high speed rail access to heathrow baa submission to the lord mawhinney review

High Speed Rail Access to Heathrow

BAA Submission to the Lord Mawhinney Review

April 2010

_ _ _e_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc

High Speed Rail Access to Heathrow BAA Submission to the Lord Mawhinney‟s Review

Mott MacDonald, Prince House, 43 51 Prince Street, Bristol BS1 4PS, United Kingdom

T +44(0) 117 906 9500 F +44 (0)117 906 9501 W www.mottmac.com

265424 242 A

C:\Documents and Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\100414 BAA_Submission to th

07 April 2010

High Speed Rail Access to Heathrow

April 2010

BAA - Heathrow Airport Ltd

This page is intentionally blank

This page is intentionally blank

Mott MacDonald, Prince House, 43-51 Prince Street, Bristol BS1 4PS, United Kingdom -T +44(0) 117 906 9500 F +44 (0)117 906 9501 W www.mottmac.com

http://www.mottmac.com


265424///242/A 07 April 2010 C:\Documents and Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\100414_BAA_Submission_to_the_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc

Content Chapter Title Page

Executive Summary i

1. An integrated transport solution 1

1.1 Passenger experience _______________________________________________________________ 1

1.2 Optimising carbon emissions __________________________________________________________ 2

1.3 Low carbon benefits – Air to Rail substitution ______________________________________________ 3

1.4 Wider economic benefits of linking aviation & high speed rail__________________________________ 4

1.5 West London public transport interchange ________________________________________________ 5

2. Importance of Heathrow as an international hub airport 6

2.1 Summary__________________________________________________________________________ 6

2.2 The characteristics of networks and point to point operations__________________________________ 6

2.2.1 Airline networks_____________________________________________________________________ 6

2.2.2 Point to point operations ______________________________________________________________ 7

2.3 Importance of a hub to the UK economy__________________________________________________ 9

2.3.1 The value of aviation to the UK _________________________________________________________ 9

2.3.2 The value of Heathrow as a Hub________________________________________________________ 9

2.4 The impact of runway capacity constraints at Heathrow _____________________________________ 11

2.4.1 Capacity _________________________________________________________________________ 11

2.4.2 Use of a secondary hub _____________________________________________________________ 11

2.4.3 Impacts on operations at Heathrow ____________________________________________________ 12

2.4.4 Loss of regional services into Heathrow _________________________________________________ 13

2.4.5 Loss of UK business to other European hubs_____________________________________________ 13

2.5 Importance of high speed rail (HS2) link into Heathrow _____________________________________ 15

2.5.1 Air to Rail substitution _______________________________________________________________ 15

2.5.2 Increased connectivity ______________________________________________________________ 16

2.5.3 The opportunity to win back lost business________________________________________________ 17

2.5.4 Heathrow as a hub: key messages _____________________________________________________ 17

3. High speed rail station requirements (from an aviation perspective) 19

3.1 Key factors for Air to Rail substitution ___________________________________________________ 19

3.1.1 Passenger experience ______________________________________________________________ 19

4. Technical options 20

4.1 Station locations – “at”, “near”, “remote” _________________________________________________ 20

4.1.1 Previous BAA studies and submissions _________________________________________________ 20

4.1.2 Principal options considered __________________________________________________________ 21

4.1.3 Option configuration and details _______________________________________________________ 22

4.1.4 Assessment methodology____________________________________________________________ 25

4.1.5 Findings _________________________________________________________________________ 25

4.1.6 Conclusions of BAA/airline review _____________________________________________________ 27

4.1.7 Recommendations for further work _____________________________________________________ 27

5. International benchmarking of high speed rail connections to airports 28

6. Conclusion 31



Tables

Table 1: Characteristics of network and point to point operations _________________________________________ 8

Table 2: Heathrow proportion of UK passengers and movements 2009 ___________________________________ 10

Table 3: UK passengers using Heathrow v other European Hubs ________________________________________ 14

Table 4: Summary of BAA and airline assessments of high speed rail station options ________________________ 26

Table 5: Journey Time Comparison to BAA studies & schemes _________________________________________ 30

Figures

Figure 1: The decline of domestic flights to Heathrow Airport ____________________________________________ iii

Figure 2: The rise of the European hubs ____________________________________________________________ iv

Figure 3: Re-connecting Heathrow to the UK regions __________________________________________________ v

Figure 4: Long haul flights are more efficient in terms of carbon emissions __________________________________ 2

Figure 5: Heathrow-Manchester passenger demand (000s) _____________________________________________ 4

Figure 6: Hub network __________________________________________________________________________ 7

Figure 7: Point to point operation __________________________________________________________________ 7

Figure 8: Heathrow average aircraft size (Pax per ATM) 1988-2009 _____________________________________ 12

Figure 9: Heathrow traffic mix (destinations served) 2003 & 2010 ________________________________________ 13

Figure 10: Proportion of passengers travelling to EU hubs who are transfer ________________________________ 14

Figure 11: Share of travel by rail on selected city pairs ________________________________________________ 15

Figure 12: Route variants & basis of preference for „at‟ and „near‟ Heathrow station options____________________ 22

Figure 13: Route & station options considered_______________________________________________________ 24


C:\Documents and Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\100414_BAA_Submission_to_the_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc

Executive Summary Introduction

This paper sets out BAA‟s views on high speed rail access to Heathrow in response to the

request to provide written evidence to the Lord Mawhinney review. The views presented are

informed by a joint review of the options for connecting high speed rail to the airport that BAA and

the airlines have recently completed. The context of the review was to examine the options from

the perspective of achieving an integrated transport solution in a carbon constrained

environment.

Integrated transport for reduced carbon

Short haul air travel produces more carbon per passenger kilometre than long haul and

approximately five times as much as high speed rail. Clearly, if a transfer from short haul air to

high speed rail can be achieved then there will be significant environmental gains. A future

integrated transport system which optimises carbon usage must have:

“The right journey on the right mode”

Integrated transport and Air/Rail substitution

From an Aviation perspective there are five critical success factors to achieve Air/Rail

substitution:

The passenger experience should feel like an air-to-air interchange

The frequency of rail service should align with Airline schedules

There should be wide transport connectivity, with a good range of destinations served

There should be ease of interchange and efficient movement to/from airport terminals for

passengers

Effective baggage management solutions

If we can combine the range of domestic destinations served by high speed rail with the range of

international destinations served by Heathrow, provide the right frequency of service and make

the change between the modes attractive, then it is more likely that the traveller from cities such

as Manchester or Glasgow will chose to use a high speed train to connect with an international

long haul flight at Heathrow, rather than a short haul flight to connect to an international long haul

flight at a European airport.

Integrated transport and airline networks

There are two types of airport; hub and point to point. Typically a hub airport is the home base of

the national airline that operates a high frequency service to a wide range of destinations. They

are able to sustain this service pattern because they can attract significant transfer passengers.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010

i



Point to point airports are primarily used by low cost airlines that serve a smaller range of

destinations at a frequency dictated by the local market.

Hub airports are a fundamental constituent of a properly integrated transport system, as they

provide frequent access to the wide range of international destinations.

Heathrow is the United Kingdom‟s (UK) only hub airport and in both economic and employment

terms is of strategic importance. Recent reports on aviation‟s contribution to the UK economy

(Oxford Economic Forecasting 2006 and OXERA 2009) conclude that aviation contributes

approximately 1% of GDP and that Heathrow contributes in excess of 20% of the total aviation

contribution. This equates to £2.8bn in 2009.

A properly integrated transport system will compliment the range of domestic destinations served

by rail with Heathrow‟s long haul connections and in this way enhance Heathrow‟s contribution to

the economy and share the benefits more widely across the UK.

In the last 20 years there has been a 300% increase in journeys from UK regional airports to

European hubs to connect to ongoing long haul flights, coupled with a 25% decline in similar

connections to Heathrow. This trend weakens Heathrow‟s position as the European hub airport of

choice and as a direct result diminishes the UK‟s international competitive position. It is this trend

that an integrated rail/air transport solution would help to reverse.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010

ii

In 1991 there were 23 UK airports connecting to Heathrow but by 2010 this has been reduced to just 6 airports.

Displaced passengers are being forced to access Heathrow by other means (the motorway network taking much of the pressure) or by flying to continental hubs to transfer to long haul flights



Figure 1: The decline of domestic flights to Heathrow Airport

265424///242/A 07 April 2010

iii

With the withdrawal of many domestic services to Heathrow, many UK passengers are choosing to fly North Atlantic routes via Schiphol, Frankfurt or Paris. European passengers are also making the same choices regarding the North Atlantic.

In the last 20 years, UK use of European Hubs has grown 300% but use of Heathrow has declined by 25%.

Getting these passengers back to Heathrow would improve UK connectivity (by preserving and expanding route options) and provide direct economic and environmental benefits.



Figure 2: The rise of the European hubs

Joint BAA/airline review of station & route options

The BAA/airlines review considered three generic high speed rail station/route configurations:

Station located on the main high speed line “at the airport” in the main campus area, with

through running services via two different tunnelled route options

Station located on the main high speed line “near the airport” at Iver, via two different tunnelled

route options.

Interchange station located “remote” from the airport at Old Oak Common, with services to the

airport via classic rail

Findings

When tested against a range of key criteria including the critical success factors for air/rail

substitution, it was found that the “at” and “near” options are likely to achieve a positive

passenger experience. It was also found that the “remote” option would not provide a passenger

experience that would result in effective air/rail substitution.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010

iv

Connection from the UK regions to Heathrow by rail would provide significant carbon benefits, relieving the UK‟s road network and reducing transfer flights to Continental Hubs.

This would free up a small number of valuable slots to serve more destinations and recoup some of the ground lost to European rivals.



Figure 3: Re-connecting Heathrow to the UK regions

International benchmarking of high speed rail connections to airports

High speed rail station at the airport with through running service

Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam have stations served by high speed routes with high frequency

direct services to home carrier terminals. The station is at the Airport which enhances passenger

experience and air-rail substitution is being achieved. The ease of interchanging from high speed

rail to air and between terminals is very good and adds to the positive passenger experience.

Likewise, baggage management is simple: it allows the high speed rail passenger direct access

from the train to the airport and vice versa. Through ticketing has also been established on

certain routes with trains having flight numbers.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010

v



High speed rail station near the airport with dedicated link

This option links the airport to high speed rail network by a dedicated airport link. An international

example can be found at Newark. This option allows for frequent high speed rail services near to

the airport. However, as the station is not at the airport, passenger experience of interchange,

baggage management and inter-terminal connectivity is sub-optimal.

Station remote from airport served by classic rail link

This approach has not been adopted at any of the Major European Hubs that are served by high

speed rail.

Conclusions

HS2‟s current proposals provide for Heathrow to be connected to the high speed rail network via

a classic rail link to the Crossrail interchange station at Old Oak Common. It is the shared view of

BAA and the airlines that there is compelling case to seize the opportunity presented by high

speed rail, to create an integrated transport solution that enables air/rail substitution and provides

passenger experience, environmental and economic benefits.

The outcome of the joint BAA/airlines study was that the “at” or “near” airport station options were

broadly equivalent. However drawing on the benchmarking of international hub airports, it is clear

that passenger experience is enhanced by the station being located directly at the airport.

We acknowledge that the “at” airport solution could be a more expensive approach, however we

believe that it would also deliver substantial carbon reduction and economic growth benefits that

would not be achieved with an interchange at Old Oak Common which would in part off-set this

cost. We also recognise that that there is a requirement to establish a mechanism by which

aviation can make a financial contribution towards the cost of such a scheme, whilst keeping in

mind that many of the benefits would accrue nationally and airport charges must remain

competitive.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010

vi


C:\Documents and Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\100414_BAA_Submission_t

1 o_the_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc

1. An integrated transport solution

Whilst setting out the case for an Old Oak Common Interchange Station, Section 3.3.47 of the

HS2 report notes that “other developments to improve surface access to Heathrow could

provide opportunities to include a high speed station in a wider interchange that serves

Heathrow Airport directly. Similarly, future decisions on the development of Heathrow Airport,

including decisions on the third runway and the scope for improved links between terminals,

would affect the best way of serving Heathrow”.

The development of high speed rail provides a unique opportunity to make a significant

contribution to the integrated transport system of the UK (consistent with Government policy

since the Integrated Transport White Paper of 1998). BAA and the airline community believe

that a Crossrail interchange station at Old Oak Common will not best serve this policy when

aviation aspects are taken fully into account.

The arguments presented in the HS2 demand model analysis report in relation to the location

of an interchange station are essentially that:

routing HS2 via Heathrow will increase journey time, such that fewer passengers are

attracted to use the service for journeys to and from London

Heathrow passengers are a small (<5%) proportion of all the passengers using the line

A Heathrow interchange will not serve connections to Greater London as effectively as

an interchange at Old Oak Common

We recognise these arguments in the direct economic appraisal of the high speed line.

However, we believe that there are wider appraisal issues that should be taken into account,

in particular:

Passenger experience for air to rail transfers

the optimisation of carbon emissions (given the UK‟s commitment to reducing carbon

emissions in the longer term) through air to rail substitution

wider economic benefits throughout the UK that will be generated by linking HS2 more

directly to Heathrow, and the existing transport networks that serve the airport

1.1 Passenger experience

The key to an integrated transport system lies in delivering a passenger experience that is as

attractive as the current system which in some cases relies upon short haul flights to make the

international connection. Passenger experience is influenced by many, things some of which

relate to the human interface (such as how passengers are processed by staff) and others

which are inherent in the system.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010


C:\Documents and Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\100414_BAA_Submission_to_

2 the_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc

A poorly integrated transport interchange presents the passenger with significant challenges

when transferring from rail to air. Typically these may include an „additional‟ change from rail

to rail whilst handling luggage across a large and unfamiliar station remote from the airport.

Irrespective of how well that station is designed, if you are a foreign visitor or infrequent

traveller, it will be uncomfortable. Furthermore, the additional change introduces anxiety

associated with delays and missed connections. All of these factors can combine to join into a

powerful disincentive to access the airport via complex public transport journeys.

1.2 Optimising carbon emissions

Carbon emissions from short haul flights are greater, in terms of emissions per passenger

kilometre, than those from long haul flights, as shown in Figure 4. Carbon emissions from

high speed rail aviation are less than those from short haul aviation, assuming reasonable

load factors for each mode.

Therefore there is considerable benefit, in terms of carbon emissions, in encouraging as much

domestic travel as possible to transfer to high speed rail rather than travelling by air. This

should include those passengers who are travelling from UK regions to Heathrow and other

European hubs to transfer to long-haul services. This also implies that, within the same total of

air traffic movements, short-haul flights from Heathrow could be replaced by long haul flights,

making better use of the existing capacity at the airport. This would not however replace the

need for a third runway.

As argued above, there are an increasing number of passengers with UK origins and

destinations who are choosing to transfer at European airports. If a significant proportion of

these passengers were to use high speed rail to access Heathrow and to make their onward

long-haul journey from Heathrow, it would have a significant positive impact on reducing UK

network carbon emissions.

Figure 4: Long haul flights are more efficient in terms of carbon emissions

(Based on CE Delft & DEFRA studies – to average 480 km short haul, 6,404 km long haul)

265424///242/A 07 April 2010


C:\Documents and Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\100414_BAA_Sub

3 mission_to_the_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc

Most of Heathrow‟s main European competitors are already integrated into the European high

speed rail network. This enables these airports to substitute some short-haul flights by rail

access, providing additional capacity for long-haul flights. If Heathrow is not connected to the

high speed rail network, then capacity constraints will continue to encourage more transfer at

the other European hubs, to the advantage of the economies in those countries and regions

and hence specifically to the disadvantage of the UK economy.

The wider economic benefits to the UK and regional economies from integrating Heathrow

into the high speed rail network will be considerable, as passengers with UK origins and

destinations will be able to use rail to access the UK‟s hub, rather than travelling to a

European hub by short haul. We will cover this again in the financial impacts.

1.3 Low carbon benefits – Air to Rail substitution

We believe Transport Policy should be centred on the tenet of “the right mode for the right

journey”. This principle is met when a journey is made that:

optimises travel for carbon

is convenient, and

cost effective

There is significant agreement that for short journeys high speed rail provides the right mode

for the right journey when compared to aviation.

This is because:

carbon intensity per kilometre travelled is lower for high speed rail than air, especially

in the future as electricity generation is decarbonised

short haul flights are relatively more carbon intensive than long haul

the cost of high speed rail is competitive for short journeys and predicted to improve

in the future as carbon cost are internalised

with increasing high speed rail route penetration in the UK and Europe, rail access

and convenience is set to improve.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) for example concluded that, with extensive high

speed rail in the UK and Europe, up to 2MtCO2 can be saved in 2050. This is not insignificant

when put into the context of the UK aviation target of 37.5MtCO2.

Looking at this from a Heathrow perspective, the CCC examined the sensitivity of modal shift

with and without a high speed rail service at Heathrow.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010

C:\Documents and Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\1 ssion_to_the_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc00414_BAA_Submi

4


Figure 5: Heathrow-Manchester passenger demand (000s)

The CCC's consultants conclude that: “in order to achieve a significant modal shift of

connecting passengers, it would be necessary to construct a direct high speed "spur" line to

Heathrow.”

The CCC study was based on a spur to Heathrow. Work carried out by BAA found that this

would be less likely to achieve significant air – rail substitution. This data can therefore be

considered conservative.

Therefore to deliver the right mode for the right journey the analysis supports the proposition

that passengers require simple, fast and direct access offered by a high speed rail connection

to Heathrow.

1.4 Wider economic benefits of linking aviation & high speed rail

As recognised in the Air Transport White Paper (2003), air travel is essential to the UK‟s

economy and to our continued prosperity. In 2007, aviation contributed £8.8bn to the UK‟s

economy. As the world‟s busiest international airport and UK‟s only hub airport, Heathrow was

responsible for more than 20% of this economic contribution.

Today, Heathrow competes as a hub airport with European counterparts such as Amsterdam,

Frankfurt, Paris and Madrid airports. Capacity constraints at Heathrow have meant that the

number of passengers with UK origins and destinations who transfer at other European hub

airports has been increasing faster than those at Heathrow, and this trend is expected to

continue into the future, with consequential loss to the UK economy.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010




1.5 West London public transport interchange

Heathrow Airport is already a significant public transport interchange within West London. At

present this activity primarily includes connections between coach services, for which it is

estimated (based on 2009 surveys) that some 24,000 non-airport passengers per day either

interchanged or stayed on board coaches serving the airport. The airport operates the second

largest bus station in the UK to provide additional interchanges between Heathrow Express

and Connect classic rail services as well as Piccadilly Line underground services.

As Crossrail and Airtrack are added to the current rail services to the airport, and Piccadilly

Line services are improved, it is expected that the interchange facility for non-aviation

passengers will increase. This will be in addition to an increasing public transport mode share

for airport passengers and employees, resulting from the improved levels of service to a wider

catchment area. If high speed rail was also to serve the airport, it would have ready access to

the wider catchment area provided by this network of rail and coach services. We do not

believe that this has been taken fully into account in the studies which HS2 has undertaken to

date.

Heathrow has no desire to offer itself as a connection for car passengers wishing to use HS2

to travel to the north. This is due to the relatively congested nature of the motorways and local

roads and the environmental pressures in the Heathrow area. However, there is no doubt that

it would provide a more attractive connection option than Old Oak Common. In order to

accommodate the inevitable demand for parking associated with railhead activities should the

London Interchange be located at or near Heathrow, the airport would propose to manage

demand across its car parks and forecourts through a pricing regime that would both

encourage modal transfer and discourage car use on the most congested parts of the

network.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010


C:\Documents and Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\10 bmission_to_the_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc0414_BAA_Su

6

2. Importance of Heathrow as an international hub airport

2.1 Summary

Alongside road and rail, the aviation sector has a key contribution to deliver an integrated

transport solution for the UK. As an island nation, with a highly developed global service

economy, international links are vital for our communities and businesses. Heathrow plays a

unique role as the UK‟s only hub airport allowing airline networks, such as British Airways, to

operate to domestic, short-haul and long-haul destinations worldwide. The transfer

passengers that the hub airport attracts allow services to destinations that would not be viable

based on the local market alone. This delivers access to destinations and markets that would

not otherwise be accessible from the UK.

Domestic and overseas transfer passengers are essential for Heathrow‟s hub operations.

However with the airport operating at full capacity domestic services have been lost as airlines

are forced to maximise yields operating to long-haul destinations. High speed rail provides

opportunities; to re-connect the UK regions to their hub airport and the world, to allow the UK

regions to benefit fully from the economic benefits that Heathrow brings, and to allow

passengers from the UK regions who fly via EU hub airports today to use the UK‟s hub airport

in the future. All of these benefits though depend on high speed rail meeting the needs of UK

air passengers, particularly those passengers transferring at Heathrow.

2.2 The characteristics of networks and point to point operations

2.2.1 Airline networks

Airlines such as British Airways operate a network. Network operations require a hub airport,

as illustrated in

Figure 6. Successful hubs must be in a good geographic location - close to the main

business, tourist and population centres, and well served by surface transport (both public

transport services and road networks). However a key characteristic of a hub is that they rely

on substantial levels of transfer passengers. As a result, hub airports can normally support

routes and frequencies to additional destinations that would not be served if they were reliant

solely on the local markets. This enables the hub to maintain a frequent service to a wide

range of international destinations.

“Long haul need networks and networks need hubs”

265424///242/A 07 April 2010


C:\Documents and Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\100414_BAA_Submi

7 ssion_to_the_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc

Serves only viable O&D pairs

No reliance on transfers

Smaller planes, more flights, higher total emissions

Simple fleets, fast turnaround

Figure 7: Point to point operation

Consolidated traffic at hubs

Economically viable connections

Larger planes, fewer flights, lower total emissions

Complex fleet management

Figure 6: Hub network

2.2.2 Point to point operations

In a point to point operation, an airline will choose one or more airports to base its aircraft and

then fly directly to destinations from each base airport (Figure 7). As a general rule, such

routes are normally totally reliant on local traffic to fill the aircraft, with perhaps some transfer

traffic occurring, almost by chance. Point to point operations (such as those operated by low

cost carriers) usually consist entirely of short haul routes, with more routes required to serve

the same number of points compared to a network operation. Destinations are only chosen

where there will be sufficient origin/destination (O&D) traffic demand to meet the capacity of

the aircraft flying each route.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010




The key benefit of a hub airport is that it can sustain a comprehensive and far wider network

at a higher frequency of service than would be possible at a point-to-point airport. Transfer

passengers make direct routes to many destinations sustainable, a pattern found across all

major international hubs: 35% of Heathrow‟s passengers are transfer, 54% of Frankfurt‟s

(Main) and 43% of Amsterdam‟s (Schiphol). By adding routes and flight frequencies at a hub,

the connectivity impact is magnified compared to adding point-to-point routes and frequencies.

Hub airports offer a better service, more destinations and greater frequencies, than would

otherwise be offered if that airport were only meeting local demand. Table 1 summarises the

key differences between the two types of operation.

Network operation Point to point operation

Short, medium and long haul routes. Normally just one type (typically short haul).

Local traffic supplemented by significant proportion of transfer traffic.

Reliant almost entirely on local traffic.

Larger aircraft with fewer routes required to serve a set number of destinations.

Smaller aircraft, more routes and flights.

Full connectivity achieved through using transfer traffic as a supplement on “thinner” routes.

Connectivity limited to destinations with sufficient originating/departing demand.

An additional destination offered from a hub benefits the whole network.

An additional destination offered benefits just that route in the network.

Normally, a variety of aircraft types with complex fleet management.

Simple fleets, high aircraft utilisation and fast ground turnaround.

Constrained by available capacity at hub. Not normally airport constrained.

Where sufficient capacity exists, airlines tend to operate in “wave” patterns to maximise the transfer capability.

No benefit in “wave” patterns – flights can depart at times to meet specific requirements of local markets.

Table 1: Characteristics of network and point to point operations

265424///242/A 07 April 2010




_________________________

2.3 Importance of a hub to the UK economy

2.3.1 The value of aviation to the UK

Aviation‟s contribution to the UK economy has been well documented by both OXERA† and

OEF‡. The key conclusions from the 2009 OXERA report were as follows:

In 2007, measured as Gross Value Added (GVA), the aviation sector directly generated

£8.8 billion of economic output, or 0.7% of the total GVA of the UK economy. Adding

the economic activity in aviation‟s supply chain, which provides economic inputs to the

sector, increases the above figures to a total economic footprint of £18.4 billion or 1.5%

of the UK economy.

Aviation‟s economic footprint has increased by 8.3% in real terms since 1995.

Aviation contributes about £4.8 billion in tax revenues to the Exchequer, or 0.9% of UK

overall tax revenue in 2007/08. A further £3 billion is contributed by its supply chain.

In 2007 aviation‟s tax and regulatory burden is up to £0.6 billion more than its

environmental costs.

These conclusions are in line with those developed by OEF in their earlier 2006 report, where

they concluded:

The aviation industry generated £11.4 billion value-added in 2004 – in other words, it

contributed £11.4 billion to GDP, 1.1% of the overall economy.

It directly employed 186,000 people (full-time equivalents) in 2004. And it helped to

support over 520,000 jobs in total including those employed in its supply chain and in

travel agents, and the jobs dependent on the spending of its employees.

On a conservative estimate, the industry contributed £3.6 billion to the Exchequer in

2004/05.

2.3.2 The value of Heathrow as a Hub

A recent British Chambers of Commerce study on the Economic Impacts of Hub Airports§

stated that “passengers who have access to a hub…benefit from a wider range of services

and frequencies”. The study also said “transfer passengers at Heathrow lead to around a third

more flights operated giving increased accessibility to passengers flying from the UK.

Therefore, UK passengers have a wider range of destinations and frequencies at Heathrow

than if it were serving local demand alone”.

† What is the contribution of aviation to the UK economy? Final OXERA report prepared for the Airport Operators Association. November 2009.

‡ The Economic Contribution of the Aviation Industry in the UK.

Oxford Economic Forecasting. October 2006 §

Economic Impacts of Hub Airports. British Chambers of Commerce. July 2009

265424///242/A 07 April 2010


C:\Documents and Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\100414_BAA_Su

10 bmission_to_the_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc

_________________________

Heathrow is unique as the UK‟s only hub airport. Only Heathrow has the local market and the

network carriers based there, such as British Airways, to serve the wide range of worldwide

destinations that it does. Heathrow benefits the rest of the UK by providing the regions with

access to flights and destinations that would not be viable at other UK airports such as

Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow, which rely on their local market only for passengers.

The Government cited the “immense value to the UK of Heathrow‟s status as an international

hub airport” in the 2003 Air Transport White Paper. 70% of the UK‟s long haul flights go

through Heathrow.

Heathrow is at the heart of the UK economy and one of our country‟s most important assets.

The proportion of UK passengers and flights operating through Heathrow is shown in Table 2.

Heathrow

UK Total Proportion

Passengers 218 million 66 million 30%

Air Transport

Movements 2.1 million 460 thousand 22%

Table 2: Heathrow proportion of UK passengers and movements 2009

(Source: CAA airport statistics)

Based on these proportions, one could safely assume that Heathrow is responsible for at least

20% or more of aviation‟s total contribution to the UK economy, which based on the OXERA

and OEF reports, can be conservatively estimated at 1%. In 2009, UK GDP was £1,400

billion ** so that would make Heathrow‟s contribution equate to at least £2.8 billion.

As the United Kingdom‟s only hub airport, Heathrow provides the important links that connect

the UK with the rest of the world, including the new global economies of Brazil, Russia, India

and China (BRIC). It operates the UK‟s only direct air links to emerging world cities such as

Shanghai, Beijing, Mumbai, and Sao Paulo. More than half of all the UK‟s air freight passes

through Heathrow, the significant majority in the hold of passenger planes.

International transport links are a crucial factor when companies are deciding where to invest.

A 2007 survey of 500 of Europe‟s top companies found that 52% of companies considered

transport links a vital factor in deciding where to locate their business; and 58% identified

good access to markets, customers or clients as essential. A 2007 survey from Think London

showed that investors rated access to markets and ease of international travel as more

important factors than availability of skilled labour and the overall business climate in their

decision to locate in London. Heathrow is also of vital importance at a regional level. 90% of

businesses in the Thames Valley Economic Partnership believe that Heathrow is important to

the success of the region, with 76% stating the airport is of critical importance.

** IMF, World Economic Outlook Database

265424///242/A 07 April 2010




_________________________

2.4 The impact of runway capacity constraints at Heathrow

2.4.1 Capacity

Heathrow has been running at over 95% capacity for 10 years. In 2007 it was operating at

99% capacity. In terms of runway utilisation, it is the most efficient two-runway airport in the

world. A third runway, would allow capacity to increase to 605,000 Air Traffic Movements

(ATMs) provided local air quality and noise limits can be met when opened, rising to a

maximum of 702,000 by 2030 if the CO2 limits set in 2009 can be met, with the consequential

increase to the number of passengers using Heathrow. The earliest date for a third runway at

Heathrow is assumed to be 2020.

The DfT January 2009 passenger forecasts†† indicate that passenger traffic in the UK is

expected to grow long-term by 3.3% a year from 2004 to 2030. The figure for South East

England is lower, at around 3.1% a year, suggesting long-term ATM growth of some 2.9 to

3.0% a year, given that average passengers per ATM are expected to continue to increase.

Even allowing for the current recession, 2.9% annual growth applied to 1.1 million ATMs in

2009 would result in the capacity-constrained figure of 1.3 million ATMs being reached by

around 2016. At that time, Heathrow will be operating at 100% capacity; if that were possible –

with associated adverse impact on punctuality, resilience and operational efficiency.

A recent report by the British Chambers of Commerce‡‡ estimates the economic benefits of a

Heathrow third runway at £30bn. This will be derived from expanding Heathrow‟s role as a

hub airport. The same report states that delaying a third runway would cost the UK economy

£1bn every single year.

2.4.2 Use of a secondary hub

The opportunity to use Gatwick or some other UK airport as a secondary hub airport is not

realistic. Although British Caledonian operated Gatwick as a “secondary” London hub

between 1970 and 1987, British Airways tried to retain the operation, but there was insufficient

capacity on Gatwick‟s single runway and consequently insufficient demand to sustain a hub

operation there. Hubs require a minimum of two runways to provide sufficient peak hour

capacity, as well as daily capacity levels that can maintain the right balance between short

haul feeder traffic and the long haul traffic that it is serving.

Over time and particularly when economic conditions are tight, airlines will seek the maximum

opportunity and consolidate at a single point. In the case of the UK, this is Heathrow. For

example, at its peak, Manchester used to serve 40 points on its long haul network, but this

has been reduced to 19 points today.

Around the world, there are very few examples of cities with more than one hub airport.

Whilst New York has 4 airports, only two act as true hubs. Even New York JFK is now

operating with a significant proportion of point to point traffic from airlines such as Jet Blue. In

Paris, Air France remains the dominant airline at Charles de Gaulle while other airlines

†† UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts, DfT. January 2009

‡‡ Economic Impacts of Hub Airports. British Chambers of Commerce. July 2009

265424///242/A 07 April 2010


C:\Documents and Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\100414_BAA_Submis

12 sion_to_the_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc

100.0

105.0

110.0

115.0

120.0

125.0

130.0

135.0

140.0

145.0

150.0

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

Year

Pa

x p

er

To

tal

AT

M

operate point to point into Orly. Tokyo used to have two hub airports; one for international

flights and one for domestic, but this strategy has proved unsustainable. Providing a

secondary hub for a city or smaller nation dilutes demand which means that neither hub can

operate efficiently.

2.4.3 Impacts on operations at Heathrow

Given the constraints of the airport, there is an optimum balance of short-haul versus long-

haul traffic – too much short-haul will not leave enough room for the higher yield long-haul

flights – too many long-haul flights will not allow sufficient short-haul traffic to feed them.

Given a finite number of slots, airlines will maximise the value of their slots, which leads to

over provision of long haul.

It is also important to maintain frequencies since this is one of the key benefits for business

passengers. Because of many years of capacity constraints at Heathrow, this has led both to

a significant increase in the average aircraft size and to a reduction in the variety and number

of domestic and international short hauls destinations served (Figure 8 and Figure 9).

Figure 8: Heathrow average aircraft size (Pax per ATM) 1988-2009

(Source: CAA airport statistics)

265424///242/A 07 April 2010




0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Domestic Short Haul Long Haul

Des

tin

atio

ns

Serv

ed

2003 2010

Figure 9: Heathrow traffic mix (destinations served) 2003 & 2010

(Source: OAG (April 2003 & March 2010))

2.4.4 Loss of regional services into Heathrow

Although Heathrow is the UK‟s hub airport, the number of domestic destinations served by the

airport has been in decline since the early 1990‟s. As Heathrow has reached its maximum

capacity the commercial pressures to move from serving domestic destinations to long-haul

destinations have grown. A trend that is increasingly causing concern for peripheral

communities in the UK is the loss of regional services to Heathrow. In 1991, there were 23

UK airports connecting to Heathrow but by 2010 this has been reduced to just 6 airports.

For network airlines the revenue contribution of passengers on domestic flights transfer onto

long-haul flights at Heathrow is hugely important. While the revenue from direct passengers is

twice that of transfer passengers, the revenue that the transfer passengers generate by then

taking a long-haul flight from Heathrow is ten times the amount of revenue they generate on

the domestic leg (5 times that of the direct passengers on the domestic leg). In 2006/07 BA

domestic flights into Heathrow carried over 1 million transfer passengers. These passengers

have a huge benefit in making routes viable from Heathrow that would not otherwise be so.

2.4.5 Loss of UK business to other European hubs

With the withdrawal of many domestic services to Heathrow, some UK passengers are

choosing to fly North Atlantic routes via Schiphol, Frankfurt or Paris. European passengers

are also making the same choices regarding the North Atlantic. For long-haul to South East

Asia there are also choices to go via Dubai or Abu Dhabi rather than Heathrow or other

European hubs.

Figure 10, taken from the British Chamber of Commerce report on the Economic Impacts of

Hub Airports, shows the proportion of UK passengers using different European hubs.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010




Airport 1989 1999 2009

Difference in

Annual Volume

(2009 v 1989)

Average

Growth

(1989 to 2009)

Paris CDG 579,818 1,596,907 2,297,775 1,717,957 7.1%

Frankfurt Main 228,419 600,047 749,597 521,178 6.1%

Amsterdam

Schiphol 869,897 2,920,231 3,665,181 2,795,284 7.5%

Sub-total

European Hubs 1,678,134 5,117,185 6,712,553 5,034,419 7.2%

Heathrow 7,115,240 7,141,253 5,254,605 -1,860,635 -1.5%

Figure 10: Proportion of passengers travelling to EU hubs who are transfer

(Source: British Chambers of Commerce based on CAA Data)

Table 3 shows an analysis of UK passengers using Heathrow versus the other main European

hubs. The analysis shows that in 20 years, the annual volume of domestic traffic using

Heathrow has declined by nearly 2 million passengers, whereas the annual volume of UK

passengers using the 3 main European hubs has increased by 5 million. Whereas use by UK

passengers of European Hubs has grown by an average of 7% a year since 1989, use of

Heathrow has declined by an annual average of 1.5% over the same period. This equates to

a total growth over the period using the European Hubs of 300%, versus a decline of 25%

using Heathrow.

Table 3: UK passengers using Heathrow v other European Hubs

(Source: CAA airport statistics. UK passengers using European hubs

excludes passengers to/from London airports.)

265424///242/A 07 April 2010


New York-Boston

StokholmMalmo

Rome-Milan

London-Edinburgh

Paris-Amsterdam

New York-

Washington

London-Paris

(Original)Paris-Bordeaux

Stockholm-

Gothenburg

London-NewcastleLondon-Brussels

(Original)

Rome-Bologne

London-Leeds

Tokyo-Osaka

Madrid-Seville

Paris-London (New)

Paris-Lyon

Paris-Brussels

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Rail Journey Time (hrs)

% T

rav

el

by

Ra

il v

Air

C:\Documents and Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\10 ission_to_the_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc0414_BAA_Subm

15

Heathrow is losing passengers to Schiphol, Frankfurt or Paris because they find it easier to

take a short haul flight to these European hubs to connect with their long haul flight than

travelling to Heathrow by either road, rail or air.

Integrated transport needs airline networks, which in turn rely on a home hub airport

and Heathrow is the UK‟s only hub, which if it is to maintain its standing should be

properly connected to the high speed rail network.

2.5 Importance of high speed rail (HS2) link into Heathrow

2.5.1 Air to Rail substitution

As well as air passenger demand lost to other European hubs, much has already transferred

to other transport modes. Over 80% of passengers now choose to use Eurostar to travel from

London to Paris and Brussels. Figure 11 shows the rail/air percentage split on some key,

mainly European, city pairs. The percentage choosing to travel by air is critically dependent

on the alternative overall rail journey time. Rail terminals are often more conveniently situated

than city airports, and there are no issues of check-in and queuing is unusual. Providing a

high speed rail link directly into Heathrow would significantly increase substitution of domestic

demand from air to rail on high speed rail routes less than 3 hours long.

Figure 11: Share of travel by rail on selected city pairs

(Source: Greengauge & International Union of Railways)

265424///242/A 07 April 2010




_________________________

2.5.2 Increased connectivity

The impact of Eurostar has not only been a reduction in air passenger share. More

importantly it has increased the size of the market overall. Since starting operations in 1994,

Eurostar reports a doubling of total passenger numbers travelling (by air or rail) on routes

between London and Paris/Brussels.

This is a result of the “connectivity effect” and has important implications for the proposals for

HS2.

High quality transport infrastructure is a prerequisite for sustained economic growth and for

maintaining competitiveness in a developed economy. International competitiveness is driven

by productivity growth which is underpinned by trade, foreign investment and innovative

activity, all of which are facilitated by connectivity. There has long been recognition of the link

between connectivity and economic growth. The growth of the world‟s major cities throughout

history is clearly related to their position on the world‟s transport networks.

The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) report on the Economic Impacts of Hub Airports§§

included work on the relative connections from different UK cities to other worldwide cities and

on the economic benefits of restoring access to Heathrow from the UK regions.

The BCC work looked at the number of direct, one-stop and two-stop connections to London

(Heathrow), Newcastle, Liverpool, Leeds and Teesside from the Middle East (Dubai), Japan

(Tokyo), North America (Chicago), South America (Sao Paulo) and Africa (Cape Town).

In nearly all cases the only city with direct connections to all these destinations was London

(the only exception being one direct service from Dubai to Newcastle).

The other main trend is that these UK cities have more 2-stop interchanges than they do 1

stop interchanges. Also in the majority of cases these cities are an additional 7-10 hours

journey time away from these cities than to Heathrow. Furthermore in the case of Liverpool,

Leeds and Teesside the dominant hub airport for these airports is Amsterdam demonstrating

how EU airports are benefiting from Heathrow‟s lack of access to the domestic destinations

within the UK.

The BCC reports concludes: “In summary, UK regions are at a major disadvantage in terms of

access from major world markets. This hampers the ability to attract inward investment and

regional economic growth”.

A high speed rail network serving these UK cities and regions could transform their links to the

wider world if they were connected to Heathrow. Journey times would be cut dramatically and

be competitive, if not better, than the alternative options of flying to EU hub airports. They

would also enjoy a higher frequency of service throughout the day for connections to and from

the airports than the EU hub airports could offer. In turn the benefits that Heathrow and its

airlines would realise would include the ability to use these passengers to make new routes

viable and increase frequency on key routes as well.

§§ Economic Impacts of Hub Airports. British Chambers of Commerce. July 2009

265424///242/A 07 April 2010




The BCC report looked specifically at the economic benefits of adding runway capacity at

Heathrow. It drew quantified conclusions about the benefits that would deliver to the UK

regions if that included a restoration of domestic flights from Heathrow to the cities of the UK

regions.

The BCC attributed that regional connectivity could contribute £850m GDP in Present Value

over 60 years to the UK economy. However high speed rail would be likely to deliver a far

higher frequency of service to the cities it did serve than the BCC report assumes would be

achieved by restored domestic air services.

Clearly further modelling would need to be done to assess the economic impacts on regional

connectivity that serving Heathrow by high speed rail would have.

As well as high speed rail there are opportunities for classic rail to also serve the airport. The

2003 Air Transport White Paper noted that in particular South Wales and South-West England

used the London airports; including Heathrow and that any schemes to promote rail access to

the airport from these regions should be encouraged.

Whilst high speed rail may not be proposed for these regions links from Wales and South-

West England using existing rail could put them within the same journey times as the cities of

Northern England and Scotland could have as part of a high speed rail network. These areas

are significant passenger catchment areas for Heathrow but also have regional airports with

links to other EU hub airports. Improving access to them would deliver benefits for Heathrow

and the wider UK economy. Potentially a western connection to Heathrow would support this

but further study is required.

2.5.3 The opportunity to win back lost business

The impacts of high speed rail on air travel in the UK are much more likely to stimulate air

transport demand in the domestic market rather than substitute for it. Airlines support HS2

connecting to Heathrow because it will provide much needed capacity to provide feeder traffic

directly into the airport, thereby freeing up a small number of valuable slots to serve more

destinations and recoup some of the ground lost to European rivals. In addition a rail link

directly into Heathrow would ensure that the rail service was also well utilised, easing road

congestion and providing true passenger choice on which transport mode to use.

Not providing a direct link into Heathrow would reduce UK connectivity to the detriment of the

regions and further reduce UK‟s competitiveness with more passengers choosing to use other

European and Middle Eastern hubs.

2.5.4 Heathrow as a hub: key messages

An integrated transport solution comprising Heathrow and the airlines based there being

served by high speed rail network would deliver substantial benefits for all.

The cities and regions would have access to the UK‟s hub airport transforming their

connectivity and accessibility to the world and its markets.

Heathrow and airlines would regain crucial feed into their network from the UK

regions.

Domestic air transfer passengers would have a viable alternative to internal flights.

The UK economy would benefit from increased connectivity.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010




An integrated air-rail solution would allow UK air passengers currently flying from

regional airports to EU and Middle Eastern hub airports to use Heathrow as their

most accessible airport.

In turn the UK Exchequer would benefit from increased revenues generated by high

speed rail and Heathrow.

The European experience of high speed rail demonstrates what can be achieved by

strategically thinking about how rail and air can work together. It is crucial that high speed rail

in the UK properly integrates with the UK‟s only international hub airport. That means directly

serving Heathrow and allowing all air passengers, direct and transfer, to be able to take

advantage of the high speed rail network.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010


C:\Documents and Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\100414_BAA_Submiss

19 ion_to_the_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc

3. High speed rail station requirements (from an aviation perspective)

3.1 Key factors for Air to Rail substitution

The following provides a summary of the key factors which will determine the effectiveness of

a high speed rail station at or near the airport from an aviation perspective that will facilitate

air/rail substitution.

“Rail to air must be as good as air to air”

3.1.1 Passenger experience

In order to achieve an enhanced passenger experience the various legs of the end to end

journey should be integrated to the extent that at the earliest possible point in the journey the

stress associated with possibly missing connections, having to handle luggage through

difficult multi level interchanges and complex routes is removed. Well designed interchanges

between rail and air, that are as close as possible are clearly key in this regard.

Ease of interchange between modes: Crucially, where possible this should be on the

same level with a clear line of sight between the modes

The frequency of service: The service must be frequent and balanced, ensuring that

high speed rail services connect with appropriate flight schedules

Range of destinations: An integrated system will match a wide range of domestic

destinations served by rail, with a wide range of international destinations served by air

Effective baggage management: Where feasible, the system should provide for a

remote hold bag drop

The principal aim in designing the rail/air interchange must be to achieve a passenger

experience that is as good as the air/air interchange.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010


C:\Documents and Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\100414_BAA_Subm

20 ission_to_the_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc

4. Technical options

The following section provides an overview of BAA‟s technical studies to date, which were

jointly carried out with the airlines. In considering the possible locations for the high speed

station “at” the airport, there are a range of possible locations, in the Central Terminal Area,

Terminal 5 and a future Terminal 6, all of which are still under consideration.

4.1 Station locations – “at”, “near”, “remote”

The options for the location of a high speed rail station to serve Heathrow are as follows:

At – the station would be located on the airport campus at CTA, T5 or T6.

Near – the station would be located on the Great Western Mainline at Iver with a

transit system provided to transfer passengers to the airport. This concept has been

developed by the firm of Consulting Engineers, Arup, and is commonly referred as the

„Arup Hub‟. BAA and the airlines have met with Arup to discuss this concept.

Remote – the station would be located at Old Oak Common with transfers by classic

rail to the airport. This option is the stated current preference of HS2.

The relative benefits and disadvantages of each of the options resulting from a joint

BAA/Airline assessment are detailed in Table 4.

4.1.1 Previous BAA studies and submissions

In December 2009, BAA made a submission to the HS2 Company appraising possible options

for high speed rail links to Heathrow Airport. It was concluded that BAA‟s preferred option

would be a station „at‟ Heathrow itself served by 'through-running' trains, where such a station

would provide a better passenger experience of interchange, baggage management and inter

terminal connectivity than an option „near‟ Heathrow such as the Arup “Heathrow International

Hub” concept. However BAA recognised that an option „near‟ Heathrow could meet some of

the criteria whilst also providing a connection to the Great Western rail network.

BAA‟s least preferred option was identified as a station „remote‟ from Heathrow serving the

airport via classic rail such as Heathrow Express, where the need for interchange would

provide a worse passenger experience and thus reduce the likelihood of air-rail substitution.

In conjunction with the airlines BAA continue to study the available options and this document

sets out the emerging preferences of the wider airport community.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010




4.1.2 Principal options considered

Having already concluded that „spur‟ and „diversionary loop‟ options would limit high speed rail

service frequencies, and would thus be suboptimal, the principal options under consideration

were „through-running‟ high speed rail alignments connecting to one of:

A station „at‟ Heathrow (located centrally within the existing airport campusΩ) , and

A „near‟ airport hub (approximately four kilometres north of the Main Campus )

Ω Note: there are a number of possible locations for the station. For the purposes of this

exercise the high speed rail station could be located at any terminal and a CTA option has

been used to make comparison with the „near‟ airport option.

To allow consideration of the wider route related cost and journey time influences of the

different station locations, and to ensure parity between the options, connections to an

assumed HS2 alignment have been shown at Old Oak Common and Denham. In order to

explore cost and journey time effects of a reduced tunnel length route, two route variants were

considered for each option connecting from a surface route to Old Oak Common at Northolt.

The combination of „at‟ and „near‟ station options, and the two route variants, initially defined

four principal options as illustrated in Figure 12. The study concluded that:

Choice of route option variants would be determined by cost to benefit factors

centred around tunnel length and journey time effects, where the airport recognise

that these choices will largely be led by others, in consideration of overall high speed

rail link objectives and requirements.

Choice of station option variants would be most closely related to the relative efficacy

of the station-airport interface, where:

The „at‟ Heathrow station is likely to deliver better immediate access to terminals

for rail - air interchange

The „near‟ Heathrow station may deliver the benefits of connectivity to the wider

rail network in a phased manner and have less impact on the existing Airport

infrastructure during delivery.

The Option review has therefore been centred on the relative merits of the station option

variants, but included high level consideration of their influence on connecting routes.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010


C:\Documents and Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\1 ission_to_the_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc00414_BAA_Subm

22

Min.Route Length/Journey time

Min.Tunnel Length/CAPEX

MBesraking Best Use Existing Heathrow

Assets ?

Alternative Heathrow

Connections?

a. b.

c. d.

Min.Route

Length/Journey time

Min.Tunnel

Length/CAPEX

Alternative Heathrow

Connections? Option Preferences ?

a. b.

c. d.

Best Integration

Figure 12: Route variants & basis of preference for „at‟ and „near‟ Heathrow station options

BAA and the airlines have previously concluded that a station „remote‟ from Heathrow would

not promote air-rail substitution, on the basis of the relatively poor passenger experience in

connecting to the airport. However, for completeness in light of the potential for HS2

preference to a Crossrail interchange station at Old Oak Common, a fifth option was

incorporated into the study, as:

A „remote‟ station/hub (nominally at Old Oak Common)

4.1.3 Option configuration and details

Recognising that the „near‟ and „remote‟ station options could provide an interchange to the

airport for Great Western Mainline (GWML) services and passengers from the West,

consideration of the „at‟ station option also incorporated a „Western Connection‟ linking the

existing Heathrow Airport Line at T5 back to the GWML in proximity to Iver.

Similarly, in recognition that the „near‟ station option does not provide a direct connection to

the airport, the infrastructure, cost and journey time effects of interchange via an Automated

People Mover system were considered within this option.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010




For the „remote‟ station option, interchange to the airport is assumed to be provided by the

existing Heathrow Express service, although potential capacity related upgrade costs to trains,

GWML routes and the airport stations have been excluded.

Whilst it has been suggested that the „near‟ station option could incorporate an airport

terminal, the incorporation and operation of such a facility within the existing and future airport

is highly complex, and it is not readily apparent if such a facility would be either practicable or

beneficial to either the overall operation and efficiency of the airport, or in improving the

proportion of passengers who access the airport by public transport, in preference to private

cars. As such the decision as to whether the „near‟ station could or would incorporate terminal

processes is outwith the scope of this review, with assessment limited to generalised

infrastructure and travel time effects of connecting from the „near‟ station into the airport.

A total of five options were therefore assessed, illustrated as Options a-e in Figure 13,

illustrating connections between a „near‟ and „at‟ airport high speed rail station and the existing

airport terminals.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010


C:\Documents and Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\100414_BAA_Submiss

24 ion_to_the_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc

Through Routes

a. Old Oak - Heathrow Hub – Denham (24km, 18km in tunnel)

Through Routes

a. Old Oak - Heathrow Hub – Denham (24km, 18km in tunnel)

Heathrow Hub with Tunnel

Connection from Old Oak Common

Tunnelled HSR LinkTunnelled HSR Link

Surface HSR LinkSurface HSR Link

Through Routes

c. Northolt - Heathrow Hub – Denham (19km, 13km in tunnel)

Through Routes

c. Northolt - Heathrow Hub – Denham (19km, 13km in tunnel)

Heathrow Hub with Tunnel

Connection from Northolt



Through Routes

b. Old Oak - Heathrow – Denham (33km length, 27km in tunnel)

Through Routes

b. Old Oak - Heathrow – Denham (33km length, 27km in tunnel)

On-Airport Station with Tunnel

Connection from Old Oak Common



Through Routes

d. Northolt - Heathrow - Denham (28km length, 22km in tunnel)

Through Routes

d. Northolt - Heathrow - Denham (28km length, 22km in tunnel)



„On-Airport‟ HSR Station with

Tunnel Connection from Northolt

HSR via Old Oak Station Hub

e. Old Oak - Denham (20km length at Surface)

HSR via Old Oak Station Hub

e. Old Oak - Denham (20km length at Surface)



Old Oak Common Station Hub

Old Oak

Station Hub

Figure 13: Route & station options considered

265424///242/A 07 April 2010




4.1.4 Assessment methodology

High level technical studies were undertaken on the five options, considering: overall

feasibility; infrastructure requirements; environmental and airport impacts; journey time

effects; and capital costs. The findings of these studies were then reviewed within a workshop

setting with representatives of Heathrow‟s airline community, to consider the performance of

the options against the following criteria:

Air/Rail substitution (passenger experience): Considered as the relative

effectiveness of the options in attracting passengers to high speed rail services in

preference to alternative Air services and connections (note: this includes Air

transfers to and from UK regional airports via both Heathrow and alternative

European hub airports).

The assessment considered journey time effects, as a combination of travel time and

frequency, and the perceived quality of interchange between the station and airport.

Deliverability (impact, environment, and planning): Considered the relative

deliverability of the options in terms of their airport and environmental impacts, and

their fit with prevailing UK policy and planning requirements, noting that all options

are considered viable, with no identified showstoppers.

Future proofing/flexibility: Considering the options relative fit and flexibility against

current and future airport and railway provisions and developments, with a view to

minimising risks and constraints to both high speed rail and the airport.

Frequency & range of rail service to Heathrow Airport: High level review of

relative high speed and conventional rail service provisions, and the effectiveness of

the overall facility to act as a Public Transport Interchange/Hub, with a view to

synergistic fit in maximising the number and range of services which might access

both the Airport and the Hub.

Cost/benefit: The consolidation of the relative benefits of the options to the above

criteria, in comparison to related capital costs, and opportunities as may be accrued

through benefits to others.

4.1.5 Findings

The findings of the BAA and Airline assessments against the above criteria are set out in

Table 4 below.

The assessment that resulted in a [-], [+] or [=] is based upon a „pairwise‟ comparison between

options.

265424///242/A 07 April 2010


[-] Worse than [=] Equal to Near At Remote [+] Better than

Direct Connectivity with an airport terminal Highest Quality high speed rail to LHR Lowest Quality high speed rail to LHR link

Air/Rail Substitution (Passenger Experience)

at Hub, but additional journey to Terminals if station only

link, with minimal/no connection from - Rail unlikely to compete with Air Links station to Terminals 'Broken Link': Need to change train, is this

significantly better than now? [=] [+] [-]

Reduced airport impacts Highest airport impacts Minimal airport impacts

Deliverability (Impact, Environment,

Planning)

Higher Environmental Impacts Environmental Impact may be contained (Hex enhancements only) Planning Consents more within the airport boundary Brownfield Development, but with wider

challenging/complex to Green belt and Planning Consents eased by location residential/community impacts further airport expansion within existing airport boundary Planning benefits

Future Proofing/Flexibility

Frequency & Range of Rail Services to LHR

[=] [=] [+]

Most closely linked to direction of future Least constrained by current and future Airport Connectivity Constrained by

airport development (Masterplan), with airport developments, but at expense of GWML Capability/Capacity in Longer term

least long term flexibility, but without constraint by GWML

GWML constraints [+] [-]

[=]

No differential on high speed rail Service No differential on high speed rail Service No differential on high speed rail Service

Frequency Frequency Frequency

Directly Connects: high speed rail, GWML Indirectly Connects: high speed rail, Directly Connects: high speed rail, GWML

Intercity, Hex, Crossrail, Airtrack, GWML Intercity, Crossrail, Central Line, Intercity, Crossrail

Piccadilly Line North London Line (Existing On-Airport Rail Services Remain:

(Existing On-Airport Rail Services Remain: Hex, Crossrail & Piccadilly Line)

Hex, Crossrail & Piccadilly Line) [=]

[=] [-]

Mid-level Cost Highest Cost Least Cost Cost/Benefit Mid-level Airport Benefit Highest Airport Benefit Least Airport Benefit

[=] [=] [+]

Table 4: Summary of BAA and airline assessments of high speed rail station options


265424///242/A 07 April 2010

26


High Speed Rail Access to Heathrow BAA Submission to the Lord Mawhinney Review

4.1.6 Conclusions of BAA/airline review

On the basis of the above high level assessment this review concluded the attractiveness of the

„at‟ and „near‟ airport stations is broadly equivalent. Both options have different characteristics,

pros and cons, and further work is required to refine and conclude the airport‟s preference

However, BAA and the Airline community have confirmed their strong preference for Heathrow

Airport to be linked to any future high speed rail line to the North via „through-running‟ to either of

the „at‟ or „near‟ Heathrow station options above. It is considered that connection via a „remote‟

station at Old Oak Common, or similar will not achieve significant air-rail substitution or the wider

environmental, carbon and economic benefits which would flow from this.

4.1.7 Recommendations for further work

Looking forward, we recommend that further work is undertaken and BAA will take an active role

in the future development of high speed rail solutions for the UK, and how these might best be

integrated with the UK‟s only hub airport. This includes refinement of the relative options,

opportunities and benefits of the „near‟ and „at‟ airport options in regard to the following issues:

The rail, high speed rail, public transport, highway access, and airport facilities, which

may reasonably, practicably and beneficially be located at a „near‟ airport hub station,

and how these might best be integrated with the full range of possible „future Heathrow

Airport‟ configurations and layouts (e.g. to both a 2 runway and a 3 runway future), and

in the best service of UK national interests.

Identification of optimal „on-airport‟ locations for the provision of an „at‟ airport high speed

rail station and interchange, again in relation to the full range of possible „future

Heathrow Airport‟ configurations and layouts, and in the best service of UK national

interests.

BAA and the airlines have taken care to carry out this review not only from the perspective of the

needs of the airport but also from the standpoint of what would best serve the transport and wider

economic and environmental interests of the UK. The options were evaluated against the criteria

in the context of „local‟ (airport), „regional‟ (South East) and National/International (UK/Global)

effects. HS2 is a piece of planned infrastructure of National significance and in considering the

provision of a high speed rail connection for Heathrow, BAA and the airlines believes that

achieving effective Air/Rail substitution and all the wider environmental and economic benefits

that flow from that, should be given higher priority than how to get people from Birmingham to

London quickly.

The shared view, currently, of BAA and the airlines is that air/rail substitution will be achieved by

either the „at airport‟ option or the „near airport‟ but not by the „remote‟ (via a London interchange)

option.

27



5. International benchmarking of high speed rail connections to airports

Many other nations are connecting high speed rail to their national Hub, but no single direct rail

link exists between the UK‟s current high speed rail terminal at St Pancras International and

Heathrow Airport.

The high speed rail example in Europe should provide lessons for the UK. The HS2 proposals for

an Old Oak Common link to Heathrow, requiring a change of trains to access the airport contrast

starkly with the integration of rail and air seen on the continent.

The three major EU hub airports of Amsterdam Schiphol, Paris-CDG and Frankfurt-Main are

served directly by high speed rail at the airport. In all cases the rail terminal has direct access to

the terminals of the main network airlines based at those airports

Frankfurt FRA – Lufthansa T1

Paris CDG – Air France T2

Amsterdam AMS – KLM (one terminal)

For the passenger this means that they have direct walking access in to the terminal of the main

hub carriers at each airport.

Both Lufthansa and Air France also have integrated rail-air products marketed with

DeutscheBahn and SNCF respectively. These commercial arrangements allow for codeshares on

high speed trains that serve the airport and onward destinations allowing the airlines to offer an

increased range of domestic destinations to their passengers. Frankfurt‟s AiRail product also

allows for remote check-in of luggage at Stuttgart and Cologne which further demonstrates the

achievable level of integration between the two transport modes.

The High Speed Two proposals would not deliver anything approaching the level of integration

seen on the continent. Requiring passengers travelling to the airport to change trains with their

luggage at the Old Oak Common interchange station is not consistent with delivering the quality,

competitive product that airlines need to offer their passengers. It would also prevent codesharing

and other commercial arrangements between airlines and rail operators from being possible.

Table 5 overleaf, shows the connections to high speed rail in other countries.

28



Country Main Routes First

Year of Service

Airport Connections

United Kingdom

London Paris London Brussels

1994 1994

Full high speed running achieved 2007 – No direct airport rail connections with London Eurostar Terminal.

France

Paris – Bordeaux Paris-Lyon Paris-Amsterdam Paris-London

1990 1981 2009 1994

All lines connected to CDG Rail Station. Paris – Lyon line serves LYS.

Conventional (225 km/h) running between Tours and Bordeaux.

Belgium Brussels – Paris Brussels – London Brussels - Cologne

1994 1994 2008

No airport connection – Full high speed running to London commenced in 2007*

Conventional speed running between Liege and German border.

Netherlands Amsterdam-Paris 2009 Direct connection but with conventional speed running between Amsterdam Centraal and Schiphol.

Germany

Cologne – Frankfurt

Nuremburg – Munich

Manneheim - Stuttgart

Berlin - Hamburg

2002

2006

1991

1998

CGN and FRA airport connections (Conventional speed running CGN to Cologne Centre) No direct airport connections

No direct airport connections

No direct airport connections

Italy Rome-Florence Rome-Naples Turin-Milan

1991 2005 2009

FCO linked to Rome centre by rail shuttle and metro. MXP connected to Milan centre by „Malpensa Express‟ rail service – about 40 minutes‟ journey.

Sweden Stockholm-Malmo Stockholm-Gothenburg

1999 „Arlanda Express‟ connects ARN with Stockholm city centre in 22 minutes, for onward „high speed‟ connections to Malmo/Gothenburg.

Spain Madrid-Seville Madrid-Malaga

1992 1993

MAD connected to city centre (and to the main rail network) by underground from airport.

Japan

Tokyo-Osaka 1964 Currently, Narita Express offers fast alternative to „normal‟ train.

NRT set to gain high speed rail („Skyliner‟ service) from July 2010, connecting airport and city centre.

Taiwan Taipei-Kaohsiung 2007

TPE‟s high speed rail station is about 8km from the airport, and currently connected by bus. A rail link is expected to connect the airport and the high speed rail station in 2013.

29



Country Main Routes First

Year of Service

Airport Connections

China

Wuhan–Guangzhou Beijing-Tianjin Shanghai Maglev Train 2004

Shanghai Maglev Train designed to connect PVG to the outskirts of central Shanghai, where pax can interchange.

PEK served by Metro connection to Beijing city.

South Korea

Seoul-Busan Seoul-Mokpo

2004 Planned for 2014

Incheon airport Railroad Express is planned to connect ICN with Seoul Rail Station in the city, construction began in 2007 and is expected to be completed in 2010.

USA Boston-Washington DC (via New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore)

2000 JFK AirTrain service connects the airport to the NY Metro.

Brazil

Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo

Planned for 2014/

2016

High speed rail is planned to operate between Sao Paulo and Rio by 2014 although formal bidding for the project is yet to begin (2016 looking more likely). The proposed line will have stops at Rio International Airport, Sao Paulo International Airport and Viracopos - Campinas International Airport.

Table 5: Journey Time Comparison to BAA studies & schemes

30



6. Conclusion The conclusion of the joint BAA/airline study showed that in broad terms the “at” or “near” station

options are equally preferred. The benchmarking exercise clearly shows an enhanced passenger

experience associated with “at” airport rail/air interchanges has delivered benefits at all major

European hubs and on this basis it is BAA‟s view that an “at” airport solution is preferable.

BAA acknowledges that at an “at” or “near” airport solution will be more expensive than the

current proposals for an interchange at Old Oak Common. Having said that we believe that the

benefits derived over and above those associated with the remote Old Oak Common solution,

may well outweigh the cost of the additional investment for the following reasons.

Key benefits of an “at” airport solution

It will best deliver air/rail substitution and the associated carbon reductions, helping to

achieve the economic benefits that flow from carbon reductions; the Governments

sustainability commitments and environmental improvements for the UK.

By linking the wide range of domestic destinations served by high speed rail, with the

global reach of the international destinations served by Heathrow, the economic benefits

associated with greater international connectivity are more widely available leading to

increased overall economic benefit for the UK.

Complimentarity: Better integration will grow the market as evidenced by the Eurostar

example, which will increase the financial benefits

Aviation‟s contribution: The change in fleet mix as a result of integration will increase

aviation‟s revenue which in turn would make a contribution from aviation possible whilst

keeping charges competitive.

Further work will be required to assess these financial impacts and we proposed that we work in

collaboration with airlines and DfT to develop a proposal. We believe the outcome of this work will

demonstrate the full integration of high speed rail within Heathrow is strategically, environmentally

and financially the best answer.

31