High Speed 2 Strategic Alternatives Study

High Speed 2 Strategic Alternatives Study
Strategic Outline Case
March 2010
Notice
This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for the Department for
Transport’s information and use in relation to the High Speed 2 Strategic Alternatives Study.
Atkins assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this
document and/or its contents.
Document History
JOB NUMBER: 5087288 DOCUMENT REF: Document2
6 Final JF JT WL 4/3/10
5 Final Draft v3 JT JF WL 19/2/10
4 Final Draft v2 JT JF WL 22/1/10
3 Final Draft v1 JT JF WL PWHR 15/1/10
2 Second Draft JT JF WL PWHR 21/12/09
1 First Draft JT JF WL PWHR 11/12/09
Revision Purpose Description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date
5087288/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc

High Speed 2 Strategic Alternatives Study – Strategic Outline Case
Contents
Section Page
1. Introduction 5
1.1 Background 5
1.2 Purpose of the Report 5
1.3 Structure of the Report 5
2. The Strategic Case 6
2.1 Introduction 6
2.2 The need to examine strategic alternatives 6
2.3 The need for ‘packaging’ alternatives 7
2.4 The case for Rail Interventions 7
2.5 The case for Highway Interventions 7
3. Description of Packages 9
3.1 Introduction 9
3.2 The Future Year Baseline 9
3.3 Rail Interventions 26
3.4 Highway Interventions 30
3.5 Package Deliverables 37
3.6 Summary 40
4. The Value for Money Case 41
4.1 Introduction 41
4.2 Appraisal Framework - Methodology 41
4.3 Appraisal Framework - Results 45
4.4 Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 45
4.5 Natural and Cultural and Resource Protection 47
4.6 Creating Sustainable Communities 50
4.7 Sustainable Consumption and Production 55
4.8 Economic Appraisal 55
4.9 Summary 63
5. The Commercial Case 65
5.1 Introduction 65
5.2 Procurement 65
5.3 Industry Capacity 65
6. The Financial Case 67
6.1 Introduction 67
6.2 Package Costs 67
7. The Management Case 71
7.1 Introduction 71
7.2 Delivery 71
7.3 Disruption to the Travelling Public 71
8. Summary and Conclusions 73
8.1 Rail Packages 73
/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 2

8.2 Highway Packages 75
List of Tables
Table 3.1 – Do Minimum Rail Forecast Demand 12
Table 3.2 – HS2 Forecast Strategic Highway Demand Matrices 17
Table 3.3 – Rail Intervention Packages 27
Table 3.4 – Rail Intervention Package Components 29
Table 3.5 – Rationale and Components of the Proposed Intervention Packages 31
Table 3.6 – Comparison of Current and Proposed Motorway Packages 32
Table 3.7 – Forecast Capacity & Crowding Impacts of the Rail Packages 38
Table 3.8 – Typical Journey Times Impacts (in minutes) 39
Table 3.9 – Proposed length of Highway Intervention Packages in kilometres & (miles) 40
Table 3.10 – NTM Estimated Journey Times Resulting from the Highway Intervention Packages (minutes) 40
Table 4.1 - Nominal Scheme Capital Costs for Rail-Based Packages (£m, 2009 prices and values) 56
Table 4.2 – Nominal Scheme Capital Cost of Rolling Stock (£m, 2009 prices and values) 57
Table 4.3 –Scheme Capital Costs for Rail-Based Packages (£m, 2009 prices and values) 57
Table 4.4 – Rail Operating Costs included in the Economic Appraisal when Rolling Stock is Assumed to be a
Capital Cost (£m, 2009) 57
Table 4.5 – Rail Operating Costs included in the Economic Appraisal when Rolling Stock is Assumed to be
Leased (£m, 2009) 57
Table 4.6 – Estimated 2021 Modal Transfer & Rail Trip Generation due to Rail Package Interventions (trips
per day) 58
Table 4.7 – Economic Summary Statistics for Rail Packages – Assuming Rolling Stock is a Capital Cost (£m,
2009 prices & values) 58
Table 4.8 - Economic Summary Statistics for Rail Packages – Assuming Rolling Stock is Leased (£m, 2009
prices & values) 59
Table 4.9 – Package 3A Nominal Scheme Capital Costs, including Rolling Stock (£m, 2009 prices) 60
Table 4.10 – Economic Summary Statistics for Rail Sensitivity Tests – Assuming Rolling Stock is a Capital
Cost (£m, 2009 prices & values) 61
Table 4.11 – Economic Summary Statistics for Rail Sensitivity Tests – Assuming Rolling Stock is Leased
(£m, 2009 prices & values) 61
Table 4.12 – Discounted Scheme Capital Costs for Roads Based Packages (£m, 2009 prices) 62
Table 4.13 – Economic Summary Statistics for Road Packages (£m, 2009 prices & values) 63
Table 6.1 – Rail Packages – Total Capital Costs (2009) 69
Table 6.2 – Rail Packages - Operating Costs 69
Table 6.3 – Highway Packages - Capital Costs (2009 prices) 70
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 – HS2: 2021 & 2033 Do Minimum Committed Rail Schemes 11
Figure 3.2 – HS2: 2021 Do Minimum Committed Motorway Schemes in the London – West Midlands
Corridor 14
Figure 3.3 – HS2: 2033 Do Minimum Committed Motorway Schemes in London – West Midlands Corridor 15
Figure 3.4 – HS2: 2031 Do Minimum Motorway Network London – West Midlands Corridor 16
Figure 3.5 – HS2: PLD WCML Long Distance & Chiltern Services Rail Passenger Volumes (two way) 19
Figure 3.6 – HS2: PLD Rail Seated Capacity (16 hour 2 way, WCML long distance & Chiltern services only)20
Figure 3.7 - HS2: PLD WCML Long Distance & Chiltern Services Rail Passenger Crowding (16hr 2 way) 21
Figure 3.8 – HS2: Forecast Average Hourly Two-Way Traffic Volumes (Observed Flows) 23
Figure 3.9 – HS2: Forecast Peak Hour Volume over Capacity Southbound and Eastbound (Observed Flows)24

Figure 3.10 – HS2: Forecast Peak Hour Volume over Capacity Northbound and Westbound (Observed
Flows) 25
Figure 3.11 - HS2: Road Network incorporating Package 1 Proposals 33
Figure 4.1 – The Potential Impact of Railway Intervention Packages on Agglomeration 52
Figure 4.2 – Railway Intervention Impacts on Economic Welfare (Distribution) 53
Appendices
Appendix A 77
Appendix B 78
Appendix C 79
Appendix D 80
Appendix E 90
Appendix F 94

1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Atkins was appointed by the Department for Transport (DfT) in August 2009, to consider road and
rail improvement alternatives to the High Speed Rail proposition, being developed by HS2 Ltd.
The main objective of HS2 Ltd is to consider the case for new high speed services between
London and the West Midlands. However, in appraising the HS2 business case, and reaching
investment decisions, it is necessary to take into account the case for a range of strategic
alternatives to HS2, hence this study. This study has looked at a range of road and rail
interventions on the existing networks between London and the West Midlands, to increase both
the passenger and freight capabilities in line with forecast demand, as well as bringing down
journey times between the two conurbations.
1.2 Purpose of the Report

This document forms the final study report document and provides the Strategic Outline Case for
the road and rail alternatives to HS2, in accordance with Her Majesty’s Treasury 5 Case Model
guidance. The report outlines the Strategic Case for the alternatives being considered, it
summarises the interventions developed, and then looks at the Economic (or in this case Value for
Money), Commercial, Financial, and Management Cases for the alternative interventions. It
should be noted that, at this early stage of the development of the alternatives under
consideration, this document focuses on the Economic Case. The other Cases will be developed
in more detail should the alternatives be progressed further.
The analysis of packages of improvement on the existing road and rail networks set out in this
document are intended to complement the analysis undertaken by HS2 Ltd of the development of
new alignments.
A series of detailed reports on specific items have also been produced during the course of the
study. These documents are referenced in this Strategic Outline Case document, so they should
be considered as supporting documents to this report. They include:
• Baseline Report;
• Highway Intervention Report; and
• Rail Intervention Report.
1.3 Structure of the Report

The remainder of this report is structured in the following manner:
• Section 2 details the Strategic Case for potential interventions;
• Section 3 outlines the description of packages of potential interventions being examined;
• Section 4 details the Economic Case;
• Section 5 details the Commercial Case;
• Section 6 details the Financial Case;
• Section 7 details the Management Case; and
• Section 8 summarises the findings of the report and draws out conclusions from the work
undertaken.

2. The Strategic Case

2.1 Introduction
In early 2009 the Government set up HS2 Ltd to examine potential options for introducing High
Speed Rail between London and the West Midlands, and potentially beyond. HS2 submitted a
report to Ministers at the end of December 2009.
While HS2 Ltd is investigating the case for High Speed Rail both from London to the West
Midlands and for a wider network, the business case for alternative schemes also needs to be
examined. The purpose of this High Speed 2 Strategic Alternatives study is to evaluate those
alternative schemes.
The case for these strategic alternatives is aligned with the high speed rail study objectives. The
two highest priorities for the new line are:
• passenger capacity ( including capacity released on classic lines); and
• speed, which should be sufficiently high to optimise journey time benefits balanced with
operational energy costs and maximised capacity.
There are further specific objectives for land use and development, freight and modal shift, and
the study needs to be cognisant of the five Department for Transport Delivering a Sustainable
Transport System objectives:
• to support national economic competitiveness and growth, by delivering reliable and efficient
transport networks;
• to reduce transport’s emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, with the
desired outcome of tackling climate change;
• to contribute to better safety, security and health and longer life expectancy by reducing the
risk of death, injury or illness arising from transport, and by promoting travel modes that are
beneficial to health;
• to promote greater equality of opportunity for all citizens, with the desired outcome of
achieving a fairer society; and,
• to improve the quality of life for transport users and non-transport users, and to promote a
healthy natural environment.
In this section, however, we look at the rationale for examining strategic alternatives.
2.2 The need to examine strategic alternatives

There are three main reasons for examining strategic alternatives to a High Speed Rail option
between London and the West Midlands. These are:
• To ensure consideration of a full range of realistic alternatives;
• To enable investment decisions to be made in an informed way; and
• Whichever option is judged to best meet the objectives set by Government, alternative
schemes would still need to be examined and exposed to full consultation in accordance with
national and EU legislation.

2.3 The need for ‘packaging’ alternatives

Given the scale of HS2, few alternative schemes will be able, on their own, to deliver an
equivalent level of functionality, whether in terms of journey time improvements or capacity
enhancements. However, specifically targeted packages of proposals may deliver part of this for
a lower cost, relative to HS2.
Constituent schemes have therefore been aggregated into carefully structured packages of
interventions to provide a range of options as realistic strategic alternatives to HS2. These
packages, and their outputs, were tested on a consistent basis and against a consistent set of
objectives to demonstrate that practical options have been developed. The most promising
options have been developed under comparable processes to those for HS2 and the Highways
Agency Managed Motorway Programme. This has ensured that the technical feasibility has been
understood and options professionally costed.
2.4 The case for Rail Interventions

HS2 aims to improve connectivity between Britain’s two most populous regions. It will also build a
new rail link to the North-West and beyond via a proposed connection to the recently upgraded
(and virtually 4-track throughout) Trent Valley railway. In proposing that the case for new High
Speed line be examined the Government deliberately moved beyond the prior approach of
enhancing existing rail lines to deliver the capacity enhancements required to cater for future
growth.
While forecast crowding pressures on the East Coast Main Line (ECML), Midland Main Line
(MML) and Great Western Main Line (GWML) routes are already planned to be eased by a
mixture of higher capacity long distance trains and major upgrades to commuter rail services
(Thameslink and Crossrail), no further upgrades of the WCML route are planned following the
completion of the West Coast Route Modernisation (WCRM) programme.
Though challenging, further investments on the West Coast route (and other routes, in particular
on the Chiltern lines) could increase capacity and, in so far, that they reduce intermediate calling
points for stations and improve sectional running times, will also reduce end to end journey times.
The purpose of this study is to assess whether further investment on the West Coast or on
alternative routes – particularly on the Chiltern Line – might deliver some or all of the objectives of
a new line.
2.5 The case for Highway Interventions

An alternative approach to the provision of additional capacity for movements between London
and the West Midlands and beyond is to enhance the strategic road network.
Much of the passenger and freight demand within the corridor is road based and is likely to remain
so irrespective of interventions in other modes, including rail, in the future. The pattern and level of
this road-based demand will grow and change in time, and on many parts of the network within
the study area the pattern is highly complex, comprising a mix of trips by purpose and distance,
bringing about its own demands and pressures.
However, for many trips within the corridor now and in the future, other modes will be feasible, and
the choice between them may be quite marginal. A question for this study is therefore to what
extent can road enhancements provide the capacity and the level of service required to meet
desired outcomes for movements between the key centres and beyond (taking account both of
road-based demand and potential mode switchers).
For passenger trips the choices made between road and rail will be influenced by a range of
perceived costs including time, rail fare, car operating costs, convenience of station locations and
availability and price of parking. A shift in the relative perceived cost of road and rail could bring
about a shift from one mode to the other. For freight movements, different factors influence mode
choice decisions, but the choices between modes for some movements will still be marginal.
Against this background of close competition it is appropriate to examine the impact that
significant intervention in the study area on the road network - which could result in significant cost
reductions for road users– could have in terms of meeting future travel demand and outcomes.
The aim for the road element of this study is to identify and test potential interventions on the road
network, or packages of interventions, which offer capacity and journey outcomes (time, reliability,
cost, convenience) consistent with the objectives of HS2. The comparison will not be straight
forward: road interventions may have a complex set of impacts on journey patterns from local to
strategic level, and, while the focus of this study is on longer-distance movements, any more local
impacts can not be disregarded if the true merits and feasibility of the scheme are to be taken into
account.

3. Description of Packages
3.1 Introduction
Due to the geographic scale of HS2 it is apparent that few alternative schemes will be able, on
their own, to deliver an equivalent level of functionality, whether in terms of journey time
improvements or capacity enhancements. It was therefore considered more relevant to examine
packages of interventions.
This Chapter outlines the process that was undertaken to derive ‘packages’ of interventions. The
process effectively involved examining the future year baseline situation to determine the key
issues. A series of individual interventions were developed that addressed these issues. These
interventions were then packaged, and then passed forward for analysis.
3.2 The Future Year Baseline

3.2.1 Introduction
In this section the likely issues on the highway and rail networks in future years are examined, as
a first step towards examining potential interventions. This process was undertaken by
constructing an initial alternative to the High Speed rail proposition, showing likely future schemes
and levels of demand. This is effectively a Do-Minimum scenario, and is consistent across this
study and the High Speed 2 study, to ensure that the strategic alternatives under consideration in
this study are examined on the same basis as a high speed rail line.
Full details of the work undertaken on the Future Year Baselines are given in the stand-alone,
‘High Speed Strategic Alternatives: Baseline’ document.
3.2.2 Future Year Assumptions

3.2.2.1 Rail Supply
In developing the HS2 future year Do Minimum scenarios, committed or likely to be committed rail
schemes were identified and agreed with the DfT up to 2019, using the following sources:
• The Network Rail Strategic Business Plan (to 2014);
• The TfL Business Plan (to 2019); and
• Timetable/ capacity enhancements included within the National Modelling Framework (NMF),
to 2019. The NMF is a strategic model the DfT use to assist policy formation. The most
recent version was developed earlier this year and is documented in a report dated May
2009.1 The model is based on the Network Rail Business Plan and the Train Operating
Company (TOCs) Business Plans.
No additional uncommitted schemes were incorporated into the models beyond 2019, such that
the future year rail networks are assumed to be consistent between 2021 and 2033. Although
only the proposals which broadly fall along the West Coast Main Line between London Euston
and the West Midlands (and Trent Valley) and the Chiltern Line between London Marylebone and
the West Midlands have been highlighted, other wider schemes were considered appropriate to
be included, such as Crossrail, which will provide a significant link when open.
1
Network Modelling Framework; Model Development. Rebaselining Assumptions and Scheme Definitions
Report, May 2009.
A number of schemes were identified for inclusion in the Future Year Do Minimum scenarios. Of
particular interest to this study are the following schemes:
• West Coast Main Line – station upgrade at Birmingham New Street and Bletchley re-
modelling;
• West Coast Main Line - nine-car Class 390 units assumed to be lengthened to eleven-cars;
• West Coast Main Line – Inter-City Express Programme capacity increases via new rolling
stock; and
• Chiltern Line – capacity increase through train lengthening in the peaks.
Please note that although Evergreen 3 was not included in the Do-Minimum for demand modelling
purposes to ensure consistency with HS2 Ltd’s assumptions, it is expected to be delivered. The
presence of Evergreen 3 has been taken account in the specification for Packages 3 to 5. No
benefits for Evergreen 3 were included in the Economic Case.
All of the schemes considered are shown in Figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3.1 – HS2: 2021 & 2033 Do Minimum Committed Rail Schemes

High Speed 2 Strategic Alternatives Study – Strategic Outline Business Case
3.2.2.2 Rail Passenger Demand

Future year exogenous rail demand growth is input directly into the PLANET Modelling Suite.
Exogenous rail demand growth is forecast using the industry standard Passenger Demand
Forecasting Handbook (PDFH) 4.1, and recent GDP forecasts, that include the impact of the
recession. The overall impact of the application of the exogenous growth is given in the table
below. This forecast is consistent with that used by HS2 Ltd.
Table 3.1 – Do Minimum Rail Forecast Demand
Model 2008 2021 % Growth 2033 % Growth % Growth

Demand Demand (2008 to 2021) Demand (2021 to 2033) (2008 to 2033)
PLANET 15%
1,549,812 1,973,585 27% 2,269,642 46%
South
PLANET 22%
34,436 40,507 18% 49,384 43%
Midlands
PLANET Long 26%

974,804 1,249,825 28% 1,583,300 62%
Distance
This shows that strategic demand of over 50 miles, as represented in the PLANET Long Distance
model, is forecast to increase significantly, by over 60% between 2008 and 2033. Local demand
increases are still noteworthy, with growth in PLANET Midlands and PLANET South forecast to be
in excess of 40% between 2008 and 2033.
3.2.2.3 Highway Supply

In developing its future year Do Minimum road network, the HS2 Ltd study used two key sources
of data as follows:
• The Highways Agency Business Plan 2009-10. This contains the Highways Agency forward
workload, through to 2015; and
• Beyond 2015, in order to ensure the inclusion of the ‘most likely given published plans’
schemes, the DfT provided a list of road schemes that were included within the National
Transport Model (NTM), broadly ensuring consistency with the Motorways and Major Trunk
Roads Paper, January 2009.
For the HS2 Ltd study, strategic highway infrastructure schemes across Great Britain were
identified for inclusion in the future year Do Minimum scenarios. Whilst these schemes are
included in the Do Minimum scenarios, for the purposes of this study, only those which broadly fall
along the M1/ M6 and the M40 between London and the West Midlands have been highlighted.
This process identified a number of highway schemes on the network of interest. Unlike the rail
schemes, some schemes identified were forecast to be complete beyond 2021, so there are
slightly different Do-Minimum scenarios between 2021 and 2031.
By 2031 the key implications for the motorway network are as follows:
• M40 J3 – J16 remains at 3 lanes and J1A to J3 4 lanes;
• M1 from M25 to M6 effectively 4 lanes with Hard Shoulder Running (HSR) - Hard Shoulder
Running is aimed at cutting congestion and comprises the use of ATM technologies to control
and allow motorists to be able to drive on the hard shoulder during busy periods - operating
between M1 J10-19;
• M6 from M1 to J2 3 lanes;
• M6 Hard Shoulder Running operating between J2 – J13; and

• M5 Hard Shoulder Running operating between J4 to M6 J8.

The Do-Minimum schemes for 2021 and 2031 are shown in Figures 3.2 to 3.3 below. Figure 3.4
then shows the shape of the network in 2031, once all of the interventions have been
implemented.

Figure 3.2 – HS2: 2021 Do Minimum Committed Motorway Schemes in the London – West Midlands Corridor

Figure 3.3 – HS2: 2033 Do Minimum Committed Motorway Schemes in London – West Midlands Corridor

Figure 3.4 – HS2: 2031 Do Minimum Motorway Network London – West Midlands Corridor

3.2.2.4 Highway Demand

Future Year exogenous demand on the highway network were calculated through applying Road
Transport Forecasts, 2009 (RTF09) (as derived from the National Transport Model) to the Base
Year values.
An indication of the growth in highway demand can be seen in the PLANET Long Distance Model
(PLD). The highway matrices exclude trips that are less than 50 miles in length, as it is assumed
that these will not transfer to the strategic rail network. The ‘strategic’ highway demand matrices
are summarised in Table 3.2 below.
Table 3.2 – HS2 Forecast Strategic Highway Demand Matrices
Sector 2007/08 2021 2008 -2021 2031 2021 -2031 2008- 2031
Matrix Total Matrix Total % Increase Matrix Total % Increase % Increase
Business 1,340,083 1,655,263 24% 1,902,849 15% 42%
Other 2,103,305 2,739,340 30% 3,139,585 15% 49%
Commuter 1,335,254 1,612,916 21% 1,825,618 13% 37%
Total 4,780,650 6,009,540 26% 6,870,083 14% 44%
This indicates that highway growth between 2008 and 2021 is forecast to grow by approximately
26%. A further growth of 14% is forecast between 2021 and 2031, giving a total increase in
strategic highway trips of 44% between 2008 and 2031.
3.2.3 Rail Issues

In order to determine the forecast implications for both passenger volumes and crowding in the
London to Birmingham corridor, analysis was initially undertaken in the PLANET Long Distance
(PLD) model. Crowding is defined as a proportion of the total passenger numbers to seated
capacity.
The PLD model is an all day (16 hour) model. Outputs from the model, showing only WCML long
distance services currently operated by Virgin trains are included, while the long distance Chiltern
services, ie those going to Banbury or beyond in a northbound direction, or High Wycombe and
beyond in a southbound direction, are summarised in Figures 3.5, 3.6 & 3.7.
The following key observations were noted:
• Demand on the WCML long distance services is likely to increase by almost 140% up to
2033, with forecast (two-way) daily passenger volumes increasing from approximately 44,500
to 105,700. This is considerably larger than the average rail growth of 62%. However, it is
noted that the PLD 2007/8 demand on the WCML does not include the effect of the higher
service frequencies on some routes in the December 2008 timetable. This has led to a
significant increase in trips such that the base year modelled flows on this line are lower than
current patronage figures;
• The capacity of WCML long distance services, north of Milton Keynes is forecast to increase
by 54% between 2007/ 08 and 2021;
• Demand on the WCML is forecast to increase by almost 60% between 2021 and 2033, a
period of substantial growth, when no additional capacity measures are planned;
• The forecast demand increase on the WCML is significant and the crowding plots suggest
that the growth in demand is likely to be greater than the capacity increases, as crowding
levels are likely to increase from approximately 50% to almost 80%;

• Passenger demand on the Chiltern line is highest south of Oxford and is forecast to increase
by approximately 35% between 2008 and 2033 from 7,950 to 10,600 two way passenger
trips;
• The capacity of the long distance Chiltern line services is forecast to increase by 40% by
2021; and
• Passenger crowding levels along the Chiltern line are much lower than the WCML, with
existing crowding levels at approximately 35% in both 2008 and 2033.

Figure 3.5 – HS2: PLD WCML Long Distance & Chiltern Services Rail Passenger Volumes (two way)

Figure 3.6 – HS2: PLD Rail Seated Capacity (16 hour 2 way, WCML long distance & Chiltern services only)

Figure 3.7 - HS2: PLD WCML Long Distance & Chiltern Services Rail Passenger Crowding (16hr 2 way)

3.2.4 Highway Issues

Combining the highway supply and demand changes described earlier in this chapter, Figure 3.8
summarises the forecast average hourly, two way traffic volumes on the highway network
between the West Midlands and London.
Figures 3.9 and 3.10 show the peak hour volume over capacity ratio for southbound and
northbound traffic flows respectively. These indicate that if no further improvements are
implemented by 2031, the following implications are likely:
• The western sections of the M25 are forecast to be operating at over 90% during the peak
hour;
• The M40 between Oxford and London is forecast to be operating at over 100% capacity in
the peak hour, reaching similar levels immediately to the north of Oxford;
• The M40 is forecast to have a volume over capacity of over 90% between Warwick and the
Birmingham motorway box.
• The M42, both to the east and west of the M40, is forecast to be one of the most congested
points on the network with a peak hour volume over capacity of up to 134% and generally are
close to 100%.
• The M1 north of London is likely to be operating at over 100% capacity.
/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc

Figure 3.8 – HS2: Forecast Average Hourly Two-Way Traffic Volumes (Observed Flows)

Figure 3.9 – HS2: Forecast Peak Hour Volume over Capacity Southbound and Eastbound (Observed Flows)

Figure 3.10 – HS2: Forecast Peak Hour Volume over Capacity Northbound and Westbound (Observed Flows)

3.3 Rail Interventions

3.3.1 Introduction
In this section we detail the rail intervention packages that were taken forward for examination in
the remainder of the study, and how they were derived. Full details of this process are given in
the supporting ‘High Speed 2 Strategic Alternatives Study: Rail Intervention Packages’ document.
3.3.2 Option Identification Process

The initial step in the Option Identification process was to examine the issues from the rail
Baseline work, described above, along with known constraints on the West Coast Main Line and
Chiltern Line.
To overcome the constraints identified and to improve journey times on the routes, a “long-list” of
potential interventions was produced for consideration in the remainder of the study. This ‘long-
list’ was derived from:
• informal consultation internally within DfT;
• a review of the published literature; and,
• the experience of the Atkins’ staff of the routes and potential interventions (and that of its
sub-consultants).
The list consisted of potential interventions that might significantly enhance capacity or speed on
conventional rail routes between London and the West Midlands/North West.
In accordance with the remit of the study, the long-list schemes all had to:
• Deliver some of the capacity and/or speed benefits (mainly passenger/freight capacity and
reduced journey time) that might be expected to be generated by a new High Speed Line to
the West Midlands/North West;
• Include interventions likely to be supported by the key stakeholders on the route;
• Be an upgrade of existing (conventional) alignments and not be a new route between London
and the West Midlands. New cut-off lines (of less than 20 miles) were to be considered as
within the remit where they would add capacity or reduce journey times. It should be noted
that HS2 Ltd were tasked by DfT to assess the cost and benefits of an entirely new
conventional route between London and the West Midlands and that this therefore did not
form part of the Strategic Alternatives remit;
• Be of sufficient scale to have a testable impact on capacity/journey time
• Be capable of being packaged with other works
• when combined with other interventions, be of sufficient scale to be testable as a potential
alternative to HS2.
The long-list was reviewed at a workshop in order to produce a ‘short-list’ of options to take
forward to producing appropriate ‘Packages’ of options for testing in the remainder of the study.
At the workshop each intervention was discussed in turn, and at a high level, and where
appropriate, each option was tested for:
• Technical feasibility;
• Likely impact on capacity;
• Likely impact on journey time;
• Deliverability;
• Disruption;
• Environmental impact; and,
• Cost.
Once a ‘short-list’ of options was obtained, as described in Section 3.3.2 above, a second
workshop was held to combine options and form ‘Packages’ for testing and analysis in the
remainder of the study. Each Package was configured both as a set of infrastructure interventions
and a set of potential service enhancements. The outcome from the ‘Packaging’ Workshop is
described in the section below.
3.3.3 Rail Packages

3.3.3.1 Introduction
The five initial packages proposed at the workshop can be summarised in outline, below:
Table 3.3 – Rail Intervention Packages
Package Description
Package 1 Extra capacity delivered through the existing number of train paths by
operating longer long distance trains on the West Coast Main Line.
Package 2 Extra capacity delivered by an increase in train service frequencies on the
West Coast Main Line with supporting infrastructure enhancements.
Package 3 This assumes that capacity on the WCML has been maximised by Package
2. This Package therefore builds on Package 2 and provides additional
capacity on the parallel Chiltern route between London and Birmingham
and allows ‘fast’ WCML London - Birmingham trains to be diverted to the
Chiltern Line, releasing capacity on the WCML for other services.
Package 4 This package builds on Package 3 and further upgrades the Chiltern Line
to reduce London – Birmingham journey times.
Package 5 This package builds on Package 4 and provides additional capacity
between Birmingham and Stafford to enable WCML services between
London and the North West to be diverted to the Chiltern route, releasing
capacity on the WCML for other services.
Package 1 involves train lengthening only. The remainder of the packages were designed so that
each subsequent package builds on the preceding one. Thus package 3 is package 2, with
additional functionality.
3.3.3.2 Package One: Train Lengthening

Package 1 delivers additional capacity through the operation of longer trains. Modelling with
PLANET indicates that in order to maintain all-day crowding on WCML long distance services at
current levels in 2033, it would be necessary to increase the length of long distance trains from 11
to 17 carriages. This would result in trains approximately 400m long.
To provide 400m long platforms to accommodate such trains would require very substantial, costly
and disruptive platform lengthening works at every station on the WCML served by long distance
trains. Key termini such as Euston, Manchester Piccadilly and Glasgow Central would require
major reconstruction with potential negative environmental impacts. At other stations, such as
Liverpool Lime Street and Coventry, insurmountable physical constraints would preclude
lengthening platforms to this extent. At Birmingham New Street, the maximum length of train
which could feasibly be accommodated is 14 carriages.

An alternative scenario was therefore modelled in PLANET assuming trains of 14 carriages in

length but with London – Liverpool services limited to 11 carriages. Results from PLANET indicate
that under such a scenario, average all-day crowding on long distance services would rise to
around 65% by 2033.
The provision of 14 carriage length platforms would also require very substantial, costly and
disruptive platform lengthening works throughout the length of the WCML. Key termini such as
Euston, Manchester Piccadilly and Glasgow Central would still require major reconstruction. At
Birmingham New Street, 14 carriage trains would be limited to using only two platforms – creating
a lack of operational flexibility and risk to performance.
In addition to platform lengthening, both longer train scenarios would require very significant
additional expenditure to strengthen the power supply of the overhead electrification system and
to reconstruct train maintenance depots and sidings to accommodate the longer trains.
Operationally, the extra time taken for longer trains to clear signal sections, particularly in low
speed areas such as the approaches to stations, could have a negative impact on train
performance and reliability.
Overall, it was considered that both scenarios of platform lengthening and associated works would
be unlikely to be significantly less expensive or disruptive to implement than packages providing
additional capacity through increasing train frequencies.
From an economic perspective, the operation of longer trains provides additional capacity and
benefits through reductions in passenger crowding. However, such scenarios are unable to deliver
the benefits which flow from time savings as a result of journey time reductions. Appraisals of
transport projects indicate that the economic value of time savings is much higher than that of
crowding relief. It can therefore be anticipated that the economic benefits of either scenario in
Package 1 would be relatively low and significantly less than those arising from packages able to
generate actual journey time savings and generalised journey time savings through increased
service frequencies.
For these reasons, it was considered that Package 1 would be unlikely to represent an
economically viable alternative to HS2 and it was not taken forward for further assessment.
Further details of this package are set out in the Rail Interventions Report.
3.3.3.3 Packages Two to Five

The remainder of the packages, 2 to 5, were taken forward for analysis in the remainder of the
study. The packages were designed to be incremental, allowing a phased approach to the
enhancements to be implemented if necessary.
The interventions involved in Packages 2 to 5 are shown in the following table.

Table 3.4 – Rail Intervention Package Components
Package Components
Package 2 This package comprises a series of infrastructure enhancements on the West Coast
Main Line. These include:
- Stafford area by-pass;
- Grade-separation between Cheddington and Leighton Buzzard;
- 3 new platforms at Euston Station;
- 3 extra platforms at Manchester Piccadilly (with grade-separation at
Ardwick);
- 4-tracking Attleborough – Brinklow (including freight capacity works at Nuneaton)
- Northampton area speed improvements; and
- 4-tracking Beechwood Tunnel to Stechford
Package 3 This package comprises the same infrastructure enhancements on the West Coast
Main Line as in Package 2, with the exception of the 4-tracking of Beechwood Tunnel to
Stechford.
In addition it comprises the following enhancements on the Chiltern Line:
- Electrification throughout;
- line speed increase to 125 mph maximum;
- provision of extra platforms at Birmingham Moor Street;
- Kenilworth (Leamington – Coventry) track doubling;
- 4-tracking Tyseley – Dorridge;
- Extended (freight) loop at Fenny Compton;
- Banbury by-pass line;
- Improvements at Princes Risborough;
- New 2-track tunnel Saunderton – Seer Green (avoiding High Wycombe);
- 4-tracking Seer Green – South Ruislip (Northolt Junction);
- 2-tracking South Ruislip – Paddington (via Park Royal and Old Oak Common)
Package 4 This package includes the same WCML enhancements as Package 3, plus:
- new 2 track alignment from Berkswell to the Chiltern Line near Harbury including a
Parkway station South of Coventry
- 4-tracking Berkswell-Stechford; and,
- extra platforms at Birmingham Moor Street (served by the WCML route).
On the Chiltern line the enhancements are the same as in Package 3, with the exclusion of
4-tracking Tyseley-Dorridge, 2-tracking Kenilworth-Coventry and provision of extra
platforms at Birmingham Moor Street (served by the Chiltern route).
Package 5 This package builds on Package 4. On the WCML it has the same infrastructure
enhancements. On the Chiltern Line, it has the same infrastructure enhancements, plus:
- 4-tracking the remainder of the route;
- Grade-separation of Aston Junction; and
- 4-tracking Aston – Stafford (via Bescot, Wolverhampton avoiding line, and
Penkridge).

3.4 Highway Interventions

3.4.1 Introduction
In this section the derivation and contents of the highway intervention packages that were taken
forward for examination is set out. Full details of this process are given in the stand-alone, ‘High
Speed 2 Strategic Alternatives Study: Highway Intervention Packages’ document.
In accordance with the project brief, highway interventions adopted in this report are of two types
to accord with current best practice and government policy to make best use of the existing
highway network. The interventions include:-
• Installation of gantries, signs and associated equipment to permit Dynamic Use of the Hard
Shoulder to be implemented; or
• On-line widening of the motorway network incorporating full standard cross section, junction
improvements and bridges widened/replaced.
It is assumed that the above interventions would be substantially accommodated within existing
highway boundaries. The methodology for the highways interventions follows that used by the
Highways Agency to develop the Managed Motorway Programme.
3.4.2 Option Identification Process

The first step in the process was to establish the level, in terms of volume and capacity, at which
an intervention is required. There are no definitive rules within the Highways Agency for
establishing when an intervention is necessary. In determining intervention levels for this study,
therefore, analysis has been undertaken as to why existing proposed schemes have been taken
forward for improvement. This analysis has considered the forecast volume over capacity ratios
which would be reached before interventions are undertaken as part of:
• The Do Minimum 2021 Network for this study. This element of work attempted to retro-fit the
decision to undertake an enhancement scheme for those schemes currently in the Do-
Minimum intervention; and
• The Highways Agency Hard Shoulder Running Review.
Based on these analyses a series of interventions were identified for different sections of the
existing network. These interventions were examined in engineering terms to ensure that they are
feasible to construct. A dialogue was also undertaken with the Highways Agency to determine
any issues on the sections identified.
Once the interventions were identified they were combined into four ‘packages’ for further
analysis, at a Roads Sub-Group meeting. The highway intervention packages are described in
the section below.
3.4.3 Highway Packages

Based on the option identification process, a series of four Highway Intervention Packages were
developed. The details and rationale behind the formulation of these packages is summarised in
Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 – Rationale and Components of the Proposed Intervention Packages
Rationale Components
Package 1 This is considered the minimum level Hard Shoulder Running implemented
of intervention that can be provided on all sections excluding M25
within existing highway boundaries to
Widening M42 J3-7 to Dual 4 Motorway
maintain traffic flows using Managed
(D4M)+Hard Shoulder Running.
Motorway controls.
Package 2 Extends Managed Motorway controls Package 1 but with further interventions
to M25. It is envisaged that these to provide Hard Shoulder Running and
works would extend beyond the some widening on the M25
highway boundary and therefore land
purchase would be required
Package 3 Additional capacity would be provided All interventions as Package 2 except

on the M40 corridor to minimise along the M40.
journey time as well as maintain
The M40 would be widened to 4 lanes
journey time reliability
to a full standard cross section to
accommodate peak hour flows
Package 4 This package is to provide minimum All Hard Shoulder Running sections,
journey times and represents the except M6 J4-11, widened giving
upper limit on interventions. It additional capacity on all study area
assumes all motorway links are motorways
widened where feasible
The detail of the elements of each of the proposed packages are summarised in Table 3.6. They
are also represented graphically in Figures 3.11 to 3.14 that follow.

Table 3.6 – Comparison of Current and Proposed Motorway Packages
Motorway standards provided
KEY to Legends:-
D3/D4/D5 Dual 3, 4 or 5 lane motorway
D3+HSR/D4+HSR Hard Shoulder used as an additional lane during peak
periods
D3+2/D4+2 Dual 3or 4 lane motorway contiguous with a
dedicated 2 lane slip road
Network Options in 2031
2008
Link with Current
Jnc Jnc
Road Maximum network 2008RP Package 1 Package 2 Package 3 Package 4
A B
V/C
BIRMINGHAM TO LONDON
M1 1 6a M1 SB 5-6 D3 D3 D3+HSR D3+HSR D3+HSR D4
M1 6a 10 M1 SB 8-9 D4 D4 D4+HSR D4+HSR D4+HSR D5
M1 10 19 M1 SB 15a-16 D3 D3+HSR D3+HSR D3+HSR D3+HSR D4
M40 1 1a M40 SB 1-1A D3 D3 D3+HSR D3+HSR D4 D4
M40 1a 3 M40 SB 2-3 D4 D4 D4+HSR D4+HSR D5 D5
M40 3 8 M40 SB 5-6 D3 D3 D3+HSR D3+HSR D4 D4
M40 8 9 M40 SB 5-6 D3 D3 D3 D3 D4 D4
M40 9 16 M40 SB 9-10 D3 D3 D3+HSR D3+HSR D4 D4
M42 1 3 M42 EB 3-3A D3 D3 D3+HSR D3+HSR D3+HSR D4
M42 3a 7 M42 SB 4-5 D3+HSR D3+HSR D4+HSR D4+HSR D4+HSR D5
M5 1 4 M5 SB 1-2 D3 D3+HSR D3+HSR D3+HSR D3+HSR D4
M6 1 2 M6 SB 1-2 D3 D3 D3 D3 D3 D3
M6 2 4 M6 SB 2-3 D3 D3+HSR D3+HSR D3+HSR D3+HSR D4
M6 4 11 M6 SB 4a-5 D3 D3+HSR D3+HSR D3+HSR D3+HSR D3+HSR
M25 14 15 M25 AC 14-15 D3+2 D3+2 D3+2 D4+2 D4+2 D4+2
M25 15 16 M25 AC 15-16 D4 D4 D4 D4+HSR D4+HSR D5
M25 16 21 M25 AC 17-18 D3 D4 D4 D4+HSR D4+HSR D5
M4 3 10 M4 EB 4b-5 D3 D3+HSR D3+HSR D3+HSR D3+HSR D4
M6(T) SB T5-
M6Toll D3 D3 D3 D3 D3 D3
T4
Notes:
1. The schemes to provide hard shoulder running on M5 J1-5 are not currently being taken forward in the National
Roads Programme, as announced in January 2009 (Britain’s Transport Infrastructure, Motorways and Major
Trunk Roads, DfT). However, they are included in this study to provide consistency with the High Speed 2 Do
Minimum.
2. Package 4 includes the upgrading of the M4 J3-J10 from D3+HSR to D4. M4 J3-4 serves as a link to Heathrow
and M4 J4-9 as a potential alternative route to M40 via A404. But widening of the full length of M4 J4-10 is
unlikely to be a strategic consideration in reducing journey time between London and the West Midlands.
3. The inclusion of M5 J1-5 in the reference case and M4 J4-9 in Package 4 is not considered material in the
comparison of the strategic alternatives because the net impact is unlikely to change the overall comparative
result of the packages. The inclusion of the M5 in the reference case is likely to underestimate the benefits and
including the M4 is likely to overestimate the benefits. In either case the effects are marginal.
4. The environmental impact and costs are such that it is unlikely to be considered feasible to widen the elevated
sections of the M6 through Birmingham. Moreover, the M6 Toll provides parallel capacity to this section of the
route. For these reasons, for the purposes of this strategic analysis, M6 J4-11 has been constrained to
D3+HSR, although forecast demand would suggest the provision of higher capacity.

High Speed Counterfactual Study – Strategic Outline Business Case
Figure 3.11 - HS2: Road Network incorporating Package 1 Proposals




3.5 Package Deliverables

3.5.1 Rail Package Deliverables
An outline description of each of the rail packages that were assessed in detail is provided in the
following section. The objectives for each package were to provide increased passenger capacity
to accommodate forecast growth in demand and, where possible, to reduce journey times. The
indicative train service patterns assumed for the modelling of each package are represented
diagrammatically in Appendix A.
3.5.1.1 Package Two

Package 2 assumes that the train service frequency on the WCML “fast” lines is increased as far
as possible without the provision of six tracks. This is assumed to provide 16 trains per hour (tph)
over the busiest section of the WCML: Euston – Ledburn Junction (equating to a capacity
utilisation of some 80%), with the following assumed service specification:
• Standard hour timetable;
• Euston - Manchester: 4 tph “fasts;
• Euston – Birmingham: 4 tph “fasts”;
• Euston – Liverpool: 3 “fast” trains every 2 hours;
• Euston – Milton Keynes - Northampton – Rugby: 4tph (fast):
- 2 tph extended to Birmingham New Street;
- 1 tph terminating at Rugby; and
- 1 tph extended to serve stations along the Trent Valley route.
3.5.1.2 Package Three

Package 2 is assumed to result in the WCML fast lines operating at maximum capacity. In
package 3, in order to free up additional WCML capacity, the ‘fast’ WCML services between
London and Birmingham are diverted onto the Chiltern route. Three WCML paths per hour are
assumed to be released to provide other services.
The train service assumed on the WCML in Package 3 is similar to Package 2, with the exception
of the following:
• Euston – Birmingham services diverted to the Chiltern Paddington – Birmingham route;
• Euston – Liverpool service frequency increased to 2 tph “fasts”;
• Euston – Glasgow service frequency increased to 2 tph “fasts”; and
• Euston – Warrington stopping service (new) 1 tph.
This package includes infrastructure enhancements to enable the Chiltern route to maintain
existing London – West Midlands journey times, safeguarding existing benefits for passengers.
As the Chiltern route North of Aynho is a main route for freight, two paths per hour in each
direction were assumed to be reserved for freight services.
3.5.1.3 Package Four

This package builds on Package 3. It assumes similar WCML “fast” line services with Euston –
Milton Keynes - Northampton services extended to Birmingham with improved journey times.
5087288/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 37

Further infrastructure enhancements enable additional journey time reductions for Paddington –
Birmingham services with journey times of between 61-65 mins.
3.5.1.4 Package Five

Package 5 builds on package 4 and assumes that, with enhancements to the route between
Birmingham and Stafford, further long distance WCML services to and from the North West could
be diverted to the Chiltern route releasing further capacity on the WCML.
Please note that some of the engineering and environmental challenges associated with Package
5 remain unresolved. The total cost for implementation of this Package is therefore uncertain, and
deliverability is at risk.
3.5.1.5 Summary of Capacity and Crowding Impacts

As a result of assessing each of the packages in the PLANET demand model, forecast additional
capacity and crowding levels on long distance WCML and long Chiltern line services to and from
London were obtained. Long distance WCML services include those that are currently operated
by Virgin trains, while the long distance Chiltern services include those going to Banbury or
beyond in a northbound direction, or High Wycombe and beyond in a southbound direction.
These are detailed in Appendix F and are consistent with those shown in the Do Minimum
scenarios in Figure 3.6 and 3.7. A summary is given in table 3.7 below.
Table 3.7 – Forecast Capacity & Crowding Impacts of the Rail Packages
Rail Package 2033 long % increase in WCML 2033 Chiltern 2033

distance seated load factor load factor
seated capacity approaching approaching
capacity (16 over Reference London (16 London (16
hour two way) Case hour two way) hour two way)
to/from (% seats) (% seats)
London WCML &
Chiltern
WCML & combined
Chiltern
combined
Reference Case 164,700 - 81 34
Package 2 253,500 54 53 30
Package 3 291,300 77 49 37
Package 4 291,300 77 48 36
Package 5 329,100 100 44 35
The modelling shows that the packages could provide significant additional long distance
passenger capacity on the WCML and Chiltern routes ranging from around 50% to a doubling of
seated capacity to and from London - depending on the package concerned.
Modelling also shows that by 2033, in each of the packages, the load factor on WCML services to
and from London is forecast to be approximately 45 - 55%, which is broadly in line with the 2008
level of 49%. By comparison, if no further enhancements above those already assumed to be
committed are undertaken on the WCML or the Chiltern routes, as assumed in the Do Minimum
scenario, load factors are forecast to increase to 81% on the southern section of the WCML and
34% on the southern section of the Chiltern route.

3.5.1.6 Summary of Journey Time Impacts

In assessing the potential of each package to deliver benefits through reduced journey times, it
was noted that there were three main possible ways in which such reductions might be achieved.
Firstly, certain of the infrastructure enhancements required to deliver additional capacity are also
capable of delivering journey time reductions through line speed improvements, such as at
Ledburn Junction. Secondly, the improved reliability of the enhanced infrastructure and the extra
capacity it generates might enable a reduction in the time allowed within current timetables for
recovery from delays, such as from the doubling of Beechwood Tunnel to Stechford. Thirdly, some
of the indicative train service specifications are based on having a higher train frequency which
can be used to reduce the average typical number of stops per train – typically improving journey
times for through passengers by around four/ five minutes per stop omitted, such as in package 3
where London - Moor Street trains are assumed to run non-stop. No journey time savings were
assumed to arise from new rolling stock or possible future use of in-cab signalling.
The table below gives an illustration of the typical journey time savings which could arise these
factors and which were included, as appropriate, in the PLANET modelling of each of the
packages:
Table 3.8 – Typical Journey Times Impacts (in minutes)
Reference Time Saving over Reference Case due to:

Case
Rail Service Journey Infrastructure Increased Reduced
Group Time Enhancement Train Timetable
Frequency Contingency
London –
Birmingham New 85 1 9 2
Street (package 2)
London –
Birmingham New
85 1 9 0
Street (package
2A)
London –
Birmingham Moor 85 12 2
Street (package 3)
London –
Birmingham New
85 18/ 19 2
Street (packages 4
& 5)
London –
Manchester via 128 3/ 3.5 3
Wilmslow
3.5.2 Highway Package Deliverables

The length per section of motorway of the highway interventions are summarised in the following
table. As previously discussed, these are incremental such that package four assumes the higher
levels of interventions, assuming full widening.

Table 3.9 – Proposed length of Highway Intervention Packages in kilometres & (miles)
Highway Package Length of Widening Length of HSR

Package One 24 (15) 185 (115)
Package Two 27 (17) 205 (127)
Package Three 175 (109) 68 (42)
Package Four 360 (224) 0 (0)
Whilst the proposed interventions increase the capacity of the respective motorways, the journey
time savings are summarised in the following table. The two average daily journey time
calculations are taken from the start of the respective motorways in London, to the M42 near
Birmingham International. These equate to a journey time saving of less than 10%.
Table 3.10 – NTM Estimated Journey Times Resulting from the Highway Intervention Packages
(minutes)
Highway Package London – Saving over London – Saving over

Birmingham Reference Birmingham Reference
via M1 Case via M40 Case
Journey Time Journey Time
Reference Case 105 100
Package One 104 1 97 3
Package Two 103.5 1.5 96.5 3.5
Package Three 103.5 1.5 95 5
Package Four 102 3 94.5 5.5
3.6 Summary
Due to the scale of HS2 it is apparent that few alternative schemes would be able, on their own, to
deliver an equivalent level of functionality, whether in terms of journey time improvements or
capacity enhancements. It was therefore considered more relevant to examine packages of
interventions.
Packages of interventions were identified for both rail and highway modes, based on an
aggregation of individual schemes. For both modes the packages were derived from:
• An understanding of the Baseline situation;
• Review of existing schemes;
• Experience of the consultant staff; and,
• Consultation with the Client Group.
The packages of interventions are put forward as strategic alternatives to HS2. The processes for
developing the respective rail and road packages were, as far as possible, consistent with those
used by HS2 Ltd and the feasibility study for the Highways Agency Managed Motorway
Programme.
A total of four rail packages and four road packages were developed, and taken forward for
analysis in the remainder of this document.

4. The Value for Money Case

4.1 Introduction
The Value for Money Case is a key element of the Strategic Outline Case for the packages under
investigation. In this section the methodology behind the Framework for assessing the schemes
is discussed, and then the results of the application of the Framework are described in detail.
4.2 Appraisal Framework - Methodology

In order to ensure a consistent approach, and allow a direct comparison of the strategic
alternatives, the Appraisal Framework developed for use within the strategic alternatives has been
based on the Appraisal Framework used for HS2.
Although the core sustainability objectives for the strategic alternatives were identical to those
used for HS2, it was necessary to adapt some of the indicators that were used for HS2,
particularly when assessing the highway packages since this was not a main consideration for
HS2. However, the sustainability objectives to which they apply are identical in both studies, and
the modification does not affect the consistency of appraisal between them.
In developing the appraisal framework for the strategic alternatives, the following approach was
been adopted:
• Consistency with the appraisal framework being applied to HS2 to provide parity of appraisal
across options;
• The methods applied to the strategic alternatives are such that they can readily be expanded
if required at an appropriate stage, to a full Appraisal of Sustainability (AoS) for the strategic
alternatives to comply with the requirements of the Planning Act, 2008 and the UK SEA
process;
• Application of criteria that are consistent with the TAG objectives;
• An appraisal that is proportionate to the decision that it is informing, notably through
designing an appraisal framework that:
- Has sufficient level detail to identify areas of non compliance with sustainability objectives
for transport measures;
- Enables comparison between options where there is a significant difference in terms of
environmental compliance or in cost implications arising from achieving environmental
compliance;
- Seeks to apply the standards and requirements that would have been appropriate had a
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) been needed.
- Enables and provides an audit trail for transparent and robust decision making.
- Efficiency – where possible the approach for the appraisal of the strategic alternatives
uses data and frameworks generated by, and criteria applied for, the HS2 study, ensuring
no duplication of effort.
The HS2 Ltd team applied a three stage process to the appraisal, with increasing detail in the
appraisal framework and criteria applied at each stage, as follows:
• Gate 1: Key constraints and sifting.
• Gate 2: Option appraisal – criteria were mostly land based environmental features based on
HS2 Environmental Design Guidance and key sustainability issues.

• Gate 3: Full preferred options appraisal – Full AoS Framework based on core sustainability
objectives derived through the SEA scoping process.
The assessments frameworks were consistent with DfT TAG methodology.
The sustainability objectives against which performance of the strategic alternatives has been
assessed are the same as to those applied to Gate 3 of the HS2 appraisal, with refinements
applied to specific indicators enabling a comparison across transport modes, i.e. through the
inclusion of road transport and conventional rail options in the appraisal. This required
modification to the criteria, notably for Issue 9: Noise, Issue 8: Air quality and Issue 2: Greenhouse
gas emissions. Therefore the appraisal framework for HS2 was reviewed and where appropriate,
adapted for the strategic alternatives, as follows:
• The HS2 objective and indicator was reviewed to determine if it differentiated between the
packages. Where the indicator did not provide the opportunity to differentiate between
packages, it was not applied;
• The HS2 framework criteria/ objectives were reviewed to check if any modification was
required to accommodate cross modal (road/rail) issues. Where necessary these
modifications were implemented;
• A review was undertaken to identify if additional criteria/ objectives were appropriate to inform
the evaluation of the strategic alternatives.
A total of 18 high level sustainability issues were identified for HS2. These high level 18
sustainability issues were also considered of relevance to the strategic alternatives, and as such
these issues were used in developing the appraisal framework. The Appraisal Framework
includes the following assumptions:
• For the landscape appraisal, the appraisal will exclude historic landscape and cultural
features to avoid double counting;
• For air quality and noise appraisals - the study will be a high level assessment and detailed
assessments are not required. A sufficiently detailed assessment in accordance with
'strategic' level of assessment will be undertaken;
• In assessing the relative population density along the route corridor – areas will be split into
defined land use categories (urban, suburban, rural) to give an overall proximity index in
order to assess affects during construction; and
• The appraisal of options against issues 10: Community Integrity, 13: Security and Safety, 14:
Economic Prosperity, 17: Waste Generation and 18: Resource Use generally draws on
generic policy statements to provide a judgement on how the options would contribute to the
objectives and indicators.
• The objectives shaded in grey are those which are considered not to contribute to
determining the differences between the strategic alternatives.
4.2.1.1 Issues where indicators applied to HS2 have been refined

The framework sustainability objectives are identical to those developed for HS2. However, while
the framework objectives and criteria are largely consistent with HS2, in certain cases the
indicators have been refined to enable comparison across different transport modes.
For the Strategic Alternatives Study, given the strategic nature of the options and as they have not
been developed to detailed design, the number of sites that are likely to be directly affected
(through land take) by each of the options has been determined using GIS as well as the number
of sites within 500m of the option has been identified in order to appraise the potential effects of
the options on the setting of environmental assets. This differs from HS2 as the options for HS2

have been developed to a higher level of design than for the Strategic Alternatives allowing a
judgement on the likely impacts.
Given the nature of the road and rail intervention packages, the appraisal of the options against
Issue 2: Greenhouse gases, Issue 8: Air Quality and Issue 9: Noise, a strategic appraisal will be
undertaken proportional to the level of traffic modelling data available as set out below.
Air Quality
The air quality assessment has been undertaken in general accordance with the Methodology for
Strategies as set out in the Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG) Unit 3.3.3 Local air quality Sub-
objective, the Methodology for Strategies as set out in TAG, although comparison with existing
flows was not completed as this data was not available.
Assessment of rail packages was not completed for Local Air Quality as there is no methodology
for a strategic approach to the assessment of rail emissions. Updated guidance in LAQM.TG(09)
identifies the potential for local air quality impacts on relevant receptors within 30 metres of railway
lines carrying high volumes of diesel trains, where existing background concentrations of NOx are
high. The assessment method in TG(09) identifies Local Authorities which have high backgrounds
and busy rail lines. Authorities which may be affected by the rail packages have been identified. It
should be noted that although most packages result in an increase in train-kilometres, they also
involve the replacement of existing diesel services with electrified services, which is likely to result
in a reduction in overall emissions from engines, though this will be offset by an increase in
emissions from power stations.
Modal transfer from road to rail was assessed using the PLANET model for each rail package; the
resulting traffic flows on the M1 and the M40 were found to change by less than 1,000 AADT and
the effect of modal transfer was excluded from further assessment on grounds of significance2.
The regional air quality assessment has been undertaken in general accordance with TAG Unit
3.3.4 Regional Air Pollution Sub-objective, although comparison with existing flows was not
completed as this data was not available.
Estimates of mass emissions of NOx and PM10 for road packages were completed using the
DMRB Screening Method v1.03c and the revised traffic data provided.
Assessment of rail packages was completed using the total train-kilometre data provided for each
package combined with the generic emission factor for all rail types. The change in mass
emissions reflects the change in train kilometres and not the change from diesel to electric
services as more detailed emission factors for electric and diesel services were not available.
The following indicators have been derived for the appraisal of air quality:
- Relative population density within option corridor – the consideration of the relative
population density along route corridor will be defined by land use categorisation (i.e.
urban, suburban and rural) to give an overall proximity index to assess effects during
construction.
- For Highways, the change in overall mass emissions ‘with’ and ‘without’ option within
option corridor in 2025 (NOx and PM10) – Tag Unit 3.3.4 Regional Air Pollution
assessment tool will be used to quantify the change in regional emissions when options
are operational.
- For Rail, the change in overall mass emissions ‘with’ and ‘without’ option corridor in 2021
(NOx only) was reviewed.
2
Ref. Paragraph 3.12 of Highways Agency Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Vol 11, Section 3 Part 1, (HA207/ 07)
- For the Highways packages, change in total emission rate per unit area was reviewed
multiplied by population density for the same unit area within option corridors ‘with’ and
‘without’ option in 2025 (NOx and PM10).
- For the Highways packages, the number of AQMAs through which the route corridor runs
was reviewed. The traffic data provided represents a network which is within 200m of 24
Air Quality Management Areas.
- For the Rail packages a review was implemented of the number of Local Authorities with
background concentrations greater than 25 µg/m3 potentially affected by rail network in
study area. Recent guidance in TG(09) indicates that local authorities with background
concentrations of NOx greater than 25 µg/m3 should assess busy rail lines for local air
quality impacts.
- As the traffic data was not considered detailed enough to consider individual populations
within each study area, a ‘central case’ scenario was applied for the total population
within each study area.
Noise
The noise assessment has been undertaken in accordance with TAG Unit 3.3.2 Noise Sub-
objective, the Methodology for Strategies as set out in Section 1.6 of TAG.
A ‘Strategic’ assessment has been undertaken where there are proposals within the packages to
physically alter the road or rail alignment. The potential impacts of ‘operational’ changes (i.e.
changes in traffic flows) in the wider study area have been assessed in terms of noise level
changes along the affected routes.
The methodology for strategies consists of a broad-brush two step assessment. Step 1 involves
estimating the difference in noise emissions between the ‘without’ and ‘with’ scheme scenarios
using the transport model outputs for the road or rail network as appropriate. Step 2 relates these
differences to the zonal population densities and estimates the change in population annoyed at
dwellings.
• The following indicators have been developed for the appraisal against Issue 9: Noise:
- Change in the population potentially annoyed by noise – appraisal to be based on
determining the change in average noise emission and relating this to population data.
- Indicative ‘Present Value of Benefits (PVB)’ for daytime operational-related residential
noise.
- Numbers of residential properties at risk of vibration and reradiated noise.
For Issue 12: Health and Well-being – a generic policy statement has been made for each option
given the nature and modes of the road and rail intervention packages. For Issue 17: Waste
Generation and Issue 18: Resource Use –a generic policy statement has been made for each
option given the nature and modes of the road and rail intervention packages.
Biodiversity
For Issue 5: Biodiversity, the appraisal framework has deviated from that of HS2 in that the
impacts of options on regional and local sites of nature conservation importance such as SINCs
and BAP habitats has not been undertaken due to the strategic nature of the options particularly
for the highway intervention packages. In addition, as the options for the Strategic Alternatives
have not been developed to detail design, the evaluation criteria ‘Area of potential new habitat
creation’ that was included in the HS2 framework has not been included or appraised for the
Strategic Alternatives Study.

Water
For Issue 6: Water, the evaluation criteria has been restricted to the number of watercourses in
general crossed by the option and the number of groundwater source protection zones crossed
directly by the option. This is due to the level of baseline environmental data contained for the
high level Strategic Alternatives Study. For HS2 the evaluation criterion expands to include
effects on river catchments and groundwater flow in strategic aquifers.
Health and Well-Being
Core Sustainability Objective 12a: Maintain and improve mental well-being and Core Sustainability
Objective 12c: Reduce health inequalities have not been included in the appraisal framework for
the strategic alternatives given the nature of the proposals and the high level of the study.
Waste Generation and Resource Use
Neither Core Sustainability Objective 17: Waste Generation and Issue 18: Resource Use have not
been appraised as part of the Strategic Alternatives Study as given the strategic nature of
proposals and that they have not been developed to detail design, the likely construction material
and demolition volumes are not known to be able to undertake an appraisal of these objectives.
4.3 Appraisal Framework - Results

The completed Appraisal Frameworks for the four rail and four road packages are included in this
document as Appendix B & Appendix C respectively. Discussion of the key issues around this
appraisal is undertaken in the remainder of this Chapter.
4.4 Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.4.1 Introduction
The overall category, ‘Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Combating Climate Change and
its Effects’, covers the following items:
• Climatic factors and adaptability; and,
• Greenhouse gases;
Key issues in these categories are discussed in the remainder of this section for the rail and
highway packages separately.
4.4.2 Rail Packages

In terms of improving the resilience of the transport network against extreme weather events
(Issue 1: Climatic factors and adaptability), all packages cross flood zone 2 and 3 at some
point. Flood risk management will need to be considered from the onset and integrated into the
planning stages however, at this stage; minor negative effects are predicted for all rail packages
against Core Sustainability Objective: 1a. Improve resilience of transport network (conventional
rail/road) against extreme weather events.
With regard to Issues 2: Greenhouse Gases, carbon emissions for the rail packages were
estimated using the ‘2009 Guidelines to Defra / DECC's GHG Conversion Factors for Company
Reporting’; where new and improved electric services were assumed to have a carbon dioxide
equivalent emission factor similar to that quoted for Eurostar services in 2007/08 and existing
diesel/electric services were assigned the national rail carbon dioxide equivalent emission factor
for 2007/08. No account was taken of carbon expended during construction. The estimates were
calculated along the package corridor, incorporating the change in train kilometres.

The ranked results below present the increase in Carbon Dioxide equivalent emissions as a result
of operational and physical interventions with each rail package when compared with the
reference scenario.
• Rail Package 3 = 12890 T/yr
The Regional Air Quality assessment has indicated that the rail packages can be ranked as
shown below, from least potential negative effect to most potential negative effect, however it
should be noted as previously stated that regional mass emissions do not reflect exposure to air
pollutants at sensitive receptors. The change in mass emissions of NOx, compared to the without
scheme scenario are shown next to each package.
• Rail Package 2 (NOx = 1582 T/yr)

In terms of improving the resilience of the transport network against extreme weather events
(Issue 1: Climatic factors and adaptability), all packages cross flood zone 2 and 3 at some
point. However, part of the package proposals (for packages 2, 3 & 4) include upgrading of
existing drainage systems and flood control requirements and as such, all proposals are likely to
ensure a positive but not significant effect against this objective as they will improve the resilience
of the existing transport network to cope against future extreme flood events.
With regard to Issues 2: Greenhouses Gases, carbon emissions for the road packages were
estimated using the DMRB 11.3.1 regional spreadsheet. The estimates were calculated along the
corridor package, based on the respective change in traffic volumes and speed, associated with
each package. The ranked results below present the increase in carbon dioxide equivalent
emissions as a result of physical interventions with each package when compared with the
‘without’ scheme scenario.
It is worth noting that these emissions are considerably higher than the equivalent increases for
the rail packages.
• Road Package 1 = 88208 T/yr
The road packages can be ranked as shown below, from least potential negative effect to most
potential negative effect, however it should be noted that local air quality does not translate
calculations of emissions and population density to local concentrations and hence exposure at
relevant locations, as there is no account taken of local background concentrations or dispersion
from source within the strategic air quality assessment employed. The Air Quality Index is shown
next to each road package. The higher the numerical value, the greater the aggregated disbenefit.
• Road Package 1 (AQI - NOx = 87272, PM10 = 8706)

4.5 Natural and Cultural and Resource Protection

4.5.1 Introduction
The overall category, ‘Natural and Cultural and Resource Protection and Environmental
Enhancement’, covers the following items:
• Landscape and townscape;
• Cultural heritage, including architectural and archaeological issues;
• Biodiversity;
• Water Resources; and,
• Flood Risk;
4.5.2 Rail Packages

As the different packages generally build increasingly on a combination of the same railway
interventions, the appraisal of the options against ‘natural and cultural and resource protection
and environmental enhancement, do not enable a comparative appraisal to be undertaken.
The appraisal of the packages therefore, on landscape and townscape, cultural heritage,
biodiversity, water resources and flood risk, concentrates on the degree of effects i.e. package 5 is
considered to result in greater negative effects that package 2 due to the number of interventions
proposed resulting in greater cumulative effects.
All of the railway interventions packages require crossings of watercourses of varying size. Thus
all of the packages have part of the proposed interventions located within or adjacent to floodplain
and within or adjacent to flood zones 3b and 2 (Core Sustainability Objective 1a).
All packages are considered to have minor negative effects on maintaining and enhancing
landscape character (Core Sustainability Objective 3a) as all packages include works in the
Stafford area. The Stafford scheme is a new build section of track across open countryside, the
southern end of it would run through the Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONB). The improvements to the southern end of the Chiltern line between Seer Green and
Saunderton, in packages 3, 4 and 5, run through the Chilterns AONB, which could result in
negative effects on this nationally designated landscape. For this reason packages 3, 4 & 5 are
assessed as having significant adverse effects. A number of the proposals, especially close to the
major cities are located within the Green Belt, particularly those around Birmingham and those
north west of London on the Chiltern line. All the proposed packages run past a number of
country parks and historic parks and garden, which increases in number and extent the greater
the number of interventions proposed.
There are a number of works that have the potential to affect the landscape and townscape
through which they pass, particularly those in existing urban areas, where new infrastructure may
require changes to the existing townscape (Core Sustainability Objective 3b).
These include:
• the expansion of a number of railway corridors from two or three tracks to four, including
Stechford to Beechwood tunnel/ Berkswell (packages 2, 4 & 5), Dorridge to Tyseley (package

3), Attleborough to Brinklow (all packages), Aston to Stafford (package 5) and

Saunderton/Seer Green to West Ruislip (packages 3, 4 & 5);
• the new viaduct Manchester Piccadilly to Ardwick (all packages); and
• the new sections railway line at Stafford (all packages), Banbury & Princes Risborough
(packages 3, 4 & 5), and Harbury to Berkswell (packages 4 & 5).
There are no world heritage sites within 500m of the rail intervention packages (Core
Sustainability Objective 4a). Whilst there would be no direct impact on the scheduled
monuments, there could be indirect negative effects on the setting of these monuments during
construction. All packages have proposals which may affect the setting of scheduled monuments.
In respect of listed buildings (Core Sustainability Objective 4b), it has not been possible to
consider specific effects. However, all of the packages will have some effect either directly or on
the setting of listed buildings. These effects should be considered in more detail during further
design stages
In terms of maintaining and enhancing biodiversity (Core Sustainability Objective 5a), all
packages are considered to have negative effects on this objective to varying degrees as the rail
interventions run close to a number of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC).
Stafford Area Works (all packages) do not impact on any nationally designated sites, although
existing Haywood Chord at the southern end of the proposal is within close proximity of the
Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC. The proposals between Seer Green and Saunderton (Packages 3,
4 & 5) are within 500m of the Chiltern Beechwoods SAC. Whilst there are likely to be no direct
effects there could be negative effects on the integrity of these designated sites and as such,
further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely indirect effects of the proposals.
Stechford to Beechwood tunnel (packages 2, 4 & 5) is in close proximity to the River Blyth Site of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the Stafford bypass is close to the Pasturefields Salt Marsh
SSSI. Other SSSIs within 500m of the proposals included are the River Blythe (Dorridge to
Tyseley - Package 3), Bradenham Woods, Park Wood and the Coppice, Gomm Valley (Seer
Green to Saunderton - Packages 3, 4 & 5), and Old Rectory Meadows (West Ruislip to Seer
Green - Packages 3, 4 & 5). There are three SSSIs designated at Harbury Railway Cutting, Long
Itchington and Ufton Woods, and finally at Ufton Fields (Harbury to Berkswell and Saunderton to
Harbury - Packages 3, 4 & 5). The proposals between Stetchford and Stafford are close to the
Four Ashes Pit, Doxey and Tillington Marshes SSSI's (Package 5). The Saunderton to Harbury
chord further cuts into the three SSSIs at Rushbeds Wood and Railway Cutting, Ardley Cutting
and Quarry and Harbury Railway Cutting (package 5). Several of these SSSIs including Ardley
Cutting and Quarry, Ufton Fields and Rushbeds Wood would be directly affected and assessment
of effects and mitigation of effects would be required. For this reason Package 5 is assessed as
having significant adverse effects. Whilst the remainder of the railway intervention proposals
would not result in direct effects, further assessment is required to ascertain the likely impacts of
the railway intervention proposals on the integrity of these sites
In terms of Issue 6: water resources, all package proposals could result in negative effects on
surface water resources during construction. The effects on the water quality of the watercourses
in the study area or the impact on groundwater resources however, are not known at this stage.
In terms of conserving and protecting the capacity of floodplains (Core Sustainability Objective
7a), all packages cross flood zone 2 and 3 at some point. However, part of the package
proposals includes upgrading of existing drainage systems and flood control requirements and as
such, all proposals are likely to ensure in positive effect against this objective as they will improve
the resilience of the existing transport network to cope against future extreme flood events.


All of the existing motorway corridors run close to, or through environmental resources including
AONB, Historic parks and gardens, floodplain, Country Parks, Scheduled Monuments and nature
conservation designated areas. Whilst there would be no direct effect on these assets through
land-take, the widening proposals could result in indirect adverse effects on the setting of these
assets resulting in negative effects of varying degrees. As the different packages comprise a
combination of the same motorway widening corridors, the appraisal of the options against
‘natural and cultural and resource protection and environmental enhancement, do not enable a
comparative appraisal to be undertaken. The appraisal of the packages therefore, on landscape
and townscape, cultural heritage, biodiversity, water resources and flood risk, concentrates on the
degree of effects i.e. Package 4 is considered to result in greater negative effects that package 1
merely due to the number of interventions proposed resulting in greater cumulative effects.
All packages are considered to have negative effects on maintaining and enhancing landscape
character (Core Sustainability Objective 3a) as the M1 and M40 widening corridors run through
the Chilterns AONB which could result in negative effects on the setting of this nationally
designated landscape during construction. Additionally, the M40 study corridor is also adjacent to
the boundary of the Cotswolds AONB near Warmington. There are no world heritage sites within
500m of the widening corridors. All the widening corridors also run through designated green belt
as well as close to a number of country parks and historic parks and garden which increases in
number and extent the greater the number of interventions proposed resulting in minor adverse
effects with package 1 and significant adverse effects for packages 2, 3 and 4.
Package 1 is considered to have minor negative effects on preserving and protecting
archaeological assets (Core Sustainability Objective 4a) as there are two scheduled monuments
within the M40 widening corridor and one within the M1 widening corridor). Whilst there would be
no direct impact on the scheduled monuments, there could be indirect negative effects on the
setting of these monuments during construction. With packages 2, 3 and 4, the effects are
considered to be more significantly adverse as there are more scheduled monuments that could
be affected as a result of the widening proposals. Bromwich Castle lies adjacent to the M6
Junction 5 and The Aubreys lies close to the M1 widening corridor.
In terms of maintaining and enhancing biodiversity (Core Sustainability Objective 5a), all
packages are considered to have negative effects on this objective to varying degrees as the
widening corridors run close to a number of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) including Mole
Gap to Reigate Escarpment SAC and Aston Rowant SAC (which straddles the M40 between
junctions 5 and 6). Again, whilst there would be no direct effects there could be negative effects
on the integrity of these designated sites and as such, further assessment would be required to
ascertain the likely effects of the widening proposals. With package 1, there are two Sites of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) along the M42 widening corridor including The River Blythe
SSSI which runs underneath and close to the M42 north of J4 and Windmill Naps Wood SSSI
located within 500m of the M42 J3. Along the M40 corridor there are a number of SSSI within the
500m corridor including the Ardly Cutting and Quarry SSSI, Wendlebury Meads and Masmoor
Closes SSSI (M40, J9), Shabbington Woods SSSI (J7-8) and Aston Rowant SSSI and NNR which
straddles the M40 at J5/6. With packages 2, 3 and 4 the same SSSIs are located within the
widening corridor with the addition of Staines Moor and Wraysbury Reservoir SSSI, SPA and
RAMSAR which lies either side of the M25 between J13 and 15. Whilst the widening proposals
would not result in direct effects, further assessment is required to ascertain the likely impacts of
the widening works on the integrity of these sites. Overall, the packages would result in adverse
effects on this objective.
In terms of Issue 6: water resources, all package proposals could result in minor negative effects
on surface water resources during construction. The effects on the water quality of the

watercourses in the study area or the impact on groundwater resources however, are not known
at this stage.
In terms of conserving and protecting the capacity of floodplains (Core Sustainability Objective
7a), all packages cross flood zone 2 and 3 at some point. However, part of the package
proposals includes upgrading of existing drainage systems and flood control requirements and as
such, all proposals are likely to ensure in minor positive effects against this objective as they will
improve the resilience of the existing transport network to cope against future extreme flood
events.
4.6 Creating Sustainable Communities

4.6.1 Introduction
The overall category, ‘Creating Sustainable Communities’, covers the following items:
• Air Quality;
• Noise;
• Community Integrity;
• Accessibility;
• Health and Well-being;
• Safety and Security;
• Economic Prosperity; and,
• Economic Welfare.
highway packages separately, with the exception of the Economic Prosperity and Economic
Welfare objectives. These are discussed separately under section 4.8, ‘Economic Appraisal’.
4.6.2 Rail Packages

Assessment of rail packages was not required for Local Air Quality as the effect of each rail
package was scoped out as unlikely to result in a significant impact on local air quality parameters
or total emissions of NOx and PM10. The amount of people switching from road to rail was
assessed using the PLANET Long Distance Model for each rail package. Once this transfer was
forecast, the resulting traffic flows on sections of the M1 and the M40 were found to change by
less than 1000 vehicles per day (expressed as Annual Average Daily Traffic). The guidance
suggests that this is the threshold for consideration of Air Quality, so no further assessment was
carried out.
In terms of Objective 9A in maintaining and enhancing the local noise environment, the
appraisal has indicated that the rail packages result in minor to significant negative effects and
can be ranked as shown below, from acoustically more desirable to acoustically less desirable.
Noise impact is expressed as the Estimated Population Annoyed (EPA). The EPA numbers are
shown for each of the packages, as well as an indication on the wider area impacts.
• Rail Package 2 (EPA = 29), with the smallest wider area impacts
• Rail Package 4 (EPA = 1617),
• Rail Package 3 (EPA = 3631),
• Rail Package 5 (EPA = 4871), with the largest wider area impacts

Net Present Values (NPV) have also been calculated for noise impacts, and these indicate that
the monetary values are generally consistent with the ‘estimated population annoyed’ figures.
The monetary value of noise depends heavily on the ‘without the scheme’ noise levels. Due to a
number of factors not considered at a ‘strategic assessment’ stage, the initial levels of noise
cannot be estimated with any levels of confidence. Therefore the Net Present Values should be
treated as being indicative only.
TAG methodology does not offer guidance on the potential impacts of ‘vibration’ or ‘reradiated
noise’ from rail sources. Therefore at this stage the assessment has identified the number of
properties located within 50m of new or altered route corridors including tunnels where impacts
may be expected. The ranking of various rail packages would be similar to that shown above for
noise impacts.
In terms of Issue 10: Communities Integrity, there are elements across the packages that are
likely to have effects on neighbouring properties, particularly the new build elements north of
Stafford, and the grade separation viaduct between Manchester Piccadilly and Ardwick (all
packages), the Banbury bypass (packages 3, 4 & 5), and Hanbury to Berkswell (packages 4 & 5),
all of which will be new build. In addition, although the widening of existing routes will in the main
be on existing route corridor and within railway land, sections of the widening schemes, especially
those in urban areas such as Beechwood tunnel/ Berkswell to Stechford sections within urban
Birmingham and through Hampton in Arden (Packages 2,4 & 5), will require extra land take and
some demolition of buildings.
Although a small number of properties in the 20% most deprived areas may be affected by the
works between Seer Green and Old Oak Common (packages 3, 4 & 5), it is unlikely that they will
be at a high risk of isolation. However, further studies will be required to verify this.
In terms of Issue 11: accessibility, although all of the packages might directly affect strategic
footpaths, nature trails or cycle paths, it is considered that these will be maintained on, or nearby
their current alignments following completion of the work, and thus any effect is considered small.
However, consideration will be necessary to ensure that bridges, footpaths and cycle paths are
maintained, improved and included in the scheme design. This could result in positive effects in
improving pedestrian/cycle access in the area.
All the railway intervention packages would result in similar effects on the accessibility and
community integrity objectives and therefore no differentials between options can be drawn.
In terms of Issue 12: Health and well-being, the railway intervention packages may contribute to
encouraging more healthy lifestyles through encouraging some minor modal shift and therefore no
effects have been identified.
With regard to Issue 13a (Safety), the railway intervention packages are expected to have a slight
positive impact in all four cases. The improved rail services will encourage mode shift from road to
rail, removing up to 11 million passenger-kilometres per annum from the highway network. The
subsequent reduction in number of personal injury accidents (PIAs) produces monetised benefits
over a 60-year appraisal period of up to £19 million, depending on the package of interventions
proposed.
The railway intervention packages are expected to have a neutral or slight positive impact in terms
of Issue 13b (Security – Major Incidents) and Issue 13c (Security – Crime). Since detailed
designs have not been prepared at this stage, it is not possible to state definitively where the main
impacts will arise. However, with the adoption of modern technology there will be advantages
when compared to a ‘Do-Minimum’ scenario in terms of combating major incidents (e.g. flood risk,
terrorist attacks) and crime / fear of crime.
DfT guidance on security impacts (WebTAG Unit 3.4.2) includes a table covering different aspects
of public transport design, but these relate primarily to stations and their surrounding locales. In
this regard, the improvements at London Paddington and Birmingham New Street, with formal

surveillance technology and modern design features, will improve both the actual and perceived
environment in terms of combating crime.
Issue 14b (Economic Prosperity – Wider Impacts) has been assessed qualitatively and
quantitatively. Figure 4.1 is a plot of the potential agglomeration economies (measured by levels
of effective density), set in the context of the study corridor between Birmingham and London.
Improvements in journey times on the corridor will facilitate the realisation of these potential
agglomeration economies. Reduced travel times and improvements in journey time reliability will
reduce the productive time that businesses lose due to congestion, as well as encouraging the
spread of businesses into areas along the corridor that may previously have had prohibitively high
travel times to/from the main regional centres. The railway intervention packages will also expand
labour market catchments, increasing the size of the potential labour market available to
businesses and improving access to employment and services for individuals.
The impact of increased agglomeration and wider labour market catchments has been estimated
on the basis of experience on studies elsewhere in the UK, and in view of the indicative results
from the High Speed 2 packages, the latter of which based its approach on the change in
generalised costs generated by the railway intervention packages (extracted from the Planet
Strategic transport model) in conjunction with formulae set out in the DfT’s guidance on wider
impacts (WebTAG Unit 3.5.14). The wider benefits are consistent across all four rail packages and
stem from the following sources (related to the TEE benefits):
• Agglomeration: £190m - £299m, or approximately 4% of total PVB;
• Imperfect competition: £238m - £412m, or approximately 8% of business time savings; and
• Labour markets: negligible for all packages.
Figure 4.1 – The Potential Impact of Railway Intervention Packages on Agglomeration
In terms of Issue 15 (Economic Welfare) the railway intervention packages will have a positive
impact. Figure 4.2 presents future development sites and regional growth areas in the context of
the Birmingham – London corridor. It is important to distinguish between the wider impacts and
economic welfare sub-objectives. The wider impacts discussed above relate to primarily to the

ability of the railway intervention packages to facilitate and increase economic growth by tapping
into existing high-growth areas (principally the large urban areas along the corridor). The
economic welfare sub-objective is more concerned with the distribution of this growth. By
providing high-quality transport infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of the major growth area of
Milton Keynes, and supporting the growth points in the Midlands the interventions have the
potential to facilitate regeneration and growth along the corridor.
Figure 4.2 – Railway Intervention Impacts on Economic Welfare (Distribution)

It is worth noting that all of these Packages have impacts in excess of the rail interventions, where
no discernable change is anticipated.
Road Package 1 results in significant increases in traffic within 200 metres of only three out of the
24 AQMAs identified as potentially affected. Road Packages 2 & 3 result in significant increases
in traffic within 200 metres of twelve AQMAs. Road Package 4 results in significant increases in
traffic within 200 metres of fourteen AQMAs but also significant decreases on other links within
200 metres of one of these AQMAs.
The Regional Air Quality assessment has indicated that the road packages can be ranked as
shown below, from least potential negative effect to most potential negative effect, however it
should be noted as previously stated that regional mass emissions do not reflect exposure to air
pollutants at sensitive receptors. The change in mass emissions of NOx and PM10, compared to
the without scheme scenario are shown next to each package.
• Road Package 1 (NOx = 207 T/yr, PM10 = 20 T/yr)

In terms of Core Sustainability Objective 9A, maintaining and enhancing the local noise
environment, the appraisal has indicated that the road packages result in minor to significant
negative effects; ranked as shown below, from acoustically more desirable to acoustically less
desirable. The estimated population annoyed (EPA) is shown next to each.
• Road Package 1 (EPA = 1195)
• Road Package 2 (EPA = 1458)
• Road Packages 3 & 4 (EPA = 11475)
With the exception of Package 2, the EPA for the highway schemes are greater than the
equivalents for the Rail Packages.
The estimated Net Present Values (NPV) indicated that the monetary values were generally
consistent with the ‘estimated population annoyed’ figures. The monetary value of noise depends
heavily on the ‘without the scheme’ noise levels. Due a number of factors not considered at a
‘strategic assessment’ stage, the initial levels of noise cannot be estimate with any levels of
confidence. Therefore the Net Present Values should be treated as being indicative only.
In terms of Objective 9b, to maintain the local vibration environment, TAG methodology does
not offer guidance on the potential impacts of ‘vibration’ or ‘reradiated noise’ from road sources.
Therefore at this stage the assessment has identified the number of properties located within 50m
of new or altered route corridors including tunnels where impacts may be expected. As such, no
effects have been identified for the road packages.
In terms of creating sustainable communities, none of the packages are considered to have any
effects on maintaining or enhancing community integrity as land take is minimal and therefore no
effects on neighbouring properties or properties in the 20% most deprived areas.
In terms of Issue 11: Accessibility, none of the packages would directly affected any strategic
footpaths, nature trails or cycle paths however, consideration will be necessary to ensure that
bridges, footpaths and cycle paths are maintained, improved and included in the scheme design;
this could result in positive effects in improving pedestrian/cycle access in the area. In terms of
maintaining and enhancing access to public transport and public transport interchange, there are
a number of rail stations within the route corridor and if rail stations are clearly signed from
motorways this could provide alternative mode options for passengers resulting in beneficial
effects. All road packages would result in similar effects on the accessibility and community
integrity objectives and therefore no differentials between options can be drawn.
In terms of Issue 12: Health and well-being, the motorway widening packages would not
contribute to encouraging more healthy lifestyles and therefore no effects have been identified.
With regard to Issue 13a (Safety), the road intervention packages have a relatively minor impact,
producing mixed results depending on scheme. The improved journey times will lead to mode shift
from rail to road, thereby increasing the volume of vehicle-kilometres travelled on the motorway
and surrounding access roads. Offsetting this, however, is the reduction in accidents that would
be brought about by the widening and improved quality of the motorway. The subsequent change
in accidents generates (dis)benefits in the range £-11 – £6 million.
The road intervention packages are expected to have a neutral impact in terms of Issue 13b
(Security – Major Incidents) and Issue 13c (Security – Crime). Since detailed designs have not
been prepared at this stage, it is not possible to state definitively where the main impacts will
arise. Moreover, DfT guidance on the impact of road-based interventions in respect of security
focus primarily on service areas and lay-bys, neither of which are core components of the highway
proposals.
The approach to assessing Issue 14b (Economic Prosperity – Wider Impacts) is the same as
that applied for rail and therefore has the same rationale for generating benefits through
agglomeration and improved competition. However, the greater flexibility of road-based modes
compared to those of rail means that benefits for agglomeration as a proportion of total PVB are
slightly greater (5% rather than 4%). This is in keeping with experience seen elsewhere in the UK.
The wider impacts are therefore as follow:
• Agglomeration: £135m - £227m, or approximately 5% of total PVB;
• Imperfect competition: £84m - £161m, or approximately 8% of business time savings; and
• Labour markets: negligible for all packages
4.7 Sustainable Consumption and Production

4.7.1 Introduction
The overall category, ‘Sustainable Consumption and Production’, covers the following items:
• Soil and Land Resources;
• Waste Generation; and
• Resource Use.
4.7.2 Rail Packages

In terms of sustainable consumption and production, in particular Issue 16: soil and land
resources, the railway intervention package routes in all packages run through agricultural land of
varying classifications as well as designated Green Belt. A number of the proposals, especially
close to the major cities are located within Green Belt, particularly those around Birmingham and
those north west of London on the Chiltern line therefore no differentials can be drawn between
the packages. As the widening proposals are all within existing highway boundary, it can be
concluded that neutral effects would occur on agricultural land but negative effects on green belt
integrity.
For the Issue 17: Water Generation and Issue 18: Resource Use, an appraisal has not been
undertaken as at this stage, the likely construction material or demolition volumes are not known
therefore, potential effects cannot be predicted at this stage.

In terms of sustainable consumption and production, in particular Issue 16: Soil and Land
Resources, the motorway route corridors subject to the widening proposals in all packages run
through agricultural land of varying classifications as well as designated Green Belt therefore; no
differentials can be drawn between the packages. As the widening proposals are all within
existing highway boundary, it can be concluded that neutral effects would occur on this
sustainability issue. For the remaining of the core sustainability issues under sustainable
consumption and production, namely Issue 17: Water Generation and Issue 18: Resource use,
an appraisal has not been undertaken as at this stage, the likely construction material or
demolition volumes are not known therefore, potential effects cannot be predicted at this stage.
4.8 Economic Appraisal

4.8.1 Overview
This section presents the results of the economic appraisal for the HS2 Alternatives road and rail
packages of interventions, focusing on the benefits that will be generated for users and transport

providers as a result of the interventions, and the costs associated with their provision. For
consistency with the earlier parts of The Value for Money Case, the remainder of this section is
divided into the rail and road packages. For each set of interventions, the following information is
presented:
• Derivation of Scheme Costs, which describes the methodology for converting base costs into
a present value of costs used in the economic appraisal;
• Derivation of Scheme Benefits, which provides a summary of the modelling packages used to
assess the impact of the road and rail interventions, and the appraisal tools used to generate
the present value of benefits; and
• Summary of Results, which presents summary economic statistics (PVB, PVC, NPV and
BCR) for each of the eight packages of interventions.
A full summary of the scheme costs, and the assumptions underpinning them, is provided in
Chapter 6 (The Financial Case).
4.8.2 Rail Packages

4.8.2.1 Derivation of Scheme Costs
Capital Costs
NATA-based economic appraisal requires realistic and accurate scheme costs to be produced.
The costs of transport schemes are an integral component of the scheme appraisal process,
particularly where they are subsequently used to form decisions on scheme funding.
There are three main elements of a scheme cost estimate:
• The base cost, which is the basic cost of a scheme before allowing for risks;
• Adjustment for risk, which should cover all the risks that can be identified, the majority of
which then need to be assessed and quantified through a Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA)
– the outcome of this is the risk-adjusted cost estimate; and
• Adjustment for optimism bias, to reflect the well-established and continuing systematic bias
for estimated scheme costs and delivery times to be too low and too short respectively, and
results in the risk and optimism bias-adjusted cost estimate.
Capital infrastructure costs for the four packages of rail-based interventions are presented in
Table 4.1. These represent nominal capital costs, in 2009 prices, expressed in factor cost unit of
account. The costs do not include an allowance for future inflation, to be consistent with the
approach of HS2 Ltd.
Table 4.1 - Nominal Scheme Capital Costs for Rail-Based Packages (£m, 2009 prices and values)
Package 2 Package 3 Package 4 Package 5

Base Costs £1,820 £6,857 £8,368 £10,895
Risk & Optimism

£1,082 £4,407 £5,404 £7,072
Bias
Extras (inc OB) £770 £1,192 £1,343 £1,791
Total Scheme
£3,673 £12,456 £15,115 £19,758
Costs
In order to be consistent with the appraisal assumptions of HS2 Ltd., it was assumed that the
rolling stock fleet required to operate each package would be purchased. These costs are

presented in Table 4.2. As per HS2 Ltd, it was assumed the rolling stock fleet would be replaced
every 35 years. A further allowance was included to account for the re-furbishment of the rolling
stock, approximately every 18 years.
Table 4.2 – Nominal Scheme Capital Cost of Rolling Stock (£m, 2009 prices and values)

Total Cost £570 £635 £621 £670
Table 4.3 presents the scheme capital costs, including both infrastructure work and rolling stock.
Table 4.3 –Scheme Capital Costs for Rail-Based Packages (£m, 2009 prices and values)

Nominal Scheme
£4,243 £13,091 £15,736 £20,427
Cost (2009)
Operating Costs
The assumptions underpinning the calculation of base operating costs are set out in Section 6
(The Financial Case). This section presents the operating costs included in the economic
appraisal, which form part of the overall PVC for each package of rail options, summarised in
Tables 4.4 and 4.5.
Table 4.4 – Rail Operating Costs included in the Economic Appraisal when Rolling Stock is Assumed
to be a Capital Cost (£m, 2009)

Nominal
Operating Costs £9,393 £13,900 £14,388 £19,566
(2009)
In order to understand the impact of alternative rolling stock procurement arrangements, the
economic analysis was also undertaken assuming that the additional rolling stock was leased.
Under this scenario, the capital costs for the scheme are still consistent with Table 4.1. However
the cost of leasing the rolling stock was included in the overall operating costs, which are
summarised in Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 – Rail Operating Costs included in the Economic Appraisal when Rolling Stock is Assumed
to be Leased (£m, 2009)

Nominal
Operating Costs £11,920 £17,741 £17,940 £24,097
(2009)
4.8.2.2 Derivation of Scheme Benefits

Modelling of Rail Schemes
The rail packages were assessed using the PLANET framework model, adopting identical
assessment parameters to those of HS2 Ltd. This ensured that the approach to the assessment of
the Strategic Alternative rail packages was consistent to that of HS2.

Model runs were undertaken for both 2021 and 2033, and an economic appraisal undertaken
based on the same approach to that for HS2 Ltd. During the course of the modelling it became
apparent that in 2033 the level of demand in the model resulted in some localised instability
issues, largely in Scotland. Whilst overall the model converged, the localised instability led to
certain changes in the assigned demand between successive iterations along the Scotland to
London corridor.
The study remit indicated that the interventions should be primarily designed to cater for demand
along the London to Birmingham corridor, therefore no improvements were incorporated into the
packages to accommodate significant additional demand to/ from Scotland. Accordingly,
adjustments were made to the modelling outputs such that all potential benefits from the area
affected by instability were excluded from the economic appraisal. It is noted that by excluding the
benefits from Scotland/ wider UK, some benefits have been potentially excluded.
The 2021 total modal transfer and the number of generated rail trips that are estimated to occur as
a result of the proposed rail interventions, is summarised in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6 – Estimated 2021 Modal Transfer & Rail Trip Generation due to Rail Package Interventions
(trips per day)
Modal Transfer Modal Transfer Generated Rail Total Additional

from Air from Highway Trips Rail Trips
Package 2 -2,105 -3,338 7,133 12,576
Package 3 -2,099 -3,174 6,568 11,841
Package 4 -2,101 -4,190 7,416 13,707
Package 5 -2,368 -4,447 8,113 14,928
Economic Appraisal of the Rail Packages

The economic appraisal of rail packages has been undertaken using a bespoke spreadsheet
model, using outputs from the PLANET Strategic model in conjunction with economic parameters
and formulae contained on the DfTs WebTAG Unit 3.5.6. The spreadsheet is based on
conventional consumer surplus theory and is therefore consistent with the TUBA methodology
recommended by DfT and used on the appraisal of rail-based packages described above.
The appraisal is based on the same 60-year appraisal period as for the road packages (2026-
2085). Annualisation factors ensure that all 8,760 hours of the year are represented.
Summary Results for the Rail Packages
Summary economic statistics, assuming the rolling stock is a capital cost are presented in Table
4.7 for all four rail packages. The full TEE tables for each package are presented in Appendix D,
in Tables D1 to D3.
Table 4.7 – Economic Summary Statistics for Rail Packages – Assuming Rolling Stock is a Capital
Cost (£m, 2009 prices & values)
Economic
Summary Rail Package 2 Rail Package 3 Rail Package 4 Rail Package 5
Statistic
PVB £7,349 £9,535 £9,798 £11,604
PVC £2,025 £7,666 £8,864 £12,543
NPV £5,325 £1,869 £934 £-939
BCR 3.63 1.24 1.11 0.93

The range of benefits for each of the rail packages appears appropriate, the incremental change
in schemes feeding through to steadily increasing levels of benefit (PVB). At a strategic level, the
results are consistent with the changes in mode shift presented in the tables above.
The detailed results presented in the TEE tables show a consistent pattern across all four rail
packages. Time savings account for the majority of benefits in each package, of which
approximately 65-70% accrue to business users. This appears sensible, given that long-distance
trips (with a high proportion of business users) offer time savings, which combined with the high
value of time of business users, contribute to a high overall PVB.
The assumption in relation to the purchase of rolling stock – thereby including the purchase costs
as capital expenditure rather than operating costs – mean that revenues comfortably cover
operating expenditure (by a factor of 1.11 to 1.30, depending on the specific rail package). This
accords with experience elsewhere in the UK.
It was assumed that all of the rail enhancement works in individual packages would occur in the
years prior to the opening year, 2026.
The economic results for the scenario whereby the rolling stock is assumed to be leased are
summarised in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8 - Economic Summary Statistics for Rail Packages – Assuming Rolling Stock is Leased (£m,
2009 prices & values)
Economic
Summary Rail Package 2 Rail Package 3 Rail Package 4 Rail Package 5
Statistic
PVB £7,349 £9,535 £9,798 £11,604
PVC £2,581 £8,596 £9,711 £13,669
NPV £4,769 £939 £87 £-2,064
BCR 2.85 1.11 1.01 0.85
The effect of assuming that the rolling stock is leased is to increase the present value of costs.
This means that under this scenario, the BCRs for the rail packages are lower than when the
rolling stock is assumed to be purchased. However, rolling stock leasing reduces the initial capital
outlay of the packages and hence improves affordability.
4.8.3 Additional Rail Packages

Following the initial package assessments, packages 2 and 3 were revised and subject to further
assessment as described below.
Package 2A
To facilitate train service reliability, which is strongly valued by passengers, the current WCML
public timetable includes additional journey time to assist recovery from delays and incidents. In
the modelling of package 2, this element was removed from the journey times for services on the
WCML.
In order to assess the effect of retaining this additional time with a view to safeguarding reliability,
particularly in light of the high level of capacity utilisation in the package, a variation of package 2,
package 2A, was modelled in which no journey time savings from these sources were assumed.
For example in package 2A the typical journey time saving between Euston and Manchester (via
Wilmslow) was 3.5 minutes, compared to 6.5 minutes assumed in package 2.

Package 3A
In order to consider the case for enhancements to the Chiltern route without further enhancements
of the WCML, a revised version of package 3, package 3A, was developed which excluded
WCML infrastructure works.
The assumed train service specification included the diversion of fast London – Birmingham
services from the WCML to the Chiltern route, releasing capacity on the WCML to allow the
operation of additional services. This is shown diagrammatically in Appendix A. In order to be
consistent with package 2A, no reductions to WCML journey times were assumed through
removal of existing public timetable contingency time.
The train service on the WCML in Package 3A is similar to Package 3, with the exception of the
following:
• Euston – Liverpool frequency 1 tph “fasts” with 2 additional peak hour trains;
• Warrington – Liverpool hourly shuttle service; and
• Euston – Glasgow frequency increased to 1 tph “fasts” with the Euston – Lancaster service
extended to Glasgow 3 times a day.
The capital and operating costs of this package were estimated in order to allow an economic
assessment to be undertaken.
The nominal scheme capital and operating costs are presented in the following section.
Table 4.9 – Package 3A Nominal Scheme Capital Costs, including Rolling Stock (£m, 2009 prices)
Package 3A
Base Costs £5,037
Risk & Optimism Bias 3,324

Additional Costs (inc OB) £1,084
Total Scheme Costs £9,445
Rolling Stock Capital Cost £560
Nominal Scheme Capital Cost £10,005
The nominal operating and maintenance costs for package 3A were estimated to be £9,329m if
additional rolling stock is assumed to be a capital cost.
If rolling stock is assumed to be leased, while the capital cost of package 3A remains consistent
with the total scheme cost (£9,445m), as summarised in Table 4.9, the cost of leasing the rolling
stock is included in the operating costs, which increase to £11,599m.
The additional packages were appraised on a consistent basis with the other four rail packages.
Economic summary statistics are presented in Tables 4.10 and 4.11 and the full TEE tables are in
Appendix D.

Table 4.10 – Economic Summary Statistics for Rail Sensitivity Tests – Assuming Rolling Stock is a
Capital Cost (£m, 2009 prices & values)
Economic Summary
Rail Package 2A Rail Package 3A
Statistic
PVB £6,819 £7,045
PVC £2,557 £5,429
NPV £4,261 £1,615
BCR 2.67 1.30
Table 4.11 – Economic Summary Statistics for Rail Sensitivity Tests – Assuming Rolling Stock is
Leased (£m, 2009 prices & values)
Economic Summary
Rail Package 2A Rail Package 3A
Statistic
PVB £6,819 £7,045
PVC £3,119 £5,937
NPV £3,699 £1,108

BCR 2.19 1.19
For Package 2A, the retention of contingency allowances in the timetable in accordance with
current practice reduces the PVB by approximately 10% compared with package 2. A
combination of this and the resulting forecast reduction in revenue results in a BCR of 2.67. If
rolling stock is assumed to be leased, the BCR reduces to 2.19.
For Package 3A, the avoidance of costly and disruptive infrastructure works on the WCML results
in a reduction of approximately 30% in cost compared with package 3. The PVB is approximately
25% lower than package 3 due to the removal of journey time savings from WCML infrastructure
enhancements, a reduced WCML train service specification and retention of contingency
allowances in the timetable. Overall, however, package 3A is estimated to provide a marginally
higher BCR than package 3.
4.8.4 Roads Packages

4.8.4.1 Derivation of Scheme Costs
Capital Costs
The outline methodology for derivation of scheme costs was presented earlier in this section in
relation to the rail-based package of interventions. This section presents the summary tables
consistent with the earlier analysis, along with any variation in assumptions in deriving the capital
costs for the road-based packages.
The nominal scheme costs for each of the road packages are shown in Table 4.7. These were the
initial basis of the cost inputs into the appraisal process. It should be noted that the nominal
scheme costs ultimately feed into the investment cost in the Public Accounts table. The total
present value of costs is then calculated by summing the investment costs, operating costs and
effect of the scheme on indirect tax revenues recouped by central government, details of which
are presented later in this section.

Table 4.12 – Discounted Scheme Capital Costs for Roads Based Packages (£m, 2009 prices)

Nominal Scheme
£2,004 £2,429 £3,724 £5,535
Cost (2009)
4.8.4.2 Derivation of Scheme Benefits
Modelling of Highway Schemes
Highway assessments were initially undertaken within the PLANET framework. Within PLANET
the highway matrices exclude trips that are less than 50 miles in length, as it is assumed that
these will not transfer to the strategic rail network. To ensure that appropriate flows are
represented on the highway network, within the modelling process the local trips are assigned via
a pre-load. Whilst this is acceptable when assessing strategic rail options, it was not considered
sensitive enough to allow a thorough assessment of the highway packages.
In view of this, the DfTs National Transport Model (NTM) was used to assess the highway
packages. This was considered to be appropriate since this was the basis of the Motorways and
Major Trunk Roads Paper, January 2009.
During the study process, a decision was made to run NTM adopting the Annual Forecast 2009
(AF09), since AF08 only extended to 2025. This was considered appropriate since the
development phase of the highway interventions identified that higher levels of congestion would
only occur beyond 2025. Limiting the analysis to 2025 data risked under estimating economic
benefits of the highway packages.
The four highway packages were coded into NTM, based on the following assumptions:
• Package one – dynamic Hard Shoulder Running – this operates when volume / capacity is in
excess of 0.7
• Package two – dynamic Hard Shoulder Running – this operates when volume / capacity is in
excess of 0.7
• Package three - dynamic Hard Shoulder Running – this operates when volume / capacity is
in excess of 0.7
• Package four – widening.
Economic Appraisal of the Road Packages
TUBA has been used to estimate the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) benefits. This includes
estimation of benefits relating to travel times, vehicle operating costs, user charges, and private
sector revenues, all of which contribute to the Present Value of Benefits (PVB) for the scheme
proposals, as presented in the TEE table.
TUBA also calculates the Present Value of Costs (PVC), based on the scheme investment and
operating costs, and indirect tax revenues to central government. These data are presented in the
form of the Public Accounts (PA) table. (It is noted that the scheme investment and capital costs
were calculated externally, rather than through TUBA.)
The TEE benefits and Public Accounts information are combined (along with benefits from
reductions in accidents and carbon emissions) to produce an overall value for money assessment,
as presented in the Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) table.
TUBA is an industry-recognised software package, recommended by DfT for the appraisal of
highway and public transport schemes. The approach is therefore consistent with DfT guidance on
the appraisal of major schemes and utilises travel demands and costs from the NTM, in
conjunction with the latest current and projected economic parameters recommended in WebTAG
Unit 3.5.6, to produce monetised (dis)benefits generated by the schemes.

The economic appraisal is based on a 60-year project lifetime, from 2026 to 2085. TUBA converts
all (dis)benefits to a common price base, which, in the case of the NTM-based TUBA software, is
1998. A factor of 1.149 has been applied to the (dis)benefits to uplift to 2002 prices and values,
based on an annual discount rate of 3.5%. This adjustment ensures consistency with all other
elements of the HS2 and HS2 alternatives appraisal.
The (dis)benefits are based on outputs from the NTM. Since the NTM reflects a 24-hour day,
annualisation of the (dis)benefits means all 8,760 hours of the year are included in the appraisal.
4.8.4.3 Summary of Results for Road Packages

Summary economic statistics are presented in Table 4.8 for all four highway packages. The full
TEE tables for each package are presented in Appendix E.
Table 4.13 – Economic Summary Statistics for Road Packages (£m, 2009 prices & values)
Economic
Road Package Road Package Road Package Road Package
Summary
1 2 3 4
Statistic
PVB £4,159 £5,136 £4,818 £7,014
PVC £1,189 £1,403 £2,194 £3,185

NPV £2,970 £3,732 £2,624 £3,830
BCR 3.50 3.66 2.2 2.20
All schemes produce BCRs in excess of 2.0 and therefore provide high value for money based on
DfT guidance. Benefits (PVB) rise according to the incremental improvements carried out for each
scheme, with the exception of package 2 and package 3, for which the PVB of the former is
marginally higher than that of the latter. With the exception of package 2, which provides the
greatest value for money, the BCRs decline with incremental improvement, suggesting a
diminishing return on investment.
Benefits for all four packages stem almost entirely from travel time savings, with changes in
vehicle operating costs and accidents having a negligible impact totalling less than +/-2%.
The make-up of travel time savings differs to that for the rail packages, the majority of benefits
(56-61%) being generated by non-business users. This reflects the greater volume of non-
business traffic on the highway network relative to that on rail, and is reasonable given evidence
from similar studies throughout the UK.
As per the rail packages, it was assumed that all of the highway works in individual packages
would occur in the years prior to the opening year, 2026.
4.9 Summary
4.9.1 Rail Packages
With the rail packages there are likely to be direct impacts on environmental resources within the
study areas owing to new offline sections of rail route required with some of the rail interventions,
together with 4 tracking in built-up areas. Reviewing the assessment of the rail interventions it is
apparent that, of the four packages assessed, Package 5 has the larger number of predicted
significant adverse effects, whilst Package 2 has the lower number. Packages 3 & 4 have each
have a similar number of predicted significant adverse effects. In general, this pattern can be
explained by Package 5 having a larger number of proposed rail interventions, across a larger part
of the country, many of them proposed new rail route sections or grade separated junctions.

Package 2 has the smaller number of proposed interventions and also has no predicted significant
adverse effects. In part this can be explained by not including interventions within the Chilterns
AONB due to not including interventions to the Chiltern line.
Packages 3 & 4 are similar in scale of intervention, although Package 4 has a slightly higher
number of proposed new build interventions. However, Package 4 overall has fewer predicted
significant environmental effects as it is predicted to have a less significant effect on the change in
the population potentially annoyed by operational noise.
All four rail packages generate large benefits, rising in magnitude from £7,349 for Package 2 to
£11,604 in Package 5 (2009 prices assuming that the rolling stock is purchased). However, the
substantially higher investment required for each incremental change in package of improvements
means that under the scenario whereby the rolling stock is purchased, only Package 2 (and 2A)
generates ‘high’ value for money based on DfT guidance (a BCR in excess of 2.00). Package 3
and Package 4 generate medium value for money (BCR between 1.00 and 2.00) whilst Package 5
produces a net disbenefit resulting in a BCR of less than 1.00.
Benefits from all four packages stem predominantly from improvements in journey times, the
majority of which are accrued by business users. It is noted that included within the journey time
benefits are the likely time saving resulting from crowding relief.

Since the highway packages require minimal land take, the environmental impacts, other than
those arising from greenhouse gas emissions, air quality and noise, are associated with indirect
effects. While there will be a degree of variation in the severity of such indirect effects across
packages, the incremental change moving from package 1 to 4 is relatively small. Thus the
differences in the absolute level of impacts associated with each package is unlikely to be
significant in terms of informing the decision of which options is preferred compared to other
considerations.
All four of the highway packages generate high value for money; that is, a benefit-cost ratio in
excess of 2.00. Package 4 generates the highest benefits (£7,014 million) but the lower level of
investment required for Package 2 means the latter provides the best value for money, producing
a BCR of 3.66. Benefits for all four packages stem almost entirely from improved journey times,
with (dis)benefits from changes in accidents, carbon emissions and vehicle operating costs being
less than 2% in total.

5. The Commercial Case

5.1 Introduction
The Commercial Case is concerned with the fundamentals of any potential Procurement and
Deal. The HS2 strategic alternatives are developed to a sufficient level of detail at this stage for
this Case to be considered in overview. It will be examined in depth should the schemes be
developed in more detail.
The remainder of this section examines strategic issues around procurement and industry
capacity.
5.2 Procurement
5.2.1 Introduction
The alternatives on both rail and road are an extrapolation of current improvement techniques.
The commercial case, therefore, is for more of the same. That is, ministers might expect the
procurement strategies for the HS2 strategic alternatives to be similar to those for the current
investment programmes.
As of now there will be other possibilities for public procurement, alongside PPP, PFI, Franchising,
or other forms of private sector funding. These, however, seem unlikely to be discriminating
factors in any Stage 1 decision. Specific issues for rail and road are discussed in the section
below.
5.2.2 Rail Package Procurement

Procuring the packages of work will be eased by the fact that all packages can be constructed
incrementally, and that the packages themselves are broadly incremental to each other. Existing
industry enhancement arrangements should prove sufficient for procurement; however, a review
may be required to test whether an alternative mechanism may produce greater value for money.
5.2.3 Highway Package Procurement

The highway interventions incorporated into the Packages analysed conform to the standards set
by the Highways Agency for their Managed Motorway Programme. The commercial case would
build upon the results of the M42 trial and projects now under construction / planned for the
immediate future
5.3 Industry Capacity

5.3.1 Rail
The incremental approach promoted, and the long lead times for any works, should ensure that
there is sufficient capacity in the industry. Most of the work will occur after Thameslink and
Crossrail have been delivered. The greatest area of risk is likely to be related to the required
signalling and design resource (for Packages 3 to 5).
It was assumed for each of the rail packages that the schemes would all have an opening year of
2026. The capital cost expenditure was assumed to be incurred over the preceding four years,
from 2022 to 2025, although it is noted that in reality the schemes are likely to be implemented
incrementally. The total capital cost of the schemes (including the associated rolling stock) ranges
from £4.2bn - £20.4bn.

To put these costs into perspective, they were compared with other existing rail expenditure. For
example, as outlined in the Network Rail Control Period Four Delivery Plan 2009, over the five
year period from 2009/ 10 to 2013/ 14, the asset renewals expenditure, on average, is over £2bn
per year (2009 prices). Furthermore, an example of a major rail investment scheme, Crossrail
was estimated to cost in excess of £15bn.
5.3.2 Highway
The year of opening for the each of the road packages was assumed to be 2026. The capital cost
expenditure was assumed to be incurred over the preceding four years, from 2022 to 2025,
although it is noted that in reality the schemes are likely to be implemented incrementally.
The four packages comprise of additional lane kilometre improvements ranging from package 2
which includes an additional 410km of HSR and an additional 54km of lane widening, to package
4 which has no HSR but includes 767 additional lane kilometres of widening.
By comparison, the MMP expenditure is estimated to be approximately £3bn to 2015, which will
deliver 550 additional lane kilometres.
Flexibility in the design and length of Temporary Traffic Management schemes will be essential to
efficient procurement of large sections of DHS and/or widening schemes. Whilst current
standards suggest lengths of Temporary Traffic Management not exceeding 5km, there are
several current trials with considerably longer lengths (e.g. M25 J16-18 ~14km, M1 J25-28
~24km, MM schemes ~16km planned). The use of average speed detection systems has
enabled these longer TTM schemes to be implemented in a controlled and safe manner
acceptable to the road user.
Assuming that the average permitted length of Temporary Traffic Management was increased to
12km, this would allow approximately 10km of construction activity. On this basis, DHS would
comprise 24 schemes and Widening 36 schemes.
A typical duration, based on M25 J16-21 widening and Managed Motorway programmes, for 10km
of construction would be 12 months. The annual rate of procurement would typically be 3 DHS or
4 widening schemes.

6. The Financial Case

6.1 Introduction
The Financial Case is concerned with affordability and funding issues.
The nominal costs of the packages are detailed in this section to give an indication of the likely
levels of finance required. These costs are still at an Order of Magnitude level at the moment, due
to the early stage of development of the proposals. Should any of the proposals be progressed
the cost estimates would be refined as the packages progress through the design process.
It should be noted that both the rail and road strategic alternatives provide incremental solutions
that could be deployed as funding permits.
The remainder of this section lists the assumptions made in costing the HS2 alternative proposals,
for both rail and highway schemes.
6.2 Package Costs

6.2.1 Introduction
The cost estimates for the Strategic Alternative proposals have been undertaken by cost
consultants, Faithful and Gould, who are part of the Atkins group of companies. The costing
across rail and highway packages has been undertaken on a consistent basis as far as possible,
but noting that there are differences across the two modes. In particular, the rail packaging
costing has been undertaken using the HS2 Ltd Cost Model, to ensure consistency across rail
options. On the highway side, the Highways Agency has been party to the costs to ensure that
they have been undertaken on a consistent basis with the Managed Motorway Programme.
The following assumptions have been made with regard to the Capital Cost Estimates, common
across rail and highway packages:
• The estimates are ‘Order of Magnitude’ estimates based upon outline scope and high level
rates;
• The estimates are based upon fourth quarter 2009 price levels;
• No firm design proposals have been prepared, therefore the scope of works are deemed to
be provisional;
• No allowance has been made for inflation; and,
• Land purchase costs have been assessed on a provisional basis, generally as a percentage
of the base construction costs.
In addition, the following items are specifically excluded from the cost estimate:
• Value Added Tax;
• Escalation during the lead in and construction periods, for instance, all costs are therefore
based at Q4 2009 price levels; and
• Capital Allowance costs and finance charges.
6.2.2 Rail Packages – Capital Costs

In addition to the assumptions common across the modes, outlined in section 6.2.1 above, the
following additional assumptions were made with regard to the rail costs:

• It is assumed that existing power supplies will need upgrading for the new infrastructure.
These were assumed at 10% of the construction cost of package two, including optimism
bias. An additional £50m was factored into package five for power costs;
• A further allowance of 10% of the construction cost of package two was added to each
package to account for other potential works on the WCML necessary to mitigate risks to
operational performance arising from the high level of capacity utilisation proposed . Note for
package five this figure was increased by an additional 50%;
• Costs for planned disruption to the rail network during construction were included for the four
packages. An additional 10% (excluding optimism bias) of the respective cost of the package
has been added on for such disruption. The Stafford by-pass works were excluded from this
calculation since the nature of the by-pass scheme means existing train operations would
not be disrupted;
• No costs have been assumed for unplanned disruption although experience with the West
Coast Route Modernisation project and other schemes shows that this represents a
significant risk. Over the Christmas / New Year period in 2008, works at Rugby over-ran by 2
days leading to severe disruption to passengers and freight customers.
• With the exception of the Stafford by-pass line which assumed a rate of 50%, optimism bias
was included at 66%, the standard rate for rail schemes at this level of design;
• In order to be consistent with the approach taken by HS2 Ltd, rolling stock was assumed to
be a capital cost. The costs were calculated based on a purchase cost of £1.8million per
vehicle, with the wider assumptions relating to the purchase of the rolling stock consistent
with HS2, as follows:
- The initial investment costs were spread equally over a five year period, from 2021 to
2025;
- All rolling stock was assumed to have a lifecycle of 35 years; and
- Optimism bias was added to the initial purchase cost at a rate of 18%, consistent with the
HS2 Ltd assumptions.
• In addition, a re-furbishment cost, equal to one third of the initial rolling stock purchase cost
was assumed approximately every 18 years.
• A sensitivity test was undertaken which assuming the rolling stock was leased, requiring
revised operating costs to be estimated;
• It was assumed that all works will be undertaken by an experienced railway contractor, and
that the works will be competitively tendered; and
• All allowances and on-costs to the construction costs estimate were included at the level as
per the standard summary sheet provided by HS2.
The following additional items are specifically excluded from the Capital Cost estimate:
• Track access and operational charges; and
• Existing track upgrade costs.
The total rail package costs (in 2009 prices), including both infrastructure works and the purchase
of the rolling stock are summarised in table 6.1.

Table 6.1 – Rail Packages – Total Capital Costs (2009)
Package Total Cost (£, millions)

Package 2 £4,243
Package 3 £13,091
Package 4 £15,736
Package 5 £20,427
6.2.3 Rail Packages – Operating Costs

Rail operating costs were estimated for each of the packages on an incremental basis. An
estimate was made of the base costs for operating the West Coast Main Line and Chiltern Lines,
in the Reference Case and in each of the Packages. The difference between the Package cost
and the Reference Case cost was the figure carried forward to the appraisal.
The operating costs only included the variable elements of operating costs, as follows:
• Variable Track Access charges;
• Electricity and Diesel Fuel Costs;
• Staff costs, based on £ per train set;
• Insurance;
• Variable Overheads/Administration Costs; and
• Maintenance (annual, per set).
The incremental costs for each of the rail packages are given in 2009 prices, in the table below.
Table 6.2 – Rail Packages - Operating Costs
Package Total Cost (£, millions per annum)

Package 2 £154
Package 3 £228
Package 4 £236
Package 5 £321
6.2.4 Highway Packages - Capital Costs

In addition to the assumptions common across the modes, outlined in section 6.2.1 above, the
following additional assumptions were made with regard to the highway costs:
• It has been assumed that all works will be carried out by an experienced highway contractor
and the works shall be competitively tendered;
• A 30% allowance for Administration Costs (Preliminaries and General Items, Site
Supervision, Testing and Commissioning) has been included as advised by the HA; and,
• Optimism bias has been set at 66%.

The highway package costs (in 2009 prices) are given in the table below.
Table 6.3 – Highway Packages - Capital Costs (2009 prices)
Package Total Cost (£, millions)

Package 1 £2,004
Package 2 £2,429
Package 3 £3,724
Package 4 £5,535
Subsequent to their derivation the costs presented in the table above were submitted to the
Highways Agency to ensure that they were broadly consistent with the HA Managed Motorways
Programme. The Agency provided a set of upper and lower limit Unit Rates for Hard Shoulder
Running and Widening Schemes. Applying these limits to the schemes proposed, gives the
following cost ranges:
• Package 1 - £1.95 to £2.34 billion
The estimates produced for this study all sit within the ranges advised by the Highways Agency.
Applying this range of costs to calculate an associated range of BCRs, results in the following:
• Package 1 – 3.00 to 3.59
• Package 2 – 2.35 to 3.94
• Package 3 – 1.82 to 3.03
• Package 4 – 1.68 to 2.85

7. The Management Case

7.1 Introduction
The Management Case concerns the detailed plans for delivery of the packages, and
arrangements for the realisation of benefits and the management of risk. The Strategic Alternative
proposals are not developed to a sufficient level of detail at this stage for this Case to be a major
concern. It will obviously become more important if and when the schemes are developed in more
detail.
The Management Case does include issues around the delivery process for the improvement and
disruption to existing passengers, which are discussed in outline in turn in the remainder of this
section.
7.2 Delivery
7.2.1 Introduction
The strategic alternative proposals are essentially extensions of existing rail and road
infrastructure investment programmes. As such, they are most likely to be delivered through the
executive organisations already in place: Network Rail and the Highways Agency.
7.2.2 Rail Packages

Existing enhancement delivery mechanisms should be sufficient for Packages 2 to 5.
7.2.3 Highways Packages

The highway interventions incorporated into the Packages analysed conform to the standards set
by the Highways Agency for their Managed Motorway Programme. They could therefore be
delivered as extensions to this Managed Motorway Programme.
From a delivery and risk viewpoint, generally the highway works can be constructed without the
need to procure additional land; however there is a possibility that some landtake may be required
at junctions and this will only become apparent as the design develops. There is also the
probability that an Environmental Statement will be required and that the projects would need to
be considered by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC). If any of these packages are
taken forward for further analysis, therefore, the programme will need to reflect the requirements
of the IPC process.
7.3 Disruption to the Travelling Public

7.3.1 Introduction
A key aspect of the Management Case will be the requirement to demonstrate that the expanded
rail and road construction programmes necessary to deliver the strategic alternatives can be
delivered without unacceptable disruption to the existing networks and travellers. This is
discussed in outline in the remainder of this section, for rail and road individually.
7.3.2 Rail Packages

The West Coast Route Modernisation programme resulted in an enormous amount of planned
and unplanned disruption to passengers, with a series of long-term blockades and track closures,
as work progressed. This disruption comes with a great deal of cost, both in the short-term as

revenue is lost when the track is closed, and in the long-term undermines the credibility of rail as a
viable mode.
The level of disruption depends primarily on the package selected, with each package, Package 2
to 5, being incrementally more disruptive. Significant effort has been made to demonstrate how
elements of the key schemes could be built off-line, reducing disruption. It is acknowledged,
however, that this method does not mitigate all disruption, and there will have to be significant
works on-line, thus causing considerable disruption.
As outlined in section 6.2.2, an additional cost provision has been added to each rail package to
allow for the planned disruption that may arise during construction. This has been estimated at
10% of the total cost of the package.

The highway strategic alternatives have been developed to be substantially accommodated within
the existing highway boundaries. This means that they are likely to be highly disruptive to current
traffic operations.
In the Commercial Case, Industry Capacity was examined, with consideration around the use of
Temporary Traffic Management (TTM) schemes during construction. Given the use of TTM, It is
likely that long distance journeys would involve travelling through at least two sets of roadworks if
the whole programme is to be delivered in a reasonable duration. The use of average speed
cameras has generally resulted in high compliance by roadusers ensuring smooth flow and
reduced accidents. Whilst the reduced speeds may potentially increase off-peak journey times,
during the peak hour the effect may be minimal as the smoother flow through the roadworks will
counterbalance the effects of congestion.
As the programme develops consideration will be necessary of planning construction to avoid
concurrent impacts on parallel routes to minimise road user impacts. These issues are already
being considered as part of the current Managed Motorway Programme, so there should be much
more certainty around these issues if these packages are to be considered.

8. Summary and Conclusions

8.1 Rail Packages
8.1.1 The Packages
The rail strategic alternatives to the High Speed 2 proposition started from the point that the West
Coast Main Line and the other rail routes to the West Midlands and the North West are at full
capacity, and that no extra services can be run without any additional infrastructure investment.
The timetable has been optimised.
A total of five rail packages were identified as Strategic Alternatives to the High Speed 2
proposition. The first of these, train lengthening, was not taken forward for further analysis as it
was not likely to be considered as a viable alternative to High Speed 2, since it made no impact on
journey times.
The remaining four packages were largely incremental, with each subsequent package building
upon the preceding one.
8.1.2 Package 2
Package 2 and 2A show that with extra infrastructure investment (in the region of £3.6 billion) the
capacity of the WCML can be enhanced significantly. Subject to further engineering and capacity
modelling, it should be possible to operate an extra four or five trains per hour (tph) in a standard
off-peak hour, resulting in a total of 15/16 tph into/out of Euston.
This package has a reasonable impact on journey times. Journey times to Manchester are
forecast to decrease by 6.5 minutes, to give an average journey time of approximately 121.5
minutes. Journey times to Birmingham are also forecast to decrease by approximately 12
minutes, to give an average journey time of 73 minutes – primarily as a result of serving fewer
intermediate stations.
Depending on the assumptions made in relation to rolling stock procurement and timetabling
contingency to assist recovery from delays and incidents, this package has an indicative BCR of
between 3.63 and 2.19. This BCR may change should the forecast scheme costs and benefits be
developed in greater detail, as part of the project development and value engineering process.
Whilst Package 2 does impact moderately on the environment at various locations, there are not
predicted to be any very significant adverse impacts with this package, and it is the least
environmentally damaging of the packages. This is mainly due to the fact that it does not have
any new infrastructure build on the Chiltern Lines, so does not impact on the Chilterns Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
The proposed works will be disruptive to passengers. The extent of this depends on the scheme
design and the scope of staging works, and has not been assessed in detail at this stage.
8.1.3 Package 3
With significant investment on the Chiltern Line, in addition to the WCML investment in Package 2,
it should be possible to operate the 3 trains per hour (previously WCML) London to West Midlands
services on the Chiltern route. The infrastructure works for this package are forecast to cost in the
region of £12.5 billion, and will free up to three London to North West paths on the WCML.
Although the investment will electrify the Chiltern route, and have other benefits, it will not
significantly further reduce journey times between London and the West Midlands/North West.
Typical journey times to Manchester are forecast to remain at around the 121.5 minutes achieved

by Package 2, with times to Birmingham decreasing further to give a typical non – stop journey
time of around 70.5 minutes to Moor Street station.
Depending on the assumptions made in relation to rolling stock procurement this package has an
indicative BCR of between 1.24 and 1.11. This BCR may change should the forecast scheme
costs and benefits be developed in greater detail, as part of the project development and value
engineering process.
Package 3 creates some significant adverse environmental impacts. This is mainly due to
infrastructure works on the Chiltern Lines, having an impact on the Chiltern AONB.
In order to consider the case for enhancements to the Chiltern route without further enhancements
of the WCML, a revised version of package 3, package 3A, was developed which excluded
WCML infrastructure works. The cost of package 3A is approximately 30% less than that of
package 3. Depending on the assumptions made in relation to rolling stock procurement whilst
retaining timetabling contingency to assist recovery from delays and incidents results in package
3A having an indicative BCR of between 1.30 and 1.19.
8.1.4 Package 4
Package 4 entails further works on the Chiltern Line between London and the West Midlands, in
an attempt to further improve the journey times to the West Midlands. It includes a number of
additional infrastructure schemes, and is forecast to cost in the region of £15.1 billion.
In this package it should be possible to reduce the journey time between London and Birmingham
to around 64 minutes, assuming a single stop. Typical journey times to Manchester remain as at
121.5 minutes as in Packages 2 and 3.
indicative BCR of between 1.1 and 1.0. This BCR may change should the forecast scheme costs
and benefits be developed in greater detail, as part of the project development and value
Package 4 does have some significant adverse environmental impacts. This is mainly due to
infrastructure works on the Chiltern Lines, having an impact on the Chiltern AONB.
8.1.5 Package 5
Package 5 involves additional infrastructure works to enable the Chiltern Lines to become a viable
alternative to the West Coast Main Line as far North as Stafford. This package is likely to cost in
the region of £19.6 billion, but running trains onto the northern stretches of the WCML via Chiltern
is may prove too technically and operationally challenging. A considerable amount of additional
work would be required to assess whether this option is feasible
Package 5, if possible to implement, could allow a limited number of extra services (notionally 1
tph to Warrington and 1 extra tph to Manchester) to be operated via the Chiltern Line. It is not
clear that there is any significant demand for these services. It will not impact on journey times
achieved in Package 4. Typical journey times to Manchester will remain at 121.5 minutes, with
typical times to Birmingham at around 65.5 minutes.
indicative BCR of between 0.93 and 0.85. This BCR may change should the forecast scheme
costs and benefits be developed in greater detail, as part of the project development and value
Package 5 is the most environmentally damaging scheme, and has a number of significant
adverse impacts in the Chilterns AONB and elsewhere.
8.2 Highway Packages

8.2.1 The Packages
The highway packages were developed as a continuation of the Highways Agency’s current
programme of Managed Motorways and selective widening. The packages can be considered to
be incremental, with each subsequent package building upon the preceding one. The exception
to this is Package 4, which was constructed to minimise journey times between London and the
West Midlands.
The highway interventions in all packages are located in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or
near Country Parks/ Registered Parks & Gardens. However since the packages comprise of hard
shoulder running and/ or an additional lane within the existing highway boundary, there will be no
direct effects on this national landscape designation but there may be negative effects on the
setting during construction.
8.2.2 Package 1
Package 1 was considered to be the minimum level of intervention that can be provided within
existing highway boundaries to maintain flows, using Managed Motorway controls. It essentially
comprises a series of Hard Shoulder Running interventions, plus some widening on the M42. This
package is estimated to cost in the range of £1.95 to £2.34 billion, with our estimated cost at £2.0
billion.
This Package has an indicative BCR of 3.5. This BCR is likely to alter as the costs and benefits of
the interventions are worked up in more detail. If the range of estimated costs is applied, the BCR
would lie between 3.0 and 3.59.
8.2.3 Package 2
Package 2, builds upon Package 1, with the addition of some widening on the M25. This package
is estimated to cost in the range of £2.26 to £3.76 billion, with our estimated cost at £2.4 billion.
This Package has an indicative BCR of 3.66. This BCR is likely to alter as the costs and benefits
of the interventions are worked up in more detail. If the range of estimated costs is applied, the
BCR would lie between 2.35 and 3.94.
8.2.4 Package 3
Package 3 builds upon Package 2, with additional capacity provided on the M40, through
widening. This package is estimated to cost in the range of £2.71 to £4.50 billion, with our
estimated cost at £3.7 billion.
8.2.5 Package 4
Package 4 is an attempt to minimise journey times between London and the West Midlands, and
represents an upper limit of interventions. This package essentially involves widening on all major

sections of motorway. This package is estimated to cost in the range of £4.32 to £7.20 billion,
with our estimated cost at £5.5 billion.

Appendix A
Schematic Plans of the Rail Packages

HS2 Strategic Alternatives Study
Rail Package 2
Hourly Service
GLASGOW CENTRAL
2 Hourly Service
4 Hourly Service Motherwell
Peak Only
Carlisle
Penrith
Oxenholme Lake District
Lancaster
Preston
LIVERPOOL LIME STREET
Wigan North Western
Runcorn Warrington Bank Quay

NORTH
Holyhead WALES
Bangor Chester
Stockport
Wilmslow
Wolverhampton MANCHESTER
PICCADILLY
Sandwell & Dudley Crewe
Macclesfield
BIRMINGHAM NEW STREET
BIRMINGHAM MOOR ST.
Stoke on Trent
Birmingham
International
Stafford
Lichfield TV
Coventry Tamworth
Nuneaton
Leamington
TO OXFORD
Rugby
Long Buckby
Northampton
CHILTERN
INTERMEDIATE STATIONS
(HIGH WYCOMBE)
Wolverton
Milton Keynes Central
Watford Junction
LONDON MARYLEBONE LONDON EUSTON

Rail Package 3
GLASGOW CENTRAL
Motherwell
Carlisle
Penrith
Lancaster
LIVERPOOL Preston
LIME STREET
Wigan North Western
Warrington Bank Quay

Runcorn
NORTH
Holyhead WALES
Bangor Chester
Wilmslow MANCHESTER
PICCADILLY
Stockport
Crewe
Macclesfield
Wolverhampton
Sandwell & Dudley Stoke on Trent

Birmingham International Stafford

BIRMINGHAM MOOR ST.
Lichfield TV
Coventry Tamworth
Nuneaton
Leamington
TO OXFORD
Rugby
Long Buckby
CHILTERN
(HIGH WYCOMBE)
Northampton
Wolverton
Hourly Service
2 Hourly Service Milton Keynes Central
4 Hourly Service
Peak Only
Watford Junction
LONDON MARYLEBONE LONDON PADDINGTON LONDON EUSTON

Rail Package 3a
GLASGOW CENTRAL
Motherwell
Carlisle
Penrith
Lancaster
LIVERPOOL Preston
LIME STREET
Wigan North Western
Runcorn Warrington Bank Quay
NORTH
Holyhead WALES
Bangor Chester
Wilmslow MANCHESTER
PICCADILLY
Stockport
Crewe
Macclesfield
Wolverhampton
Sandwell & Dudley

Stoke on Trent
Birmingham International Stafford

BIRMINGHAM MOOR ST.
Lichfield TV
Coventry
Tamworth
Nuneaton
Leamington
TO OXFORD
Rugby
Long Buckby
CHILTERN
(HIGH WYCOMBE)
Northampton
Wolverton
Hourly Service
2 Hourly Service Milton Keynes Central
4 Hourly Service
5 Hourly Service
Peak Only
Watford Junction

Rail Package 4
GLASGOW CENTRAL
Motherwell
Carlisle
Hourly Service
Penrith
2 Hourly Service
4 Hourly Service
Lancaster
Peak Only
LIVERPOOL Preston
LIME STREET
Wigan North Western

Runcorn
NORTH
Holyhead WALES
Bangor Chester
Wilmslow MANCHESTER
PICCADILLY
Crewe Stockport
Wolverhampton Macclesfield
Sandwell & Dudley

Stoke on Trent
BIRMINGHAM MOOR ST.
Stafford
Lichfield TV
Birmingham
International Tamworth
Nuneaton
Coventry
Coventry South
Leamington
TO OXFORD
Rugby
CHILTERN
(HIGH WYCOMBE)
Long Buckby
Northampton
Wolverton
Watford Junction

Rail Package 5
GLASGOW CENTRAL
Motherwell
Carlisle
Hourly Service
Penrith

4 Hourly Service
Lancaster
Peak Only
LIVERPOOL Preston
LIME STREET
Wigan North Western
Runcorn
NORTH
Holyhead WALES
Bangor Chester
Wilmslow MANCHESTER
PICCADILLY
Crewe
Wolverhampton Stockport
Sandwell & Dudley
Stoke on Trent
BIRMINGHAM MOOR ST. Stafford

Birmingham
International Lichfield TV
Tamworth
Nuneaton
Coventry
Coventry South
Leamington
TO OXFORD
Rugby
CHILTERN
(HIGH WYCOMBE)
Northampton
Wolverton
Watford Junction

Appendix B
Appraisal Framework – Rail

Rail Package 2 WCML inc Stafford Bypass, Grade Separated between Cheddington and L Buzzard, Milton Keynes works, Three extra Euston Platforms, extra Manchester Piccadilly platforms and grade sep at Ardwick, Attleborough to Brinklow,
Northampton area speed improvements, 4 tracking Beechwood tunnel to Stechford, replacement of Desiros
Issue Equivalent NATA Objective Core Sustainability Objective Evaluation Criteria (Measures / Indicators) Contribution option will Assumptions (this column will be replaced with a commentary section following the option appraisal).
or TAG Unit make to core sustainability
objective
Quantitative Indicator Qualitative Indicator -- - o + ++ u

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating climate change and its effects
1. Climatic factors No NATA equivalent 1a. Improve resilience of Extent of development in the None identified - Stafford bypass will need to cross River Trent and may require some infrastructure in flood plan to achieve this.
& adaptability transport network (conventional floodplain (measured as length The grade separation between Cheddington and Leighton Buzzard may require a new crossing of tributary of River Ouse.
rail/road) against extreme (km) or area (ha) in flood zone Attleborough to Brinklow widening crosses Wem Brook twice.
weather events 3b). Stechford to Beechwood tunnel crosses two tributaries of River Cole, and the River Blythe and, separately, a tributary of the River Blythe.
The remainder of the projects do not have physical works.
Flood risk management will need to be considered from the onset and integrated into the planning stages.
Residual Flood Risk (measured None identified. - All of the sites referred to in relation to Flood Zone 3b above are also within Flood Zone 2 to an extent at the river crossings mentioned. Flood risk management will
as length (km) or area (ha) in need to be considered from the onset and integrated into the planning stages.
flood zone 2).
2. Greenhouse Reduce greenhouse gases. 2a. Contribute to the reduction of Change in CO2 equivalent None identified U This criterion will help in sifting options and will report the projected change in carbon emissions against an agreed DfT "Reference Case." It has been assumed that
gases See also TAG Unit 3.3.5 greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e) emissions released as a Atkins will carry out coarse spatial modelling of road and rail packages. Any calculation will also have regard to demand generation (and resultant carbon impacts)
Greenhouse Gases Sub- result of physical interventions and the carbon impacts (benefits/disbenefits) associated with released capacity on existing networks. Rail Package 2 =18226 T/yr.
Objective & TAG Unit 3.5.4 on road and rail packages as
CBA compared with the 'without'
2b. Reduce relative contribution Relative efficiency in operations None identified U This evaluation criterion was included in Rev. 17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been completed. This has not been
made by rail to greenhouse gas between high speed trains and appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
emissions by applying energy rolling stock and classic trains
efficient technologies
Natural and cultural and resource protection and environmental enhancement

3. Landscape and Protect and enhance 3a. Maintain and enhance Number crossed and area (ha) Impacts on the coherence and - Stafford is not in any nationally designated sites but the existing Haywood Chord is within Cannock Chase AONB and the southern end of the Stafford Bypass would
Townscape landscape. See also TAG Unit existing landscape character of national designated distinctiveness of landscape resources of run through the AONB.
3.3.7 Landscape & TAG Unit landscapes directly affected e.g. national importance, e.g. AONBs, ASVs, The grade separation between Cheddington and Leighton Buzzard should be predominantly south of the A505 but does intersect the Leighton Buzzard green belt.
3.3.6 Environmental Capital AONBs, ASVs, Special Special Landscape Areas, National Parks, The Attleborough to Brinklow widening is within green belt south of Nuneaton.
Landscape Areas, National National Scenic Areas (Scotland) Beechwood Tunnel to Stechford is within the green belt south of Birmingham.
Parks, National Scenic Areas The remainder of the projects do not have physical works.
(Scotland). Number of additional Further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the schemes on sites of national importance.
national designated landscapes
within 500m of option.
Number crossed and area (ha) None identified o Ledburn Junction passes near Mentmore Towers Park and Garden
of regional designated Stafford Bypass is close to Sandon Park and Snugborough Parks and Gardens
landscapes directly affected e.g. The Stechford to Beechwood section passes adjacent to Sheldon Country Park and Kingfisher Park.
registered parks and gardens, Further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the schemes on sites of regional importance.
Regional Landscape
Designations (Scotland).
Number of additional regional
landscapes within 500m of
option.
Protect and enhance 3b. Maintain and enhance Number and proximity of None identified - Stechford to Beechwood tunnel 4 tracking will be in urban areas at Stechford, Lea Hall, Marston Green and Hampton in Arden following existing rail corridor.
townscape. See also TAG Unit existing townscape character strategically important views The Euston works will be within the station envelope.
3.3.8 Townscape Sub and/or key vistas affected by The Manchester Piccadilly works will be within the station railway land.
Objective & TAG Unit 3.3.6 option. A new viaduct to Ardwick will be outside the existing railway land and will require significant new works ;,
Environmental Capital The remainder of the projects do not have physical works in urban areas.
Further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the schemes on townscape and landscape.
4. Cultural heritage Protect the heritage of historic 4a. Preserve and protect Number crossed and area (h) of None identified o No WHS within 500m of any option
incl. architectural & resources See also TAG Unit archaeological assets World Heritages Sites directly
archaeological 3.3.9 & TAG Unit 3.3.6 Envt affected. Number of additional
Capital WHS within 500m of option.
Number crossed or area (ha) of None identified - There are six Scheduled Monuments within 500m of the option are;
Scheduled Monuments directly Great Haywood Canal Bridge, the moated site 160m of St Michaels and All Angel's Church and Essex Bridge, Great Haywood (Stafford Bypass); and, the Packhorse
affected. Number of additional Bridge south of Hampton in Arden, Moated site at Moat House; and Churchyard across St Mary and St Bartholomew's Churchyard (Four tracking Beechwood Tunnel to
SM within 500m of option. Stechford)
4b. Preserve and protect historic Number of Grade I and II* None identified u Effects unknown at this stage.
buildings directly affected by option.
Number of Grade I and II* within
500m of option.
Number of heritage resources of None identified o There are a large number of Grade II Listed Buildings with 500m of the of the various options in this Package but it is not considered that the options would have
regional importance directly significant negative effects on the properties.
affected by the option e.g.
Conservation Areas, Grade II
Listed Buildings, Number within
500m of option (indirect effects
on setting)
Impacts on the character of None identified o There are three Parks and Gardens and a Country Park within 500m of the rail corridor.
heritage resources of It is not considered that the 4 tracking and junction works would have an permanent adverse effect on the designated land.
international and regional
importance e.g. Grade I and II*
Registered Parks and Gardens,
registered Battlefields. Number
within 500m of option (indirect
effects on setting)
5. Biodiversity Support biodiversity See also 5a. Maintain and enhance Number crossed and area (ha) Impacts on integrity of sites of international - Stafford is not in any nationally designated sites although the existing Haywood Chord is within Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC.
TAG Unit 3.3.10 Biodiversity biodiversity of sites of international importance e.g. SACs/cSACs, SPAs/cSPAs Further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the schemes on sites of international importance.
Sub-objective & TAG Unit importance directly affected e.g. & RAMSAR sites.
3.3.6 SACs/cSACs, SPAs/cSPAs &
RAMSAR sites. Number of sites
Number crossed and area (ha) Impacts on integrity of sites of national - The Stechford to Beechwood tunnel is in close proximity to the River Blyth SSSI.
sites of national importance importance e.g. SSSIs, Geological SSSIs, The Stafford bypass is close to the Pasturefields Salt Marsh SSSI.
directly affected e.g. SSSIs, NNRs. Further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the schemes on sites of national importance.
Geological SSSIs, NNRs.
Number of sites within 500m of
option.
6. Water resources Protect the water environment. 6a. Protect surface water Number of watercourses crossed None identified o The Stafford bypass section will need to cross River Trent and may require some infrastructure in flood plan to achieve this.
See also TAG Unit 3.3.11 resources and within 500m of option and The grade separation between Cheddington and Leighton Buzzard may require new crossing of tributary of River Ouse.
Water Environment Sub- water quality directive Attleborough to Brinklow widening crosses Wem Brook twice.
objective & TAG Unit 3.3.6 classifications. Stechford to Beechwood tunnel crosses two tributaries of River Cole, and the River Blythe and, separately, a tributary of the River Blythe.
Environmental Capital The remainder of the projects do not have physical works.
6b. Protect groundwater Number of groundwater source None identified u Effects unknown at this stage.
resources protection zones crossed directly
by option and number of SPZ
7. Flood risk No NATA equivalent 7a. Conserve and protect the Extent of infrastructure within the None identified u Stafford bypass will need to cross River Trent and may require some infrastructure in flood plain to achieve this.
capacity of floodplains 1 in 100 year flood plains zones At Ledburn Junction in and south of Leighton Buzzard, the route passes over Flood Zone 3 at a tributary of the River Ouze and may require a new crossing for the
(Flood Zone 3) grade separation.
There is no identified flood risk between Manchester Piccadilly and Ardwick.
Attleborough to Brinklow widening crosses Wem Brook twice near Bulkington (Flood Zone 2 and 3).
Within Stechford to Stafford there is Flood Zone 2 and 3 around Birchfield with some flood defence in place and between West Bromwich and Willenhall plus
Penkridge already has flood defences in place.
Stechford to Beechwood tunnel crosses Flood Zone 2 and 3 at Hampton on Arden near Birmingham International and two tributaries of the River Cole, the River Blythe
and, separately, a tributary of the River Blythe.
The remainder of the projects do not have physical works.
Extent of infrastructure within the None identified u Flood risk management will need to be considered from the onset.
1 in 1000 year flood plain zones A significant amount of Package 2 encounters Flood Zone 3 and 2.
(Flood Zone 2)
Creating sustainable communities

8. Air quality Improve local air quality. See 8a. Maintain and enhance local Estimated population within None identified Criterion will assist in sifting options. Consideration of the relative population density along route corridor using Ordnance Survey Census Data to give an overall
also TAG Unit 3.3.9 Local Air air quality. 100m of links experiencing proximity index to assess affects during construction.
Quality Sub-objective (nb: physical interventions to indicate With package 2 the estimated population within 100m of links experiencing physical interventions to indicate potential nuisance during construction is 573.
Strategic approach set out in potential for nuisance during
Section 1.2) and 3.3.4 construction.
Regional Air Pollution
Change in overall mass Point source emissions from Power Stations Criterion will not provide a means of distinguishing between options, but commentary can be provided on impacts of criterion for preferred option(s). Following receipt
emissions 'with' and 'without' are not included in these totals, though their of traffic data / modal shift data, the TAG Unit 3.3.4 Regional Air Pollution assessment tool will be used to quantify the change in regional emissions when options are
option within option corridor in effect is controlled by the Environment operational.
2025(NOx and PM10). Agency Rail package 2 = 1582 T/yr.
Number of Local Authorities with Potential for impacts of options on local air Detailed receptor locations are not available in order to identify relevant receptors located within 30m of the line. A list of local authorities identified in LAQM.TG(09) as
background concentrations quality at relevant receptors (located within needing to assess air quality due to presence of heavy traffic of diesel passenger trains, and which intersect with the rail network studied are listed. All Rail packages -
greater than 25 µg/m3 potentially 30m of affected rail lines) Five Local Authorities identified with potential for local air quality impacts (Hillingdon, South Bucks, Birmingham, Coventry, Solihull)
affected by rail network in study
area. Recent guidance in
TG(09) indicates that local
authorities with background
concentrations of NOx greater
3
than 25 µg/m should assess
busy rail lines for local air quality
impacts
9. Noise Reduce noise. See also TAG 9a. Maintain and enhance the Change in the population Identification of other noise-sensitive o Criterion assists in sifting options. Appraisal is based on determining the change in average noise emission and relating this to population data. Step 1 involves
Unit 3.3.2 Noise Sub-objective local noise environment potentially annoyed by receivers such as schools, hospitals and estimating the difference in noise emissions between the ‘without’ and ‘with’ scheme scenarios using the transport model outputs for the road or rail network as
(nb: Methodology for operational noise public open spaces appropriate. The main input parameters would be traffic flows, traffic composition and traffic speeds. Step 2 relates relate these differences to the zonal population
Strategies set out in Section densities and estimate the change in population annoyed at dwellings.
1.6) The change in the estimated population annoyed (EPA) by operational noise as a result of Rail Package 2 = 29.
Indicative ‘Present Value of None identified + As the monetary value of noise impacts depends on the initial levels of noise, monetary valuation does not provide meaningful figures at the assessment for strategies.
Benefits (PVB)’ for daytime However, indicative 'NPV' of benefits between various options can assist in comparing options, assuming any uncertainty would equally apply to all options.
operational-related residential For this rail package 2 the indicative 'NPV' of benefits of daytine oeprational-related residential noise, unit million pounds (-ve value represents disbenefit) =
noise +£12m
No NATA equivalent 9b. Maintain local vibration Nos. of residential properties at None identified - Vibration effects at receptors are dependent upon a number of parameters including the type and condition on road/rail surface, intervening ground and proximity of
environment risk of vibration receivers to source. However, to support the sifting process, an initial appraisal is based upon the number of properties located within 50m of the route corridor.
For rail package 2 the number of properties are risk of vibration is 121.
Nos. of residential properties at None identified o Re-radiated noise could be an issue at receptors which are reasonably well screened and, as a result, airborne noise is significantly reduced (e.g receiver near a
risk of reradiated noise tunnel or basement of a receiver near a surface rail track) An initial appraisal has been based upon the number of properties located within 50m of the route corridor
with proposed new tunnels.
There are no properties at risk of re-radiated noise with rail package 2.
10. Community No NATA equivalent 10a. Maintain and enhance Nos. of properties demolished or None identified - Amendments to existing including four tracking Beechwood Tunnel/Berkswell to Stechford, and Ardwick viaduct, and introduction of new routes at Stafford, are
integrity community integrity affected by land take unknown as to whether they will require demolition of neighbouring properties. Stafford Bypass creates a link between Norton Bridge, and Weston, travelling through
Yarlet and Salt.
Therefore in this scheme, necessary measures will need to be included in design to minimise impact on properties within local proximity.
Nos. of properties at high risk of None identified - Exact coverage of land take unknown, but proposed route will cut through additional areas. Necessary measures will need to be taken to ensure that severance /
isolation isolation is minimised – i.e. adequate landscaping, bridges etc to provide access from/to both sides of rail line.
Properties in the 20% most None identified o Neighbouring properties are not within the 20% most deprived areas.
deprived areas at high risk of
isolation
Properties with None identified u This evaluation criterion was included in Rev. 17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been completed. This has not been
disproportionately high numbers appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
of equality groups demolished or
at high risk of isolation where
known
11. Accessibility Reduce severance. See also 11a. Maintain and enhance Number of strategic footpaths, None identified o No proposed changes to the existing alignment of rail lines hence no planned impact on local footpaths, nature trails or cycle paths. However, consideration will be
TAG Unit 3.6.2 Reducing pedestrian access nature trails and cycle paths necessary to ensure that bridges, footpaths and cycle paths are maintained/improved and included in scheme design for pedestrian/cycle access in the area.
Severance Sub-Objective. severed and/or requiring
diversion
Number crossed and area (ha) None identified o No effects identified.

of open spaces, including
common land.
Improve access to the public 11b. Maintain and enhance Location and proximity of Potential for improved access to public + 11 rail stations along the route. No proposed changes to the existing alignment of rail lines and no new stations. The scheme mainly comprises improved frequency of
transport system. See TAG access to public transport existing public transport nodes transport rail services along the route. Therefore, whilst no improvements to the physical accessibility to public transport, passengers could experience improved journey times
Unit 3.6.3 & 3.6.1 Option and frequency of services.
Values Sub-objective .
Potential to improve option None identified u The evaluation criteria was included in Rev. 17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been completed. This has not been
values appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
Population in the 20% most None identified u This evaluation criterion was included in Rev. 17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been completed. This has not been
deprived areas with better appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
access to public transport
services
Improve transport interchange. 11c. Maintain and enhance Location and proximity of public Potential to improve public transport + No proposed changes to the existing alignment of rail lines and no new stations. The scheme mainly comprises improved frequency of rail services along the route.
See TAG Unit 3.7.1 Transport public transport interchange transport nodes interchanges as a result of option Therefore no major changes to the physical access to public transport interchanges however, improved frequency may improve the interchange levels available to
Interchange Sub-Objective passengers on their journeys.
None Identified Ability to accommodate mobility impaired o No effects identified.

access with option
12. Health and well- Encourage physical fitness. 12a. Maintain and improve None Identified Potential to encourage a more healthy o Minor modal shift from motorised modes likely. Some minor modal shift to non motorised transport to rail hubs possible.
being See TAG Unit 3.3.12 Physical physical health lifestyle (e.g. through more active travel
Fitness Sub-Objective options) when accessing the network
None Identified Improvement in access to recreational open o No improvement to open space access.
space
13. Security and Reduce accidents. See TAG 13a. Contribute to the reduction None Identified Change in likelihood of accidents as a result + The scheme will generate mode shift from road to highway, reducing the number of accidents on the highway network and generating positive monetised benefits as a
safety Unit 3.4.1 Accidents Sub- of road traffic accidents of option (modal shift) result, although the overall impact is negligible across 60 years and relative to the other scheme benefits.
Objective
13b. Contribute to increased None Identified Length of line where additional measures o Schemes will have neutral impact on security.
security against major incidents anticipated in event of major incident (e.g.
fire, explosion in tunnel or on bridge section)
13c. Protect against crime and None Identified Features that might increase crime or fear of o Schemes will have neutral impact on crime and fear of crime.
fear of crime crime
14. Economic To support sustainable 14a. Support economic None Identified Net business impacts for transport users (i.e. ++ Scheme will generate substantial benefits and high value for money (BCR >2.00).
prosperity economic activity and get good competitiveness and make excluding environmental and wider economic
value for money. See TAG efficient use of public funds benefits and costs)
Units 3.5.1 to 3.5.14.
14b. Support wider economic None Identified Changes in agglomeration, market + Scheme will reduce journey times between major conurbations, shortening the 'effective' distance and enabling agglomeration economies to thrive and improving the
growth and maintain and competiveness and labour productivity conditions for economic competitiveness.
enhance employment
opportunities
None Identified Impacts on labour markets o Reduced journey times will effectively expand market catchments, providing individuals with improved employment opportunities and businesses with a greater pool of
potential labour. However, the monetised impact is expected to be negligible.
15. Economic Tag Unit 3.7.2 Land Use 15a. Support wider economic Net benefits for consumers and None identified. + The scheme will generate high levels of travel time savings for commuters, amounting to £1.6 billion
welfare Policy Sub-Objective growth commuters
15b. Support planned None Identified Impacts on planned regional growth areas + Scheme will have positive impact on Milton Keynes growth area.
developments
None Identified Impacts on planned major housing and + Scheme will have positive impact in providing improved access to/from new housing/employment developments along the Birmingham-London corridor, most notably
sustainable housing developments around the Milton Keynes growth region.
None Identified Impacts on other planned development areas o None identified
15c. Maintain and enhance None Identified Impacts on other defined regeneration areas o None identified
regeneration
Sustainable Consumption & Production
16. Soil and land No NATA equivalent 16b. Maintain and enhance land Total area (ha) of grade 1, 2 or Impacts on Grade 1 & 2 agricultural land o The majority of the proposed schemes are in land of Grade 3 or lower or in urban areas.
resources resources 3a agricultural land affected by
potential land take.
Total area (ha) of Green belt None identified - Approximately a third of the Package crosses Green belt land.
directly by potential land take.
None Identified Area of land designated for mineral o Criterion will assist in sifting options and provides a measure of the area of land that could be sterilised by an option. This is not appraised in the strategic alternatives
extraction that is sterilised as a result of study.
option
None Identified Area of land designated for waste disposal o Criterion will assist in sifting options and provides a measure of the area of land that could be sterilised by an option. This is not appraised in the strategic alternatives
directly affected by option study.
17. Waste No NATA equivalent 17a. Prevent and minimise waste Demolition Volumes None identified u Potential effects are not known at this stage as the likely construction material or demolition volumes are now known.
generation production
18. Resource use No NATA equivalent 18a. Conserve and protect None Identified Potential to make more efficient use of u Potential effects are not known at this stage as the likely construction material or demolition volumes are now known.
primary material resources resources
None Identified Potential to re-use materials as a result of u Potential effects are not known at this stage as the likely construction material or demolition volumes are now known.
option (e.g. demolition materials)
Rail Package 3
Issue Equivalent NATA Core Sustainability Objective Evaluation Criteria (Measures / Indicators) Contribution option will Assumptions (this column will be replaced with a commentary section following the option appraisal).
Objective or TAG Unit make to core sustainability
objective

1. Climatic factors No NATA equivalent 1a. Improve resilience of Extent of development in the None identified - Stafford bypass will need to cross River Trent and may require some infrastructure in flood plain to achieve this.
& adaptability transport network (conventional floodplain (measured as length Grade separation between Cheddington and Leighton Buzzard may require new crossing of tributary of River Ouse.
weather events 3b). Dorridge to Tyseley widening will pass in close proximity to the eastern boundary of Olton Reservoir.
Banbury Bypass crosses three tributaries of the River Cherwell.
The new alignment of the Princes Risborough improvements, Saunderton to Haddenham and Thame Parkway, crosses two tributaries of the River Thame.
The tunnel required as part of Seer Green to Saunderton is likely to require some infrastructure to cross a tributary of the River Wye north of High Wycombe.
The four tracking West Ruislip to Seer Green crosses several waterways west of London (although not the Thames) and tributaries of the River Colne and the River Pinn.
Following onto West Ruislip the route then crosses a tributary of Yeading Brook.
Residual Flood Risk (measured None identified. - All of the sites referred to in relation to Flood Zone 3b above are also within Flood Zone 2 to an extent at the river crossings mentioned.
as length (km) or area (ha) in Flood risk management will need to be considered from the onset and integrated into the planning stages.
flood zone 2).
2. Greenhouse Reduce greenhouse gases. 2a. Contribute to the reduction of Change in CO2 equivalent None identified U This criterion will help in sifting options and will report the projected change in carbon emissions against an agreed DfT "Reference Case." It has been assumed that Atkins will
gases See also TAG Unit 3.3.5 greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e) emissions released as a carry out coarse spatial modelling of road and rail packages. Any calculation will also have regard to demand generation (and resultant carbon impacts) and the carbon
Greenhouse Gases Sub- result of physical interventions on impacts (benefits/disbenefits) associated with released capacity on existing networks.
Objective & TAG Unit 3.5.4 road and rail packages as Rail Package 3 = 12890 T/yr
scheme scenario.
2b. Reduce relative contribution Relative efficiency in operations None identified U This evaluation criterion was included in Rev. 17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been completed.
made by rail to greenhouse gas between high speed trains and This has not been appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.

3. Landscape and Protect and enhance 3a. Maintain and enhance Number crossed and area (ha) Impacts on the coherence and distinctiveness - - Stafford is not in any nationally designated sites but the existing Haywood Chord is within Cannock Chase AONB and the southern end of the Stafford Bypass would run
Townscape landscape. See also TAG existing landscape character of national designated of landscape resources of national through the AONB.
Unit 3.3.7 Landscape & landscapes directly affected e.g. importance, e.g. AONBs, ASVs, Special The grade separation between Cheddington and Leighton Buzzard should be predominantly south of the A505 but does intersect the Leighton Buzzard green belt.
TAG Unit 3.3.6 AONBs, ASVs, Special Landscape Areas, National Parks, National Kenilworth to Coventry doubling on leaving the urban boundary of Coventry, crosses into greenbelt land to Kenilworth.
Environmental Capital Landscape Areas, National Scenic Areas (Scotland) Attleborough to Brinklow widening is within green belt.
Parks, National Scenic Areas There are no nationally important landscape resources between Kenilworth to Coventry.
(Scotland). Number of additional The later stretch of Dorridge to Tyseley is in green belt, stretching south of Widney Manor rail station to the boundary of the urban area of Dorridge.
national designated landscapes Princes Risborough improvements and the new tunnel from Seer Green to Saunderton are predominantly in the green belt and cross the Chiltern Hills AONB at intervals.
within 500m of option. West Ruislip to Seer Green is in the green belt at all points.
South Ruislip to West Ruislip is in close proximity to a green belt area, east of West Ruislip rail station.
The addition of four new routes, including a new tunnel from Seer Green to Saunderton, and 4 and 2 tracking close to the the urban areas of South and West Ruislip will
require significant new works.
Further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the works on the integrity of these nationally designated sites.
Number crossed and area (ha) None identified - There are a number of Local Nature Reserves within 500m of the scheme, including:
of regional designated Knowle Hill, Wainbody Wood and Stivichall Common, Kenilworth Road Spinney and Common (Kenilworth to Coventry)
landscapes directly affected e.g. Malvern & Brueton Park, Dorridge Wood (Dorridge to Tylseley)
registered parks and gardens, Snakemoor and Bure Park (Saunderton to Haddenham and Thame Parkway)
Regional Landscape Holtspur Bank (Seer Green to Saunderton)
Designations (Scotland). Denham Quarry Park, Frays Valley (West Ruislip to Seer Green)
Number of additional regional Grove Farm, Islip Manor (West Ruislip to Old Oak).
landscapes within 500m of The additional tracking and new tunnel passes within 500m of 6 registered parks and gardens, including Stoney Road allotments (Kenilworth to Coventry), West Wycombe
option. Park, Wycombe Abbey, Bradenham Manor (Seer Green to Saunderton), Bulstrode Park and Denham Place (West Ruislip to Seer Green).
Further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the works on the integrity of these regional designated sites.
Protect and enhance 3b. Maintain and enhance Number and proximity of None identified - Kenilworth to Coventry follows the existing rail corridor.
townscape. See also TAG existing townscape character strategically important views The Euston works will be within the station envelope.
Unit 3.3.8 Townscape Sub and/or key vistas affected by The Manchester Piccadilly works will be within the station railway land.
Objective & TAG Unit 3.3.6 option. A new viaduct to Ardwick will be outside the existing railway land and will require significant new works;
The new works may affect the integrity of the setting of designated areas, such as the Chiltern Hills AONB.
Further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the schemes on sites of international importance.
4. Cultural heritage Protect the heritage of 4a. Preserve and protect Number crossed and area (h) of None identified o No WHS within 500m of any option
incl. architectural & historic resources See also archaeological assets World Heritages Sites directly
archaeological TAG Unit 3.3.9 & TAG Unit affected. Number of additional
3.3.6 Envt Capital WHS within 500m of option.
Number crossed or area (ha) of None identified - The Scheduled Monuments within 500m of the option are;
Scheduled Monuments directly Great Haywood Canal Bridge, the moated site 160m of St Michaels and All Angel's Church and Essex Bridge, Great Haywood (Stafford Bypass),
affected. Number of additional Moated Site at Bishop Ullathorne School, Kenilworth Abbey (Kenilworth to Coventry doubling),
SM within 500m of option. Moated site and associated medieval remains north of church farm, bowl barrow 140 from Slough Glebe Farm and bowl barrow at Molin's works part of Saunderton Lee round
barrow cemetery, Roman villa east of St Mary and St Nicholas' church. Anglo-saxon cemetery on Hemley Hill, two bowls barrows northwest of Slough, Glebe Farm, part of
Saunderton Lee round barrow cemetery. Bell barrow 260 from Saunderton Station, Roundabout Wood moated site, fishponds and farming and settlement remains
(Saunderton to Haddenham),
Castle Hill a motte and bailey castle and Saxon burial west of Castle Hill House, St John the Baptist's hospital, bowl barrow on Beaconsfield golf course and bowl barrow 350m
from Saunderton Station (Seer Green to Saunderton),
Brackenbury Farm moated site ¾ mile NW of Ickenham Church, moated site on west bank of River Pinn, mound with ditch and outer bank (West Ruislip to Seer Green).
4b. Preserve and protect historic Number of Grade I and II* None identified u Effects unknown at this stage
500m of option.
Number of heritage resources of None identified o There are a number of Grade II Listed Buildings with 500m of the of the various options in this Package but it is not considered that the options would have significant negative
regional importance directly effects on the properties.
affected by the option e.g. There is a major cluster in Haddenham.
Conservation Areas, Grade II Additionally Local Nature Reserves are also within the 500m buffer but considered to not be at risk.
on setting)
Impacts on the character of None identified o There are several Parks and Gardens and a Country Park within 500m of the rail corridor.
heritage resources of It is not considered that the 4 tracking and junction works would have an adverse effect on the designated land.
international and regional The Chilterns AONB is encountered where the Saunderton to Haddenham and Thame Parkway Princes Risborough improvements are proposed.
effects on setting)
5. Biodiversity Support biodiversity See 5a. Maintain and enhance Number crossed and area (ha) Impacts on integrity of sites of international - The scheme is within 500m of the Chiltern Beechwoods SAC (Seer Green to Saunderton).
also TAG Unit 3.3.10 biodiversity of sites of international importance e.g. SACs/cSACs, SPAs/cSPAs The Stafford bypass option is in close proximity to Pasturefields Saltmarsh, SAC and SSSI.
Biodiversity Sub-objective importance directly affected e.g. & RAMSAR sites. There are no internationally designated sites within package 3.
& TAG Unit 3.3.6 SACs/cSACs, SPAs/cSPAs & Whilst the four tracking may not directly affect these designated areas, there may be impacts on the setting during construction resulting in negative effects due to the
RAMSAR sites. Number of sites proximity.
within 500m of option. Further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the schemes on sites of international importance.
Number crossed and area (ha) Impacts on integrity of sites of national - There are 4 SSSI's within 500m of package 3, these are the River Blythe (Dorridge to Tyseley), Bradenham Woods, Park Wood and the Coppice, Gomm Valley (Seer Green
sites of national importance importance e.g. SSSIs, Geological SSSIs, to Saunderton) and Old Rectory Meadows (West Ruislip to Seer Green).
directly affected e.g. SSSIs, NNRs. The Stafford bypass option is in close proximity to Pasturefields Saltmarsh, SAC and SSSI. ·
Geological SSSIs, NNRs. Further assessment would be required to ascertain the impacts of the schemes on the integrity of these sites of national importance.
Number of sites within 500m of
option.
6. Water resources Protect the water 6a. Protect surface water Number of watercourses crossed None identified - Stafford bypass will need to cross River Trent and may require some infrastructure in flood plain to achieve this;
environment. See also TAG resources and within 500m of option and Grade seperation between Cheddington and Leighton Buzzard may require new crossing of tributary of River Ouse; ·
Unit 3.3.11 Water water quality directive Attleborough to Brinklow widening crosses Wem Brook twice;
Environment Sub-objective classifications. Dorridge to Tyseley widening will pass in close proximity to the eastern boundary of Olton Reservoir.
& TAG Unit 3.3.6 Banbury Bypass crosses three tributaries of the River Cherwell.
Environmental Capital The new alignment of the Princes Risborough improvements, Saunderton to Haddenham and Thame Parkway, crosses two tributaries of the River Thame.
7. Flood risk No NATA equivalent 7a. Conserve and protect the Extent of infrastructure within the None identified - u Stafford bypass will need to cross River Trent and may require some infrastructure in flood plain to achieve this.
capacity of floodplains 1 in 100 year flood plain zones At Ledburn Junction in and south of Leighton Buzzard, the route passes over Flood Zone 3 at a tributary of the River Ouze and may require a new crossing for the grade
(Flood Zone 3) separation and Grade seperation between Cheddington and Leighton Buzzard;
Attleborough to Brinklow widening crosses Wem Brook twice.
Kenilworth to Coventry crosses Finham Brook twice but not major areas of flood risk.
Dorridge to Tyseley widening will pass in close proximity to the eastern boundary of Olton Reservoir.
The extended freight loop Fenny Compton passes over and adjacent to areas of Flood Zone 2 and 3 from a tributory of the River Leam.
the Banbury Bypass crosses three tributaries of the River Cherwell.
The four tracking West Ruislip to Seer Green crosses several waterways west of London (although not the Thames) and tributaries of the River Colne and the River Pinn and
around Denham (West Ruislip to Seer Green) the flood risk area is both 2 and 3 from the Grand Union Canal and flood defences are in place.
South Ruislip to West Ruislip, there is a Floor Risk Zones 2 and 3 around South Ruislip Station.
South Ruislip to Old Oak Common, the route crosses a tributary of Yeading Brook east of South Ruislip Station and there is some Flood Zone 3 from the River Brent close to
Wembley Stadium.
Extent of infrastructure within the None identified u Flood risk management will need to be considered from the onset. A significant amount of Package 3 encounters Flood Zone 3 and 2.
1 in 1000 year flood plain zones
(Flood Zone 2)

8. Air quality Improve local air quality. 8a. Maintain and enhance local Estimated population within None identified Criterion will assist in sifting options. Consideration of the relative population density along route corridor using Ordnance Survey Census Data to give an overall proximity index
See also TAG Unit 3.3.9 air quality. 100m of links experiencing to assess affects during construction.
Local Air Quality Sub- physical interventions to indicate With package 3 the estimated population within 100m of links experiencing physical interventions to indicate potential nuisance during construction is 12404.
objective (nb: Strategic potential for nuisance during
approach set out in Section construction.
1.2) and 3.3.4 Regional Air
Pollution Change in overall mass Point source emissions from Power Stations Criterion will not provide a means of distinguishing between options, but commentary can be provided on impacts of criterion for preferred option(s). Following receipt of traffic
emissions 'with' and 'without' are not included in these totals, though their data / modal shift data, the TAG Unit 3.3.4 Regional Air Pollution assessment tool will be used to quantify the change in regional emissions when options are operational.
option within option corridor in effect is controlled by the Environment Rail package 3 = 2254 T/yr (NOx)
2025(NOx and PM10). Agency
Number of Local Authorities with Potential for impacts of options on local air Detailed receptor locations are not available in order to identify relevant receptors located within 30m of the line. A list of local authorities identified in LAQM.TG(09) as needing
background concentrations quality at relevant receptors (located within to assess air quality due to presence of heavy traffic of diesel passenger trains, and which intersect with the rail network studied are listed. All Rail packages - Five Local
3
greater than 25 µg/m potentially 30m of affected rail lines) Authorities identified with potential for local air quality impacts (Hillingdon, South Bucks, Birmingham, Coventry, Solihull)
area. Recent guidance in TG(09)
indicates that local authorities
with background concentrations
3
of NOx greater than 25 µg/m
should assess busy rail lines for
local air quality impacts
9. Noise Reduce noise. See also 9a. Maintain and enhance the Change in the population Identification of other noise-sensitive receivers - - Criterion assists in sifting options. Appraisal is based on determining the change in average noise emission and relating this to population data. Step 1 involves estimating the
TAG Unit 3.3.2 Noise Sub- local noise environment potentially annoyed by such as schools, hospitals and public open difference in noise emissions between the ‘without’ and ‘with’ scheme scenarios using the transport model outputs for the road or rail network as appropriate. The main input
objective (nb: Methodology operational noise spaces parameters would be traffic flows, traffic composition and traffic speeds. Step 2 relates relate these differences to the zonal population densities and estimate the change in
for Strategies set out in population annoyed at dwellings.
Section 1.6) The change in the estimated population annoyed (EPA) by operational noise as a result of Rail Package 3 = 3631.
Indicative ‘Present Value of None identified -- As the monetary value of noise impacts depends on the initial levels of noise, monetary valuation does not provide meaningful figures at the assessment for strategies.
operational-related residential For this rail package 3 the indicative 'NPV' of benefits of daytine oeprational-related residential noise, unit million pounds (-ve value represents disbenefit) = -
noise £235m
No NATA equivalent 9b. Maintain local vibration Nos. of residential properties at None identified -- Vibration effects at receptors are dependent upon a number of parameters including the type and condition on road/rail surface, intervening ground and proximity of receivers
environment risk of vibration to source. However, to support the sifting process, an initial appraisal is based upon the number of properties located within 50m of the route corridor.
Nos. of residential properties at None identified - Re-radiated noise could be an issue at receptors which are reasonably well screened and, as a result, airborne noise is significantly reduced (e.g receiver near a tunnel or
risk of reradiated noise basement of a receiver near a surface rail track) An initial appraisal has been based upon the number of properties located within 50m of the route corridor with proposed new
tunnels.
The number of properties at risk from re-radiated noise with rail package 3 = 388.
10. Community No NATA equivalent 10a. Maintain and enhance Nos. of properties demolished or None identified - Amendments to existing including four tracking Beechwood Tunnel/Berkswell to Stechford, and Ardwick viaduct, and introduction of new routes at Stafford, are unknown as to
integrity community integrity affected by land take whether they will require demolition of neighbouring properties.
Stafford Bypass creates a link between Norton Bridge, and Weston, travelling through Yarlet and Salt.
Placement of a tunnel is likely to require land take, therefore even if this is not residential land, suitable measures will need to be put in place to mitigate against any negative
impacts – i.e. regarding noise and air pollution.
The route between Seer Green and Saunderton travels through areas that are considered to be deprived (some within the most deprived 20% of areas in the country),
therefore scheme design should aim to enhance the area and improve this deprivation. Therefore in this scheme, necessary measures will need to be included in design to
minimise impact on properties within local proximity.
Nos. of properties at high risk of None identified - Exact coverage of land take unknown, but proposed route will cut through additional areas. Necessary measures will need to be taken to ensure that severance / isolation is
isolation minimised – i.e. adequate landscaping, bridges etc to provide access from/to both sides of rail line.
Properties in the 20% most None identified - The route between Seer Green and Saunderton travels through areas that are considered to be deprived (some withi
n the most deprived 20% of areas in the country),
deprived areas at high risk of therefore scheme design should aim to enhance the area and improve this deprivation.
isolation
Properties with disproportionately None identified u This evaluation criterion was included in Rev. 17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been completed. This has not been appraised
high numbers of equality groups in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
demolished or at high risk of
isolation where known
11. Accessibility Reduce severance. See 11a. Maintain and enhance Number of strategic footpaths, None identified - Three footpaths and an existing cycle path are severed by the proposed scheme and hence will need to be mitigated against via a footbridge. This should match the existing
also TAG Unit 3.6.2 pedestrian access nature trails and cycle paths routes, and link to the wider network to ensure that severance is minimised.
Reducing Severance Sub- severed and/or requiring
Objective. diversion
Number crossed and area (ha) None identified o No proposed impact on open spaces or common land.
common land.
Improve access to the 11b. Maintain and enhance Location and proximity of existing Potential for improved access to public + No proposed changes to the existing alignment of rail lines and no new stations. The scheme mainly consists of improved frequency of rails services along the route. Therefore
public transport system. access to public transport public transport nodes transport whilst no improvements to the physical accessibility to public transport, passengers will experience improved journey times and frequency of services.
See TAG Unit 3.6.3 &
3.6.1 Option Values Sub- Potential to improve option None identified u the evaluation criteria was included in Rev. 17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been completed. This has not been appraised in
objective . values the Strategic Alternatives Study.
Population in the 20% most None identified u This evaluation criterion was included in Rev. 17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been completed. This has not been appraised
deprived areas with better in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
services
Improve transport 11c. Maintain and enhance public Location and proximity of public Potential to improve public transport + No proposed changes to the existing alignment of rail lines and no new stations. The scheme mainly consists of improved frequency of rails services along the route. Therefore
interchange. See TAG Unit transport interchange transport nodes interchanges as a result of option no major changes to the physical access to public transport interchanges. However, improved frequency may improve the interchange levels available to passengers on their
3.7.1 Transport journeys.
Interchange Sub-Objective
None Identified Ability to accommodate mobility impaired o Criterion will not help to distinguish between options, but comment should be provided on what measures will be considered to ensure mobility impaired access.
access with option
being See TAG Unit 3.3.12 physical health lifestyle (e.g. through more active travel
Physical Fitness Sub- options) when accessing the network
Objective
space
13. Security and Reduce accidents. See 13a. Contribute to the reduction None Identified Change in likelihood of accidents as a result + The scheme will generate mode shift from road to highway, reducing the number of accidents on the highway network and generating positive monetised benefits as a result,
safety TAG Unit 3.4.1 Accidents of road traffic accidents of option (modal shift) although the overall impact is negligible across 60 years and relative to the other scheme benefits.
Sub-Objective
fear of crime crime
14. Economic To support sustainable 14a. Support economic None Identified Net business impacts for transport users (i.e. + Scheme will generate substantial benefits, although the high investment costs required mean 'medium' value for money (BCR between 1.00 and 2.00).
prosperity economic activity and get competitiveness and make excluding environmental and wider economic
good value for money. See efficient use of public funds benefits and costs)
TAG Units 3.5.1 to 3.5.14.
enhance employment
opportunities
None Identified Impacts on labour markets o Reduced journey times will effectively expand market catchments, providing individuals with improved employment opportunities and businesses with a greater pool of potent
labour. However, the monetised impact is expected to be negligible.
developments
None Identified Impacts on planned major housing and + Scheme will have positive impact in providing improved access to/from new housing/employment developments along the Birmingham-London corridor, most notably around
sustainable housing developments the Milton Keynes growth region.
regeneration
Total area (ha) of Green belt None identified - Approximately a third of the Package crosses Green Belt land.
None Identified Area of land designated for mineral extraction o Criterion will assist in sifting options and provides a measure of the area of land that could be sterilised by an option. This is not appraised in the strategic alternatives study.
that is sterilised as a result of option
None Identified Area of land designated for waste disposal o Criterion will assist in sifting options and provides a measure of the area of land that could be sterilised by an option. This is not appraised in the strategic alternatives study.
directly affected by option
Rail Package 4
Issue Equivalent NATA Core Sustainability Objective Evaluation Criteria (Measures / Indicators) Contribution option will Assumptions (this column will be replaced with a commentary section following the option appraisal).
objective

1. Climatic factors No NATA equivalent 1a. Improve resilience of Extent of development in the None identified - Stafford bypass will need to cross River Trent and may require some infrastructure in flood plain to achieve this.
& adaptability transport network (conventional floodplain (measured as length Grade separation between Cheddington and Leighton Buzzard may require new crossing of tributary of River Ouse.
rail/road) against extreme (km) or area (ha) in flood zone Attleborough to Brinklow widening crosses Wem Brook twice
Between east of South Ruislip station (West Ruislip to South Ruislip) the route then crosses a tributary of Yeading Brook.
The option of new tracking between Harbury and Berkswell will involve new crossings of the Grand Union Canal, the River Leam, the River Avon and a tributaries of the Avon,
Finham Brook and Sowe Mouth.
Residual Flood Risk (measured None identified. - All of the sites referred to in relation to Flood Zone 3b above are also within Flood Zone 2 to an extent at the river and canal crossings mentioned.
as length (km) or area (ha) in Flood risk management will need to be considered from the onset and integrated into the planning stages.
flood zone 2).
2. Greenhouse Reduce greenhouse gases. 2a. Contribute to the reduction of Change in CO2 equivalent None identified U This criterion will help in sifting options and will report the projected change in carbon emissions against an agreed DfT "Reference Case." It has been assumed that Atkins w
gases See also TAG Unit 3.3.5 greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e) emissions released as a carry out coarse spatial modelling of road and rail packages. Any calculation will also have regard to demand generation (and resultant carbon impacts) and the carbon
Greenhouse Gases Sub- result of physical interventions on impacts (benefits/disbenefits) associated with released capacity on existing networks.
Objective & TAG Unit 3.5.4 road and rail packages as Rail Package 4 = 22206 T/yr
scheme scenario.

3. Landscape and Protect and enhance 3a. Maintain and enhance Number crossed and area (ha) Impacts on the coherence and distinctiveness - - Stafford is not in any nationally designated sites but the existing Haywood Chord is within Cannock Chase AONB and the southern end of the Stafford Bypass would run
Townscape landscape. See also TAG existing landscape character of national designated of landscape resources of national through the AONB.
Unit 3.3.7 Landscape & landscapes directly affected e.g. importance, e.g. AONBs, ASVs, Special The grade separation between Cheddington and Leighton Buzzard should be predominantly south of the A505 but does intersect the Leighton Buzzard green belt.
TAG Unit 3.3.6 AONBs, ASVs, Special Landscape Areas, National Parks, National Attleborough to Brinklow widening is within green belt.
Environmental Capital Landscape Areas, National Scenic Areas (Scotland) Princes Risborough improvements and Seer Green to Saunderton are predominantly in the green belt and cross the Chiltern Hills AONB, at intervals.
Parks, National Scenic Areas West Ruislip to Seer Green is in the green belt at all points .
(Scotland). Number of additional South Ruislip to West Ruislip is in close proximity to a green belt area, east of West Ruislip rail station.
national designated landscapes Where a new chord is an option (Harbury to Berkswell), approximately two thirds of the stretch, from Offchurch to Harbury is in greenbelt.
within 500m of option. New four tracking is proposed (Stechford to Berkswell AKA Beechwood Tunnel to Stechford) and this stretch is in greenbelt, excluding the urban areas through which the
existing track lies.
Further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the works on the integrity of these nationally designated sites
Number crossed and area (ha) None identified - There are a number of Local Nature Reserves within 500m of the scheme, including:
of regional designated Snakemoor and Bure Park (Saunderton to Haddenham and Thame Parkway)
landscapes directly affected e.g. Holtspur Bank (Seer Green to Saunderton)
registered parks and gardens, Denham Quarry Park, Frays Valley (West Ruislip to Seer Green)
Regional Landscape Grove Farm, Islip Manor (West Ruislip to Old Oak)
Designations (Scotland). The additional tracking and new tunnel passes within 500m of 6 registered parks and gardens:
Number of additional regional West Wycombe Park, Wycombe Abbey, Bradenham Manor (Seer Green to Saunderton),
landscapes within 500m of Bulstrode Park and Denham Place (West Ruislip to Seer Green).
option. Where a new chord is an option (Harbury to Berkswell) there are three Local Nature Reserves - Ufton Fields, Crackley Wood and Kenilworth Common and Stoneleigh Abbey
is a Registered Park. It is noted that the new chord option would dissect through Stoneleigh Park - the former National Agricultural Centre and this needs to be taken into
consideration.
The option of new four tracking (Stechford to Berkswell AKA Beechwood Tunnel to Stechford) would occur directly adjacent to Birmingham International Airport and there are
two Country Parks nearby, the Kingfisher Country Park to the north and the Sheldon Country Park to the south.
Further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the works on the integrity of these regional designated sites
Protect and enhance 3b. Maintain and enhance Number and proximity of None identified - Stechford to Beechwood tunnel 4 tracking will be in urban areas at Stechford, Lea Hall, Marston Green and Hampton in Arden following existing rail corridor.
Unit 3.3.8 Townscape Sub and/or key vistas affected by The Manchester Piccadilly works will be within the station railway land.
Objective & TAG Unit 3.3.6 option. A new viaduct to Ardwick will be outside the existing railway land and will require significant new works.
The addition of five new routes, including a new tunnel from Seer Green to Saunderton, and 4 and 2 tracking close to the urban areas of South and West Ruislip will require
significant new works.
The new works may affect the integrity of the setting of designated areas, such as the Chiltern Hills and Cannock Chase AONBs within 500m of the route.
Further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the schemes on sites of international importance.
4. Cultural heritage Protect the heritage of 4a. Preserve and protect Number crossed and area (h) of None identified o No WHS within 500m of any option
Number crossed or area (ha) of None identified - All scheduled monuments within 500m of the options are listed.
Scheduled Monuments directly Great Haywood canal bridge No.109, Moated site 160m of St Michael and all Angels church, Essex Bridge, Great Haywood (Stafford Bypass).
affected. Number of additional Mentmore Towers (Ledburn Junction), .
SM within 500m of option. Moated site and associated medieval remains north of church farm, bowl barrow 140 from Slough Glebe Farm and bowl barrow at Molin's works part of Saunderton lee round
barrow cemetery, Roman villa east of St Mary and St Nicholas' church. Anglo-Saxon cemetery on Hemley Hill, two bowls barrows northwest of Slough, Glebe Farm, part of
Saunderton Lee Barrow Cemetery. Bell barrow 260 from Saunderton Station, roundabout wood moated site, fishponds and farming and settlement remains (Saunderton to
Haddenham),
Castle Hill, Saxon burial west of Castlehill House, St John the Baptist's hospital, bowl barrow on Beaconsfield golf course and bowl barrow 350m from Saunderton station
(Seer Green to Saunderton).
Brackenbury Farm moated site, moated site on west bank of River Pinn, mound with ditch and outer bank (West Ruislip to Seer Green)..
There is one Scheduled Ancient Monument, Stare Bridge, within 500m of a possible new chord (Harbury to Berkswell) and three in close proximity to the option of new four
tracking (Stechford to Berkswell AKA Beechwood Tunnel to Stechford), Packhorse Bridge, Moated site at Moat House, Churchyard Cross, St Mary & St Bartholomew
churchyard.
500m of option.
Number of heritage resources of None identified o There are a number of Grade II Listed Buildings with 500m of the of the various options in this Package but it is not considered that the options would have significant negative
regional importance directly effects on the properties. There is a major cluster in Haddenham. Additionally Local Nature Reserves are also within the 500m buffer but considered to not be at risk.
affected by the option e.g.
on setting)
Impacts on the character of None identified o There are several Parks and Gardens and a Country Park within 500m of the rail corridor.
heritage resources of It is not considered that the 4 tracking and junction works would have an adverse effect on the designated land.
importance e.g. Grade I and II* The Package also intercepts the Cannock Chase AONB where 4 tracking is proposed.
effects on setting)
5. Biodiversity Support biodiversity See 5a. Maintain and enhance Number crossed and area (ha) Impacts on integrity of sites of international - The scheme is within 500m of Chiltern Beechwoods, SAC (Seer Green to Saunderton).
also TAG Unit 3.3.10 biodiversity of sites of international importance e.g. SACs/cSACs, SPAs/cSPAs The Stafford bypass option is in close proximity to Pasturefields Saltmarsh SAC and SSSI.
Biodiversity Sub-objective importance directly affected e.g. & RAMSAR sites. There are no other internationally designated sites within package 3.
& TAG Unit 3.3.6 SACs/cSACs, SPAs/cSPAs & No direct effects have been identified and further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the package on sites of international importance.
Number crossed and area (ha) Impacts on integrity of sites of national - The Stafford bypass option is in close proximity to Pasturefields Saltmarsh SSSI.
sites of national importance importance e.g. SSSIs, Geological SSSIs, There are 4 SSSI's within 500m of the proposed works, these are the River Blythe (Dorridge to Tyseley),
directly affected e.g. SSSIs, NNRs. Bradenham Woods, Park Wood and the Coppice, Gomm Valley (Seer Green to Saunderton)
Geological SSSIs, NNRs. Old Rectory Meadows (West Ruislip to Seer Green).
Number of sites within 500m of There are three SSSIs designated at Harbury Railway Cutting, Long Itchington and Ufton Woods, and finally at Ufton Fields.
option. There are no direct effects identified and further assessment would be required to ascertain the impacts of the schemes on the integrity of these sites of national importance.
6. Water resources Protect the water 6a. Protect surface water Number of watercourses crossed None identified - Stafford bypass will need to cross River Trent and may require some infrastructure in flood plain to achieve this;
environment. See also TAG resources and within 500m of option and Grade separation between Cheddington and L Buzzard may require new crossing of tributary of River Ouse.
Unit 3.3.11 Water water quality directive Attleborough to Brinklow widening crosses Wem Brook twice; ·
Environment Sub-objective classifications. Stechford to Beechwood tunnel crosses two tributaries of River Cole, and the River Blythe and, separately, a tributary of the River Blythe.
& TAG Unit 3.3.6 Banbury Bypass crosses three tributaries of the River Cherwell.
Environmental Capital The new alignment of the Princes Risborough improvements, Saunderton to Haddenham and Thame Parkway, crosses two tributaries of the River Thame.
Flood risk management will need to be considered from the onset and integrated into the planning stages
7. Flood risk No NATA equivalent 7a. Conserve and protect the Extent of infrastructure within the None identified - Stafford bypass will need to cross River Trent and may require some infrastructure in flood plain to achieve this.
(Flood Zone 3) separation and Grade separation between Cheddington and Leighton Buzzard;
Stechford to Beechwood tunnel crosses two tributaries of River Cole, and the River Blythe and, separately, a tributary of the River Blythe.
The extended freight loop Fenny Compton passes over and adjacent to areas of Flood Zone 2 and 3 from a tributary of the River Leam.
The Banbury Bypass crosses three tributaries of the River Cherwell.
The four tracking West Ruislip to Seer Green crosses several waterways west of London (although not the Thames) and tributaries of the River Colne and the River Pinn and
South Ruislip to Old Oak Common, the route crosses a tributary of Yeading Brook east of South Ruislip Station and there is some Flood Zone 3 from the River Brent close to
Wembley Stadium.
Stechford to Berkswell four tracking (as mentioned above in Stechford to Beechwood tunnel) there are areas of Flood Zone 2 and 3 from the River Cole and tributaries near
Marston Green, and from the River Blythe near Hampton in Arden. At Berkswell Station there is an area of Flood Zone 2 and 3 from the Blythe.
Extent of infrastructure within the None identified Flood risk management will need to be considered from the onset.
1 in 1000 year flood plain zones A significant amount of Package 4 encounters Flood Zone 3 and 2.
(Flood Zone 2)

8. Air quality Improve local air quality. 8a. Maintain and enhance local Estimated population within None identified Criterion will assist in sifting options. Consideration of the relative population density along route corridor using Ordnance Survey Census Data to give an overall proximity index
See also TAG Unit 3.3.9 air quality. 100m of links experiencing to assess affects during construction. With package 4 the estimated population within 100m of links experiencing physical interventions to indicate potential
Local Air Quality Sub- physical interventions to indicate nuisance during construction is 7262.
Pollution
Change in overall mass Point source emissions from Power Stations Criterion will not provide a means of distinguishing between options, but commentary can be provided on impacts of criterion for preferred option(s). Following receipt of traffic
emissions 'with' and 'without' are not included in these totals, though their data / modal shift data, the TAG Unit 3.3.4 Regional Air Pollution assessment tool will be used to quantify the change in regional emissions when options are operational.Rail
option within option corridor in effect is controlled by the Environment package 4 = 2398 T/yr (NOx)
Number of Local Authorities with Potential for impacts of options on local air Detailed receptor locations are not available in order to identify relevant receptors located within 30m of the line. A list of local authorities identified in LAQM.TG(09) as needing
background concentrations quality at relevant receptors (located within to assess air quality due to presence of heavy traffic of diesel passenger trains, and which intersect with the rail network studied are listed. All Rail packages - Five Local
3
greater than 25 µg/m potentially 30m of affected rail lines) Authorities identified with potential for local air quality impacts (Hillingdon, South Bucks, Birmingham, Coventry, Solihull)
area. Recent guidance in TG(09)
indicates that local authorities
with background concentrations
3
of NOx greater than 25 µg/m
should assess busy rail lines for
local air quality impacts
9. Noise Reduce noise. See also 9a. Maintain and enhance the Change in the population Identification of other noise-sensitive receivers - Criterion assists in sifting options. Appraisal is based on determining the change in average noise emission and relating this to population data. Step 1 involves estimating the
TAG Unit 3.3.2 Noise Sub- local noise environment potentially annoyed by such as schools, hospitals and public open difference in noise emissions between the ‘without’ and ‘with’ scheme scenarios using the transport model outputs for the road or rail network as appropriate. The main input
objective (nb: Methodology operational noise spaces parameters would be traffic flows, traffic composition and traffic speeds. Step 2 relates relate these differences to the zonal population densities and estimate the change in
for Strategies set out in population annoyed at dwellings.
operational-related residential For this rail package 3 the indicative 'NPV' of benefits of daytine oeprational-related residential noise, unit million pounds (-ve value represents disbenefit) = -
noise £176m
Nos. of residential properties at None identified - Re-radiated noise could be an issue at receptors which are reasonably well screened and, as a result, airborne noise is significantly reduced (e.g receiver near a tunnel or
risk of reradiated noise basement of a receiver near a surface rail track) An initial appraisal has been based upon the number of properties located within 50m of the route corridor with proposed
new tunnels.
10. Community No NATA equivalent 10a. Maintain and enhance Nos. of properties demolished or None identified - Amendments to existing including four tracking Beechwood Tunnel/Berkswell to Stechford, and Ardwick viaduct, and introduction of new routes at Stafford, are unknown as to
integrity community integrity affected by land take whether they will require demolition of neighbouring properties.
Amendments to existing, and introduction of new routes, are unknown as to whether they will require demolition of neighbouring properties.
New route between Harbury and Berks will go through towns such as Subbington, Hunningham, Kenilworth, and Burton Green.
Therefore in these areas, necessary measures will need to be included in design to minimise impact on properties within local proximity – i.e. to minimise noise pollution etc.
Nos. of properties at high risk of None identified - The route between Seer Green and Saunderton travels through areas that are considered to be deprived (some within the most deprived 20% of areas in the country),
isolation therefore scheme design should aim to enhance the area and improve this deprivation. Exact coverage of land take unknown, but proposed route will cut through four
additional urban areas, totalling 1.7 miles in length. Necessary measures will need to be taken to ensure that severance / isolation is minimised – i.e. adequate landscaping,
bridges etc to provide access from/to both sides of rail line.
Properties in the 20% most None identified - The route between Seer Green and Saunderton travels through areas that are considered to be deprived (some within the most deprived 20% of areas in the country),
isolation
Properties with disproportionately None identified u This evaluation criterion was included in Rev. 17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been completed. This has not been
high numbers of equality groups appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
isolation where known
11. Accessibility Reduce severance. See 11a. Maintain and enhance Number of strategic footpaths, None identified - 14 footpaths and an existing cycle path are severed by the proposed scheme and hence will need to be mitigated against via a footbridge. This should match the existing
also TAG Unit 3.6.2 pedestrian access nature trails and cycle paths routes, and link to the wider network to ensure that severance is minimised
Number crossed and area (ha) None identified - Width of land take unknown, but covers 0.05 miles of park and garden space. Whilst this is a small proportion, adequate measures should be taken to mitigate against any
of open spaces, including negative impacts of land take, including landscaping and noise barriers (particularly if train line would cut through private property)
common land.
Improve access to the 11b. Maintain and enhance Location and proximity of existing Potential for improved access to public + No proposed changes to the existing alignment of rail lines and no new stations. The scheme mainly consists of improved frequency of rails services along the route. Therefo
public transport system. access to public transport public transport nodes transport whilst no improvements to the physical accessibility to public transport, passengers will experience improved journey times and frequency of services.
3.6.1 Option Values Sub- Potential to improve option None identified u The evaluation criteria was included in Rev. 17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been completed. This has not been appraised
objective . values in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
services
Improve transport 11c. Maintain and enhance public Location and proximity of public Potential to improve public transport + No proposed changes to the existing alignment of rail lines and no new stations. The scheme mainly consists of improved frequency of rails services along the route. Therefo
interchange. See TAG Unit transport interchange transport nodes interchanges as a result of option no major changes to the physical access to public transport interchanges. However, improved frequency may improve the interchange levels available to passengers on their
3.7.1 Transport journeys
None Identified Ability to accommodate mobility impaired o Criterion will not help to distinguish between options, but comment should be provided on what measures will be considered to ensure mobility impaired access.
access with option
being See TAG Unit 3.3.12 physical health lifestyle (e.g. through more active travel
Physical Fitness Sub- options) when accessing the network
Objective
space
13. Security and Reduce accidents. See 13a. Contribute to the reduction None Identified Change in likelihood of accidents as a result + The scheme will generate mode shift from road to highway, reducing the number of accidents on the highway network and generating positive monetised benefits as a result,
safety TAG Unit 3.4.1 Accidents of road traffic accidents of option (modal shift) although the overall impact is negligible across 60 years and relative to the other scheme benefits.
Sub-Objective
fear of crime crime
14. Economic To support sustainable 14a. Support economic None Identified Net business impacts for transport users (i.e. + Scheme will generate substantial benefits, although the high investment costs required mean 'medium' value for money (BCR between 1.00 and 2.00).
TAG Units 3.5.1 to 3.5.14.
enhance employment
opportunities
None Identified Impacts on labour markets o Reduced journey times will effectively expand market catchments, providing individuals with improved employment opportunities and businesses with a greater pool of
potential labour. However, the monetised impact is expected to be negligible.
developments None Identified Impacts on planned major housing and + Scheme will have positive impact in providing improved access to/from new housing/employment developments along the Birmingham-London corridor, most notably around
sustainable housing developments the Milton Keynes growth region.

regeneration
Total area (ha) of Green belt None identified - Approximately two thirds of Package 4 intersect Green Belt land.
None Identified Area of land designated for mineral extraction Criterion will assist in sifting options and provides a measure of the area of land that could be sterilised by an option. This is not appraised in the strategic alternatives study.
None Identified Area of land designated for waste disposal Criterion will assist in sifting options and provides a measure of the area of land that could be sterilised by an option. This is not appraised in the strategic alternatives study.
Rail Package 5
Issue Equivalent NATA Core Sustainability Objective Evaluation Criteria (Measures / Indicators) Contribution option will Commentary
objective

1. Climatic factors No NATA equivalent 1a. Improve resilience of Extent of development in the None identified - Stafford Bypass will need to cross River Trent and may require some infrastructure in flood plain to achieve this.
& adaptability transport network (conventional floodplain (measured as length Grade separation between Cheddington and L Buzzard may require new crossing of tributary of River Ouse.
East of South Ruislip the route then crosses a tributary of Yeading Brook (South Ruislip to Old Oak Common) .
The option of new tracking between Harbury and Berkswell will involve new crossings of the Grand Union Canal, the River Leam, the River Avon and a tributaries of the
Avon, Finham Brook and Sowe Mouth.
The option of new track between Harbury and Berkswell will involve new crossings of the Grand Union Canal, the River Leam, the River Avon and a tributaries of the Avon,
Four tracking is also proposed (Stechford to Stafford) where track crosses over the River Cole, the River Penk, the River Tame and underneath the Tame Bridge Aqueduct
which passes over the existing tracks.
From Saunderton to Harbury there the route crosses the River Ray near Blackthorn and in Bicester.
The route crosses or is adjacent to the River Swere and the Oxford Canal between Kings Sutton and Bodicote and the Oxford Canal between Banbury and Harbury.
The Aston chord crosses or is adjacent to the River Thame.
Residual Flood Risk (measured None identified. - All of the sites referred to in relation to Flood Zone 3b above are also within Flood Zone 2 to an extent at the river and canal crossings mentioned.
as length (km) or area (ha) in Flood risk management will need to be considered from the onset and integrated into the planning stages as significant amounts of Package 5 are within flood zones..
flood zone 2).
2. Greenhouse Reduce greenhouse gases. 2a. Contribute to the reduction of Change in CO2 equivalent None identified U This criterion will help in sifting options and will report the projected change in carbon emissions against an agreed DfT "Reference Case." It has been assumed that Atkins
gases See also TAG Unit 3.3.5 greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e) emissions released as a will carry out coarse spatial modelling of road and rail packages. Any calculation will also have regard to demand generation (and resultant carbon impacts) and the carbon
Greenhouse Gases Sub- result of physical interventions impacts (benefits/disbenefits) associated with released capacity on existing networks.Rail Package 5 = 24618 T/yr
Objective & TAG Unit on road and rail packages as
3.5.4 CBA compared with the 'without'
scheme scenario.

3. Landscape and Protect and enhance 3a. Maintain and enhance Number crossed and area (ha) of Impacts on the coherence and -- Stafford is not in any nationally designated sites but the existing Haywood Chord is within Cannock Chase AONB and the southern end of the Stafford Bypass would run
Townscape landscape. See also TAG existing landscape character national designated landscapes distinctiveness of landscape resources of through the AONB.
Unit 3.3.7 Landscape & directly affected e.g. AONBs, national importance, e.g. AONBs, ASVs, The grade separation between Cheddington and Leighton Buzzard should be predominantly south of the A505 but does intersect the Leighton Buzzard green belt.
TAG Unit 3.3.6 ASVs, Special Landscape Special Landscape Areas, National Parks, Attleborough to Brinklow widening is within green belt
Environmental Capital Areas, National Parks, National National Scenic Areas (Scotland) Stechford to Beechwood tunnel is majority in green belt
Scenic Areas (Scotland). Princes Risborough improvements and Seer Green to Saunderton are predominantly in the green belt and cross the Chiltern Hills AONB, at intervals.
Number of additional national West Ruislip to Seer Green is in the green belt at all points.
designated landscapes within South Ruislip to West Ruislip is in close proximity to a green belt area, east of West Ruislip rail station.
500m of option. Where a new chord is an option (Harbury to Berkswell), approximately two thirds of the stretch, from Offchurch to Harbury are greenbelt land.
Four tracking is also an option and the next northern stretch (Stechford to Stafford) cuts in and out of greenbelt.
The Saunderton to Harbury four tracking chord crosses green belt in the final third before crossing the Chilterns AONB and joining the Seer Green to Saunderton option.
Further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the works on the integrity of these nationally designated sites
Number crossed and area (ha) of None identified - There are a number of Local Nature Reserves within 500m of the scheme including:
regional designated landscapes Snakemoor and Bure Park (Saunderton to Haddenham and Thame Parkway),
directly affected e.g. registered Holtspur Bank (Seer Green to Saunderton),
parks and gardens, Regional Denham Quarry Park, Frays Valley (West Ruislip to Seer Green),
Landscape Designations Grove Farm, Islip Manor (West Ruislip to Old Oak).
(Scotland). Number of additional The additional tracking and new tunnel passes within 500m of 5 registered parks and gardens, including:
regional landscapes within 500m West Wycombe Park, Wycombe Abbey, Bradenham Manor (Seer Green to Saunderton),
of option. Bulstrode Park and Denham Place (West Ruislip to Seer Green).
Further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the works on the integrity of these regional designated sites.
Where a new chord is an option (Harbury to Berkswell) there are three Local Nature Reserves - Ufton Fields, Crackley Wood and Kenilworth Common and Stoneleigh Abbey
is a Registered Park. It is noted that the new chord option would dissect through Stoneleigh Park - the former National Agricultural Centre and this needs to be taken into
consideration.
The option of new four tracking (Stechford to Berkswell AKA Beechwood Tunnel to Stechford) would occur directly adjacent to Birmingham International Airport and there
are two Country Parks near by, the Kingfisher Country Park to the north and the Sheldon Country Park to the south. Kingfisher Park is also close to the next section
proposed for four tracking (Stechford to Stafford) as well as the Sandwell Valley Park.
Wotton House is a Registered Park and Garden on the Saunderton to Harbury stretch. The option for a 4 tracking chord from Saunderton to Harbury cuts into the boundary
of Wotten House Park, north of the railway line.
Aston Hall is a designated Park and there are two Local Nature Reserves - Waddens Brook at Noose Lane and Forge Mill Lake. (Aston)
Local Nature Reserves in close proximity to the chord include Bure Park and Snakemoor
Protect and enhance 3b. Maintain and enhance Number and proximity of None identified - Stechford to Beechwood tunnel 4 tracking will be in urban areas at Stechford, Lea Hall, Marston Green and Hampton in Arden following existing rail corridor; ·
Unit 3.3.8 Townscape Sub and/or key vistas affected by The Manchester Piccadilly works will be within the station railway land; a new viaduct to Ardwick will be outside the existing railway land and will require significant new
Objective & TAG Unit option. works. The remainder of the projects do not have physical works in urban areas.
3.3.6 Environmental The addition of five new routes, including a new tunnel from Seer Green to Saunderton, and 4 and 2 tracking close to the urban areas of South and West Ruislip and Aston
Capital will require significant new works.
The new works may affect the integrity of the setting of designated areas, such as the Chiltern Hills and Cannock Chase AONBs within 500m of the route.
4. Cultural heritage Protect the heritage of 4a. Preserve and protect Number crossed and area (h) of None identified 0 No WHS within 500m of any option
archaeological TAG Unit 3.3.9 & TAG affected. Number of additional
Unit 3.3.6 Envt Capital WHS within 500m of option.
Number crossed or area (ha) of None identified - All scheduled monuments within 500m of the options are listed.
Scheduled Monuments directly Great Haywood canal bridge No.109, Moated site 160m of St Michael and all Angels church, Essex Bridge, Great Haywood (Stafford Bypass).
affected. Number of additional Mentmore Towers (Ledburn Junction),
SM within 500m of option. Packhorse Bridge, Moated site at Moat House, Churchyard Cross, St Mary & St Bartholomew churchyard (Beechwood tunnel to Stetchford).
Moated site and associated medieval remains north of church farm, bowl barrow 140m from Slough Glebe Farm and bowl barrow at Molin's works part of Saunderton lee
round barrow cemetery, Roman villa east of St Mary and St Nicholas' church. Anglo-Saxon cemetery on Hemley Hill, two bowls barrows northwest of Slough, Glebe Farm,
part of Saunderton Lee Barrow Cemetery. Bell barrow 260m from Saunderton Station, roundabout wood moated site, fishponds and farming and settlement remains
(Saunderton to Haddenham).
Castle Hill, Saxon burial west of Castlehill House, St John the Baptist's hospital, Bowl Barron on Beaconsfield golf course known as The Mount and Bowl Barrow 350m from
Saunderton station (Seer Green to Saunderton).
Brackenbury Farm moated site, moated site on west bank of River Pinn, mound with ditch and outer bank (West Ruislip to Seer Green).There is one Scheduled Ancient
Monument, Stare Bridge, within 500m of a possible new chord (Harbury to Berkswell)
There are three in close proximity to the option of new four tracking (Stechford to Berkswell, also known as Beechwood Tunnel to Stechford), Packhorse Bridge, Moated Site
at Moat House, and Churchyard Cross in St Mary's and St Bartholomew's Churchyard.
There are two in the area by the next northern stretch of four tracking (Stechford to Stafford), Roman Camp at Kinvaston and Rodbaston Old Hall Moated Site and Fishpon
Within 500m of Aston are the following Scheduled Monuments; the Grand Junction railway viaduct south of Aston Station over the Birmingham/Fazeley canal; St Joseph's
Roman Catholic Church and Presbytery; The Church tavern public house; Churchyard wall and lychgate; Public baths: Villa tavern; Parish Church of St Peter & St Paul;
Swan and Mitre Public House and the Britannia Public House.
500m of option.
Number of heritage resources of None identified 0 There are a number of Grade II Listed Buildings with 500m of the of the various options in this Package but it is not considered that the options would have significant
regional importance directly negative effects on the properties.
affected by the option e.g. There is a major cluster in Haddenham and Wolverhampton.
Conservation Areas, Grade II Additionally Local Nature Reserves are also within the 500m buffer but considered to not be at risk. The Package also intercepts the Cannock Chase AONB.
on setting)
Impacts on the character of None identified 0 There are several Parks and Gardens and a Country Park within 500m of the rail corridor. It is not considered that the 4 tracking and junction works would have an adverse
heritage resources of effect on the designated land.
effects on setting)
5. Biodiversity Support biodiversity See 5a. Maintain and enhance Number crossed and area (ha) of Impacts on integrity of sites of international - The Stafford bypass option is in close proximity to Pasturefields Salt Marsh SAC and SSSI and the Seer Green to Saunderton section is within 500m of Chiltern
also TAG Unit 3.3.10 biodiversity sites of international importance importance e.g. SACs/cSACs, SPAs/cSPAs Beechwoods SAC.
Biodiversity Sub-objective directly affected e.g. & RAMSAR sites. There are no RAMSAR sites in close proximity on any part of Package 5.
& TAG Unit 3.3.6 SACs/cSACs, SPAs/cSPAs &
Number crossed and area (ha) Impacts on integrity of sites of national -- The Stafford Bypass option is in close proximity to Pasturefields Salt Marsh, SAC and SSI.
sites of national importance importance e.g. SSSIs, Geological SSSIs, Stechford to Beechwood tunnel is in close proximity to the River Blythe SSSI.
directly affected e.g. SSSIs, NNRs. West Ruislip to Seer Green is in close proximity to Old Rectory Meadows, SSSI.
Geological SSSIs, NNRs. Where a new chord is an option (Harbury to Berkswell), approximately two thirds of the stretch, from Offchurch to Harbury are greenbelt and there are three SSSIs
Number of sites within 500m of designated at Harbury Railway Cutting, Long Itchington and Ufton Woods, and finally at Ufton Fields.
option. Four tracking is also an option and the next northern stretch (Stetchford to Stafford) which is close to the SSSI's Four Ashes Pit, and Doxey and Tillington Marshes to the
north.
The Saunderton to Harbury chord further cuts into the three SSSI's at Rushbeds Wood and Railway Cutting, Ardley Cutting and Quarry and also Harbury Railway Cutting.
There are no designated geological SSSIs or NNRs within 500m of Package 5 options.
6. Water resources Protect the water 6a. Protect surface water Number of watercourses crossed None identified - Stafford Bypass will need to cross River Trent and may require some infrastructure in flood plain to achieve this.
environment. See also resources and within 500m of option and Grade separation between Cheddington and L Buzzard may require new crossing of tributary of River Ouse.
TAG Unit 3.3.11 Water water quality directive Attleborough to Brinklow widening crosses Wem Brook twice.
Environment Sub- classifications. Stechford to Beechwood tunnel crosses two tributaries of River Cole, and the River Blythe and, separately, a tributary of the River Blythe.
objective & TAG Unit Banbury Bypass crosses three tributaries of the River Cherwell.
3.3.6 Environmental The new alignment of the Princes Risborough improvements, Saunderton to Haddenham and Thame Parkway, crosses two tributaries of the River Thame.
Capital The tunnel required as part of Seer Green to Saunderton is likely to require some infrastructure to cross a tributary of the River Wye north of High Wycombe.
The option of new track between Harbury and Berkswell will involve new crossings of the Grand Union Canal, the River Leam, the River Avon and a tributaries of the Avon,
Finham Brook and Sowe Mouth. Four tracking is also proposed (Stechford to Stafford) where track crosses over the River Cole, the River Penk, the River Tame and
underneath the Tame Bridge Aqueduct which passes over the existing tracks.
From Saunderton to Harbury there the route crosses the River Ray near Blackthorn and in Bicester.
The route crosses or is adjacent to the River Swere and the Oxford Canal between Kings Sutton and Bodicote and the Oxford Canal between Banbury and Harbury.
The Aston chord crosses and is adjacent to the River Thame.
7. Flood risk No NATA equivalent 7a. Conserve and protect the Extent of infrastructure within the None identified - Stafford bypass will need to cross River Trent and may require some infrastructure in flood plain to achieve this.
(Flood Zone 3) separation and Grade separation between Cheddington and Leighton Buzzard;
Stechford to Beechwood tunnel crosses two tributaries of River Cole, and the River Blythe and, separately, a tributary of the River Blythe.
The extended freight loop Fenny Compton passes over and adjacent to areas of Flood Zone 2 and 3 from a tributary of the River Leam.
The Banbury Bypass crosses three tributaries of the River Cherwell.
The four tracking West Ruislip to Seer Green crosses several waterways west of London (although not the Thames) and tributaries of the River Colne and the River Pinn a
South Ruislip to Old Oak Common, the route crosses a tributary of Yeading Brook east of South Ruislip Station and there is some Flood Zone 3 from the River Brent close
Wembley Stadium.
Stechford to Berkswell four tracking (as mentioned above in Stechford to Beechwood tunnel) there are areas of Flood Zone 2 and 3 from the River Cole and tributaries near
Marston Green, and from the River Blythe near Hampton in Arden. At Berkswell Station there is an area of Flood Zone 2 and 3 from the Blythe.
Four tracking is also proposed (Stechford to Stafford) where track crosses over the River Cole, the River Penk, the River Tame and underneath the Tame Bridge Aqueduct
which passes over the existing tracks.
From Saunderton to Harbury there the route crosses the River Ray near Blackthorn and in Bicester. The route crosses or is adjacent to the River Swere and the Oxford
Canal between Kings Sutton and Bodicote and the Oxford Canal between Banbury and Harbury.
The Aston chord crosses or is adjacent to the River Thame.
Extent of infrastructure within the None identified - Flood Zone 2 is encountered in most sections of the Package 5 and flood risk procedures need to be in place from the onset.
1 in 1000 year flood plain zones
(Flood Zone 2)
8. Air quality Improve local air quality. 8a. Maintain and enhance local Estimated population within None identified Criterion will assist in sifting options. Consideration of the relative population density along route corridor using Ordnance Survey Census Data to give an overall proximity
See also TAG Unit 3.3.9 air quality. 100m of links experiencing index to assess affects during construction. With package 5 the estimated population within 100m of links experiencing physical interventions to indicate potential
Local Air Quality Sub- physical interventions to indicate nuisance during construction is 26343.
1.2) and 3.3.4 Regional
Air Pollution
Change in overall mass Point source emissions from Power Stations Criterion will not provide a means of distinguishing between options, but commentary can be provided on impacts of criterion for preferred option(s). Following receipt of
emissions 'with' and 'without' are not included in these totals, though their traffic data / modal shift data, the TAG Unit 3.3.4 Regional Air Pollution assessment tool will be used to quantify the change in regional emissions when options are
option within option corridor in effect is controlled by the Environment operational. Rail package 5 = 3000 T/yr (NOx)
Number of Local Authorities with Potential for impacts of options on local air Detailed receptor locations are not available in order to identify relevant receptors located within 30m of the line. A list of local authorities identified in LAQM.TG(09) as
background concentrations quality at relevant receptors (located within needing to assess air quality due to presence of heavy traffic of diesel passenger trains, and which intersect with the rail network studied are listed. All Rail packages - Five
greater than 25 µg/m 3 potentially 30m of affected rail lines) Local Authorities identified with potential for local air quality impacts (Hillingdon, South Bucks, Birmingham, Coventry, Solihull)
area. Recent guidance in
TG(09) indicates that local
authorities with background
concentrations of NOx greater
than 25 µg/m 3 should assess
busy rail lines for local air quality
9. Noise Reduce noise. See also 9a. Maintain and enhance the Change in the population Identification of other noise-sensitive -- Criterion assists in sifting options. Appraisal is based on determining the change in average noise emission and relating this to population data. Step 1 involves estimating
TAG Unit 3.3.2 Noise Sub- local noise environment potentially annoyed by receivers such as schools, hospitals and the difference in noise emissions between the ‘without’ and ‘with’ scheme scenarios using the transport model outputs for the road or rail network as appropriate. The main
objective (nb: Methodology operational noise public open spaces input parameters would be traffic flows, traffic composition and traffic speeds. Step 2 relates relate these differences to the zonal population densities and estimate the
for Strategies set out in change in population annoyed at dwellings.
operational-related residential For this rail package 3 the indicative 'NPV' of benefits of daytime operational-related residential noise, unit million pounds (-ve value represents disbenefit) = -
noise £337m
Nos. of residential properties at None identified - Re-radiated noise could be an issue at receptors which are reasonably well screened and, as a result, airborne noise is significantly reduced (e.g. receiver near a tunnel or
risk of reradiated noise basement of a receiver near a surface rail track) An initial appraisal has been based upon the number of properties located within 50m of the route corridor with proposed
new tunnels.
10. Community No NATA equivalent 10a. Maintain and enhance Nos. of properties demolished or None identified - Amendments to existing, and introduction of new routes, are unknown as to whether they will require demolition of neighbouring properties.
integrity community integrity affected by land take The route between Seer Green and Saunderton travels through areas that are considered to be deprived (some within the most deprived 20% of areas in the country),
therefore scheme design should aim to enhance the area and improve this deprivation.
New route between Harbury and Berks will go through towns such as Subbington, Hunningham, Kenilworth, and Burton Green.
Therefore in this scheme, necessary measures will need to be included in design to minimise impact on properties within local proximity
Nos. of properties at high risk of None identified - Exact coverage of land take unknown, but proposed route will cut through seven additional areas, totalling 3 miles in length (as detailed above). Necessary measures will
isolation need to be taken to ensure that severance / isolation is minimised – i.e. adequate landscaping, bridges etc to provide access from/to both sides of rail line.
Properties in the 20% most None identified - The route between Seer Green and Saunderton travels through areas that are considered to be deprived (some within the most deprived 20% of areas in the country),
isolation
Properties with None identified u This evaluation criterion was included in Rev. 17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been completed. This has not been
disproportionately high numbers appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
of equality groups demolished or
at high risk of isolation where
known
11. Accessibility Reduce severance. See 11a. Maintain and enhance Number of strategic footpaths, None identified 0 19 footpaths and an existing cycle path are severed by the proposed scheme and hence will need to be mitigated against via a footbridge. This should match the existing
also TAG Unit 3.6.2 pedestrian access nature trails and cycle paths routes, and link to the wider network to ensure that severance is minimised
Number crossed and area (ha) of None identified 0 Width of land take unknown, but covers 0.8 miles of park and garden space. Whilst this is a small proportion of land, adequate measures should be taken to mitigate against
open spaces, including common any negative impacts of land take, including landscaping and noise barriers (particularly if train line would cut through private property)
land.
Improve access to the 11b. Maintain and enhance Location and proximity of Potential for improved access to public + No proposed changes to the existing alignment of rail lines and no new stations. The scheme mainly consists of improved frequency of rails services along the route.
public transport system. access to public transport existing public transport nodes transport Therefore whilst no improvements to the physical accessibility to public transport, passengers will experience improved journey times and frequency of services.
3.6.1 Option Values Sub- Potential to improve option None identified u The evaluation criteria was included in Rev. 17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been completed. This has not been apprais
objective . values in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
services
Improve transport 11c. Maintain and enhance Location and proximity of public Potential to improve public transport + No proposed changes to the existing alignment of rail lines and no new stations. The scheme mainly consists of improved frequency of rails services along the route.
interchange. See TAG Unit public transport interchange transport nodes interchanges as a result of option Therefore no major changes to the physical access to public transport interchanges. However, improved frequency may improve the interchange levels available to
3.7.1 Transport passengers on their journeys
Interchange Sub-
Objective
None Identified Ability to accommodate mobility impaired 0 Criterion will not help to distinguish between options, but comment should be provided on what measures will be considered to ensure mobility impaired access.
access with option
12. Health and well- Encourage physical 12a. Maintain and improve None Identified Potential to encourage a more healthy 0 Minor modal shift from motorised modes likely. Some minor modal shift to non motorised transport to rail hubs possible.
being fitness. See TAG Unit physical health lifestyle (e.g. through more active travel
3.3.12 Physical Fitness options) when accessing the network
Sub-Objective
None Identified Improvement in access to recreational open 0 No improvement to open space access.
space
13. Security and Reduce accidents. See 13a. Contribute to the reduction None Identified Change in likelihood of accidents as a result ++ The scheme will generate mode shift from road to highway, reducing the number of accidents on the highway network and generating positive monetised benefits as a
safety TAG Unit 3.4.1 Accidents of road traffic accidents of option (modal shift) result, although the overall impact is negligible across 60 years and relative to the other scheme benefits.
Sub-Objective
fear of crime crime
14. Economic To support sustainable 14a. Support economic None Identified Net business impacts for transport users (i.e. 0 Scheme will generate substantial benefits, but the high level of investment required means the scheme would generate net disbenefits and poor value for money
prosperity economic activity and get competitiveness and make excluding environmental and wider economic (BCR<1.00).
TAG Units 3.5.1 to 3.5.14.
growth and maintain and competitiveness and labour productivity conditions for economic competitiveness.
enhance employment None Identified Impacts on labour markets o Reduced journey times will effectively expand market catchments, providing individuals with improved employment opportunities and businesses with a greater pool of
opportunities potential labour. However, the monetised impact is expected to be negligible.
developments None Identified Impacts on planned major housing and Scheme will have positive impact in providing improved access to/from new housing/employment developments along the Birmingham-London corridor, most notably
+
sustainable housing developments around the Milton Keynes growth region.
15 c. Maintain and enhance None Identified Impacts on other defined regeneration areas o None identified
regeneration
16. Soil and land No NATA equivalent 16b. Maintain and enhance land Total area (ha) of grade 1, 2 or Impacts on Grade 1 & 2 agricultural land 0 The majority of the proposed schemes are in land of Grade 3 or lower or in urban areas.
Total area (ha) of Green belt None identified - Package 5 is approximately two thirds Green Belt land.
None Identified Area of land designated for mineral extraction u Criterion will assist in sifting options and provides a measure of the area of land that could be sterilised by an option. This is not appraised in the strategic alternatives study.
None Identified Area of land designated for waste disposal u Criterion will assist in sifting options and provides a measure of the area of land that could be sterilised by an option. This is not appraised in the strategic alternatives study.
17. Waste No NATA equivalent 17a. Prevent and minimise Demolition Volumes None identified u Potential effects are not known at this stage as the likely construction material or demolition volumes are now known.
generation waste production
Study Report
Appendix C
Appraisal Framework - Roads

Highway Package 1 - M42 J1-3 D3+HSR, M42 J3A-7 D4+HSR, M42 J3-3A Dual 4+HSR, M40 J3-16 D3+HSR, M40 J1-3 D4+HSR, M1 J6A-10 D4+HSR, M1 J1-6a D3+HSR
objective
1. Climatic factors No NATA equivalent 1a. Improve resilience of Extent of development in the None identified o The motorway widening corridors are located in designated Floodplain 3 in places.
& adaptability transport network (conventional floodplain (measured as length Limited upgrading of the existing drainage system resulting in minimal effects on this objective.
rail/road) against extreme (km) or area (ha) in flood zone Improvements limited to M42 Junction 3-7 where the drainage system will be upgraded to cater for climate change.
weather events 3b).
Residual Flood Risk (measured None identified. o The motorway widening corridors are located in designated Floodplain 3 in places.
as length (km) or area (ha) in Limited upgrading of the existing drainage system resulting in minimal effects on this objective.
flood zone 2). Improvements limited to M42 Junction 3-7 where the drainage system will be upgraded to cater for climate change.
2. Greenhouse Reduce greenhouse 2a. Contribute to the reduction of Change in CO2 equivalent None identified u This criterion will help in sifting options and will report the projected change in carbon emissions against an agreed DfT "Reference Case."
gases gases. See also TAG Unit greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e) emissions released as a It has been assumed that Atkins will carry out coarse spatial modelling of road and rail packages.
3.3.5 Greenhouse Gases result of physical interventions on Any calculation will also have regard to demand generation (and resultant carbon impacts) and the carbon impacts (benefits/disbenefits)
Sub-Objective & TAG Unit road and rail packages as associated with released capacity on existing networks.
3.5.4 CBA compared with the 'without' Road Package 1= 88208 T/yr.
scheme scenario.
2b. Reduce relative contribution Relative efficiency in operations None identified u This evaluation criterion was included in Rev.17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been
made by rail to greenhouse gas between high speed trains and completed.
emissions by applying energy rolling stock and classic trains. This has not been appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.

3. Landscape and Protect and enhance 3a. Maintain and enhance Number of national designated Impacts on the coherence and distinctiveness - The widening interventions within Package 1 would occur within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Townscape landscape. See also TAG existing landscape character landscapes directly affected e.g. of landscape resources of national The M1 and M40 widening corridors run through the Chilterns AONB.
Unit 3.3.7 Landscape & AONBs, ASVs, Special importance, e.g. AONBs, ASVs, Special The M40 runs adjacent to the boundary of the Cotswolds AONB.
TAG Unit 3.3.6 Landscape Areas, National Landscape Areas, National Parks, National However, as the packages primarily comprise hard shoulder running and an additional lane within the existing highway boundary, there will
Environmental Capital Parks, National Scenic Areas Scenic Areas (Scotland) not be direct effects on this national landscape designation but there may be negative effects on the setting during construction.
(Scotland). Number of additional
Number of regional designated None identified - The M42 widening proposals are in close proximity to a number of Country Parks including Sandwell Valley, Woodgate Valley and
landscapes directly affected e.g. Windmill and Waseley.
registered parks and gardens, The M40 widening proposals to 3 lanes+HSR between Junction 3 and 16 is in close proximity to a number of registered parks and garde
Regional Landscape including Aynhoe, Hall Barn, Bulstrode Park, and Farnborough Hall (J10-11) as well as Burton Bassett Country Park and Warwick Castle
Designations (Scotland). (J14).
Number of additional regional There are a number of registered parks and gardens within 500m of the M1 widening works including Wall Hall (J5), Gorhambury (J8) and
landscapes within 500m of Luton Hoo (J10) which could be indirectly affected during construction.
option. During construction, there could be negative effects on the setting of these regional designated landscapes.
In addition, the widening proposals for the M42 would occur in designated Green Belt.
Protect and enhance 3b. Maintain and enhance Number and proximity of None identified o No effects identified.
townscape. See also TAG existing townscape character strategically important views
Unit 3.3.8 Townscape Sub and/or key vistas affected by
Objective & TAG Unit option.
3.3.6 Environmental
Capital
4. Cultural heritage Protect the heritage of 4a. Preserve and protect Number of World Heritages None identified o None of the proposals in this package would not directly or indirectly affect and World Heritage Sites.
incl. architectural & historic resources See also archaeological assets Sites directly affected. Number
archaeological TAG Unit 3.3.9 & TAG of additional WHS within 500m
Unit 3.3.6 Envt Capital of option (indirect effects on
setting).
Number of Scheduled None identified - There are three scheduled monuments that are within the widening corridors in this package including 2 within the M40 widening corridor
Monuments directly affected. and one within the M1 widening corridor (The Aubreys).
Number of additional SM within Whilst there would be no direct impact on these Scheduled Monuments as the widening packages primarily comprise HSR and additional
500m of option. lands within the existing highway boundary there could be some indirect negative effects on the setting of these Scheduled Monuments
particularly during construction.
4b. Preserve and protect historic Number of Grade I and II* None identified o There are a number of listed buildings within 500m corridor of the various motorway widening works which comprise Package 1 howeve
buildings directly affected by option. is not considered that significant negative effects would occur as a result of the widening works on the setting of these listed buildings.
on setting).
Number of heritage resources of None identified o There are a number of heritage resources of regional importance within 500m corridor of the various motorway widening works which
regional importance directly comprise Package 1 however, it is not considered that significant negative effects would occur as a result of the widening works on the
affected by the option e.g. setting of these historic assets.
Listed Buildings. Number within
on setting).
Impacts on the character of None identified o The M40 widening proposals to 3 lanes+HSR between Junction 3 and 16 is in close proximity to a number of registered parks and garde
heritage resources of including Aynhoe, Hall Barn, Bulstrode Park, and Farnborough Hall (J10-11) as well as Burton Bassett Country Park and Warwick Castle
international and regional (J14).
importance e.g. Grade I and II* There are a number of registered parks and gardens within 500m of the M1 widening works including Wall Hall (J5), Gorhambury (J8) and
Registered Parks and Gardens, Luton Hoo (J10) which could be indirectly affected during construction.
registered Battlefields. Number During construction, there could be negative effects on the setting of these regional designated landscapes.
effects on setting).
5. Biodiversity Support biodiversity See 5a. Maintain and enhance Number of sites of international Impacts on integrity of sites of international - There are no Ramsar sites within 500m of the widening proposals in this package.
also TAG Unit 3.3.10 biodiversity importance directly affected e.g. importance e.g. SACs/cSACs, SPAs/cSPAs There are 2 SACs, Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment and Aston Rowant (which straddles the M40 between junctions 5 and 6).
Biodiversity Sub-objective SACs/cSACs, SPAs/cSPAs & & RAMSAR sites. No direct effects identified and further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the widening works on the integrity
& TAG Unit 3.3.6 RAMSAR sites. Number of sites of these sites of international importance.
Number of sites of national Impacts on integrity of sites of national - The River Blythe River SSSI runs underneath and close to the M42 north of J4.
importance directly affected e.g. importance e.g. SSSIs, Geological SSSIs, In addition, Windmill Naps Wood SSSI is located within 500m of M42, J3.
SSSIs, Geological SSSIs, NNRs. The addition of a HSR and an additional lane all within the existing highway boundary is unlikely to have direct impacts on these SSSIs
NNRs. Number of sites within however, there could be indirect adverse effects.
500m of option. Along the M40 corridor, the Ardley Cutting and Quarry SSSI is within the 500m corridor as well as Wendlebury Meads and Masmoor
Closes SSSI (M40, J9, Shabbington Woods SSSI (J7-8) and Aston Rowant SSSI and Aston Rowant Woods SSSI (which straddles the
M40 at J6/5 and is also designated as a NNR).
Bricketwood Common SSSI is close to the M1 widening corridor.
Potential negative effects could arise.
6. Water resources Protect the water 6a. Protect surface water Number of watercourses None identified - The motorway widening schemes would cross a number of watercourses and there could be negative effects during construction however,
environment. See also resources crossed and within 500m of no long term effects are likely.
TAG Unit 3.3.11 Water option and water quality directive
Environment Sub- classifications.
objective & TAG Unit 3.3.6
Environmental Capital
7. Flood risk No NATA equivalent 7a. Conserve and protect the Extent of infrastructure within the None identified + The motorway widening corridors are located in designated Floodplain 3 in places.
capacity of floodplains 1 in 100 year flood plain zones Limited upgrading of the existing drainage system resulting in minimal effects on this objective.
(Flood Zone 3) Improvements limited to M42 Junction 3-7 where the drainage system will be upgraded to cater for climate change.
Extent of infrastructure within the None identified + The motorway widening corridors are located in designated Floodplain 3 in places. Limited upgrading of the existing drainage system
1 in 1000 year flood plain zones resulting in minimal effects on this objective. Improvements limited to M42 Junction 3-7 where the drainage system will be upgraded to
(Flood Zone 2) cater for climate change.
8. Air quality Improve local air quality. 8a. Maintain and enhance local Estimated population within None identified Criterion will assist in sifting options. Consideration of the relative population density along route corridor using Ordnance Survey Census
See also TAG Unit 3.3.9 air quality. 100m of links experiencing Data to give an overall proximity index to assess affects during construction. With package 1 the estimated population within 100m of
Local Air Quality Sub- physical interventions to indicate links experiencing physical interventions to indicate potential nuisance during construction is 14831.
Pollution
Change in overall mass Point source emissions from Power Stations Criterion will not provide a means of distinguishing between options, but commentary can be provided on impacts of criterion for preferred
emissions 'with' and 'without' are not included in these totals, though their option(s). Following receipt of traffic data / modal shift data, the TAG Unit 3.3.4 Regional Air Pollution assessment tool will be used to
option within option corridor in effect is controlled by the Environment quantify the change in regional emissions when options are operational. Road Package 1 in T/yr - NOx +207, PM10 +20.
Change in total emission rate per Each Road package results in increases in Criterion will assist in sifting options, though it should be noted that this metric does not assess the change in personal exposure to air
unit area multiplied by population the Air Quality Index which indicates an pollutants at relevant receptors. Local air quality impacts, due to increased trip generation as result of the options, will be assessed using
density for the same unit area overall worsening in air quality. TAG Unit 3.3.3, Air quality impacts at a Strategy Level will be considered using TAG Worksheet 2 over the same study area - this will look
within option corridors 'with' and at mass emissions and estimated population within 200m for each link. Comment should be provided on potential impacts on local air
'without' option in 2035 (Nox and quality around options.Road Package 1- Air Quality Index NOx +87272, PM10 +8706
PM10) - TAG strategy level
worksheet 2
Number of AQMAs through Impacts of options on traffic AQ impacts in Examination will be made as to whether AQMAs are present and identify where traffic data indicates that links will have a significant
which the route corridor runs. Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) change in traffic based on coarse traffic modelling, (significant = change in AADT >1000, change in average speed>10kph, change in
The traffic data provided HDV>200), which will assist in sifting options. Supporting information will consider air quality conditions in 2025, and consider local air
represents a network which is quality action plans.Road Package 1 results in significant increases in traffic affecting only three out of 24 AQMAs.
within 200m of 24 Air Quality
Management Areas (AQMAs
detailed in 2009 Air Quality
Management Area GIS layer).
9. Noise Reduce noise. See also 9a. Maintain and enhance the Change in the population Identification of other noise-sensitive - Criterion assists in sifting options. Appraisal is based on determining the change in average noise emission and relating this to population
TAG Unit 3.3.2 Noise Sub- local noise environment potentially annoyed by receivers such as schools, hospitals and data. Step 1 involves estimating the difference in noise emissions between the ‘without’ and ‘with’ scheme scenarios using the transport
objective (nb: Methodology operational noise public open spaces model outputs for the road or rail network as appropriate. The main input parameters would be traffic flows, traffic composition and traffic
for Strategies set out in speeds. Step 2 relates relate these differences to the zonal population densities and estimate the change in population annoyed at
Section 1.6) dwellings. The change in the estimated population annoyed (EPA) by operational noise as a result on Highway Package 1 = 1195.
Package 1 would be expected to be acoustically the most favourable pacakage given the least number of people annoyed as a result of the
widening proposals (restricted to M42, M40 and M1). These figures have been estimated using 1dB step changes in noise as a result of
the proposals.
Indicative ‘Present Value of None identified - As the monetary value of noise impacts depends on the initial levels of noise, monetary valuation does not provide meaningful figures a
Benefits (PVB)’ for daytime assessment for strategies. However, indicative 'NPV' of benefits between various options can assist in comparing options, assuming any
operational-related residential uncertainty would equally apply to all options. For this package the indicative 'NPV' of benefits of daytime operational-related residential
noise noise, unit million pounds (-ve value represents disbenefit) =
-£11m
No NATA equivalent 9b. Maintain local vibration Nos. of residential properties at None identified o Vibration effects at receptors are dependent upon a number of parameters including the type and condition on road/rail surface, interven
environment risk of vibration ground and proximity of receivers to source. Changes in airborne vibration with the scheme would follow the changes in noise as
described above (limited to 40m from roads). Ground-borne vibrations are unlikely to be important when considering new or re-surfaced
roads. For highway packages, no significant effects would be expected.
Nos. of residential properties at None identified. o Re-rediated noise could be an issue at receptors which are reasonably well screened and, as a result, airborne noise is significantly
risk of reradiated noise reduced (e.g receiver near a tunnel or basement of a receiver near a surface rail track) For highway packages there are no effects
identified as no tunnels are proposed.
10. Community No NATA equivalent 10a. Maintain and enhance Nos. of properties demolished or None identified o No significant land take changes to the existing alignment of highway, hence no planned impact on demolition/land take on neighbouring
integrity community integrity affected by land take properties.
In addition, land take due to widening appears to be minimal and not in immediate areas of neighbouring houses.
Nos. of properties at high risk of None identified o

isolation No significant land take changes to the existing alignment of highway, hence no planned impact of isolation on neighbouring properties.
Land take due to widening appears to be minimal and not in immediate areas of neighbouring houses.
isolation
Properties with disproportionatelyNone identified This evaluation criterion was included in Rev.17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been
high numbers of equality groups completed.
demolished or at high risk of This has not been appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
isolation where known.
11. Accessibility Reduce severance. See 11a. Maintain and enhance Number of strategic footpaths, None identified o No significant changes to the existing alignment of highway hence no planned impact on local footpaths, nature trails or cycle paths.
also TAG Unit 3.6.2 pedestrian access nature trails and cycle paths However, consideration will be necessary in scheme design to snure that bridges, footpaths and cycle paths are maintained/improved and
Reducing Severance Sub- severed and/or requiring included in scheme design for pedestrian/cycle access in the area.
Number crossed and area (ha) ofNone identified o No significant changes to the existing alignment of highway, hence no planned impact on study area or common land.
open spaces, including common
land.
Improve access to the 11b. Maintain and enhance Location and proximity of existingPotential for improved access to public o Twenty-nine rail stations within 800m of the route providing alternative transport to the road network.
public transport system. access to public transport public transport nodes transport Rail stations should be clearly signed from motorway and easily accessible.
See TAG Unit 3.6.3 & Potential to include signage along the routes to inform drivers of the rail options into London.
3.6.1 Option Values Sub- No PT improvements included in scheme design.
objective . Potential to improve option None identified This evaluation criterion was included in Rev.17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been
values. completed.
This has not been appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
Population in the 20% most None identified This evaluation criterion was included in Rev.17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been
deprived areas with better completed.
access to public transport This has not been appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
services
Improve transport 11c. Maintain and enhance Location and proximity of public Potential to improve public transport ++ No identified improvements to public transport nodes as a result of the package proposals.
interchange. See TAG Unit public transport interchange transport nodes interchanges as a result of option However, close proximity to so many rail stations along the route with appropriate signage could increase patronage at these locations, and
3.7.1 Transport therefore improvements may be beneficial.
access with option
12. Health and well- Encourage physical 12a. Maintain and improve None Identified Potential to encourage a more healthy lifestyl o The motorway widening proposals would not contribute to encouraging more healthy lifestyles therefore no effects identified.
being fitness. See TAG Unit physical health (e.g. through more active travel options) whe
3.3.12 Physical Fitness accessing the network
Sub-Objective None Identified Improvement in access to recreational open o The motorway widening proposals would not contribute to encouraging more healthy lifestyles therefore no effects identified.
space
13. Security and Reduce accidents. See 13a. Contribute to the reduction None Identified Change in likelihood of accidents as a result + The scheme will generate mode shift from rail to road, creating increased vehicle-kilometres, but this will be offset by reduced number of
safety TAG Unit 3.4.1 Accidents of road traffic accidents of option (modal shift) accidents on the improved highway network.
Sub-Objective The scheme will have a small positive impact in terms of reducing the number of accidents and generating monetised benefits.
fear of crime crime
TAG Units 3.5.1 to 3.5.14. 14b. Support wider economic None Identified Changes in agglomeration, market + Scheme will reduce journey times between major conurbations, shortening the 'effective' distance and enabling agglomeration economies
growth and maintain and competiveness and labour productivity to thrive and improving the conditions for economic competitiveness.
enhance employment
opportunities
None Identified Impacts on labour markets o Reduced journey times will effectively expand market catchments, providing individuals with improved employment opportunities and
businesses with a greater pool of potential labour.
However, the monetised impact is expected to be negligible.
developments
None Identified Impacts on planned major housing and + Scheme will have positive impact in providing improved access to/from new housing/employment developments along the Birmingham-
sustainable housing developments London corridor, most notably around the Milton Keynes growth region.
regeneration
16. Soil and land No NATA equivalent 16b. Maintain and enhance land None Identified Impacts on Grade 1 & 2 agricultural land o As the packages primarily comprise hard shoulder running and an additional lane within the existing highway boundary, there will not
resources resources effects on agricultural land.
Total area (ha) of Green belt None identified o The widening proposals in part occur in designated Green Belt however as the proposals comprise hard shoulder running and an
directly by potential land take. additional lane within the existing highway boundary there will be no effects.
None Identified Area of land designated for mineral extraction u Criterion will assist in sifting options and provides a measure of the area of land that could be sterilised by an option.
that is sterilised as a result of option This is not appraised in the strategic alternatives study.
None Identified Area of land designated for waste disposal u Criterion will assist in sifting options and provides a measure of the area of land that could be sterilised by an option.
directly affected by option This is not appraised in the strategic alternatives study.
16b. Encourage reuse of brownfield None Identified Number of “high risk” brownfield sites u Criterion will assist in sifting options.
sites brought back into beneficial use, either wholly Criterion will consider those high risk contaminated sites (those sites which are considered more problematic to remediate, or that pose a
or partially. risk to vulnerable groundwater resources and therefore have a lower redevelopment potential) .
High risk sites: Gas work sites; former landfill sites; chemical works; steel works and power stations.
This is not appraised in the strategic alternatives study.
17. Waste No NATA equivalent 17a. Prevent and minimise wasteDemolition Volumes None identified u Potential effects are not known at this stage as the likely construction material or demolition volumes are not known.
18. Resource use No NATA equivalent 18a. Conserve and protect None Identified Potential to make more efficient use of u Potential effects are not known at this stage as the likely construction material or demolition volumes are not known.
None Identified Potential to re-use materials as a result of u Potential effects are not known at this stage as the likely construction material or demolition volumes are not known.
Highway Package 2 - As per package 1 plus M6 J4A to J9 4 lanes+HSR, M25 J15 to 21 4 lanes9+HSR and M25 J13 to J15 6 lanes
objective

1. Climatic factors No NATA equivalent 1a. Improve resilience of Extent of development in the None identified + The motorway widening corridors are located in designated Floodplain 3 in places.
& adaptability transport network (conventional floodplain (measured as length Part of the package proposals include upgrading of existing drainage systems to satisfy current pollution and flood control requirements and
rail/road) against extreme (km) or area (ha) in flood zone as such, is likely to result in positive effects against the objective to improve resilience of the transport network to cope against extreme
weather events 3b). weather events.
Residual Flood Risk (measured None identified. + The motorway widening corridors are located in designated Floodplain 3 in places.
as length (km) or area (ha) in Part of the package proposals include upgrading of existing drainage systems to satisfy current pollution and flood control requirements and
flood zone 2). as such, is likely to result in positive effects against the objective to improve resilience of the transport network to cope against extreme
weather events.
2. Greenhouse Reduce greenhouse gases. 2a. Contribute to the reduction of Change in CO2 equivalent None identified u This criterion will help in sifting options and will report the projected change in carbon emissions against an agreed DfT "Reference Case." It
gases See also TAG Unit 3.3.5 greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e) emissions released as a has been assumed that Atkins will carry out coarse spatial modelling of road and rail packages. Any calculation will also have regard to
Greenhouse Gases Sub- result of physical interventions on demand generation (and resultant carbon impacts) and the carbon impacts (benefits/disbenefits) associated with released capacity on
Objective & TAG Unit 3.5.4 road and rail packages as existing networks. Road Package 2 = 122845 T/yr.
scheme scenario.
made by rail to greenhouse gas between high speed trains and completed. This has not been appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
emissions by applying energy rolling stock and classic trains.

3. Landscape and Protect and enhance 3a. Maintain and enhance Number of national designated Impacts on the coherence and distinctiveness - The M1 and M40 widening corridors run through the Chilterns AONB.
Townscape landscape. See also TAG existing landscape character landscapes directly affected e.g. of landscape resources of national The M40 runs adjacent to the boundary of the Cotswolds AONB.
Unit 3.3.7 Landscape & AONBs, ASVs, Special importance, e.g. AONBs, ASVs, Special The packages primarily comprise hard shoulder running and an additional lane within the existing highway boundary and there will not be
TAG Unit 3.3.6 Landscape Areas, National Landscape Areas, National Parks, National direct effects on this national landscape designation but there may be negative effects on the setting during construction.
Environmental Capital Parks, National Scenic Areas Scenic Areas (Scotland)
Number of regional designated None identified -- The widening of the M42 are in close proximity to a number of Country Parks including Sandwell Valley, Woodgate Valley and Windmill and
landscapes directly affected e.g. Waseley.
registered parks and gardens, The M40 widening proposals to 3 lanes+HSR between Junction 3 and 16 is in close proximity to a number of registered parks and gardens
Designations (Scotland). (J14).
option. Within 500m of the M25 widening works between J13 and 31 lie Great Fosters and St. Annes Hill Historic Parks and Garden and Thorney
Park which is designated as a Country Park.
The widening proposals could impact on the setting of these regional landscape designations.
In addition, the widening proposals for the M25 and M42 would occur in designated Green Belt.
Protect and enhance 3b. Maintain and enhance Number and proximity of None identified o
Objective & TAG Unit 3.3.6 option.
4. Cultural heritage Protect the heritage of 4a. Preserve and protect Number crossed and area (h) of None identified o None of the proposals in this package would not directly or indirectly affect and World Heritage Sites.
Number crossed or area (ha) of None identified -- There are four scheduled monuments that are within the widening corridors in this package including 2 within the M40 widening corridor and
Scheduled Monuments directly one within the M1 widening corridor (The Aubreys) and one within the M6 widening corridor: Bromwich Castle, designated as an Scheduled
affected. Number of additional Monument, lies directly adjacent to J5 of the M6.
SM within 500m of option. Whilst there would be no direct impact on these Scheduled Monuments as the widening packages primarily comprise HSR and additional
lanes within the existing highway boundary there could be some indirect negative effects on the setting of these Scheduled Monuments
Whilst the widening proposals would not directly affect the Scheduled Monuments however potential negative effects on the setting of this
SM could occur during construction resulting in significant negative effects due the proximity of the SM to the widening proposals.
4b. Preserve and protect historic Number of Grade I and II* directly None identified o There are a number of listed buildings within 500m corridor of the various motorway widening works which comprise Package 2 however, it
buildings affected by option. Number of is not considered that significant negative effects would occur as a result of the widening works on the setting of these listed buildings.
Grade I and II* within 500m of
option.
regional importance directly affected comprise Package 2 however, it is not considered that significant negative effects would occur as a result of the widening works on the
by the option e.g. Conservation setting of these historic assets.
Areas, Grade II Listed Buildings.
Number within 500m of option
(indirect effects on setting).
Impacts on the character of heritage None identified o The M40 widening proposals to 3 lanes+HSR between Junction 3 and 16 is in close proximity to a number of registered parks and gardens
resources of international and including Aynhoe, Hall Barn, Bulstrode Park, and Farnborough Hall (J10-11) as well as Burton Bassett Country Park and Warwick Castle
regional importance e.g. Grade I and (J14).
II* Registered Parks and Gardens, There are a number of registered parks and gardens within 500m of the M1 widening works including Wall Hall (J5), Gorhambury (J8) and
registered Battlefields. Number Luton Hoo (J10) which could be indirectly affected during construction.
Within 500m of the M25 widening works between J13 and 31 lie Great Fosters and St. Annes Hill Historic Parks and Garden and Thorney
5. Biodiversity Support biodiversity See 5a. Maintain and enhance Number of sites of international Impacts on integrity of sites of international -- There are 2 SACs, Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment and Aston Rowant (which straddles the M40 between junctions 5 and 6),
also TAG Unit 3.3.10 biodiversity importance directly affected e.g. importance e.g. SACs/cSACs, SPAs/cSPAs & There are no internationally designated sites within the M6 widening corridor.
Biodiversity Sub-objective SACs/cSACs, SPAs/cSPAs & RAMSAR sites. There is two RAMSAR and SPAs which lie either side of the M25 corridor between J13 and 15 (Wraysbury Reservoir and Staines Moor).
& TAG Unit 3.3.6 RAMSAR sites. Number of sites No direct effects identified and further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the widening works on the integrity of
within 500m of option (indirect these sites of international importance.
Number of sites of national Impacts on integrity of sites of national -- The River Blythe River SSSI runs underneath and close to the M42 north of J4.
SSSIs, Geological SSSIs, NNRs. NNRs. The addition of a HSR and an additional lane all within the existing highway boundary is unlikely to have direct impacts on these SSSIs
Number of sites within 500m of however, there could be indirect adverse effects.
option. Along the M40 corridor, the Ardly Cutting and Quarry SSSI is within the 500m corridor as well as Wendlebury Meads and Masmoor Closes
SSSI (M40, J9, Shabbington Woods SSSI (J7-8) and Aston Rowant SSSI (which straddles the M40 at J6/5 and is also designated as a
NNR).
The Bricketwood Common SSSI is along the M1 widening corridor.
Staines Moor and Wraysbury Reservoir SSSIs lie either side of the M25 between J13 and 15.
6. Water resources Protect the water 6a. Protect surface water Number of watercourses crossed None identified - The motorway widening schemes would cross a number of watercourses and there could be negative effects during construction however,
environment. See also TAG resources and within 500m of option and no long term effects are likely and effects are not considered to be significant.
Unit 3.3.11 Water water quality directive
Environment Sub-objective classifications.
& TAG Unit 3.3.6
Extent of infrastructure within the None identified + The motorway widening corridors are located in designated Floodplain 3 in places.
1 in 1000 year flood plain zones Limited upgrading of the existing drainage system resulting in minimal effects on this objective.

8. Air quality Improve local air quality. 8a. Maintain and enhance local Estimated population within 100m None identified Criterion will assist in sifting options. Consideration of the relative population density along route corridor using Ordnance Survey Census
See also TAG Unit 3.3.9 air quality. of links experiencing physical Data to give an overall proximity index to assess affects during construction.With package 2 the estimated population within 100m of
Local Air Quality Sub- interventions to indicate potential links experiencing physical interventions to indicate potential nuisance during construction is 16736.
objective (nb: Strategic for nuisance during construction.
approach set out in Section
Pollution
option within option corridor in effect is controlled by the Environment Agency quantify the change in regional emissions when options are operational. Road Package 2 in T/yr - NOx +294, PM10 +27
2035(NOx and PM10).
Change in total emission rate per Each Road package results in increases in the Criterion will assist in sifting options, though it should be noted that this metric does not assess the change in personal exposure to air
unit area multiplied by population Air Quality Index which indicates an overall pollutants at relevant receptors. Local air quality impacts, due to increased trip generation as result of the options, will be assessed using
density for the same unit area worsening in air quality. TAG Unit 3.3.3, Air quality impacts at a Strategy Level will be considered using TAG Worksheet 2 over the same study area - this will look at
within option corridors 'with' and mass emissions and estimated population within 200m for each link. Comment should be provided on potential impacts on local air quality
'without' option in 2035 (Nox and around options. Road Package 2-Air Quality Index NOx +111297, PM10 +10797
worksheet 2
Number of AQMAs through Impacts of options on traffic AQ impacts in Air Examination will be made as to whether AQMAs are present and identify where traffic data indicates that links will have a significant change
which the route corridor runs. Quality Management Area (AQMA) in traffic based on coarse traffic modelling, (significant = change in AADT >1000, change in average speed>10kph, change in HDV>200),
The traffic data provided which will assist in sifting options. Supporting information will consider air quality conditions in 2025, and consider local air quality action
represents a network which is plans. Road Package 2 results in significant increases in traffic affecting twelve AQMAs. Other AQMAs are within 200m of links
within 200m of 24 Air Quality where traffic is not expected to change significantly, based on coarse traffic modelling.
9. Noise Reduce noise. See also 9a. Maintain and enhance the Change in the population Identification of other noise-sensitive receivers - Criterion assists in sifting options. Appraisal is based on determining the change in average noise emission and relating this to population
TAG Unit 3.3.2 Noise Sub- local noise environment potentially annoyed by operationa such as schools, hospitals and public open data. Step 1 involves estimating the difference in noise emissions between the ‘without’ and ‘with’ scheme scenarios using the transport
objective (nb: Methodology noise spaces model outputs for the road or rail network as appropriate. The main input parameters would be traffic flows, traffic composition and traffic
for Strategies set out in speeds. Step 2 relates relate these differences to the zonal population densities and estimate the change in population annoyed at dwellings.
Section 1.6) The change in the estimated population annoyed (EPA) by operational noise as a result on Highway Package 2 = 1458. These figures have
been estimated using 1dB step changes in noise as a result of the proposals.
Indicative ‘Present Value of None identified - As the monetary value of noise impacts depends on the initial levels of noise, monetary valuation does not provide meaningful figures at the
noise noise, unit million pounds (-ve value represents disbenefit) =-£93m
No NATA equivalent 9b. Maintain local vibration Nos. of residential properties at None identified o Vibration effects at receptors are dependent upon a number of parameters including the type and condition on road/rail surface, intervening
environment risk of vibration ground and proximity of receivers to source. Changes in airborne vibration with the scheme would follow the changes in noise as described
above (limited to 40m from roads). Ground-borne vibrations are unlikely to be important when considering new or re-surfaced roads. For
highway packages, no significant effects would be expected.
Nos. of residential properties at None identified. o Re-rediated noise could be an issue at receptors which are reasonably well screened and, as a result, airborne noise is significantly reduced
risk of reradiated noise (e.g receiver near a tunnel or basement of a receiver near a surface rail track) For highway packages there are no effects identified as no
tunnels are proposed.
Nos. of properties at high risk of None identified o
isolation No significant land take changes to the existing alignment of highway, hence no planned impact of isolation on neighbouring properties.
isolation
Properties with disproportionately None identified u This evaluation criterion was included in Rev.17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been
high numbers of equality groups completed. This has not been appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
Reducing Severance Sub- severed and/or requiring diversion included in scheme design for pedestrian/cycle access in the area.
Objective.
Number crossed and area (ha) of None identified o No significant changes to the existing alignment of highway, hence no planned impact on study area or common land.
open spaces, including common
land.
Improve access to the 11b. Maintain and enhance Location and proximity of existing Potential for improved access to public o Thirty one rail stations within 800m of the route providing alternative transport to the road network.
public transport system. access to public transport public transport nodes transport Rail stations should be clearly signed from motorway and easily accessible.
See TAG Unit 3.6.3 & Potential to include signage along the routes to inform drivers of the rail options into London.
3.6.1 Option Values Sub- No PT improvements included in scheme design.
objective .
Potential to improve option values. None identified u This evaluation criterion was included in Rev.17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been completed.
Population in the 20% most deprived None identified u This evaluation criterion was included in Rev.17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been completed.
areas with better access to public This has not been appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
transport services
Improve transport 11c. Maintain and enhance public Location and proximity of public Potential to improve public transport ++ No identified improvements to public transport nodes as a result of the proposals.
interchange. See TAG Unit transport interchange transport nodes interchanges as a result of option However close proximity to so many rail stations along the route with appropriate signage could increase patronage at these locations, and
3.7.1 Transport therefore improvements maybe beneficial (where necessary).

access with option
12. Health and well- Encourage physical fitness. 12a. Maintain and improve None Identified Potential to encourage a more healthy lifestyle o The motorway widening proposals would not contribute to encouraging more healthy lifestyles therefore no effects identified.
being See TAG Unit 3.3.12 physical health (e.g. through more active travel options) when
Physical Fitness Sub- accessing the network
Objective None Identified Improvement in access to recreational open o The motorway widening proposals would not contribute to encouraging more healthy lifestyles therefore no effects identified.
space
13. Security and Reduce accidents. See 13a. Contribute to the reduction None Identified Change in likelihood of accidents as a result + The scheme will generate mode shift from rail to road, creating increased vehicle-kilometres, but this will be offset by reduced number of
safety TAG Unit 3.4.1 Accidents of road traffic accidents of option (modal shift) accidents on the improved highway network.
Sub-Objective The scheme will have a small positive impact in terms of reducing the number of accidents and generating monetised benefits.
security against major incidents anticipated in event of major incident (e.g. fire,
explosion in tunnel or on bridge section)
fear of crime crime
TAG Units 3.5.1 to 3.5.14. 14b. Support wider economic None Identified Changes in agglomeration, market + Scheme will reduce journey times between major conurbations, shortening the 'effective' distance and enabling agglomeration economies to
growth and maintain and competiveness and labour productivity thrive and improving the conditions for economic competitiveness.
enhance employment
opportunities
15. Economic Tag Unit 3.7.2 Land Use 15a. Support wider economic Net benefits for consumers and None identified. ++ The scheme will generate high levels of travel time savings for commuters, amounting to £2.0 billion
developments None Identified Impacts on planned major housing and + Scheme will have positive impact in providing improved access to/from new housing/employment developments along the Birmingham-
regeneration
16. Soil and land No NATA equivalent 16b. Maintain and enhance land None Identified Impacts on Grade 1 & 2 agricultural land o As the packages primarily comprise hard shoulder running and an additional lane within the existing highway boundary, there will not effects
resources resources on agricultural land.
Total area (ha) of Green belt None identified o The widening proposals in part occur in designated Green Belt however as the proposals comprise hard shoulder running and an additional
directly by potential land take. lane within the existing highway boundary there will be no effects.
16b. Encourage reuse of None Identified Number of “high risk” brownfield sites brought u Criterion will assist in sifting options.
brownfield sites back into beneficial use, either wholly or Criterion will consider those high risk contaminated sites (those sites which are considered more problematic to remediate, or that pose a
partially. risk to vulnerable groundwater resources and therefore have a lower redevelopment potential) .
17. Waste No NATA equivalent 17a. Prevent and minimise waste Demolition Volumes None identified u Potential effects are not known at this stage as the likely construction material or demolition volumes are not known.
Highway Package 3 - As per package 2 plus M40 J3-16 D4, M40 J1A to 3 D5.
objective
1. Climatic factors No NATA equivalent 1a. Improve resilience of Extent of development in the None identified + The package of proposals cross floodplain 3b in certain places.
& adaptability transport network (conventional floodplain (measured as length Part of the package proposals include upgrading of existing drainage systems to satisfy current pollution and flood control requirements
rail/road) against extreme (km) or area (ha) in flood zone and as such, is likely to result in positive effects against the objective to improve resilience of the transport network to cope against extre
weather events 3b). weather events.
Residual Flood Risk (measured None identified. + Part of the package proposals include upgrading of existing drainage systems to satisfy current pollution and flood control requirements
as length (km) or area (ha) in and as such, is likely to result in positive effects against the objective to improve resilience of the transport network to cope against extre
flood zone 2). weather events.
2. Greenhouse Reduce greenhouse 2a. Contribute to the reduction of Change in CO2 equivalent None identified u This criterion will help in sifting options and will report the projected change in carbon emissions against an agreed DfT "Reference Case
3.3.5 Greenhouse Gases result of physical interventions on Any calculation will also have regard to demand generation (and resultant carbon impacts) and the carbon impacts (benefits/disbenefits)
Sub-Objective & TAG Unit road and rail packages as associated with released capacity on existing networks.Road Package 3 = 150260 T/yr.
3.5.4 CBA compared with the 'without'
scheme scenario.

3. Landscape and Protect and enhance 3a. Maintain and enhance Number of national designated Impacts on the coherence and distinctiveness - The widening interventions within this package 2 would occur within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Townscape landscape. See also TAG existing landscape character landscapes directly affected e.g. of landscape resources of national The M1, M25 and M40 widening corridors run through the Chilterns AONB, the M40 runs adjacent to the boundary of the Cotswold
Unit 3.3.7 Landscape & AONBs, ASVs, Special importance, e.g. AONBs, ASVs, Special AONB
TAG Unit 3.3.6 Landscape Areas, National Landscape Areas, National Parks, National However, as the packages primarily comprise hard shoulder running and an additional lane within the existing highway boundary, there will
Environmental Capital Parks, National Scenic Areas Scenic Areas (Scotland) not be direct effects on this national landscape designation but there may be negative effects on the setting during construction.
Number of regional designated None identified -- The widening of the M42 are in close proximity to a number of Country Parks including Sandwell Valley, Woodgate Valley and Windmill
landscapes directly affected e.g. and Waseley.
registered parks and gardens, The M40 widening proposals to 3 lanes+HSR between Junction 3 and 16 is in close proximity to a number of registered parks and garde
Designations (Scotland). (J14)
option. Within 500m of the M25 widening works between J13 and 31 lie Great Fosters and St.Annes Hill Historic Parks and Garden and Thorny
The widening proposals could impact on the setting of these regional landscape designations. In addition, the widening proposals for the e
M25, M40 and M42 would occur in designated Green Belt.
3.3.6 Environmental
Capital
Number crossed or area (ha) of None identified -- There are four scheduled monuments that are within the widening corridors in this package including 2 within the M40 widening corridor
Scheduled Monuments directly and one within the M1 widening corridor (The Aubreys) and one within the M6 widening corridor: Bromwich Castle, designated as an SM,
affected. Number of additional lies directly adjacent to J5 of the M6.
SM within 500m of option. Whilst there would be no direct impact on these Scheduled Monuments as the widening packages primarily comprise HSR and additional
lanes within the existing highway boundary there could be some indirect negative effects on the setting of these Scheduled Monuments
Whilst the widening proposals would not directly affect this Scheduled Monument however potential negative effects on the setting of the
Scheduled Monuments could occur during construction resulting in significant negative effects due the proximity of the Scheduled
Monuments to the widening proposals.
4b. Preserve and protect historic Number of Grade I and II* None identified o There are a number of listed buildings within 500m corridor of the various motorway widening works which comprise Package 3 howeve
buildings directly affected by option. is not considered that significant negative effects would occur as a result of the widening works on the setting of these listed buildings.
500m of option.
Conservation Areas, Grade II Listed
Buildings. Number within 500m of
option (indirect effects on setting).
Impacts on the character of heritage None identified o The M40 widening proposals to 3 lanes+HSR between Junction 3 and 16 is in close proximity to a number of registered parks and garde
resources of international and including Aynhoe, Hall Barn, Bulstrode Park, and Farnborough Hall (J10-11) as well as Burton Bassett Country Park and Warwick Castle
regional importance e.g. Grade I (J14).
and II* Registered Parks and There are a number of registered parks and gardens within 500m of the M1 widening works including Wall Hall (J5), Gorhambury (J8) and
Gardens, registered Battlefields.
Luton Hoo (J10) which could be indirectly affected during construction.
Within 500m of the M25 widening works between J13 and 31 lie Great Fosters and St.Annes Hill Historic Parks and Garden and Thorny
5. Biodiversity Support biodiversity See 5a. Maintain and enhance Number of sites of international Impacts on integrity of sites of international -- There are 2 SACs, Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment, Aston Rowant (which straddles the M40 between junctions 5 and 6). There are no
also TAG Unit 3.3.10 biodiversity importance directly affected e.g. importance e.g. SACs/cSACs, SPAs/cSPAs internationally designated sites within the M6 widening corridor. There are two RAMSARs and SPAs which lies either side of the M25
Biodiversity Sub-objective SACs/cSACs, SPAs/cSPAs & & RAMSAR sites. corridor between J13 and 15, Staines Moor and Wraysbury Reservoir, which are also SSSIs.
& TAG Unit 3.3.6 RAMSAR sites. Number of sites No direct effects identified and further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the widening works on the integrity
within 500m of option (indirect of these sites of international importance.
500m of option. Along the M40 corridor, the Ardly Cutting and Quarry SSSI is within the 500m corridor as well as Wendlebury Meads and Masmoor Clos
SSSI (M40, J9, Shabbington Woods SSSI (J7-8) and Aston Rowant SSSI (which straddles the M40 at J6/5 and is also designated as a
NNR). The Bricketwood Common SSSI is along the M1 widening corridor.
Staines Moor and Wraysbury Reservoir SSSIs lie either side of the M25 between J13 and 15. Potential negative effects could arise.
6. Water resources Protect the water 6a. Protect surface water Number of watercourses None identified - The motorway widening schemes would cross a number of watercourses and there could be negative effects during construction however,
environment. See also resources crossed and within 500m of no long term effects are likely and effects are not considered to be significant.
objective & TAG Unit 3.3.6
Extent of infrastructure within the None identified + The motorway widening corridors are located in designated Floodplain 3 in places. Limited upgrading of the existing drainage system
1 in 1000 year flood plain zones resulting in minimal effects on this objective. Improvements limited to M42 Junction 3-7 where the drainage system will be upgraded to
(Flood Zone 2) cater for climate change.
See also TAG Unit 3.3.9 air quality. 100m of links experiencing Data to give an overall proximity index to assess affects during construction. With package 3 the estimated population within 100m of
Local Air Quality Sub- physical interventions to indicate links experiencing physical interventions to indicate potential nuisance during construction is 16736.
Pollution
option within option corridor in effect is controlled by the Environment quantify the change in regional emissions when options are operational. Road Package 3 in T/yr - NOx +358, PM10 +35.
Change in total emission rate per Each Road package results in increases in Criterion will assist in sifting options, though it should be noted that this metric does not assess the change in personal exposure to air
unit area multiplied by population the Air Quality Index which indicates an pollutants at relevant receptors. Local air quality impacts, due to increased trip generation as result of the options, will be assessed using
density for the same unit area overall worsening in air quality. TAG Unit 3.3.3, Air quality impacts at a Strategy Level will be considered using TAG Worksheet 2 over the same study area - this will look
within option corridors 'with' and at mass emissions and estimated population within 200m for each link. Comment should be provided on potential impacts on local air
'without' option in 2035 (Nox and quality around options.Road Package 3-Air Quality Index NOx +133370, PM10 +13437.
worksheet 2
represents a network which is quality action plans. Road Package 3 results in significant increases in traffic affecting twelve AQMAs. Other AQMAs are within
within 200m of 24 Air Quality 200m of links where traffic is not expected to change significantly, based on coarse traffic modelling.
9. Noise Reduce noise. See also 9a. Maintain and enhance the Change in the population Identification of other noise-sensitive -- Criterion assists in sifting options. Appraisal is based on determining the change in average noise emission and relating this to population
objective (nb: Methodology operational noise public open spaces model outputs for the road or rail network as appropriate. The main input parameters would be traffic flows, traffic composition and traffic
for Strategies set out in speeds. Step 2 relates relate these differences to the zonal population densities and estimate the change in population annoyed at
Section 1.6) dwellings. The change in the estimated population annoyed (EPA) by operational noise as a result on Highway Package 3 = 11,475.
These figures have been estimated using 1dB step changes in noise as a result of the proposals.
Indicative ‘Present Value of None identified -- As the monetary value of noise impacts depends on the initial levels of noise, monetary valuation does not provide meaningful figures a
noise noise, unit million pounds (-ve value represents disbenefit) =
-£367m
No NATA equivalent 9b. Maintain local vibration Nos. of residential properties at None identified o Vibration effects at receptors are dependent upon a number of parameters including the type and condition on road/rail surface, interven
environment risk of vibration ground and proximity of receivers to source. Changes in airborne vibration with the scheme would follow the changes in noise as
described above (limited to 40m from roads). Ground-borne vibrations are unlikely to be important when considering new or re-surfaced
roads. For highway packages, no significant effects would be expected.
Nos. of residential properties at None identified o Re-rediated noise could be an issue at receptors which are reasonably well screened and, as a result, airborne noise is significantly
Nos. of properties at high risk of None identified o No significant land take changes to the existing alignment of highway, hence no planned impact of isolation on neighbouring properties.
isolation Land take due to widening appears to be minimal and not in immediate areas of neighbouring houses.
isolation
Properties with disproportionatelyNone identified u This evaluation criterion was included in Rev.17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been
high numbers of equality groups completed.
demolished or at high risk of This has not been appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
Number crossed of open None identified o No significant changes to the existing alignment of highway, hence no planned impact on study area or common land.
spaces, including common land.
Improve access to the 11b. Maintain and enhance Location and proximity of existingPotential for improved access to public o Thirty one rail stations within 800m of the route providing alternative transport to the road network. Rail stations should be clearly signed
public transport system. access to public transport public transport nodes transport from motorway and easily accessible. Potential to include signage along the routes to inform drivers of the rail options into London. No PT
See TAG Unit 3.6.3 & improvements included in scheme design.
3.6.1 Option Values Sub-
objective .
Population in the 20% most None identified u This evaluation criterion was included in Rev.17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been completed.
deprived areas with better access to This has not been appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
public transport services
Improve transport 11c. Maintain and enhance Location and proximity of public Potential to improve public transport ++ No identified improvements to public transport nodes as a result of the proposals.
interchange. See TAG Unit public transport interchange transport nodes interchanges as a result of option However close proximity to so many rail stations along the route with appropriate signage could increase patronage at these locations, and
3.7.1 Transport therefore improvements maybe beneficial (where necessary.

access with option
12. Health and well- Encourage physical 12a. Maintain and improve None Identified Potential to encourage a more healthy lifestyl o The motorway widening proposals would not contribute to encouraging more healthy lifestyles therefore no effects identified.
being fitness. See TAG Unit physical health (e.g. through more active travel options) whe
3.3.12 Physical Fitness accessing the network
space
13. Security and Reduce accidents. See 13a. Contribute to the reduction None Identified Change in likelihood of accidents as a result o The scheme will generate mode shift from rail to road, creating increased vehicle-kilometres, but this will be offset by reduced number of
safety TAG Unit 3.4.1 Accidents of road traffic accidents of option (modal shift) accidents on the improved highway network, culminating in negligible benefits (neutral impact).
Sub-Objective
fear of crime crime
enhance employment
opportunities
regeneration
directly by potential landtake. additional lane within the existing highway boundary there will be no effects.
16b. Encourage reuse of None Identified Number of “high risk” brownfield sites u Criterion will assist in sifting options.
brownfield sites brought back into beneficial use, either wholly Criterion will consider those high risk contaminated sites (those sites which are considered more problematic to remediate, or that pose a
or partially. risk to vulnerable groundwater resources and therefore have a lower redevelopment potential) .
17. Waste No NATA equivalent 17a. Prevent and minimise wasteDemolition Volumes None identified u Potential effects are not known at this stage as the likely construction material or demolition volumes are not known.
Highway Package 4 - all HSR sections widened giving additional capacity on all study area motorways.
objective
1. Climatic factors No NATA equivalent 1a. Improve resilience of Extent of development in the None identified + The package of proposals cross floodplain 3b in certain places.
& adaptability transport network (conventional floodplain (measured as length Part of the package proposals include upgrading of existing drainage systems to satisfy current pollution and flood control requirements
rail/road) against extreme (km) or area (ha) in flood zone and as such, is likely to result in positive effects against the objective to improve resilience of the transport network to cope against
weather events 3b). extreme weather events.
Residual Flood Risk (measured None identified. + Part of the package proposals include upgrading of existing drainage systems to satisfy current pollution and flood control requirements
as length (km) or area (ha) in and as such, is likely to result in positive effects against the objective to improve resilience of the transport network to cope against
flood zone 2). extreme weather events.
2. Greenhouse Reduce greenhouse 2a. Contribute to the reduction of Change in CO2 equivalent None identified u This criterion will help in sifting options and will report the projected change in carbon emissions against an agreed DfT "Reference Cas
3.3.5 Greenhouse Gases result of physical interventions Any calculation will also have regard to demand generation (and resultant carbon impacts) and the carbon impacts (benefits/disbenefits)
Sub-Objective & TAG Unit on road and rail packages as associated with released capacity on existing networks.
3.5.4 CBA compared with the 'without' Road Package 4 = 203302 T/yr.
scheme scenario.

3. Landscape and Protect and enhance 3a. Maintain and enhance Number of national designated Impacts on the coherence and - The widening interventions within this package would occur within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Townscape landscape. See also TAG existing landscape character landscapes directly affected e.g. distinctiveness of landscape resources of The M1, M25 and M40 widening corridors run through the Chilterns and the M40 runs adjacent to the boundary of the Cotswold AONB
Unit 3.3.7 Landscape & AONBs, ASVs, Special national importance, e.g. AONBs, ASVs, However, as the packages primarily comprise hard shoulder running and an additional lane within the existing highway boundary, there
TAG Unit 3.3.6 Landscape Areas, National Special Landscape Areas, National Parks, will not be direct effects on this national landscape designation but there may be negative effects on the setting during construction.
Environmental Capital Parks, National Scenic Areas National Scenic Areas (Scotland)
(Scotland). Number of additiona
Number of regional designated None identified -- The widening of the M42 are in close proximity to a number of Country Parks including Sandwell Valley, Woodgate Valley and Windmill
landscapes directly affected e.g. and Waseley.
registered parks and gardens. The M40 widening proposals to 3 lanes+HSR between Junction 3 and 16 is in close proximity to a number of registered parks and
Number of additional regional gardens including Aynhoe, Hall Barn, Bulstrode Park, and Farnborough Hall (J10-11) as well as Burton Bassett Country Park and
landscapes within 500m of Warwick Castle (J14).
option. There are a number of registered parks and gardens within 500m of the M1 widening works including Wall Hall (J5), Gorhambury (J8)
and Luton Hoo (J10) which could be indirectly affected during construction.
Within 500m of the M25 widening works between J13 and 31 lie Great Fosters and St.Annes Hill Historic Parks and Garden and Thorne
The widening proposals could impact on the setting of these regional landscape designations.
In addition, the widening proposals for the M1, M25, M40 and M42 would occur in designated Green Belt.
3.3.6 Environmental
Capital
Number crossed or area (ha) of None identified -- There are three scheduled monuments that are within the widening corridors in this package including 2 within the M40 widening corridor
Scheduled Monuments directly and one within the M1 widening corridor (The Aubreys).
affected. Number of additional Whilst there would be no direct impact on these Scheduled Monuments as the widening packages primarily comprise HSR and additional
SM within 500m of option. lands within the existing highway boundary there could be some indirect negative effects on the setting of these Scheduled Monuments
This package also comprises the widening of M6 to 4 lanes +HSR.
Bromwich Castle, designated as an Scheduled Monument, lies directly adjacent to J5 of the M6.
Whilst the widening proposals would not directly affect the Scheduled Monuments however potential negative effects on the setting of the
Scheduled Monuments could occur during construction resulting in significant negative effects due the proximity of the Scheduled
Monuments to the widening proposals.
4b. Preserve and protect historic Number of Grade I and II* None identified o There are a number of listed buildings within 500m corridor of the various motorway widening works which comprise Package 4 however,
buildings directly affected by option. it is not considered that significant negative effects would occur as a result of the widening works on the setting of these listed buildings.
500m of option.
Listed Buildings. Number within
500m of option (indirect effects on
setting).
Impacts on the character of None identified o The M40 widening proposals to 3 lanes+HSR between Junction 3 and 16 is in close proximity to a number of registered parks and
heritage resources of international gardens including Hall Barn, Bulstrode Park, and Farnborough Hall (J10-11) as well as Burton Bassett Country Park and Warwick Castle
and regional importance e.g. Grade (J14).
I and II* Registered Parks and During construction, there could be negative effects on the setting of these regional designated landscapes.
Gardens, registered Battlefields.
There are a number of registered parks and gardens within 500m of the M1 widening works including Wall Hall (J5), Gorhambury (J8)
and Luton Hoo (J10) which could be indirectly affected during construction.
Within 500m of the M25 widening works between J13 and 31 lie Great Fosters and St.Annes Hill Historic Parks and Garden and Thorne
5. Biodiversity Support biodiversity See 5a. Maintain and enhance Number of sites of international Impacts on integrity of sites of international - - There are 2 SACs Mole Gap to Reigate Escarpment and Aston Rowant (which straddles the M40 between junctions 5 and 6).
also TAG Unit 3.3.10 biodiversity importance directly affected e.g. importance e.g. SACs/cSACs, SPAs/cSPAs There are no internationally designated sites within the M6 widening corridor.
Biodiversity Sub-objective SACs/cSACs, SPAs/cSPAs & & RAMSAR sites. There are RAMSARs and SPAs Wraysbury Reservoir and Staines Moor which lies either side of the M25 corridor between J13 and 15.
& TAG Unit 3.3.6 RAMSAR sites. Number of sites No direct effects identified and further assessment would be required to ascertain the likely impacts of the widening works on the integrity
within 500m of option. of these sites of international importance.
500m of option. Along the M40 corridor, the Ardly Cutting and Quarry SSSI is within the 500m corridor as well as Wendlebury Meads and Masmoor
Closes SSSI (M40, J9, Shabbington Woods SSSI (J7-8) and Aston Rowant SSSI (which straddles the M40 at J6/5 and is also
designated as a NNR). The Bricketwood Common SSSI is along the M1 widening corridor.
Staines Moor and Wraysbury Reservoir SSSIs lie either side of the M25 between J13 and 15.
6. Water resources Protect the water 6a. Protect surface water Number of watercourses None identified - The motorway widening schemes would cross a number of watercourses and there could be negative effects during construction
environment. See also resources crossed and within 500m of however, no long term effects are likely and effects are not considered to be significant.
objective & TAG Unit
3.3.6 Environmental
Capital
Extent of infrastructure within the None identified + The motorway widening corridors are located in designated Floodplain 3 in places.
1 in 1000 year flood plain zones Limited upgrading of the existing drainage system resulting in minimal effects on this objective.
See also TAG Unit 3.3.9 air quality. 100m of links experiencing Data to give an overall proximity index to assess affects during construction.With package 4 the estimated population within 100m
Local Air Quality Sub- physical interventions to indicate of links experiencing physical interventions to indicate potential nuisance during construction is 27294
1.2) and 3.3.4 Regional
Air Pollution
option within option corridor in effect is controlled by the Environment quantify the change in regional emissions when options are operational.Road Package 4 in T/yr - NOx +485, PM10 +48
Change in total emission rate perEach Road package results in increases in Criterion will assist in sifting options, though it should be noted that this metric does not assess the change in personal exposure to air
unit area multiplied by population the Air Quality Index which indicates an pollutants at relevant receptors. Local air quality impacts, due to increased trip generation as result of the options, will be assessed
density for the same unit area overall worsening in air quality. using TAG Unit 3.3.3, Air quality impacts at a Strategy Level will be considered using TAG Worksheet 2 over the same study area - this
within option corridors 'with' and will look at mass emissions and estimated population within 200m for each link. Comment should be provided on potential impacts on
'without' option in 2035 (Nox and local air quality around options.Road Package 4-Air Quality Index NOx +200783, PM10 +20671.
worksheet 2
represents a network which is quality action plans.Road Package 4 results in significant increases in traffic affecting fourteen AQMAs. Other AQMAs are within
within 200m of 24 Air Quality 200m of links where traffic is not expected to change significantly, based on coarse traffic modelling.
9. Noise Reduce noise. See also 9a. Maintain and enhance the Change in the population Identification of other noise-sensitive -- Criterion assists in sifting options. Appraisal is based on determining the change in average noise emission and relating this to population
objective (nb: operational noise public open spaces model outputs for the road or rail network as appropriate. The main input parameters would be traffic flows, traffic composition and traffic
Methodology for Strategies speeds. Step 2 relates relate these differences to the zonal population densities and estimate the change in population annoyed at
set out in Section 1.6) dwellings. The change in the estimated population annoyed (EPA) by operational noise as a result on Highway Package 4 = 11,475.
These figures have been estimated using 1dB step changes in noise as a result of the proposals.
Indicative ‘Present Value of None identified -- As the monetary value of noise impacts depends on the initial levels of noise, monetary valuation does not provide meaningful figures at
Benefits (PVB)’ for daytime the assessment for strategies. However, indicative 'NPV' of benefits between various options can assist in comparing options, assuming
operational-related residential any uncertainty would equally apply to all options. For this package the indicative 'NPV' of benefits of daytime operational-related
noise residential noise, unit million pounds (-ve value represents disbenefit) -£367m
=
No NATA equivalent 9b. Maintain local vibration Nos. of residential properties at None identified o Vibration effects at receptors are dependent upon a number of parameters including the type and condition on road/rail surface,
environment risk of vibration intervening ground and proximity of receivers to source. Changes in airborne vibration with the scheme would follow the changes in no
as described above (limited to 40m from roads). Ground-borne vibrations are unlikely to be important when considering new or re-
surfaced roads. For highway packages, no significant effects would be expected.
Nos. of residential properties at None identified o Re-rediated noise could be an issue at receptors which are reasonably well screened and, as a result, airborne noise is significantly
integrity community integrity affected by land take properties. In addition, land take due to widening appears to be minimal and not in immediate areas of neighbouring houses.
Nos. of properties at high risk of None identified o No significant land take changes to the existing alignment of highway, hence no planned impact of isolation on neighbouring properties.
isolation
isolation
Properties with None identified u This evaluation criterion was included in Rev.17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been
disproportionately high numbers completed.
of equality groups demolished or This has not been appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
also TAG Unit 3.6.2 pedestrian access nature trails and cycle paths However, consideration will be necessary in scheme design to snure that bridges, footpaths and cycle paths are maintained/improved a
Number crossed and area (ha) None identified o No significant changes to the existing alignment of highway, hence no planned impact on study area or common land.
common land.
Improve access to the 11b. Maintain and enhance Location and proximity of existingPotential for improved access to public o Thirty one rail stations within 800m of the route providing alternative transport to the road network. Rail stations should be clearly signed
public transport system. access to public transport public transport nodes transport from motorway and easily accessible. Potential to include signage along the routes to inform drivers of the rail options into London. No
See TAG Unit 3.6.3 & PT improvements included in scheme design.
3.6.1 Option Values Sub-
objective .
Population in the 20% most None identified u This evaluation criterion was included in Rev.17 of the AoS for the HS2 study after the appraisal of the strategic alternatives had been completed.
deprived areas with better access This has not been appraised in the Strategic Alternatives Study.
to public transport services
Improve transport 11c. Maintain and enhance Location and proximity of public Potential to improve public transport ++ No identified improvements to public transport nodes as a result of the proposals.
interchange. See TAG Unit public transport interchange transport nodes interchanges as a result of option However close proximity to so many rail stations along the route with appropriate signage could increase patronage at these locations,
3.7.1 Transport and therefore improvements maybe beneficial (where necessary.
Interchange Sub-
Objective
access with option
12. Health and well-Encourage physical 12a. Maintain and improve None Identified Potential to encourage a more healthy o The motorway widening proposals would not contribute to encouraging more healthy lifestyles therefore no effects identified.
being fitness. See TAG Unit physical health lifestyle (e.g. through more active travel
3.3.12 Physical Fitness options) when accessing the network
space
13. Security and Reduce accidents. See 13a. Contribute to the reduction None Identified Change in likelihood of accidents as a result - The scheme will generate mode shift from rail to road, creating increased vehicle-kilometres.
safety TAG Unit 3.4.1 Accidents of road traffic accidents of option (modal shift) The scheme will have a small negative impact in terms of reducing the number of accidents and generating monetised benefits.
Sub-Objective
fear of crime crime
enhance employment
opportunities
regeneration
directly by potential landtake. additional lane within the existing highway boundary there will be no effects.
None Identified Area of land designated for waste disposal u Criterion will assist in sifting options and provides a measure of the area of land that could be sterilised by an option. This is not
directly affected by option appraised in the strategic alternatives study.
17. Waste No NATA equivalent 17a. Prevent and minimise Demolition Volumes None identified u Potential effects are not known at this stage as the likely construction material or demolition volumes are not known.
generation waste production
Study Report
Appendix D
TEE Tables (Rail Packages)

Study Report
Table D.1 – TEE Table for Rail Packages Assuming Rolling Stock is a Capital Cost
Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits (£m, 2009 Prices & Values)

TEE Benefit
Rail Package 2 Rail Package 3 Rail Package 4 Rail Package 5
Consumer User Benefits
Travel Time 2,490 3,011 2,849 3,791
Vehicle Operating Costs 37 44 72 101
User Charges -1 -1 -1 -1
During Construction & Maintenance - - - -
Business User Benefits
Travel Time 4,570 6,294 6,499 7,925
Vehicle Operating Costs -1 1 3 5
User Charges -12 -12 -12 -12
Private Sector Provider Impacts
Revenue 3,740 5,209 5,701 6,663
Operating Costs -2,870 -4,247 -4,396 -5,978
Investment Costs -2,502 -8,008 -9,662 -12,578
Grant/Subsidy 5,372 12,255 14,058 18,556
Revenue Transfer -3,740 -5,209 -5,701 -6,663
Other Business Impacts
Developer Contribution - - - -
Net Consumer Benefits 2,526 3,055 2,920 3,891
Net Business Impact 4,557 6,283 6,489 7,918
Present Value of TEE Benefits 7,083 9,338 9,409 11,810

Study Report
Table D.2 – Public Accounts Table for Rail Packages Assuming Rolling Stock is a Capital Cost
Public Accounts (£m, 2009 Prices & Values)

TEE Benefit
Local Government Funding
Revenue - - - -
Operating costs - - - -
Investment costs - - - -
Developer Contributions - - - -
Grant/Subsidy Payments - - - -
Revenue Transfer - - - -
NET IMPACT - - - -
Central Government Funding
Revenue - - - -
Grant/Subsidy Payments 5,372 12,255 14,058 18,556
Indirect Tax Revenues 392 620 506 651
NET IMPACT 2,025 7,666 8,864 12,543
Total Present Value of Costs (PVC) 2,025 7,666 8,864 12,543

Study Report
Table D.3 – Analysis of Monetised Costs & Benefits Table for Rail Packages Assuming Rolling Stock is a Capital Cost
Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits3

TEE Benefit
Consumer User Benefits 2,526 3,055 2,920 3,891
Business User Benefits 4,557 6,283 6,489 7,918
Private Sector Provider Impacts - - - -
Other Business Impacts - - - -
Accident Benefits 5 29 14 16
Carbon Benefits - - - -
Net Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 7,349 9,535 9,798 11,604
Local Government Funding - - - -
Central Government Funding 2,025 7,666 8,864 12,543
Net Present Value of Costs (PVC) 2,025 7,666 8,864 12,543
Overall Impact
Net Present Value (NPV) 5,325 1,869 934 -939
Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 3.63 1.24 1.11 0.93
3
Note: Any carbon benefits associated with the rail and highway packages were not incorporated into the monetised economic appraisal, but were included as part
of the wider appraisal framework
Study Report
Table D.4 – TEE Table for Rail Packages Assuming Rolling Stock is Leased

TEE Benefit
Travel Time 2,490 3,011 2,849 3,791
Travel Time 4,570 6,294 6,499 7,925
Vehicle Operating Costs -1 1 3 5
User Charges -12 -12 -12 -12
Revenue 3,740 5,209 5,701 6,663
Operating Costs -3,636 -5,412 -5,472 -7,351
Grant/Subsidy 5,928 13,185 14,906 19,682

Study Report
Table D.5 - Public Accounts Table for Rail Packages Assuming Rolling Stock is Leased

TEE Benefit
Revenue - - - -
NET IMPACT - - - -
Revenue - - - -
NET IMPACT 2,581 8,596 9,711 13,669

Study Report
Table D.6 - Analysis of Monetised Costs & Benefits Table for Rail Packages Assuming Rolling Stock is Leased
Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits

TEE Benefit
Accident Benefits 5 29 14 16
Overall Impact
Net Present Value (NPV) 4,769 939 87 -2,064

Study Report
Table D.7 - – TEE Table for Additional Rail Tests: Packages 2A & 3A

TEE Benefit
Rail Package 2A – Capital Rail Package 3A - Capital Rail Package 2A - Lease Rail Package 3A - Lease
Travel Time 2,352 2,208 2,352 2,208
During Construction & Maintenance - -
Travel Time 4,230 4,648 4,230 4,648
Vehicle Operating Costs - -2 - -2
User Charges -12 -12 -12 -12
Revenue 3,181 3,750 3,181 3,750
Operating Costs -2,870 -2,830 -3,642 -3,544
Grant/Subsidy 5,372 8,931 5,934 9,439

Study Report
Table D.8 - Public Accounts Table for Additional RailTests: Packages 2A & 3A

TEE Benefit
Revenue - - - -
NET IMPACT - - - -
Revenue - - - -
NET IMPACT 2,557 5,429 3,119 5,937

Study Report
Table D.9 - Analysis of Monetised Costs & Benefits Table for Additional Rail Tests: Packages 2A & 3A

TEE Benefit
Accident Benefits - -2 - -2
Central Government Funding - 5,429 5,937
Overall Impact
Net Present Value (NPV) 4,261 1,615 3,699 1,108

Study Report
Appendix E
TEE Tables (Roads Packages)

Study Report
Table E.1 – TEE Table for Roads Packages

TEE Benefit
Road Package 1 Road Package 2 Road Package 3 Road Package 4
Travel Time 2,502 3,160 2,839 3,990
Vehicle Operating Costs 16 -25 2 -101
User Charges - - - -
Travel Time 1,617 1,969 1,955 3,093
User Charges - - - -
Revenue 1 5 -2 3
Operating Costs - - - -
Grant/Subsidy 1,187 1,439 2,205 3,278
Revenue Transfer 1 5 -2 3

Study Report
Table E.2 – Public Accounts Table for Roads Packages

TEE Benefit
Revenue - - - -
NET IMPACT - - - -
Revenue - - - -
Indirect Tax Revenues 2 -35 -11 -94
NET IMPACT 1,189 1,403 2,194 3,185

Study Report
Table E.3 – Analysis of Monetised Costs & Benefits for Roads Packages

TEE Benefit
Private Sector Provider Impacts 1 5 -2 3
Other Business Impacts 0 0 0 0
Accident Benefits 9 0 6 -17
Overall Impact
Net Present Value (NPV) 2,970 3,732 2,624 3,830

Study Report
Appendix F
PLD Seated Capacity & Crowding Plots at
2033

Study Report
Appendix G
NTM 2035 Highway Volume over Capacity
Plots

High Speed 2 Strategic Alternatives Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Speed 2 Strategic Alternatives Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

High Speed 2 Strategic Alternatives Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What alternatives were considered for improving transportation between major cities in Britain?

What alternatives were considered for improving transportation between major cities in Britain?

What types of rail and highway interventions were proposed?

What types of rail and highway interventions were proposed?

High Speed 2 Strategic Alternatives Study

Strategic Outline Case

JOB NUMBER: 5087288 DOCUMENT REF: Document2

5 Final Draft v3 JT JF WL 19/2/10

4 Final Draft v2 JT JF WL 22/1/10

3 Final Draft v1 JT JF WL PWHR 15/1/10

2 Second Draft JT JF WL PWHR 21/12/09

1 First Draft JT JF WL PWHR 11/12/09

Revision Purpose Description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

5087288/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 2

8.2 Highway Packages 75

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 3

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 4

1.2 Purpose of the Report

1.3 Structure of the Report

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 5

2. The Strategic Case

2.2 The need to examine strategic alternatives

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 6

2.3 The need for ‘packaging’ alternatives

2.4 The case for Rail Interventions

2.5 The case for Highway Interventions

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 8

3.2 The Future Year Baseline

3.2.2 Future Year Assumptions

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 10

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 11

3.2.2.2 Rail Passenger Demand

Model 2008 2021 % Growth 2033 % Growth % Growth

PLANET Long 26%

3.2.2.3 Highway Supply

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 12

• M5 Hard Shoulder Running operating between J4 to M6 J8.

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 13

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 14

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 15

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 16

3.2.2.4 Highway Demand

Business 1,340,083 1,655,263 24% 1,902,849 15% 42%

Other 2,103,305 2,739,340 30% 3,139,585 15% 49%

Commuter 1,335,254 1,612,916 21% 1,825,618 13% 37%

Total 4,780,650 6,009,540 26% 6,870,083 14% 44%

3.2.3 Rail Issues

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 17

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 18

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 19

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 20

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 21

3.2.4 Highway Issues

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 23

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 24

/Strategic Outline Case_Final.doc 25

3.3 Rail Interventions

3.3.2 Option Identification Process