Discusión objetivo general

Business Commuting Other Overall

Intercity model 1.60 1.20 1.25 1.29

Birmingham

PDFH 1.49 1.37 1.29 1.36

Intercity model 2.07 n/a 1.60 1.84

Manchester (only)

PDFH 1.60 n/a 1.39 1.50

Intercity model 1.80 n/a 1.41 1.61

Manchester (network)

PDFH 1.60 n/a 1.39 1.50

Intercity model 3.51 n/a 2.43 2.90

Edinburgh

PDFH 1.64 n/a 1.43 1.52

5.44 Birmingham and to a large degree Manchester are typical of the markets PDFH was designed to consider, where journey time and fare change, with minimal air competition. The results for Birmingham are comparable to PDFH, with slight differentials by purpose; overall, the Intercity model is lower than PDFH. For Manchester, the Intercity model produces higher demand growth than PDFH would suggest; however, this is when Manchester is the sole New Lines station in the north west. In this instance, New Lines does abstract rail demand from other corridors, from Leeds in the east to Liverpool in the west, giving rise to a high growth factor. When a network of New Lines is modelled (as in option MB1.4.1), demand from places such as Warrington, Liverpool and Wigan use other stations besides Manchester, although Leeds demand is still abstracted. This is more closely related to the PDFH forecasting parameters and does result in a closer match between the Intercity model and PDFH growth factors, with the Intercity model slightly higher.

5.45 The Intercity model forecasts for Edinburgh are considerably in excess of those from PDFH, in large part because of the large air market between the South East and Scotland. The impact of New Lines on the Scottish market has been considered below.

5.46 Overall, the Intercity model provides forecasts consistent with PDFH. Experience of High Speed Rail

5.47 A review has been undertaken of the available literature on international experience of the introduction of high speed rail. This indicates that the introduction of high speed rail can lead to significant increases in rail demand. For example when air passengers transferring to other flights are excluded Eurostar services are estimated to carry 80% of the London to Paris market.

5.48 Journey time elasticities implied by observed changes in behaviour have been utilised to benchmark the New Line forecasts. The best available data existing relates to the initial stage of the Paris to Lyon line; this reduced train journey times by around 30% and had an implied JT elasticity of around -1.6. The second southern section stage

reduced JTs by 25% but only saw a JT elasticity of -1.1 (Nash, 2008). This is lower since significant transfer from air had been largely completed in stage one.

5.49 These values have been compared to the journey time elasticities implied by the New Line forecasts of circa -0.4 for Birmingham to London, -0.8 between Manchester and London and -1.54 for Edinburgh to London where there is the most to be gained from air competition. Of note, the Edinburgh elasticity is very comparable to the Paris-Lyon experience and again provides comfort that the New Lines forecasts are credible and robust.

UK demand flows

5.50 Forecast New Line demand for particular flows have also been compared to that achieved by existing and forecast UK flows. In particular, in option MB1.4.1 the market between Edinburgh and London is forecast to grow to 6.5m passengers per annum. The New Line journey time between Scotland and London is broadly equivalent to that from Manchester and Leeds to London today; service frequencies are comparable at 2tph or 3tph. Their Do-Minimum demand is forecast to reach 6.8 million and 5.6 million respectively by 2030, so the demand forecasts for Edinburgh are commensurate given the rail journey times.

5.51 This is set against the relative sizes of the population. Manchester is forecast5 by 2030 to have a population some 75% greater than SE Scotland (the area served by a New Lines service to Edinburgh), with West Yorkshire (the Leeds area conurbation) some 55% greater. However, these areas are much more accessible, with road and rail offering reasonable accessibility. Conversely, only air arguably offers the same for Scotland (where rail is well over 4 hours and car has journey times of 7 hours or more).

5.52 Were accessibility levels comparable, then it can be argued that the demand for travel would be comparable, after accounting for the relative attractiveness of the markets. This is illustrated in Table 5.6 for the South East to North West and South East to Scotland markets. The attractiveness is measured by the relative level of population and employment in the two markets (the South East is common to both and hence does not affect the relative attractiveness); overall, the North West has 40% higher population and employment than Scotland in 2030.

5.53 In 2030, the Do-Minimum demand to the North West is 40 million trips per annum. Whilst the attractiveness of Scotland is some 30% lower, the demand to Scotland is nearly 50% lower, reflecting the relatively poor accessibility to Scotland from the South East. New Lines improves rail accessibility to Scotland to a level equivalent to that currently experienced for the North West; the forecasts indicate that the Scottish market grows to a size commensurate with the North West accounting for the differences in population and employment (i.e. 40/28 = 1.4).

4 _{This is the average with and without any fare premia, the elasticity values being 1.46 and 1.62}

respectively. This reflects the uncertainty around fare changes on the Paris-Lyon route on which the elasticity is being compared.