Date: 05th December 2008

The Stag 2 report considered a range of possible options, including; reinstating the existing disused railway line, and establishing a straightened track alignment between Thornton Junction and Windygates.

Reinstatement of the existing route, at a cost of £48 million, has been identified as the most cost-effective option. It will also minimise the project’s environmental impact, by confining work to a pre-existing rail bed.

The reinstated route will feature two new stations at Leven and Cameron Bridge, with freight services also operating from Cameron Bridge.

A report will now be submitted to Transport Scotland, with the aim of obtaining agreement to progress the project through the railway industry’s Guide to Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) stages. This will involve Transport Scotland and Network Rail as key stakeholders.

SEStran Chair, Cllr Russell Imrie said:

“SEStran was already aware that significant local support existed for the reintroduction of rail services at Levenmouth. This report clearly shows that there is also a business and environmental case”.

“It is estimated that the service would carry up to 500,000 passengers a year, many of whom would otherwise have travelled by car. This number also includes a significant number of new-generated journeys”.

“The reinstated service will make Levenmouth far more attractive as a place to work and do business and has the potential to play an important role in the economic revival of the area. At the same time it will contribute towards SEStran’s goal of cutting congestion on the region’s roads and reducing our carbon footprint”

SEStran - South East of Scotland Transport Partnership - is one of seven new Statutory Regional Transport Partnerships (RTP) created by the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005 and is a partnership of eight local councils covering the Borders, East Lothian, West Lothian, Midlothian,  Edinburgh, Fife, Falkirk and Clackmannanshire.

For further information, please contact:

Andrew Dougal, SEStran Communications Officer

T: 0131-524-5161

M: 07889-010-291

E: Andrew.dougal@sestran.gov.uk

Notes :

1.LEVENMOUTH SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT STUDY

1. BACKGROUND

1.1.    Earlier this year SEStran appointed Scott Wilson Transportation consultancy to undertake a multi-modal study into improving transport facilities to/from Levenmouth in Fife.

1.2.    A progress report was submitted to the last Board meeting and this report outlines the final outcome of the study.

1.3.    The executive summary is attached to this report and a hard copy will be made available in the members’ area in the SEStran office. The study report will also be posted on the SEStran website.

2. KEY FINDINGS

2.1.    The most favourable option was to utilise the existing rail alignment rather than constructing in part a new alignment that would have resulted an increase in journey speed.

2.2.    Two stations should be provided at Leven and Cameron Bridge (with freight facilities also provided at the latter site) and would be served by extending the current hourly service to Kirkcaldy.

2.3.    The cost of the scheme is estimated in the region of £48 million at 2008 prices (£87 million at 2016 prices) and this includes contingencies, risk costs and optimism bias.

2.4.    The Benefit to Cost Ratio BCR was estimated at a relatively high 1.5, with a Net Present Value (NPV) of £21 million, i.e. the overall benefit to society by implementing this scheme would exceed costs by this amount.

2.5.    The level of usage is estimated initially at around 350,000 which will have transferred either from car or bus or would have extended their rail journey by joining at Leven or Cameron Bridge rather than Kirkcaldy.

2.6.    A probable further increase in generated traffic (due to new generated journeys) of around 42% can be assumed (based on experience from Alloa). This would increase the BCR to a 1.99 and the NPV to £45 million.

2.7.    Additional passengers would use the service should also the hourly Cowdenbeath service be extended to Leven to form a combined half-hourly service. However, this would result in lower estimated BCR and NPV values due to assumed doubling of additional operating costs. Should there be more efficient ways to schedule such an operating scenario – with corresponding lower operating costs – this may be the ‘best’ option.

3. NEXT STEPS

3.1.    A meeting with Transport Scotland has been arranged for later in the month – with the aim of obtaining agreement to progress this project through the railway industry’s Guide to Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) stages – which would involve Transport Scotland and Network Rail as key stakeholders.

3.2.    Approximately 25k this year’s SEStran revenue budget for the Levenmouth project should be available as a possible contribution towards the next step of the project.

4. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board:- 

4.1    notes the content of this report

4.2    approves the findings and recommendations of the report, and

4.3    agrees that the Director opens discussions with Transport Scotland and other relevant parties to progress the project.

Trond Haugen

Advisor to SEStran

28 November 2008

Policy >  Implications, Will deliver towards SEStran RTS
 
Financial > Implications, Work within budget
 
Race Equalities > Implications, None
 
Gender Equalities > Implications, None
 
Disability Equalities > Implications, None

2.

Executive Summary
E.1               Introduction
E.1.1        SEStran has developed a Regional Transport Strategy (RTS), which has identified several projects for taking forward for potential development, categorised within identified strategic corridors for prioritising investment. The Queensferry and the Central Fife were two such corridors identified, both of which involve heavy commuter flows to Edinburgh. Part of the solution for these corridors would be to increase public transport provision between Fife and Edinburgh, and an important scheme in this respect would be the introduction of passenger services to Levenmouth, whilst also increasing the share of the freight transport market carried by rail. Consequently, South East Scotland Transport Partnership (SEStran) appointed Scott Wilson to carry out a STAG–based study to appraise proposals for improving services to the Levenmouth area. This report sets out the results of a STAG Part 2 Appraisal of potential opportunities for improving public transport in the Levenmouth area.

E.2            Findings from the STAG Part 1 Appraisal
E.2.1        The STAG Part 1 Appraisal concluded that the rail-based options are the only measures which would meet all the planning objectives and the criteria set out in the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG). Consequently, the STAG Part 1 Appraisal recommended that consideration should be given to the following in the subsequent STAG Part 2 Appraisal:

• a new heavy rail service based on re-opening the previous railway line. This would have a new station with park-and-ride facilities at both Leven and Muiredge/Cameron Bridge, to cater for the extensive new land-use developments planned. In addition to passenger services, the railway line should accommodate rail freight serving the local Diageo Site and Methil Docks, where demand has been identified; and
• since the rail line is unlikely to be delivered before 2015, bus priority measures could be a suitable short-term improvement and could provide a number of benefits such as accessibility and connectivity to local areas and the existing railway network.

E.3  Option Development
E.3.1        Further analysis of options and subsequent discussions with SEStran and Fife Council were carried out, after which two options for re-opening the line were identified for consideration:

• option A was based on utilising the existing alignment; and
• option B would establish a straightened track alignment between Thornton Junction and Windygates.

E.3.2        Both Options would include rail freight facilities at Cameron Bridge. Option B would permit greater speeds than would be possible in option A, from a maximum of 40mph to 60mph, which is likely to encourage greater patronage and hence benefits.

E.3.3        In terms of actual train services and rail operating plans, the modelling and economic analysis assessed the extension of either of the existing hourly services from Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, as well as extending both services.

E.4 Scheme Costs
E.4.1        Capital costs were estimated in 2008 Q2 prices and included allowances for contingencies, risk & uncertainty costs estimates and optimism bias costs estimates. These gave the following estimates:

• option A outturn cost (2008) = £48.05m; and
• option B outturn cost (2008) = £54.34m.

E.4.2        Given that the project is unlikely to be open before 2015, it is worth presenting the anticipated final outturn costs for 2016. These have been estimated by applying the British construction industry projected inflation figures of approximately 6% per annum. This gave the following:

• option A outturn cost (2016) = £76.6m; and
• option B outturn cost (2016) = £86.6m.

E.4.3        However, for the purposes of the economic evaluation, the current prices are used as per standard appraisal convention.

E.5 Findings from the STAG Part 2 Appraisal
E.5.1        The STAG Part 2 Appraisal identified the following conclusions:

• the best performing option is to reconstruct the railway along the existing alignment, i.e. option A: the re-opening of the existing rail alignment, plus the implementation of the two stations at Leven and Cameron Bridge and rail freight facilities;
• in terms of the preferred train service strategy, the findings suggest that the extension of the hourly Kirkcaldy Service would produce the highest benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR) at 1.5 and net present value (NPV) of £20.9m;
• it is worth noting that when possible additional generated trips are taken into account along the lines experienced with the re-opening of Alloa Station, the BCR and NPV figures improved significantly to 1.99 and £45.1m respectively;
• extending both the Kirkcaldy and the Cowdenbeath services to create a half hourly service to Leven provides the greatest passenger demand although the NPV and BCR are lower due to the assumed doubling of the operating cost. If a way could be found to minimise or reduce the running costs then this would increase the attractiveness of this service strategy;
• in terms of other STAG indicators, option A (existing railway alignment) has the least environmental impact, is less intrusive on visual amenity, has less impact on the cultural heritage of the area and has least impact on the landscape. It also has less of an impact in terms of the disruption on the geology, agriculture and soil structure of the area; and
• option A also meets most closely the three planning objectives identified by local stakeholders: it improves access to key areas and services in both the Levenmouth and wider geographical areas, it promotes the efficient movement of freight to and from Levenmouth and thereby encouraging modal shift from HGVs, and it encourages a more sustainable travel pattern for new and existing developments.

E.6 Conclusions & Recommendations
E.6.1        Given the above appraisal results, the conclusions and recommendations are:

• Scheme Development – it is recommended that option A is taken forward through the railway industry’s Guide to Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) stages, in order to consult further with other important stakeholders including Transport Scotland and Network Rail. This will assist with the design process and ensure key stakeholders are fully involved. It may also be advisable to carry out a preliminary outline environmental statement in order to identify mitigation factors which could further enhance the results of the appraisal. This is also important because the environmental measures may need to be included in the final outturn costs if these are found to be significant.
• Timetable/service frequency – regarding train operations, as mentioned above, two alternatives should be considered:  1) extending the hourly Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy service to Leven, or 2) extending both the Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy and the Edinburgh to Cowdenbeath services, thereby providing a half-hourly service to Leven. This latter service plan would also provide improved service frequencies at Thornton, Cardenden and Lochgelly Stations which will produce some benefits although these have not been quantified in this study. In addition, there will be enhancements to the existing train services to Fife which are planned to be implemented in December but there may be further changes in due course to the service timetables assumed in this STAG study. Consequently, now would be a good opportunity to test the two alternative service strategies against the planned network-wide improvements, and develop a robust operating timetable which meets all the objectives.
• Refined Economic Appraisal – the above actions could potentially further enhance the robustness of the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) Appraisal carried out. This is particularly the case for the unknown factors not covered in the remit of this study. For example, the operating costs of the proposal are related to the service strategy but since this study has focussed on the capital costs, the estimate of operating, maintenance and renewal (OMR) costs were based on default percentages. It could be that the incremental differences between having two trains per hour rather than one per hour may not be as high as assumed in this study which could improve the economic appraisal results. This may in turn influence the final decision as to which operating service strategy is best placed to meet the overall objectives of stakeholders. Furthermore, whilst the appraisal has identified a potential Risk Management Strategy (RMS), any possible reductions in the resultant Optimism Bias value used in the economic appraisal (i.e. post reduction of allowances for estimated risks and contingencies) have not been carried through in order to provide a more robust economic assessment. Again, if these were pursued as part of the GRIP process, and suitable mitigation measures are identified and properly managed, then there will be benefits to the final outturn costs. Consequently, it is recommended that the economic appraisal be considered in light of the outputs from the above recommendations as the project goes through the GRIP stages.

E.6.2  The implementation of the above recommendations should help progress the project forward and also provide further confidence to key stakeholders.

 

---