Feasibility Study: Enhanced Rail Services between Edinburgh and Newcastle
6 Potential New Services
6.1.1 This chapter considers the appraisal of additional rail services to Dunbar, Berwick and Newcastle, primarily from the perspective of the costs and benefits associated with each potential service. These services are considered as being additional to the May 2011 timetabled services.
6.1.2 It also considers the case for the re-opening of East Linton and Reston stations in conjunction with the new train services.
6.2.1 There are two main aspects to the appraisal, both of which are considered here:
- the financial appraisal considers in the main any construction costs and the costs of running additional train services against the increases in revenue taken by the train operator; and
- the social cost benefit analysis adds to the financial appraisal via a monetary valuation of the benefits accruing to train users, principally through shorter journey times which are turned into monetary benefits using established values of time.
6.2.2 The forecasting of changes to patronage and revenue at existing stations has been undertaken using the industry-standard 'MOIRA' software. MOIRA also provides a valuation of the 'user benefits'; this is the savings in travel time associated with any timetable change translated into a monetary value. ScotRail provided a May 2009 version of MOIRA which contained timetable, patronage and revenue data for all relevant station origin - destination combinations on the network and this has formed the basis of the study.
6.2.3 A two-stage process was then undertaken to produce the forecasts:
- MOIRA 2009 was run on the basis of the May 2011 timetable - this provided us with in essence a 2011 'Reference Case' forecast set of patronage, revenues, and benefits; and
- each additional train service configuration was then coded on top of the May 2011 timetable and tested - the results from this were compared with the 'Reference Case' to determine the incremental impact of the new services, and it is these values which are reported here.
6.2.4 Network Rail provided the study with the underlying processes and methodology used during the RUS study, where a similar analysis was undertaken. This process was used to translate the single year impacts produced by MOIRA into the 60-year discounted appraisal required in STAG. This methodology was adopted and updated here in order to retain broad consistency with the previous RUS findings.
6.2.5 The impacts of the potential new stations were assessed separately. The approach taken here was based on benchmarking against other stations in the area, together with an analysis of the potential catchment and market for rail travel from each station. This included an analysis of the likely 'abstraction' of demand to the new stations, ie rail travellers transferring from an existing station to the new station. The methodology used in the previous 2004 study was also reviewed and built upon as part of this process.
60 Year Appraisal
6.2.6 A key requirement of STAG is the production of Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) figures which reflect a discounted 60-year appraisal of the costs and benefits of any transport proposal, in line with the Treasury Green Book methodology. As noted above, we have sought to maintain broad consistency with the previous RUS methodology in this respect and have made use of the spreadsheet-based processes which were made available by Network Rail. All monetary figures are discounted to 2002 values in line with guidance.
6.2.7 One key assumption in this respect concerns passenger growth forecasts across the network. The RUS figures, which we have adopted here to retain consistency with the previous work, are:
- 2011 -2017: 3.7% per annum;
- 2017 - 2022: 1.9% per annum;
- 2022 - 2030: 0.9% per annum; and
- no further growth assumed.
6.2.8 The key components of the TEE which are reported here are:
- Investment Costs: the capital costs for new stations etc;
- Operating Costs: variable and fixed operating costs were provided by ScotRail in 2011, and all tests have assumed the use of three-car Class 380 EMU trains;
- Revenue: additional rail revenue in this case - note that this may overestimate total additional public transport revenue as there is likely to be transfer from bus to rail in many cases which has not been estimated in the core analysis here;
- Other Government Impacts: mainly tax losses due to transfer from car to rail and hence loss of fuel tax revenues;
- − Total Costs: the sum of the above (additional rail revenue being a negative value here);
- Rail User Benefits: monetised travel time savings accruing to existing and new rail passengers (ie those who have switched from other modes / destinations);
- Non-user Benefits: includes monetised values for the impacts of proposals on congestion, infrastructure, accidents and climate change (ie arising from modal shift from car) - based on standard STAG approaches (local air quality and noise which was used in the RUS analysis are excluded here in line with STAG);
- − Total Benefits: the sum of the above;
- Net Present Value (NPV): 'total 60 year benefits' minus 'total 60 year costs'; and
- Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR): 'total 60 year benefits' divided by 'total 60 year costs'.
6.2.9 Optimism Bias is a key part of the analysis. As ScotRail provided operating costs for the study, a STAG 'Level 2' Project Development Level has been assumed in this respect. As such, an optimism bias of 1.6% per annum is applied to operating costs and a 50% optimism bias has been applied to capital costs.5
6.2.10 The resulting values are all reported in the sections which follow.
6.3.1 As noted in Chapter 5, the RailSys modelling has identified the potential for new Edinburgh - Dunbar services as follows:
- 17 northbound paths; and
- 23 southbound paths.
6.3.2 In May 2011, there were 15 northbound services from Dunbar (including four Dunbar to Edinburgh ScotRail services) and there were also 18 Edinburgh to Dunbar trains (including four ScotRail Edinburgh to Dunbar services).
6.3.3 The timetable developed for the new services here allows for the new trains to call at all stations between Dunbar and Edinburgh, unlike the current ScotRail services which run direct to Dunbar (although some stop at Musselburgh). It has been assumed that these trains will call at all stations and this gives a journey time of around 35 minutes from Dunbar to Waverley. This service would therefore provide a step change in frequency offering a near half-hourly service from Drem, Longniddry, Prestonpans, Wallyford and Musselburgh throughout the day.
6.3.4 Two tests have been specified:
- T1 - Edinburgh - Dunbar using all possible paths, ie an additional 40 services across the day: this would require three additional train sets to operate. T1 is not necessarily a realistic option but has been included as a 'best case' in terms of the benefits which could conceivably be generated by a Dunbar service; and
- T1b - Edinburgh Dunbar, 26 additional services: requiring two additional train sets (and hence reduced train operating costs).
6.3.5 Figure 6.1 below shows the scale and location of the additional annual patronage resulting from T1 by origin-destination station pair. Absolute and percentage change are both shown in the Figure.
Figure 6.1 Forecast Change in Annual Passengers, Edinburgh - Dunbar Service (T1)
6.3.6 It can be seen that there are substantial uplifts in passenger numbers along the line overall at around 12%, not just at Dunbar. The increase at Dunbar is actually rather less at around 8%, reflecting the continuing presence of faster, LDHS services there. Musselburgh to Edinburgh shows large absolute and percentage changes in passenger numbers.
6.3.7 However, it should be noted that MOIRA does not account for parking availability at railway stations. As many of the stations here have constrained parking on site, these figures may over-estimate the ability of these stations to cope with this level of additional demand. On the other hand, it could be possible to incrementally increase parking supply at some of these locations over time to cope with this additional demand. Note also that base level travel between Dunbar and Musselburgh (including Queen Margaret University) will be very low given the lack of direct services. These new services will improve this connectivity considerably, and as such the MOIRA (elasticity based) forecasting approach will underestimate this potential new demand.
6.3.8 If the services did not stop at all the intermediate stations between Dunbar and Edinburgh there would be a loss of benefits to these stations which would impact on the viability of the services.
6.3.9 Figure 6.2 below shows the distribution of user benefits in terms of the station origin-destination pairs noted in Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.2 Distribution of Annual User Benefits, Edinburgh - Dunbar Service (T1)
6.3.10 It can be seen that although Musselburgh - Edinburgh sees the biggest increase in passenger numbers, Dunbar - Edinburgh sees the greatest share of benefits, ie the benefits per passenger are greater there. If say Prestonpans, Longniddry and Drem were excluded from this service, the level of benefits associated with this service would drop by 28%. Benefits to Dunbar passengers would increase slightly if journey times were cut as a result, but this would not outweigh the loss of benefits at the other stations, underlining the value of these intermediate stops.
6.3.11 Figure 6.3 below shows the initial single year costs and benefits associated with T1 and T1b as follows:
- additional revenue: additional train revenue as a result of the new service;
- operating costs: the total costs of operating the new service;
- net cost: revenue minus operating cost;
- user benefits: travel time savings turned into monetary values using 'values of time' (welfare benefits);
- non-user benefits: monetised values primarily associated with reduced congestion; and
- net benefits: the sum of the above, ie revenue - operating costs + user benefits + non-user benefits.
6.3.12 This initial figure provides an outline of the scale of the various components of the analysis.
Figure 6.3 Edinburgh - Dunbar: Single year benefits and costs
6.3.13 It can be seen that operating costs are reduced substantially in T1b compared to T1, as there are two additional train sets rather than three. However, the level of benefits and additional revenue is also proportionately lower, as there are fewer new services and hence a lower service frequency. Overall, costs and benefits are both reduced by around 33% in T1b compared to T1.
6.3.14 Both tests show that operating costs outweigh the combined user benefits and additional revenue generated. So in both cases, the net financial cost and net benefits are both negative suggesting that the costs associated with the services outweigh the benefits realised. This service would therefore require an initial annual subsidy of £1.5m to £2.5m to run.
60 Year Appraisal
6.3.15 The 60 year appraisal for T1 and T1b is shown below in Table 6.1. This adds an estimate of 'other government impacts' to the single year figures discussed above and includes optimism bias.
6.3.16 Note that, over the 60 year period, the assumed growth in patronage is higher than the assumed increases in operating costs. This means that the balance between costs and benefits changes from that shown in Figure 6.3 (which considered an opening year position) when analysed over the 60 year period.
6.3.17 Table 6.1 shows that both tests T1 and T1b return a BCR of around 0.9, ie for every £1 spent only around 90p is returned by way of benefits. In test T1b, operating costs are lower, but revenues and benefits also reduce so the BCR is virtually unaffected. Note that increased revenue is shown here as a negative cost. The NPV for the two-train service in T1b is rather better than that of T1 reflecting the lower level of cost associated with this service.
6.3.18 It would seem reasonable to consider that LDHS services at Dunbar could be reduced at Dunbar in conjunction with a fuller ScotRail service, bringing benefits to LDHS passengers if time savings can be made within the overall timetable. This would however lead to a reduction in level of service at Dunbar due to the longer ScotRail journey times, albeit with increased frequency. However, it could be argued that this would bring Dunbar into line with the level of service which exists at most other similar stations, and certainly into line with the level of service at other East Lothian stations. The current situation at Dunbar means that there is a near hourly service with a mix of journey times to Edinburgh and direct connections to the south, which means that in many ways the existing level of service is high at Dunbar.
6.4 Berwick-upon-Tweed Services
6.4.1 The RailSys modelling has identified the potential for new Edinburgh - Berwick services as follows:
- 15 northbound paths; and
- 18 southbound paths.
6.4.2 In May 2011, there were 25 northbound services from Berwick and 24 southbound services, so the addition of these services would see a step change in train frequency between Edinburgh and Berwick. The timetable developed here allows for these trains to call at all stations between Berwick and Edinburgh. As a core assumption, it has therefore been assumed that these trains will call at all stations and this gives an end to end journey time of just over one hour. This would therefore provide a step change in frequency offering a near half-hourly service from Dunbar, Drem, Longniddry, Prestonpans, Wallyford and Musselburgh.
6.4.3 The following tests have been specified:
- T2 - Edinburgh-Berwick using all possible paths, an additional 33 services; this would require three additional train sets. As before, T2 is not necessarily a realistic option but has been included as a 'best case' in terms of the benefits which could conceivably be generated by a Berwick service;
- T2d - as T2 but no stops at Prestonpans, Longniddry and Drem - to isolate the benefits arising here as a result of the increased service frequency;
- T2e - as T2d with a journey time reduced by five minutes between Wallyford and Dunbar to account for the removal of stops at Prestonpans, Longniddry and Drem; and
- T2f - Edinburgh-Berwick, 20 additional trains: requiring only two additional train sets.
6.4.4 Figure 6.4 below shows the scale and location of the additional annual patronage resulting from T2.
Figure 6.4 Forecast Change in Annual Passengers, Edinburgh - Berwick Service (T2)
6.4.5 Again, it can be seen that there are substantial uplifts in passenger numbers along the line, not just at Dunbar. Edinburgh to Musselburgh, Dunbar and Wallyford see the largest rises in passenger numbers. It is notable that Edinburgh - Berwick passenger numbers do not increase significantly. This reflects the uncompetitive journey times offered by the new service compared to the existing East Coast and Cross Country services. Travel volumes between Berwick and stations in East Lothian would anticipated to be very low, although Dunbar - Berwick sees a high percentage increase (although low in absolute terms) reflecting the step change in connectivity between the two locations.
6.4.6 As before, it should be noted that MOIRA does not account for parking availability at railway stations and as many of the stations here have constrained parking on site, these figures may over-estimate the ability of these stations to cope with this level of demand.
6.4.7 Figure 6.5 below shows the distribution of user benefits in terms of the station origin destination pairs noted in Figure 6.4.
Figure 6.5 Distribution of Annual User Benefits, Edinburgh - Berwick Service (T2)
6.4.8 The pattern here is very similar to the Dunbar services, with the benefits accruing in the main at the stations nearest Edinburgh, plus Dunbar. The level of benefits associated with Berwick - Edinburgh travel is low suggesting that there is little merit in continuing trains to Berwick-upon-Tweed.
6.4.9 Figure 6.6 below shows the initial single year costs and benefits associated with T2, T2d, T2e and T2f as follows:
- additional revenue: additional train revenue as a result of the new service;
- operating costs: the total costs of operating the new service;
- net cost: revenue minus operating cost;
- user benefits: travel time savings turned into monetary values using 'values of time' (welfare benefits);
- non-user benefits: monetised values primarily associated with reduced congestion; and
- net benefits: the sum of the above, ie revenue - operating costs + user benefits + non-user benefits.
Figure 6.6 Edinburgh-Berwick: Single year benefits and costs
6.4.10 The level of user benefits is highest in T2. The removal of stops at Prestonpans, Longniddry and Drem reduces the level of benefits by around 30% in T2d. In T2e, the faster journey times from Dunbar and Berwick increase the level of benefits compared to T2d but this is not enough to compensate for the loss of the benefits from the three stations at which services do not stop in this scenario, ie the overall benefits are still less than T2. With only two new trains in T2f, the reduced level of service is reflected in much lower benefits than T2. Revenue follows a similar pattern to user benefits.
6.4.11 Operating costs are identical in T2, T2d and T2e, and are reduced in T2f where only two train sets are used.
6.4.12 Overall, all tests show that operating costs outweigh the combined user benefits and revenue - in all cases the net financial cost and net benefits are negative suggesting that the costs associated with the services outweigh the benefits realised.
6.4.13 This service would therefore initially require an annual subsidy of over £3m or £2m to run depending on whether three or two train sets are used.
6.4.14 The specification of these services therefore presents something of a dilemma:
- a journey time of over one hour from Berwick means that the stopping service would not be competitive with East Coast and Cross Country services between Edinburgh and Berwick, and would therefore be lightly used at the Berwick end; but
- shortening this journey time (paths and slots permitting) would require fewer intermediate stops, reducing the benefits to the East Lothian stations which make up the bulk of the benefits associated with the services.
60 Year Appraisal
6.4.15 The 60-year appraisal for the various Berwick services is shown in Table 6.2 below.
6.4.16 As with the Dunbar services, all options here show a negative NPV and a BCR of less than one. In general the BCRs for the Berwick services are lower than for the Dunbar services. This reflects the fact that very little additional benefit is realised in taking the services on to Berwick, yet the operating costs are significantly increased with the increased train miles. A local service to Berwick as such would not seem to be an attractive proposition, although new stations could change this picture.
6.4.17 Omitting station stops at Prestonpans, Longniddry and Drem to improve journey times to Dunbar and Berwick is seen to reduce the BCR from 0.7 to 0.5 so should not be pursued.
6.4.18 An Edinburgh to Berwick ScotRail service could be seen as a replacement for LDHS services between Berwick and Edinburgh. However, the longer journey times would create disbenefits for travellers relative to the present day. LDHS services would still have to call at Berwick in any case in order to retain connectivity between Berwick and Newcastle as Northern Rail services do not currently extend as far as Berwick.
6.4.19 In the longer term, a more radical re-cast of services could see Berwick and other intermediate stations omitted from LDHS services between Edinburgh and Newcastle with local services introduced between Edinburgh and Berwick and Berwick and Newcastle. Alternatively all LDHS trains could call at Berwick only, with this station acting as a hub for the area. Detailed consideration of these options lies beyond the scope of the current study however, which is limited to changes which could be implemented in conjunction with the current timetable. These ideas did emerge from the consultation process however as could be considered further.
6.5 Edinburgh - Newcastle Semi-fast Service
6.5.1 The RailSys modelling has identified the potential for new Edinburgh - Newcastle services as follows:
- 15 northbound paths; and
- 17 southbound paths.
6.5.2 The services would stop at Dunbar, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Alnmouth and Morpeth. The end to end journey time calculated from RailSys is around one hour and 35 minutes.
6.5.3 In May 2011, there were 25 northbound services from Berwick-upon-Tweed and 24 southbound services. At Alnmouth, there were 15 northbound and 17 southbound trains and at Morpeth there were 20 northbound and 21 southbound services. So again, each of the four stations would see a step change in the level of service with the introduction of additional semi-fast services. In addition, the links between these four stations would be greatly improved with regular, direct intra-Northumberland services between eg Morpeth and Berwick.
6.5.4 The following tests have been specified:
- T3 - Edinburgh-Newcastle using all possible paths, an additional 32 services: this would require four additional train sets given the length of the route. Once more, T3 is not necessarily a realistic option but has been included as a 'best case' in terms of the benefits which could conceivably be generated by a semi-fast service; and
- T3f - Edinburgh-Newcastle, 20 additional services: requiring only three additional train sets.
6.5.5 An Edinburgh - Newcastle semi-fast service could be seen as an opportunity to reduce the number of LDHS service calls at the intermediate stations of Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick and Dunbar. The rationale underlying this is that this could speed up LDHS services between Edinburgh and Newcastle (and hence Edinburgh and London) providing benefits to longer distance passengers, and also making rail more competitive with air for anglo-Scottish travel.
6.5.6 Re-timetabling EUREKA LDHS services was beyond the scope of this study, but the following tests were undertaken to explore this issue, and in particular the impact of reduced LDHS stops at the intermediate stations (in conjunction with a semi-fast), and the impact of shorter LDHS journey times:
- T3e - as T3 with all East Coast and Cross Country stops at Dunbar, Berwick, Alnmouth and Morpeth removed (a 'worst case' in this respect);
- T3g - as T3 with 50% of the East Coast and Cross Country stops at Dunbar, Berwick, Alnmouth and Morpeth removed;
- T4 - base case with a five minute reduction in journey times between Edinburgh and Newcastle for East Coast and Cross Country trains (with no change to intermediate stops) - representing the hypothetical benefits associated with fewer intermediate stops and faster journey times; and
- T4 - can be combined with T3e / T3g to estimate the composite impact of reducing LDHS stops and thus reducing LDHS travel times for long distance travellers.
6.5.7 These tests were primarily undertaken to inform longer term decision making as the EUREKA timetable sets the parameters for short term planning.
6.5.8 Another aspect of an Edinburgh - Newcastle semi-fast service is its potential to displace some of the Northern Rail services which operate between Morpeth and Newcastle. However most of these services currently call at Cramlington, many go on to Newcastle Metrocentre rather than terminating at Newcastle, and some also call at Manors. Any displacement by an Edinburgh - Newcastle service calling only at Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick and Dunbar would lead to a reduced service at Cramlington and Manors, and would require some passengers to interchange at Newcastle for journeys to the Metrocentre.
6.5.9 A final test has been specified to look at the impact of this potential displacement though:
- T3h - as T3f with reduced Northern Rail services, ie displaced by the Edinburgh - Newcastle semi-fast.
6.5.10 Firstly, Figure 6.7 below shows the scale and location of the additional annual patronage resulting from T3.
Figure 6.7 Forecast Change in Annual Passengers, Edinburgh - Newcastle Service (T3)
6.5.11 The main impacts of the Edinburgh - Newcastle semi-fast service are increases in passenger numbers between Edinburgh - Dunbar and Morpeth - Newcastle. Other increases are much smaller, although some large percentage changes are seen, given the low base numbers. Alnmouth - Newcastle also sees a significant increase as this service would represent a step change in the level of service for that movement. End-to-end Edinburgh - Newcastle movements see a modest, single digit percentage increase. Travel between the intermediate stations is forecast to grow strongly, but the base volume of travel is very low so changes are small in absolute terms.
6.5.12 Once again, it should be noted that MOIRA does not account for parking availability at railway stations and as many of the stations here have constrained parking on site, these figures may over-estimate the ability of these stations to cope with this level of demand.
6.5.13 Figure 6.8 below shows the distribution of user benefits in terms of the station origin-destination pairs noted in Figure 6.7.
Figure 6.8 Distribution of Annual User Benefits, Edinburgh - Newcastle Service (T2)
6.5.14 The distribution of the benefits is rather more even than the changes in passenger numbers. In addition to Edinburgh - Dunbar and Morpeth - Newcastle, Alnmouth - Newcastle, Edinburgh - Berwick, Edinburgh - Newcastle, and Edinburgh - Morpeth all see a good level of benefits arising from the new service.
6.5.15 Figure 6.9 below shows the initial single year costs and benefits associated with the semi-fast service tests T3, T3f and T3h as follows:
- additional revenue: additional train revenue as a result of the new service;
- operating costs: the total costs of operating the new service;
- net cost: revenue minus operating cost;
- user benefits: travel time savings turned into monetary values using 'values of time' (welfare benefits);
- non-user benefits: monetised values primarily associated with reduced congestion; and
- net benefits: the sum of the above, ie revenue - operating costs +user benefits + non-user benefits.
6.5.16 Figure 6.10 then shows the same information for tests T3, T3g, T3e and T4 which explore the relationship between the semi-fast and LDHS services.
Figure 6.9 Edinburgh - Newcastle: Single year benefits and costs (1)
6.5.17 Looking at the impacts of the semi-fast in addition to all existing services, the absolute level of user benefit associated with T3 is around 60% higher than with T1 and T2, reflecting the greater scope of the new service here. As before, the reduced services seen in T3f (where the use of only three trains sets cuts the service frequency) sees benefits reduce by around one third compared to T3. Operating costs are reduced relative to T3 in T3f where only three train sets are used.
6.5.18 In T3h, the following Northern Rail services have been omitted from T3f to provide an illustration of the impacts of removing Northern Rail services: 1015 Newcastle - Morpeth; 1205 Newcastle Metro - Morpeth; 1400 Newcastle Metro - Morpeth; 1600 Newcastle Metro - Morpeth; 1818 Newcastle - Morpeth; 0849 Morpeth - Newcastle; 1049 Morpeth - Newcastle Metro; 1149 Morpeth - Newcastle Metro; 1449 Morpeth - Newcastle Metro; and 2245 Morpeth - Newcastle.
6.5.19 Variable operating costs have been amended to account for the reduced train miles in this test. It has also been assumed that only two rather than three new train sets are required. It can therefore be seen that T3h sees reduced operating costs compared to T3f and only slightly reduced benefits.
Figure 6.10 Edinburgh - Newcastle: Single year benefits and costs (2)
6.5.20 Considering the interaction between a semi-fast and LDHS services, the results of T3, T3g and T3e show how user benefits and revenue decline with reduced LDHS service intermediate stops, ie the new semi-fast is not enough to compensate for the loss of LDHS stops and results in a net loss of service quality. In the case of T3e where all LDHS stops are removed, there is a very large user disbenefit. Operating costs are the same in all three cases.
6.5.21 In T4, an illustrative five minute reduction in LDHS journey times between Edinburgh and Newcastle (and hence between Edinburgh and London etc) represents the journey time improvements brought about by a hypothetical removal of intermediate stops, and this does bring significant user benefits and additional revenue. At five minutes, these benefits do not outweigh the disbenefits seen in T3e, but a net user benefit is seen if combined with T3g. This is shown 'T3g+T4' in the figure. The figures for T4 can be scaled however so for example if a 10 minute journey time saving could be achieved as a result of the removal of intermediate stops, user benefits and revenue would be double the above figures. This theme is returned to below. Revenue figures show a very similar pattern to user benefits.
6.5.22 All tests have identical operating costs here. There are no operating cost changes associated with T4.
6.5.23 The semi-fast service would therefore require an initial annual subsidy of between £6m -£8m to run depending on whether four or three train sets are used.
6.5.24 The equivalent 60 year TEE analyses are shown below.
60 Year Appraisal
6.5.25 The best case test, T3, produces the largest benefits but also the highest costs and hence the poorest BCR of 0.58. Reducing the service frequency to comprise only three trains reduces costs and benefits but does improve the NPV and BCR somewhat in T3f.
6.5.26 Displacing selected Northern Rail services in T3h further improves the BCR by reducing overall rail operating costs with only a modest corresponding reduction in benefits, but only to 0.68. Note however that this saving in operating cost would accrue to Northern Rail rather than ScotRail.
6.5.27 As such, none of these options in isolation represent good value for money.
6.5.28 Table 6.4 considers these services combined with changes to LDHS service timetables and stopping patterns.
6.5.29 Table 6.4 shows the interaction between the introduction of a semi-fast and reduced LDHS service stops at the intermediate stations for the 60 year appraisal. As before, T3 shows that the introduction of a four-train semi-fast in isolation produces a negative NPV and a BCR of 0.58. In Table 6.3, T3h showed that this BCR could be increased to 0.68 with fewer new trains and a displacement of selected Northern Rail services.
6.5.30 T3g shows how removing 50% of the LDHS service stops at Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick and Dunbar produces disbenefits and revenue losses along the route, meaning that the introduction of the semi-fast is not enough to compensate for the reduced level of LDHS service. T3e shows the case if all LDHS service stops were removed and this created a very substantial negative NPV from reduced revenues and traveller disbenefits. On the other hand, T4 suggests that a five minute LDHS service journey time reduction would produce substantial benefits with a NPV of £176m to longer distance travellers between Edinburgh and Newcastle. Combining T4 with T3g (ie running the semi-fast, reducing intermediate LDHS service stops by half and achieving a five minute LDHS service travel time reduction) produces an improved BCR of 0.85.
6.5.31 However, if the benefits associated with T4 are doubled (representing a 10 minute journey time reduction), this coupled with the semi-fast produces a positive BCR of 2.85.
6.5.32 This analysis therefore suggests that a semi-fast could provide good value for money overall, if its introduction leads to significant LDHS service time savings. This would represent 'winners' and 'losers' though with Northumberland and east Scotland losing out in some respects and longer distance travellers benefitting.
6.5.33 It should be noted that these LDHS service time savings are hypothetical. Even if reducing intermediate stops between Edinburgh and Newcastle could achieve time savings on this section, there is no guarantee that these time savings could be carried all the way down the line to London. Without a recast of timetabling all down the ECML, these time savings would be likely to be lost in terms of trains complying with existing time slots further down the line.
6.6.1 It has been a long-running aspiration of many stakeholders in the East Lothian and eastern Borders / Berwickshire areas to see the re-opening of stations at East Linton and Reston, where passenger services were withdrawn in the 1960s and 1950s respectively. This section considers the factors which would influence the demand for travel from these stations and their potential to impact on the viability of the train services reported in the previous sections.
6.6.2 Construction costs for the two new stations were estimated in the 2004 Edinburgh to Berwick Local Rail Study. These costs have been updated in line with construction cost indices and used here, but must still be regarded as preliminary. There were a number of construction options in each case and the average has been used here. The 2004 value for East Linton is £3.05m and for Reston the estimate was £2.53m. These figures are subjected to appropriate optimism bias within the appraisal6 .
East Linton
6.6.3 East Linton is 24 miles by road from Edinburgh and the route from East Linton (the A1) is dual carriageway from Haddington to Edinburgh. The A1 is actually dual carriageway to Dunbar, but there is no access to this section from East Linton. Its nearest stations are Drem to the west (6.3 miles) for ScotRail services and Dunbar to the east (6.1 miles) where LDHS and ScotRail services can be accessed, as can be seen in Figure 6.11 below.
6.6.4 There are 68 spaces at Drem station car park and this is often insufficient to cater for all the demand for parking at that station, and there are similar constraints on parking supply at Dunbar where a charge is applied by East Coast for parking on station premises.
Figure 6.11 Location of East Linton
6.6.5 East Linton has a fairly frequent (at least hourly) bus service to Edinburgh, with journeys scheduled to take one hour and 10 minutes to Edinburgh Haymarket in the peak hours. By contrast the train from Drem takes between 25 and 30 minutes to Edinburgh Waverley making train much the more attractive option.
6.6.6 The 2001 Census reported that the settlement of East Linton had a population of around 1,750 some 800 of whom were in employment. Recent estimates by GROS up to 2008 do not suggest any significant change in these figures. The current East Lothian local plan does not allocate any significant new development at East Linton.
6.6.7 The 2001 Census found that 29% of employed adults resident in East Linton worked in Edinburgh (some 345 people) and of these 87% travelled to work by car. Overall, only 2% of all working adults in East Linton stated that they travelled by train to Edinburgh for employment. Survey evidence suggests that those who do travel via park and ride at Drem station.
6.6.8 The demand at individual railway stations in areas such as East Lothian is a combination of local 'walk in' demand and demand from car-based park and ride. The broad pattern of park and ride use in East Lothian was established from a set of passenger surveys undertaken at all station in East Lothian during 2003 as part of the SEStran Integrated Transport Corridor Study (SITCoS), so the travel behaviours here are relatively well known.
6.6.9 Looking at walk in catchment, Figure 6.12 below shows how East Linton compares to existing East Lothian stations and the other proposed new station site at Reston. It can be seen that East Linton has a similar level of walk in catchment to Longniddry but a much smaller catchment than most of the others and Musselburgh, Wallyford, Prestonpans Dunbar and North Berwick have similar levels of (much higher) walk in catchments. Reston has a far smaller walk in catchment, although this is still larger than Drem.
Figure 6.12 Estimated Station Walk in Catchment (15 minutes walk)
6.6.10 Table 6.4 below considers all GROS-defined settlements in East Lothian in order of distance from Edinburgh, and shows a number of aspects of travel from these settlements. These settlements account for 90% of East Lothian's total population. In particular it shows the stations typically used by residents of each settlement (including East Linton if this were to be open).
6.6.11 A number of key messages are then highlighted below.
6.6.12 A number of points emerge from this:
- as distance from Edinburgh increases, the proportion working in Edinburgh reduces consistently;
- the mode share of public transport reduces sharply with distance from Edinburgh, rebounding at North Berwick and Dunbar with the presence of stations;
- as distance from Edinburgh increases, the mode share of train increases dramatically compared to bus, ie bus is not attractive for longer distance commuting; and
- East Linton station would not be likely to be used by residents of any other settlement defined here, as they all have closer options from existing stations.
6.6.13 So for Edinburgh-bound travel, East Linton would not become the closest station for any of the settlements named above, although people from West Barns may use East Linton in preference to doubling back to Dunbar, depending on the services available and the availability of parking. There would be a reasonable rural hinterland however, covering a dispersed number of hamlets south of the A1 in particular.
6.6.14 The main impact of opening East Linton station would be likely to be an uplift in public transport modal share in line with other settlements in the area with a station, together with some transfer of demand from Drem station, used by current East Linton based rail travellers.
6.6.15 The approach taken to estimating demand for travel from East Linton station is based on benchmarking against other East Lothian stations. The Census Travel to Work data was used together with a number of parameters and local growth in rail patronage since 2001, to reproduce the total demand for rail travel from East Lothian as follows:
- total travel to work by train to Edinburgh * proportion commuting in a given day * factor for other purposes7 * factor for other rail destinations * annualisation * returns; gives;
- 1,101,300 per annum (station entries and exits); and
- Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR) 2002 East Lothian stations total entries and exits = 1,090,300.
6.6.16 It can be seen that this formulation provides a good fit to the 2002 data. This means that if a good approximation of travel to work can be made for a given station, these factors can be applied to estimate its total daily and annual figures.
6.6.17 This approach was used to estimate the demand from East Linton was therefore as follows:
- in 2001, 345 East Linton residents worked in Edinburgh, 27 of whom travelled by train (8%);
- the average rail mode share for commuting to Edinburgh from the neighbouring stations at North Berwick, Dunbar and Longniddry was 23%;
- its therefore reasonable to assume that a station at East Linton would increase the proportion of rail commuting to Edinburgh from 8% to 23% - that's 80 commuters;
- factoring for the rural hinterland, the level of commuting on a typical day, other travel purposes and other Scottish rail destinations takes the figure to 142 boardings per weekday;
- this figure is growthed up to 2010 in line with observed growth in rail travel from similar East Lothian stations taking the figure to 197 boardings per weekday;
- annualising this figure and accounting for return trips gives the total of 126,000 station entries / exits per annum at East Linton - a figure midway between observed data for Drem and Longniddry stations;
- based on an analysis of existing commuting proportions, around 20% of this demand would however be abstracted from other stations, mainly Drem, (ie these people are already travelling by train), giving a net gain of 102,000 passenger journeys; and
- these figures are based on benchmarking against the current level of train service in East Lothian - elasticity based adjustments have been made to reflect different service frequencies (ie higher frequencies) where appropriate.
Reston
6.6.18 Reston is 10 miles by road from Berwick-upon-Tweed (its nearest station), 18 miles from Dunbar, and 47 miles from Edinburgh. A high proportion of the A1 in this area is of single carriageway standard, albeit one that does not suffer from significant congestion until very near Edinburgh. The location is shown in Figure 6.13 below.
Figure 6.13 Location of Reston
6.6.19 Reston itself is very small with a population of around 335 (2001 Census). GROS does not produce mid-2008 population estimates for Reston as it is too small, but there has been modest growth there since 2001. The current Scottish Borders Consolidated Local Plan (2011) has an allocation for a further 36 housing units at Reston8 , although it is understood that there are local aspirations for further development there, and the Local Plan does note two sites for longer term development, in connection with any new station.
6.6.20 As such Reston would have a very low 'walk in' catchment as demonstrated previously and station patronage would depend to a large extent on drive in park and ride. In terms of the settlements defined by GROS, the potential drive in 'catchment' for Reston could include Ayton, Chirnside, Coldingham, Duns and Eyemouth, and around 8,700 people live in these settlements. The Local Plan has provision for around a further 1,100 homes in these settlements.
6.6.21 In addition there would be a number of others living in smaller villages and hamlets not classified as 'settlements' by GROS including Burnmouth, Hutton, Grantshouse, Preston and St Abbs and these villages account for around a further 750 people.
6.6.22 The A698 provides a good standard route between Coldstream (and indeed Kelso) and Berwick, so it assumed that residents of these towns would continue to use Berwick to access the rail network, although parking charges and availability issues in Berwick could still make Reston a viable choice for some. Reston is around 18 miles from Coldstream and the route is entirely on 'B' class and unclassified roads making this a relatively slow journey.
6.6.23 Taking the six settlements of Ayton, Chirnside, Coldingham, Coldstream, Duns and Eyemouth together, the census identified 78 people living in these areas and working in Edinburgh. Of these, 15 were reported as travelling to work by train, presumably either from Dunbar or Berwick. Nobody from the six settlements reported commuting to Edinburgh by bus so the other 63 (over 80%) reported car as their main mode of travel to Edinburgh.
6.6.24 Travel times by bus from Reston to Edinburgh are currently around one hour and forty minutes, against which the proposed 50 minute train journey would be a significant improvement. There are currently six buses per day northbound and six southbound from Reston to Edinburgh, operated by Perrymans Buses. These buses also call at Burnmouth, Eyemouth and Coldingham. The first bus provides an early arrival into Edinburgh (0845) but the last bus leaves Edinburgh for Reston at 1510 making a working day in Edinburgh impossible. However even if the bus service was extended to span the working day more effectively, the journey time for the bus compared to rail would be unattractive for regular commuters.
6.6.25 However it is possible to drive to Dunbar from Reston in around 26 minutes and pick up a LDHS service with a journey time of around 25-30 minutes (assuming parking availability). Even allowing for a transfer at Dunbar, the total journey time would be around one hour and five minutes, so in this case the differential between a new station at Reston and rail travel from Dunbar is much less.
6.6.26 All of these settlements in the Reston area therefore have a very low proportion of residents who work in Edinburgh with all seeing less than 3% of their resident working population employed within the City of Edinburgh Council area. This suggests a very low core commuter market, and reflects the time and costs associated with regular travel to Edinburgh from this area.
6.6.27 In terms of accessing the rail network at present, the residents of these settlements have to drive to Berwick-upon-Tweed (or Dunbar) or get a bus to Berwick-upon-Tweed. The settlements have a similar level of service in terms of bus links to Berwick:
- Ayton: 8 direct buses per day to Berwick, last return bus 1730;
- Eyemouth: at least hourly buses to Berwick, last return bus 2200;
- Coldingham: at least hourly buses to Berwick, last return bus 2200;
- Chirnside: approximately hourly buses to Berwick, last return bus 2022; and
- Duns: approximately hourly buses to Berwick, last return bus 2022.
6.6.28 National Rail Enquiries report that there are 150 parking spaces at Berwick station car park which is operated by the local council. The maximum charge is £3.50 for more than three hours. There are, however issues with parking availability at this station car park with parking often spilling over into neighbouring streets. This lack of capacity impacts on the communities' reliability of access to the rail network. Any change in parking supply at Berwick-upon-Tweed would materially impact this though, and also therefore the potential attractiveness of Reston as a station. Indeed, Northumberland County Council commissioned a report from Network Rail which looked at the potential for car parking on the northern side of the platform. This has been an aspiration for several years but has not been progressed to date, primarily due to funding issues. The road distances to Berwick and Reston for the five communities are shown in Table 6.6 below.
6.6.29 Residents of all these settlements would therefore have significantly shorter car journeys to access the rail network if a new station were in place at Reston.
6.6.30 However, residents of these settlements would only benefit if:
- the total journey time / cost / frequency to Edinburgh from Reston was more attractive than travelling via Berwick;
- ie the journey time offered by LDHS trains to Edinburgh (currently around 48-55 minutes with a maximum of one stop) may still be quicker than on a 'local' service from Reston (with a potential maximum of seven station stops);
- even though Reston is a shorter drive; and
- Reston would have free parking.
6.6.31 In addition, those travelling to destinations south of Berwick would probably still use Berwick-upon-Tweed to access LDHS services rather than parking at Reston and interchanging at Berwick.
6.6.32 The ONS report that the population of Berwick-upon-Tweed district is around 26,000, with the town itself having a population of 11,600. Berwick would also be the closest station for residents of Coldstream (2,000) and Kelso (5,500). It is conceivable that demand at Berwick station is being constrained by lack of parking there. As such Reston could prove an alternative, given the potentially unconstrained and free parking, particularly for those from the north of Berwick travelling north.
6.6.33 The potential patronage at Reston has been estimated as follows:
- in 2001, 78 residents of Ayton, Chirnside, Coldingham, Coldstream, Duns and Eyemouth worked in Edinburgh, 15 of whom travelled by train (ie a 19% rail mode share for travel to Edinburgh);
- as a best case, it could be assumed that the rail mode share of travel from this area to Edinburgh could rise to 30%, the same as Dunbar9 ;
- its therefore reasonable to assume that a station at Reston would increase the rail mode share of existing commuting from this area to Edinburgh from 19% to 30% - that's 23 commuters;
- factored for the rural hinterland, the level of commuting on a typical day, other travel purposes and other Scottish rail destinations takes the figure to 59 boardings per weekday (2001);
- this figure is growthed up to 2010 in line with observed growth in rail travel from across Scotland taking the figure to 79 boardings per weekday;
- but the station would provide genuinely new travel opportunities to Edinburgh for the local community meaning additional journeys are likely to take place and an uplift factor of 20% has been applied to account for this taking the total to 9510 ;
- annualising this figure and accounting for return trips gives the total of around 61,000 station entries / exits per annum;
- based on an analysis of existing commuting proportions, around 21% of this demand would however be abstracted from other stations, mainly Dunbar and Berwick, (ie these people are already travelling by train), giving a net gain of 48,000 passenger journeys and benefits and revenue figures should be adjusted accordingly; and
- note that benefits accruing to those travelling form Reston to Berwick have not been included as these are likely to be very small given the size of the walk in catchment at Reston.
6.7 Impact of New Stations on Services
6.7.1 This section considers the benefits and costs associated with the re-opening of the stations in conjunction with the new train services. East Linton station stops could form part of a Dunbar or Berwick service. It would seem less likely to form part of an Edinburgh - Newcastle semi-fast service. Reston would form part of an Edinburgh - Berwick service and again would be less likely to be part of an Edinburgh - Newcastle semi-fast.
6.7.2 It has been assumed here that any new station stops at East Linton and Reston can be accounted for within the new timetables developed in RailSys, ie there is no loss of time to 'existing' end to end travellers. This is an important assumption as it means that the only costs associated with the stations are the construction costs, ie train operation costs and existing user benefits are unaffected. As such, as long as the additional benefits and revenue from the new stations outweigh the construction costs (over a 60 year period) the addition of new stations will improve the business case.
6.7.3 Any extension of the end to end core service journey times (as assessed in Section 5.6) as a result of the additional station stop(s) would lead to a reduction in benefits to those passengers however, and have a negative impact on the business case.
Dunbar Services
6.7.4 The impact of adding a station at East Linton to the new Dunbar service (T1) is considered here. Figure 6.14 below shows the impact on single year revenues and benefits.
Figure 6.14 Impact of Opening East Linton Station on Dunbar Service
6.7.5 The re-opening of East Linton (comparing T1a with T1) sees a small rise in overall user benefits and a larger rise in total revenues. This means that annual net costs and disbenefits are improved (ie less negative). The additional user benefits associated with East Linton are around an initial £108k per annum. Note that as discussed above, any increase in journey time to Dunbar passengers as a result of the extra station stop at East Linton would create disbenefits to Dunbar passengers. Each additional minute for Dunbar passengers would result in disbenefits of around £26k, so a two minute journey time increase would cancel out around 50% of the East Linton user benefits. These figures do not take account of construction costs however. These are accounted for in the 60 year appraisal in Table 6.6 below. This reproduces the results for T1 and T1a, and shows the incremental impact of East Linton.
6.7.6 This analysis therefore suggests that an Edinburgh - Dunbar stopping service which includes a new station stop at East Linton could return a positive NPV and BCR. The key caveats underlying this are:
- sufficient parking is available at East Lothian stations to cater for this additional demand;
- LDHS service calls at Dunbar are retained; the reduction or removal of stops would result in net disbenefits and a negative BCR given the reduced frequency and longer journey times; and
- the addition of East Linton does not generally bring about delays for 'existing' Dunbar passengers: note that the RailSys work undertaken broadly supports this assumption.
6.7.7 The benefits associated with East Linton are based on a similar level of service / frequency to existing East Lothian stations (ie around 18 trains per day each way). Test 1 would provide broadly this level of service. If the Dunbar service was run with only two train sets (ie T1b), the benefits associated with East Linton would be proportionately lower, reflecting the lower service frequency. However, sensitivity tests have suggested that this formulation still returns a similarly positive BCR, ie 'T1b + East Linton' is positive.
Berwick-upon-Tweed Services
6.7.8 The impact of adding East Linton and / or Reston to the new Berwick service is considered here. Figure 6.15 below shows the impact on single year revenues and benefits.
Figure 6.15 Impact of Opening East Linton & Reston stations on Berwick Services
6.7.9 The additional revenue and user benefits generated by the two new stations are significant but do not eliminate the net costs and disbenefits associated with T2. In purely financial terms, these services would require an initial annual subsidy of between £2.5m and £3.5m, although the additional stations do have the impact of reducing subsidy. This excludes construction costs.
6.7.10 Any additional journey time associated with the introduction of a Reston stop to a Berwick service (ie T2) would not have a material detrimental impact on existing passengers as very few would be travelling to / from Berwick. However, an East Linton stop would have a material impact on Dunbar passengers if journey times were increased as a result. As noted above, every additional minute would create a disbenefit of around £26k, to set against the benefits derived.
6.7.11 The picture for the 60 year appraisal is shown in Tables 6.8, 6.9 and 6.10 below for East Linton, Reston and East Linton / Reston combined respectively.
6.7.12 It has already been shown in test T2 that the costs of providing additional Edinburgh - Berwick services greatly outweigh the benefits from providing these services. A new station at East Linton would considerably improve the business case for additional Edinburgh - Berwick services but would be insufficient, on its own, to generate a positive business case for these enhanced local services.
6.7.13 As with East Linton, the addition of Reston to the Berwick service improves the business case but is not enough to produce a positive BCR. This level of benefit is greater here for each rail user despite the lower level of patronage, given the step change in service provision at Reston compared to the more modest, incremental impact at East Linton.
6.7.14 The addition of the two new stations to the Berwick service has the effect of producing a small positive NPV and a BCR of just over one. Note that the increased revenues from the two new stations reduce the total costs of this option compared to T2a and T2b.
6.7.15 Overall, this is therefore a finely balanced proposal which would be sensitive to any changes in the underlying assumptions.
6.7.16 As previously stated, any diminution of the LDHS station stops at Dunbar (or Berwick) would lead to disbenefits which, taken together with the above could turn the NPV negative, depending on the balance of benefits to LDHS passengers and disbenefits to local passengers.
6.7.17 East Linton or Reston could conceivably be added to any Edinburgh - Newcastle semi-fast service but this would not seem to be in keeping with the nature of a semi-fast service. In any case, sensitivity testing has shown that adding the benefits associated with East Linton and Reston to an Edinburgh - Newcastle service is not sufficient to produce an overall positive NPV for the whole service, given the large negative NPV to be overcome, so this option can be discounted.
6.8.1 Table 6.11 below provides a summary of the main TEE findings.
6.9.1 The results summarised in Table 6.11 above are largely based on a common set of assumptions to those used in the previous RUS modelling, for the purposes of consistency with the previous analysis. There are perhaps two main aspects where alternative assumptions could substantively affect the findings though and these are explored below.
Decongestion Benefits
6.9.2 In the absence of a detailed transport model, car travel assumed to be removed from the road as a result of the improved rail services (ie through modal shift) attracts a pence / mile benefit, and this appears as a 'non-user benefit' in the above TEE analysis. Decongestion benefits make up over 80% of these non-user benefits. The level of decongestion benefit depends on the nature of the roads which are being relieved, ie removing traffic from highly congested areas creates a higher benefit per vehicle mile than removing traffic from uncongested areas.
6.9.3 The RUS analysis used a 'weighted average' value which reflects all road types. However, the rail schemes proposed here would affect relatively uncongested areas with the exception of the approaches to Edinburgh and Edinburgh itself.
6.9.4 A sensitivity test has been undertaken for the Dunbar and Berwick-upon-Tweed service based on a more representative estimate of decongestion benefits which better reflects the road types affected.
Train Revenues
6.9.5 The RUS analysis implicitly assumed that the additional rail revenue seen as a result of the rail proposals was entirely 'additional' to public transport. In reality it is likely that a proportion of this additional rail revenue would be the result of a switch from bus use and hence lead to a reduction in bus revenue. This means that only a proportion of the new rail revenue should be counted as additional public transport in terms of the TEE analysis.
6.9.6 In practice, this transfer can be large, but for the purposes of this sensitivity test, we have made a conservative assumption that 50% of the rail revenue is new and 50% is a transfer from bus, and hence a loss of revenue to the bus operators and not a net gain to public transport. Note that although commuting levels by bus from the Reston area have been shown to be low, there will be a quantum of bus travel for other purposes from this area (to Edinburgh and other destinations) which could switch to the train resulting in a significant switch of revenue from bus to train.
6.9.7 Table 6.12 below shows the impact of these sensitivity tests on the previous tests which returned a positive NPV, ie tests T1a (Dunbar & East Linton) and T2c (Berwick plus East Linton & Reston).
6.9.8 Table 6.12 therefore shows that the adjustments to the calculation of decongestion benefits and net additional public transport revenues has the effect of turning the positive NPVs into negative NPVs and hence BCR values of less than one, with revenue and non-user benefits reduced accordingly.
6.9.9 This shows how sensitive the outcome is to the assumptions used, and therefore how marginal the case is from this perspective. Applying these 'downside' sensitivity parameters to any of the other tests would produce similar outcomes, ie a diminution of the BCR.
6.9.10 The cost associated with the 60 year maintenance of the new stations has also not been included in the analysis. Although modest in this context, its inclusion would give a further downside to the numbers.
6.10.1 The above analysis has focussed on the quantified financial and social cost benefit analysis. These are the key elements of the 'Economy' criteria of STAG. The other four key areas are accessibility and social inclusion, environment, integration and safety. The preceding analysis has quantified the impacts of the schemes on some aspects of these, in the main related to the benefits associated with modal shift from road to rail. In particular, this includes the quantification of:
- decongestion benefits;
- reductions in carbon emissions; and
- the reductions in accidents due to reduced traffic volumes.
6.10.2 New rail services and the opening of new railway stations make positive contributions to many of the Government's objectives, as encapsulated in STAG, as all of the new service options analysed above would have the effect of improving rail services and hence public transport accessibility. However, it is the balance of the cost of providing these services versus the scope of the benefits which decision makers ultimately have to balance.
Accessibility & Social Inclusion
6.10.3 The greatest impacts here would be in the localities affected by the proposed new railway stations. East Linton lies in an area where there are already good rail services. This means that the scope of these benefits would not extend significantly beyond East Linton. East Linton is a relatively prosperous community with low levels of unemployment and high levels of professional occupations compared to the national average. As such there is not a strong rationale for East Linton station from the perspective of social-inclusion relative to other communities.
6.10.4 On the other hand, the incremental impact of re-opening Reston would be much greater. The consultation identified local concerns regarding the long term future of the east Berwickshire area. In particular, the presence of a station is felt locally to be an important factor in allowing younger people to remain resident in the area. More generally, the new station is also seen locally as an important issue for the future sustainability and economic development of the area. The new station would open up opportunities to access employment in Edinburgh, albeit we have seen that the sheer distance from Edinburgh means that low proportions of the local population are likely to take up these opportunities. Unemployment levels in some of the areas potentially affected by a new station at Reston are higher than the national average. As such there is a stronger case in terms of social inclusion for a new station at Reston.
6.10.5 There is no doubt that a new station at Reston would provide a step-change in accessibility for residents of the local settlements of Ayton, Chirnside, Coldingham, Duns and Eyemouth as well as the smaller villages in the area and Reston itself. However, aside from Reston, this access would be via park and ride unless there is an equivalent step-change in the quality of local bus services and their connectivity to local settlements. If the bus services do not provide good access to Reston, then easy access to the station would be limited to those with access to a car, which is poor from a social inclusion perspective. Indeed the regular use of park and ride often means that households are often required to own than one car in rural areas such as east Berwickshire.
6.10.6 By many socio-economic measures, the areas affected by these proposals do not suffer from significant deprivation. None of these areas are defined as 'deprived' by the Scottish Indices of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD). There may however be issues associated with an aging population in the Reston area.
Integration
6.10.7 In terms of policy integration, the proposals considered in this study are clearly aligned to the land use planning and transport strategies. As noted above, investment in rail clearly meets many of the policy objectives associated with transport. For example, the Government Economic Strategy, under the Infrastructure, Development and Place heading states that a key strategic approach and policy includes: 'providing sustainable, integrated and cost effective public transport alternatives to the private car, connecting people, places and work, across Scotland.'
6.10.8 The re-opening of Reston station would provide opportunities for local bus services to be amended to provide links to the station. This increased connectivity would need to be maximised if the full potential of the new station were to be realised.
Environment
6.10.9 As noted above, new rail services and infrastructure generally have a positive impact from an environmental perspective provided that there is sufficient modal shift from road to rail to reduce overall emissions.
6.10.10 This study has not considered any further the local environmental impacts associated with construction of the new stations. The previous studies did not however identify any environmental 'showstoppers' so it is assumed here that there are no significant environmental issues associated with the construction activity.
6.10.11 It should be noted that the construction of new stations would give rise to issues with embedded carbon though. STAG notes a value of 100 tonnes of embedded carbon per 'standard station structure'11 .
Safety
6.10.12 The only relevant safety issues are the reduction in road accidents brought about by reduced traffic levels. These have been accounted for in the quantified analysis.