3 Scenario 3 (Truncation) vs Scenario 4 (Mothball)

TRUNCATION TABLE 4.3 OBJECTIVE SUB-OBJECTIVE QUALITATIVE IMPACTS QUANTITATIVE MEASURE ASSESSMENT Noise No significant reduction in road traffic noise levels. Introduction of rail noise to the Belfast Bangor, Belfast - Whitehead, Antrim Bleach Green and Antrim Ballymena lines. Note: Compared to the existing situation, this scenario will have slightly lower noise levels on rail corridors. Neutral Local Air Quality No significant improvement in local air quality on road network generally, but beneficial at two locations and some air quality hotspots. Neutral Greenhouse Gases Significant reduction due to reduced car use. 2.014 million tonnes of CO2 annually 0.6% reduction in CO2 levels annually -0.013 million tonnes of CO2 in 2010 Landscape Townscape Heritage of Historic Resources Utilises a significant number of stations and structures contributing to townscape and heritage value. Securing the long-term preservation of stations/structures, particularly those listed under Planning (NI) Order 1991, is of particular importance. Utilises: 5 (71% of existing) listed stations 19 (90% of existing) listed structures 19 (70% of existing) stations of heritage value 18 (69% of existing) stations of townscape value Moderate beneficial

effect Biodiversity Slight disturbance to waterfowl in 2 protected areas. However, the birds will habituate quickly. Minor adverse effect. Water Environment No significant positive or negative effects on water environment. Neutral Physical Fitness Persons switching from car to rail should achieve the recommended minimum level of activity for health benefits. Passengers switching from bus to rail should achieve slight benefit due to increased walk distances. In the AM peak period, approximately 2,000 persons switch from car to rail and a further 3,400 switch from bus to rail every day. Slight beneficial effect ENVIRONMENT Journey Ambience Rail passengers will experience very significant benefits. New rolling stock is the key factor, and is clearly superior to bus. circa 4.1 million rail passengers per annum on new rolling stock. Large beneficial effect Accidents Significant saving due to reduction in all casualties by car, and minor accidents by bus Reduction of 114 casualties in 2010 Present Value Benefit 45M SAFETY Security Rail trips have a slightly greater security deficit than bus trips which have a greater security deficit than car trips. Since most rail trips occur at peak periods, when passenger flows are highest, the change in security deficit is not significantly different. Approximately 19,150 rail users affected per average 12-hour weekday. Neutral Transport Economic Efficiency Minimal car user travel time benefits arising from highway decongestion effects of the mode shift from car to rail.

Public transport traveller time benefits notably from Bangor, Jordanstown and Ballymena into Belfast. Small net user disbenefit in user charges because of higher (relative to bus) rail fares notably on the Bangor and Lisburn lines. The increase in revenue is more than offset by the higher Operating Costs, Investment Costs and other Government Impacts, resulting in a negative Net Present Value (NPV). Travel time benefits: M Car users 0.3 Public transport 14.4 14.7 Fare increases: Public transport user charges =-1.8M M User benefits 14.2 T/link impacts 205.3 Govt. Impacts 18.5 Net Present Value (NPV) 209.5

Reliability Improvement due to new rolling stock and track improvements. 7 million rail passengers per annum. Large beneficial effect ECONOMY Wider Economic Impacts Services provided on Belfast suburban lines marginally increase economic opportunity, but absence of rail services north of Ballymena and Whitehead constrains economic opportunities for better regional balance between urban and rural regeneration. Fosters labour mobility, strengthens housing market and improves perception of local economy. Positive employment impact. 343 jobs created in Translink 8 less than existing

1289 man-years of employment created in train and bus construction Slight beneficial effect Option values Rail accessibility provided to residents in the vicinity of suburban Belfast lines. Wheelchair access provided to Belfast suburban public transport network. Local rail access provided to approximately 580,000 residents. Large beneficial effect Severance Severance effects arise due to rail crossings and are spread across NI network with key impacts in urban locations noted in Quantitative Measure. Also, there is significant and increased severance at Lurgan, Moira and Dunmurry due to additional train frequencies. Severance introduced at University access to Jordanstown and at new barrier crossing on A57 route to/from Belfast International Airport on Antrim Bleach Green section. Level crossings introduce severance for 50,000 residents of Ballymena and Antrim. Slight adverse effect ACCESSIBILITY Access to the Transport System May be localised impacts of improved or worsened accessibility where railway and bus stations locations are significantly far apart and therefore serve different catchment areas. Rail service will generally not improve frequencies over that offered by substitute buses. Neutral Transport Interchange Large number of train travellers use greatly improved facilities following switch from bus to rail. Approximate no. of daily users benefiting = 43,000 No. of interchanges improved = 19 No. new interchanges created = Nil

Moderate beneficial effect Land-Use Policy Offers benefits as a result of the operation of the Belfast suburban network, the opening of the Antrim Bleach Green line, improved running times and additional rolling stock. Failure to offer rail choice to significant parts of the North and North West, particularly with the lack of stations at Londonderry/Derry, Coleraine, Ballymoney and Larne, weakens the Draft Regional Development Strategy. Slight beneficial effect INTEGRATION Other Government Policies Supportive of a wide range of other Government Policies due to quality rail provision mainly in Belfast commuter corridors and the benefits that brings in terms of accessibility and indirect and direct congestion effects. Some policies in the following Departments will benefit DHSS&PS, DOE, DETI, DRD, DE, DHFETE and OFMDFM. Slight beneficial effect APPRAISAL SUMMARY TABLE 4 Scenario 4 (Mothball) vs Existing Situation MOTHBALL EXCEPT BELFAST / DUBLIN TABLE 4.4 OBJECTIVE SUB-OBJECTIVE QUALITATIVE IMPACTS Noise No significant change in road traffic noise levels. Very slight improvement in noise climate on mothballed lines. Local Air Quality No significant worsening in local air quality on road network generally, but adverse impact at three locations and some air quality hotspots. Greenhouse Gases Compared to the existing situation, Scenario 4 produces an 11.9% increase in CO2. This increase can be attributed primarily to background growth in car ownership and use. Compared to continuation of current trend, Scenario 4 will produce approximately 1% additional CO2.

Landscape Townscape Heritage of Historic Resources Mothballing would have an adverse impact on human interaction and cultural features, and would result in dead buildings and the loss of most of the live historic rail routes. It retains only 3 stations out of the existing 58 no. Retains: No listed stations (currently 7) 11 (57% of existing) listed structures 2 (7% of existing) stations of heritage value No stations of townscape value (currently 26) Biodiversity Creates fewer disturbances to wildfowl on tidal flats and salt marshes of sea loughs. Slightly increased value of mothballed lines as wildlife corridors. Water Environment No change in impact on any water feature types. Physical Fitness The effect of mothballing the railways will be slight adverse. A significant proportion of rail users will divert to car or choose not to travel, leading to reductions in level of physical activity. ENVIRONMENT Journey Ambience Rail users transferring to car would benefit while the greater number of rail users transferring to bus would be slightly adversely affected. Overall, the net impact is neutral. Accidents Compared to estimates of (current) 1997 accidents, the number of persons killed is forecast to increase by 25 to 169, and all casualty groupings by 17%. These increases are due in part to aggregate increases in travel by bus and car and in part to casualty rats by bus and car being higher than rail. The estimates assume that there will be no decrease in casualty rates over time. SAFETY Security While Scenario 4 gives fewer rail trips than the existing situation, since most rail trips occur at peak periods when passenger flows are highest, the change in security deficit is assessed as neutral.

Transport Economic Efficiency The transport economic efficiency objective is better achieved through the base scenario i.e. providing an enhanced bus service to meet transport demand. Reliability The Base case scenario will result in the transfer of the current rail passengers onto bus services and car. Whilst current reliability can be reduced, at times, by the condition of the current (elderly) rolling stock, it is satisfactory (by Passenger Charter standards), and significantly better than bus and car reliability which are affected by congestion effects. The 2010 Base case therefore represents a large adverse change from the Existing situation. ECONOMY Wider Economic Impacts Adverse impact resulting from loss of links to Belfast, Londonderry/Derry and other urban regeneration initiatives, to gateways and from reduction in rural regeneration potential due to extensive station closures. Loss of choice of means of access to a wide range of tourism assets. Net loss of 351 jobs in Translink. Decreases labour mobility, weakens housing market and lowers perception of local economy. Option values Large adverse impact on residents in Belfast and beyond. Rail access removed from approximately 400,000 residents. Wheelchair access to the local public transport network removed. Severance Severance effects arise due to rail crossings and increased train frequencies and are limited in this scenario to the Belfast Dublin. There is reduced severance at Lurgan, Moira and Dunmurry due to reduction in train frequencies. No requirement for crossing A57 route to/from Belfast International Airport on Antrim Bleach Green section due to mothballing. Current severance removed for 73k residents of Coleraine, Cullybackey, Ballymena and Antrim, and University access at Jordanstown. ACCESSIBILITY Access to the Transport System May be localised impacts of improved or worsened accessibility where railway and bus stations locations are significantly far apart and therefore serve different catchment areas. Bus substitution proposals will generally ensure no net decrease in frequency of public transport services. Neutral effect. Transport Interchange The standards of facilities at bus substitution interchange locations compare poorly with those at permanent stations and railway halts. Approximately 34,000 train travellers daily experience the large adverse impact of switching from 25 no. rail interchange locations to substitute bus.

Land-Use Policy Overall assessment: Large Adverse. Large scale reduction in the rail network threatens the Draft Regional Development Strategy, widens regional imbalance, limits alternatives for reducing car dependency and worsens infrastructure deficit. INTEGRATION Other Government Policies Overall this scenario adversely affects a broad range of other Government Policies and damages the credibility of the Draft Regional Development Strategy. This is mainly as a result of withdrawal of rail services, the relatively lower attraction of bus substitution and indirect and direct congestion effects. Some policies in the following Departments will be undermined DHSS&PS, DOE, DETI, DRD, DE, DHFETE and OFMDFM. 17 5.0 SUPPORTING ANALYSES 5.1. Introduction This chapter presents three additional groups of issues that are very relevant to the decision making process but do not fit easily within the AST format. This is because the AST takes the perspective of the overall public interest at a regional level, whereas the following issues reflect a more focused view of the implications of each scenario for particular groups of users, non-users, public sector bodies and Government Departments. Further details and the supporting data behind these analyses are in appendices: T Distribution and Equity U Affordability and Financial Sustainability V Practicality and Public Acceptability 18 5.2. Distribution and Equity Introduction This Distribution and Equity supporting analysis has been prepared in accordance with the principles underpinning Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. The issues of Equality and New Targeting Social Need (New

TSN) are considered separately. The focus of this appraisal is solely on the benefits/disbenefits associated with investment in rail infrastructure. It does not consider the wider opportunity costs associated with such investment i.e. the benefits/disbenefits that could accrue to society, including non-rail users, from investing in alternative spending programmes. Equality For the consideration of Equality issues each scenario was assessed in terms of whether it was consistent with the Equality Obligation. It was noted that it would be neither possible nor necessary to undertake a thorough quantitative analysis of each scenario at this stage. The Department for Regional Developments draft Equality Scheme, as submitted to the Equality Commission on 30 th June 2000, contains a commitment to a full equality impact assessment on the preferred option emerging from Ministerial considerations. Accordingly, a qualitative approach was followed at this stage with the objective of identifying potential impacts which would merit further investigation later. The impacts on the groups identified here (see Table 5.2.2.1) are likely to be the largest impacts in terms of numbers of people affected, but it is acknowledged that a full impact assessment may reveal impacts upon some of the other groups. In other words, if there is an impact upon the religious dimension then there is likely to be an impact on the political opinion group. Similarly if there is an impact upon age, there may be a link to those with dependants. At this point there is information on rail users only in terms of their age and gender compared to the population as a whole. Considerations were also informed by the ASTs.

An overall summary of potentially the greatest areas of equality impact emerging from this exercise is set out at Table 5.2.2.1. Impacts are likely to be concentrated on females and the young who use rail to e.g. travel to educational establishments, the elderly and people with disabilities. 19 Scenario 1 (Enhancement) 2 (AD Little) 3 (Truncation) 4 (Mothball) Religion - - Yes Politics - - - Race - - - Age Yes Yes Yes Yes Marital status - - - Sexual orientation ---Gender Yes Yes Yes Yes Disability Yes Yes Yes Yes Dependants - - - Table 5.2.2.1: Overall summary of potentially the greatest areas of equality impact by scenario. Reduced railway provision from the existing situation will have a negative

equality impact, particularly in terms of accessibility, public transport integration and journey ambience. In general terms, the greater the railway provision, the more positive is the impact on the groups. As this is a preliminary assessment, no attempt has been made at this stage to assess the degree of the impacts. However, it demonstrates that the appraisal process has been sensitive to the requirements of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and points towards those issues that should be addressed in a full equality impact assessment on the chosen option. That assessment will utilise existing and, if necessary, commission new, statistical evidence on railway usage. New TSN Consideration was given to the expected impacts on rail patronage for each socio-economic group (SEG) under the various scenarios. The calculations for the various scenarios were dependent on which stations would remain operative, and the resultant socio-economic profile of the passengers inferred from the available data. Table 5.2.3.1 shows the expected breakdown in rail passengers by SEG for the four scenarios. 20 Scenario/SEG AB C1 C2 DE Scenario 1 14.0% 39.6% 18.4% 28.0% Scenario 2 14.0% 39.7% 18.4% 28.0% Scenario 3 14.5% 41.8% 17.1% 26.6% Scenario 4 18.5% 39.5% 14.2% 27.8% Existing 14.2% 40.0% 17.6% 28.2% Table 5.2.3.1: Expected breakdown of rail passengers by socio-economic group by scenario.

Summary In summary, under Scenarios 3 (Truncation) and 4 (Mothball), when rail services are withdrawn relative to existing provision, although the actual number travelling from each SEG decreases, the decrease is proportionately less in the most affluent (AB) group, and this shift, although small, is statistically significant. In addition, the AB group is likely to gain slightly under Scenarios 1 (Enhancement) and 2 (A D Little), but this is not quantifiable since no information is available for likely boardings/alightings on the Antrim-Bleach Green line which is scheduled to open in Spring 2001. Intuitively they will gain because it will serve a more affluent area. Under Scenario 3 (Truncation), the poorest group (DE) loses out significantly, due to the closure of the Londonderry/Derry-Portrush line on which this group is currently over-represented (i.e. disproportionately high compared to the population served) - 35% of DE are rail users but only 8% of the population. Data shows that this poorest socio-economic group is generally over-represented in the existing profile of rail users in Northern Ireland as a whole compared to the population (based on the 1991 census), indicating the greater reliance of the poorest group on rail provision. A full New TSN analysis would include the effect of bus substitution proposals. However, it is premature to examine this effect since, although the extent of bus substitution has been considered, this did not extend to the detailed scheduling of the full range of services. Bus substitution would have an overall mitigating effect compared to the situation where it was not provided at all. It is known that some current rail travellers would transfer to cars if they had access to one, and that the poorer SEGs have less access to cars of the AB and C1 groups, 40% have no access to a car, while 56% of C2 and DE rail travellers have no car access

1 . The Oscar Faber modal splits predict that when a line is mothballed, on average 25% of the previous rail trips will be undertaken by car and these will be disproportionately made by those in the higher SEGs.

1 PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) Customer Satisfaction Survey 1999 21 It is clear that when decisions are made regarding the future of the railways: a full equality impact assessment will need to be carried out, and a detailed New TSN appraisal will need to be undertaken. Conclusions The largest equality impacts are likely to be under Scenarios 3 (Truncation) or 4 (Mothball), and particularly concern women, the young and elderly who are most reliant on rail services and people with disabilities. A full equality impact assessment will be required to be carried out once the decisions on the future of rail services have been made. The most socially-disadvantaged are most reliant on the rail network and least in a position to transfer from rail to private transport. Any reduction in rail provision from the existing situation will have negative New TSN implications caused by the widening of existing mobility differentials between the disadvantaged and advantaged socio-economic groups. This would run counter to the New TSN policy objectives of increasing mobility and access to goods, services, training and employment opportunities for disadvantaged sections of society and communities. 22

5.3. Affordability and Financial Sustainability Introduction As an aid to decision-making, this section of the Task Force Report compares the financial implications of the four modelling scenarios in order to provide an assessment of the funding that would be required to ensure the delivery of each model. Financial Sustainability and Affordability Financial sustainability is a measure of the extent to which each scenario under consideration is self-supporting from revenues. Affordability is a measure of the likelihood that public funds of the scale required will be made available to deliver a particular option. Financial Sustainability and Affordability - the Four Scenarios The Affordability and Financial Sustainability (AFS) of each of the four scenarios has been calculated using the rail demand estimates provided by the transport models. Impacts have been measured relative to the agreed base case, ie, the mothballing of all but Belfast - Dublin services. The impacts represent changes in costs and revenues measured against this scenario. The main findings are presented below (and may be seen in more detail in Chapter 8). The entries in the tables include the initial investment costs associated with each scenario and the changes in operator costs and revenues: Scenario 1. Enhancement 000 01/2 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11 Capital costs 38,310 93,129 62,878 19,080 21,243 7,035 3,210 3,200 10,200 3,200 Revenue deficit 13,477 14,754 18,595 14,904 13,169 12,788 11,064 10,949 10,476 9,838

Total funding requirement 51,787 107,883 81,473 33,984 34,412 19,823 14,274 14,149 20,676 13,038 Scenario 2. A.D.Little 000 01/2 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11 Capital costs 23,857 64,406 44,279 18,580 20,706 6,535 2,710 2,700 9,700 2,700 Revenue deficit 13,544 14,195 16,473 13,117 11,926 11,907 10,339 10,224 9,759 9,113 Total funding requirement 37,401 78,601 60,752 31,697 32,632 18,442 13,049 12,924 19,459 11,813 Scenario 3. Truncation 000 01/2 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11 Capital costs 24,902 50,469 31,984 4,841 5,597 2,148 2,148 2,143 9,143 2,143 Revenue deficit 16,191 15,483 15,867 12,365 11,515 12,365 11,091 11,002 10,561 9,942 Total funding requirement 41,093 65,952 47,851 17,206 17,112 14,513 13,239 13,145 19,704 12,085 23 Scenario 4. Belfast - Dublin Only 000 01/2 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11

Capital costs 14,613 3,054 2,016 504 500 500 500 500 7,500 500 Revenue deficit 18,665 13,218 6,153 3,003 3,003 4,053 3,003 2,653 3,003 3,003 Total funding requirement 33,328 16,272 8,169 3,507 3,503 4,553 3,503 3,153 10,503 3,503 What is Affordable? - the Need for Decision These findings show that significant levels of subvention will be required no matter which scenario forms the foundation for the future structure of the rail network in Northern Ireland. The financial modelling shows conclusively that none of the four scenarios is self-sustaining. In every case revenues are not sufficient to meet operator costs. Consequently there would be no contribution from revenues to the investment costs necessary to deliver each option, even in the base case. As none of the four modelling scenarios is sustainable in purely commercial terms, the issue therefore becomes one of determining what can be afforded and what priority should be given to rail investment. Chapter 8 shows that funding sources, particularly during the short to medium term, will be limited. This will be particularly problematical because all three scenarios beyond the base case require considerable capital investment and subsidy in the first three years. What is affordable will therefore primarily be a matter for political judgement, based on analysis of the economic arguments and competing priorities. In this regard the timing of the Task Force Report is critical for it is to be published a matter of weeks before the Executive Committee and the Assembly decide on public expenditure allocations for all devolved Northern Ireland public services for the next three years. The Programme for Government and 2000 Spending Review

Under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, a Programme for Government for Northern Ireland drawn up by the Executive Committee will contain objectives, priorities and policies for the next few years. The Programme will be presented in draft form for the Assembly and its Committees to consider in mid October. At the same time the Minister of Finance and Personnel will present a draft budget, with the agreement of the Executive Committee, to the Assembly. This budget will set public expenditure plans for 2001/2002 and influence spending priorities for the following two years. It is within this short and rigid timetable that decisions on future funding of the railways will be taken by the Executive Committee and ultimately the Assembly. These decisions will not be taken in isolation but as part of a comprehensive consideration of what should be the optimum distribution of public expenditure across all public services for which the Assembly is responsible. 24 Making the Case Decisions about future investment in the railways, including levels of public subsidy, fall in the first instance to the Department for Regional Development (DRD). On receipt of the Task Force report the first priority for the Minister for Regional Development will be to examine the results of the detailed analyses and consider the decisions which need to be taken. When a preferred option has been selected a case will need to be submitted to the Department of Finance and Personnel for the resources required to deliver that option as part of the 2000 Spending Review process. The preparation of a bid will in large part have been facilitated by the work of the Task Force but will need to address a number of additional factors beyond those considered here. For example, the role of railways will need to

be considered in the context of the emerging regional transport strategy. It may not be possible to take final decisions about optimum levels of long term railway funding in isolation from a wider consideration of future public transport and road investment needs. Within this strategic context the value for money provided from investment in the railways will need to be compared with the value for money provided from investment in alternative transport solutions, including the roads infrastructure and other forms of public transport. For example decision-takers may wish to consider the impact of improving the road-base transport between Belfast and Londonderry/Derry as opposed to investing in the Londonderry/DerryBelfast rail link. Long term funding solutions which minimise the need for upfront capital funding must also be further investigated. For example operational leasing solutions potentially offer a realistic means of spreading capital investment requirements thereby reducing up-front funding pressures. However uncertainty over the accounting treatment of operational leasing schemes still casts doubt about their efficacy - these require further study. Securing private sector input will also be essential. A 1999 study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers into public transport commissioned by the DRD confirmed a need to attract private sector finance for future investment in public transport through the establishment of a Public Private Partnership. The Report concluded that an operating concession which would transfer responsibility for the delivery of all aspects of public transport services to a private sector operator under fixed term contracts would offer the most effective means of accessing private finance and meeting departmental objectives for public transport. This report should provide the context from which future investment strategies for the railways are developed. Phasing infrastructure investment, perhaps over a longer period of time than

envisaged in the illustrative scenarios may make more expansive solutions more affordable. This would, however, presuppose that certain services may need to be discontinued on safety grounds until necessary levels of investment could be secured. Lastly, the potential for increasing funding from alternative sources requires further investigation. 25 Conclusions The analysis presented here shows that none of the four modelling scenarios is sustainable in purely commercial terms. New capital investment and long term subsidy would be required for all scenarios, including the base case. Given the scarcity of public expenditure and the pressure on other public services, further analysis will be required to optimise the affordability of whatever option is considered to provide the best value for money and achieve strategic transport objectives. Compromises may need to be sought between what is deliverable now and what is desirable in the longer run. 26 5.4. Practicality and Public Acceptability Introduction GOMMMS (Section 6.5.23) notes that in the past some studies have been less effective than they might have been, because their recommendations breached some constraint. For example, some strategies may be desirable but not affordable. Others would be considered likely to create a majority of winners and minority of losers who would form a vocal opposition. There therefore needs to be an overall assessment of the practicality of each strategy. Such analyses should also give clues to public acceptability and the level of support from key stakeholders. The consultation process helped greatly in

this regard. Before the most salient points of the Practicality and Public Acceptability Supporting Analysis are presented, three general points need to be highlighted: i. There is a need to make decisions at an early stage if the existing services are to continue. Failure to make early investment decisions would result in the managed withdrawal of rail services and in the case of the Belfast-Bangor line, the possible loss of a European Union Grant. ii. It is necessary to maximise the benefits resulting from any decision. To ensure these benefits are realised, performance criteria should be set for the operator, a review of governance and regulatory structures undertaken, measures taken to ensure value for money and greater customer focus and relevant legislation reviewed and updated. iii. Written and verbal submissions from the public consultation exercise have been used to inform this analysis. The extent and limitations of this process are presented in Chapter 7 of the RTF Interim Report. Scenario 1 (Enhancement): was not considered to be visionary enough (particularly by elected representatives and political parties) but otherwise received strong support as it was viewed as a platform that would facilitate future strategic development of the transportation system in Northern Ireland. would allow benefits of investment to be assessed. This could then inform future investment considerations. would build on recent investment in new stations, station refurbishment and track upgrades. would support the Draft Regional Development Strategy and a wide

range of other Government Policies and Strategies, e.g., planning, 27 environment, health, tourism, economy, safety, energy, social inclusion and equity. would bring a spectrum of benefits to the key transportation and development corridors particularly in the Belfast Metropolitan Area, the Northern Corridor and the Eastern Seaboard Corridor. would, according to those who expressed an opinion, demonstrate forward thinking in the devolved administration and show commitment to invest in the long-term development of the region. would not have complex implementation issues. However, the implementation of some of the additions, e.g., new rail spurs, stations, park and ride facilities or stations, could be influenced by the statutory planning processes. Scenario 2 (based on A D Little): would, according to those who expressed an opinion, be a fall back position, in that it would largely safe-guard current services but would not sufficiently improve public transport services. would allow benefits of investment to be assessed. This could be used to inform future investment considerations. would protect recent investment in new stations, station refurbishment and track upgrades. would be broadly supportive of Draft Regional Development Strategy and other Government policies (as identified in Scenario 1), at least in the short term. would retain transport choice in key transportation and sustainable development corridors.

 would show the devolved administrations intention to protect the existing transportation system and allows time to consider future investment decisions. could result in a legal challenge to mothballing of the Antrim-Lisburn line. If a challenge were to be received this could result in delay in the full scenario implementation and would incur additional costs. Scenario 3 (Truncation): is considered as unacceptable by 99% of those who expressed a view during the public consultation process. The Northern Group of Councils representing 8 Districts, and the Councils along the Larne line all consider the retention and enhancement of the Londonderry/Derry and Larne lines as vital to the future of the region as a whole and to their area in particular. 28 would be incompatible with stated Government policy of improving transport choice and public transport services throughout Northern Ireland, although it would improve services on the main Belfast commuter lines. would devalue the benefits of previous and current investment. would be in significant conflict with the Draft Regional Development Strategy and would undermine other Government policies (see Scenario 1) particularly in the North and North West of the region. would have a level of mothballing which would disadvantage significant sections of the community in the affected corridors, particularly school children, elderly, females, people with disabilities and low-income groups. would result in the devolved administration being perceived, by those

expressing an opinion, as having a short term rather than long term view and being accused of not appreciating the importance of the rail network in an island of Ireland, United Kingdom or European context. would cause some damage to the image of Northern Ireland, and areas where services are withdrawn would suffer increased peripherality. would very likely receive a legal challenge on the mothballing proposals for sections of the Londonderry/Derry and Larne lines. Delay to implementation of the full scenario would be likely and would incur additional costs. would adversely affect the east-west socio-economic balance. Scenario 4 (Mothball): would conflict with stated Government transportation policies would result in the benefits of previous investment being very significantly devalued would conflict with the Draft Regional Development Strategy and would damage the credibility of other Government policies (see Scenario1). would mothball most of the network and would disadvantage many sections of the community in the affected corridors, particularly school children, females, the elderly, people with disabilities and low income groups would be expected to result in a legal challenge to the mothballing proposals. Significant delay to full scenario implementation would be anticipated and additional costs would be incurred 29 would attract significant concern over the practicality for implementation of bus substitution measures on the Belfast commuter corridors. Significant numbers of additional buses would be required and station

alterations, traffic management measures, scheduling details will be problematical. was unanimously considered as unacceptable by the public and elected representatives who contributed to the rail debate. would result in the devolved administration being perceived by many of those who expressed an opinion, as having a short term rather than long term view and being accused of not appreciating the importance of the rail network in an island of Ireland, United Kingdom or European context. would damage the image of Northern Ireland, and areas would suffer increased peripherality. 30 6.0 SENSITIVITY OF RESULTS TO KEY PARAMETERS 6.1. Introduction In view of the complexity of the scenarios (which have required many key parameters to be estimated), and in the knowledge that many of the impacts may be affected substantially by changes in the modal split, it was considered prudent to undertake a range of sensitivity checks covering all 4 scenarios. This is standard practice for transportation planning studies involving medium or long-term horizons and the application of transportation models. Initial testing and appraisal of the 4 scenarios, together with comments received during the consultation process allowed several key issues to be identified: financial performance is determined principally by the following parameters: - costs of public transport improvements, in particular capital costs of

infrastructure and new trains and also the capital and operating costs of bus substitution proposals; - public transport revenue, in particular rail revenue (derived directly from rail demand) for Scenarios 1, 2 and 3; environmental and economic performance is determined principally by the following parameter: - modal split, in particular the switching of travellers from rail to car in Scenarios 4 and 3, where lines are mothballed, and also switching from car to rail in Scenarios 1 and 2, where services are improved. Separate financial and environmental/economic sensitivity checks were devised and undertaken by varying the key parameters identified above and recording changes in key outputs. The checks are explained in the following sections. 6.2. Financial (Cost and Revenue) Sensitivity Checks 6.2.1. Introduction In general, the economic performance of Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 when compared to Scenario 4 shows large negative net present values (NPV), ie. the revenue and monetised benefits are outweighed by the capital and operating costs of providing the rail services over the full 30 year appraisal period. Sensitivity parameters were therefore chosen to investigate how the performance of the scenarios would improve and their relative rankings change if more optimistic estimates were made concerning rail performance (or worsening of bus substitution performance). The parameters were identified after consideration of views expressed by members of the 31 Appraisal Working Group and the Panel of Experts surrounding the accuracy of input assumptions, or of model outputs.

Financial sensitivity checks have been undertaken by modifying the Translink costs and revenues for the standard tests in order to estimate new NPV results. (This simplified procedure ignores the lesser changes which will occur in user travel time benefits and taxation, and therefore the results should be regarded as indicative only). The checks were specified as follows: Costs - Bus Substitution Capital and Operating Costs + 50%, affecting Scenario 4 (Mothball), in particular; this additional cost reflects the possible costs of supplementary traffic management measures needed to facilitate the large numbers of additional buses accessing town centres and Belfast City Centre coinciding with peak traffic periods; - Rail Capital Costs +/ 30%, affecting Scenarios 1,2 and 3; these costs matched the uncertainty attached to the cost estimates presented in the AD Little report; Revenue - Rail Revenue + 25%, affecting Scenarios 1,2 and 3; this reflects additional induced patronage which may be attracted to rail by new services, and acknowledges the view expressed by some members of the Expert Panel that future rail patronage may be understated; - Rail Revenue + 50%, affecting Scenarios 1,2 and 3; this reflects an approximate upper limit for additional induced rail patronage, without incurring additional capital or operating costs in purchasing additional rolling stock and running additional services, and acknowledges the view expressed by some members of the Expert Panel that future rail patronage may be understated; Combined Revenue and Cost (sensitivity changes which complement each other need to be tested)

- Rail Revenue +25%, Bus Substitution Costs +50%, Rail Capital Costs 30%; - Rail Revenue +50%, Bus Substitution Costs +50%, Rail Capital Costs 30%. 6.2.2. Detailed Results for Cost and Revenue Sensitivity Checks The detailed results are presented in Tables 6.2.2.1, 6.2.2.2 and 6.2.2.3. 32 Standard Test Bus Subs +50% Rail Capital -30% Rail Capital +30% Rail -30%, Bus +50% Scenario versus Mothball (4) Investment & Operating Costs Total NPV Rank Investment & Operating Costs Total NPV Rank Investment & Operating Costs Total NPV Rank Investment & Operating

Costs Total NPV Rank Investment & Operating Costs Total NPV Rank

Enhancement (1) -468 -264 4 -425 -221 4 -392 -189 4 -543 -340 4 -349 -146 3=

AD Little (2) -374 -198 2 -333 -156 2 -317 -140 2 -432 -255 2= -275 -99 2 Truncation (3) -309 -210 3 -280 -181 3 -267 -168 3 -350 -251 2= -238 -139 3= Note: Mothball (4) is ranking 1 Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 return negative NPVs compared to Mothball Table 6.2.2.1: Cost and Revenue Sensitivity Costs Standard Test Rail Revenue +25% Rail Revenue +50% Scenario versus Mothball (4) Public Transport Revenue Total NPV Rank Public Transport Revenue Total NPV Rank Public Transport

Revenue Total NPV Rank

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

AD Little (2) 182 -198 2 244 -135 2 307 -73 2 Truncation (3) 103 -210 3 144 -169 3 185 -128 3= Note: Mothball (4) is ranking 1 Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 return negative NPVs compared to Mothball Table 6.2.2.2: Cost and Revenue Sensitivity Revenue Standard Test Rail Costs -30%, Bus Substitution Costs +50% plus Rail Revenue +25% Rail Costs -30%, Bus Substitution Costs +50% plus Rail Revenue +50% Scenario versus Mothball (4) Operating & Investment Costs Translink Revenue Total NPV Rank Operating & Investment Costs Translink Revenue Total NPV Rank Operating & Investment

Costs Translink Revenue Total NPV Rank

Enhancement (1) -468 203 -264 4 -349 272 -76 3 -349 342 -7 2=

AD Little (2) -374 182 -198 2 -275 244 -36 2 -275 307 +26 1 Truncation (3) -309 103 -210 3 -238 144 -98 4 -238 185 -58 4 Note: Mothball (4) is ranking 1 Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 return negative NPVs compared to Mothball (except final test) Table 6.2.2.3: Cost and Revenue Sensitivity Combined Costs & Revenues 6.2.3. Results Summary for Cost and Revenue Sensitivity Checks The principal results are summarised below: 33 Costs, Bus Substitution (+50%) - improves NPV relatively uniformly for all scenarios by about 40M; - NPV still considerably negative for all scenarios; - no change in scenario ranking 1: Mothball, 2: AD Little, 3: Truncation, 4: Enhancement. Costs, Rail Capital (-30%) - improves NPV by approximately 80M for Enhancement, 60M for AD Little and 40M for Truncation; - NPV still considerably negative for all scenarios;

- no change in scenario ranking 1: Mothball, 2: AD Little, 3: Truncation, 4: Enhancement. Costs, Rail Capital (+30%) - worsens NPV by approximately 80M for Enhancement, 60M for AD Little and 40M for Truncation; - NPV still considerably negative for all scenarios; - change in scenario ranking 1: Mothball, 2=: AD Little and Truncation, 4: Enhancement. Revenue, Rail (+25%) - improves NPV by approximately 70M for Enhancement, 60M for AD Little and 40M for Truncation; - NPV still considerably negative for all scenarios; - no change in scenario ranking 1: Mothball, 2: AD Little, 3: Truncation, 4: Enhancement. Revenue, Rail (+50%) - improves NPV by approximately 140M for Enhancement, 120M for AD Little and 80M for Truncation; - NPV still considerably negative for all scenarios; - change in scenario ranking 1: Mothball, 2: AD Little, 3=: Enhancement and Truncation. 34 Combined, Rail Revenue (+25%), Bus Substitution Costs (+ 50%), Rail Capital (30%) - improves NPV by approximately 190M for Enhancement, 160M for AD Little and 110M for Truncation; - NPV negative for all scenarios and still considerably negative for Enhancement and Truncation;

- change in scenario ranking 1: Mothball, 2: AD Little, 3: Enhancement, 4: Truncation. Combined, Rail Revenue (+50%), Bus Substitution Costs (+ 50%), Rail Capital (30%) - improves NPV by approximately 260M for Enhancement, 220M for AD Little and 150M for Truncation; - NPV now positive for AD Little, almost zero for Enhancement, still negative for Truncation; - change in scenario ranking 1: AD Little, 2=: Mothball and Enhancement, 4: Truncation. 6.2.4. Conclusions for Cost and Revenue Sensitivity Checks The following principal conclusions have been drawn from consideration of the results: The results for the standard tests show: - considerably negative NPVs for all scenarios; - NPV ranking 1: Mothball, 2: AD Little, 3: Truncation, 4: Enhancement. The increase in Bus Substitution costs has no significant bearing on the TEE results other than to reduce negativity of the NPVs; The changes in rail costs and increases in revenue have greatest improvement effects on the Enhancement scenario: - increases in Rail Capital costs result in Truncation moving to equal second with AD Little in NPV rankings; - reduction in Rail Capital costs does not result in change in NPV rankings; - 50% increase in Rail Revenue results in Enhancement passing Truncation in NPV ranking.

35 The combined effects of the cost and revenue sensitivity checks show that: - only the most optimistic combination (+50% rail revenue, +50% bus substitution costs, -30% rail capital costs) produces positive NPV; - Enhancement clearly outperforms Truncation in terms of NPV. In general, the sensitivity parameters have been chosen to investigate how the relative performance of the scenarios would change if more optimistic estimates were made concerning rail performance (or worsening of bus substitution performance). In summary: Scenario 2 (AD Little), of the three rail scenarios, returns the best ranking in overall NPV in all sensitivity checks. However, compared to the Base, Scenario 4 (Mothball), Scenario 2 (AD Little) returns a negative NPV, in all but the most optimistic combination of sensitivity checks; The performance of Scenario 1 (Enhancement) is affected significantly by improvements to rail parameters, eg. an increase in rail revenue of 50% will lead to Scenario 1 (Enhancement) having a similar NPV to Scenario 3 (Truncation) although NPV will still be negative. 36 6.3. Modal Split Sensitivity Checks 6.3.1. Introduction Environmental and economic performance is determined principally by the modal split, in particular the switching of travellers from rail to car as lines are mothballed in Scenario 4 (Mothball) and Scenario 3 (Truncation). The greatest congestion occurs in Scenario 4 (Mothball). As rail services are progressively introduced in Scenarios 3, 2 and 1, benefits increase as travellers switch from car to rail relieving congestion and provide net

benefits for car and bus travellers and savings in costs of operation (in addition to travel time benefits for rail users). A sensitivity test was devised to test the economic and environmental performance as follows: standard tests for Scenarios 4 and 3 were modified by assuming the following proportions switching from rail: - 55% to car; - 25% to bus; - 20% travel suppressed. standard tests for Scenarios 1 and 2 were modified by adding a further 50% to rail patronage and assuming the following proportions switching to rail: - 55% from car; - 25% from bus; - 20% travel generated. The proportions switching from rail were selected to take account of the following: the proportion to car exceeded the largest value obtained from research (44% of respondents on the Barnstaple line) and for a single line from the Oscar Faber forecasts; the proportion to bus was comparable with the lowest values obtained from research (21% on Barnstaple); the proportion suppressing travel was fixed and the proportions must, of course, sum to 100%. The proportions switching to rail were selected to take account of the following: 37

 the proportion from car exceeded the largest value obtained from research (approximately 40% on the Robin Hood line) and for a single line from the Oscar Faber forecasts; the proportion to bus was comparable with the lowest values obtained from research (27% on Robin Hood); the proportion suppressing travel was fixed and the proportions must, of course, sum to 100%. It was considered that this represented an extreme test that would be unlikely to occur in practice as less than one quarter of current rail users have access to cars. However, it was considered that the test was useful in setting the bounds of the possible effects. It should be noted that this sensitivity test is structurally different from the earlier revenue sensitivity checks (+25% and +50% rail) which assumed additional induced patronage on improved rail services. By contrast, the modal split sensitivity test will capture effects of travellers switching from car to rail and hence provide further potential for additional benefits. 6.3.2. Results for Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Economic Impact Table 6.3.2.1 presents summary results of the sensitivity check, alongside the results of the standard test. In addition to the NPV figure, the Travel Benefits and Translink Revenues have been provided in order to help explain the changes.

Standard Test Sensitivity Transfer to/from Car Scenario Travel Time

Benefits Translink Revenue NPV Travel Time Benefits Translink Revenue NPV 1 Enhancement 32 203 -264 91 390 -48 2 AD Little 23 182 -198 80 353 +2 3 Truncation 15 103 -210 43 219 -89 Table 6.3.2.1: Economic Results (30 year Discounted M 2000 prices and values) Inspection of the results provides the following principal findings arising from the sensitivity change in modal split: improvement in NPV by approximately 200M for Scenarios 1 and 2 and by 120M for Scenario 3; increase in Travel Time Benefits by approximately 60M for Scenarios 1 and 2 (due to increased congestion applied on Scenario 4 (Mothball) and 38 increased congestion relief in Scenarios 1 and 2), focussed on bus and car travellers; lesser increase of approximately 30M in Travel Time Benefits for Scenario 3 due to lesser highway congestion relief; increases in Translink Revenue arising from loss of revenue in the Base Scenario (due to switching to car rather than to bus) and rising through Scenarios 3, 2 and 1 with increasing numbers transferring from car (rather than bus);

 Scenarios 3 (Truncation) and 1 (Enhancement) still return substantially negative NPVs, however Scenario 2 (AD Little) now returns a slightly positive NPV; NPV ranking changes to move AD Little to first position in place of Mothball, now second, with Enhancement moving to equal third with Truncation. 6.3.3. Conclusions for Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Economic Impact It can be concluded therefore that the sensitivity change in modal split: will substantially improve NPV in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 by increasing car and bus Travel Time Benefits (due to increased congestion applied on Scenario 4 (Mothball) and additional congestion relief in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3); will improve Translink Revenue and therefore the financial sustainability of the scenarios; moves Scenario 2 AD Little to the first ranking scenario, with a now slightly positive NPV. 6.3.4. Introduction to Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Environmental Impact It is not possible to estimate environmental impacts (ie. noise levels and air quality) directly. Rather, changes in traffic levels which exceed standard threshold values have been used to assess whether the potential exists for significant environmental impacts. Assessment of the modal split sensitivity check is hence undertaken by comparing link-by-link forecasts of traffic flows for the modified Scenario 4 (Mothball) as follows: with Scenario 2 (AD Little), representing a reasonable approximation to continuation of current rail services this identifies the impact of Mothballing lines; with Scenario 1 (Enhancement) this identifies the maximum impact of

rail improvements (over Mothballing). The assessment is undertaken in two stages: 39 firstly, identify impact links where traffic flows change by values exceeding the noise (+/- 20%) and air quality (+/- 10%) thresholds; secondly, compare the number and location of these impact links with those identified using the standard Scenario 4 (Mothball) assessment. It is this comparison with the standard Scenario 4 (Mothball) assessment which is reported below in the results. Finally, a further assessment is undertaken with the modified Scenario 4 (Mothball) alone, using the link-by-link Volume/Capacity estimates to identify congestion hotspots. It should be noted that the NISTRM model does not include all links in the Northern Ireland highway network, though it does include all strategic links. In particular it provides a relatively coarse representation of the network in Greater Belfast. Therefore, whilst individual links are identified below, these links should be considered as indicative only ie. representative of the general scale and location of the impacts. 6.3.5. Results for Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Environmental Impact The principal results drawn from each of the assessments are summarised separately below. In each case comparisons are drawn with the standard tests. 2010 Modified Mothball versus Scenario 2 (AD Little) impacts more widespread and more intense than Standard Test; several new incidences of the noise threshold (+20%) being exceeded on parts of key rural routes (in rail corridors) including: A2 Coleraine Portrush/Portstewart; B90 Greenisland; and B90 Whitehead;

 a number of new incidences of the air quality threshold (+10%) being exceeded on: - parts of key rural routes (in rail corridors) including: A26 Coleraine Ballymoney; M1 MoiraSprucefield; A2 HolywoodTillysburn; A2 Whitehead-Carrickfergus; A30 (and B101) GlenavyLisburn; and M2 AntrimTemplepatrick; - key routes in Greater Belfast, including: Castlereagh Road; Boucher Road; Antrim Road; and Newtownards Road; 2010 Modified Mothball versus Scenario 1 (Enhancement) very similar to AD Little comparison described above, with some slight changes on key routes in Greater Belfast, but changes are reversed (ie. decreases); therefore impacts more widespread and intense than Standard Test. 40 2010 Mothball Volume/Capacity distribution of congestion hotspots similar in coverage to Standard Test; more intense effects than Standard Test in Greater Belfast Area; additional links exceeding capacity and hence resulting in heavy congestion including: - A2 Holywood; - A6/A57 Templepatrick; - A26 AntrimBelfast International Airport; - several key radial links in Greater Belfast including: Lisburn Road; Antrim Road; Shore Road; M2 Fortwilliam; and Crumlin Road. additional key links in Greater Belfast approaching capacity and hence resulting in congestion including: Ravenhill Road; M5 Cross Harbour;

A55 Outer Ring and West Circular Road. 6.3.6. Conclusions for Modal Split Sensitivity Checks: Environmental Impact It must be borne in mind that the sensitivity test, as specified, is by nature extreme it has been assumed that more than one half of rail users would divert to car in the Modified Mothball scenario and that more than one half of new rail users will divert from car in the Modified AD Little and Enhancement scenarios. The use of the Modified Mothball scenario as the Base scenario provides the potential for large impacts in the appraisal of the other 3 scenarios. The assessment therefore provides an upper estimate for the environmental impacts. The following conclusions may be drawn under the sensitivity assumptions: Modified Scenario 4 (Mothball) (as opposed to continuation of current trends) will lead to significant worsening of environmental conditions as signalled by noise (+20%) and air quality (+10%) thresholds being exceeded. These will be limited to localised links in rail corridors in rural areas, and to isolated links on key routes in Greater Belfast; Modified Scenario 4 (Mothball) will also lead to a small number of additional traffic congestion hotspots; however, these will be focussed on key radial routes in Greater Belfast; existing congestion hotspots will further deteriorate; Scenario 2 (AD Little), as compared to Scenario 4 (Mothball) will lead to significant improvements in environmental conditions. These will be limited to localised links in rail corridors in rural areas and to isolated links on key routes in Greater Belfast. 41 Scenario 1 (Enhancement) results in slight improvements in environmental conditions over and above those resulting from Scenario 2

(AD Little) these are limited to key routes in the Greater Belfast area. 42 7.0 APPRAISAL RESULTS The results of the appraisal of the impacts of the illustrative scenarios have been presented in four separate chapters in this report: Chapter 3 with Appendices A-S: detailed appraisal against five main criteria which are in turn broken down into 21 sub-objectives: Chapter 4: Appraisal Summary Tables, which present a summary of the implications of each scenario against the five main criteria by way of the impacts on the 21 sub-objectives; Chapter 5 with Appendices T-V: supporting analyses of three additional groups of issues which are very relevant to the decision making process; Chapter 6: the sensitivity of the results to key parameters. These four chapters should be considered together, and as such they present a package of information designed to assist in the identification of decisions which need to be taken on the future of the railway network in Northern Ireland, and to provide a rational basis that will inform the decision making process. Appendix A: Environment - Noise Environment Noise A1 ENVIRONMENT OBJECTIVE A. Noise Sub-Objective Data Sources Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000 Translink records of previous noise complaints Belfast City Council Environmental Health Department

Belfast City Council, Investigation of Noise Complaints Procedure 1999 Adtrans data Methodology and its Application The GOMMMS approach is based on a determination of the difference in the estimated population who are annoyed by noise, from both road and rail sources, between the dominimum and do-something scenarios (GOMMMS 4.3.4). Furthermore the guidance states that relatively large changes in traffic flows are required to bring about perceivable changes in noise levels (i.e. 3dB) (GOMMMS 4.3.5). It advises that: A perceivable noise level increase may result where there is a doubling in railway movements. Where traffic flow increases of >25% or decreases of <20% are encountered, judgement needs to be exercised as to whether the impact of the scenario(s) on noise should be ignored, unless particular sensitivities are involved. There may be particular sensitivities to increased night-time noise levels The World Health Organisation suggest an onset of community noise impact at

None of the scenarios in this appraisal involved road traffic flow changes of >25% or <20%. In fact, there were only a small number of instances (5) where traffic flow changes exceeded 10%. In addition, Translink and Belfast City Council complaints records indicated that there were no outstanding noise complaints. It was therefore deemed reasonable to assume that there were no particularly sensitive receptors on any of the extant lines under current operating conditions. Given the location of properties relevant to the railtrack, Translink staff considered that there would be no anticipated noise sensitive properties on the Antrim Bleach Green line. Furthermore, none of the scenarios included night-time operations. Using Scenario 4 as the baseline results in a number of lines being opened under the other scenarios. Hypothetically this results in a more than doubling in use and, under the guidance in GOMMMS 4.3.5, may result in perceivable noise level increases.

However, as against the existing situation, (1) given that none of the scenarios double current rail journey numbers on any of the lines, except for the Antrim Bleach Green line; (2) currently Translink are not aware of any on-going noise complaint situations and therefore there are unlikely to be any annoyed populations; and (3) given the location of properties relevant to the railtrack, Translink staff considered that there would be no anticipated noise sensitive properties on the Antrim Bleach Green line; Environment Noise A2 (4) the fact that relatively few journeys would be involved and that trains would pass all of the receptors very quickly; and (5) the combination of new quieter trains and continuously welded track being extended throughout the network would result in noise level decreases of approximately 2dB at the source (this is a significant reduction as a reduction of 3dB equates to a halving of the sound level); it was decided that the application of a quantitative approach involving the generation of noise levels, contour maps and estimation of affected populations was not warranted. It was judged that a note under the relevant scenarios would record the lower noise levels in rail corridors for Scenarios 1-3 when compare to the existing situation. Scenarios Assessment Qualitative Summary None of the scenarios give rise to road traffic changes of >25% / <-20%, therefore noise levels from this source are unlikely to be perceivably altered. In terms of rail, Scenario 4 results in rail services being removed from mothballed lines and hence there would be a slight improvement in noise climate relative to the existing situation. However, for the overall road/rail network a neutral assessment was thought appropriate.

Relative to Scenario 4, Scenarios 3 to 1 result in increasing line openings and additional train services. This will introduce rail noise and have an adverse effect on the rail corridors. However, in the current situation populations on these lines are already subject to noise levels and indeed, noise levels will be reduced due to the quieter operation of the new trains on the continuously welded track under Scenarios 3-1. Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation This was the baseline for the purposes of this study. However, relative to the existing situation: Scenario 4 results in an improved noise climate on the mothballed lines (Bangor, Larne, Antrim, Londonderry/Derry), however, as detailed above this is regarded as slight. Taking Scenario 4 as the baseline means that the other scenarios result in the introduction of rail noise, against a backdrop where none is assumed to exist. No significant increase in road traffic would occur under Scenario 4 compared to the existing situation in 2010 resulting in no significant changes in noise climate on the roads. Qualitative Impacts: No significant change in road traffic noise levels. Very slight improvement in noise climate on mothballed lines. Assessment Score: Neutral Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 No significant reduction in road traffic flow occurs resulting in no significant alteration in noise climate. The provision of the Belfast to Bangor, Belfast to Whitehead, Antrim Bleach Green and Antrim to Ballymena lines will result in rail noise being introduced where under Scenario 4 there had been none. However, for the reasons detailed above this is not thought to be significant. Environment Noise A3

Qualitative Impacts: No significant reduction in road traffic noise levels. Introduction of rail noise to the Belfast to Bangor, Belfast to Whitehead, Antrim Bleach Green and Antrim to Ballymena lines. Note: Compared to the existing situation, this scenario will have slightly lower noise levels on rail corridors. Assessment Score: Neutral Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 No significant reduction in traffic flow occurs resulting in no significant alteration in noise climate. The provision of the Bangor, Larne, Antrim Bleach Green and Londonderry/Derry lines will result in rail noise being introduced where under Scenario 4 there had been none. However, for the reasons detailed above this is not thought to be significant. Qualitative Impacts: No significant reduction in road traffic noise levels. Introduction of rail noise to the Bangor, Larne, Antrim and Londonderry/Derry lines. Assessment Score: Neutral Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 No significant reduction in road traffic flow occurs resulting in no significant alteration in noise climate. The provision of the Bangor, Larne, Antrim and Londonderry/Derry lines will result in rail noise being introduced where under Scenario 4 there had been none. However, for the reasons detailed above this is not thought to be significant. Qualitative Impacts: No significant reduction in road traffic noise levels. Introduction of rail noise to the Bangor, Larne, Antrim and Londonderry/Derry lines.

Note: Compared to the existing situation, this scenario will have slightly lower noise levels on rail corridors. Assessment Score: Neutral

Appendix B: Environment - Local Air Quality Environment Local Air Quality B1 ENVIRONMENT OBJECTIVE B. Local Air Quality Sub-Objective Data Sources Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000 Assessment of the Impact of Changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal Demand and Market Shares, Oscar Faber, August 2000 Calculation of Projected Roadside NO2 Concentrations in Northern Ireland, Katie King and John Steadman draft 2/5/00 First Stage Review and Assessment of Local Air Quality, Belfast City Council First Stage Review and Assessment of Local Air Quality, Castlereagh Borough Council Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, January 2000 Arthur D Little Report Methodology and its Application In relation to local air quality GOMMMS focuses on two particular pollutants: nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 microns (PM10) (GOMMMS 4.4.3). It is recognised that nationally, road traffic contributes significantly to both of these (although the percentage contribution from this source in Northern Ireland will be much less due to the correspondingly higher contribution from domestic solid fuel heating systems). GOMMMS states that relatively sizable changes in traffic

are required to bring about significant changes in air quality and suggests that scenarios which change road traffic flows by less than 10% can usually be scoped out, unless there are particular sensitivities (e.g. traffic queuing) (GOMMMS 4.4.3). Where traffic flows change by more than 10%, the GOMMMS approach involves a quantitative assessment of the change in the number of properties exposed under each of the scenarios relative to the base scenario. GOMMMS promotes the use of rigorous, detailed mapping techniques to estimate the impact of changes in air quality on residential populations. However, this approach was not adopted because: - few links/routes exceeding the thresholds were identified in any of the scenarios; - the coarseness of the model network would have led to spurious accuracy in the identification of road lengths affected by significant changes; - lack of local measurements mean all estimates would be theoretically based only and may not relate closely to actual conditions; - paucity of information on hotspots (where any changes in air quality may be of greater impact) would have led to disproportionate effort being applied at this stage. In conclusion, therefore, the analyses have identified road links/routes where the air quality thresholds of +/- 10% traffic volumes have been exceeded. This has allowed a comparison of scenarios on a common basis. However, no further detailed analyses have been undertaken. Although, in general, the results do not indicate sizeable changes in traffic flow across the scenarios, it was noted that where rail is improved, traffic reduction occurs and Environment Local Air Quality B2 congestion is decreased. This has beneficial effects on local air quality in the vicinity of locations experiencing the traffic reductions. It is acknowledged that these variations will be slight in the overall context, however, they may still be of local significance

where particular pollution hotspots occur. In England, Wales and Scotland local authorities are engaging in reviews and assessments of the air quality in their areas. In many instances this is resulting in the identification of a considerable number of pollution hotspots. Unfortunately, as Northern Ireland (N.I.) is behind the rest of the United Kingdom with its legislation, there is no requirement for District Councils here to undertake similar exercises. Voluntary preliminary screening undertaken by Belfast City Council and Castlereagh Borough Council has indicated widespread potential for pollution hotspots on roads within their council boundaries. A further, preliminary, but more robust study commissioned by Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) and conducted by King and Steadman, preliminary draft May 2000 (further refinement ongoing), indicated that on the basis of traffic count data available for N.I., it was likely that 2 road links on the A12 (West Link) will exceed the Air Quality Strategy (AQS) objective for nitrogen dioxide. In addition a number of other links (including A55 Outer Ring Road, M1, central Belfast, A501 Falls Road / Glen Road) are forecast to record levels very close to the AQS objective. It is likely that the actual number of hotspots will be much lower than that indicated by the preliminary studies undertaken by the two Councils. However it is not until all Councils have undertaken the full review and assessment procedure that information on the number and location of hotspots will be available. Where pollution hotspots do occur, District Councils in association with Roads Service, Planning Service etc will have to develop management plans to ensure compliance with the AQS. It is also acknowledged that increases in car use will be offset by advancements in engine technology and fuel composition within the next 10 years, which will result in reduced emission levels per vehicle. In order to identify locations where traffic congestion and hence pollution hotspots may occur in year 2010, traffic flow/capacity ratios were plotted. It was acknowledged, however, that without detailed data on topography effects, residential settlement

patterns and background pollution levels, pollution impacts could not be estimated and, therefore, air quality hotspots confirmed. The analysis of traffic congestion confirmed congestion hotspots will be confined to the following generic list of locations: - Belfast City Centre - Belfast Radial Commuting Routes - Approaches to principal towns in Northern Ireland. Scenarios Assessment Qualitative Summary None of the scenarios produced substantial number of incidences of the 10% traffic threshold being exceeded. As the Mothball scenario was used as the Base for comparisons, all the other scenarios provided beneficial impacts in local air quality. In general the Mothball scenario results in localised adverse impacts on only 3 routes (in the wider Belfast area), these in turn are counter-acted by beneficial impacts in Environment Local Air Quality B3 the other scenarios. The Enhancement scenario also provided beneficial impacts in air quality in central Belfast, see Table B 1 below. Road Location Scenario 1 Enhancement Scenario 2 AD Little Scenario 3 Truncation Scenario 4 Mothball against 2010 Trend A30 GlenavyLisburn B B B A

B90 Upper Greenisland Road B B B A A2 Whitehead B Belfast: Castle Street B Belfast: Lisburn Road B B531 ONeill Road / Station Road, Carnmoney / Whiteabbey B A Key: A = Adverse; B = Beneficial Table B 1: Links where Traffic Flow Changes exceed 10% It should be noted, however, that it is likely that air quality hotspots currently exist or will develop up to 2010 in Belfast City Centre, Belfast Radial Community Routes or Approaches to principal towns in Northern Ireland. At these hotspots, the Mothball scenario will produce adverse impacts as compared to continuation of current trends, whilst the other scenarios will produce beneficial impacts compared to the Mothball scenario. Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation Relative to the existing situation, the scenario includes widespread traffic growth averaging 20% approximately. However, this level of growth is due primarily to growth in car ownership that is common to all scenarios under test. The impacts of the Mothball scenario as compared to continuation of current trends are limited to incidences of the +10% air quality threshold being exceeded at the following three locations, giving adverse impacts: - A30 Glenavy-Lisburn - B90 Upper Greenisland Road - B531 ONeill Road / Station Road, Carnmoney / Whiteabbey Qualitative Impacts: No significant worsening in local air quality on road network generally, but adverse impact at 3

locations and some air quality hotspots. Assessment Score: Slight Adverse Effect. Environment Local Air Quality B4 Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Truncation scenario compared to Mothball Base scenario provides small reductions in traffic levels overall, but exceeds the 10% air quality threshold at the following locations, remedying impacts arising from Mothball: - A30 Glenavy-Lisburn - B90 Upper Greenisland Road Qualitative Impacts: No significant improvement in local air quality on road network generally, but beneficial impact at 2 locations and some air quality hotspots. Assessment Score: Neutral. Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 A D Little scenario compared to Mothball Base scenario provides small reductions in traffic levels overall, but exceeds the 10% air quality threshold at the following locations, remedying impacts arising from Mothball: - A30 Glenavy-Lisburn - B90 Upper Greenisland Road - B531 ONeill Road / Station Road, Carnmoney / Whiteabbey Qualitative Impacts: No significant improvement in local air quality on road network generally, but beneficial impact at 3 locations and some air quality hotspots. Assessment Score: Neutral. Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Enhancement scenario compared to Mothball Base scenario provides small reductions in traffic levels overall, but exceeds the 10% air quality threshold at

the following locations, remedying impacts arising from Mothball and providing further improvement in Belfast City Centre. - A30 Glenavy-Lisburn - B90 Upper Greenisland Road - A2 Whitehead - Belfast: Castle Street - Belfast: Lisburn Road Qualitative Impacts: No significant improvement in local air quality on road network generally, but beneficial impact at 5 locations including Belfast City Centre and some air quality hotspots. Assessment Score: Slight Beneficial Effect. Appendix C: Environment - Greenhouse Gases Environment Greenhouse Gases C1 ENVIRONMENT OBJECTIVE C. Greenhouse Gases Sub-Objective Data Sources Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000 Assessment of the Impact of Changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal Demand and Market Shares, Oscar Faber, August 2000 Annual Traffic Census, Roads Service, 1996 Methodology and its Application CO2 is considered the most important greenhouse gas and is therefore used as a key indicator for assessing impacts. Estimates of CO2 for road traffic have been calculated directly from outputs from the model using an annualisation factor (7.41 x 365 (=2705)) derived from the Annual Traffic Census. Estimates of CO2 from train

services were calculated using the Regional Trains figure of 467 g/km presented in GOMMMS (Volume 2, Chapter 4, Table 4.4). The result of the calculations showed that compared to the absolute level and relative change in road emissions, rail emissions are very small, approximately 2000 tonnes per annum for Scenarios 1,2, and 3. Under the Kyoto agreement, the UK has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% from 1990 levels by 2010. In addition, the UK has set a goal of reducing CO2 by 20% below 1990 levels. Whilst, it is noted that Northern Ireland is not a primary contributor to UK totals of greenhouse gases, Northern Ireland will seek to achieve the UK targets. Key Results Scenario Annual Tonnes CO2 % Change 1996 Existing 1.812 million 2010 Scenario 4 (Mothball) 2.027 million + 11.9% (from Existing) 2010 Scenario 3 (Truncation) 2.014 million -0.6% (from Scenario 4) 2010 Scenario 2 (AD Little) 2.008 million -0.9% (from Scenario 4) 2010 Scenario 1 (Enhancement) 2.004 million -1.1% (from Scenario 4) Table C 1: CO2 Emission Levels using Oscar Faber Model Scenarios Assessment Qualitative Summary CO2 emissions from train are very small but have been included in the assessment. Scenario 4 produces a 11.9% increase in CO2 over Existing (1996) values this Environment Greenhouse Gases C2 substantial increase runs contrary to the Kyoto requirement to reduce CO2 levels and is due primarily to background growth in car ownership and use. Compared to continuation of current trends, Scenario 4 will produce approximately 1% additional CO2.

Compared to the base Mothball scenario, each of the other scenarios (which add rail services and reduce car flows) reduce CO2 by approximately 1%. Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation Qualitative Impacts: Compared to the existing situation, Scenario 4 produces a 11.9% increase in CO2. This increase can be attributed primarily to background growth in car ownership and use. Compared to continuation of current trend, Scenario 4 will produce approximately 1% additional CO2. Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Significant reduction due to reduced car use. Quantitative Measure: 2.014 million tonnes of CO2 annually 0.6% reduction in CO2 levels annually. Assessment Score: -0.013 million tonnes of CO2 in 2010 Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Significant reduction due to reduced car use. Quantitative Measure: 2.008 million tonnes of CO2 annually 0.9% reduction in CO2 levels annually. Assessment Score: -0.019 million tonnes of CO2 in 2010 Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Significant reduction due to reduced car use. Quantitative Measure: 2.004 million tonnes of CO2 annually 1.1% reduction in CO2 levels annually. Assessment Score: -0.023 million tonnes of CO2 in 2010 Appendix D: Environment - Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources D1

ENVIRONMENT OBJECTIVE D. Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources Sub-Objectives Data Sources Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000 Monuments and Buildings databases, Environment and Heritage Service Structures Database, Translink Landscape Character Assessments, Environment and Heritage Service Methodology and its Application While GOMMMS deals with landscape, townscape and (man-made/built) heritage as separate entities, it acknowledges that considerable overlap exists between landscape and townscape and between townscape and heritage to the extent that it specifically warns against double counting (GOMMMS 4.8.4). This separation of issues reflects the division of responsibilities in England between the Countryside Agency, English Nature and English Heritage. However, a more integrated approach to these related subjects is adopted in Northern Ireland. Here, the main responsibility for identification and statutory protection, of natural and man-made/built heritage, resides with a single agency, Environment and Heritage Service (EHS). This work is complemented and reinforced by the development control policies and practices of Planning Service, a relationship which is strengthened by the two services operating within a single government department (DOE). This means that heritage (whether natural or man-made /built) is considered in its landscape (countryside) or townscape (settlement) context, with the balance of these resources determining the character of our living environment. This is particularly important where the heritage resource is the entire railway network, but the values are based on analysis of its different facets. It was therefore proposed that these three sub-objectives be appraised together. Mr Bruce Davison, Environmental Resources Management, principal author of the Environmental assessment chapters in GOMMMS, agreed with this approach.

GOMMMS utilises an environmental capital approach whereby a description and valuation of the existing situation is documented on the appropriate worksheet on a feature by feature basis, and the effects of each of the scenarios are then registered against this baseline. Given that the various scenarios affect a total of 60 train stations and 21 listed railway structures, it was not deemed feasible to employ this detailed approach in this study. Instead, two matrices were drawn up (see Appendices D I and D II). One identified all of the stations and scored those deemed to have heritage and townscape significance. None of the stations were considered to have a significant landscape value. The second scored those railway features, listed for their special architectural or historical interest under the Planning (NI) Order 1991, for landscape, townscape and heritage value. Those included under each of the scenarios were also indicated on the matrices. The team considered this approach to provide a reasonable quantifiable measure for each of the scenarios. It could be argued that additional information might be adduced to indicate that some stations/features were more significant than others, but a more detailed qualitative analysis of the extensive area covered by the present network was Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources D2 not possible in the timeframe available. The GOMMMS guidance for the scoring of landscape, townscape and heritage of historical resources was followed. Stations were ascribed townscape value where they had significant architectural style, key features or prominence within the physical characteristics of the town. Their value as a cultural focus and a place which stimulated human interaction, sustaining an associated built environment, was also taken into account. The contribution of the railway to the community sense of place the feeling of both ownership and belonging, experienced by a people bound by cultural heritage and to a common territory - was also taken into consideration in attributing worth under this criterion as recommended by GOMMMS 4.8.1.

Those features, such as bridges and viaducts, which are not within the boundaries of towns were attributed with landscape value where they were deemed to add to the distinctive physical character of the area. The effect which mothballing the railtracks would have on the physical character and sense of place, from a landscape perspective, was also included under this criterion.

Heritage value of stations and other railway features was based on two criteria: (i) Whether they were listed for statutory protection as buildings of special architectural or historical interest, under the Planning (NI) Order 1991. (ii) Whether they were regarded as being of general historic significance locally or regionally. The additional historical significance which could be attached to particular rail routes, because of their role in the economic and social development of communities and places, was recognised eg: BelfastBangor : the sea-side line Larne : importance for maritime trade BelfastLisburnNewry : linen industry North West : influenced the development of the present settlement pattern, by reinforcing the economies of places with rail links to agricultural markets These effects are so diverse in character that they cannot easily be compared for any scoring purpose. Therefore, it was agreed that they should be considered as part of the overall heritage value of the railway. On the basis of the results obtained under landscape, townscape and heritage the scenarios were scored against the seven-point scale, making reference to the descriptors contained in GOMMMS Tables 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8. It was considered that mothballing of the rail lines would only result in them becoming

slightly wilder/ more overgrown. From a landscape perspective this was considered to be neither beneficial nor adverse. Those listed structures that were in the countryside were deemed to be of landscape significance, contributing to the characteristic appearance of the landscape. While mothballing would not materially affect their contribution to the landscape character, concern was expressed regarding their longterm survival. Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources D3 Mothballing those stations deemed to be of townscape significance would ensure retention of their visual impact, as long as there was on-going maintenance. However, it was deemed that their value as a focus for human activity, contributing to the social and economic patterns sustaining the local built environment, was of significance from a townscape perspective. Mothballing of stations was therefore deemed to have a negative effect. Listed railway structures that were within towns/villages were considered to contribute to the townscape, but mothballing of these would have no effect, so long as their long-term survival was ensured. The physical / visible presence of stations and other railway structures, as items of heritage value, would be maintained by mothballing. However, the continuing use of the historic railway system, that is buildings and rail routes, was considered to be of very high significance. Historic buildings that cease to be occupied are vulnerable to dereliction and vandalism. Conservation policy and practice emphasises the need to keep buildings in use, that is, in their original use as far as this is possible and otherwise by finding an appropriate other use. While the destruction of the stations and other railway structures would obviously represent the greatest possible loss, it must be recognised that there is a heritage loss when properties go out of use. Unused, they become ornaments or curiosities whose value may be challenged, rather than viable facilities, valued for their functional as well as their historical value. Based on experience, the potential for vandalism of mothballed stations/structures was identified as an issue of real concern in the context of both townscape and heritage value.

Whilst it was recognised that there was opportunity to use mothballed stations for other purposes (eg. community centres, bars / restaurants, retail outlets etc.), this could not be considered in detail within the assessment. However, it was concluded that it would not alter the overall conclusions. Key Results Details regarding the townscape and heritage value of the stations is given in Appendix D - I. Details of the landscape, townscape and heritage value of the railway structures is given in Appendix D - II. A summary table of all evaluations is given in Appendix D - III. Scenarios Assessment Qualitative Summary Landscape is relatively unaffected across the scenarios. However, Scenario 4 retains very little of the townscape and heritage value associated with the stations on the current rail network. The other scenarios witness substantial improvements, with Scenario 3 retaining over two-thirds of the stations with townscape and heritage value and almost three-quarters of the listed stations in current use. Scenarios 2 and 1 show further, though much less marked, improvement as more stations are used. The impact on the value of the structures, i.e. bridges/viaducts etc, will be similar, though to a lesser extent. However, vandalism and the long-term preservation of both stations and structures were regarded as an issue of great concern, particularly for listed buildings. Under Scenario 1, there is some potential for a slight benefit in land pattern if the new station at D5 and the Park and Ride developments are sensitively planned and landscaped. Under Scenarios 3, 2 and 1, the new stations at Mossley West and Templepatrick may benefit townscape values through regeneration of the existing fabric and community culture. It was considered that the scale of changes in Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources D4 traffic flows across the scenarios would be unlikely to put pressure on localised

townscape structures through vibration, pollution staining of buildings etc. Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation Retains 3 stations out of existing 58 Landscape - Mothballs 50% of listed railway structures deemed to be characteristic of the landscape, however these would not be devalued so long as their long term preservation was ensured. Mothballed tracks will develop wilder vegetation; this will be neither adverse nor beneficial, simply providing different landcover. Townscape - Mothballs all 26 stations with townscape value. Closure will have adverse impact on human interaction and thus built cultural features as many of the stations form the focus of the town e.g. Scarva, Lambeg, Finaghy, Dunmurry. Heritage - Mothballs all 7 listed railway stations and 1 under consideration for Conservation Area status. Retains only 7% of stations likely to be of significant historic interest. Mothballing results in dead buildings contrary to good conservation practice. Also loss of social history, with loss of live historic rail travel routes currently in use e.g. North Down, Larne, Belfast/Lisburn/Newry . - Mothballs 48 % of listed railway structures Overall - Scenario 4 compared to existing On the basis of the descriptors set out in Tables 4.7 and 4.8 of GOMMMS it was judged that Scenario 4 would represent a Slight Adverse Effect in respect of Heritage, and Townscape values. Qualitative Impacts: Mothballing would have an adverse impact on human interaction and cultural features, and would result in dead buildings and the loss of most of the

live historic rail routes. Quantitative Measure: Retains: No listed stations (currently 7) 11 (57% of existing) listed structures 2 (7% of existing) stations of heritage value No stations of townscape value (currently 26) Assessment Score: Slight Adverse Effect Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Utilises an additional 40 stations (including 2 not in existing use) Landscape - No change with respect to railtracks, and retains 16 (89% of existing) listed railway structures of landscape value. Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources D5 Townscape - Utilises 18 stations of townscape value (69% of existing) such as Cultra, Moira, Dunmurry, and Scarva. Style and historic role of stations and associated buildings form cultural focus of number of the locations. Utilisation of increased number of stations equates to increased opportunities for human interaction impacting on built environment. If sympathetically designed, Templepatrick and Mossley West could benefit townscape, through regeneration of fabric and stimulating community culture/physical development. Heritage - utilises 5 (71% of existing) listed stations, 19 (70% of existing) stations likely to be of significant historical interest and 19 (90% of existing) listed railway structures. Qualitative Impacts: Utilises a significant number of stations and structures contributing to townscape and heritage value. Securing the long-term preservation of stations/structures, particularly those listed under

Planning (NI) Order 1991, is of particular importance. Quantitative Measure: Utilises: 5 (71% of existing) listed stations 19 (90% of existing) listed structures 19 (70% of existing) stations of heritage value 18 (69% of existing) stations of townscape value Assessment Score: Moderate Beneficial Effect Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Utilises an additional 54 stations (including 2 not in existing use) Landscape - no change with respect to railtrack value and utilises 18 (all existing) listed railway structures contributing to landscape. Townscape - utilises 23 (88% of existing) stations with townscape value. Utilises a large number of existing stations which form cultural and human interaction, and thus built environment as a focus within their locality e.g. Londonderry/Derry, Castlerock, and Larne town. If sympathetically designed Templepatrick and Mossley West could benefit townscape through regeneration of fabric and community culture. Heritage - utilises all 7 listed station buildings, 24 (89% of existing) stations likely to be of significant historical interest and all 21 existing listed railway structures. Qualitative Impacts: Utilises a significant number of stations and all structures contributing to townscape and heritage value. Securing the long-term preservation of stations/structures, particularly those listed under Planning (NI) Order 1991, is of particular

importance. Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources D6 Quantitative Measure: Utilises: 7 (100% of existing) listed stations 21 (100% of existing) listed structures 24 (89% of existing) stations of heritage value 23 (88% of existing) stations of townscape value Assessment Score: Moderate Beneficial Effect Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Utilises an additional 57 stations (including 3 not in existing use) Landscape - No change in value of railtracks. Utilises 18 (all existing) listed railway structures. There could be slight beneficial effects if the planning and landscape treatment of the station at D5, and Park and Ride developments were done sympathetically. These could reenforce the inherited landscape pattern. Townscape - utilises 26 (all existing) stations, significantly Crumlin, Glenavy, Ballinderry which have particular townscape value due to their visual appearance and their actual position in the town. Enhanced opportunities for cultural value and human interaction reflected in built environment, due to utilisation of stations and increased use of stations as additional train journeys on Newry, Bangor, Larne and Antrim lines. In relation to the Park and Ride sites, only the Belfast City Airport site is of significant extent but as it will be on a landfill site, there is no negative landscape or heritage value. The proposed Moira site will be a greenfield development but the other Park and ride sites are all brown field and appropriate mitigation measures are assumed (detailed plans required for fuller appraisal).

Heritage - all stations utilised so buildings and railtrack kept in designed use. Park and ride all sites apart from Belfast City Airport will require archaeological assessment. Moira site will be most sensitive, with potential for buried archaeological remains beneath greenfield. Moira station itself is in State care. Ballyhenry site is in an area of known archaeological interest. However, it was deemed that the retention of historic buildings in current (proper) use outweighs the potential destruction of buried remains. Qualitative Impacts: Utilises all stations and structures contributing to townscape and heritage value. Securing the longterm preservation of stations/structures, particularly those listed under Planning (NI) Order 1991, is of particular importance. Some potential for further slight beneficial effect if development of D5 Station and Park and Ride Facilities is sensitive. Quantitative Measure: Utilises: 7 (100% of existing) listed stations Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources D7 21 (100% of existing) listed structures 27 (100% of existing) stations of heritage value 26 (100% of existing) stations of townscape value Assessment Score: Moderate Beneficial Effect Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources D8 Appendix D - I: Heritage and Townscape Value of Train Stations Key: Under: Heritage H =heritage value; Townscape-Y=townscape value; Scenarios- ! = open L = listed building X= closed

STATIONS HERITAGE TOWNSCAPE Scenario 4 Scenario 3 Scenario 2 Scenario 1

BANGOR BANGOR H X ! ! ! BANGOR WEST X ! ! ! CARNALEA X ! ! ! CRAWFORDSBURN H Y X ! ! ! HELENS BAY L Y X ! ! ! SEAHILL X ! ! ! CULTRA H Y X ! ! ! MARINO X ! ! ! HOLYWOOD H Y X ! ! ! D5 X X X ! SYDENHAM X ! ! X BRIDGE END X ! ! ! NEWRY LINE BELFAST CENTRAL ! ! ! ! GREAT VICTORIA STREET Y X ! ! ! BOTANIC H Y X ! ! ! CITY HOSPITAL X ! ! ! ADELAIDE X ! ! ! BALMORAL Y X ! ! !

FINAGHY H X ! ! ! DUNMURRY H Y X ! ! ! DERRIAGHY H X ! ! ! LAMBEG H Y X ! ! ! HILDEN H Y X ! ! ! LISBURN L Y X ! ! ! KNOCKMORE H Y X ! ! ! MOIRA L X ! ! ! LURGAN H X ! ! ! PORTADOWN H ! ! ! ! SCARVA H Y X ! ! ! PONTZPASS H Y X ! ! ! NEWRY H ! ! ! ! LONDONDERRY /DERRY LINE LONDONDERRY/DERRY L Y X X ! ! BELLARENA H X X ! ! CASTLEROCK X X ! ! COLERAINE L Y X X ! ! PORTRUSH X X ! ! DHU VARREN X X ! ! UNIVERSITY X X ! ! BALLYMONEY H Y X X ! ! CULLYBACKEY X X ! ! BALLYMENA H Y X ! ! ! ANTRIM LINE ANTRIM H X ! ! ! CRUMLIN H Y X X X !

GLENAVY H Y X X X ! BALLINDERRY H Y X X X ! TEMPLEPATRICK X ! ! ! MOSSLEY WEST X ! ! ! LARNE LINE LARNE HARBOUR X X ! ! LARNE TOWN H Y X X ! ! GLYNN H Y X X ! ! MAGHERAMOURNE H X X ! ! BALLYCARRY X X ! ! WHITEHEAD L Y X ! ! ! DOWNSHIRE X ! ! ! CARRICKFERGUS L Y X ! ! ! CLIPPERSTOWN X ! ! ! TROOPERSLANE X ! ! ! GREENISLAND H Y X ! ! ! JORDANSTOWN X ! ! ! WHITEABBEY X ! ! ! YORKGATE X ! ! !Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources D9 Appendix D - II Heritage, Townscape and Landscape Value of Listed Railway Structures Key: Under: Heritage L = listed structure; Townscape-Y=townscape value; Landscape Y=landscape value; Scenarios- ! = open, X= closed Line Translink Structure Reference Local Name Heritage Townscape Landscape Scenario

1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Newry 01.174 Meigh, Killeen and Faughilletra L Y !!!! Newry 01.192 Egyptian Arch L Y ! ! ! ! Newry 01.193 Bessbrook/ Craigmore Viaduct L Y

!!!! Newry 01.196 Newry and Armagh Road L Y !!!! Newry 01.197 Mullaghglass L Y ! ! ! ! Newry 01.202 Henrys L Y ! ! ! ! Newry 01.203 Jerretspass L Y ! ! ! ! Newry 02.287 Milligans L Y ! ! ! ! Newry 02.288 L Y ! ! ! ! Newry 02.292 L Y ! ! ! ! Newry 02.295 Glen River L Y ! ! ! !

Bangor 02.296 L Y ! ! ! X Bangor 04.358 L Y ! ! ! X Bangor 04.363 Crawfordsburn Viaduct L Y !!!X Antrim 05.017 Bleach Green Viaduct LY !!!X Antrim 05.018 Three Mile Water L Y !!!X Antrim 05.031 Aulds Bridge L Y ! ! ! X Antrim 05.064 Six Mile water L Y ! ! ! X Antrim 05.073 County Road at Muckamore L Y !!!X Londonderry/ Derry 10.196 Castlerock Tunnel L Y !!XX Londonderry/ Derry 10.197 Downhill Tunnel L Y ! ! X X Environment Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources D10

Appendix D - III Summary Table of Landscape, Townscape and Heritage Value of Scenarios (Landscape, Townscape and Heritage rows show percentages and numbers of stations and listed structures retained in use) Scenario 4 Scenario 3 Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Landscape Neutral re track 50% structures (9/18) Neutral re track 89% structures (16/18) Neutral re track 100% structures (18/18) Neutral re track 100% structures (18/18) Ballyhenry P&R and D5 development limited/potential positive impact Townscape 0% stations (0/26) 67% structures (2/3) 69% stations

(18/26) 100% structures (3/3) 88% stations (23/26) 100% structures (3/3) 100% stations (26/26) 100% structures (3/3) P&R developmentlimited impact Heritage 0% listed stations (0/7) 7% stations of heritage value (2/27) 52% structures (11/21) 71% listed stations (5/7) 70% stations of heritage value (19/27) 90% structures (19/21)

100% listed stations (7/7) 89% stations of heritage value (24/27) 100% structures (21/21) 100% listed stations (7/7) 100% stations of heritage value (27/27) 100% structures (21/21) AST Score MODERATE BENEFICIAL EFFECT MODERATE BENEFICIAL EFFECT MODERATE BENEFICIAL EFFECT Appendix E: Environment - Biodiversity Environment Biodiversity E1 ENVIRONMENT OBJECTIVE E. Biodiversity Sub-Objective Data Sources

Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department for the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000 Assessment of the Impact of changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal Demand and Market Shares, Oscar Faber, August 2000 Natural Heritage Databases Methodology and its Application The methodology as detailed in GOMMMS was applied. This recognises both biodiversity and earth heritage value, however, as none of the scenarios were considered to affect the latter, no comments in relation to it are included. Each of the areas of recognised biodiversity value was listed in the appropriate worksheet and described by its classification (eg. Area of Special Scientific Interest/ RAMSAR site of wetlands importance/ Special Protection Area/ candidate for Special Area of Conservation/ Country Park/ Nature Park/ etc). The scale at which the attribute matters was recorded, and its importance scaled from high to low as per GOMMMS 4.10.8. The biodiversity value of each of the areas was then scored using GOMMMS Table 4.10. The magnitude of the scenario relative to the baseline was then scored using GOMMMS Table 4.11. On the basis of the comments in the preceding columns the overall assessment score was then determined using GOMMMS Table 4.14. Railway Network Those areas of biodiversity value affected by railway are listed below Bangor line goes through Crawfordsburn Country Park and skirts Belfast Lough Larne line skirts Belfast Lough and, from north of Whitehead, Larne Lough Newry line skirts Lough Shark, Brackagh Moss, and goes through the Slieve Gullion area from south of Newry Londonderry/Derry line skirts Lough Foyle In general, where the rail follows the coastline it is closer to the areas of biodiversity interest than the road.

Key Results Details of the appraisal for each of the scenarios relative to the base, and an appraisal of the base relative to the existing situation are given in the completed worksheets in Appendix E - I. Scenarios Assessment Qualitative Summary The qualitative comment sections on the worksheets indicate that as you move from Scenario 4 to Scenario 1, increased provision and use of the network results in increased disturbance to waterfowl. However, it should be noted that the birds would very quickly become habituated to the noise of the passing trains. In addition, although of much less importance, it is also indicated that as you progress from Scenario 4 to Scenario 1 increased use of the tracks will result in slight decrease in Environment Biodiversity E2 their value as wildlife corridors. Changes in road wildlife causalities were also considered, but as relatively little variation in traffic numbers over the four scenarios is predicted, this was not considered significant. Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation This was the baseline for the purposes of this study. However, relative to the existing situation: Scenario 4 creates fewer disturbances to waterfowl on the tidal flats and salt marshes of sea loughs - as a result, when the other scenarios are scored relative to this scenario they are recorded as having a Minor Adverse Effect. Had Scenarios 1 (excluding the landtake for the Park and Ride at the City Airport and station/halt at D5), 2 and 3 been scored relative to the existing situation they would have registered as Neutral. Mothballing most of the lines will result in wilder vegetation on these sections and a slight increase in their value as wildlife corridors.

Qualitative Impacts: Creates fewer disturbances to wildfowl on tidal flats and salt marshes of sea loughs. Slightly increased value of mothballed lines as wildlife corridors. Assessment Score: Neutral Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Opening of the Bangor and Larne lines will result in slight disturbance to waterfowl in Belfast Lough and Larne Lough. However, the birds will habituate very quickly. The opened railway lines will reduce slightly in value as wildlife corridors. Qualitative Impacts: Slight disturbance to waterfowl in 2 protected areas. However, the birds will habituate very quickly. Assessment Score: Minor Adverse Effect Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Opening of the Bangor, Larne and Londonderry/Derry (beyond Cullybackey) lines will result in slight disturbance to waterfowl in Belfast Lough, Larne Lough and Lough Foyle. However, the birds will habituate very quickly. The opened railway lines will reduce slightly in value as wildlife corridors. Qualitative Impacts: Slight disturbance to waterfowl in 3 protected areas. However, the birds will habituate very quickly. Assessment Score: Minor Adverse Effect Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Opening of the Bangor, Larne and Londonderry/Derry (beyond Cullybackey) lines will result in slight disturbance to waterfowl in Belfast Lough, Larne Lough and Lough Foyle. However, the birds will habituate very quickly. The opened

railway lines will reduce slightly in value as wildlife corridors. The Park and Ride sites at Moira and Ballyhenry will result in a loss in green land that will be of slight local value. A major consideration will be the location of the proposed City Airport Park and Ride and D5 station. If the Airport Park and Ride is within Belfast Nature Park this could result in a minor loss of habitat and Environment Biodiversity E3 register as a minor adverse effect on this feature. However, if the Park and Ride or D5 station were within the Belfast Lough protected area this could result in a serious loss of habitat and register as a serious adverse effect on this feature. Qualitative Impacts: Slight disturbance to waterfowl in 3 protected areas. However, the birds will habituate very quickly. Location of Belfast City Airport Park and Ride and D5 station crucial as they could result in serious loss of habitat if within Belfast Lough Special Protected Area. Assessment Score: Minor Adverse Effect Possibly Large Adverse Effect if Belfast City Airport Park and Ride or D5 station are located within Belfast Lough Special Protected Area. Environment Biodiversity E4 Appendix E - I WorksheetsEnvironment Biodiversity E5 Worksheet 4.10 Environment: Biodiversity Plan Level Key: ASSI - Area of Special Scientific Interest (Habitat) SPA - Special Protection Area (Birds) RAMSAR- Wetlands importance

c SAC - Candidate for Special Area of Conservation (Habitat) Scheme/option: Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4

Area Description of Feature/attribute Scale (at which Attribute matters) Importance (of attribute) Biodiversity and earth heritage value Magnitude of impact Assessment Score

Slieve Gullion ASSI-heath habitat National Medium Medium Neutral Neutral

Belfast Lough RAMSAR, ASSI, SPA birds and habitat International High High Minor Negative Minor Adverse

Lough Shark ASSI birds National High Medium Neutral Neutral

Larne Lough RAMSAR, ASSI, SPA

birds and habitat International High High Minor Negative Minor Adverse

Lough Foyle ASSI, SPA, c SAC birds and habitat National/Candidate International High High Neutral Neutral

Brackagh Moss Nature Reserve flora and fauna National Medium Medium Neutral Neutral

Crawfordsburn Country Park Country Park Regional Low Low Neutral Neutral

Belfast Nature Park

Nature Park Local Low Low Neutral Neutral

Reference Source(s): EHS Natural Heritage database, EHS staff knowledge Summary assessment score: Minor Adverse Effect Qualitative comments: " Bangor and Larne lines result in slight disturbance to waterfowl in 2 SPAs but birds will habituate very quickly. " Open railway lines will have slightly less value as wildlife corridors. Environment Biodiversity E6 Worksheet 4.10 Environment: Biodiversity Plan Level Key: ASSI - Area of Special Scientific Interest (Habitat) SPA - Special Protection Area (Birds) RAMSAR- Wetlands importance

c SAC - Candidate for Special Area of Conservation (Habitat) Scheme/option: Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4

Area Description of Feature/attribute Scale (at which attribute matters) Importance (of attribute) Biodiversity and earth heritage value Magnitude of impact Assessment Score

Slieve Gullion ASSI-heath habitat National Medium Medium Neutral Neutral

Belfast Lough RAMSAR, ASSI, SPA birds and habitat International High High Minor Negative Minor Adverse

Lough Shark ASSI birds National High Medium Neutral Neutral

Larne Lough RAMSAR, ASSI, SPA birds

and habitat International High High Minor Negative Minor Adverse

Lough Foyle ASSI, SPA, c SAC birds and habitat National/Candidate International High High Minor Negative Minor Adverse

Brackagh Moss Nature Reserve flora and fauna National Medium Medium Neutral Neutral

Crawfordsburn Country Park Country Park Regional Low Low Neutral Neutral

Belfast Nature Park Nature Park Local Low Low Neutral Neutral Reference Source(s): EHS Natural Heritage database, EHS staff knowledge Summary assessment score: Minor Adverse Effect Qualitative comments: " Bangor, Larne, and Londonderry/Derry lines will result in slight disturbance to waterfowl in 3 SPAs but birds will habituate very quickly. " Open railway lines will have slightly less value as wildlife corridors. Environment Biodiversity E7 Worksheet 4.10 Environment: Biodiversity Plan Level Key: ASSI - Area of Special Scientific Interest (Habitat) SPA - Special Protection Area (Birds)

RAMSAR- Wetlands importance c SAC - Candidate for Special Area of Conservation (Habitat) Scheme/option: Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4

Area Description of feature/attribute Scale (at which attribute matters) Importance (of attribute) Biodiversity and earth heritage value Magnitude of impact Assessment Score If Airport P&R or D5 on designated area

Slieve Gullion ASSI-heath habitat National Medium Medium Neutral Neutral

Belfast Lough RAMSAR, ASSI, SPA birds and habitat International High High Minor Negative Minor Adverse Possibly Serious Adverse

Lough Shark ASSI birds National High Medium Neutral Neutral Neutral

Larne Lough RAMSAR, ASSI, SPA birds and habitat International High High Minor Negative Minor Adverse

Lough Foyle ASSI, SPA, c SAC birds and habitat National/Candidate International High High Minor Negative Minor Adverse

Brackagh Moss Nature Reserve flora and fauna National Medium Medium Neutral Neutral

Crawfordsburn Country Park Country Park Regional Low Low Neutral Neutral

Belfast Nature Park Nature Park Local Medium Low Neutral Neutral Minor Adverse Reference Source(s): EHS Natural Heritage database, EHS staff knowledge Summary assessment score: Minor Adverse Effect (Minor Adverse Effect if Airport P&R on Belfast Nature Park) (Possibly Serious Effect if Airport P&R or D5 on Belfast Lough RASpecial Protected Area) Environment Biodiversity E8

Qualitative comments: " Bangor, Larne and Londonderry/Derry lines will result in slight disturbance to waterfowl in 3 SPAs but birds will habituate very quickly. " Open railway lines and increased use of, will result in less value as wildlife corridors. " Park and ride sites at Moira and Ballyhenry result in loss of green land (of slight local value). " If park and ride site at City Airport in Belfast Nature Park or Belfast Lough protected area; or if D5 station in Belfast Lough protected area could be serious adverse effect. Environment Biodiversity E9 Worksheet 4.10 Environment: Biodiversity Plan Level Scheme/option: Scenario 4

Area Description of Feature/attribute Scale (at which Attribute matters) Importance (of attribute) Biodiversity and earth heritage value Magnitude of impact Assessment Score

Slieve Gullion ASSI-heath habitat National Medium Medium Neutral Neutral

Belfast Lough RAMSAR, ASSI, SPA birds and habitat International High High Neutral Neutral

Lough Shark ASSI birds National High Medium Neutral Neutral

Larne Lough RAMSAR, ASSI, SPA birds and habitat International High High Neutral Neutral

Lough Foyle ASSI, SPA, c SAC birds and habitat National/Candidate International High High Neutral Neutral

Brackagh Moss Nature Reserve flora and fauna National Medium Medium Neutral Neutral

Crawfordsburn Country Park Country Park Regional Low Low Neutral Neutral

Belfast Nature Park Nature Park Local Low Low Neutral Neutral Reference Source(s): EHS Natural Heritage database, EHS staff knowledge

Summary assessment score: Neutral Key: ASSI - Area of Special Scientific Interest (Habitat) SPA - Special Protection Area (Birds) RAMSAR - Wetlands importance c SAC - Candidate for Special Area of Conservation (Habitat) Environment Biodiversity E10 Qualitative comments: Compared to existing:Due to closer proximity of rail lines than roads:" Will be slight reduction in disturbance to waterfowl using tidal flats and salt marshes of sea loughs but of little significance as habituate very quickly. " Reduced use of rail lines will result in wilder vegetation and slightly increased use as wildlife corridor. " Use of railbeds as permissive paths (as compared to Right of Way) would allow retention for future reuse but unless lift track and provide walking surface likely to be high number of public liability claims (against whoever encouraged/failed to discourage use). Appendix F: Environment - Water Environment Environment Water Environment F1 ENVIRONMENT OBJECTIVE F. Water Environment Sub-Objective Data Sources Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, March 2000 Water Quality Databases, Water Quality Unit, Environment and Heritage Service Comments compiled by Water Quality Unit in response to appraisal Assessment of the Impact of changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal Demand and Market Shares, Oscar Faber, August 2000

Methodology and its Application The general methodology as detailed in GOMMMS was applied. However, GOMMMS follows the environmental capital approach, naming each of the specific water environment features, indicating their value and recording the impact of each of the scenarios relative to the base. Preliminary discussions amongst the team indicated that none of the scenarios were likely to involve water environment impacts and that the methodical noting of each feature would be unnecessarily laborious. It was therefore decided to detail the various water environment types, as opposed to listing specific water features. Given the nature of this study, this variation from the stated methodology was not considered to compromise the GOMMMS approach. The three main water types: ground waters, surface water (including still waters) and coastal/estuarine were listed in worksheet 4.12 (see Appendix F II). As directed by the GOMMMS methodology, the uses of each of these were noted. A number of the more detailed columns in the worksheet (i.e. quality, scale, rarity, substitutability and importance) were omitted (i) as it would have been difficult to complete them given the composite approach adopted, and (ii) given there were deemed to be insignificant impacts they were regarded as unnecessary detail. Using the classifications in GOMMMS Table 4.17 the magnitude of each of the scenarios on the 3 water types was then recorded and the significance of the scenario on each filled in using the descriptors in GOMMMS Table 4.18. Four main sources of water pollution were considered: (1) pollution load from vehicles on the road (carbon, rubber, oil, etc.) (2) leakage (oil, coolant, fuel) and toilet discharges from trains (3) use of herbicides for controlling vegetation (4) pollution load from vehicles in Park and Ride car parks Key Results Details of the appraisal for each of the scenarios relative to the base, and an appraisal of

the base, are given in the completed worksheets. These worksheets are contained in Appendix F - I. Scenarios Assessment Qualitative Summary The very small changes in overall road traffic numbers under the 3 scenarios will not result in any significant differences in pollution loads on the roads. While it is Environment Water Environment F2 unlikely there would be any appreciable pollution from car park run-off, this could be mitigated against if interceptors/sustainable urban drainage measures were incorporated in these. The new trains in Scenarios 3, 2 and 1 will have better seals etc. reducing leakage and will contain retention tanks for toilet waste which will be discharged to sewer. The Class 450 trains, which will still be in operation under these three scenarios will continue to discharge onto the tracks. However the discharge is considered insignificant as it involves very small amounts spread over a sizeable area. In relation to the use of herbicides, there will only be a very minor decrease in their use on railbeds under mothballing conditions and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food approved substances (Bromacil, Glyphosate, Diuron, and Fettel (triclopyr + dicamba +CMPP) are used. Having appraised the three scenarios it was not considered that any of them resulted in significant positive or negative effects on the water environment. Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation This was the baseline for the purposes of this study. The worksheets indicate that there is no significant impact on any of the water feature types under Scenario 4. Had the existing situation been appraised a similar result would have been found. In Scenario 4 only the enterprise trains are running and these have minimal seal leakage and no toilet discharge to track. Currently, 28 trains (19 no. Class 80 2and 3-car sets and 9 no. Class 450 sets together representing approximately 90%

of the rolling stock) have fluid and toilet discharges to track. However the small amounts of leakage/discharge and the area of track involved were considered to render these insignificant. Qualitative Impacts: No change in impact on any water feature types. Assessment Score: Neutral Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 A negligible decrease (0.6%) in road traffic was predicted. The new trains will reduce fuel, oil and coolant leakage and prevent toilet discharge onto the tracks, but 9 no. Class 450 train sets (approximately 20% of the rail stock) will permit such discharges. This was considered to amount to in an insignificant change compared to Scenario 4. Qualitative Impacts: No significant positive or negative effects on water environment. Assessment Score: Neutral Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 A negligible decrease (0.7%) in road traffic was predicted. The new trains will reduce fuel, oil and coolant leakage and prevent toilet discharge onto the tracks, but 9 no. Class 450 train sets (approximately 20% of the rail stock) will permit such discharges. This was considered to amount to an insignificant change compared to Scenario 4. Qualitative Impacts: No significant positive or negative effects on water environment. Assessment Score: Neutral Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 A negligible decrease (0.8%) in road traffic was predicted. The new trains will reduce fuel, oil and coolant leakage and prevent toilet discharge onto the tracks, Environment Water Environment F3

but 9 no. Class 450 train sets (approximately 17% of the rail stock) will permit such discharges. These were considered to amount to in an insignificant change compared to Scenario 4. Park and Ride facilities are unlikely to add to the pollution load, especially if pollution mitigation measures such as interceptors/sustainable urban drainage are incorporated in their design. Qualitative Impacts: No significant positive or negative effects on water environment. Assessment Score: Neutral Environment Water Environment Appendix F - I Worksheets F4 Environment Water Environment Worksheet 4.12 Environment: Water Environment Plan Level Scheme Option: Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Summary of potential impacts Feature Attributes/ Services Magnitude Significance Road pollution load, discharge/leakage from trains, use of herbicides Ground Water 18% used for drinking water abstraction Negligible Insignificant Road pollution load, discharge/leakage from trains, use of herbicides Surface Water

(including still) Drinking water abstraction, recreation, fisheries Negligible Insignificant Road pollution load, discharge/leakage from trains, use of herbicides Coastal/Estuaries Recreation, fisheries Negligible Insignificant Reference Source(s): EHS Water Quality Unit (WQU) Records, WQU and Translink staff knowledge

Summary Assessment score: Neutral

Qualitative comments: " Existing trains will discharge toilets onto the track. However, no appreciable change in pollution from trains (leakage and toilet discharge onto tracks) as very small quantities and spread over large area. " New trains will reduce fuel, coolant or oil leakage and will have toilet retention tanks so no discharge onto tracks. " No appreciable change in road pollution load (carbon, rubber, oil) F5 Environment Water Environment Worksheet 4.12 Environment: Water Environment Plan Level Scheme Option: Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Summary of potential impacts Feature Attributes/ Services Magnitude Significance Road pollution load, discharge/leakage from trains, use of herbicides

Ground Water 18% used for drinking water abstraction Negligible Insignificant Road pollution load, discharge/leakage from trains, use of herbicides Surface Water (including still) Drinking water abstraction, recreation, fisheries Negligible Insignificant Road pollution load, discharge/leakage from trains, use of herbicides Coastal/Estuaries Recreation, fisheries Negligible Insignificant Reference Source(s): EHS Water Quality Unit (WQU) Records, WQU and Translink staff knowledge

Summary Assessment score: Neutral

Qualitative comments: " Existing trains will discharge toilets onto the track. However, no appreciable change in pollution from trains (leakage and toilet discharge onto tracks) as very small quantities and spread over large area. " New trains will reduce fuel, coolant or oil leakage and will have toilet retention tanks so no discharge onto tracks. " No appreciable change in road pollution load (carbon, rubber, oil) F6 Environment Water Environment Worksheet 4.12 Environment: Water Environment Plan Level

Scheme Option: Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Summary of potential impacts Feature Attributes/ Services Magnitude Significance Road and car park pollution load, discharge/leakage from trains, use of herbicides Ground Water 18% used for drinking water abstraction Negligible Insignificant Road and car park pollution load, discharge/leakage from trains, use of herbicides Surface Water (including still) Drinking water abstraction, recreation, fisheries Negligible Insignificant Road and car park pollution load, discharge/leakage from trains, use of herbicides Coastal/Estuaries Recreation fisheries Negligible Insignificant Reference Source(s): EHS Water Quality Unit (WQU) Records, WQU and Translink staff knowledge Summary Assessment score: Neutral

Qualitative comments: " Existing trains will discharge toilets onto the track. However, no appreciable change in pollution from trains

(leakage and toilet discharge onto tracks) as very small quantities and spread over large area. " New trains will reduce fuel, coolant or oil leakage and will have toilet retention tanks so no discharge onto tracks. " No appreciable change in road pollution load (carbon, rubber, oil) Park and Ride car parks should contain pollution mitigation (interceptors/sustainable urban drainage) to reduce pollution load. F7 Environment Water Environment Worksheet 4.12 Environment: Water Environment Plan Level Scheme Option: Scenario 4 Description of study area/ Summary of potential impacts Feature Attributes/ Services Magnitude Significance Road pollution load, discharge/leakage from trains, use of herbicides Ground Water 18% used for drinking water abstraction Negligible Insignificant Road pollution load, discharge/leakage from trains, use of herbicides Surface Water (including still) Drinking water abstraction, recreation

fisheries Negligible Insignificant Road pollution load, discharge/leakage from trains, use of herbicides Coastal/Estuaries Recreation, fisheries Negligible Insignificant Reference Source(s): EHS Water Quality Unit (WQU) Records, WQU and Translink staff knowledge

Summary Assessment score: Neutral

Qualitative comments: Compared to existing:" Will reduce train leakage and eliminate toilet discharge onto tracks " No appreciable change in road pollution load (carbon, rubber, oil) " Will still use herbicides in mothballed situations therefore little change in pollution from this source

F8 Appendix G: Environment - Physical Fitness Environment Physical Fitness G1 ENVIRONMENT OBJECTIVE G. Physical Fitness Sub-Objective Data Sources Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000 Assessment of the Impact of Changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal Demand and Market Share, Oscar Faber, August 2000 Methodology and its Application GOMMMS suggests that significant beneficial increases in physical fitness will arise

when travellers undertake 30 minutes or more physical activity per day. Therefore, scenarios which will encourage or result in increases in walking or cycling may result in a Beneficial assessment the scale of the benefit will depend on the number of persons walking and cycling and the length of journeys (or time duration). None of the scenarios under test provide explicitly for increases in walking or cycling for example none include cycle facilities or road traffic calming. However, it is noted that where travellers switch from car to public transport, there will likely be an increase in walking of 30 minutes per day for example 10 minutes walk from home to station and 5 minutes walk from station to place of work each morning, and the same in reverse in the evening.

The methodology identifies the number of persons switching between car and public transport. This number is used as an estimate of the number of persons who will obtain significant Physical Fitness benefits. Separate assessment will be made of persons switching to/from bus and to/from rail in order that any differences in walk times to/from rail stations and to/from bus stops can be assessed at a later stage if necessary. Key Statistics and Results Appendix G I contains results showing (i) the peak period journeys by mode for the Base Case: Scenario 4 and the existing situation and (ii) peak period modal switches from the Base Case to the other scenarios. Scenarios Assessment Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation The effect of mothballing the railways will be slight adverse. A significant proportion of rail users will divert to car or choose not to travel leading to reductions in levels of physical activity. Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Persons switching from car to rail should achieve

the recommended minimum level of activity for health benefits. Passengers switching from bus to rail should achieve slight benefit due to increased walk distances. Environment Physical Fitness G2 Quantitative Measure: In the AM peak period, approximately 2000 persons switch from car to rail and a further 3400 switch from bus to rail every day. Assessment Score: Slight Beneficial Effect Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Persons switching from car to rail should achieve the recommended minimum level of activity for health benefits. Passengers switching from bus to rail should achieve slight benefit due to increased walk distances. Quantitative Measure: In the AM peak period, approximately 2500 persons switch from car to rail and a further 3700 switch from bus to rail every day. Assessment Score: Slight Beneficial Effect Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Persons switching from car to rail should achieve the recommended minimum level of activity for health benefits. Passengers switching from bus to rail should achieve slight benefit due to increased walk distances. Quantitative Measure: In the AM peak period, approximately 2900 persons switch from car to rail and a further 4000

switch from bus to rail every day. Assessment Score: Slight Beneficial Effect Environment Physical Fitness G3 Appendix G I: Results showing Peak Period Modal Journey Numbers and Switches AM Peak Period Journeys by Mode Mode 1996 Existing 2010 Scenario 4 Base Rail 5300 0 Bus 25200 31800 Car 289400 348100 Total 319900 379900 2010 AM Peak Period Modal Switches from Scenario 4 Base Mode Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Rail +8200 +7400 +6500 Bus -4000 -3700 -3400 Car -2900 -2500 -2000 Total +1300 +1200 +1100 Environment Physical Fitness

Appendix H: Environment - Journey Ambience Environment Journey Ambience H1 ENVIRONMENT OBJECTIVE H. Journey Ambience Sub-Objective Data Sources Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000 Internal Translink Market Research Group Annual review: Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company: 1998/99

Rail Passengers: Transport Statistics 1997/98, Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland Assessment of the Impact of Changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal Demand and Market Shares, Oscar Faber, August 2000 Methodology and its Application The quality of a journey can be affected, positively or negatively, by travellers themselves, by network providers and by operators. Travellers can affect journey quality in a number of ways, the most significant influences being their choice of mode. These choices can affect ride quality, the environmental quality that they experience e.g. noise levels & warmth, interior decor, quality of seating, ventilation etc. For car drivers and passengers the quality of journey can be affected by mechanical condition and cleanliness of the vehicle and by driving style. For public transport travellers the same factors may also be applicable. Modes considered are car, new train, old train and bus, as the complete set of those considered within the models. The most effective way to improve journey quality is normally to reduce travellers journey times. However, this sub-objective does not consider journey times or other elements such as safety and reliability. The sub-objective focuses on measures under the control of network providers and operators that improve en route journey quality or journey ambience. These measures are considered under three journey ambience factors: (i) Traveller Care (ii) Travellers Views (iii) Traveller Stress A scoring system has been devised to identify passenger preferences with each mode in relation to the factors/sub factors under consideration. +ve value = good 0 = neutral

-ve value = bad Scores are then totalled for each mode and assessment made as to the numbers of travellers impacted, ie. to which mode (new/old trains, bus or car) current rail users (old train) shift. Environment Journey Ambience H2 In addition, GOMMMS defines an impact as large if more than 10,000 passengers are affected per day (3,000,000 p.a.); small if the figure is less than 500 per day and moderate if between . The relative mode weightings and scores for individual factors are contained in Appendices H - I and H - II respectively. Weightings considered with numbers impacted generate the overall quantitative assessment. Key Results The key results for the strategic modelling scenarios analyses are shown in Appendix H - III. Scenarios Assessment Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation Qualitative Impacts: Rail users transferring to car would benefit while the greater number of rail users transferring to bus would be slightly adversely affected. Overall, the net impact is neutral. Assessment Score: Neutral Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Rail passengers will experience very significant benefits. New rolling stock is the key factor and is clearly superior to bus. Quantitative Measure: circa 4.1 million rail passengers per annum on new rolling stock

Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Rail passengers will experience very significant benefits. New rolling stock is the key factor and is clearly superior to bus. Quantitative Measure: circa 5.9 million rail passengers per annum on new rolling stock Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Rail passengers will experience very significant benefits. New rolling stock is the key factor and is clearly superior to bus. Quantitative Measure: circa 7.4 million rail passengers per annum on new rolling stock Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect Environment Journey Ambience H3 Appendix H - I: Relative Mode Weighting FACTOR SUB FACTOR NEW TRAINS OLD TRAINS BUSES CARS TRAVELLER CARE Cleanliness 2 -1 0 1 Facilities 2 0 -1 1 Information 1 -1 0 1 Environment 2 -1 0 1 TRAVELLERS VIEWS 2 2 0 -1

TRAVELLER STRESS Frustration 1 0 0 -1 Fear of potential accidents 1 0 0 -1 Route Uncertainty 1 0 -1 1 TOTAL - 12 -1 -2 2 Environment Journey Ambience H4 Appendix H - II: Scores for Individual Factors FACTOR Traveller Care SUB FACTOR Cleanliness DESCRIPTION Internal and external cleanliness and graffiti, the condition of the seats; tables; appropriateness of internal lighting. MODE SCORE New Trains 2 Designed to be easily maintained. Will create a high visual impact. Will have less graffiti and enhanced standards of internal lighting. Seats will be of latest materials for a combination of ease of cleaning and appeal. Car 1 Personal ownership encourages cleanliness. The environment is personally controlled and therefore likely to be acceptable. Buses 0 Frequently have litter and graffiti due to high usage from school children. Old Trains -1 Permanently look worn and unclean. Seats are more likely to

be ripped and tables, where provided, are grubby. FACTOR Traveller Care SUB FACTOR Facilities DESCRIPTION Types of seats; handles; luggage racks and storage; toilets; buffet/restaurant facilities and level of staff customer service. MODE SCORE New Trains 2 Comfortable, lumbar supporting and attractive seating. Functional toilets which are acceptable to use and are accessible to all. Customer service levels will improve due to enhanced levels of staff morale. Luggage racks and storage facilities would be of latest industry standard. Cars 1 Seats are personally adjustable and generally of a high standard. Adequate storage space. No toilets. Radio/Cassette/CD Player normally available. Old Trains 0 Have toilets although not desirable to use for many passengers. Seating is spacious, with tables being provided on some trains. Good storage facilities. Buses -1 Relatively cramped, particularly when full or nearly full. Little adjustment, if any, for seats. No toilet provision particularly impacting very young, elderly and disabled on longer journeys. Storage is limited and considered to be inconvenient. Environment Journey Ambience H5 FACTOR Traveller Care SUB FACTOR Information DESCRIPTION Audibility; frequency and usefulness of on-board PA announcements; the provision of general travel

information and customer magazines. MODE SCORE New Trains 1 Considered that functional PA systems would be provided. Cars 1 Contact with radio travel news. Travel information for motorists has improved considerably in recent years. Buses 0 Immediate contact with driver for travel information. No contact for delays en-route. Old Trains -1 Conductor is frequently difficult to locate to obtain travel information. No provision of visual displays. PA Systems are often non-functional. FACTOR Traveller Care SUB FACTOR Environment DESCRIPTION Extent of overcrowding, ventilation, temperature, noise; overall condition and smoothness of ride. MODE SCORE New Trains 2 Improved ride quality resulting from upgraded track and modern bogies on trains. Would be able to work on train. Effective ventilation control system with moderated temperature control. Freedom to move around at own discretion. Cars 1 Control own levels of temperature and ventilation. Restricted freedom. Quality of ride dependent on quality of car and road surface condition. Buses 0 Frequently experience problems with ventilation and temperature. Noise levels from other passengers is high. Close proximity of other passenger is frequently undesirable. Restricted freedom of movement.

Old Trains -1 Quality of ride is less than desirable. Ventilation is often lacking and temperature control is difficult on occasions. Freedom to move around. Environment Journey Ambience H6 FACTOR Travellers Views SUB FACTOR N/A DESCRIPTION Views of surrounding landscape and townscape. MODE SCORE New Trains 2 The majority of the N I Railways network provides scenic views and virtually all passengers will have access to a good view due to panoramic windows. Old Trains 2 As for new trains. Buses 0 Better potential views of surrounding landscape and townscape than seen from a car. However, buses frequently suffer from high levels of condensation which prohibit viewing opportunities. Also, passengers in aisle seats have restricted vision of external environment. Cars -1 Since most journeys are made by single occupancy configurations the opportunities to enjoy surrounding scenery is very restricted. Even for passengers, the vistas are seldom as interesting than those viewed from a train. FACTOR Traveller Stress SUB FACTOR Frustration DESCRIPTION Ability to make good progress on a route relative to delays on public transport; road layout and geometry; condition of road network; in-vehicle noise; night time conditions and access/egress to

mode. MODE SCORE New Trains 1 Greater ability to adhere to timetable. Limited influence of factors such as time of day and prevailing weather. Enhanced immediate access to vehicles. Not subject to road congestion. Old Trains 0 Similar to above with exception of immediate access to vehicles. Buses 0 Lower levels of frustration than driving a private car. Ability to make good progress en route subject to several other factors. Frustration due to buses failing to stop to permit access. Improved provision of bus priority measures will reduce levels of frustration. Cars -1 Significant levels of frustration due to road alignment and traffic levels/mix reducing overtaking opportunities, and difficult driving conditions e.g. spray on roads and dazzle from on coming vehicles at night. Increasing levels of road congestion will result in enhanced frustration on a progressive basis. Incidents of road rage are becoming more common. Environment Journey Ambience H7 FACTOR Traveller Stress SUB FACTOR Fear of Potential Accidents DESCRIPTION Fear of accidents from other vehicles, inadequate sight distances, contra flow traffic without physical separation, inadequate lighting, high permissible speeds, adverse weather conditions. MODE SCORE New Trains 1 Investment in new rolling stock and upgrading of infrastructure

will enhance confidence in this safe mode of travel. Dedicated track. Excellent safety record. Considerably safer than roads. Old Trains 0 Fear of potential accidents due to lack of investment being highlighted and knowledge of rail accidents in Great Britain and Europe in recent years. Dedicated track. Excellent safety record of N I Railways. Buses 0 Excellent safety record. Protective environment compared with cars. Subject to road condition and other motorists. Knowledge of bus/coach accidents through media in other parts. Cars -1 Relatively poor safety record, particularly in Northern Ireland, due to excessive speeding and relatively high levels of drink driving. Night time driving is frequently difficult. Car drivers and passengers are never in total control due to close proximity of other drivers. FACTOR Traveller Stress SUB FACTOR Route Uncertainty. DESCRIPTION Provision and quality of specific route information provided prior to commencement of journey and en route; unfamiliarity of information; accessibility of information; more detailed route information. MODE SCORE Cars 1 Drivers are in control of their own journey planning. Road sign marking is generally of a very high standard in Northern Ireland. Road maps are easily accessible. But, on road incidents may contribute to detours, etc. New Trains 1 Improved provision of in-vehicle information. Route planning information is increasingly being made more accessible e.g.

Internet, Call Centre, bespoke timetables. Public transport timetables have been described as the best in the United Kingdom (Lord Dubs) and is easily understood by passengers (source PWC). Relatively simple route network. Old Trains 0 Little in-vehicle information. Often difficult to know exact location of train on dark evenings. Other comments as per New Trains. Relatively simple route network. Buses -1 Scope for confusion due to elaborate network and routing of some services. Route Changes due to seasonality and time of day. Other comments as per New Trains. Environment Journey Ambience

Appendix H - III: Key Results for the Strategic Modelling Scenarios Analysis SCENARIO 1 ENHANCEMENT SCENARIO 2 A.D. LITTLE SCENARIO 3 TRUNCATION SCENARIO 4 BF/DN ONLY COMMENTARY C.A. 85% of rolling stock is new Impacting 85% of 8.7 million passenger journeys (pax) i.e. 7.4 million New rolling stock

clearly beneficial over car or bus or old rolling stock CA 75% of rolling stock is new Impacting 75% of 7.8 million pax i.e. 5.9 million pax New rolling stock clearly beneficial over car or bus or old rolling stock 60% of rolling stock new Impacting 60% of 6.9 million pax i.e. 4.1 million New rolling stock clearly beneficial over car or bus or old rolling stock Base Movement of 5.6 million users of old trains to cars and bus creates an almost net neutral impact - car

users slightly better off, bus users worse off. FACTOR SUB FACTOR TRAVELLER CARE Cleanliness Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Neutral Facilities Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Neutral Information Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Neutral Environment Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Neutral TRAVELLERS VIEWS Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Neutral TRAVELLER STRESS Frustration Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Neutral Fear of potential accidents Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Neutral Route Uncertainty Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Beneficial x Large Neutral H8 Appendix I: Safety Accidents Safety Accidents I1 SAFETY OBJECTIVE I. Accidents Sub-Objective Data Sources Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000 Assessment of the Impact of changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal Demand and Market Shares, Oscar Faber, August 2000 Strategic Safety Review of Northern Ireland Railways, Arthur D Little, March 2000 Highways Economics Note No 1: 1998, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Transport Statistics Great Britain: 1999, Department of the Environment, Transport and

the Regions Transport Statistics: 1997/98, Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland Road Traffic Accident Statistics: 1997/98 Annual Report, Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) Accident Records: 1997, Northern Ireland Railways (NIR), Citybus, Ulsterbus Vehicle Kilometre of Travel Survey: 1997, Roads Service Transportation Unit Methodology and its Application GOMMMS suggests that road accidents should be assessed using standard processes, whilst assistance from the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority (SSRA) should be sought where there are expected to be significant rail impacts. The standard processes for road accidents involve: assessment of changes in vehicle kilometres by car and bus, by scenario under test; application of standard (GB research) casualty or accident rates by severity class; application of standard (GB research) casualty costs by severity class. Subsequent assistance from the SSRA suggested that casualty rates per passenger km for rail could be applied on a similar basis to that used for road accidents. The principal effect to be included in the assessment was change in choice of mode of travel, between the statistically safest (rail) and the less safe (bus and car). It was considered essential that a common approach was used for rail, bus and car. Preliminary assessment identified the following key issues affecting the approach to be adopted: Northern Ireland road and rail casualty rates differ significantly from those researched in GB; There were no fatalities on Northern Ireland Railways in the period 1990 1999 other than those related to trespassing, suicides / misadventure and accidents at level crossings; The AD Little review confirms that risk levels at crossings currently lie within

acceptable criteria bands. Notwithstanding this, the review suggests, and hence Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 include, significant investment to further reduce the level of risk; 1997 was the latest available year at which statistics were available in Northern Ireland. Safety Accidents I2 It was decided that the most robust forecasts of rail casualties for each of the scenarios would be calculated by focussing on NIR passengers and deriving a casualty rate per million passenger kilometres. This approach excludes the casualties arising from trespassing, suicide / misadventure and from accidents at crossings for the following reasons: trespassing and suicide / misadventure not under direct control of NIR or due to level of rail operations; casualties at accommodation crossings and level crossings assumed not to be statistically significant as a result of the measures included in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 (the issue does not arise in Scenario 4). The forecasts of highway casualties have been calculated using the following approach: casualties attributed to bus usage = current bus driver and passenger casualty rate per passenger kilometres multiplied by bus passenger kilometres; casualties attributed to car usage = current all road user casualty rate per car driver/passenger kilometres multiplied by car driver/passenger kilometres. It was noted that this approach introduced a degree of inconsistency between the rail and highway casualties and between bus and car casualties and overestimated the numbers and cost of casualties attributed to car usage. (Not all road user casualties may be attributable to car usage, rather, a small proportion may be attributable to bus usage detailed statistics were not available to allow this to be calculated.) It was felt that this inconsistency would not have a significant effect and was preferred to the alternative of

omitting pedestrian, pedal cyclist and motorcyclist / pillion passenger casualties from the car calculation. It should be noted that published 1997 RUC accident statistics revealed that 57 of 144 fatalities and 455 of 1548 serious injury casualties occurred to pedestrians, pedal cyclists and motorcyclists/pillion passengers. Key Statistics Severity Rail Bus Car (/ Light Vehicle) NI GB NI GB NI GB Fatal (death within 30 days) 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.3 8.3 5.8 Serious (hospital in-patient) 31.1 12.0 13.3 89.6 69.0 Slight (no hospital treatment) 66.6 66.4 462.5 200.8 636.9 442.3 Table I 1: NI Researched Casualty Rates (per Billion passenger kilometres) - GB shown for comparison only Safety Accidents I3 Fatal Serious Slight 1998 values & prices 1,047,240 117,670 9,070 2000 values & prices 1,147,610 128,950 9,870 Sources: Highways Economic Note and RPI 1998 and 2000 Table I 2: Costs per casualty All Modes Key Results The annual passenger kilometres by mode and the monetary values of costs of accidents are displayed in Appendix I II. Scenarios Assessment Qualitative Summary The principal impacts arise from the transfer of travellers between modes of differing casualty rates. Rail is the safest mode, then bus and car/light vehicle being the least

safe. The Oscar Faber estimates forecasts significant changes in modal demand between rail and car / bus. These changes lead to savings compared to Scenario 4 Mothball, in car casualties in general, and also in minor injuries by bus. In strategic terms, the changes from Scenario 4 - Mothball are identical for each scenario: Significant saving due to reduction in all casualties by car, and minor accidents by bus.

In more detailed terms, the savings increase from Scenario 3, through 2 to 1, as transfer from car to rail increases. Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation The Base case scenario involves the effective closure of local rail services and transfer of passengers to bus services and car, with a proportion of trips suppressed. Qualitative Impacts: Compared to estimates of (current) 1997 accidents, the number of persons killed is forecast to increase by 25 to 169, and all casualty groupings by 17%. These increases are due in part to aggregate increases in travel by bus and car and in part to casualty rates by bus and car being higher than rail. The estimates assume that there will be no decrease in casualty rates over time. Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Significant saving due to reduction in all casualties by car, and minor accidents by bus Quantitative Measure: Reduction of 114 casualties in 2010 Assessment Score: Present Value Benefit 45M Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4

Qualitative Impacts: Significant saving due to reduction in all casualties by car, and minor accidents by bus Quantitative Measure: Reduction of 136 casualties in 2010 Assessment Score: Present Value Benefit 47M Safety Accidents I4 Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Significant saving due to reduction in all casualties by car, and minor accidents by bus Quantitative Measure: Reduction of 162 casualties in 2010 Assessment Score: Present Value Benefit 58M Safety Accidents I5 Appendix I I: Derivation of Casualty Rates Rail 1997 Figures Casualties (Source Translink) Fatal 0.11* *Previous fatality in 1990 equates to 0.11 fatalities per year Serious 7 Minor 15 Passenger Miles (Source Transport Statistics Table 3.2) 140.1 million miles. Converts to 225.4 million kms Accident Rates Fatal 0.11/0.2254 = 0.49 (GB 0.6) Serious 7/0.2254 = 31.06 (GB N/A) Minor 15/0.2254 = 66.55 (GB 66.4) Bus 1997 Figures Casualties (Source RUC Central Statistics Unit 1997 Serious & Minor. Fatal info ) Fatal 0.08* *Previous fatality in 1987 equates to 0.08 fatalities per year. Serious 7

Minor 271 Passenger Miles (Source Translink) Ulsterbus 299244904 miles Citybus 67070864 miles Total 366,315,768 miles converts to 586,105,228 Pass.kms (0.586 billion passenger kms) Accident Rates Fatal 0.08/0.586 = 0.14 (GB 0.3) Serious 7/0.586 = 11.95 (GB 13.3) Minor 271/0.586 = 462.46 (GB 200.8) Car 1997 Figures Casualties (Source RUC Traffic Statistics 1997 Table 8) Fatal 144 Serious 1548 Minor 11006 Passenger Kilometres (Source Vehicle Kilometres of Travel Report 1997) Vehicle Kilometres = 13.295 billion kms multiplied by 1.3 to convert to Passenger Kms = 17.28 Accident Rates Fatal 144/17.28 = 8.33 (GB 5.84) Serious 1548/17.28 = 89.58 (GB 69.00) Minor 11006/17.28 = 636.92 (GB 442.25) Safety Accidents I6 Appendix I II Annual Passenger Kilometres by Mode (Billion) Rail Bus Car (/ Light Vehicle) Total 1997 Surveyed 0.23 0.59 17.28 18.10

2010 Scenario 1 Enhancement 0.51 0.62 20.00 21.13 2010 Scenario 2 AD Little 0.47 0.63 20.03 21.13 2010 Scenario 3 Truncation 0.20 0.65 20.09 20.94 2010 Scenario 4 Closure 0.00 0.74 20.21 20.95 Monetary Values of Costs of Accidents (M 2000 prices Present Values over 30 years) Year and Scenario Rail Bus Car (/ Light Vehicle) Total Scenario 1 Enhancement 42 67 8234 8344 (1) Scenario 2 AD Little 38 68 8249 8355 Scenario 3 Truncation 17 71 8270 8357 (1) Scenario 4 Mothball 0 80 8322 8402 (1): numbers do not total due to roundingSafety Accidents I7 Appendix I III: Costs 2000 RPI 1.0478821 INPUT RATES/kmB Values 1.0457721 MODEL INPUTS Trains Buses Cars Total 2000

Trains Buses Cars INPUT 1998 COMPUTED 2000 1996 paxkmB 0.23 0.59 17.28 18.10 Killed 0.49 0.14 8.33 COSTS & VALUES COSTS & VALUES

Model 1996 116960 237523 4902062 5256545 Seriously Injured 31.1 12.0 89.6 PER CASUALTY(M) PER CASUALTY(M) Model Scenario 1 266819 251605 5672172 6190596 Other Injury 66.6 462.5 636.9 1.047240 1.147614 Model Scenario 2 241560 256008 5682043 6179611 0.117670 0.128948 Model Scenario 3 106023 263926 5696818 6066767 0.009007 0.009870 Model Scenario 4 0 298384 5732866 6031250

1996 Estimate

1996 Pax est Trains Buses Cars Total

Passengers Trains Buses Cars Total

Killed 0.1 0.1 144.0 144.2 0.23 0.59 17.28 18.10 Seriously Injured 7.0 7.0 1548.3 1562.3 Other Injury 15.0 271.1 11007.9 11293.9 13000.3

Scenario 1

Scenario 1 ESTIMATE

Passengers Trains Buses Cars Total Pax est Trains Buses Cars Total Killed 0.3 0.1 166.6 166.9 0.51 0.62 20.00 21.13

Seriously Injured 16.0 7.4 1791.5 1814.9 Other Injury 34.2 287.1 12737.2 13058.5 15040.4

Scenario 2

Scenario 2 ESTIMATE

Passengers Trains Buses Cars Total Pax est Trains Buses Cars Total Killed 0.2 0.1 166.9 167.2 0.47 0.63 20.03 21.13

Seriously Injured 14.5 7.5 1794.6 1816.6 Other Injury 31.0 292.1 12759.4 13082.5 15066.3

Scenario 3

Scenario 3 ESTIMATE

Passengers Trains Buses Cars Total Pax est Trains Buses Cars Total Killed 0.1 0.1 167.3 167.5 0.20 0.65 20.09 20.94

Seriously Injured 6.3 7.8 1799.3 1813.4 Other Injury 13.6 301.2 12792.5 13107.3 15088.2

Scenario 4

Scenario 4 ESTIMATE

Passengers Trains Buses Cars Total Pax est Trains Buses Cars Total Killed 0.0 0.1 168.4 168.5 0.00 0.74 20.21 20.95

Seriously Injured 0.0 8.8 1810.7 1819.5 Other Injury 0.0 340.5 12873.5 13214.0 15201.9 1996 Estimate Casualty Costs Trains Buses Cars Total Killed 0.127 0.094 165.224 165.445 Seriously Injured 0.903 0.903 199.645 201.451 Other Injury 0.148 2.675 108.651 111.474 Total 1.178 3.673 473.519 478.370

Scenario 1 cf 4

Scenario 1

Passengers Trains Buses Cars Total Cost (m) Casualty Costs Trains Buses Cars Total Killed 0.3 0.0 -1.8 -1.5 -1.8 Killed 0.289 0.100 191.180 191.569

Seriously Injured 16.0 -1.4 -19.2 -4.6 -0.6 Seriously Injured 2.060 0.957 231.009 234.026 Other Injury 34.2 -53.4 -136.3 -155.4 -1.5 Other Injury 0.338 2.834 125.720 128.892 -161.6 -3.9 Total 2.688 3.890 547.909 554.487

Scenario 2 cf 4

Scenario 2

Passengers Trains Buses Cars Total Cost (m) Casualty Costs Trains Buses Cars Total Killed 0.2 0.0 -1.5 -1.3 -1.5 Killed 0.262 0.101 191.513 191.876 Seriously Injured 14.5 -1.2 -16.1 -2.8 -0.4 Seriously Injured 1.865 0.973 231.411 234.250 Other Injury 31.0 -48.4 -114.1 -131.5 -1.3 Other Injury 0.306 2.884 125.938 129.128 -135.6 -3.1 Total 2.433 3.958 548.862 555.254

Scenario 3 cf 4

Scenario 3

Passengers Trains Buses Cars Total Cost (m) Casualty Costs Trains Buses Cars Total Killed 0.1 0.0 -1.1 -1.0 -1.1 Killed 0.115 0.105 192.011 192.231 Seriously Injured 6.3 -1.0 -11.4 -6.1 -0.8 Seriously Injured 0.819 1.004 232.013 233.835 Other Injury 13.6 -39.3 -80.9 -106.7 -1.1 Other Injury 0.134 2.973 126.266 129.373 -113.7 -2.9 Total 1.068 4.081 550.289 555.438

Scenario 4 cf 4

Scenario 4

Passengers Trains Buses Cars Total Cost (m) Casualty Costs Trains Buses Cars Total Killed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Killed 0.000 0.118 193.226 193.344 Seriously Injured 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Seriously Injured 0.000 1.135 233.481 234.615 Other Injury 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Other Injury 0.000 3.361 127.065 130.426 0.0 0.0 Total 0.000 4.614 553.772 558.385 Safety Accidents Appendix I IV: Discounting MODEL INPUTS Trains Buses Cars Total Model 1996 116960 237523 4902062 5256545

2010 AD Little (no sparkle) 166010 433474 5964637 6564121 1.0253 1.0439 1.0141 1.0160

Annual Growth Rates casualties 1.0253 1.0439 1.0141 1.0253 1.0439 1.0141 1.0253 1.0439 1.0141 1.0253 1.0439 1.0141 costs 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 1.0210 combined 1.0469 1.0658 1.0354 1.0469 1.0658 1.0354 1.0469 1.0658 1.0354 1.0469 1.0658 1.0354

Undiscounted Costs (2000 Prices, inflated values) Year Scenario 4 Base Scenario 1 Enhancement Scenario 2 AD Little Scenario 3 Truncation rail bus car rail bus car rail bus car rail bus car 2001 0.000 2.600 404.878 1.780 2.192 400.592 1.611 2.230 401.288 0.707 2.299 402.332 2002 0.000 2.771 419.215 1.863 2.336 414.776 1.687 2.377 415.498 0.740 2.451 416.578 2003 0.000 2.953 434.058 1.951 2.490 429.463 1.766 2.533 430.210 0.775 2.612 431.328 2004 0.000 3.147 449.428 2.042 2.654 444.670 1.848 2.700 445.443 0.811 2.784 446.601 2005 0.000 3.355 465.342 2.138 2.828 460.415 1.935 2.878 461.216 0.849 2.967 462.415 2006 0.000 3.575 481.819 2.238 3.014 476.718 2.026 3.067 477.547 0.889 3.162 478.788 2007 0.000 3.811 498.879 2.343 3.213 493.597 2.121 3.269 494.456 0.931 3.371 495.742 2008 0.000 4.062 516.544 2.453 3.424 511.075 2.220 3.484 511.964 0.975 3.592 513.295 2009 0.000 4.329 534.834 2.568 3.650 529.172 2.324 3.714 530.092 1.020 3.829 531.470 2010 0.000 4.614 553.772 2.688 3.890 547.909 2.433 3.958 548.862 1.068 4.081 550.289 2011 0.000 4.918 573.380 2.814 4.146 567.310 2.547 4.219 568.297 1.118 4.350 569.774 2012 0.000 5.241 593.683 2.946 4.419 587.397 2.666 4.496 588.419 1.170 4.636 589.949 2013 0.000 5.586 614.705 3.084 4.710 608.197 2.791 4.792 609.254 1.225 4.941 610.838 2014 0.000 5.954 636.471 3.228 5.020 629.732 2.922 5.108 630.827 1.283 5.266 632.467 2015 0.000 6.346 659.007 3.380 5.350 652.030 3.059 5.444 653.164 1.343 5.613 654.862 2016 0.000 6.764 682.342 3.538 5.703 675.118 3.202 5.802 676.292 1.406 5.983 678.050 2017 0.000 7.209 706.503 3.704 6.078 699.023 3.353 6.184 700.238 1.472 6.376 702.059

2018 0.000 7.684 731.519 3.877 6.478 723.774 3.510 6.591 725.033 1.541 6.796 726.918 2019 0.000 8.190 757.421 4.059 6.905 749.402 3.674 7.025 750.706 1.613 7.244 752.657 2020 0.000 8.729 784.241 4.249 7.359 775.937 3.846 7.488 777.287 1.688 7.720 779.308 2021 0.000 9.303 812.010 4.449 7.843 803.412 4.027 7.981 804.810 1.767 8.229 806.902 2022 0.000 9.916 840.762 4.657 8.360 831.860 4.215 8.506 833.307 1.850 8.770 835.474 2023 0.000 10.568 870.532 4.875 8.910 861.315 4.413 9.066 862.814 1.937 9.348 865.057 2024 0.000 11.264 901.357 5.104 9.497 891.813 4.620 9.663 893.365 2.028 9.963 895.687 2025 0.000 12.006 933.272 5.343 10.122 923.391 4.836 10.299 924.998 2.123 10.619 927.403 2026 0.000 12.796 966.318 5.593 10.788 956.088 5.063 10.977 957.751 2.222 11.318 960.241 2027 0.000 13.638 1000.535 5.855 11.498 989.941 5.300 11.699 991.663 2.326 12.063 994.242 2028 0.000 14.536 1035.962 6.130 12.255 1024.994 5.548 12.469 1026.777 2.435 12.857 1029.446 2029 0.000 15.493 1072.644 6.417 13.062 1061.288 5.808 13.290 1063.134 2.550 13.703 1065.898 2030 0.000 16.513 1110.625 6.718 13.922 1098.867 6.080 14.165 1100.778 2.669 14.605 1103.640 Total 0.000 227.870 21042.057 112.084 192.114 20819.277 101.451 195.472 20855.488 44.533 201.547 20909.711 I8 Safety Accidents

Annual Discount Rate 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943 0.943

Present Value Discounted Costs (2000 Prices and Values) Year Scenario 4 Base Scenario 1 Enhancement Scenario 2 AD Little Scenario 3 Truncation rail bus car rail bus car rail bus car rail bus car 2001 0.000 2.452 381.961 1.679 2.068 377.917 1.520 2.104 378.574 0.667 2.169 379.558 2002 0.000 2.466 373.099 1.658 2.079 369.149 1.501 2.115 369.791 0.659 2.181 370.753 2003 0.000 2.479 364.444 1.638 2.090 360.585 1.483 2.127 361.212 0.651 2.193 362.152 2004 0.000 2.493 355.989 1.618 2.102 352.220 1.464 2.139 352.833 0.643 2.205 353.750

2005 0.000 2.507 347.730 1.598 2.113 344.049 1.446 2.150 344.647 0.635 2.217 345.543 2006 0.000 2.521 339.663 1.578 2.125 336.067 1.428 2.162 336.652 0.627 2.229 337.527 2007 0.000 2.534 331.783 1.558 2.137 328.271 1.410 2.174 328.841 0.619 2.242 329.696 2008 0.000 2.548 324.086 1.539 2.148 320.655 1.393 2.186 321.213 0.611 2.254 322.048 2009 0.000 2.562 316.568 1.520 2.160 313.216 1.376 2.198 313.761 0.604 2.266 314.576 2010 0.000 2.576 309.223 1.501 2.172 305.950 1.359 2.210 306.482 0.596 2.279 307.279 2011 0.000 2.591 302.050 1.482 2.184 298.852 1.342 2.222 299.372 0.589 2.291 300.150 2012 0.000 2.605 295.042 1.464 2.196 291.919 1.325 2.234 292.426 0.582 2.304 293.187 2013 0.000 2.619 288.198 1.446 2.208 285.146 1.309 2.247 285.642 0.574 2.317 286.385 2014 0.000 2.634 281.512 1.428 2.220 278.531 1.292 2.259 279.016 0.567 2.329 279.741 2015 0.000 2.648 274.981 1.410 2.233 272.069 1.276 2.272 272.543 0.560 2.342 273.251 2016 0.000 2.663 268.601 1.393 2.245 265.758 1.261 2.284 266.220 0.553 2.355 266.912 2017 0.000 2.677 262.370 1.375 2.257 259.592 1.245 2.297 260.044 0.547 2.368 260.720 2018 0.000 2.692 256.283 1.358 2.270 253.570 1.230 2.309 254.011 0.540 2.381 254.671 2019 0.000 2.707 250.338 1.342 2.282 247.687 1.214 2.322 248.118 0.533 2.394 248.763 2020 0.000 2.722 244.530 1.325 2.295 241.941 1.199 2.335 242.362 0.526 2.407 242.992 2021 0.000 2.737 238.857 1.309 2.307 236.328 1.184 2.348 236.739 0.520 2.420 237.355 2022 0.000 2.752 233.316 1.292 2.320 230.845 1.170 2.360 231.247 0.513 2.434 231.848 2023 0.000 2.767 227.903 1.276 2.333 225.490 1.155 2.373 225.882 0.507 2.447 226.469 2024 0.000 2.782 222.616 1.261 2.345 220.259 1.141 2.386 220.642 0.501 2.461 221.216 2025 0.000 2.797 217.451 1.245 2.358 215.149 1.127 2.400 215.523 0.495 2.474 216.084 2026 0.000 2.813 212.406 1.229 2.371 210.158 1.113 2.413 210.523 0.488 2.488 211.071 2027 0.000 2.828 207.479 1.214 2.384 205.282 1.099 2.426 205.639 0.482 2.501 206.174 2028 0.000 2.844 202.665 1.199 2.397 200.520 1.085 2.439 200.869 0.476 2.515 201.391 2029 0.000 2.859 197.964 1.184 2.411 195.868 1.072 2.453 196.209 0.471 2.529 196.719 2030 0.000 2.875 193.371 1.170 2.424 191.324 1.059 2.466 191.657 0.465 2.543 192.155 Total 0.000 79.749 8322.478 42.289 67.235 8234.365 38.277 68.411 8248.687 16.802 70.537 8270.133

Total All Modes Total cf Base

8402.227

8343.890

8355.375 8357.472

0.000

-58.338

-46.852 -44.755

I9 Appendix J: Safety Security Safety Security J1 SAFETY OBJECTIVE J. Security Sub-Objective Data Sources Assessment of the Impact of Changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal Demand and Market Shares, Oscar Faber, August 2000 Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000 Personal Security on Public Transport, DETR, September 1996 Women and Public Transport, DETR, May 2000 Secure Stations Scheme, DETR, April 1998 Methodology and its Application GOMMMS appraisal methodology was reviewed in respect of above sub-objective. The formats of Table 5.1 and Worksheet 5.1 were considered to be more appropriate for interchange security assessment and less suitable for journey types security assessment. Furthermore, specific interchange security measures would be considered under the Transport Integration objective. The approach taken was to identify a range of primary journey types with each being analysed to assess the relative security deficit of key elements of that journey type. The attached table (Appendix J - I) schedules each primary journey type by element and assigns to each element the considered security deficit on a scale of 1 (low security deficit, i.e. safest) to 10. As an example, a station halt is considered to offer the highest security deficit due to seclusion, absence of alternative departure routes (escape routes) and lack of passing

traffic. A station halt has a higher security deficit when used as a waiting point prior to boarding a train compared to use when alighting from a train and not waiting. Security deficit scores for other elements of journey types were similarly assigned. The total assessed change in security deficit for scenarios is the product of the respective difference in modal shift indices (detailed in Chapter 5.4) for those scenarios compared to Scenario 4 by the value of security deficits for each mode of travel (see Appendix J -II). This scoring process identifies car travel to offer the most secure travel option (average score 9.0 units) with bus and rail averaging 13.5 units and 15.0 units respectively. These are ranking scores only and are not intended to be quantitative security measures. No reliable data is known to exist to confirm the number of offvehicle incidents/assaults per journey type. Numbers of incidents are considered to be very low for all aspects and the resultant scores simply show a comparative ranking of perceived security deficits which cannot be easily quantified. In terms of reporting these assessments on the Appraisal Summary Table (AST) any changes in total passenger security offered between test models are therefore considered as marginal. Key Results The values shown in the table represent small but increasing security deficits for Scenarios 3, 2, and 1 respectively. However, since most rail trips are in the peak periods when passenger flows are highest, the changes in security deficits between scenarios are Safety Security J2 not significantly different. It is not considered that even the greatest overall value of security deficit (that related to Scenario 1) would require specific mitigating measures or changes to policy. It is also considered that changes significantly in excess of those shown would be required to trigger a change in the overall scores in the AST. GOMMMS suggests that the estimated number of users affected should be entered in the Quantitative column of the AST. These values have been determined by expanding projected AM Peak Period rail passenger flows based to Average 12-hour (0700hrs-

1900hrs) Weekday Flows using the present day expansion factor of 2.945. Scenarios Assessment Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation Scenario 4 has the least extent of rail network, and it is rail journeys that attract the largest value of security deficit. However, public transport security deficit levels are lowest at times of peak travel, when passenger flows are highest. Hence Scenario 4 is judged to be not significantly different compared to the existing situation. Qualitative Impacts: While Scenario 4 gives fewer rail trips than the existing situation, since most rail trips occur at peak periods when passenger flows are highest, the change in security deficit is assessed as neutral. Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Rail trips have a slightly greater security deficit than bus trips, which have a greater security deficit than car trips. Since most rail trips occur at peak periods when passenger flows are highest, the change in security deficit is not significantly different. Quantitative Measure: Approximately 19,150 rail users affected per average 12-hour weekday. Assessment Score: Neutral Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Rail trips have a slightly greater security deficit than bus trips, which have a greater security deficit than car trips. Since most rail trips occur at peak

periods when passenger flows are highest, the change in security deficit is not significantly different. Quantitative Measure: Approximately 21,800 rail users affected per average 12-hour weekday. Assessment Score: Neutral Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Rail trips have a slightly greater security deficit than bus trips, which have a greater security deficit than car trips. Since most rail trips occur at peak Safety Security J3 periods when passenger flows are highest, the change in security deficit is not significantly different. Quantitative Measure: Approximately 24,150 rail users affected per average 12-hour weekday. Assessment Score: Neutral Safety Security J4 Appendix J - I: Identification of Trip Types and Security Deficits

MAIN TRIP TYPES

LEGEND Car Park/ing Space 4 (1) Drive 2 Walk 3 Origin

Home -------Other Walk 4 Bus Stop 5 Bus Ride 2 Bus Stop / Station 0 (3) Walk 3 Walk 3 Walk 4 Main Station 3 Railway Halt 8 (4) Rail Ride 3 Rail Ride 3 Main Station / Halt 1 Main Station / Halt 1 Drive 2 Main Station 3 Rail Ride 3 Main Station 1 Walk 3 Walk 3 Walk 3 Walk 3 Walk 3 Walk 3 Walk 3 Walk 3 Bus Stop/

Station 4 Main Station / Halt 4 Main Station / Halt 4 Main Station 3 Bus Ride 2 Rail Ride 3 Rail Ride 3 Rail Ride 3 Bus Stop 0 Main Station 0 Railway Halt 4 Main Station 0 Walk 4 Walk 3 Walk 4 Drive 2 Car Park/ing Space 4 Drive 2 Dest'n Other -------Home 9 14

13 19 12 13 16 18 11 9 Walk 4 Main Station / Halt 1 (4) = Mode or Interchange / Perceived Security Deficit / Note 9 = Total perceived Safety Security J5

Appendix J II: Assessment of Security Deficits for Scenarios

(Changes in Oscar Faber indices x modal security deficit) Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4

Rail 1.236 x 15 = 18.54 Bus -0.133 x 13.5 = -1.80 Car -0.007 x 9 = -0.06 Total 16.68 units Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4

Rail 1.401 x 15 = 21.02 Bus -0.145 x 13.5 = -1.96 Car -0.009 x 9 = -0.08 Total 18.98 units Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Rail 1.558 x 15 = 23.37 Bus -0.157 x 13.5 = -2.12 Car -0.01 x 9 = -0.09 Total 21.16 units NOTES: - Value of perceived security deficit (psd) reflects high value for multi-storey car parks; - Walk to bus stop / railway halt perceived to be slightly higher risk than other walk trips; - No waiting involved; - psd reflects remoteness of railway halts when used for waiting before boarding as opposed to alighting; - psd is highest for remote locations, principally during hours of darkness; - None of the scenarios under test include any explicit measures to improve security (other than possibly at interchanges, and this will be addressed by the Integration Transport Interchange sub-objective appraisal. - Perceived Security Deficit Value by travel mode: Car = 9 Bus = 13.5 Rail = 15

Appendix K: Economy Transport Economic Efficiency Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K1 ECONOMY OBJECTIVE K. Transport Economic Efficiency Sub-Objective Data Sources Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department for the Environment Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000. Assessment of the Impact of Changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal Demand

and Market Shares, Oscar Faber, August 2000 NISTRM (2010) Model outputs Highways Economics Note 2 (HEN2) Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Volume 13, Section2, DETR. Common Appraisal Framework for Urban Transport Projects MVA et al, Feb 1994 Methodology and its Application The assessment of the achievement of the transport economic efficiency sub-objective is made by conducting a "Transport" Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). In general, CBA can be defined as an "analysis, which seeks to quantify in money terms as many of the costs and benefits of a proposal as possible.

In the past, cost benefit analysis of transport schemes (particularly road schemes) has been based on an assumption that the total travel demand on each mode of transport remains constant for every origin-destination pair (O-D pair) being considered. In this Fixed Matrix world it is relatively simple to assess traveller benefits, simply by estimating the time and money spend travelling in the Base case scenario and comparing it with the corresponding time and money consumption in the Do Something scenario. However, where multi-modal modelling is required, and in particular where the demand for travel may change in response to the transport scenario being tested (e.g. due to trip generation/suppression/redistribution effects), a more-sophisticated approach is required. The analysis used was the so-called Common Appraisal Framework (CAF) methodology developed especially to handle multi-modal and variable demand situations (Ref. Common Appraisal Framework for Urban Transport Projects), as implemented in MVAs TREVAL software suite. Note that this methodology is almost identical to the so-called Sugden Approach which is currently being developed by the DETR for multi-modal assessment in the UK. CAF and Sugden implement the same

concepts, but differ in the way results are presented.

The relevant inputs to the CAF methodology (money and time costs for each O-D pair, travel demand etc) have been derived using the NISTRM multi-modal strategic model of Northern Ireland amended to incorporate modal splits derived from Oscar Faber Elasticity Model and Review.

The base scenario for the cost benefit analysis is Scenario 4, in which the existing rail services (other than cross-Border), are mothballed and replaced by a quality bus service. The aim is to estimate and compare the net costs and benefits of replacing these substitute bus services with the new rail services in Scenarios 3,2 and1. Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K2 The costs include the additional capital investment costs and the operating costs of the alternative scenarios. The benefits include traveller benefits, revenue impacts for the public transport operator (Translink) and the secondary impacts on Government (e.g. the effects on indirect tax revenues from changes in traveller expenditure, changes in fuel duty etc). Traveller benefits include both time and monetary aspects of the journey costs. Journey times include time to access the public transport network, the time spent waiting for the service (which is a function of service frequency), the time actually spent in the vehicle (bus, car or train) and the inconvenience penalty (as derived from research) of transferring between vehicles in multi-leg journeys. Money benefits consist of changes in User Charges which include public transport fares, road tolls (if any) and, in theory, car park charges. (In practice, while the effect of car parking charges is included in both the mode-choice decision and the destination choice within the NISTRM model, the effect of changes in car parking charges are omitted from the economic assessment carried out here. Given the fact that changes in car park charges paid by travellers will

appear as equal but opposite public or private sector revenues, this omission will have little effect on the conclusions reached.) Note that under the GOMMMS AST methodology, road accident/road safety impacts are assessed elsewhere and are therefore not included in the standard Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) table cost benefit analysis. It should be noted that the substitute bus services have been estimated on the basis of predicted 2010 train passenger flows and have therefore been constructed to replace, as closely as possible, the main pattern of rail movements. However, the following differences between bus and train options will affect the travellers journey and hence their mode-choice and their travel benefits/disbenefits.

Frequency in order to deliver the seating capacity implied by the forecast 2010 rail flows on busy rail corridors, multiple buses are usually required these have been assumed to be evenly spaced, resulting in a more frequent bus service. Re-introducing the train in these corridors will therefore have the effect of reducing service frequency and hence will increase traveller wait-times. (It is recognised, however, that commuters wishing to travel (and arrive) at specific times may feel that the provision of services allowing them to do this is a more important issue than frequency of service.) Fare the substitute bus fare is often lower than the corresponding train fare. However, where a 2-stage bus journey (or a feeder bus/rail journey) is replaced by a single train journey, then the effect of re-introducing rail may be to reduce the relevant fares. There are also a number of corridors where the current rail fare is lower than the corresponding modelled bus fare. It has been assumed for modelling purposes that the fare structure will remain unchanged in real terms. However, it is recognised that on some routes fares are comparatively low and there could be potential for increases in the future - particularly if better quality services are introduced. Journey time the actual journey time of the bus and rail services will differ where

there is significant congestion and the train route is direct, the in-vehicle section of the train journey will generally be significantly less than the bus, and probably the car, alternatives. Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K3 Perceived Attractiveness of New Rail Rolling Stock The three rail scenarios modelled here assume (and pay for) new rail rolling stock. The Oscar Faber work has included a sparkle effect equivalent to a 15% fare reduction in deriving the patronage on improved rail services. This figure of 15% was derived from GB research and takes account of: rolling stock ; N. Ireland values of time and fares paid; track upgrade; and other packaged improvements such as station facilities and marketing.

The Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) Tables The Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) tables (Appendix K - I) aim to summarise and present the results of the transport cost/benefit analyses. The TEE tables present the results disaggregated by group (i.e. users, operators and others), by mode of transport (car,bus, rail) and by impact (time, vehicle operating costs, etc). All the impacts in the TEE table are expressed in money terms. A TEE table has been completed for Scenarios 1,2 and 3. In common with the AST, the TEE tables show the changes brought about by the scenario in question, relative to the base in this case, relative to Scenario 4. All entries in the TEE table are present values that is, streams of costs and benefits occurring over the appraisal period (30 years) discounted to a common base year (Year 2000). The discount rate used to discount future costs and benefits is 6% - Treasury's recommended discount rate. The discount rate is the annual percentage rate at which the

present value of a future pound is assumed to fall away through time. The most important figures contained in the TEE table are the Totals for Net Present Value (NPV) and Present Value of Costs (PVC). These summarise, in monetary terms, the overall impact of the scenario relative to the base scenario and these two figures will feed directly into the final Appraisal Summary Table. All of the individual impact values in each of the three Groups (User Benefits, Translink Impacts and other Government Impacts) feed into these two values. The total NPV is simply the sum of the Net Impacts for each Group. The PVC total is the present value of the costs i.e. the 30 year sum of the operating costs and investment costs. Each of the individual terms used in the TEE is explained below: 1. User Benefits Group The phrase user benefits in the TEE table is used to denote user benefits net of the costs incurred by users. This Group consists of present value impact cells for Travel Time, Vehicle Operating Costs and User Charges. A negative value for any particular cell indicates that users will incur a disbenefit, i.e. they will be made worse off compared to the base case, if this scenario is adopted.Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K4 Traveller and non-traveller benefits/disbenefits have been calculated on the basis of outputs derived from NISTRM amended to incorporate modal splits derived from the Oscar Faber Elasticity Model and Review (OFR). The scale of these benefits/disbenefits depends on the modal shifts from car and bus to rail. Travel Time The economic benefit or disbenefit accruing to passengers arising from the implementation of varying levels of rail service is estimated in terms of the value to the passengers of the time saved, or lost, travelling to and from locations relative to the time which the journey would take under Scenario 4. The so-called Rule of a Half is used

to cancel the effects created purely by any changes in the travel demand GOMMMS, Volume 2, Appendix F4.7. The values of time adopted for quantifying working and non-working time for the various travel modes are those given in DETR's Highways Economics Note 2. Vehicle Operating Costs The use of the road system by private cars and lorries gives rise to vehicle operating costs for the user. These include the obvious costs of fuel, oil and tyres and an element of vehicle maintenance. These vehicle operating costs are derived using a U-shaped relationship between cost and speed, so that increases in traffic levels can either increase or decrease VOC depending on whether the effect is to reduce speeds from efficient medium to less-efficient slow speeds or from inefficient high speeds to more-efficient medium speeds. The parameters used in this relationship are set out in the methodology outlined in the DETR Highways Economics Note 2. User Charges The TEE table entries for User Charges cover the monetary aspects of travel costs and include road-user charges (if any), car parking charges and public transport fares. However, since none of the tests involve introduction of road-user charges or changes in car parking charges, these are omitted from the economic analysis (though they are taken account of in the mode-choice and destination-choice). Therefore, in the scenarios, this category of benefit relates purely to public transport fares. The Common Appraisal Framework assesses traveller benefit as the so-called consumer surplus (the benefit which a consumer enjoys, in excess of the costs which he or she perceives), rather than simply the total amount of money spent on fares. As a result, traveller benefits will only be generated for travellers moving from A to B if the Do Something scenario results in a change in the monetary cost of the best public transport path from A to B. This remains true even if the number of travellers moving between A and B by public transport changes between the Base and Do Something scenarios.

A net benefit in the User Charges public transport cell of the TEE table implies that the set of best paths through the Do Something public transport network is, on average, cheaper (i.e. incurs lower fares) than through the corresponding Base Case network. The number in the TEE table is, of course, a weighted sum of all A to B movements. Some of these will incur more expensive journeys (e.g. where the rail fare is higher than the bus fare) and for others the journey will be cheaper (either because the Base Case scenario involves a two-leg public transport journey or because the rail fare is lower than the corresponding bus fare). Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K5 2. Translink Impacts Group Translink Impacts in the TEE table provides details of the impacts on the transport provider Translink. This Group consists of present value impact cells to record changes in Revenue, Operating Costs and Investment Costs. A negative value for any particular cell indicates that Translink will incur a disbenefit, i.e. they will be made worse off compared to the base case, if the scenario is adopted. Revenues Revenues are related to the user charges discussed earlier, since user charges (fares, tolls etc) represent money transfers from users to operators which become revenues from the operators point of view. Under fixed matrix assumptions the user benefit (in terms of reductions in money spent on fares) appears as a corresponding Public Transport (PT) Operator disbenefit (in terms of loss of revenue), though the traveller benefit is deflated to take account of indirect taxation which appears as a corresponding Government impact. Under variable matrix assumptions the situation is more complicated for the traveller benefit calculation but remains as simply the net change in public transport fare revenue for the PT Operator. Note that trips which switch from bus to rail will result in a decrease in bus revenue and an increase in rail revenue and vice versa. The methodology used to derive the

economic analysis makes it difficult to accurately identify these sub-mode revenues separately (though the combined PT Operator revenue is correct and consistent). This difficulty is primarily because the assessment of fares for each A to B movement is based on the best public transport path through the network which may be by bus, rail or a combination of the two. While the model endeavours to label public transport travellers by their main-sub-mode this is only approximate. Accordingly, bus and rail revenues have been combined in the TEE tables under a Public Transport heading. The Other revenue impacts shown in the TEE tables are associated with elements such as advertising, parcels and rail freight revenues which do not come directly from the model. The economics calculated here adopts a theoretical broad brush approach in order to establish the costs and benefits of each of the scenarios. The approach uses common general assumptions about the provision and operation of each scenario and provides a common appraisal of all modes of transport. This is an appropriate approach for the relative comparison of the 4 strategic scenarios. The modal split forecasts and economic analysis are largely based on a snap shot of 2010 conditions and therefore ignore both the effects of construction and the subsequent profile of patronage build-up/loss over time. The economic assessment model used is also unable to accurately disaggregate the revenue effects between bus and rail services. It is therefore not practicable to compare directly the disaggregated results in the TEE tables with the more detailed financial analyses presented elsewhere in the report. Operating Costs All costs, other than investment costs (see next definition), have been recorded in the "Operating Costs" row of the TEE table. These include the following: Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K6 Rail infrastructure running costs Rolling stock overhaul and maintenance costs

 Operating and maintenance costs associated with bus substitution Running costs associated with Park & Ride schemes Scenario 1 Marketing, HR Costs etc. Full details for each scenario are provided in Appendix K - II. Investment Costs The full investment costs for each scenario and the assumptions associated with these costs are detailed in Appendix K - II. All costs associated with the various scenarios have been provided by Translink. As for other entries, the investment and operating costs recorded in the TEE tables are present values assessed over a 30-year period, discounted to Year 2000 using a 6% real discount rate. 3. Other Government Impacts Other Government Impacts in the TEE table consists of Grant Subsidy Payments and Indirect Tax Revenue. Indirect tax revenues come from fuel duty and from VAT on non-travel-related purchases incurred by travellers spending their money on consumer goods rather than on PT fares. Key Statistics and Results Overall Net Present Value of Scenarios The results of the Oscar Faber transport CBA for Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 are illustrated in the TEE tables - Appendix K - I. The incidence and magnitude of the costs of each scenario over the 30-year appraisal period are illustrated in Appendix K -III. An incremental approach has been adopted and the present values presented in the TEE tables represent increases or decreases in net present values brought about by each scenario relative to the base case. Table K - 1 summarises the NPV positions relative to the base. Scenario 1

m Scenario 2 m Scenario 3 m Net Present Values -264.4 -197.8 -209.5 30-year present values in 2000 prices and values Table K - 1: NPV Positions relative to the Base Case The negative NPVs associated with each of the scenarios indicate that the transport economic efficiency objective is best achieved through the base scenario, i.e. the Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K7 economic benefits calculated by the model for Scenario 1,2 and 3 do not meet the operating and investment costs required to provide them. The most efficient of these scenarios, in terms of the least-negative NPV, is Scenario 2. The primary factors impacting on the ranking of NPVs are Operating Costs and Investment Costs. As the rail network grows, both these factors become larger and more negative due to the increased investment and operating costs. The decline in bus costs cannot offset these increasing rail costs, as bus costs are much lower in absolute terms. This is illustrated in Table K - 2. Scenario 1 Present Value m Scenario 2 Present Value m Scenario 3 Present Value m Operating Costs: Rail -301.8 -265.6 -229.4

Bus 71.3 68.2 48.0 Net Impact (Op) -230.5 -197.4 -181.4

Investment Costs Rail -252.4 -191.6 -137.2 Bus 15.1 14.7 10.1 Net Impact (In) -237.2 -176.9 -127.1

TOTAL (Op+In) -467.7 -374.3 -308.6 30-year present values in 2000 prices and values Table K - 2: Operating Costs and Investment Costs (Full details of the operating and investment costs over the 30-Year period for each scenario are provided in Appendix K - II. The impact of discounting these costs to Year 2000 prices is given in Appendix K - III.) Scenarios Assessment This section aims to compare Scenarios 1,2 and 3 to the base - Scenario 4. In all cases where rail services are mothballed they are assumed to be replaced by express bus services with sufficient capacity to meet the corresponding rail demands. Scenario 3 Compared to Scenario 4 The NPV for Scenario 3 is -209.5m when compared to Scenario 4; i.e. it would cost an additional 209.5m in NPV terms to provide the truncated network. This consists of increased Operating Costs (-181.4m), increased Investment Costs (-127.1m), an increase in Revenue (103.3m), positive User Benefits (14.2m) and negative Indirect Tax Revenues (-18.5m). Scenario 2 Compared to Scenario 4 The NPV for Scenario 2 is -197.8m when compared to Scenario 4. This consists of increased Operating Costs (-197.4m), increased Investment Costs (-176.9m), an Economy Transport Economic Efficiency

K8 increase in Revenue (181.9m), positive User Benefits (26.7m) and negative Indirect Tax Revenues (-32.1m).

Scenario 1 Compared to Scenario 4 The NPV for Scenario 1 is -264.4m when compared to Scenario 4. This consists of increased Operating Costs (-230.5m), increased Investment Costs (-237.2m), an increase in Revenue (203.1m), positive User Benefits (36.4) and negative Indirect Tax Revenues (-36.2m). Detailed Assessment of Separate Impacts 1. User Benefits The user benefits/disbenefits attributed to specific scenarios as illustrated in the TEE tables are discussed below. Travel Time Table K - 3 summarises the net impact on travel time, disaggregated by transport modes, for each of the scenarios. Travel Time Benefits Car Users m Public Transport m All Users m Scenario 1 4.6 27.5 32.1 Scenario 2 2.4 20.4 22.8 Scenario 3 0.3 14.4 14.7

30-year present values in 2000 prices and values Table K - 3: Travel Time Benefits Car User Travel Time The car user time benefits come from the highway decongestion effects of the mode shift from car to rail predicted by the Oscar Faber model and are therefore roughly proportional to the scale of the mode shift predicted. These second order effects are of course significantly lower than the benefits to the public transport travellers who benefit directly. Public Transport Travel Time Scenario 3: The 30-year present value of benefits accruing to public transport users under Scenario 3 is around 14.4m. The benefits to the winners (notably from Bangor, Jordanstown and Ballymena into Belfast) are partially cancelled out by the losers (notably Lisburn-Belfast travellers, certain movements within the Belfast area (who could make use of the substitute bus services) and Larne-Belfast travellers) who the model predicts were better off under the high-frequency and cheaper substitute bus services. Scenario 2: Public transport traveller time benefits under Scenario 2 are predicted to be worth over 20m over the 30-year assessment period. Under this scenario, the winners are as for Scenario 3, plus a number of key corridor movements including Coleraine-Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K9 Belfast and Londonderry/Derry-Belfast. These extra winners generate the 6m additional PT traveller time benefits from the full Scenario 2 rail service. Scenario 1: The introduction of an enhanced rail service (Scenario 1), incorporating park and ride and the reinstatement of Antrim/Knockmore results in significant additional benefits to public transport users in terms of journey time. The winners are broadly as for Scenario 2 (only more so), while the losers are also the same, only lessso, resulting in 30-year PT traveller time benefits of around 27.5m.

Road Vehicle Operating Costs (VOCs) Given the U-shaped nature of the VOC relationship and the second order nature of the mode-shift effects, any changes in VOCs are likely to be small and this is confirmed by the values in Table K - 4. Scenario 1 m Scenario 2 m Scenario 3 m Vehicle Operating Costs 1.9 1.4 1.4 30-year Present Value of Benefits in 2000 prices and values Table K - 4: Vehicle Operating Costs User Charges Table K - 5 summarises the impact of each scenario on public transport user fares. Scenario 1 m Scenario 2 m Scenario 3 m Public Transport User Charges 2.5 2.5 -1.8

30-year Present Value of Benefits in 2000 prices and values Table K - 5: User Charges The 2.5m benefits for Scenarios 1 and 2 suggest that the rail network overall provides slightly cheaper fares on average than bus substitution (Scenario 4). This is slightly counter-intuitive, since rail is generally considered to be more expensive (in terms of fares) than bus. However, investigation reveals that these benefits are due to a combination of single through rail journeys replacing more expensive 2-legged bus journeys and the very low rail fares currently being charged for certain journeys on the NIR network. Scenario 3 results in a small net disbenefit because of the relatively higher rail fares on the remaining lines - notably on the Bangor and Lisburn lines. Freight The model does not separately identify road freight movements, since the goods vehicle flow is included within the single vehicle class. The model is therefore unable to Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K10 separately identify benefits for road freight traffic. However, it should be noted that where car users experience benefit or disbenefit (e.g. Travel Time or Vehicle Operating Costs) similar, but unquantifiable, impacts will apply to freight. As rail freight operations are currently limited to the cross-border line and to the Adelaide handling facility, which will be unaffected by the scenarios, no separate assessment of rail freight economics has been included. However, in Oscar Faber small rail freight revenue impacts arising from parcel operations have been derived from Translink estimates and are included in the Other Revenue category of the TEE tables. User Benefits - Summary Table K - 6 summarises the overall traveller benefits for the three scenarios. Scenario 1

000's Scenario 2 000's Scenario 3 000's Net User Benefit 36.4 26.7 14.2 30-year Present Value of Benefits in 2000 prices and values Table K - 6: Net User Benefits 2. Translink Impacts Revenues The revenue implications of the various scenarios on Translink are illustrated in Table K - 7. Public Transport Revenue m Other Revenue m Net Impact m Scenario 1 197.2 5.9 203.1 Scenario 2 176.0 5.9 181.9 Scenario 3 99.1 4.3 103.3 30-year Present Value of Benefits in 2000 prices and values Table K - 7: Impact on Translink Revenues The Net Impact figures presented in Table K - 7 arise, principally, from large increases in rail revenue (for Scenarios 1,2 and 3, as compared to Scenario 4) which

comfortably exceed the corresponding decreases in bus revenue. The small changes in Other Revenue are, by comparison, insignificant. The gain in rail revenue without a corresponding loss in bus revenue is due to a combination of effects: induced rail demand in Scenarios 1 and 2 (and suppressed demand in Scenario 4); in general, premium fares paid for rail travel as compared to bus; Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K11 transfer to rail of a relatively high proportion of car travellers for the longer more expensive journeys, (e.g. Londonderry/Derry line) in Scenarios 1 and 2. In order to further understand the effects, the revenues calculated by the model, and attributed (approximately) to rail and bus separately, were inspected and compared to Scenario 2 (which is closest in content to existing conditions). The comparisons confirmed: compared to Scenario 2, rail revenues increase by approximately 10% for Scenario 1, and decrease by approximately 30% for Scenario 3; compared to Scenario 2, bus revenues decrease by approximately 1% for Scenario 1, and increase by approximately 2% for Scenario 3. (Note that the small size of this increase may be attributed to the small proportion of the complete network formed by the bus substitution services.) Note 1: Land Values The NI Preface to Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government (HM Treasury) (The Green Book), states that costs and benefits should generally be valued on an economic cost or opportunity costs basis so that all the resources used or released by the options are considered regardless of ownership. Under the four scenarios examined as part of the review, it has been assumed that all NIR assets will be retained. For Scenarios 3 & 4, this is to ensure that the option of reopening rail services some time in the future would be retained. While the analysis does allow for NIR assets to be leased,

the likely rental income from the leasing of assets is relatively insignificant. Note 2: Other Public Sector Provider Impacts It is assumed that impacts on other public sector transport providers (for example road maintenance expenditure) are negligible for all four scenarios. Sensitivity Analysis The Oscar Faber modal demand forecasts have been confirmed as representing reasonable estimates, taking account of key issues such as modal switching between car and public transport, and trip generation/suppression. It is important, however, to address possible changes in the treatment of wait and walk time, which may affect the NPVs. This is discussed below. Broad sensitivity checks have also been undertaken see Section 9.5 Railways Task Force Interim Report. Wait and Walk Time The wait time for any form of public transport is a function of the frequency of service. In the model, the additional substitute buses are assumed to be equally spaced throughout the peak a.m. period. Where more than one bus is required to cater for the predicted demand per train, this will result in the bus providing a more-frequent service than the corresponding rail. If this equal spacing of buses cannot be achieved in practice (which might well be the case), then the user benefits associated with rail travel relative to substitute bus will increase. Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K12 In the model the majority of train trips are assumed to involve either a walk or bus access at each end of the trip. In practice, a significant proportion of rail travellers probably access stations by car, for example, being dropped off by husband/wife or by driving to the local station. This car access mode is not modelled, rather walk or bus access is assumed, except at the specific Park and Ride sites identified in Scenario 1. Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K13

Appendix K - I: TEE Tables Scenario 1 (Enhancement) Economy: Economic Efficiency of the Transport System (TEE) Scenario 1 (Enhancement) vs Scenario 4 Price Base Year = 2000 Discount Year = 2000

Impact Total Present Value

User Benefits Personal Travel Car Public Transport Other Travel Time 32.0 4.6 27.5 0.0 Vehicle Operating Costs 1.9 1.9 X X User Charges 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 NET IMPACTS 36.4 [1] 6.5 29.9 0.0

Translink Impacts

Public Transport Bus and Coach Rail Other

Revenue 203.1 197.2 5.9 Operating Costs -230.5 (a)

-230.5 71.3 -301.8 Investment Costs -237.2 (b) -237.2 15.1 -252.4 NET IMPACTS -264.6 [2]

Other Government Impacts Grant/subsidy payments 0.0 (c)

Road Infrastructure Bus and Coach Rail Other

Indirect tax Revenues -36.2

-2.1 13.8 -47.9 NET IMPACTS -36.2 [3] -2.1 13.8 -47.9 0.0

TOTAL Net Present Value, NPV -264.4 [4] = (1) + (2) + (3)

Present Value of Costs, PVC -467.7 [5] = (a) + (b) + (c)

Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K14 Scenario 2 (AD Little) Economy: Economic Efficiency of the Transport System (TEE) Scenario 2 (AD Little) vs Scenario 4 Price Base Year = 2000 Discount Year = 2000

Impact Total Present Value

User Benefits Personal Travel Car Public Transport Other Travel Time 22.8 2.4 20.4 0.0 Vehicle Operating Costs 1.4 1.4 X X User Charges 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 NET IMPACTS 26.7 [1] 3.7 23.0 0.0

Translink Impacts

Public Transport Bus and Coach Rail Other

Revenue 181.9 176.0 5.9 Operating Costs -197.4 (a) -197.4 68.2 -265.6 Investment Costs -176.9 (b) -176.9 14.7 -191.6 NET IMPACTS -192.4 [2]

Other Government Impacts Grant/subsidy payments 0.0 (c)

Road Infrastructure Bus and Coach Rail Other

Indirect tax Revenues -32.1

-1.7 12.8 -43.2 NET IMPACTS -32.1 [3] -1.7 12.8 -43.2 0.0

TOTAL Net Present Value, NPV -197.8 [4] = (1) + (2) + (3)

Present Value of Costs, PVC -374.3 [5] = (a) + (b) + (c) Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K15 Scenario 3 (Truncation) Economy: Economic Efficiency of the Transport System (TEE) Scenario 3 (Truncation) vs Scenario 4 Price Base Year = 2000 Discount Year = 2000

Impact Total Present Value

User Benefits Personal Travel Car Public Transport Other Travel Time 14.7 0.3 14.4 0.0 Vehicle Operating Costs 1.4 1.4 X X User Charges -1.8 0.0 -1.8 0.0 NET IMPACTS 14.2 [1] 1.6 12.6 0.0

Translink Impacts

Public Transport Bus and Coach Rail Other

Revenue 103.3 99.1 4.3 Operating Costs -181.4 (a) -181.4 48.0 -229.4 Investment Costs -127.1 (b) -127.1 10.1 -137.2 NET IMPACTS -205.3 [2]

Other Government Impacts Grant/subsidy payments 0.0 (c)

Road Infrastructure Bus and Coach Rail Other

Indirect tax Revenues -18.5

-1.3 11.2 -28.3 NET IMPACTS -18.5 [3] -1.3 11.2 -28.3 0.0

TOTAL Net Present Value, NPV -209.5 [4] = (1) + (2) + (3)

Present Value of Costs, PVC -308.6 [5] = (a) + (b) + (c) Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K16 Appendix K II: Details of Operating and Investment Costs SCENARIO 1: ENHANCEMENT Opportunity Cost Open Market Value of NIR assets at June 2000 is 46.008 million. Market value of cross-border rolling stock at June 2000 is estimated at 6.290m. The remaining rolling stock is estimated to have a zero market value. Capital Costs The costs for the development of Park and Ride and the Halt at Belfast City Airport are based on estimated land values of identified sites plus construction costs. These were provided by NITHCo property consultants and approved by VLA for use in appraisal. Infrastructure Costs, which include an element of EU funding, have been provided by Translink see Chapter 8 RTF Interim Report. Rolling Stock costs have been provided by Translink see Chapter 8 RTF Interim Report . Costs for dualling of track Kilroot to Whitehead provided by Translink. At April 2001, it is estimated that approximately 2.6m to be incurred on Central Station refurbishment This includes 1.95m of EU funding.

 450 Class replaced in year 11 at a cost of 32.4 million. In year 22, it will be necessary to replace 14 cross-border coaches and 2 crossborder locomotives at a cost of 14m and 4m respectively. Translink have confirmed that new cross-border rolling stock is likely to cost the same in 1999/2000 as they were in 1996/1997. Translink estimated costs for 1/2 year rebuild of 14 cross-border coaches in year 9 at 7 million. AD Little Revenue Costs are based on AD Little Report. These are the costs associated with implementing the works recommended in the AD Little report, for example, project management costs and safety related costs, i.e. training etc. It is estimated that revenue costs for the Enhancement scenario would be broadly the same as for the AD Little scenario. Other Capital Costs These are costs which are not included in AD Little costs but are considered by Translink to be essential works. These costs cover: public information system, bridge works, sea defence work, signalling, minor relay, infrastructure and mechanical engineering equipment, station/depot refurbishment and sundries. The costs associated with integrated ticketing (600,000) have been excluded from the economic analysis, as the impact of integrated ticketing was not taken into account in the analysis of benefits for each scenario.Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K17 Annual Costs Annual Operating Costs of Line have been provided by Translink Annual overhaul and maintenance costs for Cross-Border and Other Rolling Stock are detailed in Appendix K - IV. Infrastructure Running Costs and other running costs have been provided by Translink and are detailed in Chapter 8 RTF Interim Report. Bus Substitution Costs- It is assumed that bus substitution services will be provided

while track is being relayed these costs have been provided by Translink. Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K18 SCENARIO 2: AD LITTLE Opportunity Cost Open Market Value of NIR assets at June 2000 is 46.008 million. Market value of cross-border rolling stock at June 2000 is estimated at 6.290m. The remaining rolling stock is estimated to have a zero market value. Capital Costs Infrastructure Costs, which include an element of EU funding, have been provided by Translink see Chapter 8 RTF Interim Report. Rolling Stock costs have been provided by Translink see Chapter 8 RTF Interim Report. At April 2001, it is estimated that approximately 2.6m to be incurred on Central Station refurbishment This includes 1.95m of EU funding. 450 Class replaced in year 11 at a cost of 32.4 million. In year 22, it will be necessary to replace 14 cross-border coaches and 2 crossborder locomotives at a cost of 14m and 4m respectively. Translink have confirmed that new cross-border rolling stock is likely to cost the same in 1999/2000 as they were in 1996/1997. Translink estimated costs for 1/2 year rebuild of 14 cross-border coaches in year 9 at 7 million. AD Little Revenue Costs are based on AD Little Report. These are the costs associated with implementing the works recommended in the AD Little report, for example, project management costs and safety related costs, i.e. training etc. It is estimated that revenue costs for the Truncation scenario would be broadly the same as for the AD Little scenario. Other Capital Costs These are costs which are not included in AD Little costs but

are considered by Translink to be essential works. These costs cover: public information system, bridge works, sea defence work, signalling, minor relay, infrastructure and mechanical engineering equipment, station/depot refurbishment and sundries. The costs associated with integrated ticketing (600,000) have been excluded from the economic analysis, as the impact of integrated ticketing was not taken into account in the analysis of benefits for each scenario. Annual Costs Annual Operating Costs of Line have been provided by Translink Annual overhaul and maintenance costs for Cross-Border and Other Rolling Stock are detailed in Appendix K - IV. Infrastructure Running Costs and other running costs have been provided by Translink and are detailed in Chapter 8 RTF Interim Report. Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K19 Bus Substitution Costs Purchase of new Buses (Antrim Line) - 360,000 (It is estimated that in year 15, these buses will be replaced). Annual Maintenance/Running Costs of Buses - 246,000. Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K20 SCENARIO 3: TRUNCATION Opportunity Cost Open Market Value of NIR assets at June 2000 is 46.008 million. Market value of cross-border rolling stock at June 2000 is estimated at 6.290m. The remaining rolling stock is estimated to have a zero market value. Capital Costs Fencing costs provided by Translink. It is assumed that replacement fencing will be required in 15 years. Infrastructure Costs, which include an element of EU funding, have been provided

by Translink see Chapter 8 RTF Interim Report. Rolling Stock costs have been provided by Translink see Chapter 8 RTF Interim Report. At April 2001, it is estimated that approximately 2.6m to be incurred on Central Station refurbishment This includes 1.95m of EU funding. 450 Class replaced in year 11 at a cost of 32.4 million. In year 22, it will be necessary to replace 14 cross-border coaches and 2 crossborder locomotives at a cost of 14m and 4m respectively. Translink have confirmed that new cross-border rolling stock is likely to cost the same in 1999/2000 as they were in 1996/1997. Translink estimated costs for 1/2 year rebuild of 14 cross-border coaches in year 9 at 7 million. AD Little Revenue Costs are based on AD Little Report. These are the costs associated with implementing the works recommended in the AD Little report, for example, project management costs and safety related costs, i.e. training etc. It is estimated that revenue costs for the Truncation scenario would be broadly the same as for the AD Little scenario. Other Capital Costs These are costs which are not included in AD Little costs but are considered by Translink to be essential works. These costs cover: public information system, bridge works, sea defence work, signalling, minor relay, infrastructure and mechanical engineering equipment, station/depot refurbishment and sundries. The costs associated with integrated ticketing (600,000) have been excluded from the economic analysis, as the impact of integrated ticketing was not taken into account in the analysis of benefits for each scenario. Annual Costs Annual Operating Costs of Line have been provided by Translink Annual overhaul and maintenance costs for Cross-Border and Other Rolling Stock are detailed in Appendix K - IV.

 Infrastructure Running Costs and other running costs have been provided by Translink and are detailed in Chapter 8 RTF Interim Report. Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K21 Bus Substitution Costs Purchase of new Buses - 3.6 million (It is estimated that in year 15, these buses will be replaced). Purchase of new Wayfarer Machines - 55,000. Total Capital Costs - 3.655m Initial Driver Recruitment Training - 87,000. Annual Maintenance/Running Costs of Buses - 1.838 million. Annual Recruitment/Training Costs - 9,000 Annual Maintenance of Wayfarer Machines - 3,000. Rental Income from Leasing NITHCo Property Consultants estimate rental income form leasing at 23,000 pa. VLA has approved this figure. Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K22 SCENARIO 4: MOTHBALLING Opportunity Cost Open Market Value of NIR assets at June 2000 is 46.008 million. Market value of cross-border rolling stock at June 2000 is estimated at 6.290m. The remaining rolling stock is estimated to have a zero market value. Capital Costs It is assumed that Translink would retain full public liability and therefore would undertake the full fencing programme as outlined in AD Little. Although fencing should last approximately 20 years, it is assumed that due to vandalism, replacement fencing will be required in 15 years. Capital Infrastructure costs for the cross-border line are based on AD Little Report.

 At April 2001, it is estimated that approximately 2.6m to be incurred on Central Station refurbishment This includes 1.95m of EU funding. In year 22, it will be necessary to replace 14 cross-border coaches and 2 crossborder locomotives at a cost of 14m and 4m respectively. Translink have confirmed that new cross-border rolling stock is likely to cost the same in 1999/2000 as they were in 1996/1997. Translink estimated costs for 1/2 year rebuild of 14 cross-border coaches in year 9 at 7 million. Other Capital Costs These are costs which are not included in AD Little costs but are considered by Translink to be essential works. These costs cover: public information system, bridge works, sea defence work, signalling, minor relay, infrastructure and mechanical engineering equipment, station/depot refurbishment and sundries. The costs associated with integrated ticketing (600,000) have been excluded from the economic analysis, as the impact of integrated ticketing was not taken into account in the analysis of benefits for each scenario. Contractual Liabilities One-off payment to PORTIS (37,500) and leasing car companies (12,500). Annual Costs Annual Operating Costs of Line have been provided by Translink Annual overhaul and maintenance costs for Cross-Border and Other Rolling Stock are detailed in Appendix K - IV. Infrastructure Running Costs and other running costs have been provided by Translink and are detailed in Chapter 8 RTF Interim Report. Annual costs for fencing & vegetation control are estimated at 250,000. Economy Transport Economic Efficiency K23 Bus Substitution Costs Purchase of new Buses - 10.08 million (It is estimated that in year 15, these buses will

be replaced). Land costs for additional bus parking capacity (Bangor) estimated at 700,000. Purchase of new Wayfarer Machines - 165,000. Initial Driver Recruitment Training - 262,000. Annual Maintenance/Running Costs of Buses - 5.416 million. Annual Recruitment/Training Costs - 26,000. Annual Maintenance of Wayfarer Machines - 8,000. Rental Income from Leasing NITHCo Property Consultants estimate rental income form leasing at 34,000 pa. VLA has approved this figure. K24 Appendix K III: Costs over the 30 year Appraisal Period Scenario 1: Enhancement - Costs

All Costs are expressed at 2000 Prices

2001/02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's Costs Opportunity Cost Land/Buildings/Track 46,008

Cross Border Rolling Stock 6,290 Other Rolling Stock 0

Capital Costs Development of Park & Ride 2,060 City Airport Halt With Park & Ride 4,500 Infrastructure (including Antrim Knockmore) 17,920 42,034 25,279 15,880 18,243 4035 210 200 200 200 AD Little Rolling Stock Plus 8 3-car sets 16,300 50,600 33,600 200 Central Station Refurbishment 2,600 Class 450 Replacement Cross Border Rolling Stock Replacement 18,000 1/2 life rebuild (Cross Border) 32,400

7000 AD Little Revenue Costs 1,723 1,613 1,373 1,373 978 978 978 878 878 0 Dualling of Track (Kilroot to Whitehead) 2,764 Other Capital Costs 716 495 4,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

Operating costs NIR 10,957 11,380 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802 11,802

Running Costs Overhaul (cross border) 379 379 3529 379 379 1429 379 379 29 379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529 379 379 1,429 379 379 379 379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529 379 Overhaul Costs (Class 80 & 450) 4,663 4,663 7,066 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 Infrastructure Running Costs 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 4,079 Other 3,742 3,742 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 3,767 Bus Substitution (Relay) 520 1,503 952 624 624 156 TOTAL COSTS 125,221 120,488 95,447 49,164 50,932 37,306 32,275 32,165 38,815 31,287 64,175 31,775 32,825 31,775 31,775 34,925 31,775 31,775 32,825 31,775 31,775 31,775 49,775 31,775 31,775 32,825 31,775 31,775 34,925 31,775 K25

Scenario 2: AD Little Costs

All Costs are expressed at 2000 Prices

2001/02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's Costs Opportunity Cost NIR Assets 46,008 Cross Border Rolling Stock 6,290 Other Rolling Stock 0

Capital Costs

Infrastructure Costs 17,801 29,080 14,772 15,880 18,206 4035 210 200 200 200 AD Little Rolling Stock 10,900 34,800 26,000 200 Central Station Refurbishment 2,600

Class 450 Replacement Cross Border Rolling Stock Replacement 18,000 1/2 life rebuild (Cross Border) 7000

32,400

AD Little Revenue Costs 1,723 1,613 1,373 1,373 978 978 978 878 878 0 Other Capital Costs 716 495 3,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

Operating costs NIR 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958 10,958

Running Costs Overhaul (cross border) 379 379 3529 379 379 1429 379 379 29 379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529 379 379 1,429 379 379 379 379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529 379 Overhaul & Maintenance Costs (other rolling stock) 4,663 4,663 5,351 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 Infrastructure Running Costs 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 3,899 Other 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742 3,742

Bus Substitution Costs Capital Costs 360 Operating/Maintenance Buses 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 Bus Substitution (Relay) 520 1,300 858 624 624 156 TOTAL COSTS 110,805 91,175 74,228 45,917 47,648 34,059 29,028 28,918 35,568 28,040 60,928 28,528 29,578 28,528 28,888 31,678 28,528 28,528 29,578 28,528 28,528 28,528 46,528 28,528 28,528 29,578 28,528 28,528 31,678 28,528 K26 Scenario 3: Truncation Costs 360

All Costs are expressed at 2000 Prices

2001/02 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's Costs Opportunity Cost Land/Buildings/Track 46,008 Cross Border Rolling Stock 6,290 Other Rolling Stock 0

Capital Costs Fencing Costs 294 294 59 294 294 59

Infrastructure Costs 16,387 19,580 7,925 2,641 3,597 148 148 143 143 143 AD Little Rolling Stock less 3 3-car sets 9,800 30,100 21,000 200 Central Station Refurbishment 2,600 Class 450 Replacement Cross Border Rolling Stock Replacement 18,000 1/2 life rebuild (Cross Border) 7,000 AD Little Revenue Costs 1,723 1,613 1,373 1,373 978 978 978 878 878 0 Other Capital Costs 716 495 3,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 32,400

Operating Costs NIR 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518 9,518

Running Costs Overhaul & Maintenance (Cross Border rolling Stock)

379 379 3529 379 379 1429 379 379 29 379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529 379 379 1,429 379 379 379 379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529 379 Overhaul & Maintenance Costs (other rolling stock) 4,163 4,163 4,775 5,387 5,387 5,387 5,387 5,387 5,387 5,387 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 Infrastructure Running Costs 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 3,302 Other 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842 3,842

Bus Substitution Costs Capital Costs 3,655 Operating/Maintenance Buses 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 1,838 Other one-off Expenditure 87 Other annual expenditure 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Bus Substitution (Relay) 520 910 351 TOTAL COSTS 111,134 76,046 60,524 30,492 30,853 28,454 27,404 27,299 33,949 26,421 59,366 26,966 28,016 26,966 30,915 30,410 27,025 26,966 28,016 26,966 26,966 26,966 44,966 26,966 26,966 28,016 26,966 26,966 30,116 26,966 K27 Scenario 4: Mothballing Costs 3,655

All Costs are expressed at 2000 Prices

2001/02 Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's 000's Costs Opportunity Cost NIR Assets 46,008 Cross Border Rolling Stock 6,290 Other Rolling Stock 0

Capital Costs Fencing Costs 936 937 215 936 937 215

Infrastructure Costs 1,216 1,622 1,301 4 Central Station Refurbishment 2,600 Rolling Stock Replacement 18,000

1/2 life rebuild

7,000

Other Capital Costs 716 495 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500

Contractual Liabilities 50

Operating Costs Cross Border Line 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261 2,261

Running Costs Fencing/Vegetation Control 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 Overhaul & Maintenance Costs 379 379 3529 379 379 1429 379 379 29 379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529 379 379 1,429 379 379 379 379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529 379 Infrastructure Costs 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 1,965 Other 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027 1027

Bus Substitution Costs Capital Costs 10,945 Operating/Maintenance Buses 10,945

5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 5,416 Other one-off Expenditure 262 Other annual expenditure 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34

TOTAL COSTS 80,355 14,386 16,498 11,836 11,832 12,882 11,832 11,832 18,482 11,832 11,832 11,832 12,882 11,832 23,713 15,919 12,047 11,832 12,882 11,832 11,832 29,832 11,832 11,832 11,832 12,882 11,832 11,832 14,982 11,832 K28

Capital Costs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Do Nothing 5,518 3,054 2,016 504 500 500 500 500 7,500 500 500 500 500 500 1,436 1,437 715 500 500 500 500 18,500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Truncated 31,520 52,082 33,357 6,214 6,575 3,126 3,126 3,021 10,021 2,143 34,400 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,294 2,294 2,059 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 20,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 AD Little 33,740 65,988 45,645 19,953 21,684 7,513 3,688 3,578 10,578 2,700 34,900 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 20,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Enhancement 48,583 94,742 64,252 20,453 22,221 8,013 4,188 4,078 11,078 3,200 35,400 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 21,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

Operating Costs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Do Nothing 5,882 5,882 9,032 5,882 5,882 6,932 5,882 5,882 5,532 5,882 5,882 5,882 6,932 5,882 5,882 9,032 5,882 5,882 6,932 5,882 5,882 5,882 5,882 5,882 5,882 6,932 5,882 5,882 9,032 5,882 Truncated 21,204 21,204 24,966 22,428 22,428 23,478 22,428 22,428 22,078 22,428 23,116 23,116 24,166 23,116 23,116 26,266 23,116 23,116 24,166 23,116 23,116 23,116 23,116 23,116 23,116 24,166 23,116 23,116 26,266 23,116 AD Little 23,641 23,641 27,479 25,094 25,094 26,144 25,094 25,094 24,744 25,094 25,782 25,782 26,832 25,782 25,782 28,932 25,782 25,782 26,832 25,782 25,782 25,782 25,782 25,782 25,782 26,832 25,782 25,782 28,932 25,782 Enhancement 23,820 24,243 30,243 28,087 28,087 29,137 28,087 28,087 27,737 28,087 28,775 28,775 29,825 28,775 28,775 31,925 28,775 28,775 29,825 28,775 28,775 28,775 28,775 28,775 28,775 29,825 28,775 28,775 31,925 28,775

Substitute Bus Capital Costs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Do Nothing 11,207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Truncated 3,742 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,655 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AD Little 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Enhancement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bus Operating/M

aintenance costs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Do Nothing 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 Truncated 2,370 2,760 2,201 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 AD Little 766 1,546 1,104 870 870 402 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 Enhancement 520 1,503 952 624 624 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K29 Capital Costs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Total Discounted Costs Total Costs Do Nothing 5,518 3,054 2,016 504 500 500 500 500 7,500 500 500 500 500 500 1,436 1,437 715 500 500 500 500 18,500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 25,143.09 51,180.00 Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741 Discounted Costs 5,206 2,718 1,693 399 374 352 333 314 4,439 279 263 248 234 221 599 566 266 175 165 156 147 5,134 131 123 116 110 104 98 92 87 25,143

Truncated 31,520 52,082 33,357 6,214 6,575 3,126 3,126 3,021 10,021 2,143 34,400 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,294 2,294 2,059 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 20,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 162,370.07 242,232.00 Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741

Discounted Costs 29,736 46,353 28,007 4,922 4,913 2,204 2,079 1,895 5,931 1,197 18,121 994 938 885 957 903 765 701 661 624 588 5,550 524 494 466 440 415 391 369 348 162,370 -137,227

AD Little 33,740 65,988 45,645 19,953 21,684 7,513 3,688 3,578 10,578 2,700 34,900 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 20,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 216,729.50 315,467.00 Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741 Discounted Costs 31,830 58,729 38,324 15,805 16,204 5,296 2,453 2,245 6,261 1,508 18,385 1,242 1,172 1,106 1,043 984 928 876 826 780 735 5,689 654 617 582 550 518 489 461 435 216,730 191,586

Enhancement 48,583 94,742 64,252 20,453 22,221 8,013 4,188 4,078 11,078 3,200 35,400 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 21,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 277,519.65 391,208.00 Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741 Discounted Costs 45,833 84,320 53,947 16,201 16,605 5,649 2,785 2,559 6,557 1,787 18,648 1,491 1,407 1,327 1,252 1,181 1,114 1,051 992 935 882 5,828 785 741 699 659 622 587 554 522 277,520 252,377

Operating Costs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Do Nothing 5,882 5,882 9,032 5,882 5,882 6,932 5,882 5,882 5,532 5,882 5,882 5,882 6,932 5,882 5,882 9,032 5,882 5,882 6,932 5,882 5,882 5,882 5,882 5,882 5,882 6,932 5,882 5,882 9,032 5,882 87,034.04 189,760.00 Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741 Discounted Costs 5,549 5,235 7,583 4,659 4,395 4,887 3,912 3,690 3,274 3,284 3,099 2,923 3,250 2,602 2,454 3,555 2,184 2,061 2,291 1,834 1,730 1,632 1,540 1,453 1,370 1,524 1,220 1,151 1,667 1,024 87,034

Truncated 21,204 21,204 24,966 22,428 22,428 23,478 22,428 22,428 22,078 22,428 23,116 23,116 24,166 23,116 23,116 26,266 23,116 23,116 24,166 23,116 23,116 23,116 23,116 23,116 23,116 24,166 23,116 23,116 26,266 23,116 316,435.48 696,840.00 Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741 Discounted Costs 20,004 18,871 20,962 17,765 16,760 16,551 14,916 14,072 13,068 12,524 12,177 11,488 11,330 10,224 9,645 10,340 8,584 8,099 7,987 7,208 6,800 6,415 6,052 5,709 5,386 5,312 4,794 4,522 4,848 4,025 316,435 -229,401

AD Little 23,641 23,641 27,479 25,094 25,094 26,144 25,094 25,094 24,744 25,094 25,782 25,782 26,832 25,782 25,782 28,932 25,782 25,782 26,832 25,782 25,782 25,782 25,782 25,782 25,782 26,832 25,782 25,782 28,932 25,782 352,584.21 776,209.00 Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741 Discounted Costs 22,303 21,040 23,072 19,877 18,752 18,430 16,689 15,744 14,646 14,012 13,582 12,813 12,580 11,403 10,758 11,389 9,575 9,033 8,868 8,039 7,584 7,155 6,750 6,368 6,007 5,898 5,346 5,044 5,340 4,489 352,584 -265,550

Enhancement 23,820 24,243 30,243 28,087 28,087 29,137 28,087 28,087 27,737 28,087 28,775 28,775 29,825 28,775 28,775 31,925 28,775 28,775 29,825 28,775 28,775 28,775 28,775 28,775 28,775 29,825 28,775 28,775 31,925 28,775 388,807.38 860,565.00 Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741 Discounted Costs 22,472 21,576 25,393 22,248 20,988 20,540 18,679 17,622 16,417 15,684 15,158 14,300 13,983 12,727 12,007 12,567 10,686 10,081 9,858 8,972 8,464 7,985 7,533 7,107 6,705 6,556 5,967 5,629 5,892 5,010 388,807 -301,773

Substitute Bus Capital Costs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Do Nothing 11,207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,139.61 22,152.00 Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741 Discounted Costs 10,573 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,140

Truncated 3,742 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,655 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,055.29 7,397.00 Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741 Discounted Costs 3,530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,525 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,055 10,084

AD Little 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 489.84 720.00 Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741 Discounted Costs 340 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 490 14,650

Enhancement 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741 Discounted Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,140

Bus Operating/Maint enance costs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Do Nothing 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 75,018.33 163,500.00 Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741 Discounted Costs 5,142 4,850 4,576 4,317 4,073 3,842 3,625 3,419 3,226 3,043 2,871 2,708 2,555 2,411 2,274 2,145 2,024 1,909 1,801 1,699 1,603 1,512 1,427 1,346 1,270 1,198 1,130 1,066 1,006 949 75,018

Truncated 2,370 2,760 2,201 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 27,060.11 57,281.00 Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741 Discounted Costs 2,236 2,456 1,848 1,465 1,382 1,304 1,230 1,161 1,095 1,033 975 919 867 818 772 728 687 648 611 577 544 513 484 457 431 407 384 362 341 322 27,060 47,958

AD Little 766 1,546 1,104 870 870 402 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 246 6,824.63 11,462.00 Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741 Discounted Costs 723 1,376 927 689 650 283 164 154 146 137 130 122 115 109 103 97 91 86 81 77 72 68 64 61 57 54 51 48 45 43 6,825 68,194

Enhancement 520 1,503 952 624 624 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,698.08 4,379.00 Discount Factor 0.9434 0.8900 0.8396 0.7921 0.7473 0.7050 0.6651 0.6274 0.5919 0.5584 0.5268 0.4970 0.4688 0.4423 0.4173 0.3936 0.3714 0.3503 0.3305 0.3118 0.2942 0.2775 0.2618 0.2470 0.2330 0.2198 0.2074 0.1956 0.1846 0.1741

Discounted Costs 491 1,338 799 494 466 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,698 71,320 K30 Appendix K IV: Annual Overhaul and Maintenance Costs Scenario 1: Annual Overhaul & Maintenance Costs for Class 80 & 450 Rolling Stock

Running Maintenance & Overhaul Costs for 27x3 Car Suburban Train Sets (Class 80)

2001/02 (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 3,164 3,164 5,567 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561 6,561

Running Maintenance & Overhaul Costs for 27x3 Car Surburban Train Sets (Class 450)

2001/02 (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187

Running Maintenance & Overhaul Costs for Class 80 & 450 Rolling Stock

2001/02 (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 4,663 4,663 7,066 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,060 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 8,748 K31 Scenario 2: Annual Overhaul & Maintenance Costs for Class 80 & 450 Rolling Stock

Running Maintenance & Overhaul Costs for 19x3 Car Suburban Train Sets (Class 80)

2001/02 (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 3,164 3,164 3,852 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617

Running Maintenance & Overhaul Costs for 9x3 Car Surburban Train Sets (Class 450)

2001/02 (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187

Running Maintenance & Overhaul Costs for Class 80 & 450 Rolling Stock

2001/02 (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 4,663 4,663 5,351 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,116 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 6,804 K32 Scenario 3: Annual Overhaul & Maintenance Costs for Class 80 & 450 Rolling Stock

Running Maintenance & Overhaul Costs for 19x3 Car Suburban Train Sets (Class 80)

2001/02 (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 2,664 2,664 3,276 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 4,617 4,617 4,617 4,617

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888 3,888

Running Maintenance & Overhaul Costs for 9x3 Car

Surburban Train Sets (Class 450)

2001/02 (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 1,499 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187 2,187

Running Maintenance & Overhaul Costs for Class 80 & 450 Rolling Stock

2001/02 (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Cost 4,163 4,163 4,775 5,387 5,387 5,387 5,387 5,387 5,387 5,387 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Cost 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 6,075 K33 Scenario 4: Annual Overhaul & Maintenance Costs for Cross Border Rolling Stock

Annual Overhaul & Maintenance Costs for 14 Cross Border Coaches

2001/02 (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Annual Cost 350 350 3,500 350 350 1,400 350 350 0 350 350 350 1,400 350 350

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Annual Cost 3,500 350 350 1,400 350 350 350 350 350 350 1,400 350 350 3,500 350

Annual Overhaul Costs for 2 Cross

Border Locomotives

2001/02 (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Annual Cost 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Annual Cost 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29

Annual Overhaul & Maintenance Costs for All Cross Border Rolling Stock

2001/02 (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) (000's) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Annual Cost 379 379 3,529 379 379 1,429 379 379 29 379 379 379 1,429 379 379

Year 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Annual Cost 3,529 379 379 1,429 379 379 379 379 379 379 1,429 379 379 3,529 379 K34 Appendix L: Economy Reliability Economy Reliability L1 ECONOMY OBJECTIVE L. Reliability Sub-Objective Data Sources Rail Services Delay data: 1 st Quarter 2000, Northern Ireland Railways Current passenger journeys to Belfast: Belfast Transportation Model (Model) Assessment of the Impact of Changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal Demand and Market Shares, Oscar Faber, August 2000 Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company: Group Annual Review: 1998/99 Rail Passengers: Transport Statistics 1997/98, Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000 Methodology and its Application Reliability refers to the variability of journey times. For trains, reliability is measured using lateness (delays) and cancellations, for which NIR retain full records. For road transport (bus and car) changes in reliability result from variations in average delay, due to, for example, roadworks or accidents. There are no data records relating to road reliability. However, reliability by road is most likely to change where road links are operating close to capacity. In general, and especially during periods of peak travel

demand, trains are much more reliable than buses and cars, due to their tracks providing an exclusive right-of-way. The principal potential determinants of changes in reliability as experienced by the travelling public are: modal switching between rail (which is generally reliable) and bus or car (which are generally unreliable); modernisation of rail infrastructure and vehicles (trains) reducing delays due to breakdowns etc; increasing congestion on the road network (affecting bus and car). Whilst GOMMMS notes that road transport, including bus, should be assessed separately to rail, it is important to have a balanced methodology for rail and road ie equally precise for both. In addition, whilst GOMMMS promotes the use of a monetarybased approach for rail reliability, the inability to estimate monetarised effects for road transport leads to a qualitative methodology overall. Road transport (bus and car) reliability will relate to how congested the road network is at peak times. The model results show that whilst there is significant switching between car and rail, the changes in traffic levels were deemed not sufficiently large to significantly change reliability. Hence the principal effect to bus and car users involves modal switching between train and bus. In general terms, rail is currently significantly more reliable than bus. This is primarily due to road congestion effects, and is true despite current (high) rates of mechanical breakdown due to elderly rolling stock. In Scenarios 1,2 and 3 new rolling stock will be provided and selected infrastructure improvements made which will reduce delays and hence improve reliability by rail. Economy Reliability L2 The methodology applied was as follows: research annual estimates of travellers using both rail, and of bus and car, affected by road congestion related reliability problems;

 research current levels of rail delays taking account of causes and location; confirm, using Oscar Faber Review results, annual forecasts of travellers using rail, bus and car; estimate changes in future rail reliability by scenario, taking account of new rolling stock, signalling enhancements and track changes; estimate changes in road transport reliability taking account of modelled increases in car and bus. It should be noted that the estimation of future rail reliability, as outlined above, will likely under-estimate reliability improvements as the following impacts could not be quantified: new rolling stock may reduce accident related delays; track relays may reduce Civil Engineering related delays; It should also be noted that delays experienced when track improvements are carried out have been ignored. Key Results and Statistics Appendix L - I contains statistics relating to current rail delays (cause of delay and location of delay) and estimated changes in rail delays from current situation. Appendix L - II contains a qualitative assessment of reliability problems and estimates of annual numbers affected by congestion and related reliability problems. Scenarios Assessment Appendix L - III contains Scenarios Assessment by Mode (Rail, Bus and Car). Qualitative Summary In view of the relatively small changes forecast in traffic levels, no significant change in congestion-related reliability by bus and car is estimated between scenarios. Therefore the dominant determinants of changes in reliability are the improvement in rail reliability resulting from rolling stock and infrastructure improvements, and the numbers of persons travelling by rail. Compared to the Base

Mothball scenario, all other Scenarios (1,2 & 3) will provide large beneficial impacts, with each of the scenarios carrying 7 million passengers per annum or more. It should be noted however, that in Scenario 3 Truncation, public transport users in the Larne, Coleraine and Londonderry/Derry areas will not gain reliability benefits.

Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation The Base case scenario will result in the transfer of the current rail passengers onto bus services and car. Whilst current rail reliability can be reduced, at times, by the condition of the current (elderly) rolling stock, it is satisfactory (by Passenger Charter standards), and significantly better than bus and car reliability which are affected by congestion effects. The 2010 Base case therefore represents a large adverse change from the Existing situation. Economy Reliability L3 Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Improvement due to new rolling stock and track improvements. Quantitative Measure: 7 million rail passengers per annum. Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Improvement due to new rolling stock, track improvements and potentially due to staff morale Quantitative Measure: 8 million rail passengers per annum. Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Improvement due to new rolling stock, track improvements and potentially due to staff morale Quantitative Measure: 9 million rail passengers per annum.

Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect The rationale behind the use of the terms large adverse change and Large Beneficial Effect in the Scenario assessments is that: In the case of Scenario 4, compared to the existing situation, all current rail travellers approximately 5.8 million per annum - would be forced to switch to modes with lower levels of reliability, or to suppress their journeys. This is assessed as a large adverse change; In the cases of Scenarios 1-3, compared to Scenario 4, more than 7 million travellers switch to the rail, which has a higher level of reliability than the modes that they switch from. This number exceeds the scale of the large adverse switch from rail to other modes under Scenario 4 compared to the existing, and the change is therefore deemed to be of Large Beneficial Effect in each case. Economy Reliability L4 Appendix L - I: Key Statistics on Rail Delays Current Rail Delays by Cause (% of total) Cause % of network total delay Mechanical 53 Operations 13 Signalling & Electrical 11 Customer 8 Vandalism / Civil Disturbance 5 Other 10 Total 100 Current Rail Delays by line (% of total) Line % of network total delay Bangor 21 Larne 33

Londonderry/Derry 17 Portadown 19 Portrush 10 All lines 100 Estimated Changes in Rail Delays from Current Situation Scenario Approximate Change Comment 1 -50% new rolling stock, removes delays due to mechanical failure 2 -50% new rolling stock, removes delays due to mechanical failure 3 -50% new rolling stock, removes delays due to mechanical failure 4 not applicable no rail services Economy Reliability L5 Appendix L - II: Estimates of annual numbers affected by congestion and related reliability problems Estimates of Persons (millions per year) affected by Congestion related Reliability Problems Scenario Bus Car 1997 AM Peak Hour (1000s) 9.6 53.7 1997 Annual Persons 11.5 64.4 2010 Scenario 1 Enhancement 12.7 76.8 2010 Scenario 2 AD Little 12.8 76.9 2010 Scenario 3 Truncation 12.9 77.0 2010 Scenario 4 Mothball 14.5 77.5 (Figures are Persons to Belfast City Centre: source 1997 BTM with 2010 Oscar Faber projected growths) Economy Reliability L6

Appendix L - III: Scenarios Assessment by Mode (Rail, Bus and Car) Qualitative Assessment of Reliability Scenario Rail Reliability Bus Reliability Car Reliability 1997 Existing satisfactory slight problem slight problem 2010 Mothball (4) not applicable moderate problem moderate problem 2010 Truncation (3) good moderate problem moderate problem 2010 AD Little (2) good moderate problem moderate problem 2010 Enhancement (1) good moderate problem moderate problem Notes: (i) changes in rail reliability assessed from Appendix L - I (ii) reduction in bus and car reliability from 1997 to 2010 assumed to grow with traffic levels as shown in Appendix L - II (iii) no change in bus and car reliability between 2010 Scenarios, due to relatively small changes in car flows

Scenario Assessment by Mode from Base Scenario 4 Mothball Rail Bus Car Scenario Pax (M) Reliability Pax (M) Reliability Pax (M) Reliability Overall Truncation (3) +7 Moderate

Benefit -1 Neutral 0 Neutral Large Benefit AD Little (2) +8 Moderate Benefit -2 Neutral 0 Neutral Large Benefit Enhancement (1) +9 Moderate Benefit -2 Neutral 0 Neutral Large Benefit Notes: (i) annual rail passenger estimates derived from Oscar Faber growth factors and observed 6.2 M (1997/98 source NITHC) (ii) changes in bus and car volumes assessed from Appendix L - II (iii) changes in reliability from Appendix L - III (above) Appendix M: Economy - Wider Economic Impacts Economy Wider Economic Impacts M1 ECONOMY OBJECTIVE M. Wider Economic Impacts Sub-Objective Data Sources Assessment of the Impact of Changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal Demand and Market Shares, Oscar Faber, August 2000 Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000 Appropriate Statutory Area Plans, DOE Draft Regional Development Strategy, DRD Rural Development Programme, DARD

CRISP and CERS Programme, Regional Development Office, DOE English Tourism Council Northern Ireland Tourist Board Methodology and its Application GOMMMS (Volume 2 Section 6.4) states DETR has yet to decide on how to take account of the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment on Transport and the Economy (August 1999). Until such time GOMMMS advises recording rather than scoring whether a scenario: Benefits designated regeneration areas; and Assists the implementation of developments within or adjacent to regeneration areas. The Wider Economic Impacts sub-objective covers a number of distinct areas where Public Transport in general and rail travel in particular can have a significant impact. As these areas of impact are diverse, it was decided to consider each of these individually before making an overall assessment of the Wider Economic Impacts for each scenario. The structure of this report reflects the fact that it covers 4 discrete areas: 1. Regeneration 2. Tourism 3. Employment 4. Other Issues Each of these sections describes the individual methodology employed, results obtained and scenario assessments conducted. A summary at the end of this appendix highlights the main issues from each of these impacts and provides comments for inclusion in the AST. 1. REGENERATION Methodology and its Application GOMMMS refers to designated regeneration areas such as Assisted Areas, Single

Regeneration Budget Areas, and European Structural Funds. These translate into the following designations for Northern Ireland: Economy Wider Economic Impacts M2 Rural Regeneration Rural Development Programme area based regeneration strategies to strengthen the rural economy; Community Regeneration and Improvement Special Programme (CRISP) and Community Economic Regeneration Schemes (CERS) community led regeneration in the most disadvantaged towns and villages. Urban Regeneration Major regeneration schemes in the Belfast Metropolitan Area and Londonderry/Derry including EU Special support programme for Peace and Reconciliation through the Belfast Partnership Board and the District Partnership Board for Derry City Council. Trans-Regional Regeneration TransRegional opportunities were considered appropriate to wider economic benefits: North/South cross-border and East/west co-operative regeneration opportunities; and Regional gateways ports and airports with employment potential. It was agreed that regeneration impacts should be assessed for the scenarios in terms of whether: An improved rail service passed through a regeneration area and/or a station was accessible to it; A key development site in or close to a regeneration area had direct access to the rail network; and Consistency with regional and/or local regeneration objectives including relationship to gateways, economic development corridors and labour market

flexibility. Scenarios Assessment Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation Adverse Neutral Beneficial Rural Regeneration Yes quality of accessibility to places of work because of extensive station closure Urban Regeneration Yes hinders development of a modern city environment and crosscity labour market in Belfast Trans-Regional Yes poor external image, harms investment and tourism opportunities Regeneration Economy Wider Economic Impacts M3 Overall Assessment: Adverse judged against the existing situation, Scenario 4 has an adverse impact with loss of: Potential links to Belfast and Londonderry/Derry urban regeneration initiatives with likely harmful impacts on other related infrastructure improvements; Choice of means of access to regional gateways and their potential opportunities as major employment locations at Larne, Londonderry/Derry, Belfast City Airport and the opportunity for a link to Belfast International reduces choice and

Airport; and Rural regeneration potential due to extensive station closures especially in regional towns, which are central to the rural economy. Reduces opportunity for linking regeneration initiatives to tourism in Londonderry/Derry, Coleraine and to the World Heritage Site at the Giants Causeway. The potential to enhance Northern Irelands external image and investment opportunities would be adversely affected by Scenario 4. Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Adverse Neutral Beneficial Rural Regeneration Yes Urban Regeneration Trans-Regional Regeneration Overall Assessment: Slightly beneficial commuter services provided using new rolling stock and Antrim Bleach Green section opened. Absence of rail services north of Ballymena and Whitehead constrains economic opportunities for better regional balance between urban and rural regeneration. Absence of rail services, in particular north of Ballymena, reduces opportunity for linking regeneration initiatives to tourism in Londonderry/Derry, Coleraine and to the World Heritage Site at the Giants Causeway. Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Adverse Neutral Beneficial Rural Regeneration Urban Regeneration Trans-Regional Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Regeneration Overall Assessment: Moderately beneficial new rolling stock and services foster labour mobility, particularly in the Belfast Metropolitan Area. Benefit to both urban and rural regeneration helping to improve access to labour markets and competitiveness, Economy Wider Economic Impacts M4 reduce sub-regional variations, and offset peripherality. Provides means of access to other important regional gateways Londonderry/Derry and Larne. Helps sustain important regional towns with the opening of the Bleach Green section of the Londonderry/Derry line strengthening the Citys focus for employment in the NW and the wider economic corridor extending into Co. Donegal. Provides connections to more Universities and Institutes of Technologies. Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Adverse Neutral Beneficial Rural Regeneration Urban Regeneration Trans-Regional Regeneration Overall Assessment: Large beneficial extensive new rolling stock, a high level of service and park and ride provision foster labour mobility, particularly in the Belfast Metropolitan Area. Benefit to both urban and rural regeneration helping to improve access to labour markets and competitiveness, reduce sub-regional variations, and offset peripherality. Supports the wider potential of Belfast Harbour and Belfast City Airport and provides means of access to other important regional gateways Londonderry/Derry and Larne. Helps sustain important regional towns with the opening of the Bleach Green section of the Londonderry/Derry line strengthening Yes Yes Yes

the Citys focus for employment in the NW and the wider economic corridor extending into Co. Donegal. Provides connections to more Universities and Institutes of Technologies. 2. TOURISM Methodology and its Application One of the key roles of the Regional Development Strategy is to provide a spatial framework for tourism that supports the strategy of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB). The RDS states that one means of achieving this is the establishment of a modern transportation system in Northern Ireland that underpins tourism development by improving access to important tourism resources. The Draft RDS spatial framework for tourism shows the main assets of the tourism infrastructure within Northern Ireland. It is possible to examine each of the railway lines and ascertain which of these tourism assets are served by each line these are shown below. The railway lines also serve to bring people into Belfast and provide a choice of access to the range of tourist attractions that the City offers. The assets may be served directly by the railway line or the railway line may only serve the general area of the identified tourism asset. Economy Wider Economic Impacts M5 BANGOR LINE Belfast City Airport Ulster Folk and Transport Museum (Major Tourism Site) Bangor (Seaside Resort and Marina) LARNE LINE Carrickfergus (Heritage Town, Castle and Marina) Larne (Port) LONDONDERRY/DERRY LINE Coleraine/access to North Antrim Coast (Marina and Tourism Destination Resort)

Portrush (Seaside Resort) Londonderry/Derry (Tourism Destination Resort, Heritage Town, Historic Walled City, Airport and Port) BELFAST A range of tourist attractions Each scenario was examined to identify the facilities that would be available to tourists and also any of the above tourism assets that would no longer be accessible by rail, just bus and car. It was then possible to conduct a qualitative assessment of each scenario. Key Results and Statistics Some research was conducted to investigate the level of rail based tourism within Northern Ireland. The English Tourism Council advised that the UK Tourism Survey (covers all travel of 1 night or more hence, this includes business travel as well as tourism) states that 122 million trips were made in 1998. As a UK average, 9% of these trips were made by rail (in NI the average was 1% compared to 5% in Wales and 10% in Scotland and England). NITB advised that the NI Visitor Survey found that 0.4% of people surveyed stated that train was their main form of travel whilst in NI. None stated that it was their form of entry (not surprising as the survey was conducted at air and sea ports). The UK Tourism Survey also indicated that the total expenditure by UK tourists (on travel, accommodation, food etc.) in 1998 was 14,030 million and again 9% of that was on train travel. In their submission to the Railways Task Force, NITB stated that inbound tourism is currently worth 265 million to the NI economy with in excess of 1.65 million visitors coming to the region in 1999. The NITB also stated that with an increasingly stable political environment, there is great potential for substantial increases in tourism and that these greater numbers of visitors would want to enjoy a quality railway infrastructure. The NITB also stated that certain sections of the rail network in NI are extremely scenic

with unique views from the train. However, it should be noted that to date, these railway journeys have not been substantially promoted as part of the tourism offering in their own right. Economy Wider Economic Impacts M6 Scenarios Assessment Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation Overall assessment: Adverse judged against the existing situation, Scenario 4 has an adverse impact with the loss of: Choice of means of access to/egress from tourism points of entry such as Belfast City Airport, Larne port and the Londonderry/Derry area that includes an airport and port. Choice of means of access to/egress from significant tourism destinations: - Ulster Folk and Transport Museum - Bangor (Seaside Resort and Marina) - Carrickfergus (Heritage Town, Castle and Marina) - Coleraine/North Antrim Coast (Marina and Tourism Destination Resort) - Portrush (Seaside Resort) - Londonderry/Derry (Heritage Town and Historic Walled City) - A range of tourist attractions in Belfast The potential to enhance NIs external image and visitor expenditure opportunities would be adversely affected by Scenario 4. However, it should be borne in mind that the figures quoted above show that rail use by tourists in NI is at a low level compared to other parts of the UK. Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Overall assessment: Slight beneficial effect tourists would be able to avail of new rolling stock and benefit from: Choice of means of access to/egress from Belfast City Airport as a tourism point

of entry. Choice of means of access to/egress from significant tourism destinations: - Ulster Folk and Transport Museum - Bangor (Seaside Resort and Marina) - Carrickfergus (Heritage Town, Castle and Marina) - A range of tourist attractions in Belfast Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Overall assessment: Moderate beneficial effect tourists would be able to avail of new rolling stock and improved frequency. Tourists would also benefit from: Choice of means of access to/egress from tourism points of entry such as Belfast City Airport, Larne port and the Londonderry/Derry area that includes an airport and port. Choice of means of access to/egress from significant tourism destinations: - Ulster Folk and Transport Museum - Bangor (Seaside Resort and Marina) - Carrickfergus (Heritage Town, Castle and Marina) - Coleraine/North Antrim Coast (Marina and Tourism Destination Resort) - Portrush (Seaside Resort) - Londonderry/Derry (Heritage Town and Historic Walled City) Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Overall assessment: Moderate beneficial effect tourists would be able to avail of new rolling stock and services. Tourists would also benefit from: Economy Wider Economic Impacts M7 Choice of means of access to/egress from tourism points of entry such as Belfast City Airport (complete with its own station with Park and Ride facilities), Larne port and the Londonderry/Derry area that includes an airport and port. Choice of means of access to/egress from significant tourism destinations:

- Ulster Folk and Transport Museum - Bangor (Seaside Resort and Marina) - Carrickfergus (Heritage Town, Castle and Marina) - Coleraine/North Antrim Coast (Marina and Tourism Destination Resort) - Portrush (Seaside Resort) - Londonderry/Derry (Heritage Town and Historic Walled City) - A range of tourist attractions in Belfast 3. EMPLOYMENT Methodology and its Application The employment impact under each scenario is described in full in Appendix M-I. The impact consists of both a direct and indirect change in employment. The direct employment effects relate to Translink employees. An indirect employment effect exists through the construction of bus vehicles and railway carriages. It is assumed that railway carriages are most likely to be built within GB and bus bodies within Northern Ireland. Increasing the total railway provision in Northern Ireland over the base case will have positive indirect employment benefits within the UK for the construction of railway carriages. However, it will create a lesser negative indirect employment impact within Northern Ireland as less bus construction will be required. Key Results The direct employment impact ranges from 343 additional jobs within Translink under Scenario 3 to 407 under Scenario 1 when compared to Scenario 4. The indirect employment impact is given in Appendix M-I in terms of man-years of employment within train and bus builders. This shows a net impact ranging from 1289 additional man-years under Scenario 3 to 2206 under Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4. Scenarios Assessment Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation Compared to the existing situation, the closure of lines under the mothballing

scenario will have an immediate negative impact on direct employment levels with the loss of 544 NIR jobs. The 193 jobs gained through the expansion of bus services will, though, reduce the overall impact to a net loss of 351 jobs. Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Positive Employment Impact: 343 jobs created in Translink (8 less than existing situation) 1289 man-years created (in train and bus builders) Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Positive Employment Impact: 367 jobs created in Translink (16 more than existing situation) 1494 man-years created (in train and bus builders) Economy Wider Economic Impacts M8 Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Positive Employment Impact: 407 jobs created in Translink (56 more than existing situation) 2206 man-years created (in train and bus builders) 4. OTHER ISSUES Methodology and its Application As indicated in the Methodology and Application section (see page M1), GOMMMS advises that DETR has yet to consider the final report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment on Transport and the Economy (August 1999) and decide whether to accept the Committees recommendations and how to implement those that are accepted. Hence this report covers a number of distinct areas where Public Transport in general and rail travel in particular can have a significant impact. The report has already examined the areas of regeneration, tourism and employment. However, there are a number of other wider economic impacts, which can arise as a result of investment in transport infrastructure. These include:

Labour Market: improvements in transport efficiency increase the supply of skilled workers available to a firm. It can also weaken local labour monopolies, applying downward pressure to wage rates. In addition, the time savings from reduced congestion can result in increased productivity for the firm. DETIs view is that Northern Ireland needs a transport infrastructure that allows the labour market to operate as efficiently as possible. People need to get to and from work as efficiently as possible taking into consideration factors such as speed, cost and convenience for issues such as shift work. Housing Market: the ability of individuals to live further away from centres of employment and services should reduce the pressure on the housing market, particularly in urban areas. Investment in transport may also open up areas for development that previously had poor accessibility. Business Sector: as well as improved labour market conditions, the increased efficiency of the transport network should reduce generalised input costs for firms. It will also provide firms with access to wider markets. The distribution of goods should become more efficient as the freight sector develops and logistical improvements are made. Perception of Local Economy: the improved perception of the local economy as a result of investments in transport infrastructure may encourage potential inward investors to locate in Northern Ireland. A further impact would be the reduced negative effect of Northern Irelands peripheral location in the EU. Whilst it is possible to make a comparison of the extent of the impact under each of the four scenarios, this can only be a largely subjective comparison based on considerations such as the public consultation process, a review of existing literature and experience of previous investment projects. Economy Wider Economic Impacts M9 Scenarios Assessment Appendix M-II contains an impact assessment of each of the above factors for Scenarios

1-3 in comparison with the base case: Scenario 4 and for Scenario 4 relative to the existing situation. Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation Labour Market Scenario 4 will remove rail services and will have a negative effect on the ability of some individuals to travel to work. It will also discourage the widening of job search activity and decrease the pool of available skilled labour open to firms. However, this impact will be mitigated by bus substitution and it should be appreciated that rail only accounts for approximately 1% of total passenger kms travelled per year. Housing Market The removal of the rail network will adversely affect the incentive for housing development on the corridors that lose their rail services. Business Sector The negative effects will be minimal as there is currently a very small amount of rail freight traffic (approximately 1%) and the Dublin line will still be retained. Perception of Local Economy Removal of rail services will result in decreased confidence in the public transport system and the Draft Regional Development Strategy from both the travelling public and business community. The adverse labour market conditions and restricted access to product and input markets would appear to mean increased costs to firms and a lack of competitiveness as a result. The international image of Northern Ireland as a place to do business would be tarnished, as would its image of peripherality. The SDLP, for example, in their submission to the Task Force commented that any decision to close the railway would make the North/North West more peripheral and a less attractive region for inward investment.

Scenarios 3,2 and 1 compared to Scenario 4 Labour Market Scenarios 3, 2 and 1 will introduce rail services and will have a positive effect on the ability of some individuals to travel to work. They will also encourage the widening of job search activity and increase the pool of available skilled labour open to firms. As more rail services are provided from Scenario 3 to Scenario 1, the positive impact of the improved and higher frequency services increases. Housing Market Additional rail services, in the longer term, can act as an incentive for individuals to reside on the rail transport corridors further away from the main urban areas, particularly greater Belfast. As the extent of the rail network and the frequency of services increases, the incentive for housing development on the rail corridors also increases. Economy Wider Economic Impacts M10 Business Sector Additional rail services and higher frequency has a limited effect on overall road traffic (eg. decrease in road network under Scenario 1 is less than 1%). In addition, any additional rail freight traffic likely to be generated will be minimal. The CBI, for instance, in their submission to the Task Force suggested that the potential for a modal shift from road to rail is not economically attractive and added that currently 1% of freight uses rail on an optimistic assessment this may double over the next 10 years. Perception of Local Economy The high level of publicity generated by the review of NIR should mean that increasing investment will result in increased confidence in the public transport system and the Draft Regional Development Strategy from both the travelling public and business community. Improvements in the rail system that bring it

more into line with comparable European city services should also support the promotion of inward investment. Several submissions to the Task Force felt that an improved rail network could support the work of the IDB in encouraging new companies to locate in Northern Ireland and that a failure to do so would exacerbate the effects of peripherality see previous reference to the SDLP submission. Summary of all Wider Economic Impacts Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation Qualitative Impacts: Adverse impact resulting from loss of links to Belfast, Londonderry/Derry and other urban regeneration initiatives, to gateways and from reduction in rural regeneration potential due to extensive station closures. Loss of choice of means of access to a wide range of tourism assets. Net loss of 351 jobs in Translink. Decreases labour mobility, weakens housing market and lowers perception of local economy. Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Services provided on Belfast suburban lines marginally increase economic opportunity, but absence of rail services north of Ballymena and Whitehead constrains economic opportunities for better regional balance between urban and rural regeneration. Fosters labour mobility, strengthens housing market and improves perception of local economy. Quantitative Measure: Positive employment impact 343 jobs created in Translink (8 less than existing situation)

1289 man-years of employment created (in train and bus construction) Assessment Score: Slight Beneficial Effect Economy Wider Economic Impacts M11 Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Improves means of access to important regional gateways. Sustains important regional towns and strengthens Londonderry/Derrys focus for employment in the North West. Improves connections to the Universities and Institutes of Technologies. Positive impact on tourism. Significantly fosters labour mobility, strengthens housing market and improves perception of local economy. Quantitative Measure: Positive employment impact 367 jobs created in Translink (16 more than existing situation) 1494 man-years of employment created (in train and bus construction) Assessment Score: Moderate Beneficial Effect Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Improves means of access to important regional gateways (especially Belfast City Airport). Sustains important regional towns and strengthens Londonderry/Derrys focus for employment in the North West. Improves connections to the Universities and Institutes of Technologies. Positive impact on tourism. Significantly fosters labour mobility, strengthens housing market and improves perception of local economy.

Quantitative Measure: Positive employment impact 407 jobs created in Translink (56 more than existing situation) 2206 man-years of employment created (in train and bus construction) Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect Economy Wider Economic Impacts M12 Appendix M-I: Employment Impacts Employment Impacts Associated with Scenarios

Enhancement AD Little Truncation Mothballing Drivers 103 85 78 9 Conductors 78 60 53 0 Cross Border Conductors 10 10 10 10 Signalmen 30 30 19 4 Porters 86 86 76 21 Supervisors 43 43 37 1 Foremen 18 18 18 2 Clerical 84 84 78 15 Civil Engineers 30 30 23 10 Mechanical 110 96 90 41 Apprentices 13 13 13 0 Shunters 6 6 6 1 Other 11 11 9 4 Technician 22 22 21 3 Trackmen 59 59 46 23

Overseers 13 13 8 6 Foremen 8 8 5 3 Managers 35 35 35 6

Total NIR Jobs 759 709 625 159 Existing = 703 (at 30/06/00)

Enhanced Bus Services Drivers 0 8 56 154 Support 0 2 14 39 Net Impact 759 719 695 352

Net Impact relative to Base Case: Scenario 4 +407 +367 +343 Net Impact relative to Existing Situation +56 +16 -8 -351 Economy Wider Economic Impacts M13 Indirect Employment Impacts - Total Man Years Created

Change on Base case Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Indirect - Railway Carriages* 2430 1710 1440 Indirect -Bus Carriages -224 -215.6 -151.2 Total Man Years 2,206 1,494 1,289

NI Only -200 -196 -166

* - Indirect employment impacts on GB economy

Assumptions

Employment Impact Per Railway Carriage 10 man years direct employment in GB 20 man years indirect in GB (Sub contracted) Source: Mr Stewart, Sales Manager, Adtranz Ltd, Derby

Number of carriages associated with each scenario

Scenario 1: 27 x 3 = 81 Scenario 2: 19 x 3 = 57 Scenario 3: 16 x 3 = 48 Scenario 4: 0 0

Indirect Employment Impacts - Buses

Wrights employ 525 people and produce 600 buses per year 1 Bus equates to: 1 man year direct employment in NI 0.3 man year direct sub contract NI 0.5 man year sub-contracted in GB 1 man year indirect subcontracted in EU

No. Buses Total Man Years NI Only Scenario 1 0 0 0 Scenario 2 3 8.4 3.9 Scenario 3 26 72.8 33.8 Scenario 4 80 224 104 Economy Wider Economic Impacts M14 Appendix M-II: Impact Assessment of Other Issues Scenario Assessment against Base Case Assessment against Existing Situation 123 4 IMPACT Labour Market + + + + + -

Housing Market + + + + + - Business Sector / / / Perception of local economy ++ + + + Key: - - - = large adverse impact - - = moderate adverse impact - = slight adverse impact / = neutral impact + = slight beneficial impact + + = moderate beneficial impact + + + = large beneficial impact Appendix N: Accessibility Option Values Accessibility Option Values N1 ACCESSIBILITY OBJECTIVE N. Option Values Sub-Objective Data Sources Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000 1991 Census: Towns and Villages Booklet, Department of Finance and Personnel Rail Stations: An Access Guide, Translink June 2000 Methodology and its Application The GOMMMS guidance confirms that total accessibility benefits of a new public transport service will be captured by the user benefits included in the Transport Economic and Efficiency Table under the Economy Objective. However, research has shown that an additional benefit is perceived by non-users arising from the new

opportunities provided by the new service. (Conversely, where services are removed, the opportunity and therefore those perceived benefits are also removed.) These benefits are termed Option Values and monetary estimates can be assigned on a caseby-case basis, by specialist research and using methodologies discussed in an unpublished report by the Institute of Transport Studies. However, the guidance recognises that on many studies, it will not be possible or appropriate to undertake specific research or detailed analysis and therefore recommends an alternative qualitative procedure. That qualitative procedure was adopted for the RTF appraisal, and is explained below. It should be noted that the assessment is dependent on the level of public transport service delivered by the scenario and is not dependent on patronage levels. The GOMMMS qualitative procedure assigns scores related to the size of the total resident community affected by service additions or withdrawals. The procedure highlights that Withdrawal of rail services replaced by bus should be counted as a withdrawal of service, given the lower level of accessibility offered to significant groups of users. The methodology adopted used the following steps: compile an inventory of current and future rail stations on the network and the population served by each (source: 1991 Census Towns and Villages Booklet); annotate each station on the basis of whether or not it is wheelchair accessible ie ramps etc (source: Rail Stations An Access Guide, Translink 2000); annotate each station on the basis of whether or not it is operational in each scenario; total the population served by wheelchair accessible stations under each scenario (taking care not to double-count population where there is more than one station in a town or City); compare the total population served with the GOMMMS Scoring Scale to provide an assessment for each scenario.

The spreadsheet used to undertake the assessment is provided as Appendix N - I. Accessibility Option Values N2 Key Statistics and Results Community Service Withdrawn Service Added > 2000 people Strong adverse Large beneficial 500 1999 people Moderate adverse Moderate beneficial 1 499 people Slight adverse Slight beneficial 0 people Neutral Neutral

Table N 1: GOMMMS Scoring Scale Scenarios Assessment Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation The assessment calculations show that residents of Belfast, Newry and Portadown only, totalling approximately 320,000, will have access to rail services this represents a reduction of approximately 400,000 residents from the current situation. This represents a Large Adverse impact. The impact will be especially large for persons using wheelchairs, who are normally unable to use buses. Qualitative Impacts: Loss of access to rail for residents in Belfast, the North East, North and North West of the Region. Wheelchair access to the local public transport network removed. Quantitative Measure: Rail access removed from approximately 400,000 residents. Assessment Score: Large Adverse Effect Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Rail accessibility provided to residents in vicinity of suburban Belfast lines. Wheelchair access

provided to Belfast suburban public transport network. Quantitative Measure: Local rail access provided to approximately 580,000 residents. Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Rail accessibility provided to residents in vicinity of suburban Belfast lines and the Northern and Eastern Seaboard transportation corridors. Slightly increased frequencies on suburban Belfast lines of value to occasional users. Wheelchair access provided to public transport network. Quantitative Measure: Local rail access provided to approximately 710,000 residents. Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect Accessibility Option Values N3 Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Rail accessibility provided to residents in vicinity of suburban Belfast lines and the Northern and Eastern Seaboard transportation corridors. Significant increase in frequencies on suburban Belfast lines of value to occasional users. Wheelchair access provided to public transport network. Quantitative Measure: Local rail access provided to over 710,000 residents. Assessment Score: Large Beneficial EffectAccessibility Option Values

N4 Appendix N - I: Spreadsheet Of Calculations No Station Wheelchair Access Population Served Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 flag score flag Score flag score Flag score

1 Antrim 1 20878 1 20878 1 20878 1 20878 0 0 2 Ballinderry 1 537 1 537 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Ballycarry 1 1010 1 1010 1 1010 0 0 0 0 4 Ballymena 1 28717 1 28717 1 28717 1 28717 0 0 5 Ballymoney 1 8242 1 8242 1 8242 0 0 0 0 6 Bangor 1 26219 1 26219 1 26219 1 26219 0 0 7 Bangor West 1 26219 1 26219 1 26219 1 26219 0 0 8 Adelaide 0 31026 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 9 Balmoral 1 31026 1 39891 1 39891 1 39891 0 0 10 Botanic 1 31026 1 39891 1 39891 1 39891 0 0 11 Bridge End 0 31026 1 0 1 39891 1 39891 0 0 12 Central 1 31026 1 39891 1 39891 1 39891 1 279237 13 City Hospital 1 31026 1 39891 1 39891 1 39891 0 0 14 Belfast - GVS 1 31026 1 39891 1 39891 1 39891 0 0 15 Sydenham 1 31026 0 0 1 39891 1 39891 0 0 16 Yorkgate 1 31026 1 39891 1 39891 1 39891 0 0 17 Bellarena 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0 0 0 18 Carnalea 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0

19 Carrickfergus 1 22885 1 22885 1 22885 1 22885 0 0 20 Castlerock 1 1023 1 1023 1 1023 0 0 0 0 21 Clipperstown 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0 22 Coleraine 1 10361 1 10361 1 10361 0 0 0 0 23 Craine Univ 1 10361 1 10361 1 10361 0 0 0 0 24 Crumlin 1 2697 1 2697 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 Cullybackey 1 2434 1 2434 1 2434 0 0 0 0 26 Cultra 0 100 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 27 Derriaghy 1 1696 1 1696 1 1696 1 1696 0 0 28 Downshire 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0 29 Dunmurry 1 12771 1 12771 1 12771 1 12771 0 0 30 Finaghy 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0 31 Glenavy 1 497 1 497 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 Glynn 1 384 1 384 1 384 0 0 0 0 33 Greenisland 1 4967 1 4967 1 4967 1 4967 0 0 34 Helen's Bay 0 1268 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 35 Hilden 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0 36 Holywood 1 9252 1 9252 1 9252 1 9252 0 0 37 Jordanstown 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0 38 Knockmore 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0 39 Lambeg 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0 40 Larne Harbour 1 8788 1 8788 1 8788 0 0 0 0 41 Larne Town 1 8788 1 8788 1 8788 0 0 0 0 42 Lisburn 1 42110 1 21055 1 42110 1 42110 0 0 43 Londonderry/Derry 1 72334 1 72334 1 72334 0 0 0 0 44 Lurgan 1 21905 1 21905 1 21905 1 21905 0 0 45 Magheramourne 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0 0 0

46 Marino 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0 47 Moira 1 2772 1 2772 1 2772 1 2772 0 0 48 Newry 1 22975 1 22975 1 22975 1 22975 1 22975 49 Portadown 1 21299 1 21299 1 21299 1 21299 1 21299 50 Portrush 1 5703 1 5703 1 5703 0 0 0 0 51 Dhu Varren 1 5703 1 5703 1 5703 0 0 0 0 52 Poyntzpass 1 380 1 380 1 380 1 380 0 0 53 Scarva 1 322 1 322 1 322 1 322 0 0 54 Seahill 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0 55 Trooperslane 1 22885 1 22885 1 22885 1 22885 0 0 56 Whiteabbey 1 100 1 100 1 100 1 100 0 0 57 Whitehead 1 3761 1 3761 1 3761 1 3761 0 0 Templepatrick 1 1414 1 1414 1 1414 1 1414 0 0 Mossley West 1 1420 1 1420 1 1420 1 1420 0 0 Lisburn West 1 42110 1 21055 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ballyhenry 1 100 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 City Airport 1 31026 1 39891 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 714347 56 710513 42 575184 3 323511 Appendix O: Accessibility Severance Accessibility Severance O1 ACCESSIBILITY OBJECTIVE O. Severance Sub-Objective Data Sources Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges 1991 Census: Towns and Villages Booklet, Department of Finance and Personnel

Ordnance Survey NI: 1:50,000 maps Methodology and its Application The Severance sub-objective is assessed in terms of the impacts on non-motorised modes of travel (ie cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians). The GOMMMS guidance and the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) suggest that the effects of traffic should be assessed where traffic levels change by +/-30%, whilst rail impacts should be assessed for individual road closures or level crossings (where applicable). For rail, the severity of impact will increase with the number and speed of trains using the crossings. The guidance notes that whilst it may be appropriate to undertake surveys of pedestrian and cyclist demand for detailed scheme assessment, the application of standard datasets or professional judgement will be more appropriate to the assessment of strategies. The severance score is presented using the seven point textual scale. GOMMMS provides the following four broad levels of severance: None - Little or no hindrance to pedestrian movement Slight - All people wishing to make pedestrian movements will be able to do so, but there will probably be some hindrance to movement Moderate - Some people, particularly children and old people, are likely to be dissuaded from making journeys on foot. For others, pedestrian journeys will be longer or less attractive. Severe - People are likely to be deterred from making pedestrian journeys to the extent sufficient to induce an reorganisation of their activities. . Those who do make journeys on foot will experience considerable hindrance. Results from the Oscar Faber analysis confirmed that traffic changes of +/- 30% would not result from the scenarios to be assessed, therefore the methodology focussed on rail impacts. The methodology was constructed of the following sequential steps: confirm current crossings on the rail network, noting detailed location on Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 maps;

 prepare inventory of current crossings, noting the following features which will reflect possible level of usage: - location either isolated rural, rural, village or town; - road class minor, B or A (it was considered that, especially in rural areas, pedestrian usage was highest on the higher road classes - partly due to the key land uses and facilities linked by the roads and partly due to improved pedestrian facilities [eg footways and lighting] provided); - trains crossing each weekday train speeds would not change between scenarios, whilst weekday frequencies were considered to represent the worst case (ie Saturday and Sunday services would be less frequent); Accessibility Severance O2 - in addition, where location is town or village, rather than rural or isolated rural, population (taken from 1991 Census) was recorded in order to enable some quantification of the possible numbers of persons affected i.e. population was used as an indicator or proxy for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians. assign a numerical code to each of the features noted above allowing a numerical score to be calculated for each crossing, see Table 1. It should be noted therefore that, if all other features of the rail network remain unchanged, then the severance score for the scenarios increases with frequency of services. The severance score is not affected by modal switching or by level of rail usage. Key Statistics and Results See Appendix O - I for inventory and impact results assessment. Line Location Existing Situation (tpd) Scenario

1 (tpd) Scenario 2 (tpd) Scenario 3 (tpd) Scenario 4 (tpd) Londonderry/ Derry Ballymena 18 18 18 18 0 X Border + Portadown Lurgan 56 69 56 56 16 Larne Jordanstown 67 74 67 67 0 Portrush Artillery Road 37 40 37 0 0 AntrimBleach Green Antrim 0 18 18 18 0 Note: tpd = trains per weekday Table O 1: Typical Train Frequencies by Line Scenarios Assessment Qualitative Summary The major impacts arise from the complete removal of rail services or addition of new rail services on previously unused lines. Lesser impacts arise from significant

decreases or increases in train service frequencies. Locations close to village or town centres will impact on the greatest numbers of pedestrians. Due to the relatively low frequencies of train services, whilst pedestrian and cyclists movements may be hindered, they are unlikely to be dissuaded from making journeys and therefore the assessment score is Slight for all scenarios. Using Scenario 4 Mothball as the Base scenario, all of the scenarios return Slight Adverse assessments. Accessibility Severance O3 Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation Qualitative Impacts: Severance effects arise due to rail crossings and increased train frequencies and are limited in this scenario to the BelfastDublin line. There is reduced severance at Lurgan, Moira and Dunmurry due to reduction in train frequencies. No requirement for crossing on A57 route to/from Belfast International Airport on Antrim Bleach Green section due to mothballing. Quantitative Measure: Current severance removed for 73k residents of Coleraine, Cullybackey, Ballymena and Antrim, and University access at Jordanstown. Assessment Score: Slight Beneficial Effect Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Severance effects arise due to rail crossings and increased train frequencies and are spread across NI network with key impacts in urban locations noted in Quantitative Measure. Also, there is significant and increased severance at Lurgan, Moira and Dunmurry due to additional train

frequencies. Severance introduced at University access at Jordanstown and at the new barrier crossing on A57 route to/from Belfast International Airport on Antrim Bleach Green section. Quantitative Measure: Level crossings introduce severance for 50k residents of Ballymena and Antrim. Assessment Score: Slight Adverse Effect Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Severance effects arise due to rail crossings and increased train frequencies and are spread across NI network with key impacts in urban locations noted in Quantitative Measure. Also, there is significant and increased severance at Lurgan, Moira and Dunmurry due to additional train frequencies. Severance introduced at University access at Jordanstown and at a new barrier crossing on A57 route to/from Belfast International Airport on Antrim Bleach Green section. Quantitative Measure: Level crossings introduce severance for 73k residents of Coleraine, Cullybackey Ballymena and Antrim. Assessment Score: Slight Adverse Effect Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Severance effects arise due to rail crossings and increased train frequencies and are spread across Accessibility Severance

O4 NI network with key impacts in urban locations noted in Quantitative Measure. Also, there is significant and increased severance at Lurgan, Moira and Dunmurry due to additional train frequencies. Severance introduced at University access at Jordanstown and at a new barrier crossing on A57 route to/from Belfast International Airport on Antrim Bleach Green section. Potential severance arising from provision of D5 spur. Quantitative Measure: Level crossings introduce severance for 73k residents of Coleraine, Cullybackey Ballymena and Antrim. Assessment Score: Slight Adverse EffectAccessibility Severance O5 Appendix O - I: Spreadsheet showing Calculation of Severance Impacts by Crossing Location Location Road Existing Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Line Xing Description Population Code Code tpd score tpd score tpd score tpd score tpd score Londonderry/Derry Line 1 1 Nutt's NA 1 1 14 14 14 14 14 14 0 0 0 0 1 2 Bellarena Station 100 2 5 14 140 14 140 14 140 0 0 0 0 1 3 Duncrun West Farms 2 1 14 28 14 28 14 28 0 0 0 0 1 4 Duncrun East Farms 2 1 14 28 14 28 14 28 0 0 0 0 1 5 Clooney Farms 2 1 14 28 14 28 14 28 0 0 0 0 1 6 Magilligan 100 2 1 14 28 14 28 14 28 0 0 0 0

1 7 Umbra 100 2 5 14 140 14 140 14 140 0 0 0 0 1 8 Castlerock Station 1023 5 1 14 70 14 70 14 70 0 0 0 0 1 9 Coleraine Station 20721 10 2 22 440 22 440 22 440 0 0 0 0 1 10 Damhead 100 2 1 22 44 22 44 22 44 0 0 0 0 1 11 Macfin 100 2 1 22 44 22 44 22 44 0 0 0 0 1 12 Balnamore 189 2 1 22 44 22 44 22 44 0 0 0 0 1 13 Coldagh 100 2 1 22 44 22 44 22 44 0 0 0 0 1 14 Ballyboyland 100 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 0 0 1 15 Galdanagh 100 1 1 18 18 18 18 18 18 0 0 0 0 1 16 Dunloy 1119 5 1 18 90 18 90 18 90 0 0 0 0 1 17 Killagan 100 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 0 0 1 18 Glaryford 99 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 0 0 1 19 Broughdone 100 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 0 0 1 20 Martinstown 2434 5 2 18 180 18 180 18 180 0 0 0 0 1 21 Cullbackey Station 2434 5 2 18 180 18 180 18 180 0 0 0 0 1 22 Cullybackey North 2434 5 2 18 180 18 180 18 180 0 0 0 0 1 23 Cullybackey South 2434 5 2 18 180 18 180 18 180 0 0 0 0 1 24 Galgorm 681 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 0 0 1 25 Spenctown 28717 10 2 18 360 18 360 18 360 18 360 0 0 1 26 New Grave Yard 28717 10 2 18 360 18 360 18 360 18 360 0 0 1 27 Slaght 28717 10 2 18 360 18 360 18 360 18 360 0 0 1 28 Steele's Farms 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 1 29 Drumsough 100 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 1 30 Carngranny 100 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 1 31 Niblock 20878 10 2 18 360 18 360 18 360 18 360 0 0 1 32 Springfarm 20878 10 2 18 360 18 360 18 360 18 360 0 0 1 33 Antrim Station 20878 10 2 18 360 18 360 18 360 18 360 0 0

1 34 Deerpark Hotel 20878 10 2 18 360 18 360 18 360 18 360 0 0 1 35 Molyneaux 100 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 1 36 McKillop's 100 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 1 37 Fletcher's 100 2 2 18 72 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 1 38 Blair's Field Access 1 2 18 36 18 36 18 36 18 36 0 0 1 39 Frazer's Field Access 1 2 18 36 18 36 18 36 18 36 0 0 5304 5304 5304 3024 0 X Border + Portadown Line 2 1 Meigh 578 2 1 16 32 23 32 16 32 0 0 16 32 2 2 Poyntzpass 380 5 1 20 100 29 100 20 100 0 0 16 80 2 3 Lurgan Station 21905 10 1 56 560 69 720 56 560 56 560 16 160 2 4 Lake Street 21905 10 1 56 560 69 720 56 560 56 560 16 160 2 5 Bell's Row 21905 10 1 56 560 69 720 56 560 56 560 16 160 2 6 Kilmore 100 2 1 56 112 69 144 56 112 56 112 16 32 2 7 Drumbane 100 2 1 56 112 69 144 56 112 56 112 16 32 2 8 Moira Station 2792 5 2 56 560 69 720 56 560 56 560 16 160 2 9 Trummery 100 2 1 56 112 69 144 56 112 56 112 16 32 2 10 Damhead 100 2 1 56 112 69 144 56 112 56 112 16 32 2 11 Maze 100 2 1 56 112 69 144 56 112 56 112 16 32 2 12 Lissue 100 2 1 56 112 65 144 56 112 56 112 16 32 2 13 Dunmurry 12771 10 1 56 560 99 1200 56 560 56 560 16 160 3604 5076 3604 3472 1104 Larne Line 3 1 Jordanstown Station Univ. Access 5 1 67 335 74 495 67 335 67 335 0 0 3 1 Trooperslane Station 100 5 2 67 670 74 990 67 670 67 670 0 0 1005 1485 1005 1005 0 Portrush Line

4 1 Ballyreagh 100 2 1 37 74 38 74 37 74 0 0 0 0 4 2 Cromore 100 2 1 37 74 38 74 37 74 0 0 0 0 4 3 Artillery Road 20721 10 1 37 350 40 350 37 370 0 0 0 0 498 498 518 0 0 Antrim Bleach Green 5 1 20878 10 1 0 0 18 180 18 180 18 180 0 0 5 2 House Access 2 1 0 0 18 36 18 36 18 36 0 0 5 3 Farm Access 2 1 0 0 18 36 18 36 18 36 0 0 5 4 Farm Access 2 2 0 0 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 5 5 A'port Access 2 5 0 0 18 180 18 180 18 180 0 0 5 6 Kingsbog NA 2 2 0 0 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 5 7 NA 2 2 0 0 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 5 8 Farm Access 2 2 0 0 18 72 18 72 18 72 0 0 0 720 720 720 0

10411 13083 11151 8221 1104 Notes Assign Codes as follows: Scenarios 1, 2 and 4: Population affected = Coleraine (20721), Cullybackey (2434), Ballymena (28717) and Antrim (20878) = Total (72750) Line Code - 1=Londonderry/Derry, 2=Xborder, 3=Larne, 4=Portrush Xing No - internal code Scenarios 1, 2 and 4: Population affected = Ballymena (28717) and Antrim (20878) Population - Population of Town/village, with 100 for 'passing' = Total (49595) Location Code - 1= isolated rural, 2 = rural, 5 = village, 10 = town Road Code - 1= minor (or unclassified), 2 = B, 5 = A tpd = Trains per day (both directions) Appendix P: Accessibility Access to the Transport System Accessibility Access to the Transport System

P1 ACCESSIBILITY OBJECTIVE P. Access to the Transport System Sub-Objective Data Sources Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000 1991 Census: Towns and Villages Booklet, Department of Finance and Personnel Translink Timetables Methodology and its Application The GOMMMS guidance confirms that the most important determinant of access to the transport system is the availability of a vehicle for private use. In addition, persons living beyond convenient walking distance from a regular bus or train service can be considered to have unacceptable access to transport system. The guidance suggests that ideally, the assessment will total the number of non car available population living beyond 250 metres of a daytime hourly public transport service, for each scenario. A comparison of these totals between the scenario under test and the Base scenario would then be used to score each scenario. The assessment of each scenario is therefore dependent on the level of public transport service provided and is not related to modal demand. Consideration of the scenario specifications with respect to the level of public transport (combined bus and rail) service was confirmed as the most appropriate methodology. Scenarios 1 and 2 do not represent major changes in level of public transport service (from the current situation) the new stations in Scenario 1 are provided in residential areas (Templepatrick, Mossley West and Lisburn West) already served by Ulsterbus. Scenarios 3 and 4 remove rail services, however in general terms, bus substitution will ensure that there is no net change in level of service. It was concluded therefore that the overall effect would be Neutral and that it was not necessary to undertake a detailed

quantitative assessment. It was noted, however, that it would be useful to document instances for each scenario, where minor changes to accessibility might result. Scenarios Assessment Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation Qualitative Impacts: May be localised impacts of improved or worsened accessibility where railway and bus stations locations are significantly far apart and therefore serve different catchment areas. Bus Substitution proposals will generally ensure no net decrease in frequency of public transport services. Assessment Score: Neutral Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: May be localised impacts of improved or worsened accessibility where railway and bus stations locations are significantly far apart and therefore serve different catchment areas. Rail Accessibility Access to the Transport System P2 service will generally not improve frequencies over that offered by substitute buses. Assessment Score: Neutral Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: May be localised impacts of improved or worsened accessibility where railway and bus stations locations are significantly far apart and therefore serve different catchment areas. Rail service will generally not improve frequencies over that offered by substitute buses.

Assessment Score: Neutral Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: May be localised impacts of improved or worsened accessibility where railway and bus stations locations are significantly far apart and therefore serve different catchment areas. Rail service will generally not improve frequencies over that offered by substitute buses. Assessment Score: Neutral Appendix Q: Integration Transport Interchange Integration Transport Interchange Q1 INTEGRATION OBJECTIVE Q. Transport Interchange Sub-Objective Data Sources Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, March 2000 1998/99 NIR passenger journey data as used in concomitant TENS Study: Translink Research Unit, 1995/96 Passenger Surveys Translink Research Unit, NIR Facility Audits (2000) Translink Rail & Bus Station Access Guides Assessment of the Impact of Changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal Demand and Market Shares, Oscar Faber, August 2000 Methodology and its Application For the most part, the approach used mirrors that recommended in paras. 8.2.2. to 8.2.5 of the GOMMMS manual. The only significant departure is that whereas GOMMMS recommends the use of low and high thresholds of 500 and 10,000 respectively, the Integration Sub-group elected for an Average Week Day Flow (AWDF) of 350 or

greater for the passenger interchange assessment. The primary reasons for doing so, were that:(a) we would ensure the principal unmanned halts, as well as the manned stations, came within scope of the assessment, and (b) it was recognised that the passenger numbers for the 1998/99 base year were distorted as a result of the extensive engineering works ongoing at that time, which disrupted many services. The determination was done by applying the annualisation factors, derived for the TENS study, to the 58 railway stations for which passenger journey information for 1998/99 exists, to give average weekday daily passenger flows (boarders and alighters). The aspects of service for the 6 passenger indicators recommended by GOMMMS and agreed by the Group are shown in Appendix Q - I. Through a combination of site inspections and the Translink bus and rail access guides, an audit was undertaken of the existing standards for the 28 halts/stations that came within the daily usage threshold referred to above, using the net score for each indicator to determine how it should be assigned i.e. Poor (No >= 2), Moderate, or High (Yes >=2). See Appendix Q II. An assessment of the impact of each scenario against the existing situation was then undertaken and is reported in Appendix Q - III. This analysis was then reworked using Scenario 4 as the base case (see Scenarios Assessment below). The quantitative entries are populated from the Oscar Faber Impact Analysis and the absolute changes to the halts / stations affected by each scenario. The impact on the freight indicators as described in paras. 8.2.6 to 8.2.10 of GOMMMS was deemed not to be sufficient to warrant inclusion in any subsequent analysis of the scenarios under current consideration (see Appendix Q - V for details). Integration Transport Interchange Q2 Key Results

See Appendix Q - IV for Passenger Interchange Indicators and impact assessments for each scenario against the Base case: Scenario 4. Scenarios Assessment Qualitative Summary The forecasts of the numbers of daily users affected does not cause a significant variation in the scale of impact. Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation There is a basic policy to introduce complementary improvements to public transport journeys and to sustain or increase public transport patronage. The first principle of passenger interchange is that it should never be imposed and at best be avoided or at least optimised by arranging for a short walk, short wait, and a guaranteed connection as well as providing those facilities that offer acceptable levels of comfort and convenience. This has particular significance in the context of those scenarios that have as an element, station or halt closure, because there will be locations at which the bus substitute will be accessed at interchanges at the lower end of the hierarchy, eg, hail and ride or some on-street bus stops that compare poorly with permanent rail halt or station locations that have facilities that accord with the standards given in the current Translink passenger charter. This particularly applies to Scenario 4 which mothballs extensive sections of the rail network. Approximately 34,000 travellers daily experience the large adverse impact of switching from 25 no. rail interchange locations to substitute bus. Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Large number of train travellers use greatly improved facilities following switch from bus to rail. Quantitative Measure: Approx. nos. of daily users benefiting = 43,000 No. of interchanges improved = 19

No. of new interchanges created = 0 Assessment Score: Moderate Beneficial Effect Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Very large number of train travellers use greatly improved facilities following switch from bus to rail. Quantitative Measure: Approx. nos. of daily users benefiting = 48,000 No. of interchanges improved = 25 No. of new interchanges created = 0 Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Very large number of train travellers use greatly improved facilities following switch from bus to rail and travellers using Park & Ride facilities at strategic locations. Quantitative Measure: Approx. nos. of daily users benefiting = 54,000 No. of interchanges improved = 25 Integration Transport Interchange Q3 No. of new interchanges created = 2 Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect The rationale behind the use of the terms very large number of train travellers and large number of train travellers in the Quantitative Measure is that the number of users for Scenarios 1 and 2 (i.e. 54,000 and 48,000) is significantly greater than that for Scenario 3 (i.e. 43,000). Integration Transport Interchange Q4 Appendix Q - I: Passenger Indicators recommended by GOMMMS PASSENGER INDICATOR ASPECT OF SERVICE

Waiting Environment Comfortable Seating Protection from Weather Heated Waiting Room Non-Smoking Area Toilet Level of Facilities Well-lit, Clean Public Service Areas Litter Bins Public Pay Phone Food / Drink Dispenser Clock Induction Loops, Minicoms Facilities for Passengers with Special Needs Lockers Cycle Parking Level of Information Directions for Passengers Announcements Rail Timetables Automatic Display Enquiry / Sales Desk Bus Timetable (Interchange) Visible Staff Staff Wearing Uniform Staff Wearing Badge Physical Linkage for Next Stage of Journey Physically Separate Terminal Bridge / Subway Shared Site Ramps for Passengers with Special Needs Reliability of Connection Secure Park & Ride Car Park

Taxi Rank Linkline Bus Service Co-ordinated Timetable CCTV Disabled Parking Priority Integration Transport Interchange Q5 Appendix Q II: Interchange Quality Assessments In-Scope Interchange Quality Assessment Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Botanic Moderate Central High Great Victoria St. High Ballymena High Bangor High Coleraine High Larne High Lisburn High Londonderry/Derry Moderate

Lurgan High Newry Moderate to High Portadown Moderate to High Portrush Poor to Moderate Yorkgate High Antrim Moderate to High Ballymoney Moderate Carrickfergus High Whiteabbey Poor Jordanstown Moderate Greenisland Poor Clipperstown Poor Downshire Poor Whitehead Moderate to High Bangor West Poor to Moderate

Holywood Poor Sydenham Poor City Hospital Poor University Poor to Moderate Belfast City Airport Moira Nos. = 28 Nos. = 30 Nos. = 28 Nos. = 22 Nos. = 3 - In Scenario 1, it is assumed that as a result of the P & R improvements only 2 new locations will satisfy the threshold of AWDF >= 350. - The assessment of standards assumes the completion of committed infrastructure schemes at Bangor, Central and Coleraine. Integration Q6 Appendix Q - III: Scenarios Impact Assessment against the Existing Situation Passenger Interchange With Strategy Scenario 1 With Strategy Scenario 2 With Strategy Scenario 3 With Strategy Scenario 4 Indicator (POOR/MODERATE/HIGH) (POOR/MODERATE/HIGH) (POOR/MODERATE/HIGH) (POOR/MODERATE/HIGH) Waiting Environment High High High High Level of Facilities High High High High Levels of Information High High High High Visible Staff Presence High High High High Physical Linkage for next stage of journey Moderate to High Moderate to High Moderate Moderate to Poor Reliability of Connection High High Moderate Moderate to High Approximate numbers of daily users affected*: = 34,385 Anticipated increase in users = 56 % Anticipated increase Transport Interchange

in users = 40 % Anticipated increase in users = 24 % Marked decrease in users = -100% Overall assessment of passenger interchange impact (slight/moderate/large positive/negative or neutral) Moderately Positive Neutral Neutral Largely Negative * Figure taken from 1998/99 NIR passenger journey data as used in concomitant TENS Study Integration Transport Interchange Q7 Appendix Q - IV: Passenger Interchange Indicators and Impact Assessments for each Scenario against Base Case: Scenario 4 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Passenger Interchange Indicator Enhancement, additional sets, reopening of Antrim/Knockmore, etc Existing with new Rolling Stock, ie, A D Little Report Truncation at Whitehead and Ballymena Bus Substitution Waiting Environment B B b Level of Facilities B B b Levels of Information B B b Visible Staff Presence b b b Physical Linkage for next stage of journey n n n Reliability of Connection n n n

Overall Score = Large Beneficial Large Beneficial Moderate Beneficial

Key: B = Large Beneficial, b = Moderate Beneficial, b = Slight Beneficial, n = Neutral Integration Transport Interchange Q8 Appendix Q - V: Freight Interchange In respect of assessing freight interchange as part of the Integration Objective, the Group concluded that it was not necessary to consider it further as:(1) Rail freight facilities are limited due to the small size of the Province and the relatively small railway network. (Apart from the Adelaide Road Freight Terminal in Belfast operated by NIR there are freight sidings south of Portadown, adjacent to Larne Town station and south of Coleraine with a goods depot at Londonderry/Derry.) (2) NIR does not operate any rail freight services. (Irish Rail provide the locomotives and usually the wagons) (3) The only rail freight services in Northern Ireland are between Dublin and the Adelaide Road Freight Terminal in Belfast. The commodities carried are: Containers between Belfast and the Irish Rail container terminal at Dublin North Wall. (Irish Rail provides a daily train in each direction.) Beer on behalf of Guinness Ireland from Dublin to the companys rail terminal at Adelaide Cement to the cement terminal at Adelaide on behalf of Irish Cement Fertilisers on behalf of Irish Fertiliser Industries via the Adelaide terminal. Therefore, the impact on the freight indicators as described in paragraphs 8.2.6 to 8.2.10 of GOMMMS was deemed not to be sufficient to warrant inclusion in any subsequent analysis of the scenarios under current consideration. Appendix R: Integration Land-Use Policy Integration Land-Use Policy R1 INTEGRATION OBJECTIVE

R. Land-Use Policy Sub-Objective Data Sources The Draft Regional Development Strategy referred to as Shaping Our Future - the Draft Regional Strategic Framework, December 1998 The Report of the Panel Conducting the Public Examination, February 2000 The Response by the Department for Regional Development to the Report of the Independent Panel following the Public Examination, April 2000 Methodology and its Application This sub-objective assesses the extent scenarios integrate with land use. It also provides an overall assessment taking account of the balance between policies and proposals, which are facilitated, hindered or unaffected. In line with GOMMMS, a three-point scale of impact comprising adverse, neutral and beneficial is used. GOMMMS advises that a broad assessment of planning policies as set out in national, regional or local plans is sufficient. It is also states that: Marginal differences should be ignored; Key policies should be given greater weight; and Geographically specific policies should be taken into account. Many of the statutory Area Plans in Northern Ireland are out of date and do not take full account of changes in national and regional policies. The Draft Regional Development Strategy, covering 1998 to 2025 and which has now been tested at an Examination in Public, provides a comprehensive and up-to-date basis for this assessment. In particular it refers to regional transportation policies. To enable judgements on the impacts to be made in a structured way, the core policies of the Draft Regional Development Strategy have been divided into five main planning criteria. These are: Key Transport Corridors, Link Corridors and Metropolitan Corridors as the skeletal framework for future physical development and primary access to port and

airport gateways; A compact and thriving metropolitan core centred on Belfast as the major regional gateway at the hub of the regions transportation network. (It includes, in addition to Belfast, the urban centres of Bangor, Carrickfergus, Lisburn, Castlereagh and Newtownabbey); A strong north-west regional centre based on Londonderry/Derry as the transport pivot and regional gateway for the NW corner of the island; A network of strong regional towns as Main and Local Hubs as main service centres for urban and rural communities strategically located on Key Transportation Corridors with capacity to accommodate a wide range of services for large scale population and housing growth; and A vibrant rural community comprising small rural towns and villages with enhanced accessibility to regional facilities via the Key Transportation Corridors. Integration LandUse Policy R2 Key Results Appendix R - I contains the impact assessments for each scenario under the main planning criteria outlined above. Scenarios Assessment Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation Overall assessment: Large Adverse. Large scale reduction in the rail network threatens the Draft Regional Development Strategy, widens regional imbalance, limits alternatives for reducing car dependency and worsens infrastructure deficit. Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Offers benefits as a result of the operation of the Belfast suburban network, the opening of the Antrim-Bleach Green line, improved running times and additional rolling stock. Failure to offer

a rail choice to significant parts of the North and North-West, particularly with lack of stations at Londonderry/Derry, Coleraine, Ballymoney and Larne, undermines the Draft Regional Development Strategy. Assessment Score: Slight Beneficial Effect Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Provides support for the Draft Regional Development Strategy as a result of the operation of the Belfast suburban network and the lines to Londonderry/Derry and Larne, the opening of the Antrim-Bleach Green line, improved running times and additional new rolling stock. Assessment Score: Moderate Beneficial Effect Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Qualitative Impacts: Provides strong support for the Draft Regional Development Strategy as a result of the operation of the Belfast suburban network and the lines to Londonderry/Derry and Larne, the opening of the Antrim-Bleach Green line and Antrim-Knockmore lines, the provision of a link to Belfast City Airport, improved running times, additional new rolling stock and increased frequencies. Scenario 1 thereby reduces regional imbalance, increases alternatives for reducing car dependency and improves the infrastructure deficit. Assessment Score: Large Beneficial Effect Integration Land-Use Policy

R3 Appendix R - I: Impact Assessments for each Scenario under the 5 main Planning Criteria Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation Adverse Neutral Beneficial Transportation Corridors Yes Loss of potential rail choice, with

particular impact on non-car owners Belfast Metropolitan Area Yes and Carrickfergus services undermines potential for sustainable compact form, brownfield development, and higher densities to achieve modal shift Londonderry/Derry Yes Rail station closed loss of Mothballing of Bangor, Lisburn

potential. Causes perception of peripherality. Regional Towns Yes Ballymena, Coleraine,

Ballymoney, Lurgan and Larne stations closed Rural Community negative Impact Overall Assessment: Large Adverse Effect Large scale reduction in the rail network threatens the Draft Regional Development Strategy, widens regional imbalance, limits alternatives for reducing car dependency and worsens infrastructure deficit. Yes Bus substitution only tempers

Scenario 3 compared to Scenario 4 Adverse Neutral Beneficial Transportation Corridors Belfast Metropolitan Area Londonderry/Derry Yes Regional Towns Rural Community Overall Assessment: Slight Beneficial Effect The operation of the Belfast suburban network, the opening of the Antrim-Bleach Green line, improved running times and additional rolling stock offer benefits compared to the base scenario. However, the Draft Regional Development Strategy would not be fully supported since the mothballing of Londonderry/Derry, Integration Land-Use Policy R4 Coleraine, Ballymoney and Larne stations would impair its ability to deliver balanced development. Scenario 2 compared to Scenario 4 Adverse Neutral Beneficial Transportation Corridors Belfast Metropolitan Area Londonderry/Derry Regional Towns Rural Community Overall Assessment: Moderate Beneficial Effect The operation of the Belfast suburban network and the lines to Londonderry/Derry and Larne, the opening of the Antrim-Bleach Green line, improved running times and additional rolling stock offer significant benefits compared to the base scenario. While the AntrimKnockmore line remains mothballed, this Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

scenario supports the balanced development opportunities in the Draft Regional Development Strategy. Scenario 1 compared to Scenario 4 Adverse Neutral Beneficial Transportation Corridors Belfast Metropolitan Area Londonderry/Derry Regional Towns Rural Community Overall Assessment: Large Beneficial Effect The operation of the Belfast suburban network and the lines to Londonderry/Derry and Larne, the opening of the Antrim-Bleach Green line and Antrim-Knockmore lines, the provision of a link to Belfast City Airport, improved running times, additional new rolling stock and increased frequencies offer very significant benefits compared to the base scenario. Scenario 1 significantly supports the Draft Regional Development Strategy. Appendix S: Integration Other Government Policies Integration Other Government Policies S1 INTEGRATION OBJECTIVE S. Other Government Policies Sub-Objective Data Sources Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, March 2000 NICS Departmental Corporate/Business Plans Methodology and its Application GOMMMS prompts for the impact of transport proposals on other Government policies to be considered, in order to assess the effect on overall policy integration within Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Government. It suggests that reviews should be carried out to identify whether a proposal (i) contributes to and is consistent with (ii) has no overall contribution, or (iii) is inconsistent with other Government policies beyond transport. GOMMMS advises that the AST scores are to be Beneficial, Neutral or Adverse. To assist with the process of identifying likely impacts, GOMMMS lists GB Government Departments and their respective policies. These were not considered to be representative of Northern Ireland Government policies. The appraisal of this particular sub-objective considered that all external (to Northern Ireland) Government policies essentially impact through Northern Ireland Departments. Consequently each NI Department was contacted, and the relevant policies identified (See Appendix S - II). Appendix S - II lists all NI Departments and the respective policies suggested by Departmental contacts, and records the perceived key points. Scenarios Assessment Qualitative Summary The withdrawal of rail service under Scenario 4 generally has an adverse effect on a wide range of Government policies. In contrast, when compared against Scenario 4, the other scenarios which progressively introduce rail would have a beneficial effect. The impact on New TSN and equity relevant to OFMDFM policies is detailed in the Equity and Distribution Supporting Analysis, and public expenditure issues relevant to DFP are detailed in the Affordability and Financial Sustainability Supporting analysis. Base Case: Scenario 4 and General Comparison with Existing Situation: In Scenario 4, the most significant policy impacts are: there are environmental disbenefits such as increased pollution levels and greenhouse gases. These would adversely affect policies in DHSSPS and DOE. there are negative impacts on townscape and heritage that would adversely

affect policies in DOE. the increased use of car results in reduced physical fitness and risk of accidents and hence policies in DHSSPS and DOE would be undermined. the economy will suffer as a result of increased congestion costs, more freight on road, less reliable and longer journey times, the negative impact on tourism, reduced impact of urban regeneration issues, reduction in rural Integration Other Government Policies S2 regeneration potential, less efficient E-W, N-S links and increased perception of peripherality. This would adversely affect policies in DRD, DETI, DOE, DARD and OFMDFM. reduced transport choice and reduced attractiveness of bus substitution will impact on accessibility (eg, students and the disabled) and increase social exclusion and hence adversely affect policies in DETI, DHSSPS, DE and DHFETE. there would be an adverse impact on the Draft Regional Development Strategy developed by DRD. increased unemployment (within Translink) and decreased labour mobility would impact negatively on policies in DETI. The AST entry for Scenario 4 is shown in Appendix S I. Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 compared to Scenario 4 The benefits increase with increasing rail services, ie, Scenario 1 has greater benefits than Scenario 2 which has greater benefits than Scenario 3 when each is compared with Scenario 4. The most significant policy impacts are: there are environmental benefits such as decreased pollution levels and greenhouse gases. This helps policies in DHSSPS and DOE. the utilisation of more stations has positive impacts on townscape and heritage thus supporting DOE policies.

 increased use of public transport results in more exercise with the associated health benefits and also reduced safety risks. Policies in DHSSPS and DOE are supported. the economy will benefit as a result of reduced congestion, potentially more freight carried on rail, more reliable and shorter journey times, better facilities for tourists, opportunities for urban and rural regeneration, improved E-W and N-S links (particularly under Scenarios 1 and 2) and an improved image for the region. These impacts will support policies in DETI, DOE, DARD and OFMDFM. greater transport choice will improve accessibility and help reduce social exclusion and, therefore, help policies in DETI, DHSSPS, DE and DHFE, T&E. the provision of rail services will contribute to DRDs Draft Regional Development Strategy the increase in employment (within Translink) and labour mobility helps DETI policies. The AST entries for Scenarios 1,2 and 3 are shown in Appendix S I.Integration Other Government Policies S3 Appendix S I: AST Entries Scenario Qualitative Impacts Assessment 1 Supportive of a wide range of other Government Policies due to significantly increased quality rail provision in Belfast commuter corridors, Antrim to Knockmore and to both Larne and Londonderry/Derry. This brings benefits in terms of accessibility, social inclusion, development corridors, north and north west tourism, links to gateways and indirect and direct decongestion effects.

Some policies in the following Departments will benefit: DHSSPS, DOE, DETI, DRD, DE, DHFETE and OFMDFM. Slight Beneficial Effect 2 Supportive of a wide range of other Government Policies due to increased quality rail provision in Belfast commuter corridors and to both Larne and Londonderry/Derry. This brings benefits in terms of accessibility, social inclusion, development corridors, north and north west tourism, links to gateways and indirect and direct decongestion effects. Some policies in the following Departments will benefit: DHSSPS, DOE, DETI, DRD, DE, DHFETE and OFMDFM. Slight Beneficial Effect 3 Supportive of a wide range of other Government Policies due to quality rail provision mainly in Belfast commuter corridors and the benefits that brings in terms of accessibility and indirect and direct congestion effects. Some policies in the following Departments will benefit: DHSSPS, DOE, DETI, DRD, DE, DHFETE and OFMDFM. Slight Beneficial Effect 4 Overall this scenario adversely affects a broad range of Other Government Policies and damages the credibility of

the Draft Regional Development Strategy. This is mainly as a result of withdrawal of rail services, the relatively lower attraction of bus substitution and indirect and direct congestion effects. Some Policies in the following Departments will be undermined: DHSSPS, DOE, DETI, DRD, DE, DHFETE and OFMDFM. Slight Adverse Effect Although the benefits against some policies, or elements of policies, can be very significant, the overall assessment against other government policies is assessed as slightly beneficial for Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 when compared to Scenario 4. Using the same rationale, the overall assessment for Scenario 4 is slightly adverse when compared to the existing situation. Integration Other Government Policies

S4 SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2 SCENARIO 3 SCENARIO 4 DEPARTMENT POLICIES - all considered as 'Key' by respective Departments KEY POINTS Enhancement - additional sets, Antrim-Knockmore reopened, selective dual tracking for single, City Airport Existing with new DMU rolling stock Truncation at Whitehead & Ballymena, with bus substitution

Mothball all but stations serving Belfast-Dublin service, with bus substitution DARD (Department Rural development Rail network/stations do not penetrate/serve all rural areas of Agriculture and Rural Development) Stations provide interchange points for rural buses bbba DCAL (Department of Siting of libraries & museums Rail network only serves small no. of libraries and museums Culture, Arts and Leisure) NNNN DE (Department of Open enrolment Provides direct cross-Belfast links Education) School provision School trips should be attractive to walk & cycle as well as public transport School transportation framework Rail provides efficient trunk haul for large numbers b b b a DETI (Department of Economic growth Congestion, Tourism Enterprise, Trade and Investment) Attracting, siting & sustaining industrial development A modern rail system presents a good image to external investors North/South dimension (BelfastDublin corridor) Rail network provides Londonderry/Derry /Belfast /Dublin connection Labour market flexibility Rail provides direct cross-Belfast links, labour mobility B B b a

DFP (Department of Public Expenditure Appraised under Affordability & Financial Sustainability Finance and EU Funding Historic EU rail projects Personnel) Civil Service accommodation Rail provides direct cross-Belfast links b b b a DHFETE Accessibility to work Provides direct cross-Belfast links (Department of Higher and Further Widening of access to Higher and Further Education Low density of such locations and limited penetration by rail network Education, Training and Employment) Siting & development of university campuses Low density of such locations and limited penetration by rail network b b b a DHSSPS (Department of Health, Social Attendance at health centres and hospitals Rail is wheelchair accessible for people without cars. Bus substitution is impracticable Services and Public Safety) b b b a DOE Heritage Utilises stations

(Department of the Road Safety Accidents Environment) Local Development Plans Land Use b b b a DSD (Department for Regeneration Housing Railway network has limited penetration Social Development) NNNN DRD RDS RDS foresees expanded rail provision (Department for Regional Regional Transportation Strategy Considered not to be 'beyond transport' Development) Roads programmes Considered not to be 'beyond transport' Transport, inc Rural Policy Rural Bus Policy covered by Rural Development appraisal B b b A OFMDFM (Office of New TSN Disadvantaged being further disadvantaged the First Minister and Equality Appraised under Distribution and Equity Deputy First Minister) Human Rights Appraised under Distribution and Equity Social inclusion Transport Choice and accessibility N/S, E/W, BIC issues Links to Belfast/Dublin and gateways b b b a

N = Neutral a = Slightly adverse effect A = Moderate adverse effect b = Slightly beneficial effect B = Moderate beneficial effect Appendix S- II: Northern Ireland Government Departments Policies Appendix T: Supporting Analysis Distribution and Equity Supporting Analysis Distribution and Equity T1 SUPPORTING ANALYSIS T. Distribution and Equity

Introduction This Distribution and Equity supporting analysis has been prepared in accordance with the principles underpinning Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. The issues of Equality and New Targeting Social Need (New TSN) are considered separately. The focus of this appraisal is solely on the benefits/disbenefits associated with investment in rail infrastructure. It does not consider the wider opportunity costs associated with such investment i.e. the benefits/disbenefits that could accrue to society, including non-rail users, from investing in alternative spending programmes. Equality Data Sources Guidance on Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000 Northern Ireland Act 1998: Section 75 Methodology and its Application GOMMMS suggests undertaking a supporting analysis to enable a judgement to be made about the fairness and where relevant, geographical distribution of the impacts on those affected by the strategy or plan under consideration. It was considered that the principles underpinning Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the related requirements of GOMMMS placed a responsibility on the subobjective appraisers to consider whether each scenario is consistent with the Equality obligation. It was noted that it would be neither possible nor necessary to undertake a thorough quantitative analysis of each scenario at this stage. The Department for Regional Developments draft Equality Scheme, as submitted to the Equality Commission on 30 th June 2000, contains a commitment to a full equality impact assessment on the preferred option emerging from Ministerial considerations. Accordingly, a qualitative approach was followed at this stage with the objective of identifying potential impacts which

would merit further investigation later. The impacts on the groups identified here are likely to be the largest impacts in terms of numbers of people affected, but it is acknowledged that a full impact assessment may reveal impacts upon the other groups. In other words, if there is an impact upon the religious dimension then there is likely to be an impact on the political opinion group, and if there is an impact upon age, there may be a link to those with dependants. At this point, there is information on rail users in terms only of their age and gender compared to the population as a whole as outlined in Table T - 1. Supporting Analysis Distribution and Equity T2 Pop 16+ PWC Survey 1999 Rail Users NI Mid-year population 1999 Male 46.6% 48.3% Female 53.4% 51.7% 16-64 91.1% 82.8% 65+ 8.9% 17.2% Table T - 1: Rail users in terms of age and gender compared to the population as a whole As a working approach, each sub-objective appraisal considered how the various scenarios might contribute to equality of opportunity for the dimensions referred to in Section 75. Each scenario was compared to the existing situation. The assessments were informed by the Appraisal Summary Tables. Key Results An overall summary of potentially the greatest areas of equality impact emerging from this exercise is set out at Table T - 2. Impacts are likely to be concentrated on females and the young who use rail to e.g. travel to educational establishments, and people with disabilities.

Scenario 1 2 3 4 Religion - - Yes Politics - - - Race - - - Age Yes Yes Yes Yes Marital status - - - Sexual orientation ---Gender Yes Yes Yes Yes Disability Yes Yes Yes Yes Dependants - - - Table T - 2: Overall summary of potentially the greatest areas of equality impact by Scenario Reduced railway provision from the existing situation will have a negative equality impact, particularly in terms of accessibility, public transport integration and journey ambience. In general terms, the greater the railway provision, the more the negative impact on the groups is reduced. As this is a preliminary assessment, no attempt has been made at this stage to assess the degree of the impacts. However, it demonstrates that the appraisal process has been sensitive to the requirements of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and points towards those issues that should be addressed in a full equality impact assessment on the option decided by the Minister. This assessment will utilise existing and, if necessary, commission new, statistical evidence on railway usage. Supporting Analysis Distribution and Equity T3 Scenarios Assessment Scenario 4

This scenario has a large adverse impact on the accessibility to the transport system by approximately 400,000 residents who would no longer have access to rail services. There is accordingly an adverse impact on females (who account for over 53% of rail users) and those age groups most reliant on rail travel. The poorer transport interchange provision is likely to impact disproportionately on disabled travellers. Scenario 3 This scenario has the potential for negative impact on the religious equality dimension given the potential removal of rail choice from discrete geographical areas of Northern Ireland (the North-West and East Antrim) compared to the existing rail provision. In addition, as in Scenario 4, when rail services are withdrawn, there will be a disproportionate effect on females, those age groups most reliant on rail travel, and the disabled (i.e. mainly in the areas of the AntrimKnockmore, WhiteheadLarne, BallymenaLondonderry/Derry and ColerainePortrush lines). However, when compared to the existing situation, rail travellers on the Belfast commuter corridors experience improved journey ambience and reliability resulting from the provision of new rolling stock and track improvements, and improved transport interchange facilities. Again, there is likely to be a disproportionate impact on females, those age groups most reliant on rail travel, and the disabled. Scenario 2 The benefits in terms of journey ambience, reliability, accessibility to the transport system and transport interchange are increased under this scenario compared to existing rail provision. Once again, these benefits are likely to have a disproportionate impact on females, the age groups most reliant on rail travel, and the disabled. A negative impact is associated with the mothballing of the AntrimKnockmore line which would have the same impacts as noted in Scenario 3. Scenario 1 The impacts in respect of journey ambience, reliability and accessibility assessed in

respect of Scenario 2 are further enhanced under this scenario with additional rail services being provided. New TSN Data Sources Guidance on Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000 Equality Commission for Northern Ireland: Guide to Statutory Duties PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) Customer Satisfaction Survey 1999 Translink Boarding/Alighting Data 1998/99 Assessment of the Impact of Changes to Northern Ireland Railways on Modal Demand and Market Shares, Oscar Faber, August 2000 Supporting Analysis Distribution and Equity T4 Methodology and its Application Consideration was given to the expected impacts on rail patronage for each socioeconomic group (SEG) under the various scenarios. The calculations for the various scenarios were dependent on which stations would remain operative, and the resultant socio-economic profile of the passengers inferred from the available data. Appendix T I gives detailed background figures. Key Results Table T - 3 shows the expected breakdown in rail passengers by socio-economic group for the four scenarios. The larger the percentage of rail travellers under a particular scenario, the more adequate is the service provided for that SEG: Scenario / SEG AB C1 C2 DE Scenario 1 14.0% 39.6% 18.4% 28.0% Scenario 2 14.0% 39.7% 18.4% 28.0% Scenario 3 14.5% 41.8% 17.1% 26.6% Scenario 4 18.5% 39.5% 14.2% 27.8% Existing 14.2% 40.0% 17.6% 28.2%

Table T - 3: Expected breakdown of rail passengers by socio-economic group by scenario Assumption: If a station is closed, passengers do not transfer to other stations. Note: There is relatively little difference between Scenario 1 (Enhancement) and Scenario 2 (AD Little) as only a further three relatively little-used stations open under the former. In summary, under Scenarios 3 and 4, when rail services are withdrawn relative to existing provision, although the actual number travelling from each SEG decreases, the decrease is proportionately less in the most affluent (AB) group, and this shift, although small, is statistically significant see Appendix T - II. In addition, the AB group is likely to gain slightly under Scenarios 1 and 2, but this is not quantifiable since no information is available for likely boardings/alightings on the Antrim-Bleach Green line which is scheduled to open in Spring 2001. Intuitively they will gain because it will serve an affluent area. Under Scenario 3 (Truncation), the poorest group (DE) loses out significantly, due to the closure of the Londonderry/Derry-Portrush line on which this group is currently over-represented (i.e. disproportionately high compared to the population served) - 35% of DE rail users (PWC source) but only 8% of the population. Indeed, Table T - 4 shows that this poorest socio-economic group is generally over-represented in the existing profile of rail users in Northern Ireland as a whole compared to the population (based on the 1991 census), indicating the greater reliance of the poorest group on rail provision. Supporting Analysis Distribution and Equity T5 SEG Rail users 1999 Northern Ireland 1991 AB 14% 16% C1 40% 37% C2 18% 39% DE 28% 8%

Total 100% 100% Table T - 4: Socio-economic group representation in existing profile of rail users in Northern Ireland as a whole compared to the population (based on the 1991 Census) A full New TSN analysis would include the effect of bus substitution proposals. However, it is premature to examine this effect since, although the extent of bus substitution has been considered, no consideration has been given to the detailed scheduling of the range of services, including existing services. Bus substitution would have an overall mitigating effect compared to the situation where it was not provided at all. It is known that some current rail travellers would transfer to cars if they had access to one, and that the poorer SEGs have less access to cars of the AB and C1 groups, 40% have no access to a car, while 56% of C2 and DE rail travellers have no car access (PWC data). The Oscar Faber model results predict that when a line is mothballed some trips will no longer be taken and that, on average, approximately a third of the remaining journeys will be undertaken by car, and these will be disproportionately made by those in the higher SEGs. General It is clear that when decisions are made regarding the future of the railways: a full equality impact assessment will require to be carried, and a detailed New TSN appraisal will require to be undertaken. Supporting Analysis Distribution and Equity T6 Appendix T - 1 1998/99 Boardings/Alightings (plus Belfast share) - Translink Scenario 1 Estimated Boardings/Alightings by SEG

Enhance AB C1 C2 DE AB C1 C2 DE Larne/Carrick 2554732 0.112 0.381 0.183 0.324 286130 973353 467516 827733 Portadown 4190315 0.17 0.427 0.167 0.236 712354 1789265 699783 988914 Londonderry/

Derry /Portrush 2243525 0.111 0.289 0.249 0.351 249031 648379 558638 787477 Bangor 2422908 0.138 0.457 0.159 0.246 334361 1107269 385242 596035 Dublin 211834 0.185 0.395 0.142 0.278 39189 83674 30080 58890 Total 11623314 1621065 4601940 2141259 3259050

13.95% 39.59% 18.42% 28.04%

Scenario 2

Estimated Boardings/Alightings by SEG

Existing AB C1 C2 DE AB C1 C2 DE Larne/Carrick 2554732 0.112 0.381 0.183 0.324 286130 973353 467516 827733 Portadown 4190315 0.17 0.427 0.167 0.236 712354 1789265 699783 988914 Londonderry/ Derry /Portrush 2148517 0.111 0.289 0.249 0.351 238485 620921 534981 754129 Bangor 2422908 0.138 0.457 0.159 0.246 334361 1107269 385242 596035 Dublin 211834 0.185 0.395 0.142 0.278 39189 83674 30080 58890 Total 11528306 1610520 4574482 2117602 3225702.2

13.97% 39.68% 18.37% 27.98%

Scenario 3

Estimated Boardings/Alightings by SEG

Truncate AB C1 C2 DE AB C1 C2 DE Larne/Carrick 2478823 0.112 0.381 0.183 0.324 277628 944431 453625 803139 Portadown 4190315 0.17 0.427 0.167 0.236 712354 1789265 699783 988914 Londonderry/ Derry /Portrush 367572 0.111 0.289 0.249 0.351 40800 106228 91525 129018 Bangor 2677187 0.138 0.457 0.159 0.246 369452 1223474 425673 658588

Dublin 234065 0.185 0.395 0.142 0.278 43302 92456 33237 65070 Total 9947962 1443536 4155855 1703843 2644728.8

14.51% 41.78% 17.13% 26.59%

Scenario 4

Estimated Boardings/Alightings by SEG

Mothballing AB C1 C2 DE AB C1 C2 DE Larne/Carrick 0 0.112 0.381 0.183 0.324 0 0 0 0 Portadown 0 0.17 0.427 0.167 0.236 0 0 0 0 Londonderry / Derry/Portrush 0 0.111 0.289 0.249 0.351 0 0 0 0 Bangor 0 0.138 0.457 0.159 0.246 0 0 0 0 Dublin 149765 0.185 0.395 0.142 0.278 27707 59157 21267 41635 Total 149765 27706.5 59157.18 21266.6 41634.67

18.50% 39.50% 14.20% 27.80%

SUMMARY AB C1 C2 DE Scenario 1 13.95% 39.59% 18.42% 28.04% Scenario 2 13.97% 39.68% 18.37% 27.98% Scenario 3 14.51% 41.78% 17.13% 26.59% Scenario 4 18.50% 39.50% 14.20% 27.80% T7 Appendix T - II Scenarios & SEGs with attached errors due to sample survey AB Min Max Av 1 12.82 14.79 13.95 Supporting Analysis Distribution and Equity

2 12.84 14.81 13.97 3 13.48 15.29 14.51 4 14.51 22.49 18.5 Existing 12.84 15.56 14.2 C1 Min Max Av 1 38.36 41.22 39.59 2 38.44 41.31 39.68 3 40.35 43.65 41.78 4 34.47 44.53 39.5 Existing 38.1 41.9 40 C2 Min Max Av 1 17.67 18.99 18.42 2 17.61 18.94 18.37 3 16.27 16.83 17.13 4 10.61 17.79 14.2 Existing 16.12 19.08 17.6 DE Min Max Av 1 27.86 28.3 28.04 2 27.81 28.23 27.98 3 26.57 26.6 26.59 4 23.19 32.41 27.8 Existing 26.45 29.95 28.2 0 5 10 15 20

25 1 2 3 4 Existing Min Max Av 0 10 20 30 40 50 1 2 3 4 Existing Min Max Av 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 2 3 4 Existing Min Max Av 0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 1 2 3 4 Existing Min Max Av Appendix U: Supporting Analysis Affordability and Financial Sustainability Supporting Analysis Affordability and Financial Sustainability U1 SUPPORTING ANALYSIS U. Affordability and Financial Sustainability Introduction As an aid to decision-making, this section of the Task Force Report compares the financial implications of the four modelling scenarios in order to provide an assessment of the funding that would be required to ensure the delivery of each model. The analysis here should be read carefully alongside Chapter 8 of the RTF Interim Report which identified the sources of funding potentially available for investment in railways. These included: EU Funding Funding from Regional Rates Asset Leasing including PFI schemes Public Private Partnerships Congestion Charging, Workplace Parking Levies and Road Tolls

 Planning Gain Sale of Assets Community Rail Partnerships The extent to which each of these might realistically provide funding for railway investment was also considered. Building on this analysis, this section of the report examines the extent to which each of the four scenarios is affordable and sustainable. It concludes by considering how the findings of the Task Force Report can inform decisions about future public spending priorities over the next three years, and beyond. Financial Sustainability and Affordability The Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS) suggests that when considering financial sustainability the key question to be addressed is the extent to which each scenario under consideration is self-supporting from revenues. To meet this requirement the revenues, operating costs and investment costs have been calculated for each of the four scenarios appraised by the Task Force throughout the assessment period. The results of this exercise identify the level of grant and subsidy necessary to deliver each scenario. Affordability is a measure of the likelihood that public funds of the scale required will be made available to deliver a particular option. Financial Sustainability - the Four Scenarios The Affordability and Financial Sustainability (AFS) of each of the four scenarios were modelled. Impacts have been measured relative to the agreed base scenario, i.e. the discontinuance of all but Belfast-Dublin services. The impacts therefore represent changes in costs and revenues measured against this scenario. This information is useful for the consideration of affordability and financial sustainability since it enables the timing of costs and the build up of revenues to be assessed. The following summarises the financial impacts for each scenario: Supporting Analysis Affordability and Financial Sustainability U2 Scenario 1.

Enhancement 000 01/2 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11 Capital costs 38,310 93,129 62,878 19,080 21,243 7,035 3,210 3,200 10,200 3,200 Revenue deficit 13,477 14,754 18,595 14,904 13,169 12,788 11,064 10,949 10,476 9,838 Total funding requirement 51,787 107,883 81,473 33,984 34,412 19,823 14,274 14,149 20,676 13,038 Scenario 2. A.D.Little 000 01/2 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11 Capital costs 23,857 64,406 44,279 18,580 20,706 6,535 2,710 2,700 9,700 2,700 Revenue deficit 13,544 14,195 16,473 13,117 11,926 11,907 10,339 10,224 9,759 9,113 Total funding requirement 37,401 78,601 60,752 31,697 32,632 18,442 13,049 12,924 19,459 11,813 Scenario 3. Truncation 000 01/2 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11 Capital costs 24,902 50,469 31,984 4,841 5,597 2,148 2,148 2,143 9,143 2,143 Revenue deficit 16,191 15,483 15,867 12,365 11,515 12,365 11,091 11,002 10,561 9,942 Total funding requirement 41,093 65,952 47,851 17,206 17,112 14,513 13,239 13,145 19,704 12,085 Scenario 4.

Belfast-Dublin Only 000 01/2 02/3 03/4 04/5 05/6 06/7 07/8 08/9 09/10 10/11 Capital costs 14,613 3,054 2,016 504 500 500 500 500 7,500 500 Revenue deficit 18,665 13,218 6,153 3,003 3,003 4,053 3,003 2,653 3,003 3,003 Total funding requirement 33,328 16,272 8,169 3,507 3,503 4,553 3,503 3,153 10,503 3,503 Sustainability - the Results The results of this modelling exercise show conclusively that none of the four scenarios are self-sustaining. In every case revenues are not sufficient to meet operator costs. Consequently there would be no contribution from revenues to the investment costs necessary to deliver each scenario, even in the base case. What is Affordable? - the Need for Decision These findings show that significant levels of subvention will be required no matter which scenario forms the foundation for the future structure of the rail network in Northern Ireland. As none of the four modelling scenarios for the future of the railways is sustainable in commercial terms, the issue therefore becomes one of determining which scenario offers the best basis for securing a railway infrastructure which meets agreed strategic transport objectives; produces other social, economic and environmental benefits; provides value for money; and is affordable. However the analysis in Chapter 8 of the RTF Interim Report shows that funding sources, particularly during the short to medium term, will be limited. This will be particularly problematical because all three scenarios beyond the base case require considerable capital investment and subsidy in the first three years. Chapter 8 shows that raising significant amounts of revenue through road tolls,

congestion charging or work place car park levies would not be achievable in a short timescale. Such schemes would require political consensus, new legislation and would take time to introduce. PFI and PPP schemes can also have a lead time of several years Supporting Analysis Affordability and Financial Sustainability U3 and may not provide a practicable solution to the affordability problem in the short term, even though they offer considerable attractions in the longer run. Operational asset leasing arrangements offer the attraction of spreading rolling stock investment costs over the lifetime of assets but accounting rules may mean this advantage is not realisable. Asset leasing may also be unlikely to provide a value for money benefit over outright purchase. Inevitably therefore public expenditure will be seen as the only realistic and practical means of funding the levels of investment necessary, at least in the short term. What is affordable will primarily be a matter for political judgement based on analysis of the economic arguments and competing priorities. But it is vital that firm decisions are taken, and taken urgently. Elsewhere this report highlights the inevitability of discontinuation of service of large sections of the rail network unless necessary safety work is urgently carried out. There is therefore a pressing urgency to give full and proper consideration to the railways question when future public expenditure priorities are being decided in Autumn 2000. In this regard the timing of the Task Force Report is critical. It is to be published a matter of weeks before the Executive Committee and the Assembly, are required to decide on public expenditure allocations for all devolved Northern Ireland public services for the next three years. The remainder of this section of the Report considers the context in which decisions must be taken and suggests how the matter might best be taken forward. Spending Review 2000 - The Public Expenditure Context.

On 18 July 2000 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced public expenditure allocations for the three year period from April 2001 for all UK Government Departments and the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Chapter 8 of the RTF Interim Report explains how this settlement has provided Northern Ireland with a block of public expenditure which may be allocated to public services at the discretion of the Northern Ireland Executive Committee and Assembly. Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, with the agreement of the Executive Committee, is required to present a draft budget to the Assembly before each financial year. To meet this deadline it is expected that the Executive Committee would need to agree a Draft Budget by early October 2000. This budget will set public expenditure plans for 2001/2002 and influence spending priorities for the following two years. It is within this short and rigid timetable that decisions on future funding of the railways will be taken by the Executive Committee and ultimately the Assembly. These decisions will not be taken in isolation but as part of a comprehensive consideration of what should be the optimum distribution of public expenditure across all public services for which the Assembly is responsible. Northern Ireland departments will have to compete for a share of the Barnett Block at a time when there will be many demands to enhance services. Over the three years it will not be possible to match the substantial improvements in service which the spending Supporting Analysis Affordability and Financial Sustainability U4 plans will allow in England, particularly on health, education and transport, unless there are major cutbacks in other spending programmes. There is already considerable pressure on resources across the public service and it is expected that hard choices will have to be made such are the competing demands for the limited additional spending power available. Programme for Government

The 2000 Spending Review will be conducted on a parallel process with that leading to the agreement of a Programme for Government for Northern Ireland. Under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, the Programme drawn up by the Executive Committee will contain objectives, priorities and policies for the next few years. In its preparation, the Executive will also decide on how to make best use of the resources available within the 2000 Spending Review to support the Programme. Transport will undoubtedly be one of the many issues considered. The Programme will be presented in draft form for the Assembly and its Committees to consider in mid October in association with the draft budget which will result from the 2000 Spending Review. It is within these inter-linked financial and strategic planning processes that any case for the future needs of the railway network must be articulated. Making the Case Decisions about future investment in the railways, including levels of public subsidy, fall in the first instance to the Department for Regional Development (DRD). The Department is responsible for roads and public transport matters but it does not have unlimited discretion to spend from its budget It must, under Government Accounting Rules, obtain approval from the Department of Finance and Personnel for capital investments above 1 million, and the payment of subsidies such as the Public Service Obligation which meets shortfalls between revenue and expenditure. Approvals are only meaningful if the Department has secured the necessary level of public expenditure in its funding allocations. It would be unrealistic to expect that any of the four scenarios could be fully funded from existing DRD baseline provisions without severely compromising other services for which the Department is responsible e.g. roads, or water and sewerage. On receipt of the Task Force report the first priority for the Minister for Regional Development will be to develop a preferred option on the basis of the analysis contained in this report. This will be necessary because the Task Force was charged with

identifying a range of options for the future of the railways and not with recommending a preferred solution - that further dimension is a matter for DRD in the first instance. The construction of a bid for an appropriate funding allocation from the Spending Review will in large part have been facilitated by the work of the Task Force. However while the bid will be a logical development of the Task Force Report it will need to address a number of additional factors beyond those considered here. Firstly it will be important to see how future options for the railways fit within wider regional development and transport strategies. Secondly, given the scarcity of public expenditure and the pressure on all public services, further analysis will be required to Supporting Analysis Affordability and Financial Sustainability U5 optimise the affordability of whatever option is considered to provide the best value for money and achieve strategic transport objectives. It will be essential to ensure that a proper balance is struck between the need to achieve long-term strategic objectives and yet live within shorter term spending constraints. That is why decision-takers may need to seek out compromises between what is deliverable now and what may be desirable in the longer run. Central to this will be the need to identify ways in which the level of investment required for the preferred option can best be spread over the operating period in order to minimise the pressure placed on scarce public funds. The Spending Review bid will therefore need to address a range of issues including: Regional Transportation Strategy - The role of the railways will need to be considered in the context of the emerging regional transportation strategy. It is not possible to reach robust conclusions about optimum levels of railway funding in isolation from a wider consideration of future public transport and road investment; Other Transport requirements - Within this strategic context it is reasonable to expect that the value for money provided from investment in the railways would be compared with investments in alternative transport solutions, including other forms

of public transport and the roads infrastructure. For example decision-takers may wish to consider the impact of improving the road between Belfast and Londonderry/Derry and, perhaps, enhancing the existing coach services as opposed to investing in the Londonderry/Derry-Belfast rail link; Private Sector Funding Sources - Long term funding solutions which minimise the need for upfront capital funding should be further investigated. For example operational leasing solutions potentially offer a realistic means of spreading capital investment requirements thereby reducing up-front funding pressures. However uncertainty over the accounting treatment of operational leasing schemes still casts doubt about their efficacy - these require further study; PFI/PPP Schemes - A 1999 study by PricewaterhouseCoopers into public transport commissioned by the DRD confirmed a need to attract private sector finance for future investment in public transport through the establishment of a Public Private Partnership. The Report concluded that an operating concession which would transfer responsibility for the delivery of all aspects of public transport services to a private sector operator under fixed term contracts, would offer the most effective means of accessing private finance and meeting departmental objectives for public transport. Importantly DRD would know in advance, and with certainty, how much a particular level of public transport service would cost the public purse. Failure to deliver the required service would result in penalties for the operator, unlike the present situation where all additional costs arising from whatever reason ultimately fall to the public purse. This report should provide the context from which future investment strategies for the railways are developed; Phasing of Infrastructure Investment - Phasing infrastructure investment, perhaps over a longer period of time than envisaged in the modelling scenarios identified in the Task Force may make more expansive solutions more affordable. This would, Supporting Analysis Affordability and Financial Sustainability U6

however, presuppose that certain services may need to be discontinued on safety grounds until necessary levels of investment could be secured; and Alternative Funding Sources - The potential for alternative funding sources e.g. congestion charging, road tolls, etc. requires further investigation. Realistic and achievable plans which lead to the development and implementation of workable alternative funding sources will be needed. Conclusion The results of the Affordability and Sustainability forecasting show that none of the four modelling scenarios are sustainable in purely commercial terms. New capital investment and long term subsidy, of different orders of magnitude, would be required for all scenarios, including the base case. It is also clear that the increased capital investment required in the more expansive scenarios does not produce proportionately higher levels of income. Indeed, as investment increases from the base case to the enhancement scenario, so too does the level of subsidy needed in the future. Building on the analysis of the Task Force, urgent political decisions are now required to determine what level of investment Northern Ireland can afford within available resources and competing priorities. This poses a challenge for the Department for Regional Development, working with the Department of Finance and Personnel, the Executive Committee and the Assembly, within the Programme for Government and the constraints of the 2000 Spending Review, to identify what is affordable and sustainable over the short and longer terms. Appendix V: Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability V1 SUPPORTING ANALYSIS V. Practicality and Public Acceptability Data Sources

No detailed data sources were used. However, the following Government policy documents provide the planning context within which the scenarios were evaluated: Draft Regional Development Strategy - Shaping Our Future: December 1998. Moving Forward Northern Ireland Transport Policy Statement: November 1998. Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (GOMMMS), Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), March 2000. Written and verbal submissions to the RTF during the Public Consultation Process also informed the analysis. Methodology and its Application The following background guidance is abstracted from page 73 of GOMMMS Volume 1: In the past, some studies have been less effective than they might have been because their recommendations breached some constraint. Thus strategies or plans may be desirable but not fundable, or may create a majority of winners with a minority of uncompensated losers who will form a vocal opposition, or may be contingent on future funding to complete a network which cannot be guaranteed, or may be risky against certain scenarios. There therefore needs to be an overall assessment of the practicability of each strategy or plan and where relevant, what countervailing or complementary measures are needed to make the strategy or plan practical. Ideally, these measures should be built into the strategy, but it is recognised that this may not always be possible. Thus it could be said that the practicality analysis is essentially subjective in nature and pages 73 and 74 of GOMMMS Volume 1 gives the following checklist as a guide in assessing practicality of options:

- Feasibility - what is the likelihood of the decision being implemented? - Enforcement does the option require other, supporting enforcement measures to ensure that it is effective? - Area of interest, ie, breadth of the decision. - Complexity, ie, depth of the decision. - Timescale - for the implementation and of the effects of the options. - Phasing implications of postponing decisions. - Partitioning - can the options be broken down into discrete components? - Complementarity - are the proposals complementary or independent? - Conflicts - with other measures. - Public and Political Acceptability. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability V2 Practicality Assessment It was agreed that a quantitative scoring system was inappropriate for Practicality but that a qualitative statement using the above checklist should be developed for each of the four scenarios. Some comments are common to several scenarios and, to avoid repetition, these common points are made prior to the consideration of individual scenarios (see General section). Comments on individual scenarios should be read in conjunction with these general comments. The scenarios were not scored against a base scenario, thus, each scenario description coupled with the general section comments is a stand alone statement and from both practicality and public/political viewpoints the comments are against the existing situation. General Feasibility and Enforcement: To ensure the benefits of investment are fully realised, performance criteria should be established for the operator (eg, public service

contracts), a review of the governance and regulation arrangements undertaken and railways legislation updated (particularly with respect to rail safety). In addition, measures should also be considered to maximise the effectiveness of revenue support by ensuring the cost effectiveness of service delivery and giving customers or their representatives a greater say in service delivery. Mothballing of a line or section of a line raises amongst others, legal, technical, equity and social issues, but in terms of feasibility, the legal issues are likely to be most relevant. Mothballing can effectively be interpreted as discontinuance as described in Section 60, Transport Act, 1967. As the extent of proposed mothballing grows the likelihood of a legal challenge by communities or other stakeholders increases. It is felt in Scenarios 3 and 4 there would be objections and a legal challenge. Such a challenge could cause a significant delay to implementation and may not be fully implemented even after a period of long and costly legal arguments. Area of interest: Once resources have been allocated, DRD, NITHCo and NIR are the main bodies involved in implementation. Complexity: The decision making process is complex because it involves the assessment and rationalisation of a wide range of quite different impacts, eg, financial, social, economic and environmental. Decisions must also be taken in context of other very significant and pressing public sector demands on resources, the relative priorities of which are not yet known. In the case of scenarios that include mothballing, the greater the extent of the mothballing, the more difficult it will be to obtain consensus and agreement. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability V3 In addition, there are both political and wider European and British Isles Strategic policy issues to be considered. Timescale: In Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 implementation of new rolling stock and track

upgrades would largely be effected in the next 3 to 4 years and thereafter there would be the completion of the track upgrading programme and further network and service enhancements up to 2010. With all rail investment scenarios (ie, Scenarios 1, 2 and 3) there will be a significant benefit when new trains and track upgrades are provided and thereafter benefits will gradually increase as rail patronage grows. Phasing: In Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 the A D Little Report has indicated the necessary phasing of investment to ensure the delivery of rail services continues to be safe. Decisions are required at an early stage if the existing services are to continue to be operated. Failure to make early investment decisions will result in the managed withdrawal of rail services and in the case of the Belfast-Bangor line, the possible loss of a European Union Grant. More specifically, deferral of the necessary safety related investment will mean services will be progressively reduced and the benefits associated with an improved service will not be realised, eg, improved safety levels, enhanced frequency, greater proportion of new rolling stock, additional capacity, further journey time savings, the benefits of park and ride, modern image of public transport in Northern Ireland etc. In addition, the message that investment in transport is a high Government priority and that it is serious about getting people to use more sustainable forms of transport will be diluted. (Financial phasing is dealt with in detail in the Affordability and Sustainability supporting analysis.) Partitioning: The structured approach of building from a largely mothballed rail network, through the Truncation, A D Little and Enhancement scenarios facilitates the division of the investment requirements into discrete components. Complementarity: As the rail investment scenarios (Scenarios 1, 2 and 3) are designed, amongst other things, to increase rail patronage with an improved cost effective quality service, the separate elements of these scenarios (with the exception of

any mothballing), are considered to have excellent synergy. Conflict: The outcomes predicted to arise from rail investment proposals do not conflict with the draft Regional Development Strategy (RDS), Transportation Policies or other key Government Policies, except when sections of the network are mothballed. Public and Political Acceptability: The consultation process described in Chapter 7 of the RTF Interim Report has made a very significant contribution to assessing likely political and public reaction to the various scenarios. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability V4 Relevant common themes from all groups of consultees included: (i) A repeated call for the abandonment of short-termism. Financial pressures should not force decisions that seriously undermine and damage the credibility of other key Government policies and strategies designed to improve the quality of life for all in Northern Ireland. Frequent reference was also made to policies affecting regional development, transportation, environment, health, economy, tourism, safety, energy, accessibility, social inclusion and equity. It was felt that the new devolved administration has the opportunity to show that it is not taking individual policy decisions in a vacuum but is forward thinking and aware of the interdependencies of different policies and the need for an integrated approach. A clear need was identified for a long term and visionary plan for the development of the railway network. It was generally felt that any decision other than to secure immediate investment, avoid mothballing lines and plan for increased future development to realise the full potential of the network would be a retrograde step and undermine a range of Government policies. It is important that the railway network be seen in the context of the island of Ireland and beyond if this full potential is to be realised. (ii) Northern Ireland should have a level of public transport on a par with any region in Europe. It must not be the only region in Europe that is failing to improve its

public transport services. Lack of investment means that Northern Ireland will be the only region that is not benefiting from the rail renaissance being observed throughout Europe and would demonstrate an inequity of treatment with other European countries. The public believe that mothballed lines would not be reopened and the image that Northern Ireland is trying to create, that of a modern European region, would be damaged. (iii) Governments message that people should move to more sustainable transport modes and adopt a more responsible travel culture could be irreparably damaged. (iv) As the population grows and ages, public transport choice, quantity and quality should be increased. (v) Some groups, particularly elected representatives and Councils, considered the scenarios put forward by the Task Force as lacking vision and the full potential of the rail network was, therefore, not being realised. More visionary improvements could include: better feeder services, parking facilities and accessibility at stations; more frequent and higher capacity services; an extended network from Portadown to the West and North of the region along with additional cross border services to Monaghan and Donegal; increased commuter rail services; new rail spurs (with freight heads) to sea and air gateways; dual rather than single tracks; and rail services linked to a light rapid transit service serving areas of the Belfast Metropolitan area. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability V5 In addition, in connection with rail freight, the necessary legislative changes to introduce Freight Facilities Grants and Track Access Grants should be advanced. (vi) Failure to invest means that some recent investment in track and station

upgrades will be devalued. (vii) Frequent reference was made to the perceived devastating effects that closure would have on the social strata of the region. The disadvantaged and marginalised groups would suffer the most. Mothballing lines has a detrimental effect on communities both socially (eg, by increasing social exclusion of households without access to a car and this is particularly relevant to school children, students, elderly, disabled and low income groups) and economically (eg, restricting the growth of tourism as the railways not only cater for independent travel but are part of the visitors experience). Bus substitution is not perceived as a suitable alternative for current rail users as this mode of transport is unacceptable in terms of congestion, pollution, health issues, travel times, comfort and convenience. (viii) An equitable and accessible integrated rail system as part of a joined-up approach to public transport, and indeed transportation, is essential. A town not on the rail network suffers from the perception of peripherality as the network is considered to provide corridors for sustainable development and the stations can act as hubs for social and business communities. (ix) To ensure delivery of quality public transport services the delivery structures in the Department for Regional Development, NITHC and Translink, should be reviewed. Further detail on public and political acceptability can be obtained in Chapter 7: Consultation of the RTF Interim Report. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability V6 Scenario 1 - Enhancement In brief, Scenario 1 is the enhancement of current services in the peak periods, the retention of the Lisburn/Antrim line, the opening of two new stations on the Bleach Green/Antrim Line (Mossley and Templepatrick) and additional trains sets for the

network, in addition to the investment outlined in the A D Little report. Feasibility and Enforcement: In general, funding considerations apart, it is feasible for this scenario to be implemented. Some issues to note are: - Technical training programmes would be required for mechanical engineers; - Additional staff would be required to deliver and service the additional rail services and infrastructure; - The provision of some Park and Ride facilities may be dependent on Public Inquiry processes. - No mothballing of lines is required and, therefore, no legal obstacles are anticipated. Area of interest: Improved rail services will be provided in the Belfast Metropolitan Area, the Northern Corridor and the Eastern Seaboard transportation corridors. Complexity: Implementation issues are not unduly complex. The proposal builds upon existing rail operations with no major changes to bus operations. Timescale: The timing of the delivery of elements of the proposal that have significant planning implications is uncertain, eg, the rail spur and station at D5/Belfast City Airport and Park and Ride facilities. Implementation of such elements may be in the middle of the 2000-2010 period rather than in the first 3 years. Phasing: There are no major phasing issues. However, it should be noted that: - Lisburn Antrim line is operated currently and therefore flexibility exists as to when it could be improved and re-launched; - Antrim Bleach Green upgrade is under construction currently and is scheduled to open in Spring 2001; - New rolling stock would ideally be required in batches of 6 x 3 car sets. It will be advisable to ensure maximum marketing impact is made when Antrim Bleach Green, or other line improvements, are implemented by introducing new rolling stock concurrently. Therefore launching of improvements will be related to the delivery schedule of the new trains.

Partitioning: The partitioning of components in this scenario is possible. The following components can be considered as separate schemes: 1. AntrimLisburn retention/improvement; 2. Additional new trains for Greater Belfast services; 3. Park and Ride provision at Lisburn West, Belfast City Airport and Ballyhenry; 4. AntrimBleach Green plus new stations; 5. New rolling stock and track improvements required for safety reasons as identified in the AD Little report. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability V7 Whilst there should be significant synergy in implementing all 5 schemes, any of the first 4 schemes could be dropped but this would adversely effect the impact of the scenario. However, it should be noted that the incremental nature of the 4 scenarios means that the removal of schemes 1, 2 and 3 effectively equates this scenario to Scenario 2.

In operational terms, it should also be noted that the retention of the Lisburn/Antrim line will require a train set in the morning and evening peaks due to the redirection of trains following the opening of the Bleach Green/Antrim line. Complementarity: The relay of track and the arrival of the new trains sets complement each other and their introduction should be timed to ensure maximum marketing impact and hence use. The additional train services and new track will complement each other in providing an enhanced service and a more extensive rail network for Northern Ireland. Taken together the components should provide significant synergy resulting in marked increases in rail patronage and additional opportunities for moving freight from road to rail. Conflict: There is no conflict with other measures proposed in the draft Regional Development Strategy or Moving Forward, which seek to provide key transportation

corridors with high quality public transport services and to promote public transport choice. Public and Political Acceptability: This scenario has the greatest synergy with other Government policies, although over the longer term, many consultees did not consider it to be visionary enough. It is believed this scenario would have a relatively high level of public and to a slightly lesser extent, political acceptability and would allow the benefits of increased rail investment in Northern Ireland to be further assessed before any additional investment is undertaken. There was strong support for this scenario by the attendees of the public meetings. It was seen as a starting-point and considered to be the basis for the future vision and strategic development of the regions transport network. Of the 196 written responses analysed, 190 commented on the future shape of the network and service. This scenario, and/or greater development, was argued for by 68 submitters, approximately 36% of those who expressed an opinion. Popular supporting arguments included economic development, accessibility, policy integration and impact on the environment. Investment as per this scenario would send very positive signals to all that the Government is forward thinking, is serious about the adoption of a more responsible travel culture and it would also add credibility and reinforce other key Government strategies and policies. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability V8 Scenario 2 Based on A D Little Report In brief, Scenario 2 proposes the retention of the present railway network, the mothballing of the Lisburn/Antrim line, the building of new stations at Mossley West and Templepatrick and the renewal of most of the train sets. Feasibility and Enforcement: In general this scenario, which is based on the A D Little report, is feasible. As in Scenario 1, technical training programmes would be required for mechanical engineers.

The mothballing of the Lisburn/Antrim line may be subject to a legal challenge. The required level of mothballed track maintenance and the extent of measures necessary to protect assets is unclear, as stations and infrastructure would be more susceptible to vandalism. Bus substitution on Lisburn/Antrim line is feasible. Area of interest: This scenario retains the existing network (with the exception of Lisburn-Antrim line) and will impact on the Belfast Metropolitan Area, the Northern and Eastern Seaboard transportation corridors. The scenario will have an adverse effect on small, but growing, local communities on the Lisburn-Antrim line where interest/opposition will be greatest. Complexity: Implementation issues are not complex as proposed operations are similar to existing ones with the exception of the Lisburn/Antrim line. Timescale: No additional comments to those in General section. Phasing: - Antrim Bleach Green upgrade is under construction currently and is scheduled to open in Spring 2001; - New rolling stock would ideally be required in batches of 6 x 3 car sets. It will be advisable to ensure maximum marketing impact is made when Antrim Bleach Green, or other line improvements, are implemented by introducing new rolling stock concurrently. Therefore launching of improvements will be related to the delivery schedule of the new trains. Partitioning: There is very limited scope for partitioning of components in this scenario, eg, components can be considered as separate schemes: 1. Antrim-Bleach Green plus new stations. 2. Other new rolling stock and track improvements required for safety reasons. Complementarity: The proposed new stations at Mossley and Templepatrick will complement the new railway line that is being built between Bleach Green/Antrim and, thus, the network.

Conflict: The scenario which provides a more attractive service than currently exists is generally supportive of the RDS and transportation policies which promote public transport use, but to a lesser extent than Scenario 1. However, it should be noted that the mothballing of the Lisburn-Antrim line would reduce public transport choice in that area. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability V9 Public and Political Acceptability: The proposals may be perceived as falling short of Governments aspirations to improve and enhance public transport, but seen rather as a matter of largely safeguarding current services. In addition, there will be dissatisfaction from residents in the area of the mothballed Lisburn-Antrim line. The attendees at the public meetings often saw this as the fallback position, to secure the network for future development. Of the 190 written submitters who commented, this was the most supported scenario with 121 people, approximately 62%, stressing the need for maintaining the current network. However, it would be incorrect to assume that the attendees at the meetings or submitters supported mothballing the LisburnAntrim line as most of these people were simply calling for the network to be maintained as it currently operates.

However, with the exception of the Lisburn-Antrim line, new rolling stock, signalling and track upgrades will provide a much more attractive service and will allow the benefits of investment to be assessed with a view to justification of additional investment in the future. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability V10 Scenario 3 - Truncation of Network In brief, Scenario 3 mothballs the lines between Whitehead/Larne, Lisburn/Antrim, Ballymena/ Londonderry/Derry and Coleraine/Portrush. Two new stations are to be provided at Mossley and Templepatrick. Feasibility and Enforcement: The proposed mothballing of the Londonderry/Derry

and Larne lines are very likely to be subject to a legal challenge. As in Scenario 2 the required level of mothballed track maintenance and the extent of measures necessary to protect assets is unclear. However, because the extent of proposed mothballing is considerably greater, this uncertainty is a bigger factor. Bus substitution is considered to be feasible in this scenario. Area of interest: Rail services will be retained in the Belfast Metropolitan Area and parts of the Northern and Eastern Seaboard transportation corridors. The fact that the North West Region would be left remote from the rail system would create significant interest in the Northern Corridor as would the withdrawal of the railway from East Antrim as it is a gateway route to Scotland and a Trans European Network (TENS) route. Complexity: The issues raised in the feasibility and enforcement section add to the complexity of the decision making process and the prospect of mothballing strategic sections of rail network will make achieving consensus much more difficult. Timescale: The proposals are likely to be the subject of a legal challenge and this could add significantly to the implementation timescale on those lines which are to be mothballed. Phasing: - Antrim Bleach Green upgrade is under construction currently and is scheduled to open in Spring 2001; - New rolling stock would ideally be required in batches of 6 x 3 car sets. It will be advisable to ensure maximum marketing impact is made when Antrim Bleach Green, or other line improvements, are implemented by introducing new rolling stock concurrently. Therefore launching of improvements will be related to the delivery schedule of the new trains. - The delivery of new buses for bus substitution services should be achievable. Partitioning: Limited partitioning of components in this model is possible. However,

inability to implement mothballing on one line as opposed to another could have significant cost implications for the line(s) that were not mothballed. Complementarity: Only parts of this scenario can be viewed as complementary, eg, rationalising the network, upgrading tracks and providing new trains and a uniformly high level of service. However, the mothballing of lines will reduce the extent of the rail network and reduce synergy effects even though it is proposed to use bus substitution on the mothballed sections. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability V11 Conflict: This mothballing of lines conflicts with the draft RDS and transportation policies which seek to enhance and promote the use of public transport. In particular, the removal of rail services in parts of the Northern Transport Corridor removes public transport choice. Mothballing would also undermine other key government policies relating to the environment, safety, social inclusion, accessibility, etc. Public and Political Acceptability: This scenario was almost universally seen as unacceptable by those who attended the meetings and made submissions. Of the 190 submissions that included relevant comments, this scenario was supported, albeit hesitantly, by only one person. There will be very significant opposition from a variety of sources, eg, political parties, local Councils, community, voluntary and business groups, pressure groups, key stakeholder groups and some members of the general public. In addition, other jurisdictions including the Republic of Ireland and probably the Scottish devolved administration would have serious concerns over the mothballing proposals. For instance, the Northern Group of Councils representing 8 District Council areas (Antrim, Ballymena, Ballymoney, Coleraine, Derry City, Limavady, Moyle and Strabane) with a combined population of over 400,000 people regard it as unacceptable that the Northern Corridor rail network be closed or serviced reduced. In addition, the

Taoiseach has publicly spoken about the strategic significance of this link in an island of Ireland context. It is believed that this link should be seen as a strategic transportation corridor between the North Western corner of the island of Ireland and other urban centres such as Dublin and Cork, as well as Belfast and other urban centres within Northern Ireland. Currently, because of the journey time and the condition of rolling stock and track it is used more as an internal travel facility for the towns along its route. The view has also been widely expressed that this line must be considered in micro terms as an essential component of any localised North-West transport strategy. This would highlight the series of short journeys that can be made along the line, rather than merely focussing paramount attention on the Londonderry/Derry-Belfast journey. The mothballing of the line is seen as damaging the image of Londonderry/Derry by increasing the perception of peripherality and as increasing the west-east socioeconomic imbalance. For instance, from a social exclusion viewpoint, many of the Councils on the Londonderry/Derry line have relatively low Robson indices and this withdrawal of services would be seen as further disadvantaging the already disadvantaged. From an economic viewpoint, it is believed tourism growth would be adversely affected along the Northern Rail Corridor as tourists are considered to be more predisposed to rail rather than bus and the loss of services would undermine the ability to capitalise on the regions tourism magnets such as the Antrim Coast, Portrush and the cross border Council areas of Derry City/Donegal. It is felt that the level of current rail service is so low that potential benefits in terms of both patronage and freight movement are not being realised and never will be if the line is mothballed. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability V12 Much of the arguments applicable to the Londonderry/Derry line are equally applicable to the Larne line and Councils along this route believe this TENS route should also be fully retained, maintained and upgraded. Again it is believed the potential of the line is

not being realised either in patronage terms or freight (eg, Freight head at Larne port, Stena Line conventional ferry services returning to Larne and possible waste transfer to Magheramorne). Even though there will be new trains and new track on the retained network this scenario will be seen to undermine other key Government policies such as illustrated in the General section. The effects of withdrawal of train services were seen as operating on both the micro and macro levels: effects would be seen on different sections of the community and parts of the region and would have an overall impact on the region and its image. As stated in the enforcement section it is believed there would be legal challenge to any proposals for mothballing along these lines. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability V13 Scenario 4 - Belfast/Dublin Service only - other lines mothballed In brief, Scenario 4 is to retain the Belfast/Dublin service only with all other lines mothballed. There would be no local service between Belfast and Portadown/Newry. Feasibility and Enforcement: As in Scenario 3 these two points are linked and the points raised under Scenario 3 regarding mothballing apply to Scenario 4 also but to a much greater extent as many more parts of the network are affected. The feasibility of bus substitution on some of the Belfast commuter corridors is questionable. However, outside these corridors, it is feasible to operate bus services at the required frequencies to ensure seating capacity is maintained. It is clear that the form of operation of the bus substitution services will not directly mirror that provided by the rail services they replace. For example, in the case of the Bangor to Belfast services, to replace trains between 07.45 and 08.25 would require about 17 buses. It is unlikely that it will be feasible or desirable to operate all services from Bangor rail station to Belfast Central. Buses would have to leave earlier than the scheduled train departure because of the longer on road journey times. It is more likely

that the additional bus services will be rationalised with existing local Bangor Link-Line services and Belfast Express services to provide integrated services from outlying residential areas to separate transport termini in Belfast City Centre. Therefore passengers on these through services will board and alight from/to their local roadside stops rather than from/to rail station platforms, as currently. However, it will still be necessary to operate a considerable number of bus services from Bangor bus/rail station to Belfast Central. There will probably be a need for station alterations and implementation of traffic management measures (including some reassignment of priority or capacity from car to bus) to minimise vehicular access and egress problems at the stations. Consequently the substitution of rail services on the Belfast commuter corridors with high frequency bus services will require significant changes in the operation of current bus services, additional operational staff and will lead to the removal of highway capacity. Area of interest: This scenario only retains inter-city services on the Belfast-Dublin line. Mothballing of most of the existing rail network will provoke great interest. Complexity: The widespread impact of this scenario coupled with the points raised in the feasibility and enforcement section add further to the complexity of the decision making process. Timescale: Mid-term, but potential for further delay due to the defence of the anticipated legal challenges. Phasing: The phasing of this scenario is likely to be dependent on a possible Public Inquiry or separate local Public Inquiries. It is also dependent on the requirement to acquire additional buses; this could take up to 2 years. Additionally, a severe shortage Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability V14 of bus drivers and mechanical engineers could potentially affect phasing and the overall practicality of the scenario.

Partitioning: It is probably not practical to partition this scenario. The key feature of the is the cessation of suburban rail services operated exclusively by NIR. In the event that some lines could not be mothballed, or that mothballing would be significantly delayed, additional costs will be incurred. Conflict: This scenario is in conflict with the draft RDS and transportation policies which seek to enhance and promote the use of public transport and would be contrary to public transport investment decisions that are being made by other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland and in the rest of Europe. The removal of rail services would considerably weaken the Key Transportation Corridors concept proposed in the Regional Development Strategy and undermine the credibility of both the draft RDS and transportation policies. It would also undermine other key government policies relating to the environment, safety, social inclusion, accessibility, etc. Public and Political Acceptability: The comments made in Scenario 3 are also relevant here but they would also be mirrored in the additional areas affected by the further mothballed sections. It is likely that the principle of the removal or suspension of rail services will be opposed almost unanimously by political parties, local authorities, commercial, voluntary, pressure and business groups and a significant proportion of the general public, throughout Northern Ireland. The unanimous reaction of those who attended the public meetings and those making submission was that this scenario was unacceptable. Arguments that bus substitution would offer comparable levels of service would be strongly challenged. Of the 196 written responses analysed, 161 commented on the acceptability of alternative transport methods. Of the 70 submitters who commented on bus as an alternative, only 7 (10%) thought this to be acceptable. Of the 91 submitters who commented on private car as an alternative, only 5 (approximately 5%) deemed this to be acceptable.

Undoubtedly such a scenario would seriously undermine many Government policies and be seen to be completely contrary to the way other cities and societies are developing throughout Europe. There would be widespread redundancies in NIR and a legal challenge to the proposal would be expected. Supporting Analysis Practicality and Public Acceptability V15 Appendix V - 1 - Working Papers The feasibility of bus substitution must be questioned in Scenario 4. To illustrate this point only one case study will be considered - bus substitution at Bangor station for the period of 0745 - 0825. Existing train departures: 0745 express, 400 passengers; 0750 stopping, 150 passengers; 0815 express, 400 passengers 0825 stopping, 100. The total number of passengers at present leaving Bangor station each morning Monday to Friday for Belfast 0745 - 0825 is 1050. The modal shift figure for Bangor from the computer models is estimated to be 62% from rail to bus (this figures allows for trip suppression and a shift to private cars). Thus, the passenger requirement for buses is 651. The bus substitution required (at 40 seats per bus) is 17 buses. Other factors: It is considered that the arrival time in Central is the critical time for passengers and not the departure time from Bangor. Thus, buses will be required to leave Bangor at an earlier time than the current trains. It is impossible to board people on buses in as an effective manner as trains. Annexes Annex 1