Economic Impact of High Speed 1

Economic Impact of High Speed 1
Final report
London & Continental Railways

January 2009
In association with
Final report
Project No: 149231

January 2009
10 Eastbourne Terrace,
London,
W2 6LG
Telephone: 020 7053 1300
Fax: 020 7053 1301
Email : [email protected]
Prepared by: Approved by:
____________________________________________ ____________________________________________
Kieran Arter Paul Buchanan
Status: Final Issue no: 2 Date: 08 January 2009
149231 draft report v4.1.doc
(C) Copyright Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited. All rights reserved.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the commissioning party and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Colin
Buchanan and Partners Limited, no other party may copy, reproduce, distribute, make use of, or rely on the contents of the report.
No liability is accepted by Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited for any use of this report, other than for the purposes for which it
was originally prepared and provided.
Opinions and information provided in this report are on the basis of Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited using due skill, care and
diligence in the preparation of the same and no explicit warranty is provided as to their accuracy. It should be noted and is expressly
stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited has
been made
Final report
Contents
Summary 1
1 Introduction 4
2 Transport user benefits 5
2.1 Journey time savings 5
2.2 Congestion relief 7
2.3 Costs 7
2.4 Revenue 7
2.5 Conclusions 8
3 Wider Economic Benefits 9
3.1 Introduction 9
3.2 Move to more productive jobs 9
3.3 Pure agglomeration 11
3.4 Other WEBs 13
3.5 Summary 14
4 Regeneration benefits 15
4.2 DfT approach 15
4.3 Alternative approach 17
5 Appraisal results 24
5.1 Introduction 24
5.2 Transport appraisal 24
5.3 Appraisal including WEBs 24
6 Conclusions 26
Appendix A – Appraisal assumptions 27
Appendix B – Regeneration 30
Appendix C – Sensitivity tests 64
Tables
Table 2.1: Changes to journey times and commuting patterns 6

Table 2.2: Value of time savings (£m, 60-year PV, 2008 prices) 7
Table 2.3: Capital and operating costs (£m, 60-year PV, 2008 prices) 7
Table 2.4: HS1 transport impacts 8
Table 3.1: Productivity differentials relative to the national average, by district 10
Table 3.2: Move to more productive jobs benefit (£m, 60-year PV, 2008 prices)
11
Table 3.3: Wider Economic Benefits of HS1 14
Table 4.1: Unemployment by qualification level & district 16
Table 4.2: Skill levels of London jobs 16
Table 4.3: Proportion of workers that will commute to London at each skill level
16
Table 4.4: Number of local residents taking up employment in London 17
Table 4.5: High Speed 1 Districts Summary Table 20
Table 4.6: Impact of development schemes associated with High Speed 121
Table 5.1: Summary of transport costs and benefits 24
Table 5.2: Summary of costs and transport benefits / WEBs 25
Figures
Figure 2.1: Journey times on domestic services to London 5

Figure 3.1: Process for calculating pure agglomeration benefits 12
Figure 3.2: Proportion of pure agglomeration benefits by location 13
Figure 4.1: Districts potentially benefiting from High Speed 1 – the study area 19
Final report
Summary
This summary sets out the findings of a study undertaken by Colin Buchanan and Volterra,
commissioned by London & Continental Railways. The aim of the study is to investigate the economic
impact of High Speed 1 (HS1).
High Speed 1 is a new high speed track connecting St Pancras International station with the Channel
Tunnel. It enables faster journey times on Eurostar international services, and will provide faster
domestic rail services from December 2009. Journey time savings will range from 10 - 40% compared
to existing services.
Overall the scheme provides significant benefits. In this study the benefits that have been valued fall
into four main categories:
Financial (net rail revenues)
Transport user benefits (time savings and reduced congestion)
Wider economic benefits (enabling central London growth, reducing travel costs
and improving labour markets)
Regeneration (supporting government social and economic development policy
objectives along the route)
Costs and Net Earnings
In financial terms the HS1 project cost £5.7 billion 1 to deliver and it will cost some £1.6 billion to
operate the additional commuter services. An overall cost therefore of £7.3 billion. Against that cost
HS1 is forecast to generate additional rail and car park revenues (allowing for revenue losses to
existing rail services) worth some £3.4 billion thereby offsetting all of the net operating costs and a
share (approximately 31%) of the capital investment.
Transport Benefits
The benefits to transport users of HS1 and the existing rail lines have been valued using parameters
and assumptions set out within Department for Transport appraisal guidance. On that basis HS1
delivers some £3.8 billion of transport benefits. Combined with the operating surplus that would offset
the whole project cost.
It should be noted that in the case of HS1 there are also significant external benefits.
Wider Economic Benefits
WEBs value changes in productivity derived from the additional capacity and accessibility delivered by
transport projects. HS1 enables additional commuter rail services which help to relieve a transport
capacity constraint on central London employment growth. In addition the new terminal capacity at St
Pancras will enable additional platforms at Waterloo to increase capacity there. Improvements to
accessibility will enhance the economic prospects of areas around the stations in central London, the
Thames Gateway and in Kent. These impacts have been valued at some £3.8 billion.
Regeneration
Regeneration impacts are difficult to value in the same way as the impacts described above, but they
fall into two main categories:
1
All prices in this summary are present values in 2008 prices, discounted by economic discount rates and with
assumptions on real price changes. The outturn cost of HS1 was £6.2bn undiscounted which includes the
stations and depot.
1
Final report
(a) HS1 has enabled the delivery of three major development schemes in Ebbsfleet, Stratford and
King’s Cross. Those schemes will significantly impact on three regeneration areas with plans
for over 15,000 homes and 70,000 jobs resulting in quantifiable residential spending and
output. This is summarised in the table below.
Table S 1: Impact of development schemes associated with High Speed 1

King’s Cross Stratford Ebbsfleet Eastern Quarry
Permanent jobs 22,100 34,000 24,000 7,200
GDP per annum £1.3bn £1.8bn £1bn £275m
Homes 2,000 (plus Up to 5,500 2,100 6,250
some student
housing)
Household spending per £50m £140m £49m £144m
annum
Temporary jobs during 2,500 4,000 3,500
construction (FTE)
Source: Hunt Dobson Stringer: London & Continental Railway, Making Regeneration Happen, February 2008
Even a conservative estimate suggests that the economic gains accruing to regeneration
areas associated with these developments could be worth £10bn as a Present Value over 60
years.
(b) HS1 will drive the success of the three sites above, but will also bring economic benefits to
other regeneration areas along the route with expected growth in population, employment and
increases in house prices. Increasing accessibility to London will also lead to an increase in
commuting from locations in Kent to London, with an associated increase in earnings.
Depending on the assumptions used the value of the additional earnings could be in the range
of £62m - £360m.
The prospect of higher house prices is more likely to encourage developers to invest in these
areas and provide additional housing and employment capacity, thus supporting the potential
to achieve the development targets set in the region.
In total, the increased value of houses in and around the stations has been estimated at
approximately £1.6bn as a Present Value over 60 years. The changes in house prices by
location is shown in Figure S 1 below; in a sense this represents part of the capitalised
amount of central London value that is being relocated. The rest is the consumer spending
which generates local jobs and the potential for further investment in new productive capacity
in new settlements such as Ebbsfleet. This is not included at all since we essentially assume it
is just a transfer from elsewhere in the UK. If however these locations can now attract
investment which would otherwise go elsewhere, then the benefits to UK plc will be larger.
2
Final report
Figure S 1: Absolute average house price increases estimated when HS1 services are
operational
Whilst there is some overlap between the regeneration benefits and the WEBs, the regeneration is still
estimated to be worth at least an additional £10bn as a Present Value over 60 years.
HS1 also has impacts beyond those valued within this report. Those would include effects on
international image and profile, better international links, environmental gains and tourism growth.
Even on those on which we have placed a value, it seems clear that the scheme has provided good
value for money. The impacts that have been quantified are summarised in Table S 2.
Table S 2: Economic impacts of HS1

£bn
Transport benefits 3.8
Wider Economic benefits 3.8
Regeneration benefits 10.0
Total benefits (Present Value 17.6

over 60 years)
3
Final report
1 Introduction
1.1.1 Colin Buchanan (CB) and Volterra were commissioned by London & Continental
Railways to investigate the economic benefits of High Speed 1 (HS1), the high speed rail
line connecting London St Pancras International station with the UK end of the Channel
Tunnel.
1.1.2 Prior to the implementation of High Speed 1, Eurostar services between Paris / Brussels
and London were required to travel at normal speeds for the UK part of the journey, using
existing track and serving London Waterloo station. High Speed 1 has subsequently been
delivered in two sections:
Section 1 (September 2003): a high-speed track from the Channel Tunnel to North
Kent, with the remainder of the journey through to Waterloo continuing to use
existing lines.
Section 2 (November 2007): a further section of high-speed track from the newly-
constructed Ebbsfleet station through to London St Pancras. This has enabled
even faster journey times on Eurostar international services, and the HS1 track will
also be used to provide additional, quicker domestic services between St Pancras
and Kent stations.
1.1.3 Our assessment takes into account the overall change to the transport network as a
result of High Speed 1 – so our base (or ‘Do Minimum’) scenario assumes that there is no
high speed track within the UK and Eurostar services go to Waterloo. Against this we
compare the ‘Do Something’ scenario where Section 2 of HS1 has been implemented,
with Eurostar switching from using Waterloo to St Pancras instead.
1.1.4 The transport impacts have been valued in a manner consistent with Department for
Transport (DfT) guidance. In valuing the regeneration gains this study has determined the
likely increase in output and expenditure within regeneration areas.
1.1.5 The report does not take into account the future potential to add services through the
North London Line connection north of St Pancras, additional international trains under
open access and the potential to run double decker trains which are provided for within
the HS1 infrastructure. The study also excludes the positive benefits on the environment
through sustainable transport improvements, reuse of heritage buildings such as St
Pancras International and St Pancras Chambers, and any benefits to freight.
1.1.6 The rest of the report is divided into the following chapters:
Chapter 2: transport user benefits;
Chapter 3: wider economic benefits (WEBs);
Chapter 4: an estimate of the regeneration benefits, first using a method compliant
with DfT guidance and then taking an alternative, more realistic approach;
Chapter 5: a cost-benefit analysis based on the benefits that have been monetised;
and
Chapter 6: conclusions.
1.1.7 The Appendix provides further details on some of the assumptions underpinning the main
results and the results of some sensitivity tests.
4
Final report
2 Transport user benefits
2.1 Journey time savings

2.1.1 There are time savings for journeys on international and domestic rail services arising
from High Speed 1:
International: existing Eurostar services become quicker due to the introduction of
high speed track for the UK section of the international journeys. The overall time
saving per journey between London and Paris / Brussels as a result of High Speed
1 is approximately 35 minutes.
Domestic: from December 2009, Southeastern will use the high speed track to
operate additional domestic services to the existing ‘classic’ services between Kent
and London. Figure 2.1 shows a comparison of the estimated in-vehicle times for
the classic and high speed services for selected stations.
Figure 2.1: Journey times on domestic services to London
Source: http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/content/doc/cms/Connectivity%20map%202.pdf
2.1.2 The map in Figure 2.1 shows that there will be substantial time savings for passengers
that switch to the high speed domestic services, for instance a 46 minute saving between
Ashford and London and a 41 minute saving between Canterbury and London.
5
Final report
2.1.3 To calculate total time savings, data on demand has been obtained. For the international
services, Eurostar provided total passenger numbers for trips between London and Paris
/ Brussels.
2.1.4 For domestic services, a time series of demand for the classic services was obtained
from LENNON (the rail industry’s central ticketing system). For the base scenario it was
assumed that demand was in line with the LENNON figures, with an annual growth rate
of 3.2% applied for future years (based on historic LENNON data).
2.1.5 To estimate the higher demand due to HS1, the generalised costs of travel in the Do
Minimum and Do Something scenarios were estimated. Our generalised costs include:
- Rail journey time
- Walk time to the origin station and from the destination station
- Change in access time within London (i.e. passengers will have a shorter or
longer journey time within London due to arriving at St Pancras instead of
Waterloo / Charing Cross / Victoria)
- Fare (it was assumed that fares on the high speed domestic services will be
30% higher than the fare for classic services)
2.1.6 An elasticity was then applied to estimate the increase in demand as a result of High
Speed 1.
2.1.7 For commuting demand a higher uplift was applied, based on an estimate of the
relationship between journey times to London and the proportion of workers who
commute to London as a result. The new journey times to London under HS1 were then
used to estimate the extent of the increase in commuting demand.
2.1.8 The relationship between journey times and commuting patterns is explained in more
detail in Appendix B. Table 2.1 summarises the proportion of commuters in the base
scenario (a weighted average of wards within 5km of each station using 2001 census
data), and our estimate of the new proportion when the journey times improve (taking into
account the frequency of high speed trains relative to existing services).
Table 2.1: Changes to journey times and commuting patterns
Station Base time HS1 time % commute by % commute by

(minutes) (minutes) rail to London rail to London
in base under HS1
Ashford 83 37 3.4% 4.6%
Gravesend 42 24 6.3% 7.5%
Chatham 60 43 5.8% 6.2%
Strood 54 37 4.8% 6.5%
Rochester 57 40 4.2% 5.0%
Gillingham 63 46 7.8% 8.7%
Rainham 66 49 7.2% 7.6%
Sittingbourne 65 56 4.2% 4.5%
Faversham 78 66 4.9% 5.3%
Canterbury West 102 61 1.4% 2.2%
Folkestone Central 98 63 1.3% 1.6%
Dover Priory 112 74 0.4% 1.2%
Ramsgate 119 84 0.8% 1.0%
Margate 109 98 0.7% 0.8%
2.1.9 The value of time used to monetise the benefit is in line with guidance from WebTAG.
Further details on the appraisal assumptions are provided in the Appendix.
6
Final report
2.1.10 Table 2.2 shows the total time saving benefits for the international (taking into account
the first few years of smaller time savings as a result of Section 1) and domestic services,
expressed as a Present Value over 60 years.
Table 2.2: Value of time savings (£m, 60-year PV, 2008 prices)
Journey type Time saving

International 2,500
Domestic 1,200
TOTAL 3,700
2.2 Congestion relief

2.2.1 As well as journey time savings, the additional domestic capacity provided by High Speed
1 will relieve crowding on trains to London.
2.2.2 Due to lack of available data this benefit is more difficult to quantify than the time savings.
Our approach has been to assume that the congestion relief would be valued at 40 pence
per trip for passengers who switch to the new high speed domestic services, and 20
pence for remaining passengers, with an annual growth rate of 1% applied to those
values.
2.2.3 This approach indicates that, over 60 years as a Present Value, the congestion relief
benefit would be £113.6m. It should be noted that this is an underestimate, since
passengers on other services (not just those that board in Kent) will benefit from the
overall reduction in crowding. However it has not been possible to estimate the full extent
of the congestion relief benefit without a proper assignment model.
2.3 Costs
2.3.1 There are two elements to the cost of High Speed 1; the capital costs arising from the
new infrastructure and the operating costs from providing additional services.
2.3.2 Our understanding is that the capital costs were approximately £6.2bn (undiscounted, in
2007 prices including the stations and depot). In our appraisal we have spread the costs
over a number of years and discounted accordingly.
2.3.3 Any additional operating costs associated with the international services have been
assumed to be zero or negligible; however this is not the case for the domestic services
as a number of additional services will be operated, using Class 395 high speed trains.
2.3.4 Table 2.3 shows the total discounted value of the capital and operating costs.
Table 2.3: Capital and operating costs (£m, 60-year PV, 2008 prices)
Type Cost
Capital 5,700
Operating 1,600
TOTAL 7,300
2.4 Revenue
2.4.1 High Speed 1 will lead to an increase in rail revenue, as the faster journey times and
increased capacity will lead to additional demand on international and domestic services.
Fares for HS1 services will also be higher than the fares on classic services.
7
Final report
2.4.2 The scheme also leads to the generation of extra car park revenue as a result of the new
Ebbsfleet International station.
2.4.3 The changes in demand that were estimated as part of the benefit calculations have also
been used to estimate changes in revenue. An average fare has been applied for the
international services; for the domestic services it is assumed that fares for the high
speed trains are 30% higher than the fares for the classic services.
2.4.4 As a Present Value over 60 years, the additional revenue as a result of High Speed 1 has
been estimated as £3,353m. Over 90% of this amount is due to the rail revenue impacts
but it is important to note that this is not the total HS1 revenue, only the marginal change
in overall rail revenue as required within the economic appraisal.
2.5 Conclusions
2.5.1 Table 2.4 summarises the transport impacts of HS1. It shows that HS1 provides a
significant total transport benefit of £3.8bn (as a Present Value). HS1 also increases
revenue (rail & car park) by £3.4bn, offsetting the operating costs and some 31% of
capital costs. The lower discount rates applied to economic appraisal mean that this is
not equivalent to a financial appraisal.
Table 2.4: HS1 transport impacts
£m, 60-year PV
Journey time savings 3,700
Congestion relief 100
TOTAL BENEFITS 3,800
Capital cost 5,700

Operating costs 1,600
Revenue -3,400
TOTAL COST 3,900
8
Final report
3 Wider Economic Benefits
3.1 Introduction
3.1.1 The inclusion of Wider Economic Benefits (WEBs) in transport appraisal is a recognition
of the benefits that a scheme can bring about in terms of increasing workers’ productivity
and the associated increase in output. Transport schemes can cause this in two main
ways:
By enabling a Move to More Productive Jobs (M2MPJ): if peak period rail
services to city centres (where productivity tends to be highest) become
overcrowded, this may prevent some people from making that journey. The
provision of additional capacity can help to enable more workers to access city
centre jobs where they will be more productive.
By increasing the ‘effective density’ of employment areas and leading to a ‘Pure’

agglomeration benefit. Transport schemes can enable an increase in city centre
employment as described above, but they can also increase accessibility between
locations by reducing the generalised costs of travel. Both of these impacts mean
that a larger number of workers are effectively located closer to each other, leading
to an increase in density. There is a positive relationship between effective density
and productivity.
3.1.2 High Speed 1 provides an M2MPJ benefit because there will be an increase in peak
capacity on the domestic services from Kent stations to London, and the spare capacity
made available at Waterloo International Terminal (WIT) could also be used. It also leads
to a pure agglomeration benefit because of the reduction in generalised costs of travel
between London, Kent and international destinations.
3.2 Move to more productive jobs
Increased capacity on domestic services

3.2.2 When the new domestic services are opened, our understanding from discussions with
the DfT is that there are likely to be six high speed trains per hour (four twelve-car trains
and two six-car trains) during the peak period. Assuming that the capacity of each six-car
train is 368 seats and 154 standing, the total additional capacity per peak hour will be
5,220 (or 15,660 during the three-hour morning peak period).
3.2.3 To estimate the likely benefit, the additional capacity of HS1 was compared with the
additional rail capacity that Crossrail will provide. HS1 provides approximately 18% of the
amount of peak capacity that Crossrail will provide. It was therefore assumed that the
number of additional central London jobs as a result of HS1 is 18% of the expected total
for Crossrail (which equates to approximately 4,800 jobs). That is consistent with 30% of
the additional peak capacity provided by HS1 being filled by additional growth in central
London employment.
3.2.4 To quantify this as a benefit, it is necessary to know the difference in productivity levels
between central London and the areas in Kent where the workers were previously
located. In line with research undertaken by the DfT, Table 3.1 shows the productivity
2
differentials by district , relative to the national average.
2
The value for London is an average of inner London boroughs, weighted using borough employment levels.
9
Final report
Table 3.1: Productivity differentials relative to the national average, by district
District Stations within Productivity

district differential relative
to national average
London +22.35%
Newham Stratford +2.71%
Dartford Ebbsfleet -0.02%
Ashford Ashford -10.28%
Gravesham Gravesend -10.12%
Medway Chatham, Strood, -9.88%
Rochester,
Gillingham, Rainham
Swale Sittingbourne, -14.18%
Faversham
Canterbury Canterbury West -10.35%
Shepway Folkestone West / -12.62%
Central
Dover Dover Priory -9.06%
Thanet Ramsgate, Margate -12.69%
Source: DfT
3.2.5 This shows that productivity in London is significantly higher than most areas of Kent – for
instance, London’s productivity is 22% higher than the national average and Canterbury’s
is 10% lower than the national average – hence workers in London are approximately
32% more productive than those in Canterbury.
3.2.6 It is assumed that the additional central London workers were previously working in their
‘home’ district, with the total number of workers split proportionally to the number of trips
from each district to London. The productivity differentials in Table 3.1 can then be
applied to calculate the total increase in output.
Waterloo International Terminal

3.2.7 Since Eurostar services previously used Waterloo as the London terminal and now use St
Pancras as a result of HS1, there is potential to use the platform capacity available at
WIT for domestic services. This is a direct consequence of High Speed 1 so it can
legitimately be claimed as a benefit.
3.2.8 Network Rail’s South West Main Line Route Utilisation Strategy in 2006 noted of
Waterloo that:
“The footprint of the station and its approaches is severely constrained, even by the
standards of central London terminals. Use of part of the footprint of the long international
platforms would allow other platforms in the station to be extended and the track layout in
the station’s ‘throat’ to be remodelled for much greater flexibility.”
3.2.9 There are five platforms at WIT (Platforms 20 – 24). It was announced in 2008 that work
would be undertaken to enable Platform 20 to be used for existing domestic services. The
DfT 3 is then planning to:
“make all the platforms at Waterloo long enough to accommodate 10 car trains and to
modify the junction layouts on the approaches to the station, so that, ultimately, all the
3
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080707/text/80707w0014.htm
10
Final report
platforms at Waterloo, including those once used by Eurostar, can be used by 10 car
domestic services”
3.2.10 As there is uncertainty about the exact timescale and implementation of such a scheme,
we have been relatively conservative in our estimate of the impacts. It has been assumed
that Waterloo can currently handle 85,000 passengers and that using WIT enables a 15%
increase in capacity, of which 50% is filled by demand that was previously crowded off.
This approach suggests that using WIT for domestic services may enable central London
employment to grow by approximately 6,300 (in addition to the 4,800 estimated in the
previous section). This is valued using the same approach as outlined above, with a
ramp-up applied such that it takes four years for the full 6,300 jobs to be achieved.
Results
3.2.11 The move to more productive jobs leads to an increase in GDP; however, the current DfT
guidance is that only a proportion of this increase in output can be claimed as a welfare
benefit when undertaking a transport appraisal. This is because it is argued that some of
the benefit of working in a more productive job is outweighed by the costs associated with
it such as increased stress and responsibility. Only 30% of the GDP increase can be
claimed as a welfare increase.
3.2.12 Table 3.2 shows the GDP and welfare increase for both elements of the HS1 move to
more productive jobs benefit – the additional capacity provided by the high speed
services and the increased capacity provided by WIT.
Table 3.2: Move to more productive jobs benefit (£m, 60-year PV, 2008 prices)
Capacity increase GDP increase Amount of

GDP increase
that can be
claimed as a
welfare benefit
Additional high speed 2,300 700
domestic services
Additional capacity at WIT 3,400 1,000
Total 5,700 1,700
3.3 Pure agglomeration

3.3.1 As explained in section 3.1, High Speed 1 will increase the effective density of
employment centres along the route, since accessibility between locations will increase
as a result of the faster journey times.
3.3.2 An increase in density results in an increase in productivity for a number of reasons. It

leads to:
A larger, deeper, labour market – providing employers with more choice of skills
and more competition for jobs;
More competing and complementary businesses and institutions – providing
additional pressure for innovation and efficiency and enabling greater
specialisation amongst support services;
A larger, deeper, client market – London’s Finance and Business Services (FBS)
sector for instance is a global player attracting business from around the world; and
Greater potential for contact and knowledge sharing – both informally via social
interaction and more formally via conferences.
3.3.3 The process for calculating the pure agglomeration benefit is shown in Figure 3.1.
11
Final report
Figure 3.1: Process for calculating pure agglomeration benefits
3.3.4 So once the changes in effective density as a result of HS1 have been calculated, an
agglomeration elasticity is applied. The elasticity determines the scale of the change in
productivity and varies by location – elasticity values are available from the DfT.
3.3.5 Our calculations indicate that the value of the pure agglomeration benefit, as a Present
Value over 60 years, is £1,775m. Figure 3.2 shows how this is split between each
location.
12
Final report
Figure 3.2: Proportion of pure agglomeration benefits by location
0.6% Inner London

Ashford
0.7%
1.1% 0.8% 3.6% Ebbsfleet
3.1% Folkestone
1.2% 0.7%
0.5% Gravesend
0.9%
0.3% Gillingham
0.9% Rainham
3.9% Strood
4.6% Rochester
Chatham
16.1% 55.3% Stratford
5.7% Sittingbourne
Faversham
Canterbury
Dover
Ramsgate
Margate
3.3.6 Figure 3.2 shows that the majority of the pure agglomeration benefits accrue to Inner
London. This is because it has the highest density of employment, the highest
productivity and also benefits from the improved accessibility to Paris and Brussels (any
increase in effective density for Paris and Brussels themselves has not been included).
3.4 Other WEBs

3.4.1 Two other WEBs are identified in the DfT guidance that can be applied to HS1:
Increased labour force participation: reducing the generalised costs of travel
means that ‘effective wages’ are increased, which will have an effect on labour
force participation;
Imperfect competition benefits: reducing the generalised costs of travel may induce
firms to increase output, which in imperfect markets is kept below its optimal level.
3.4.2 The DfT recommends that these benefits are calculated by taking a percentage of the
time saving benefits, hence they are much easier to calculate than the M2MPJ and pure
agglomeration benefits.
13
Final report
Labour force participation

3.4.3 The labour force participation (LFP) benefit is calculated as 21% of the commuter time
savings. Only 40% can be claimed as welfare benefit. The value of the commuter time
savings is £557m (as a PV over 60 years) and so the value of the increase in output as a
result of LFP is £117m, of which £47m can be claimed as a welfare benefit.
Imperfect competition
3.4.4 The imperfect competition benefit is calculated as 10% of time savings to business trips.
The value of ‘In Work Time’ time savings is £2,442m (as a PV over 60 years) and so the
value of the imperfect competition benefit is £244m.
3.5 Summary
3.5.1 Table 3.3 summarises the WEBs results described above.
Table 3.3: Wider Economic Benefits of HS1
£m, 60-year PV
Move to more productive jobs 1,700
Pure agglomeration 1,800
Labour force participation 50
Imperfect competition 250
TOTAL WIDER BENEFITS 3,800
14
Final report
4 Regeneration benefits
4.1.1 HS1 was intended to create the widest regeneration effects possible as part of its original
planning. The domestic line will run through the government’s largest regeneration area,
the Thames Gateway, which is the backbone of regional planning policies in London and
the South East.
4.1.2 In this chapter we outline the two approaches which have been undertaken to estimate
the likely regeneration impacts of HS1. The first is compliant with DfT guidance and
restricts regeneration benefits to increased employment amongst currently unemployed
residents of regeneration areas. The second approach takes a broader, more realistic
view, recognising how HS1 will have significant impacts in changing development and
employment around the HS1 stations.
4.2 DfT approach

4.2.1 Improvements in accessibility from regeneration areas to areas of employment can help
unemployed and economically inactive residents to obtain employment. HS1 will
radically speed up journeys to London from large parts of Kent.
4.2.2 However, the cost of season tickets (from £60 a week upwards before any premium may
be added for high speed services) are such that it is difficult to envisage those who are
presently unemployed who are predominantly lower skilled taking up employment in
central London due to the new faster services.
4.2.3 What is more likely to occur is a trickle down effect. That is, people presently in
employment working in parts of Kent to be served by new high speed domestic services
may take up employment in London and their jobs are in turn taken by people presently
unemployed.
4.2.4 Projecting present passenger numbers forward for the Do Minimum scenario and then
looking at the changes in generalised cost to determine passenger numbers on the new
service we have calculated the increases in passenger numbers projected to arise from
each major station into London on the new high speed domestic services.
4.2.5 Using DfT figures on the proportion of passengers travelling on season tickets an
annualisation figure of 813 has been determined. This has then been used to assess
how many additional “commuters” there will be from each station to London as a result of
HS1.
Definition of regeneration areas

4.2.6 The main regeneration area in the South East is Coastal South East which covers Kent
Thames Gateway, East Kent and Ashford, Sussex Coast, South Hampshire and the Isle
of Wight. A significant proportion of this area therefore covers all the towns to be served
by the new high speed domestics.
4.2.7 The number of people who are unemployed by qualification level in each of the local
authority districts covering these areas is given in Table 4.1.
15
Final report
Table 4.1: Unemployment by qualification level & district
Medway
Ashford Dover Gravesham Towns Shepway Swale Thanet
Economically active with
NVQ4+ - working age 900 200 900 0 500 1,100 300
NVQ3 only - working age 500 300 0 800 500 300 400
Trade Apprenticeships -
working age 0 400 0 200 600 0
NVQ2 only - working age 1,000 600 400 1,700 1,000 800 700
NVQ1 only - working age 600 300 2,300 2,700 500 1,600 2,600
other qualifications -
working age 0 0 700 1,100 500 0 0
no qualifications -
working age 300 0 1,400 900 200 300 300
Source: NOMIS
4.2.8 Table 4.2 shows an estimate of the average skill levels required in London.
Table 4.2: Skill levels of London jobs
Qualification level Proportion of

London jobs at
this skill level
No qualifications 8.7%
Other qualifications 15.6%
Level 1 10.5%
Level 2 13.9%
Level 3 14.4%
Level 4 and above 36.9%
4.2.9 If it is assumed that only those people with level NVQ2 and above commute given the
level of fares then the proportion of people commuting by skill level from each location will
be as shown in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Proportion of workers that will commute to London at each skill level
Qualification level Proportion of

people at this
skill level who
will commute
Level 2 21%
Level 3 22%
Level 4 and above 57%
4.2.10 Assuming that the increase in commuting is split 50:50 between people switching jobs to
take up employment in London and people moving into the area because of the new fast
16
Final report
rail links, the number of existing local residents by location taking up employment in
London by skill level is set out in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Number of local residents taking up employment in London
NVQ2 NVQ3 NVQ4

Stratford 1 1 3
Ebbsfleet International 71 73 188
Ashford 23 24 61
Gravesend 22 23 59
Chatham 16 16 42
Strood 4 4 9
Rochester 3 3 9
Gillingham 9 9 24
Rainham 9 10 25
Sittingbourne 3 3 9
Faversham 3 3 7
Canterbury West 8 8 21
Folkestone Central 5 6 14
Dover Priory 2 2 6
Ramsgate 2 2 5
Margate 1 1 2
4.2.11 Ignoring Ebbsfleet (in the latter case all the jobs will be taken up by new residents), 521
jobs are potentially now available for local unemployed residents. With the exception of
the Medway towns (Gravesend, Chatham, Strood, Rochester, Gillingham) where there
are not enough unemployed residents with NVQ4 skills available, there are enough
residents with the appropriate skills available to fill those jobs.
4.2.12 At a fairly rudimentary level, the total regeneration impact in relation to unemployed
residents taking up employment because of the direct impacts of High Speed domestic
services is in the order of 400.
4.3 Alternative approach
Introduction
4.3.2 Regeneration is about more than just increasing employment amongst currently
unemployed residents of regeneration areas. It also relates to reinvigorating areas that
are not fulfilling their potential or whose economic focus has been lost. This requires
ensuring that a focus is placed on productive new economic activities, thus attracting
inward investment from developers and appealing to new residents as places to live and
work. Public transport infrastructure can play a crucial role in this, facilitating sustainable
and efficient travel patterns and enabling economies to be connected to one another.
4.3.3 The time it takes to travel to work and the local amenities available are important factors
for people when choosing where to live. The HS1 domestic line will reduce travel times
and make the areas appeal more to commuting residents, leading to inward investment
and higher incomes which can in turn support better local amenities. In other words, the
transport investment can be the first step in a virtuous circle towards regeneration of an
area.
4.3.4 The domestic high speed rail line will run through Kings Cross, Stratford, Ebbsfleet and
Ashford International. It will result in significant travel time savings from these locations to
central London. Travel by train from many other stations in the South East will also
17
Final report
improve as they connect for part of their journey into a quicker service. The stations
which are expected to see significant travel time reductions are therefore as follows:
StratfordG
EbbsfleetG
Ashford InternationalG
GravesendG
Medway Towns (Rochester, Chatham, Gillingham, Strood, Rainham)G
SittingbourneG
FavershamG
CanterburyG
FolkestoneG
DoverG
RamsgateG
Margate
4.3.5 Figure 4.1 below highlights the ten districts in which these stations fall on which High
Speed 1 is expected to have a significant impact. These districts are:
NewhamG
DartfordG
ThurrockG
GraveshamG
Medway TownsG
SwaleG
AshfordG
CanterburyG
ShepwayG
DoverG
Thanet
4.3.6 With the exceptions of Newham and Thurrock, all of these districts fall within the South
East of England, while Newham lies in the London region and Thurrock lies in the East of
England region.
18
Final report
Figure 4.1: Districts potentially benefiting from High Speed 1 time savings – the
study area
Borehamw
Borehamw ood
ood Enf
Enfield
ield Loughton
Loughton South
South Woodham Ferrers
Woodham Ferrers
Brentwood Billericay
Billericay
Chigw
Chigw ell
ell Wickf
Wickf
Wickford
ord
M11
Barnet Rayleigh
Rayleigh Rochf
Wood
Wood Green
Green Rochford
ord
Romford
Romf ord Basildon
Basildon
Harrow M1
Harrow
Ilford
Ilford South Benf leet
South Benfleet
Wembley
Wembley Islington
Newham South
South Ockendon
Ockendon
Corringham
Corringham Canvey
Canvey Island
Island
London
London Thurrock
ONDON Woolw
Woolw ich
ich
Grays
Grays
Lew
Lew isham
isham
Medway Towns
Richmond
Richmond Lambeth Gravesend
Gravesend Sheerness
Sheerness
Dartford Northf
Northfleet
leet Minster
Minster
Wimbledon
Wimbledon Gravesham Roches
Rochester
ter
Margate
Margate
Bromley
Bromley Rochester
Roches ter
Sw
Sw anley
anley Strood
Strood Herne
Herne Bay
Bay
Whitstable
Whitstable Thanet Broadstair
Broadstair
Broadstairs
Croydon
Croydon Orpington
Orpington Gillingham
Gillingham
Ramsgate
Ramsgate
Sutton
Sutton
Sittingbourne
Sittingbourne Canterbury
ge Ew ell
Ew ell New
New AAddington
ddington M2 Faversham
Faversham
Banstead
Banstead
Warlingham
Warlingham
Warlingham Canterbury
Canterbury
M26 Dover
Leatherhead
Leatherhead Swale
Caterham
Caterham Sevenoaks
Sevenoaks M20
Oxted
Oxted Deal
Deal
Redhill
Redhill
Dorking
Dorking Maidstone
Tonbridge
Tonbridge
Horley
Horley Southborough
Southborough AAshford
shf ord Dover
Dover
Shepway
East
East Grinstead
Grinstead Royal
Royal Tunbridge
Tunbridge Wells
Wells
Ashford
M23 Tunbridge Wells Folkestone
Folkestone
Hythe
Hythe
Horsham
Horsham Crow
Crow borough
borough
am Hayw
Hayw ards
ards Heath
Heath
Uckf
Uckfield
ield
Burgess Hill
Burgess Hill Rother
Lew es
Lew es Hailsham
Hailsham Hastings
Hastings
Bexhill
Bexhill
Lancing
Lancing Brighton
Brighton
New
New haven
haven
Eastbourne
Eastbourne
Digital Map Data © Collins Bartholomew Ltd (2007)

Crown Copyright © Overview Mapping (2007)
4.3.7 HS1 has enabled the delivery of three major development schemes in Ebbsfleet,
Stratford and King’s Cross. Those schemes are delivering significant impacts on three
regeneration areas with plans for over 15,000 homes and 70,000 jobs resulting in
quantifiable residential spending and output.
4.3.8 The high speed rail line is a significant factor in bringing forward these and other
developments. This section considers these and other regeneration benefits that may be
expected to be realised as a result of delivery of the domestic services.
4.3.9 Further details and background information are provided in the Appendix which includes
information such as employment and population in the study area.
Planning overview
4.3.10 Table 4.5 below provides a snapshot summary of aspirations and progress on the
construction of dwellings and employment floorspace to date, in the relevant study
19
Final report
districts. This shows that Dartford and Ashford have the most ambitious targets in terms
of housing and employment provision.
Table 4.5: High Speed 1 Districts Summary Table
Housing Employment
Strategy- Strategy-
ONS Ratio of
based based
population annual Allocations/ Completed
Dwelling Population 4 Implied
projections Completions completions Commitments 5 floorspace
projections projections jobs
(2006- to annual (2006-7) (2001-7)
(2006- (2006-
2026) targets
2026) 2026)
Thurrock 6 18,500 - 28,500 5,173 79.9% 473,551 23,678 -
Dartford 15,700 28,600 19,000 1,954 49.8% 5,015,100 47,950 252,100
Gravesham 9,400 13,100 11,900 1,037 31.5% 1,801,200 21,550 76,500
Medway 16,400 - 2,700 23,300 8,796 82.5% 447,016 39,250 24,232*
Swale 9,200 3,900 26,300 3,700 134.1% 3,460,700 51,800 541,900
Canterbury 9,100 5,200 41,200 1,960 107.7% 801,100 13,050 58,400
Ashford 22,700 39,800 33,200 3,920 57.6% 2,185,300 28,600 282,600
Shepway 5,200 - 3,000 20,200 5,351 411.6% 763,000 11,800 315,000
Dover 8,000 2,100 14,500 2,010 83.8% 1,383,900 23,450 129,500
Thanet 7,400 700 19,900 1,558 105.3% 1,323,200 15,500 223,200
Sources: Regional Plan Strategy-based projections, Local Plans, District Annual Monitoring Surveys, District
Annual Commercial Monitoring Surveys, Thurrock Employment Land Review 2007
* Medway floorspace completions for 1991-2004
4.3.11 In terms of employment floorspace, Swale also has a significant allocation/commitment of

almost 3.5 million square metres. Past completions of housing and employment
construction have similarly been most impressive for Swale and Shepway.
4.3.12 Based on South East of England Regional Plan strategy however, Medway and Shepway
are expected to experience population declines to 2026, despite projected growth from
ONS population forecasts covering the same trajectory alongside significant employment
growth.
4.3.13 The significant disparity between the strategy-based and the ONS population projections
may be for a number of reasons:
The strategy-based projections take into account the net growth in dwellings, in
that they take account of any lost dwellings 7 and thus any resultant population loss. G
ONS projections are based on expected migration, fertility and death rates, and
may not take into account the constraints that housing provision or changing
average household sizes could put on growth.
Migration assumptions are also likely to have varied between forecast-methods.
4.3.14 Even allowing for these methodological differences, the disparity between the two
approaches is significant and should be kept in mind. This suggests a broad possible
range of population growth in the study areas.
4
Housing completions apply to a (varying) historic period of at least four years
5
Implied jobs based on average 20 sqm per employee density
6
Thurrock targets and applied population apply to period 2001-2021
7
South East Plan 2006 Policy H1: Housing Provision
20
Final report
Delivery of growth at Kings Cross, Stratford and Ebbsfleet

4.3.15 HS1 has enabled the delivery of three major development schemes in Ebbsfleet,
Stratford and King’s Cross. Those schemes are delivering significant impacts on three
regeneration areas with plans for over 15,000 homes and 70,000 jobs resulting in
quantifiable residential spending and output.
4.3.16 Work by Hunt Dobson Stringer has summarised the development planned at King’s
Cross, Stratford and Ebbsfleet (and Eastern Quarry). The King’s Cross development is
significant, in total accommodating some 22,100 permanent jobs and 2,000 dwellings.
The Stratford site could also create up to 34,000 jobs and up to 5,500 dwellings. The
Ebbsfleet/Eastern Quarry site should cumulatively accommodate 31,140 jobs and 8,365
dwellings. These effects are summarised in the table below.
Table 4.6: Impact of development schemes associated with High Speed 1

King’s Cross Stratford Ebbsfleet Eastern
Quarry
Permanent jobs 22,100 34,000 24,000 7,200
GDP per annum £1.3bn £1.8bn £1bn £275m
Homes 2,000 (plus Up to 5,500 2,100 6,250
some student
housing)
Household spending £50m £140m £49m £144m
per annum
Temporary jobs during 2,500 4,000 3,500
construction (FTE)
Source: Hunt Dobson Stringer: London & Continental Railways, Making Regeneration Happen, February
2008
4.3.17 These developments will have a significant impact upon the areas in which they are
located. For example, in 2006 employment in Dartford (the district in which Ebbsfleet is
located) was just under 50,000 and has grown by 45 per cent over the last 15 years. The
targets are considerable for a further 50,000 additional jobs by 2021. The planned
development, creating office space which would house some 24,000 jobs will therefore
represent a very large portion of the district’s objectives for growth.
4.3.18 The construction of HS1 provided the justification for rolling back the green belt and
previous strategic gap policies in the Ebbsfleet Valley where the previous planning history
was one of strict development restraint. Without HS1 it is very unlikely that development
of this quantum would have been permitted at Ebbsfleet.
4.3.19 Similarly in Newham, home to Stratford, employment currently stands at some 70,000
jobs and the planned jobs created at the development there will be three times the growth
seen in the area over the last 15 years. These comparisons show the extent of the growth
enabled by these developments. Furthermore, HS1 created the development site at
Stratford by removing previous railway uses and dealing with all the land issues. Again,
without HS1 it is very unlikely that development of this quantum in such an accessible
location could have taken place.
4.3.20 It is difficult to quantify the extent to which any of this growth is additional. The DfT’s
approach is to assume that this growth would have otherwise occurred elsewhere and
therefore a benefit cannot be claimed. However, if it is the case that a constraint exists
which may have prevented this growth from occurring then it must be the case that some
value should be attributed to delivery of this growth.
21
Final report
4.3.21 Such a constraint might be, for instance, the lack of easily available and attractive
locations that would encourage businesses to expand or start up when they might
otherwise not have done so. They could also attract investment that might otherwise have
taken locations outside of the UK. This is particularly true in locations with easy access to
other countries which is (by definition) true of the study area.
4.3.22 If just five per cent of the impacts are viewed to be completely additional then this would
generate some £200m of additional GDP per annum. This results in a Present Value over
60 years (allowing for some growth) of almost £10bn. This is significant in comparison to
the cost of delivery of the HS1 project. It does not seem unreasonable that at least five
per cent of this growth could be completely additional. For the reasons set out in
paragraphs 4.3.18 and 4.3.19, HS1 was fundamental in the availability of these particular
sites for development.
Wider regeneration effects of HS1

4.3.23 The journey times to central London before and after HS1 were summarised in Table 2.1.
HS1 will lead to travel time savings of up to 45 minutes.
4.3.24 These reduced journey times into London are likely to increase the levels of commuting
into the city and in turn will accelerate the regeneration, development potential and values
across this area of the South East. It is reasonable to expect that the large time savings
resulting from HS1 in this key regeneration area may have significant impacts.
4.3.25 Travel time data at a detailed level is not readily available. Analysis was carried out to
assess the degree to which a measure from the 2001 census on commuting patterns is a
reasonable proxy for journey times into London. We find this to be the case and the
potential changes in commuting rates as a result of HS1 time savings were in turn
estimated. We then find a relationship between commuting patterns into London and
indicators of regeneration.
4.3.26 Full details of this analysis can be found in Appendix B. We examined the socio-
economic characteristics of local areas (employment and population densities, economic
activity rates, house prices, deprivation measures) and considered how they might be
related to accessibility.
4.3.27 We find a significant relationship between house prices, levels of deprivation and
accessibility. Intuitively, we find that house prices are higher where deprivation is lower
and in areas where commuting rates into London are higher. The details of the resulting
model can be found in the Appendix.
4.3.28 The model allows us to estimate the impact that changes in rail commuting rates may
have upon house prices in an area. House prices are often used as an indicator of
prosperity and developers and investors are attracted to areas where they believe large
returns can be made. We estimate that a five percentage point change in commuting by
rail from a place leads to approximately a five per cent uplift upon house prices.
4.3.29 Across the study areas we estimate that house prices may increase by between 0.1 and
14.4 per cent, with the largest impacts seen around Ebbsfleet station. These impacts
range in value to a home owner or developer from between a few hundred pounds to tens
of thousands depending on the location and type of property.
4.3.30 We estimate that the prices of the current housing stock in the study area could increase
in value by between £950m and £1.6bn, with a central scenario of £1.3bn, equivalent to
just over a quarter of the cost of delivering the HS1 project. This represents a capitalised
value of benefits of HS1 to the residents of the study area.
22
Final report
4.3.31 Next we turn to consider the potential effect on earnings which may occur in the study
area as a result of the increased commuting to London. We consider various scenarios
(whether the additional commuting is by existing or new residents and whether they in
turn induce additional local jobs) and conclude that the benefits from the increased
commuting facilitated and stimulated by HS1 range from between £62m and £360m
additional earnings per annum.
Conclusion
4.3.32 The DfT compliant approach to valuing regeneration estimates that around 400 currently
unemployed residents may take up employment because of the direct impacts of high
speed domestic services. In a DfT appraisal a monetised value would not be applied to
this benefit.
4.3.33 An alternative approach to estimating the regeneration impact would be to value the
increase in economic activity taking place within regeneration areas.
4.3.34 The regeneration benefits quantified in the alternative approach are summarised below:
If five per cent of the development impacts at King’s Cross, Stratford and Ebbsfleet
(which HS1 has been fundamental in facilitating) are viewed to be completely
additional then this is some £200m of additional GDP per annum, representing a
Present Value over 60 years of £10bn;
The value of the housing stock in the study area may increase by around £1.3bn,
representing a capitalised value of HS1 benefits to current residents;
Earnings per annum across the study area may increase by between £62m and
£360m due to the commuting facilitated by HS1.
4.3.35 It is important to avoid double counting with the other benefits that have been quantified
as part of the appraisal. The development impacts associated with King’s Cross, Stratford
and Ebbsfleet can be viewed as entirely additional.
4.3.36 The increase in the value of the housing stock is already included within the increased
value of earnings valued as part of the WEBs. The same is largely true of the £62m -
360m per annum of increased earnings across the study area. However, in one scenario
a value is included for the impact of additional local jobs being generated and this would
be additional – it accounts for £90m of the £360m total, equivalent to £4bn as a PV over
60 years.
4.3.37 The upshot of this analysis is that High Speed 1 is estimated to provide at least £10bn of
regeneration benefits in addition to the other benefits that have been quantified.
23
Final report
5 Appraisal results
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 In this section we present an appraisal with a Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) for the central
results. First an assessment is made based solely on the transport benefits, and then the
WEBs are added. The results of some sensitivity tests are provided in the Appendix.
5.2 Transport appraisal

5.2.1 The method for calculating the costs and benefits that are included in a traditional
transport appraisal is outlined in chapter 2. The benefits include journey time savings and
congestion relief. The costs include the capital costs and operating costs of additional
domestic services, but the positive financial effect of the increase in revenues (shown as
a negative cost in the results tables) also needs to be taken into account.
5.2.2 Table 5.1 summarises the costs and benefits.
Table 5.1: Summary of transport costs and benefits
£m, 60-year PV
TOTAL BENEFITS 3,800
Capital cost 5,700

Revenue -3,400
TOTAL COST 3,900
Net Present Value (NPV) -100
Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) 0.96
5.2.3 Table 5.1 shows that the net costs are slightly higher than the benefits, hence the BCR is
just under 1. However it should be recognised that the benefits of HS1 extend far beyond
those that are included in a conventional transport appraisal as per Table 5.1.
5.2.4 Other potential transport benefits that have not been quantified here include:
The reliability improvements that may result from having the new track;
The improved connections that will result from having new stations at St Pancras,
Stratford and Ebbsfleet;
Other improvements that would have been unlikely to occur without HS1 such as
the concourse and ticket hall improvements at King’s Cross.
5.3 Appraisal including WEBs

5.3.1 Chapter 3 showed that HS1 will provide several wider economic benefits, including a
move to more productive jobs due to the additional peak capacity into central London,
and pure agglomeration from the increased accessibility that it enables.
5.3.2 Table 5.2 replicates Table 5.1, this time including both the conventional benefits and the
WEBs. As explained in section 3.2, part of the M2MPJ benefit is dependant on
24
Final report
remodelling Waterloo International to enable domestic services to be operated and so an

additional cost (assumed to be £400m undiscounted) is included in Table 5.2 to account
for this.
Table 5.2: Summary of costs and transport benefits / WEBs
£m, 60-year PV
TOTAL TRANSPORT BENEFITS 3,800
Move to more productive jobs 1,700

Pure agglomeration 1,800
Labour force participation 50
Imperfect competition 250
TOTAL WIDER BENEFITS 3,800
Capital cost 6,100

Revenue -3,400
TOTAL COST 4,300
Net Present Value (NPV) 3,300
Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.76
5.3.3 Table 5.2 shows that the Net Present Value increases significantly when the WEBs are
taken into account. When the WEBs are included, the BCR increases from 0.96 to 1.76
indicating a much higher value for money.
5.3.4 Clearly regeneration also needs to be considered as this is a key aspect of the HS1
benefits. Although regeneration benefits can not be added to the user benefits, chapter 4
showed that they have been estimated to be worth at least £10bn as a Present Value
over 60 years. They are clearly important and formed a major part of the decision to
proceed with HS1.
5.3.5 As a comparison, a previous government estimate 8 of the value for money of the Channel
Tunnel Rail Link indicated that the BCR of the scheme was 1.5. This included
regeneration benefits worth £500m (PV) as part of the assessment. Our results indicate
the value for money of the scheme is higher than that previous estimate.
8
As reported by the National Audit office in The Channel Tunnel Rail Link: Report by the Comptroller and
Auditor General, March 2001.
25
Final report
6 Conclusions
6.1.1 This study has investigated the economic impacts of High Speed 1. The scheme brings
about improvements to journey times between London and destinations in Kent as well
as Paris and Brussels. It also has significant regeneration impacts.
6.1.2 The benefits of HS1 are fourfold. It provides:

A financial impact (increase in rail revenues)
Conventional transport benefits (e.g. journey time savings)
Wider economic benefits (enabling workers to move to more productive jobs by
increasing peak capacity to central London, and increasing the effective density of
London and locations in Kent by reducing the generalised costs of travel)
Regeneration (helping to deliver the regional growth strategy and thus providing
the land that allows new investment)
6.1.3 Based solely on the conventional transport benefits and wider economic benefits, our
estimate of the Benefit/Cost Ratio for the scheme is 1.76, indicating a strong value for
money.
6.1.4 Taking what we consider the most realistic approach to estimating the regeneration
benefits of HS1, the impacts include:
Development impacts at Kings Cross, Stratford and Ebbsfleet (which HS1 has
been fundamental in facilitating): if just five per cent of the impact is viewed to be
completely additional, this benefit will be worth almost £10bn as a Present Value
over 60 years;
The value of the housing stock in the study area may increase by around £1.3bn,
representing a capitalised value of HS1 benefits to current residents;G
Earnings per annum across the study area may increase by between £62m and
£360m due to the commuting facilitated by HS1.
6.1.5 Of those impacts, at least £10bn can be considered additional to the appraisal. Taking
this into account along with the transport and wider benefits, it is clear that overall the
scheme represents high value for money.
26
Final report
Appendix A – Appraisal assumptions

Table A 1 on the following page shows the values of some of the parameters that were used to obtain
the results reported in the main text.
Final report
Table A 1: Appraisal assumptions

Parameter Value Source
Opening year of Benefits from Section 1 of Simplification as Section 1 opened in September
scheme HS1 begin in 2004, benefits 2003, Section 2 in November 2007 and domestic
of Section 2 begin in 2008. services will begin in December 2009.
Benefits of additional
domestic services begin in
2010.
Appraisal period 60 years from opening of Standard industry assumption
domestic services (i.e. final
year is 2069)
Discount rate 3.5% for 30 years from WebTAG
scheme opening, 3.0%
thereafter, discounted to a
base year of 2002
Price base Costs and benefits CB assumption
converted into 2008 prices
using annual inflation rate of
2%
Journey purpose In Work Time: 8.3% WebTAG Unit 3.5.6, Table 8
splits (domestic Commuting: 58.2% http://www.webtag.org.uk/webdocuments/3_Exp
services) Leisure: 33.5% ert/5_Economy_Objective/3.5.6.htm
Journey purpose In Work Time: 30% International Passenger Survey, Table 2.07
splits (international Commuting: 0% http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_tr
services) Leisure: 70% ansport/TravelTrends2006.pdf
Value of time 2002 values: IWT: 36.96 WebTAG Unit 3.5.6, section 1.2
Commute: 5.04 http://www.webtag.org.uk/webdocuments/3_Exp
Leisure:4.46 ert/5_Economy_Objective/3.5.6.htm
With WebTAG growth rates

applied
Demand (domestic) LENNON data (provided by DfT)
Demand Based on Eurostar historic data
(international)
Changes to journey As shown in main text Source:
times http://www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/content/do
c/cms/Connectivity%20map%202.pdf & Eurostar
Fare Eurostar: average £80 per Southeastern and Eurostar websites
trip (2008)
Domestics: average fare per
trip based on season ticket
prices
Elasticity of Trips to London: -0.7 Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook,
demand with Trips from London: -0.8 section B3.3
respect to
generalised journey
time
Employment (pure Total of all super output ONS
agglomeration areas within relevant
calculations) districts
Final report
Proportion of 40% Based on analysis from CB’s ABRA accessibility

passengers who model, looking at destinations within London
find it beneficial to from each Kent district and length of time taken
use new domestic to access each ward from St Pancras relative to
services to St Charing Cross / Victoria
Pancras
Average GDP per £44,956 OECD
worker (2006) http://stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Index.aspx?Dataset
Code=LEVEL
Agglomeration Separate values for each DfT
elasticities district e.g. Ashford 0.048, http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/economics/rdg/webia/w
Medway 0.030, Shepway ebdatasources/agglomerationevidencebylaand3
0.056 136
Productivity Separate values for each DfT
differential relative district as shown in Table
to national average 3.1 of main report
Rail share of trips Matrix produced for all trips 2001 census (journey to work data)
between London and Kent
stations and London – Paris
/ Brussels. Examples
include London – Ashford
79%, Gillingham - London
59%, Dover – Chatham 4%
Congestion relief 40 pence per trip for CB assumption
benefit (domestic passengers switching to
services) new services, 20 pence per
trip for passengers
continuing to use classic
services
Capacity of new Per 12-car train: 736 seats, DfT / http://www.kentrail.co.uk/class_395.htm
high speed 308 standing
domestic trains
Waterloo 85,000 CB assumption
(excluding WIT)
capacity per three-
hour AM peak
period
Final report
Appendix B – Regeneration
This Appendix summarises some of the data and approach that underpins the assessment reported in
chapter 4.3.
Contextual baseline
Total employment
Table A 2 and Figure A 1 below show that Swale was the only area in the study which had a fall in
employment between 1991 and 2006. This was roughly a loss of 5,850 jobs or a 13.7 per cent decline
in employment. The most rapid employment growth occurred in Dartford, at almost 45 per cent during
this period and the largest employment increase in absolute terms occurred in Thurrock, with over
15,000 additional employees over this 15 year period.
Table A 2: Total Employment, 1991 - 2006

Absolute
% Change
1991 2006 Change 1991-
1991-2006
2006
London 3,405,119 3,996,570 591,451 17.4%
Newham 60,409 70,750 10,341 17.1%
East 1,939,581 2,378,727 439,146 22.6%
Thurrock 40,382 55,709 15,327 38.0%
South East 2,982,908 3,668,656 685,748 23.0%
Dartford 32,468 47,004 14,536 44.8%
Gravesham 44,997 58,261 13,264 29.5%
Medway 34,201 48,300 14,099 41.2%
Swale 42,696 36,844 -5852 -13.7%
Canterbury 24,996 25,667 671 2.7%
Ashford 78,888 86,343 7,455 9.4%
Shepway 29,833 33,128 3,295 11.0%
Dover 33,207 42,612 9,405 28.3%
Thanet 33,141 38,561 5,420 16.4%
Source: Annual Business Inquiry and Annual Employment Survey
The latest data shows that Gravesham and Dartford have the highest employment and lowest
unemployment rates of the relevant districts, while Canterbury and Thanet have relatively high
unemployment and low employment. Of all districts in the study area, Newham has the highest
unemployment and lowest employment rates.
Final report
Figure A 1: Total Percentage Employment Change, 1991-2006
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Medway
Newham
Shepway
Dover
Canterbury
Gravesham
Swale
Dartford
London
East
South East
Ashford
Thanet
Thurrock
-10.0%
-20.0%
Source: Annual Business Inquiry and Annual Employment Survey

Final report
Figure A 2: Employment Rate (working age population) 2006
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
-
Medway
Shepway
Dover
Newham
Gravesham
Canterbury
Swale
Dartford
London
Ashford
East
Thanet
Thurrock
South East
Source: Annual Population Survey

Final report
Figure A 3: Unemployment Rate (working age population), 2006
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
-
Medway
Shepway
Dover
Newham
Gravesham
Canterbury
Swale
Dartford
London
Ashford
East
Thanet
Thurrock
South East
Industrial employment
Figure A 4 below highlights industrial employment shares by district for 2006. It shows that Canterbury
and Thanet have relatively large shares of Health and Education employment, while Thurrock and
Dartford have larger shares of retail employment. Relative to the high regional share of business
services employment in the South East, Medway Towns has the highest share of the study districts.
Newham has a low share of Business, Financial and Other services relative to the rest of London. It
has higher Health, Education and Public Admin. Business services jobs typically provide more highly
skilled and highly paid employment.
Final report
Figure A 4: Industrial Employment Shares, 2006
100%
Other Services
Health and Education
80% Public Admin
Business Services
60% Financial Services

Transport and Communications
Hotels and Restaurants
40%
Retail
Wholesale
20% Construction
Manufacturing
Primary Utilities
0%
Medway Towns
Shepway
Newham
Dover
Canterbury
Gravesham
Swale
Dartford
London
East
South East
Ashford
Thurrock
Thanet
Source: Annual Business Inquiry
As shown in Figure A 5 below, Gravesham had the lowest share of residents employed in the most
highly skilled occupations, and the highest share employed in elementary occupations. On the other
hand, alongside the regional average for the South East, Canterbury had an occupations distribution
most skewed to the highly skilled. This is interesting to note given its high unemployment and high
health and education employment.
In line with the industrial distribution, Newham has lower shares of professional and managerial
occupations than the London average and higher shares of elementary occupations.
Final report
Figure A 5: Occupational Shares, 2006
100%
elementary occupations
process, plant and machin

80% operatives
sales and customer servic
occupations
personal service
60% occupations
skilled trades occupations
40% administrative and

secretarial occupations
associate prof & tech
occupations
20% professional occupations
managers and senior

officials
0%
Medway
Newham
Swale
Shepway
Thurrock
South East
Dartford
Dover
East
Ashford
London
Thanet
Gravesham
Canterbury
Next we compare the weekly average earnings of residents. Of the study districts, Newham has the
highest mean and Dartford had the highest median earnings in 2007. Dartford also had the lowest
disparity between mean and median earnings, perhaps suggesting greater equality than in other
areas. While Thanet’s earnings were amongst the lowest of these districts, it also had the greatest
disparity between mean and median earnings, suggesting that the distribution of wages was less
equal than that of the other districts.
Final report
Figure A 6: Total Gross Resident Weekly Mean and Median Earnings, 2007
700
Mean
Median
600
500
£ per week
400
300
200
100
0
Medway
Shepway
Gravesham
Dover
Canterbury
Newham
Swale
Dartford
Ashford
London
East
Thurrock
Thanet
South East
Towns
Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings
We also consider the relative earnings of those who live in the study districts (residents), regardless of
where they work, to those of the people that work in the study district (workers), regardless of where
they live. Figure A 7 below therefore shows that the districts within or closest to London (such as
Newham, Thurrock and Dartford) have both the highest worker and resident earnings of the study
group, but that all districts have a level of disparity between resident and worker earnings.
We might expect that significant shares of residents in the districts earning relatively higher wages
would be commuting to London for work as jobs in London are typically better paid. This is probably
true for Thurrock and Dartford for example (and Newham which is within London). However for this
argument to hold we would expect the greatest disparity in earnings between residents and workers
for the districts closest to London which are likely to have the highest proportion of commuters to
London, which is not the case. In fact, Canterbury has the highest earnings disparity, with workers
earnings over 19.6 per cent higher than those of residents.
Newham is the only district in which workers have higher median earnings than residents. Although
one possible explanation for this latter point could be that Newham is within London, thus providing
these higher paid jobs itself. Highly skilled in-commuters could therefore be travelling to work in
Newham to take the most highly paid jobs. While Newham has higher worker than residents earnings,
both are still considerably lower than the wider London average, as we would expect given the
business hub in central London.
Final report
Figure A 7: Total Gross Worker and Resident Weekly Median Earnings, 2007
600
Residents
Workers
500
400
£ per week
300
200
100
0
Medway Towns
Shepway
Swale
Newham
Canterbury
Dartford
London
Ashford
South East
East
Gravesham
Thurrock
Dover
Thanet
Source: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings
Population
In terms of population, Ashford has experienced the largest growth between 1981 and 2006, of 28 per
cent. In contrast to the rapid employment growth of 44.8 per cent in Dartford between 1991 and 2006,
population growth was only 10.6 per cent during this period, falling between 1981 and 1991 by 1.5 per
cent, and rising overall by 12.2 per cent between 1991 and 2006. In absolute terms there has been an
increase in population of 18,000 in Ashford over the last fifteen years but only 7,500 extra jobs
whereas in Dartford over the same period there have been 15,000 new jobs but only 9,800 extra
people. This suggests that a significant proportion of Dartford’s residents were returning to the labour
market, through increased participation rates for parents and carers, older people and adults with
disabilities for example. There is also likely to have been significant growth in in-commuting from other
districts to fill these additional jobs.
Gravesham also experienced a fall in population between 1981 and 1991, with modest overall growth
of 2 per cent between 1981 and 2006.
Final report
Table A 3: Population change, 1981-2006

change change change
1981 1991 2006 1981- 1981- 1991- 1981 1991 2006
2006 1991 2006
Number % Number % Number %
London 6,805,000 6,829,300 7,512,400 707,400 10.4% 24,300 0.4% 683,100 10.0%
Newham 211,900 216,300 248,400 36,500 17.2% 4,400 2.1% 32,100 14.8%
East 4,855,000 5,121,100 5,606,600 751,600 15.5% 266,100 5.5% 485,500 9.5%
Thurrock 127,400 128,700 148,900 21,500 16.9% 1,300 1.0% 20,200 15.7%
South East 7,243,100 7,629,200 8,237,800 994,700 13.7% 386,100 5.3% 608,600 8.0%
Dartford 81,300 80,100 89,900 8,600 10.6% -1,200 -1.5% 9,800 12.2%
Gravesham 95,500 93,300 97,400 1,900 2.0% -2,200 -2.3% 4,100 4.4%
Medway 240,300 242,500 251,700 11,400 4.7% 2,200 0.9% 9,200 3.8%
Swale 110,100 116,100 128,500 18,400 16.7% 6,000 5.4% 12,400 10.7%
Canterbury 122,200 129,600 146,200 24,000 19.6% 7,400 6.1% 16,600 12.8%
Ashford 86,900 93,100 111,200 24,300 28.0% 6,200 7.1% 18,100 19.4%
Shepway 86,100 93,000 99,600 13,500 15.7% 6,900 8.0% 6,600 7.1%
Dover 103,500 104,400 106,400 2,900 2.8% 900 0.9% 2,000 1.9%
Thanet 121,800 126,100 128,600 6,800 5.6% 4,300 3.5% 2,500 2.0%
Source: ONS Mid Year Population Estimates
The share of the population of working age is also an important indicator of the potential earnings
capacity of an area. This shows that (outside of London) Thurrock and Medway Towns have the
largest working age population shares (ages 15 to 64), at 67.1 and 67.2 per cent respectively for 2006.
On the contrary, Thanet has a far lower share, at only 61.1 per cent of the population.
Canterbury, Gravesham and Thurrock have all experienced rapid population growth since the early
1990s. The population of the Medway towns however started from a far larger base and rose above
250,000 people for the first time in 2002.
Final report
Figure A 8: Population Share aged 15-64, 2006
71.0%
69.0%
67.0%
65.0%
63.0%
61.0%
59.0%
57.0%
55.0%
Medway
Shepway
Dover
Newham
Gravesham
Canterbury
Swale
Dartford
London
Ashford
East
Thanet
Thurrock
South East

Final report
Figure A 9: Population, 1981-2006
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
Thurrock Dartford Gravesham Medway Swale Canterbury
Ashford Shepway Dover Thanet Newham
0
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Population projections for each of the study districts to 2031 in Table A 4 below show that all are
expected to experience large growth over the next 25 years. For every district, this growth is far higher
than that of the last 25 years. District population growth targets based on Strategic housing growth
vary significantly from the ONS population projections in most cases.
Particularly for districts such as Gravesham, Medway, Dover and Thanet which have experienced
relatively slow past population growth, these projections represent a step change, reflecting large and
challenging growth prospects for the future.
Projections for the remaining districts appear to represent more a continuation of recent population
trends.
Final report
Table A 4: Population Projections, 2006-2031

Change Change
2006 2016 2026 2031
1981-2006 2006-2031
Number % Number %
London 707,400 10.4% 7,512,400 8,114,300 8,632,600 8,857,900 1,345,500 17.9%
Newham 36,500 17.2% 248,400 249,600 254,700 258,400 10,000 4.0%
East 751,600 15.5% 5,606,600 6,179,500 6,747,400 6,997,400 1,390,800 24.8%
Thurrock 21,500 16.9% 148,900 163,600 177,400 183,200 34,300 23.0%
South East 994,700 13.7% 8,237,800 8,870,600 9,523,300 9,813,800 1,576,000 19.1%
Dartford 8,600 10.6% 89,900 99,900 108,900 112,700 22,800 25.4%
Gravesham 1,900 2.0% 97,400 103,100 109,300 112,000 14,600 15.0%
Medway 11,400 4.7% 251,700 262,300 275,000 280,700 29,000 11.5%
Swale 18,400 16.7% 128,500 141,600 154,800 160,400 31,900 24.8%
Canterbury 24,000 19.6% 146,200 167,800 187,400 196,500 50,300 34.4%
Ashford 24,300 28.0% 111,200 128,600 144,400 151,000 39,800 35.8%
Shepway 13,500 15.7% 99,600 109,200 119,800 124,500 24,900 25.0%
Dover 2,900 2.8% 106,400 112,700 120,900 124,600 18,200 17.1%
Thanet 6,800 5.6% 128,600 137,200 148,500 153,800 25,200 19.6%
Source: ONS 2006-based
Journey times and commute patterns

As a result of the domestic services operation on the HS1 line, journey times into central London will
reduce both from the HS1 stations themselves and from other services which link into these routes.
Table A 5 below gives an approximate summary of these journey time effects. The travel time savings
(on the high speed services) are significant, with the largest benefits of 30-50 minute savings seen in
Ashford, Canterbury, Folkestone, Dover and Ramsgate and still large savings from the Medway towns
and other stations in the South East. It is reasonable to expect that such large time savings may
impact significantly on commuters’ behaviour. It is our hypothesis that reduced journey times into
London will accelerate the regeneration, development potential and values in this area of the South
East.
Final report
Table A 5: Journey time impacts of HS1

Base journey time HS1 journey time Time saving
(minutes) (minutes) (minutes)
Stratford 8 7 1
Ashford 83 37 46
Gravesend 42 24 18
Chatham 60 43 17
Strood 54 37 17
Rochester 57 40 17
Gillingham 63 46 17
Rainham 66 49 17
Sittingbourne 65 56 9
Faversham 78 66 12
Canterbury West 102 61 41
Folkestone Central 98 63 35
Dover Priory 112 74 38
Ramsgate 119 84 35
Margate 109 98 11
Ebbsfleet - 17 -
The ideal evidence in support of this hypothesis would be to find a relationship between journey times
and indicators of regeneration, preferably at a very local level of geography as small time differences
may have big impacts. For example, development very close to stations may be hugely accelerated
but development further afield may be less affected.
Travel time data at the level of detail required does not exist and would be very time consuming to
collate. This would require travel time from every station into central London, ideally adjusted for
frequency and any capacity issues. In order to get a meaningful local measure, we would then also
require distance from each small geographical area to the nearest station in order to calculate a
measure of complete journey time at a local level. This is what detailed transport models do for a
given impact area at a zonal level. However even if this existed for a set impact area it would still not
be perfect for our purposes as the ideal evidence base would be to estimate a model on a much wider
area – the wider commuting belt of London for example. What does exist, from the 2001 census, is the
number of people who commute from each ward into London, and by which mode.
Our approach is therefore as follows. For a small study selection area, we consider whether a
measure from the 2001 census detailed data is a reasonable proxy for journey times into London. We
find this is the case, and we then use the detailed ward level data to estimate a relationship between
relevant commuting patterns into London and indicators of regeneration.
The table below sets out the approximate journey times by rail from selected stations into London. It
also details the percentages of people from the wards in which those stations are located who
commute to London, by public transport and by rail.
Final report
Table A 6: Journey times to London by rail from selected stations, and % commuting to
London
Station Base journey Commuting to London from ward
time (mins)
total % % by PT % by rail
Stratford 8 97% 58% 10%
St Albans 25 31% 24% 23%
Hemel Hempstead 30 18% 6% 4%
Harpenden 30 23% 17% 17%
Welwyn Garden City 30 10% 4% 4%
Reading 33 7% 5% 4%
Luton 35 12% 9% 8%
Sevenoaks 35 39% 32% 31%
Epping 35 41% 22% 2%
Chelmsford 36 22% 18% 17%
Milton Keynes 38 5% 3% 3%
Guildford 38 11% 7% 7%
Amersham 39 20% 12% 6%
Gravesend 42 24% 12% 11%
Haywards Heath 45 20% 17% 17%
Crawley 49 6% 3% 3%
Strood 54 17% 7% 4%
Brighton 56 10% 9% 8%
Peterborough 56 3% 3% 3%
Rochester 57 14% 8% 7%
Oxford 58 5% 4% 3%
Maidstone 58 9% 4% 4%
Chatham 60 15% 9% 8%
Swindon 63 0% 0% 0%
Gillingham 63 14% 8% 8%
Sittingbourne 65 11% 7% 5%
Rainham 66 18% 13% 12%
Buxted 70 9% 6% 6%
Billingshurst 75 8% 5% 5%
Faversham 78 6% 5% 5%
Ashford 83 7% 5% 5%
Bristol 91 0% 0% 0%
Folkestone Central 98 6% 4% 3%
Canterbury West 102 3% 2% 1%
Margate 109 1% 1% 1%
Dover Priory 112 1% 0% 0%
Ramsgate 119 2% 1% 1%
Stratford has by far the highest total percentage of workers who commute into London but a relatively
low proportion do so by rail. The large difference between the percentage who commute by public
transport and by rail is due to the presence of London Underground (LU). LU travel is also evident
from Amersham and Epping, but for all other locations, the majority of public transport commuting is
done by rail.
The table is ordered by journey time. By eye we can see that the percentages who commute broadly
drop as the travel time rises. Noticeable outliers are Reading, Milton Keynes, Crawley (and Oxford,
Swindon, Peterborough), which have quick travel times but lower percentages commuting than might
be expected. This is likely to be due to the fact they have their own economies and are not entirely
drawing from London’s activity. For example, Reading is an office location, Milton Keynes is a hub for
Final report
business services and logistics, and Crawley’s economy is focussed around Gatwick airport. Other
areas very much form the London commuter belt.
The three commuting measures are all strongly negatively correlated with the travel time. The longer
the travel time, the fewer commute. This is an intuitive finding. The percentage that commute by rail is
the most relevant measure for use in our analysis.
Figure A 10 below plots travel time against percentage who commute to London by rail. Stratford is
highlighted green and pops out for the reasons identified earlier. The other location highlighted green
is Epping, also mentioned previously for having a London Underground line which may be a reason
that the rail percentage is low. The places highlighted blue are the ‘active centres’ discussed earlier,
and we can see they fall in the lower part of the chart.
Figure A 10: Selected districts, % who commute to London by rail and travel time by rail
0.5
0.4
% who commute by rail
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
travel time
There is clearly a relationship between these two – with higher travel times by train translating into
lower commuting into London by rail. Next we consider how to quantify this relationship. Linear fits to
the data are shown in Figure A 11 below. The black line is based on all of the data, green excludes
Stratford and Epping, and blue excludes those and the ‘active centres’.
Final report
Figure A 11: % who commute and travel time – possible linear relationships
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
travel time
An obvious issue of considering a linear relationship is that it can go negative and will cut the y axis at
a point which is below some experienced levels of commuting percentages. Clearly a proportion can
range from 0 to 1 and a modelled relationship which does not have these characteristics is a
drawback. Furthermore, the data suggests that the relationship is likely to be non-linear.
Final report
Figure A 12: % who commute and travel time – possible non-linear relationships
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
travel time
The fitted non-linear curves in Figure A 12 have the following functional form:
RailCommuting % D exp E TravelTime

Again, the relationships are estimated on all data, without Stratford and Epping, and without these and
the ‘active centres’. These are displayed in black, blue and green as previously.
The only observation which significantly changes the shape of the relationship found is Stratford, and
for this reason we exclude this data point from the analysis. The chart below shows the preferred
model.
Final report
Figure A 13: % who commute and travel time – chosen model

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
travel time
The relationship shown in the chart above has the functional form as described previously, with alpha
and beta as detailed below.
RailCommuting % D exp E TravelTime

Where Į = 0.2625221 and ȕ = 0.02574575.
The next step is to assess the effect of High Speed 1. We use the estimates of the relationship
between rail travel time and the percentage of people who commute by rail to estimate what effect
reductions in travel time will have on the percentage of people who commute. We assume that any
comparative advantage or disadvantage which a location has is retained. This means that if a location
starts from a baseline position a certain distance below or above the fitted values, it retains this
relative position.
The estimated results are is shown in the chart below. The numbers represent places – green is
current, blue is with HS1. For example, place 1 is Ashford from which the journey time will reduce from
83 to 37 minutes with HS1. As a result, the percentage who commute is modelled to rise from 4.5 per
cent to 11.6 per cent. The yellow dot is Ebbsfleet – because it does not have a ‘before HS1’ travel time
it is assumed to be on the modelled curve at the relevant position. Its modelled commuting by rail to
London is therefore 16.9 per cent once domestic HS1 is in operation, which compares to a 2001 rate
of 7 per cent.
Final report
Figure A 14: The effects of HS1 journey improvements on commuting

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
2 7
1 3 7
0.1
52 6
4 3 6
85 1011 9
4 8 9 1
12 13 11
14 10
0.0
1412 13
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
travel time
The table below shows these estimated changes in commuting to London as a result of the improved
journey time once the HS1 domestic services are in operation. The journey time from Ashford more
than halves and the percentage estimated to commute to London by rail more than doubles. The
stations are listed in the table in the order 1 to 14 as they appear in the chart.
Table A 7: Journey time savings with HS1 and the impact upon commuting by rail to London
% who
% who
commute by Change
Base time HS1 time commute by
Station Rail to (percentage
(minutes) (minutes) Rail to London
London with points)
(2001)
HS1
Ashford 83 37 4.6% 11.6% 7.0%
Gravesend 42 24 10.7% 16.0% 5.2%
Chatham 60 43 8.4% 11.5% 3.1%
Strood 54 37 4.3% 7.9% 3.6%
Rochester 57 40 7.0% 10.3% 3.3%
Gillingham 63 46 8.0% 10.9% 2.8%
Rainham 66 49 12.4% 15.1% 2.6%
Sittingbourne 65 56 4.7% 6.0% 1.3%
Faversham 78 66 4.6% 5.9% 1.3%
Canterbury West 102 61 1.5% 5.0% 3.6%
Folkestone Central 98 63 3.4% 6.5% 3.1%
Dover Priory 112 74 0.4% 2.9% 2.4%
Ramsgate 119 84 0.9% 2.7% 1.8%
Margate 109 98 0.7% 1.3% 0.5%
Ebbsfleet - 17 7.4% 16.9% 9.6%
This model has allowed us to estimate the increase in commuting proportions in the ward in which
each station is located. However it seems likely (and the ward map below supports this) that the effect
Final report
might not be quite this local, and improved journey times may in fact impact upon behaviour of
commuters from some surrounding wards as well.
Figure A 15: Ward level commuting (by rail) to London
The chart below compares the percent commuting by rail from the ward in which each station is
located with the average percent commuting by rail from all wards within 2km of each station. For
interpretation, the line shown is the line of equality. On this basis we conclude that it is reasonable to
apply the same uplift factor to the rail commuting rates from neighbouring wards. This will retain the
same relative positions of wards, implicitly allowing for other factors which cannot be quantified here.
A similar relationship is evident for locations between two and five kilometres from each station but for
conservatism, we only apply half of the uplift factor to these. We do not make any estimates of
benefits in locations further than 5km from each station.
Final report
Figure A 16: Relationship between % commuting by rail to London from ward in which station
falls and wards within 2km
0.12
average % commuting from all wards within 2km
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.0
0.0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
% commuting from ward in which HS1 station is
For example, in 2001 just under 1.5 per cent of workers commuted into London by rail from the ward
in which Canterbury West station falls. With the new HS1 services, the model estimates this will
increase to 5 per cent, an uplift factor of 3.4. We therefore apply this same factor to the wards within
2km of Canterbury West station, this results in an estimate that between 0.6 and 6 per cent of the
workers who live within 2km of Canterbury West station will commute into London by rail once the
HS1 services are in operation. The results of these assumptions are summarised, by station, in the
table below.
Final report
Table A 8: Estimated commuting pattern changes when HS1 services are operational
Range of rail
Ward in No. of wards No. of wards Range of rail
commuting
Station which within 2km of within 2-5km of commuting
rates (with
station falls station station 9 rates (2001)
HS1)
Ashford 00BBGU 8 11 0.5 – 8.8% 0.9 – 15.5%
Gravesend 29UBJB 6 9 2.5 – 10.7% 3.1 – 16.0%
Chatham 29UGGG 2 6 3.4 – 9.3% 4.0 – 11.5%
Strood 00LCNN 1 1 4.3 – 6.6% 7.9 – 9.4%
Rochester 00LCPF 1 1 2.7 – 7.0% 3.4 – 10.3%
Gillingham 00LCPB 3 0 7.3 – 8.0% 9.9 – 10.9%
Rainham 00LCNQ 2 4 4.0 – 12.4% 4.8 – 13.8%
Sittingbourne 00LCNZ 4 6 1.9 – 6.6% 2.2 – 8.4%
Faversham 29UMGF 4 2 3.4 – 6.7% 3.8 – 8.5%
Canterbury West 29UMGC 3 6 0.3 – 2.5% 0.6 – 6.0%
Folkestone Central 29UCGU 6 4 0.2 – 3.4% 0.2 – 6.5%
Dover Priory 29ULGK 6 1 0.0 – 0.9% 0.0 – 5.7%
Ramsgate 29UEGS 6 5 0.2 – 2.4% 0.4 – 4.9%
Margate 29UNGJ 5 4 0.3 – 1.4% 0.5 – 2.4%
Ebbsfleet 29UDGP 3 6 5.7 – 20.1% 13.1 – 33.1%
They are also shown in the next two maps. The increased commuting to London by rail expected
along the south coast from Dover and Folkestone and increases from across the rest of the study area
are evident.
9
It should be noted that the Medway towns stations are close together. Each ward is considered relative to the
station to which is it closest.
Final report
Figure A 17: % commuting by rail into London, study area 2001

Final report
Figure A 18: % commuting by rail into London, study area after HS1 in operation
Relationship between commuting and regeneration

We now wish to examine the socio-economic characteristics of local areas and quantify how they
might be related to accessibility. We considered the following characteristics 10 :
Accessibility (proxied by the % who commute by rail to London)G
Employment densityG
Population densityG
Economic activity ratesG
House pricesG
DeprivationG
We find a significant relationship between house prices, levels of deprivation and accessibility.
Intuitively, we find that house prices are negatively impacted upon by increases in deprivation and
positively impacted by increases in commuting rates into London by rail. The details of this model are
summarised below.
10
Accessibility, employment, population and economic activity were all considered at ST Ward levels of
geography. House prices and IMD are available at MSOA and were converted onto ST Ward boundaries by
area-weighting to enable direct comparison.
Final report
Figure A 19: House price model results

Model result
log(medianHP) = 12.5542 – 0.0239 x IMDscore + 1.0319 x London.%.Rail
Model detail
Coefficients:
Value Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 12.5542 0.0125 1004.1750 0.0000
IMDscore -0.0239 0.0007 -36.4694 0.0000
London.% Rail 1.0319 0.1092 9.4533 0.0000
Residual standard error: 0.2128 on 1790 degrees of freedom

Multiple R-Squared: 0.4917
F-statistic: 865.9 on 2 and 1790 degrees of freedom, the p-value is 0
The model is run across all wards surrounding London but excluding those within London itself. This
is because there is likely to be a different relationship between the very high house prices in London
and the underground network rather than rail links. Excluding them from the model is therefore
appropriate.
All explanatory variables are highly significant and the R-Squared value of 0.49 is reasonable for a
cross sectional dataset. Examination of the residuals suggests they are randomly distributed exhibiting
no signs of heteroskedasticity or model misspecification. The following chart shows the predicted
against actual house prices. The green dots identify the wards in which the stations effected by HS1
are located. Whilst the model performs less well for higher priced properties, we can see that it
performs well for the majority of house prices, and for the wards relevant to our analysis. An
examination of the wards with house prices over £350,000 shows them to be located mainly around
the M25 loop, out West along the M40 and M4 and some locations South West of London.
Final report
Figure A 20: House prices – actual and predicted by the model

500000
400000
predicted house price
300000
200000
100000
0
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000
house price
The effects of changes to rail commuting rates upon house prices implied by the parameters of this
model are summarised in the table below. We can see that the model estimates that an x percentage
point change in commuting by rail from a place has approximately an x per cent uplift upon house
prices. This means that if 3 per cent more people commute by rail to London we might expect house
prices to rise by 3 per cent.
Table A 9: House price impacts implied by model
Increase in commuting
Percentage uplift in
to London by rail
house prices
(percentage points)
1% 1.04%
2% 2.00%
3% 3.14%
4% 4.21%
5% 5.30%
10% 10.87%
Maps of all three variables used within the model are shown below. The first map, of ward level
commuting by rail, is a replica of that in Figure A 15, but with stations highlighted by black squares. It
is evident that the blue spots further out are clustered around stations, as we might expect given the
findings from the modelling. The darker blue spots evident in the south east and north west of London
identify Sevenoaks, Harpenden and St Albans stations among others.
Final report
Figure A 21: Ward level commuting (by rail) to London with rail stations highlighted
The relatively lower house prices and higher deprivation in the study area are also evident.
Final report
Figure A 22: House prices, median 2006

Final report
Figure A 23: IMD, 2007
The range of uplifts in house price values is set out in Table A 10 below. The map then shows the per
house increase in value estimated by the model. We can see that the model estimates house prices
increases of between 0.1 and 14.4 per cent, depending on the station in question. The largest impacts
are seen around Ebbsfleet station, with house prices potentially rising by more than 14 per cent.
Final report
Table A 10: Estimated changes to house prices when HS1 services are operational
Range of house
Range of house
price increases
Station price % increases
(with HS1), 2006
(with HS1)
prices
Ashford 0.4 – 7.5% £500 - £12,800
Gravesend 0.6 – 5.6% £900 - £9,400
Chatham 0.6 – 3.2% £900 - £4,100
Strood 2.9 – 3.8% £6,300 - £6,800
Rochester 0.7 – 3.5% £900 - £6,000
Gillingham 2.7 – 3.0% £3,700 - £5,500
Rainham 0.7 – 1.8% £1,100 - £3,600
Sittingbourne 0.3 – 1.9% £300 - £3,800
Faversham 0.5 – 1.9% £1,000 - £3,200
Canterbury West 0.3 – 4.5% £500 - £8,800
Folkestone Central 0.2 – 3.2% £100 - £5,100
Dover Priory 0.4 – 5.1% £800 - £5,300
Ramsgate 0.2 – 2.6% £300 - £4,900
Margate 0.1 – 1.0% £300 - £1,600
Ebbsfleet 5.7 – 14.4% £10,400 - £30,200
Figure A 24: Absolute average house price increases estimated when HS1 services are
operational
The biggest impacts are seen around Ebbsfleet and Ashford but significant effects are seen all along
the route.
Final report
Table A 11 estimates how these impacts on median house prices can be summarised at a district
level. In order to estimate the effects at a district level assumptions have to be made about the
distribution of housing across the district 11 , household sizes and average prices 12 . A range of
sensitivities are therefore presented around the results. We estimate that house prices in the study
area could increase by between £950m and £1.6bn, with a central scenario of £1.3bn, equivalent to
just over a quarter of the cost of delivering the HS1 project. This represents a capitalised value of
benefits of HS1 to the residents of the study area.
Table A 11: Increases in house prices when HS1 is operational, cumulated across study area
districts (£m)
Sensitivity Central Sensitivity

Districts (down) scenario (up)
Ashford 152.5 203.3 254.1
Gravesham 158.2 210.9 263.6
Medway 181.0 241.3 301.6
Swale 39.3 52.3 65.4
Canterbury 84.2 112.3 140.3
Shepway 28.2 37.6 46.9
Dover 33.5 44.6 55.8
Thanet 46.7 62.3 77.9
Dartford 143.1 190.8 238.5
Thurrock 81.8 109.1 136.3
Total study area 948.3 1,264.5 1,580.6
The prospect of higher house prices is more likely to encourage developers to invest in these areas
and provide additional housing and employment capacity, thus supporting the potential to achieve the
development targets set in the region.
Effect on earnings of the increased commuting to London

Earlier in this Appendix the travel time savings from the stations in the study area once the HS1
domestic services are in operation was summarised, along with the estimated changes in commuting
to London which may occur as a result of these reduced travel times. We now turn to consider the
potential effect on earnings which may occur in the study area as a result of the increased commuting
to London.
In this section three scenarios are considered:

If all additional commuting to central London was by existing residents of the study
area then what would the change in total earnings be;G
If all additional commuting was filled by new residents what would the change in
earnings be; andG
If all additional commuting was filled by new residents and each four new residents
add one new local job what would the impact be.
Table A 12 translates the percentages of commuters estimated into absolute levels of workers which
might travel into London by rail from the wards surrounding each station. These estimates are based
on the 2001 total levels of commuters, and therefore do not take into consideration any other potential
(population or employment) growth. This is likely to be a conservative estimate. On this basis, this
suggests that an additional 7,500 people could commute from the study area to London as a result of
HS1. Table 5.10 totals these commuters by the district that they come from.
11
The assumption made is that houses are distributed in line with population density
12
Land Registry mean house price figures by district in 2007 have been used.
Final report
Table A 12: Absolute numbers of commuters to London, by station
Station Commuting (2001) Commuting (HS1) Increase with HS1

Ashford 940 1,980 1,040
Gravesend 2,350 3,220 870
Chatham 2,370 2,940 570
Strood 400 670 280
Rochester 410 560 150
Gillingham 1,370 1,860 490
Rainham 2,200 2,510 310
Sittingbourne 910 1,090 180
Faversham 640 780 150
Canterbury 300 800 510
Folkestone 270 470 200
Dover 50 300 250
Ramsgate 190 480 290
Margate 130 210 70
Ebbsfleet 2,820 5,010 2,200
Total study area 15,330 22,890 7,560
Table A 13: Absolute numbers of commuters to London, by home district
District Commuting (2001) Commuting (HS1) Increase with HS1

Ashford 940 1,980 1,040
Gravesham 2,200 3,450 1,240
Medway 6,410 8,130 1,720
Swale 1,760 2,100 350
Canterbury 300 800 510
Shepway 270 470 200
Dover 50 300 250
Thanet 330 690 360
Dartford 1,520 2,640 1,120
Thurrock 1,560 2,320 760
Total study area 15,330 22,890 7,560
Table A 14 details the median earnings across the districts in the study area and in London. This
shows that workplace earnings are higher across the whole of London than the study area and are
higher still in Inner London.
Final report
Table A 14: Earnings across the study area and London
Median workplace
District earnings (2007)
Ashford 20,695
Gravesham 23,995
Medway Towns 23,473
Swale 24,961
Canterbury 21,969
Shepway 18,592
Dover 22,216
Thanet 20,670
Dartford 27,788
London 31,680
Inner London 35,319
Source: ASHE, weighted by TEMPRO employment estimates for London and Inner London estimates
Table A 15 considers how much these 7,500 people could earn. The first column assumes that they
earn the median workplace earnings of their home district. The second column assumes that they
earn the median London worker earnings and the third column assumes that they earn the median
Inner London worker earnings. Across the total study area earning London wages instead of home
district wages makes an annual difference of £62m, and this difference rises to almost £90m if Inner
London wages are earned.
Table A 15: Potential earnings of the 7,500 workers (total, £m)
District Home district London Inner London

Ashford 21.5 32.9 36.7
Gravesham 29.8 39.4 43.9
Medway Towns 40.5 54.6 60.9
Swale 8.7 11.1 12.3
Canterbury 11.1 16.0 17.9
Shepway 3.8 6.5 7.2
Dover 5.6 8.0 8.9
Thanet 7.4 11.4 12.7
Dartford 31.2 35.5 39.6
Thurrock 17.7 24.0 26.7
Total study area 177.3 239.4 266.9
Difference (from home) 62.0 89.5
So, revisiting the scenarios outlined above:

If all additional commuting to central London was by existing residents of the study
area, there would be between £62m and £90m additional earnings per annum;G
If all additional commuting was filled by new residents there would be between
£239m and £267m of additional earnings per annum; and
If all additional commuting was filled by new residents and each four new residents
add one new local job then the additional earnings of the new London working
residents would be between £239m and £267m per annum as above. Assuming a
rule of thumb of two residents per additional worker, this would create 15,000 new
residents, which might support 3,750 new local jobs whose workers might earn
£90m per annum.
Final report
The benefits to the study area under these scenarios therefore (approximately) range from between
£62m and £360m additional earnings per annum.
Conclusions
In a sense the increased values of houses in and around the stations (shown on the map above) and
summarised by district in Table 5.7 represents part of the capitalised amount of central London value
that is being relocated. The prospect of higher house prices is more likely to encourage developers to
invest in these areas and provide additional housing and employment capacity, thus supporting the
potential to get closer towards the development targets set in the region.
The increases in house prices reflect the benefit to commuters but the potential to increase
employment in new and expanded settlements is not fully measured here. We begin to consider the
potential local employment which could result from new residents commuting to London but this only
represents part of the story.
Furthermore, part of the increased central London value generated will result in higher consumer
spending which in turn generates local jobs and the potential for further investment in new productive
capacity in new settlements such as Ebbsfleet. This is not included at all since we essentially assume
it will happen somewhere else. If however these locations can now attract investment which would
otherwise go elsewhere (to France, for instance) then the benefits to UK plc will be larger.
Final report
Appendix C – Sensitivity tests

This section shows how the results change if various appraisal assumptions are altered.
Demand under High Speed 1

To estimate demand in the Do Something scenario, the approach included increases in commuting
demand based on changes in the journey time to London.
A more conventional method would be to use an elasticity-based approach, taking into account
changes in the generalised costs of travel between destinations as a result of High Speed 1. This
would lead to a lower increase in commuting demand due to High Speed 1 compared with the
assumptions used for the main results in section 5.2. Table A 16 shows the transport results for this
test.
Table A 16: Transport costs and benefits in lower demand test (£m, 60-year PV, 2002 prices)
Base results Results with
lower demand
Journey time savings 3,700 3,500
Congestion relief 100 100
TOTAL BENEFITS 3,800 3,600
Capital cost 5,700 5,700

Operating costs 1,600 1,600
Revenue -3,400 -3,000
TOTAL COST 3,900 4,300
Net Present Value (NPV) -100 -700
Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) 0.96 0.83
Table A 16 shows the transport case would be worsened if there was no change in commuting
patterns as a result of HS1. The BCR would decrease from 0.96 to 0.83.
Move to more productive jobs

The M2MPJ results are based on the assumption that the number of additional central London jobs as
a result of HS1 is proportional to Crossrail, when the net additional capacity provided by both schemes
is taken into account. This means that 18% of the Crossrail jobs total is taken as the HS1 total.
In reality this proportion may be higher or lower than 18%. Table A 17 shows the results if a lower or
higher number of jobs is assumed (a proportion of 8% or 28% respectively).
Final report
Table A 17: Transport & WEBs results under different Move to More Productive Jobs
employment assumptions (£m, 60-year PV, 2002 prices)
Base results Additional jobs = Additional jobs
(additional jobs = 8% of Crossrail = 28% of
18% of Crossrail total Crossrail total
total)
Journey time savings 3,700 3,700 3,700
Congestion relief 100 100 100
TOTAL CONVENTIONAL BENEFITS 3,800 3,800 3,800
Move to more productive jobs 1,700 1,300 2,100

Pure agglomeration 1,800 1,800 1,800
Labour force participation 50 50 50
Imperfect competition 250 250 250
TOTAL WIDER BENEFITS 3,800 3,400 4,200
Capital cost 6,100 6,100 6,100

Operating costs 1,600 1,600 1,600
Revenue -3,400 -3,400 -3,400
TOTAL COST 4,300 4,300 4,300
Net Present Value (NPV) 3,300 2,900 3,700
Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.76 1.67 1.86
Table A 17 shows that, even with comparatively large changes to the assumption regarding additional
central London jobs, the BCR is in the range of 1.7 – 1.9.

Economic Impact of High Speed 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Economic Impact of High Speed 1

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

Economic Impact of High Speed 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Economic Impact of High Speed 1

London & Continental Railways

Project No: 149231

Prepared by: Approved by:

Status: Final Issue no: 2 Date: 08 January 2009

149231 draft report v4.1.doc

Table 2.1: Changes to journey times and commuting patterns 6

Figure 2.1: Journey times on domestic services to London 5

Costs and Net Earnings

Wider Economic Benefits

Table S 1: Impact of development schemes associated with High Speed 1

Table S 2: Economic impacts of HS1

Total benefits (Present Value 17.6

2 Transport user benefits

2.1 Journey time savings

Figure 2.1: Journey times on domestic services to London

Table 2.1: Changes to journey times and commuting patterns

Station Base time HS1 time % commute by % commute by

Journey type Time saving

2.2 Congestion relief

Table 2.4: HS1 transport impacts

Capital cost 5,700

3 Wider Economic Benefits

 By increasing the ‘effective density’ of employment areas and leading to a ‘Pure’

3.2 Move to more productive jobs

Increased capacity on domestic services

Table 3.1: Productivity differentials relative to the national average, by district

District Stations within Productivity

Waterloo International Terminal

Capacity increase GDP increase Amount of

3.3 Pure agglomeration

3.3.2 An increase in density results in an increase in productivity for a number of reasons. It

Figure 3.1: Process for calculating pure agglomeration benefits

Figure 3.2: Proportion of pure agglomeration benefits by location

0.6% Inner London

3.4 Other WEBs

Labour force participation

Table 3.3: Wider Economic Benefits of HS1

4.2 DfT approach

Definition of regeneration areas

Table 4.1: Unemployment by qualification level & district

Table 4.2: Skill levels of London jobs

Qualification level Proportion of

Qualification level Proportion of

Table 4.4: Number of local residents taking up employment in London

NVQ2 NVQ3 NVQ4

4.3 Alternative approach

Digital Map Data © Collins Bartholomew Ltd (2007)

Table 4.5: High Speed 1 Districts Summary Table

* Medway floorspace completions for 1991-2004

4.3.11 In terms of employment floorspace, Swale also has a significant allocation/commitment of

Delivery of growth at Kings Cross, Stratford and Ebbsfleet

Table 4.6: Impact of development schemes associated with High Speed 1

Wider regeneration effects of HS1

5.2 Transport appraisal

5.2.2 Table 5.1 summarises the costs and benefits.

Table 5.1: Summary of transport costs and benefits

Capital cost 5,700

Net Present Value (NPV) -100

Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) 0.96

By increasing the ‘effective density’ of employment areas and leading to a ‘Pure’

RailCommuting % D exp E TravelTime

RailCommuting % D exp E TravelTime