Leeds/Bradford Airport – Horsforth Station Light Railway Link

I

Abstract

Leeds Bradford Airport has seen large increases in passenger numbers in recent years with the growth in numbers expected to continue. With access to the airport limited to small, A-roads congestion and delays are big concerns and passenger journey times to the airport are increased. This paper explores and compares the potential routes of a Light Railway running from Leeds City Centre to the Airport. Upon completion of the comparative analysis a route is selected and the health, environmental, social and economic impacts of the route are then studied. The basic structural design and station layout are also discussed and recommendations made to the appropriate features and requirements. According to results and analysis a single track line with a deep initial cutting and a short stretch of embankment will provide the optimum route without greatly effecting the surrounding environment or being too costly.

II

ContentsAbstract II

Introduction 1

Background 1

Proposed Routes 2

Factors Affecting Route Selection 2

The Tram System 2

Route Outline 3

Route 1 3

Route 2 4

Route 3 5

Route Analysis 7

Cost Estimation 10

Summary 10

The Recommended Route 11

Environmental Impact Assessment 14

Structural Design 17

Effect of Light Railway on Airport Facilities 19

Cost Benefit Analysis 19

Conclusion and Recommendations 21

References 22

Appendix 1 – Options Analysis 23

Appendix 2 – Route 1 Costing 24

Appendix 3 –Route 2 Costing 25

Appendix 4 – Route 3 Costing 26

Appendix 4 – Route 1 Gradient tables 27

Appendix 5 – Route 2 Gradient Tables 28

Appendix 6 – Route 3 Gradient Tables 29

III

Table of Tables & Figures

Table 1 ...........................................................................................................................2

Figure 1............................................................................................................................3

Figure 2............................................................................................................................4

Figure 3............................................................................................................................5

Figure 4............................................................................................................................6

Figure 5..........................................................................................................................11

Table 2...........................................................................................................................13

Table 3...........................................................................................................................13

Figure 6..........................................................................................................................17

Figure 7..........................................................................................................................18

Table 4 ........................................................................................................................... 22

IV

V

IntroductionLeeds Bradford International Airport is situated at Yeadon, in the City of Leeds Metropolitan District in West Yorkshire. The airport serves the cities of Leeds and Bradford, as well as the wider Yorkshire region including the cities of York and Wakefield, and is the largest airport within Yorkshire.[1]

The purpose of this report is to identify the optimum route for a tram/light railway link between Leeds city centre and Leeds Bradford Airport; the route will be a spur off from the main line that runs from Leeds to Harrogate. The line is required to leave the track within 500m of Horsforth station. Horsforth is located 4.2km South East of the airport and is the closest station that will serve the airport as a route connection. This report will begin by outlining and discussing the factors affecting the location of three possible routes. These will then be narrowed down using a decision matrix; this will help to determine a final recommended route. Once a route has been established an outline design will be conducted along with a suggested station configuration that will link the train line with the airport terminal building. A cost-benefit analysis will be used to determine if the route is financially feasible.

BackgroundThe number of flights from Leeds-Bradford airport is set to increase and development needed to be able to handle the growing number of passengers. An investment of £70 million has been proposed to develop airport facilities and infrastructure to cope with future increases in passengers. One of the major concerns with the airport’s infrastructure is the road network; the airport is only accessible by a series of small and congested “A” and “B” roads. On the other hand a Light rail network is reliable, sustainable and user-friendly, and can move large numbers of people quickly. The rapid movement of passengers from Leeds city centre to the airport will allow passengers to use the existing train network or bus routes to travel to the airport from across the country, reducing bus delays and volume of traffic using the local roads.

1

Proposed RoutesIn this section potential routes will be discussed and analysed to find the optimum passage between Horsforth Station and Leeds Bradford Airport. For map of route locations see Page 7.

Factors Affecting Route SelectionThe tram has a ‘normal maximum’ gradient of 1:33 and an ‘absolute maximum’ of 1:29, [2] it may therefore be necessary for certain sections of a route to be altered through the use of cuttings, embankments and tunnels to correct the slope to this maximum gradient.

The routes will be designed for an average speed of 80kph as this allows for efficient running of the system as well as a fast journey time.

Level crossings will not be used as these are a high risk to public safety, routes must therefore be designed to allow for transport intersections.

Customer satisfaction is a high priority, to achieve a smooth ride is needed and routes must therefore keep gradient change and bends to a minimum.

The Tram SystemThe routes will be designed for use by an Alstom – Regio Citidas. A Diesel-hybrid version will be used as this does not require the electrification of the existing route. [3]

Power rating 600kW

Propulsion

diesel-electric: two-roof-mounted six-cylinder MAN diesel engines,

each delivering 375kW

tramway: 600 V DC

Number of traction motors

4

Acceleration from start 1.1 ms-2

Maximum speed 100 km/h

Weight of a 3-vehicle unit (empty)

63.4t

Weight of a 3-vehicle unit (full)

85.2t

Seating capacity 84 (plus 6 tip-up)

Standing capacity 139

Boarding height 360mm

Length over buffers/couplings

36.76m/37.48m

Width at maximum point 2.65m

Absolute minimum radius

22m

Table 1 Source: Modern Railways, March 2007

2

Route OutlineAll routes will begin from Horsforth Station as a spur from the existing Leeds-York rail line. All routes will terminate at a new station located on the east end of terminal 1. Map of outline routes on Page 7.

Route 1 Route one leaves to the left of the existing track within 200m of the station with a radius of 200m and allowing a 20kph speed. The slope then quickly steepens to an average gradient of 1:18 for a distance of 610m. To reach the accepted tram gradient a 380m long straight cutting followed by a 260m long tunnel and a final cutting of 338m on a 1km radius curve is required to reach an elevation of 150m. The cutting runs straight on to a 110m long 4m high embankment that runs straight over the Scotland beck, a bridge or underpass will be constructed to allow the beck to continue to flow and access to Owlet farm. Once over the beck the track then runs into another cutting with a curve radius of 1km to overcome the steep incline, the cutting continues for 860m before continuing under the road bridge constructed to allow traffic on Scotland lane. The final leg of the route runs in a straight line through the existing airport car park with a final curve 1km radius leading into the straight station track line.

The advantage of this route is that it does not require the demolition of any existing structures however it does require an extensive amount of earthwork and could potentially have delays during the construction process due to the requirement of the 260m tunnel. The tunnel runs below Beech House an English Heritage Grade II listed building, the tunnel ceiling is 5m below ground surface and runs through Devensian Till a superficial deposit made up of sand and gravel that covers bedrock of Pennine Lower Coal Measures Formation a sedimentary bedrock formed of Mudstone, Siltstone and Sandstone. The bedrock could prove to cause some difficulty to the tunnelling and cuttings. There should be minimal effects on the surface structures from tunnelling due to the substantial depth. The majority of the rest of the route runs within cuttings, some of the material excavated could be used to form the structural fill for the 110m long embankment, however most of it will require offsite disposal which will increase construction costs.

3

Tunnel under Beech Wood House

Cutting

Cutting

Cutting

Embankment

Road Intersection

Figure 1

Route 2Route two leaves the main line taking a 1km radius curve left and steadily climbs through an 800m long cutting on an average gradient of 1:31, the cutting is 8m at its deepest and overcomes the 1:21 gradient of the existing slope. Upon leaving the cutting the track begins on another 1km radius curve and runs on to a 310m sloping embankment with a maximum height of 4m. The embankment elevates the track to a height of 150m where it then proceeds to follow the existing ground level; from here it runs for 550m before continuing on a curve with a 1km radius for 710m. During the bend the track runs under a road bridge constructed for Scotland lane traffic. The track then takes a 650m radius curve through the existing airport car park to lead into the station line.

The benefit of this route is that the majority of it generally runs with the gradient of the existing slope reducing the amount of landscape modification, construction, cost and time. An 8m deep cutting is necessary to be able to overcome the steep initial gradients; this should not cause any visual problems as it is located at the base of the slope. Problems may occur around Beech House due to the bedrock being made from Pennine Lower Coal Measures Formation, this is sedimentary bedrock and would require a large cutback slope causing a larger purchase of land and increased cost of excavation and material removal. The construction of the embankment over Scotland Beck and the adjacent slope will entail the demolition of the Owlet Farm (Grade II Listed) this will need listed building consent before any work can happen. The structural fill of the embankment will be constructed out of material from the cutting, however excess material will still need to be disposed of to an external site.

Figure 2

4

8m Deep Cutting

Embankment

Owlet Far

Oaks Farm Access

Dean Grange Farm Access

Road Intersection

Route 3Route Three is the longest of the three routes, running north almost parallel to the main line. The route leaves the existing line and gradually gains height through a cutting on a gradient of 1:43; the cutting is a maximum of 5m deep and runs for 1km. Upon leaving the cutting the track runs onto an embankment rising it to an elevation of 150m where it runs for 250m before crossing a 60m long bridge or retained slope to overcome a sudden change in slope height. The track then follows a series of small embankments and cuttings on its 750m radius curve towards the airport. The track straightens out as it nears the curve before climbing slighting as it runs under a road bridge created for the Scotland lane traffic. Once across the road the track ascends through an old building that will require demolition before running on through the existing car park and into the station

Route 3 causes some local issues as it requires the demolition of Dean Grange Farm, Oaks Farm and a local school, these would be acquired through compulsory purchase and suitable compensation paid out. Multiple earthworks are needed along the route however they are individually less extensive than those required in other routes reducing the cost of construction.

Figure 3

5

Rail Viaduct

Oaks Farm

Embankment

Cutting

Embankment

Cutting

Dean Grange Farm

Road Intersection

6

7

Figure 4.

Route Analysis

Ranking SystemA ranking system between 1 and 4 will be used to assess how each route performs against the set criteria stated below.

Criteria Ranking1 – Poor, High Cost, High Risk, Very High number of…2 – Average, Large number of…3 – Good, Small number of...4 – Very Good, Low Cost, Low Risk, None

Each criteria is then be multiplied by a weighting factor between 1 and 6 as this allows for some factors being of more importance or a greater concern than others. This method will allow for a comparison of key elements of the route.

Criteria Weighting Factor1 - Least Important2 -3 -4 -5 -6 - Most Important

Criteria

CostConstruction - Rough ranking in terms of obvious cost differences in the construction of the route, tunnelling, cuttings etc.

Maintenance - Ranking on the potential maintenance required along the route, for example cutting stabilisation and structural tunnel checks.

Decommissioning - Decommissioning costs of the route judged and compared.

Labour – Cost difference in the amount of labour required to complete the route on time.

DesignHorizontal Profile – routes compared on their length and curvature.

Average Gradient - A comparison is made on the average gradient of the route as this will have an effect on the speed and efficiency at which the tram system operates.

Risk of Flooding - The risk of the routes to flooding will be compared to ascertain the likely hood of down time due to bad weather.

Transport Intersections - The number of intersections with other road or rail networks will be compared as this has a large impact on construction and cost.

8

Rights of Way - The number of public rights of way affected will be compared to determine the effect of the route on the general public’s access.

Route Extension Potential - The ease at which the line could be adapted to take trains from York.

ConstructionCuttings - The number of cuttings along a route and the size of the cuttings has a big impact on the construction length and cost.

Embankments - The number and size of the embankments can have a big impact on the construction length and cost.

Tunnels - Tunnelling is a lengthy and expensive process and can easily encounter construction problems, it is therefore beneficial to keep tunnelling to a minimum.

Airport Disruption – The effect of the route and station construction on the Airport will be compared as airport disruption needs to be kept to a minimum.

Geology - The geology along a route is crucial as it can have a major effect on the construction ease of the route. Routes will be compared on the effect of the ground type on the straightforwardness of constructing cuttings and embankments.

Residents Effected (construction) - The effect of construction on residents while temporary may cause some concern and irritation and is beneficial to be kept to a minimum.

Health & SafetyOn construction site - A comparison will be made on the number of potentially major risks associated with constructing the route, such as extensive tunnelling, construction near an existing railway line, construction near water etc.

Access to site - Construction of the routes requires the safe access of equipment and labour, a comparison of access difficulty will be made.

HumansProximity to Residential Area (500+) - The closer the route runs to large residential areas the greater the noise and visual irritation to the local population.

Noise Nuisance - The number of residents potentially effected by noise nuisance along the route will be compared to try and ensure that as fewer people as possible are affected.

Landscape Modification - The extent of landscape modification has an effect on the aesthetics of the area.

Visual Obtrusion - The extent to which the route proves to be a visual obtrusion or eye sore will be compared as this will have an impact on local support and project popularity.

New Landscape Features - The number of new landscape features will be compared as these can have a big impact on the aesthetics of the local area.

9

EnvironmentReuse of excavated material – Potential for reuse of excavated material to form structural fill on embankments

Areas of designated natural beauty affected - Rated on the number and extent to which these protected areas will be affected.

Clearing of Woodland – Scored on the amount of woodland that will be cleared for route construction.

Water contamination – Rated on potential risk of water contamination, which could have serious negative effects on the local water course.

Soil erosion - Risk of soil erosion due to large cuttings and earthworks

Effect on wildlife habitat - Rated on the degree and number of potential wildlife habitats affected by the route.

Decommission – The extent of the effects on the land should the route be removed.

Cultural HeritageSites of Special Interest - No. of sites effected by the planned route

Monuments - No. of monuments effected by the planned route

Listed Buildings – No. of listed buildings potential effected by planned route

Option Analysis ResultsFrom Appendix 1 it can be seen that route 2 has ranked the best in the options analysis. Route 2 came top in the costing and construction section due to the smaller amount of earthworks and infrastructure needed relative to the other routes. Route 1 scored very low in the cost section because of long sections of cuttings and embankments plus the need for a tunnel to achieve acceptable gradients. The design criteria scored quite similar results due to the similarity in overall location of the routes. The horizontal profile and average gradient had the biggest effect on the scoring; the greater number of bends in route 1 compared with that of route 3 could lead to a very unstable ride. The gradients in route 3 are a lot steeper causing the trams to work harder leading in slow travel times and high inefficiency. Health and Safety scored very similar results as there are not any exceptionally perilous obstacles to overcome but general dangers of the construction site are still relevant. The “effects on humans” criteria showed that route 2 performed the best owing to its distance from built up areas and minimal landscape modification and features, it ranked much higher than route 3 due to extensive landscape modification and visual obtrusion caused by long embankments occurring on this route. Scores on the environmental aspects of the route were also close as all routes run through a very similar area. However Route 2 scores low on the reuse of excavated material because the extent of the cutting is much larger than the embankment requiring the removal of excess soil. The soil erosion scores for all three routes are very low because they all require deep or very long cuttings, this increases the risk of soil erosion or potential landslides. Cultural Heritage criteria has similar scores as none of the routes pass through any sites of special interest or require the demolition of any monument. Route 3

10

does require the demolition of two farms that appear to be Grade II listed which would require listed building consent and thus could cause problems during the planning process.

Cost EstimationCost estimation has been used as a comparison method between the routes to see which would be the cheapest to construct.

Comparison of the tables in Appendix 2-4 shows that the rough cost estimate for the construction of route 2 is slightly cheaper than route 1 and considerably cheaper than the cost of constructing route 3. The costs were greatly affected by the extent of the earthworks which was reflected in the final outcome as route 2 had fewer cuttings and embankments.

SummaryFrom the above analysis it can be seen that the Route 2 scores the highest in the Route Analysis and is cheapest in the rough cost estimation. This result suggests that Route 2 is the optimum route for the rail link while having a minimal impact on the general environment and coming in considerably cheaper than the others. The route has many benefits over Route 1 and 3 such as minimum landscape modification and a lower average gradient providing a much smoother ride. Although requiring the demolition of a farm its distance from large residential areas is more satisfactory to local residents and the large cuttings that take place at the base of the slope help will reduce the visual impact of the route as well as noise levels to the surrounding environment. The recommended route following the analysis is Route 2, a further study of its precise location and structural features will now be carried out.

11

The Recommended Route

Route Profile

This route consists of an 8m deep cutting running for 800m and a 3.5m high embankment; these landscape modifications alter the existing slope to an appropriate gradient (see factors effecting route selection). The route requires a footbridge to allow for a footpath crossing as well as various road intersections, these will be discussed in the structural design section of this report.

Figure 5

The red line on Figure 1 shows the route outline on a horizontal profile (top) against vertical profile (bottom). The bottom diagram shows the location of the cuttings and the embankment from this it can be seen how the route follows the existing slope reducing costs of construction. A detailed map of the route can be found on the next page.

12

CuttingEmbankment

13

Passenger Numbers & Track DesignThe number of passengers in the first year is estimated at 1,400,000 with a planned growth rate of 3% per annum for 20 years. The estimated number of passengers per hour as shown in Table 1 has been used to calculate the number of tram movements needed per hour. From the table we can see that a single tram unit with a capacity of 223 people leaving every half hour from Leeds Train Station will be more than adequate for the expected passenger numbers in 2015, however the passenger numbers in 2035 are considerably higher and by that time the purchase of a second tram will be needed. Given the length of the existing line and with trams leaving from opposite ends of the Airport link every half hour it can be calculated that only a single track is needed between Horsforth and Leeds Bradford Airport as there should be no instance where two trams are on this stretch of line at the same time, if timetabled correctly.

YearNo. of Passengers

Total Estimated per Day per Hour2015 1,400,000 3,836 2742016 1,442,000 3,951 2822017 1,485,260 4,069 2912018 1,529,818 4,191 2992019 1,575,712 4,317 3082020 1,622,984 4,447 3182021 1,671,673 4,580 3272022 1,721,823 4,717 3372023 1,773,478 4,859 3472024 1,826,682 5,005 3572025 1,881,483 5,155 3682026 1,937,927 5,309 3792027 1,996,065 5,469 3912028 2,055,947 5,633 4022029 2,117,626 5,802 4142030 2,181,154 5,976 4272031 2,246,589 6,155 4402032 2,313,987 6,340 4532033 2,383,406 6,530 4662034 2,454,908 6,726 4802035 2,528,556 6,928 495

Table 2

Journey Distance (km) Av. Speed Time (hrs) Time (min)             Leeds - Horsforth 9.13 80 0.11 6.8  

Stoppage Time - - - 0.7  Horsforth to LBIA 3.3 80 0.04 2.5             

    Total Journey Time: 10.0 minutes

Table 3

14

Environmental Impact AssessmentThis is a list of key environmental impacts expected to arise from this project and subsequent mitigation measures:

1. Socio-Economic

The new rail link will encourage tourism and business in Horsforth and the surrounding area helping to increase employment through local businesses and an expanding airport. The economic growth of the region may have a wider multiplier effect resulting in further development. The population of Leeds City could potentially increase due to more convenient way of commuting to the airport via public transport.

Rail link may have detrimental effects on house prices located near the line due to visual obtrusion and potential noise pollution, however this noise will be small relative to aircraft and will there for have a marginal effect on the value of the area.

Mitigation measures:Avoid construction near residential areas with regard to fluctuating house prices.

2. Noise and Vibration

During construction:Noise machinery, heavy earthmoving equipment and regular lorry movements could cause disturbance to local residents. Vibration from construction machinery may result in excessive ground movement potentially causing local damages.

In operation:The new link will reduce the demand on the local road network, consequently reducing traffic noise. The length of route located near residential areas runs through a deep cutting, thus reducing noise output to surrounding environment.

Mitigation measures:Scheduling noisy construction procedures for mid-day will help to reduce disturbance to local residents. Vibrations will be monitored and every effort made to stabilise fresh cutting slopes as soon as possible. Residents experiencing unacceptable noise levels will be provided with an appropriate compensation package after consultation with an engineer.

3. Transport

During construction:Increased demand on the local road network from HGV’s delivering construction materials to site. This will cause congestion and may affect access to the airport along Scotland lane.

In operation:The link will help reduce the amount of vehicles on the road network, and reduce delays of the bus service due to congestion.

15

Mitigation Measures:Effective publicity on the new rail link will encourage passengers to use the service rather than using their car. Construction of temporary tracks/routes for construction traffic as well as temporary diversions along the A658.

4. Land & SoilDuring construction:Large cuttings will result in excess soil which will need to be reused on site or disposed of to landfill sites. Excavation may result in land movement which may affect the stability causing structural issues with nearby buildings and services.

In operation:Extensive rain and soil may lead to erosion of cutting slopes or embankment failure.

Mitigation Measures:Ensure temporary works are in place to prevent land movement during construction. Conduct site survey and investigation of ground conditions prior to construction in order to assess appropriate design method. Seed and plant the cutting slopes to increase soil stability.

5. Historical, Cultural, and Archaeological SitesOwlet Farm is a Grade II listed building. There are no areas of cultural or archaeological significance.

Mitigation Measures:Planning will require the listed building consent. Appropriate compensation will be paid to the owner and investment made in the protection of surrounding local heritage.

6. Air Quality

Air quality in the area already suffers from high levels of pollutants due to constant air traffic.

During construction: Temporary high levels of particulate and dust emissions due to the use of heavy machinery used in construction and increased vehicle use for transportation of construction materials.

In operation: Diesel-hybrid trams are quiet and have much lower visible emissions than any diesel train. The link will reduce the demand on the local road network, subsequently reducing vehicle emissions though the effects may be negligible when offset by the diesel tram.

Mitigation Measures:Mandatory use of water spray trucks will be used to wet down the roads suppressing dust emission. Contractors will be responsible for using equipment that meets specific emission standards and regulations.

16

7. Flora and Fauna

During construction:There may be loss of and/or damage to habitats of plant and animal species; loss of and/or damage to geological features.

In operation:There may be a change in wildlife behaviour or migration routes.

Mitigation Measures:Ensure the relocation of wildlife to safe environments; ensure the preservation/reallocation of habitats. Replant flora in near locations. Observe animal migration patterns to ensure continuing protection.

8. VisualDuring construction:Temporary visual disruption will be caused from construction plant; workforce; earthworks and temporary structures. The construction process may result in the destruction of scenic areas and landscape scaring.

In operation:Permanent modification of the landscape and regular traffic on the new line may affect local opinion of the area.

Mitigation measures:Ensure the replanting of the construction site and along the embankments, landscaping to be in keeping with the area. Compensate land owners affected by significant visual intrusion if complaints or concerns persist.

9. Water Quality & Flood PreventionDuring Construction:Excavation of cuttings may affect the water table of surrounding ground which in turn may lead to localised flooding. Pollutants from construction machines or oil spills may percolate into the local watercourses affecting both quality and safety. Earthworks and debris may lead to blockages in local water systems which again could result in localised/patch flooding.

In operation:Inadequate drainage systems may result in undesired pooling during periods of excessive rainfall, leading to potential soil erosion and landslide. Diesel leakage from tram could affect the local water source.

Mitigation measures:Carry out preliminary investigation of watercourses on site. The contractor is to ensure construction debris and wastes do not enter water systems and all spills are reported and every effort made to reduce contamination. Where necessary reroute existing watercourses to maintain flows and isolate from the effects of construction. Ensure adequate drainage systems are in place to manage surface groundwater and excessive rainfall. Correct maintenance of trams to prevent leaking of diesel and other pollutants.

17

Structural Design

Cutting Slope Grade

A slope of will be used for all cuttings, this will ensure reasonable soil stability under wind and

rain erosion. Where the cutting depth exceeds 7m a terraced slope will be used, a gutter will be required at the toe of the upper slope to help prevent erosion and to channel runoff of the cut.

Slope ProtectionCutting slopes will be designed to a suitable width to compensate for wind and rain erosion of the soil, however due to the local soil being sedimentary bed rock with a Devensian till superficial layer it may still require stabilization. Seeding and planting of grasses and shrubs along the cutting slope provides the needed stability owing to the densely interlocked root system, although this takes a long time to become established it helps to repair scaring to the environment caused by construction.

DrainageAdequate drainage is essential, track ditches give immediate drainage to rain and snow-melt and toe ditches should be provided to assist run off from cuttings.

Embankment ConstructionCareful positioning of available soils within the fill is crucial for stability. The centre should contain an impervious core of well compacted clay that lacks swelling tendencies. The compacted core contains no excess moisture and makes entry of additional moisture difficult consequently providing a stable fill. Less favourable materials can be placed on the shoulders where swelling will not disturb the support area and then ballast is used above this.

CulvertsA series of Culverts will be provided as the route passes through Owlet farm as this will allow for the Scotland Beck to continue flowing and reduce the impact of the line on the local water system.

Track Junction

18

The airport line will spur off from the main line using a simple 3 –way junction. Fig 1 illustrates the basic junction connections for one set of tracks. The airport line as previously stated is a single configuration and thus should allow trains to run both to and from the airport simultaneously while being able to join the main track without affecting the main line services.

Figure 6

Farm Access and Public Rights of WayAccess across the railway will be gained by the use of the designated underpasses and not by level crossing as this is too high risk to public safety. The underpass will consist of a reinforced concrete railway bridge designed to allow the safe passage of farm vehicles and horse riders. Where a footpath alone crosses the line, a designated footbridge will be constructed to ensure that local footpaths and public safety are not put at risk.

Access to Dean Grange Farm and Oaks Farm from Scotland road will require an underpass to allow traffic to pass under the railway. A small cutting will be required to provide access to the underpass but this is cheaper and less visually obtrusive than a road bridge over the line. A footbridge will be required to provide access to the Beech House Footpath over the line into Horsforth.

Scotland Lane IntersectionTo maintain a constant gradient the track will follow the existing gradient of the slope and the road will run underneath it. The road will be cut down and pass under a Standard Railway Bridge, this method may cost more to construct but will remove the potential eye sore of a large bridge on the landscape. Cutting depth for road should be large enough to allow for HGV’s.

Station DesignThe station is the terminus of the line and is located on the end of the terminal building. The station building will be built into the runway embankment with access to the terminal gained via lifts, and escalators. The Terminal Station will have a twin platform to allow access to both sides of the tram; this will permit rapid transfer of passengers on and off the vehicle. Access to each platform will be achieved via a walkway at the end of the platforms; this removes the need for an overhead walkway. The platform lengths will be 45m long to allow access to the full length of the tram.

19

Switch Point Blades

Tie Bar

Check Rails

Running Rails

Running Rails

Wing Rails

Figure 7

Effect of Light Railway on Airport FacilitiesThe Light Railway will require the expansion of the airport terminal to include access to the station. Access from the terminal to the station will be gained by escalators and lifts this will benefit the disabled and passengers with large luggage. The construction of the station will require the removal of some short stay car parking; this will be reallocated and the loss would hopefully be offset by the reduction in vehicle usage owing to the new rail link. The rail line runs through the long stay car park cutting it into two sections, a new access road to the car park will be created from Scotland Lane.

Cost Benefit AnalysisThe Costs associated with the project are

Capital/Construction Costs Operational/Maintenance Costs

The Benefits associated with the project

Revenue Customer journey time saved Reduced congestion on local roads Reduced delays to local bus service (improvement to public transport) Increased economic growth to the local area.

The majority of the benefits associated with this project are difficult to quantify without distinct market research and a greater complex study is required to put these benefits into a monetary value. Without having a finite list of distinct costs and benefits, a true value of a cost benefit analysis

20

All dimensions in Meters (Not to Scale)

is difficult to calculate. Cost Benefit Analysis can be used to assess the financial feasibility in terms of profits and costs to decide if the return is beneficial or if a loss will be made.

From Cost Benefit Analysis Table and Appendix 3 it can be calculated that:

Benefits PV = 240,524,262 (Profits made form ticket fares)

Costs PV = 103,081,826 + 21493231 (Discounted running costs + Construction costs)

This gives a Total NPV = 240,524,262 – 124,575,057 = £115,949,205 (Discounted Profits – Total Discounted Costs= Net Present Value)

The Benefit Cost Ratio = 1.93 (Discounted Profits/Discounted Costs)

The positive Benefit Cost Ratio of 1.93 shows that the benefits of the route outweigh the costs associated over a 20 year period. It should be noted however that this acts as a guide and should not be used on its own to decide the feasibility of the project.

21

Cost Benefit Analysis

Year Year + No. of Passengers

Ticket Prices (£)

Total Income (£)

Total Profit (£)

Discounted Profit (£) Total Running Cost £)

Discounted Running Cost (£)

Total Estimated Inflation 3.5%     Discount Rate 5% Discount Rate 5%

2015 0 1,400,000 10.00 14,000,000 9,800,000 9,800,000 4,200,000 4,200,0002016 1 1,442,000 10.35 14,924,700 10,447,290 9,949,800 4,477,410 4,264,2002017 2 1,485,260 10.71 15,910,476 11,137,334 10,101,890 4,773,143 4,329,3812018 3 1,529,818 11.09 16,961,363 11,872,954 10,256,304 5,088,409 4,395,5592019 4 1,575,712 11.48 18,081,661 12,657,163 10,413,079 5,424,498 4,462,7482020 5 1,622,984 11.88 19,275,955 13,493,169 10,572,251 5,782,787 4,530,9652021 6 1,671,673 12.29 20,549,132 14,384,392 10,733,855 6,164,740 4,600,2242022 7 1,721,823 12.72 21,906,402 15,334,482 10,897,930 6,571,921 4,670,5412023 8 1,773,478 13.17 23,353,320 16,347,324 11,064,512 7,005,996 4,741,9342024 9 1,826,682 13.63 24,895,807 17,427,065 11,233,641 7,468,742 4,814,4182025 10 1,881,483 14.11 26,540,175 18,578,122 11,405,356 7,962,052 4,888,0102026 11 1,937,927 14.60 28,293,153 19,805,207 11,579,695 8,487,946 4,962,7262027 12 1,996,065 15.11 30,161,916 21,113,341 11,756,698 9,048,575 5,038,5852028 13 2,055,947 15.64 32,154,111 22,507,878 11,936,408 9,646,233 5,115,6032029 14 2,117,626 16.19 34,277,890 23,994,523 12,118,865 10,283,367 5,193,7992030 15 2,181,154 16.75 36,541,944 25,579,361 12,304,110 10,962,583 5,273,1902031 16 2,246,589 17.34 38,955,540 27,268,878 12,492,187 11,686,662 5,353,7952032 17 2,313,987 17.95 41,528,553 29,069,987 12,683,139 12,458,566 5,435,6312033 18 2,383,406 18.57 44,271,514 30,990,060 12,877,010 13,281,454 5,518,7192034 19 2,454,908 19.23 47,195,648 33,036,953 13,073,844 14,158,694 5,603,0762035 20 2,528,556 19.90 50,312,920 35,219,044 13,273,687 15,093,876 5,688,723

          Total: 240,524,262.16 Total: 103,081,826.64

22

Table 4

Conclusion and Recommendations The number of passengers using Leeds Bradford airport is planned to increase to 7million per year in 2015 with further growths predicted, if improvements to the public transport links to the airport do not occur this will lead to increased congestion and delays on the small local road network.

This report analyses three potential routes between Leeds city centre and Leeds Bradford airport, all routes use the existing line from Leeds to Horsforth where the route then branches off to the airport. The study concludes that route 2 is the optimum location for an airport link; the route performed the best in the options analysis when it was compared with the other routes on factors such as construction and the environmental effects. The basic cost estimation showed that it would be the cheapest out of the three options when costs of land and construction were calculated. The route satisfies the requirements of the initial brief while keeping environmental impacts to a minimum. The environmental impact assessment lays out criteria to reduce the impact of construction and operation on the environment; these should be followed and used as a basis for a further detailed study.

A further more detailed environmental impact survey is recommended to ensure no previously undiscovered wildlife habitats or archaeological features will be affected by the railroad. It is recommended that before further planning commences a cost benefit analysis from a customers perspective is carried out to ensure that the estimated growth of passengers are reflected in the service usage.

23

ReferencesBRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. 2012. Geology of Britain [online]. [Accessed 30 October 2012]. Available from: www.bgs.ac.uk/opengeoscience/home.html?src=topNav&Accordion2=1#maps

British Listed Buildings. 2012. Map of Listed Buildings in Horsforth, Leeds, England [online].[Accessed 21 October 2012]. Available from: www.britishlistedbuidlings.co.uk/england/leeds/horsforth/map

[3] Charles, K.2007.Diesel trams: a new way forward?. Modern Railways. 64 (1). Hampton Court : Ian Allan 2007

Department for Transport. 2012. High Speed Rail [online].[Accessed 21 October 2012]. Available from: www.dft.gov.uk/topics/high-speed-rail/

[2] Dr T Cousens. 2012 Brief/IDP [Accessed 1 October 2012] Available from: https://vlebb.leeds.ac.uk/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_362760_1%26url%3D

English Heritage. 2011. Listed Building Consent [online].[Accessed 25 October 2012]. Available from: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/our-planning-role/consent/lbc/

Hay, W.W. 1982. Railroad Engineering. New York; Chichester : Wiley, c1982.

Leeds Bradford Airport. 2012. Development and masterplan [online].[Accessed 21 October 2012]. Available from: http://www.leedsbradfordairport.co.uk/about-the-airport/airport-masterplan

LENZ, R.T, J.L. Engledow. 2001. Environmental Analysis: The Applicability of Current Theory. Strategic Management Journal [online]. 7(4), [Accessed 26 October 2012], pp.329-346. Available from : e1n.kefi.org/PHYSICS/DOCS/StrategicManagmentJournal-07.04.pdf

Morris, P. Therivel,R.2.1995.Methods of Environmental Impact Assessment. London : Spon, 2001

Overseas Unit. 1988. Overseas Road Note 5: A guide to road project appraisal. Crowthrone Berkshire: Department of Transport.

Railway Technical Web Pages. 2012. Turnout-Parts [online]. [Accessed 1 November 2012]. Available from: http://www.railway-technical.com/Turnout-Parts.gif

Rogers, M. 2.2012. Engineering Project Appraisal. Oxford : Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

Smith, N.J.3.2008.Engineering Project Management. Oxford : Blackwell Science, c2008

Topalovic, P., J. Carter, Topalovic, M., G.Krantzberg. 2012. Light Rail Transit in Hamilton: Healt, Enviromental and Economical Impact Analysis [online]. Springer Science+Business Media. [Accessed 01 November 2012]. Available from: http://www.eng.mcmaster.ca/civil/facultypages/krantz16.pdf

[1] WIKIPEDIA. 2007. Leeds Bradford Airport [online]. [Accessed 21 October 2012]. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_Bradford_International_Airport

24

Appendix 1 – Options Analysis

CriteriaScale Factor

RouteEffects on   1 2 3Cost

Construction 6 1 3 3

Maintenance 4 1 3 2

Decommissioning 1 1 2 2

Labour 5 2 3 3

Design

Horizontal Profile 6 2 3 4

Average Gradient 6 2 4 2

Risk of Flooding 2 4 4 4

Transport Intersections 3 2 2 2

Rights of Way 2 3 2 2

Route Extension Potential 1 1 2 3

Construction

Cuttings 5 2 3 2

Embankments 5 3 3 2

Tunnels 6 3 4 4

Airport Disruption 3 2 2 2

Geology 4 3 3 3

Residents Effected 2 2 3 3

Health & Safety Risk

On site - Construction 5 2 3 3

Access to site - Construction 3 3 3 2

Humans

Proximity to Residential Area (500+) 4 2 3 3

Noise Nuisance 3 2 3 3

Landscape Modification 4 2 2 1

Visual Obtrusion 5 3 3 1

New Landscape Features 3 2 3 2

Environment

Reuse of excavated material 3 3 2 4

Areas of natural beauty 4 3 3 3

Clearing of Woodland 3 3 4 4

Water contamination 4 3 3 3

Soil erosion 3 1 2 1

Effect on wildlife habitat 3 3 3 3

Decommission 1 1 3 2

Cultural Heritage

Sites of Special Interest 3 4 4 4

Monuments 4 4 4 4

25

Listed Buildings 3 4 3 2

TOTAL SCORE 413 556 401

26

Appendix 2 – Route 1 Costing

27

Discription Units 2007 Price/unit (£) 2015 Price/unit (£) Quantity (unit) 2015 Cost (£) Existing Buildings 120,000 158,017 0 0.00Land: Agricultural ha 6000 7,901 16.25 128,388.88Site Investigation km 180000 237,026 3.25 770,333.29Site Clearence km 15000 19,752 3.25 64,194.44

Cuttings m3 21 28 80717 2,232,066.38

Embankments - Rockfill m3 60 79 246 19,436.10

Embankments - Generalfill m3 21 28 6821 188,621.04Drainage - Open Ditch km 135000 177,769 3.25 577,749.96

Tunnels m3 300 395 5105 2,016,693.04

Highway Bridge m2 3000 3,950 60 237,025.63

Road works m2 75 99 1000 98,760.68Culvert m 450 593 10 5,925.64Fencing km 36000 47,405 3.25 154,066.66Railway Tracks km 375000 493,803 3.25 1,604,861.01Junction with main track 225000 296,282 1 296,282.03Main Services km 2250000 2,962,820 3.25 9,629,166.08Footbridge of Track 135000 177,769 1 177,769.22Station Platform Edge m 360 474 40 18,962.05

Station Platform Surface m2 60 79 200 15,801.71

Station Building m2 3000 3,950 200 790,085.42Signalling and Telecommunications 1200000 1,580,171 1 1,580,170.84Regio Citidas - 3 vehicle unit 1500000 1,975,214 1 1,975,213.56 Total Cost: 22,581,573.67

Appendix 3 –Route 2 Costing

Discription Units 2007 Price/unit (£) 2015 Price/unit (£) Quantity (unit) 2015 Cost (£) Existing Buildings 120,000 158,017 1 158,017.08Land: Agricultural ha 6000 7,901 16.5 130,364.09Site Investigation km 180000 237,026 3.3 782,184.57Site Clearence km 15000 19,752 3.3 65,182.05

Cuttings m3 21 28 88800 2,455,585.49

Embankments - Rockfill m3 60 79 657 51,908.61

Embankments - Generalfill m3 21 28 18228 504,058.70Drainage - Open Ditch km 135000 177,769 3.3 586,638.43

Tunnels m3 300 395 0 0.00

Railway Bridge m2 6000 3,950 60 237,025.63

Road works m2 75 99 1000 98,760.68Culvert m 450 593 10 5,925.64Fencing km 36000 47,405 3.3 156,436.91Railway Tracks km 375000 493,803 3.3 1,629,551.18Junction with main track 225000 296,282 1 296,282.03Main Services km 2250000 2,962,820 3.3 9,777,307.10Footbridge of Track 135000 177,769 1 177,769.22Station Platform Edge m 360 474 40 18,962.05

Station Platform Surface m2 60 79 200 15,801.71

Station Building m2 3000 3,950 200 790,085.42Signalling and Telecommunications 1200000 1,580,171 1 1,580,170.84Regio Citidas - 3 vehicle unit 1500000 1,975,214 1 1,975,213.56 Total Cost: 21,493,231.00

28

Appendix 4 – Route 3 Costing

Discription Units 2007 Price/unit (£) 2015 Price/unit (£) Quantity (unit) 2015 Cost (£) Existing Buildings 120,000 158,017 3 474,051.25Land: Agricultural ha 6000 7,901 17.5 138,264.95Site Investigation km 180000 237,026 3.5 829,589.69Site Clearence km 15000 19,752 3.5 69,132.47

Cuttings m3 21 28 63350 1,751,816.90

Embankments - Rockfill m3 60 79 2756 217,747.54

Embankments - Generalfill m3 21 28 163020 4,507,990.39Drainage - Open Ditch km 135000 177,769 3.5 622,192.27

Tunnels m3 300 395 0 0.00

Highway Bridge m2 3000 3,950 60 237,025.63

Road works m2 75 99 1000 98,760.68Culvert m 450 593 10 5,925.64Fencing km 36000 47,405 3.5 165,917.94Railway Tracks km 375000 493,803 3.5 1,728,311.86Junction with main track 225000 296,282 1 296,282.03Main Services km 2250000 2,962,820 3.5 10,369,871.17Footbridge of Track 135000 177,769 1 177,769.22Station Platform Edge m 360 474 40 18,962.05

Station Platform Surface m2 60 79 200 15,801.71

Station Building m2 3000 3,950 200 790,085.42Signalling and Telecommunications 1200000 1,580,171 1 1,580,170.84Regio Citidas - 3 vehicle unit 1500000 1,975,214 1 1,975,213.56 Total Cost: 26,070,883.22

29

Appendix 4 – Route 1 Gradient tables

Route 1 Original     Route 1 Corrected             

  X Y   Ratio   X Y   Ratio0 0 116     0 0 116    50 50 120 1: 12.5 50 50 117.7 1: 2970 120 125 1: 14 70 120 120 1: 3090 210 130 1: 18 90 210 123 1: 30

100 310 135 1: 20 100 310 126.5 1: 2980 390 140 1: 16 80 390 129 1: 32

100 490 145 1: 20 100 490 132.5 1: 29120 610 150 1: 24 120 610 136.6 1: 29470 1080 150 1: 0 470 1080 152.7 1: 2910 1090 145 1: -2 10 1090 153 1: 3310 1100 150 1: 2 10 1100 153.3 1: 3320 1120 155 1: 4 20 1120 154 1: 2960 1180 160 1: 12 60 1180 155.2 1: 50

300 1480 165 1: 60 300 1480 160.8 1: 54500 1980 170 1: 100 500 1980 170 1: 54200 2180 175 1: 40 200 2180 175 1: 40200 2380 180 1: 40 200 2380 180 1: 40250 2630 185 1: 50 250 2630 185 1: 50150 2780 190 1: 30 150 2780 190 1: 30150 2930 195 1: 30 150 2930 195 1: 30

         

30

Appendix 5 – Route 2 Gradient Tables

Route 2 Original     Route 2  Corrected    

         X Y   Ratio   X Y   Ratio0 0 116     0 0 116    60 60 120 1: 15 60 60 118 1: 30

100 160 125 1: 20 100 160 121 1: 33100 260 130 1: 20 100 260 124 1: 33100 360 135 1: 20 100 360 127 1: 33150 510 140 1: 30 150 510 132 1: 30550 1060 145 1: 110 290 800 142 1: 2950 1110 150 1: 10 260 1060 148.5 1: 40

150 1260 155 1: 30 50 1110 150 1: 33180 1440 160 1: 36 150 1260 155 1: 30400 1840 165 1: 80 180 1440 160 1: 36325 2165 170 1: 65 400 1840 165 1: 80200 2365 175 1: 40 325 2165 170 1: 65350 2715 180 1: 70 200 2365 175 1: 40100 2815 185 1: 20 350 2715 180 1: 70150 2965 190 1: 30 100 2815 185 1: 20

          150 2965 190 1: 30         

31

Appendix 6 – Route 3 Gradient Tables

Route 3 Original     Route 3 Corrected           

  X Y   Ratio   X Y   Ratio0 0 116     0 0 116    80 80 120 1: 20 80 80 118 1: 40

150 230 125 1: 30 150 230 121 1: 50150 380 130 1: 30 150 380 125 1: 38600 980 135 1: 120 600 980 139 1: 43150 1130 140 1: 30 150 1130 142 1: 50150 1280 145 1: 30 150 1280 147 1: 30110 1390 150 1: 22 110 1390 150 1: 37250 1640 150 1: 0 250 1640 150 1: 060 1700 145 1: -12 60 1700 150 1: 060 1760 150 1: 12 60 1760 150 1: 0

225 1985 155 1: 45 225 1985 157 1: 32150 2135 160 1: 30 100 2085 160 1: 33150 2285 165 1: 30 150 2235 165 1: 30110 2395 170 1: 22 200 2435 171 1: 33130 2525 175 1: 26 130 2565 175 1: 33150 2675 180 1: 30 150 2715 180 1: 30100 2775 185 1: 20 100 2815 185 1: 20150 2925 190 1: 30 150 2965 190 1: 30

32