https://uk.linkedin.com/company/transport-knowledge-hub
@TransportKH
www.transportknowledgehub.org.uk

Lewis Atter
Associate Partner, Global Infrastructure
and Projects Group, KPMG

Movingthedial
-LVCincontext
Lewis Atter, KPMG
Transport Knowledge Hub
8 September 2017

2
Document Classification: KPMG Public
© 2017 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liabilitypartnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Transport Knowledge Hub 08 September 2017
1. Several doses of reality:
- what it takes to rebalance the economy and deliver on economic
potential – a few case studies
- how far status quo funding gets us – some city/LEP perspectives
- the truth about the “tax dividend” argument, given current and future
fiscalpressures
2. Lead to the conclusion that if we want to invest at the scale necessary
to rebalance the economy/meet our potential:
Investment led growth needs to generate significantly more
revenue for the Exchequer than “normal” growth and needs to
do so faster, and with greater certainty
Whilst not pricing off that growth
EconomicandFundingContext

3
Document Classification: KPMG Public
© 2017 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liabilitypartnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Transport Knowledge Hub 08 September 2017
Rebalancingtheeconomy–NorthernPowerhouse
• Northern Independent Economic Review commissioned by TfN:
i. identified a 15% shortfall in GVA per capita compared to a UK average
less London
ii. forecast this to widen under BAU to 33% by 2050
iii. equivalent to an annual GVA gap at current prices of £100bn
• What does the evidence base say closing this kind of gap takes?
• Two perspectives on the role of infrastructure:
i. Connectivity and its impact on productivity, skills retention, sector mix
etc.
ii. Returns from optimised city region investment funds – ie where GVA
returns per £ spent have been maximised
“Realising the ambition to rebalance the UK economy would be worth an
additional £44 billion in real terms to the northern economy by 2030” –
HM Treasury (2015), assuming the North grows in line with OBR’s forecast
average rate for the UK rather than its historic average

4
Document Classification: KPMG Public
© 2017 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liabilitypartnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Transport Knowledge Hub 08 September 2017
Connectivityandproductivity
£30,000
£40,000
£50,000
£60,000
£70,000
£80,000
£90,000
£100,000
£110,000
£120,000
£130,000
30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000
GVAperworker(£,2011)
Public Transport Connectivity in 2011 (using SERC approach for measuring connectivity)
TIEP reports a range of elasticities
between 0.04 and 0.25 for the
relationship between connectivity and
productivity – which implies a 1%
increase in connectivity = up to a
0.25% increase in local/regional
private sector productivity
“A substantial econometric literature quantifies the relationship between
productivity and economic mass and a reasonable consensus has
emerged on the magnitude of the effects.…”
Transport Investment and Economic Performance (“TIEP”) – DfT (2014)
SERC 0.25
Elasticity
WebTAG
Elasticity
Source: KPMG Analysis

5
Document Classification: KPMG Public
© 2017 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liabilitypartnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Transport Knowledge Hub 08 September 2017
Howmuchconnectivitydoweneed?
On the most optimistic SERC
elasticity:
• A 100% increase in
connectivity/access to
economic mass (rail, PT,
road) translates into a 19%
increase in private sector
productivity
• A 200% increase might boost
private productivity by 32%
• Allowing for public-private
split, getting half the 33%
NPh target by 2050 might
require a 300% increase
• Assuming only BAU changes
elsewhere
Northern Powerhouse Rail – Conditional Outputs
Source - TfN

6
Document Classification: KPMG Public
© 2017 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liabilitypartnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Transport Knowledge Hub 08 September 2017
Howmuchconnectivitydoweneed?
Analysis in the public domain is
limited, but SERC themselves looked
at what is now a key part of TfN’s rail
vision – rail journey time reductions
between Leeds and Manchester
Overall SERC found a 20 minute
journey time reduction generated a
less than 10% improvement in
connectivity for what amounts to
about ½ the NPh economy
Dynamic effects might double this
gain, and point to £billions pa in
additional output, but we have only
made a dent in what the most
optimistic analysis says is necessary
Northern Powerhouse Rail – Conditional Outputs
Source - TfN

7
Document Classification: KPMG Public
© 2017 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liabilitypartnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Transport Knowledge Hub 08 September 2017
CityRegionInvestmentProgrammes
Thereis a growing evidencebase on what optimised cityregion investment
programmes might be expected to deliver:
• These programmes, pioneered in Greater Manchester, aim to maximise the
overall economic gain per £ spent
• The analysis focuses on the net impact of investment at the city region of whole
programmes. The results are very different from classic site or project by project
analysis, which tends to radically overstate impacts at wider geographies and
ignore programme effects
• The most sophisticatedof these programmes involve a blend of transport,
regeneration, housing and business support investment, and rules which ensure
balanced outcomes in terms of employment opportunities generated across the
city region and (especially) for disadvantaged communities
• There is no set “best mix” of interventions - even in the GM “home of Metrolink”
some of the best performing schemes have been bus and road based - and
housing shortages add up to high returns to well connected housing projects

8
Document Classification: KPMG Public
© 2017 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liabilitypartnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Transport Knowledge Hub 08 September 2017
CityRegionInvestmentForecast Impacts
Invest £1 in a
best bang for
buck city
region
programme
Annual City Region GVA
is up by
£1.3
to
£2
15+ years later
Of which
£0.8 to £0.5 pa is
additional
at wider
regional/national
level
Implies
Above BAU spend on city region
programmes of £31bn to £50bn to
close ¼ of the NPh 2050 GVA gap

9
Document Classification: KPMG Public
© 2017 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liabilitypartnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Transport Knowledge Hub 08 September 2017
FundingRealities–CityRegion/LEPLevel
• £30bn to £50bn is some 10% to 16% of the NPh economy. Many local growth focused
investment ambitions across the country are a greater %. Crossrail 2 on its own is c.8% of
London GVA (4% net of local contribution)
• How many times BAU funding is this scale of programmes?
• BAU or base city region infra investment (Growth Funding) circa 0.1% of annual GVA
• 11 Gainshare/Growth Fund/Devo deals typically double this – ie add circa 0.1% pa nominal
for up to 30 years (total of 0.2%; 0.1% above BAU)
• Borrowing against this 30 year money can (at some local cost) turn this into an extra 0.2% of
GVA annual programme for 10 years (total of 0.2% above), but then its back to BAU
• Greater Manchester level self help (c 40% of their Transport Fund is locally funded) can
increase the 10 year total to some 0.5% pa – so far the highest GVA ratio outside London
• Programmes like the new housing infrastructure fund (£3.2bn) help, but add up to an
average of perhaps 0.04% to 0.06% pa of GVA pa for 5 years or so
• Extension of the HE programme to regional schemes (MRN) is rumoured to involve annual
investment of a similar amount
• Pointing to average spend above BAU spend levels at little over 0.1% to 0.2% for more
favoured locations, with higher rates sustainable for short periods with significant self help

10
Document Classification: KPMG Public
© 2017 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liabilitypartnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Transport Knowledge Hub 08 September 2017
Couldadifferentviewaboutlongtermaffordability
help?
• The kind of long term national returns describedearlier turn into additional tax
• Could these support a more strategic view about the affordability?
• In practice, some of this is necessary, but it doesn’t look like enough:
• There is a long 15+ year time lag and a recessionwould lengthen it
• The returns are uncertain and require supporting action
• Investing at scale is likely to lower returns
• And even once the returns are in, the extra growth is not helping to address
wider fiscalpressures – eg from an ageing population
• To underline these points consider the marginal GVA to tax ratio from our
optimised local programmes once the forecast returns are in
£0.5 to £0.8 pa
per
£1 invested
Implies A marginal debt to GVA ratio
of 125% to 200%

11
Document Classification: KPMG Public
© 2017 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liabilitypartnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
Transport Knowledge Hub 08 September 2017
ImportantNotice
The information in this presentation is based upon publicly available information and reflects prevailing conditions and our
views as of this date, all of which are accordingly subject to change. In preparing this presentation, we have relied upon and
assumed, without independent verification, the accuracy and completeness of any information available from public sources.
The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular
individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such
information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on
such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.
Whilst the information presented and views expressed in this presentation and the oral briefing have been prepared in good
faith, KPMG LLP accepts no responsibility or liability to any party in connection with such information or views.

Document Classification: KPMG Public
The KPMG name, logo are registered trademarksor trademarks of KPMG International.
© 2017 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent
member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights
reserved.

Julian Ware
Head of Major Project Funding, Transport
for London

Land Value Capture
Presentation to
Transport Knowledge Hub
September Workshop
Julian Ware
Corporate Finance
7 SEPTEMBER 2017

TFL CORPORATE FINANCE - LAND VALUE CAPTURE
Overview
• Context
• Why does transport change land values in London? How
are other cities different?
• Why do we not capture it at present?
• What new capture mechanisms might be possible?
• Next steps
TfL’s land value capture study was published as a working paper to
the London Finance Commission’s report in February 2017.
https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/business-and-economy/promoting-
london/london-finance-commission
Or search: “tfl land value capture”

TFL CORPORATE FINANCE - LAND VALUE CAPTURE
Housing need has
grown faster than
supply
London’s population
is growing
People are using
public transport
more
Increasing demand
for housing and
associated
infrastructure
Increasing
congestion
Increasing demand
for transport
Significant transport
investment required
• Renewals and maintenance
• Upgrades
• New construction to increase
capacity and unlock housing
But traditional transport
funding sources are scarce
Without action...
More congestion
Worsening housing situation
Less investment in transport
Fewer new development opportunities
More pressure to fund projects on
business and developers
Without alternative funding sources it will be
difficult to fund major network upgrades and
extensions which catalyse housing
development
Complementary housing
supply / demand measures
required

TFL CORPORATE FINANCE - LAND VALUE CAPTURE
Well designed land value capture
mechanisms and complementary
planning approaches can help fund
transport and regeneration, and bring
forward housing development
Public sector
investment in
transport and
regeneration
Uplift in land and
property values in
zones of influence
Small fraction of this value is
captured to fund projects
• Limited property related
funding mechanisms linked to
transport
• CIL/developer contributions are
targeted at developers, business
rates supplement targeted at
high value commercial rate
payers
Currently...
Majority of the significant
benefit resulting from public
sector investment flows
untaxed to private landowners
Shift the balance...
Transparently capture
a fairer share of the
uplift in value
catalysed by public
infrastructure
investment
Increase funding pool (and financing capacity)
available for infrastructure
Increase
consideration of land
value effects in
planning process
Invest in upgrades and new construction to
increase capacity and unlock housing

TFL CORPORATE FINANCE - LAND VALUE CAPTURE
Effect of transport projects on land values
Crossrail effect:
• Complex pattern, be cautious of
newspaper articles
• Some studies suggest effect already
occurring
• Recent TfL work suggests effect on
development, but limited effect so far on
existing residential. Expected later
• Users often value public transport and accessibility more
than what it costs them (fares)
• Excess value is capitalised into land and property values
(land value uplift)
• Majority of this benefit flows untaxed to landowners
• Capture uplift directly (development) or indirectly
(taxation) to fund new transport and regeneration
Original value Planning gain
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
£
Transport premium
Change of
planning policy
(e.g. rezoning)
Delivery of transport &
accessibility
improvement

TFL CORPORATE FINANCE - LAND VALUE CAPTURE
What factors lead to greatest uplift in values?
Higher value uplift is more likely in dense cities with high public transport use, and for new rail-
based projects, which tend to generate the biggest consumer surplus
Road based projects Heavy rail projects
Low connectivity
improvement
High connectivity
improvement
Unresponsive property
market
Responsive property
market
Low land constraints High land constraints
>1km from station Close to station
Upgrade / Service
improvement
New infrastructure
• Residential value effect up to 1km, commercial up to 400m
• Values close to stations could be impacted by noise, crime
or safety concerns
Low public transport use
Higher uplift potential
400m
• Projects with greater impact and permanence (e.g. heavy
rail) result in higher uplifts with those that could potentially
be taken away (e.g. buses) or place-making projects
Lower uplift potential
High public transport use
• Projects with greatest perceived connectivity benefits and
journey time savings will result in higher uplift
• New infrastructure has greater appeal and noticeability
than upgrades and service improvements (e.g. Overground)
• Cities with constrained land and housing supply, responsive
property market and high public transport use are likely to
have higher value uplift (e.g London)
• In areas where private transport is preferred, and public
transport use is lower (e.g. US), or where the property
market is unresponsive to new transport, the value link is
typically less
Light rail projects

TFL CORPORATE FINANCE - LAND VALUE CAPTURE
What kind of city approaches are there?
No planning
No uplift Uplift but
no capture
Uplift captured -
different beneficiary
Uplift capture
for transport
Cities grow in unplanned
way with informal
settlements and piecemeal
provision of infrastructure
City growth is planned and
controlled but the
property market does not
respond to new transport
City growth is planned and
property prices increase
due to new transport, but
all the value growth
accrues to the landowner
Value growth is catalysed
by new transport and
some can be captured, but
it’s captured by others or
used for non-transport
purposes
Value growth is catalysed
by new transport and
some is captured and used
to help fund new transport

TFL CORPORATE FINANCE - LAND VALUE CAPTURE
New station
Zonal SDLT value growth
Assign growth in SDLT in zone, resulting
from transport investment, to transport
project; value growth measured against
control zone
Could raise c£4.3 bn for Crossrail 2 and
c£900 m for the BLE to Lewisham
Business rates revaluation growth
retention
Retention of revaluation growth linked to
new transport within zone of influence;
measured at regular revaluations
Could raise c£4.8 bn for Crossrail 2
For illustrative purposes only. Areas covered by mechanisms subject to detailed mechanism design and will vary from site to site.
Base image source: UC Berkeley – Modified by TfL
Zone of influence
New station
Package of measures presented in Phase 1 report
Modify existing taxation mechanisms
Introduce new taxation mechanism
Introduce new development-led mechanism
Transport premium charge
New residential charge based on property
value premium from transport investment;
applies from first sale – existing residents
exempt
Could raise c£8 bn for Crossrail 2 and
£2.5 bn for the BLE to Lewisham
Development rights auction model
(DRAM)
Master plan, then pool and auction
development rights; reinforced with CPO
and self-development charge
Could raise c£2 bn for Crossrail 2 and
c£500 m for the BLE to Lewisham

TFL CORPORATE FINANCE - LAND VALUE CAPTURE
Land value capture considerations
• Consider land value uplift potential early in infrastructure planning and project design
• Systematically plan transport that unlocks housing and increases value; capture value to help pay
for new transport
• Appropriate place-making works and pro-development planning policies around transport
schemes can maximise uplift potential (both planning gain and transport premium)
• Include land value capture as a standard component of project funding strategies
• A natural complement to fares, attempting to monetise project benefits to pay for costs
• Suitability needs to be analysed on a project-by-project basis
• Value uplift and capture often follows investment – need to consider ability to raise finance against
the revenue
• Implement as a programme to help reduce risk and overcome funding the timing gap
• Revenue from one project’s uplift can fund the next project
• Tailor mechanisms for local conditions (laws, politics, communities)
• Design for equity, fairness and efficiency; link to broader analysis of beneficiaries

Transport for London – Corporate Finance
Simon Kilonback simonkilonback@tfl.gov.uk
Corporate Finance Director 020 7535 5300
Contac
t

TFL CORPORATE FINANCE - LAND VALUE CAPTURE
Significant uplift potential from potential future
TfL projects
Approximately £87 billion of value uplift on sample of projects
• KPMG/Savills estimate total value uplift over 30 year period from FY19 to FY48 of £87 billion
(PV in FY17 prices) on a sample of potential future TfL projects (compared to total estimated
capital cost of £36 billion (NPC, FY17 price))
• £75 billion from residential properties, £12 billion from commercial;
£63 billion from existing stock, £24 billion from new stock
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Crossrail 1
Extension
DLR Extension Old Oak Poplar A13 Camden Town
Crossrail 2 – major new north-south tunnel through central London
Bakerloo Line Extension - extension of tube network in south London
Crossrail 1 Extension- extension of the current Crossrail 1 project to
other parts of east London
DLR Extension – light rail extension and river crossing in east London
Old Oak – transport hub regeneration project in west London
Poplar – decking over road and railway to remove severance
between two areas in east London
A13– decking over road to remove severance in east London
Camden Town – capacity upgrade and redevelopment of major
station on London underground
(to Hayes)
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
Crossrail 2 Bakerloo Line Extension
Comparing total uplift (FY2019 to FY2048) with capital cost (£m, PV in FY2017 prices)
Residential uplift Commercial uplift Capital cost

TFL CORPORATE FINANCE - LAND VALUE CAPTURE
TfL Budget at a glance Financial trends
TfL Budget 2017/18
TfL Business Plan 2016

Rory Brooke
Head of Economics, Planning Division,
Savills

savills.com
Land Value Uplift Research
Rory Brooke
Transport Knowledge Hub Roundtable Event:
Funding Transport Investment
8th September 2017

Savills Value Uplift Work
▪ TfL London Infrastructure Value Uplift
▪ Manchester HS2 Stations Enabled Development and Uplift
▪ Constellation Partnership (Stoke, Crewe, Stafford) Uplift
▪ Oxford Expressway Options Enabled Development and Uplift
Today
▪ TfL London Infrastructure Value Uplift
▪ Manchester HS2 Stations Enabled Development and Uplift
16

London Infrastructure Uplift
We researched and modelled land value uplift around eight potential infrastructure improvement projects:
▪ Crossrail 2
▪ Bakerloo Line Extension
▪ Old Oak Common
▪ Crossrail 1 Extension to Ebbsfleet
▪ DLR Extension to Thamesmead
▪ A1261 Poplar Decking
▪ A13 Tunnel, and
▪ Camden Town Station Redevelopment
We used analysis of existing projects to draw conclusions on future uplift.
17

18
Localised land value uplift is driven by
a) increases in the volume and density of development over what
would be achieved without the project; and
b) increases in the value of existing and new stock over what
would be achieved without the project.
Components of Uplift

Our approach
To develop assumptions about value growth in both existing and new stock in the zones of influence around each of
the 8 projects we used:
▪ Previous studies
▪ Land Registry transaction data
▪ Our own historic case studies (Jubilee Line Extension; DLR Extension to Woolwich; North London Line, Crossrail 1
progress to date; Hudson-Bergen Line, New York)
▪ Our own station-specific historic case studies (e.g. Canning Town; Stratford; Canary Wharf; Bermondsey)
▪ Our professional judgement.
19

Station Value Growth Analysis
▪ We analysed the residential value growth
around stations as part of our case study
projects.
▪ We looked at value growth up to 500m
away from the stations (where the uplift
effects should be greatest) and compared
it to 1-2km away (just outside the ‘Zone of
Influence), and the borough and
Inner/Outer London averages.
▪ The comparison areas balance the needs
to consider an area with similar
characteristics and being unaffected by
the infrastructure improvement.
0-500m
500m-1km
1km-2km
20

Case Study 1: Jubilee Line Extension
• Authorised in 1990. Opened in 1999
• £3.5 billion plus extension project
• 16km section of new underground line (Green Park to Stratford)
• Redevelopment of Westminster, Waterloo, London Bridge, Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford stations
• Five new stations at Southwark, Bermondsey, Canada Water, Canary Warf and North Greenwich
21

Values adjacent to Jubilee Line stations experienced faster growth
than areas further away, particularly after construction finished
Source: Savills using HM Land Registry
November 1999 – Jubilee Line Extension linked to remainder of line
*GLA definition of Inner London: City of London, City of Westminster, Camden, Islington, Southwark, K&C,
Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Lambeth, Wandsworth, H&F, Lewisham, Greenwich, and Newham22
*

Case Study 2: DLR Extension (to Woolwich Arsenal)
▪ 2.5km DLR extension under the River
Thames from the Royals to Woolwich.
▪ Completed in 2009 at a cost of £180
million.
▪ Key goal to support regeneration of
Woolwich and Royal Docks.
▪ Significant contributor to the transport
legacy of the 2012 Olympic Games as it
enabled connections between key
venues.
23

Variable rates of growth, local factors
Source: Savills using HM Land Registry
However, the improved transport infrastructure (and the
promise of Crossrail) has unlocked the regeneration of
the Woolwich Arsenal area (excluded from this analysis)
January 2009 – DLR services to Woolwich begin
24

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Dec-95
Aug-96
Apr-97
Dec-97
Aug-98
Apr-99
Dec-99
Aug-00
Apr-01
Dec-01
Aug-02
Apr-03
Dec-03
Aug-04
Apr-05
Dec-05
Aug-06
Apr-07
Dec-07
Aug-08
Apr-09
Dec-09
Aug-10
Apr-11
Dec-11
Aug-12
Apr-13
Dec-13
Aug-14
Apr-15
Dec-15
Numberoftransactions
(seasonallyadjusted,indexedtoJanuary2009)
0-500m 500m-1km 1km-2km
The number of transactions close to Woolwich Arsenal has grown
substantially faster than the surrounding area since the DLR opened
Source: Savills using HM Land Registry
January 2009 – DLR services to Woolwich begin
25

Case Study 3: North London Line
▪ Evidence from evaluation of stations
26

Growth close to Inner London NLL stations has
outperformed the surrounding areas
Source: Savills using HM Land Registry
This could be due to a fall in values
associated with the “double dip” recession
May 2011 – full service of improved
North London Line begins
27

Case Study 4: Crossrail
▪ Announced in 2005 (Crossrail Bill): construction started 2009; commencement of services in 2018.
▪ £16 billion project covers 118 km of track. Reading and Heathrow in west to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in east.
▪ Includes construction of eight new central London/Docklands stations and upgrading existing stations. Suggests a
variety of development contexts.
28

Little uplift in sale value to date but increase in land prices and
accelerated development
Source: Savills using HM Land Registry
July 2008 – Crossrail Bill gains Royal Assent
29

Overall Uplift
▪ Complete analysis

Evidence of Increased Development
Source: Savills using HM Land Registry

TfL Uplift Matrix
Source: Savills using HM Land Registry
Real growth rate pa
Pre-construction
Last 5 years of
construction Post construction
Project Zone
No project
High potential, High change 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%
High potential, Low change 1.00% 1.00% 1.00%
Low potential, High change 0.50% 0.50% 0.50%
Low potential, Low change 0.50% 0.50% 0.50%
High impact uplift additional to no project
growth
High potential, High change 0.00% 10.00% 6.50%
High potential, Low change 0.00% 2.50% 2.50%
Low potential, High change 0.00% 0.00% 0.50%
Low potential, Low change 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Low impact uplift additional to no project
growth
High potential, High change 0.00% 0.00% 2.50%
High potential, Low change 0.00% 0.00% 2.50%
Low potential, High change 0.00% 0.00% 0.50%
Low potential, Low change 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Manchester HS2
33

Piccadilly Development Framework
34

Piccadilly Red Line Area
35

Manchester Airport Development Framework

Manchester Airport Red Line

Total Estimated Uplift HS2 + NPR
▪ xx
£500
£2,000,000,500
£4,000,000,500
£6,000,000,500
£8,000,000,500
£10,000,000,500
£12,000,000,500
£14,000,000,500
£16,000,000,500
Piccadilly - Total Land Value Uplift (HS2&NPR)
Total
Value
Existing
Stock
New
Stock
£500
£1,000,000,500
£2,000,000,500
£3,000,000,500
£4,000,000,500
£5,000,000,500
£6,000,000,500
Airport - Total Land Value Uplift (HS2&NPR)
Total
Value
Existing
Stock
New Stock

Conclusions
▪ Evidence of significant uplift
▪ Land values and commercial values rise first
▪ Residential sale values main increase post construction
▪ Pre-requisites
▪ Supply constrained economic environment
▪ Brownfield/development land near stations
▪ Attractive local assets to build on
▪ Development frameworks and new policy where appropriate
▪ Next steps
▪ Research on impacts of road infrastructure
▪ Research/case studies/pilots of capture mechanisms
39

https://uk.linkedin.com/company/transport-knowledge-hub
@TransportKH
www.transportknowledgehub.org.uk