Recommendation 3

HM Government Rejected

The £96 billion investment set out in the IRP is the largest ever Government investment in the rail network and will bring transformational change for rail passengers and businesses. Alongside investment in new lines, the IRP laid out plans for upgrades and electrification to existing lines along the East Coast Main Line and for Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) between Liverpool and Warrington, and from the Standedge area to Leeds and York and between Leeds and Bradford. These will allow for longer and more frequent trains with increased maximum speeds and reduced carbon emissions, significantly improving the experience of rail passengers and unlocking growth opportunities across the UK. For HS2, there is no change to proposed outputs on the Western Leg (subject to conclusion of work on alternatives to the Golborne Link). For South Yorkshire, the IRP outputs for connectivity and capacity southwards are essentially unchanged; for the East Midlands, they are markedly better (journey times and capacity to Derby and Nottingham will be substantially better than under the original HS2 Eastern leg). Compared to today there will be significant increases in capacity, with more than double the number of seats available between London and the East Midlands, with Birmingham to the East Midlands also seeing a large increase in available seats. For NPR, the IRP proposals allow the same fundamental service pattern (6 fast trains per hour Manchester-Leeds-York, 4 to/from Liverpool and 2 to/from Birmingham) as more expensive alternatives. Analysis set out in the IRP Technical Annex shows that these proposals therefore deliver the same capacity on the core NPR route, and similar journey times, as the more expensive alternatives. On top of plans to build new high-speed line from Birmingham to the East Midlands, the IRP committed to upgrading the East Coast Mainline, providing significant improvements to London-Leeds connectivity and doing so far sooner than original plans. As set out below though, the Government is assessing options for HS2 trains to reach Leeds and will publish the terms of reference for this study before summer recess. It will also reassess the evidence for improved connectivity at Bradford (see below). The IRP itself noted that Hull could be considered subsequently, in line with the adaptive approach adopted. For Sheffield, the IRP core pipeline includes the Hope Valley upgrade allowing 3 fast trains per hour to Manchester with a journey time as low as 44 minutes; previous work suggested this would give ample capacity with the potential for some further journey time improvements over time. Sheffield to Leeds connectivity will be considered as part of the HS2 to Leeds Study. Any potential further interventions that build on the IRP’s core pipeline will need to be considered as part of the Government’s adaptive approach. As part of developing the evidence base to inform the IRP, the Department carried out analysis on a range of different impacts that would be expected from schemes. This covered transport user benefits, wider impacts including economic, environmental and agglomeration effects, and therefore included a high-level levelling up assessment. As individual schemes set out in the IRP are taken forward, analysis of levelling up impacts will be undertaken in line with updated DfT and HMT Green Book guidance and included in future business cases, reflecting also the Levelling Up White Paper and DfT’s Levelling Up Toolkit, both published after the IRP. The business case for Northern Powerhouse Rail, expected to be published later this year, will provide more up to date detail and context on the evidence base for that scheme and relevant alternatives. Given the similarity of outputs for the sections committed in the IRP and the adaptive approach and further work envisaged, the Government does not accept the premise that the Integrated Rail Plan underserves the rail needs of the North of England and brings only modest benefits. It therefore also does not accept the recommendation that the overall evidence base needs to be reconsidered as the wider economic and other relevant benefits were considered in decision making and will be developed further in future business cases for individual schemes; and the cost differentials of alternative choices are significant.