Mayor of London

Submission to Lord Mawhinney

Review of HS2 Access to Heathrow Airport

28 May 2010

Executive Summary

The purpose of this paper is to present the preliminary views of The Mayor of
London on options for the proposed High Speed 2 (HS2) route serving
Heathrow Airport. The analysis presented in this paper is based on an initial
High Speed 2 alignment running from London to Birmingham as presented by
High Speed 2 Ltd (HS2 Ltd) in their recent Command Paper.

This paper has been prepared in response to a review being undertaken by

Lord Mawhinney which is intended to:

assess the various options which have been put forward for a high speed
station at or near Heathrow and the business cases in support of these
options; and

provide advice to the Secretary of State on whether and if so when a high

speed station at or near Heathrow might be needed and where it might
best be situated.

The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) published on the 10 May 2010 sets
out a clear position in relation to HS2 and the Mayor’s opposition to future
expansion at Heathrow Airport. The role of any intermediate station on HS2
serving Heathrow should be consistent with the following:

Serving Heathrow – The MTS acknowledges the potential to increase

transfer from short-haul domestic and European flights to rail journeys
through existing and possible future high-speed rail services – thus freeing up
take-off and landing slots for long haul capacity. In addition, Proposal 50
lends its support for improved access to London’s airports by public transport.

Support dispersal of HS2 passengers across central London - Proposal

46 supports providing interchange opportunities before reaching central
London to reduce pressure on central London termini. An intermediate station
would allow transfer to underground / Crossrail services.

1 
 
 Provide access to HS2 from the wider area – a new Crossrail interchange
in west London could help achieve increased orbital connectivity (Proposal
14). Any interchange station should also be well served by local rail/bus
services and the road network.

The key findings presented in this paper are as follows:

- A central London terminal is essential to maximise the benefits of HS2 and

Euston is the best place for it;

- Heathrow is a very small but important market relative to the overall high
speed rail market in the UK, with the potential to grow significantly if the
high speed network expands;

- Heathrow is actually three sites (T123, T4, T5) rather than one which
makes it difficult to serve from any single station at the airport. Any station
within the boundaries of the airport would require an effective transport
distribution network to enable passengers to access all terminals;

- Options for serving Heathrow direct as opposed to via a hub at Old Oak
Common would require a longer tunnel and different alignment into
London that would increase journey times for passengers travelling to
Central London (by up to 8 minutes) and increase the cost of construction
by at least £2 billion, due to the extra tunnelling required. The increase in
journey time would result in around 11% less demand on HS2 services,
potentially reducing the benefit cost ratio below 2:1.

- A station at Old Oak Common, whilst furthest away from Heathrow in

terms of distance, would be connected to all Heathrow terminals through
the Crossrail and Heathrow Express connections;

- Old Oak Common is planned to be adjacent to the Great Western Main

Line (GWML) that is currently served by Heathrow Express (HEx) and will
be served by future Crossrail services to Heathrow/Maidenhead as per the
Crossrail base scheme. The DfT HS2 proposal is for a new station to be
built at this point on the GWML where these Crossrail/HEx trains would
stop - this would be connected to the new HS2 station at Old Oak
Common (they are planned to be adjacent to each other);

- In addition to this, DfT is looking to extend those Crossrail trains that are
planned to terminate at Paddington westwards to terminate at Old Oak
Common. These trains would not go as far as Heathrow but would

2 
 
 connect HS2 to the West End/City via Crossrail, reducing the pressure at
Euston;

- Old Oak Common station would also bring large benefits to many parts of
west London by providing more direct access to the HS2 network. This
would help deliver the Mayor’s strategy for London’s future growth which
supports the development of outer London and the regeneration of key
areas such as Park Royal;

- Old Oak Common would also allow passengers travelling into London on
HS2 to change onto Crossrail at Old Oak Common thus reducing the
number of people arriving at Euston and the impact on the London
Underground network;

- A Heathrow hub station would allow good access to the airport, but does
not bring about the same level of wider benefits for London as Old Oak
Common:

- If alternative options were identified by HS2 for dispersing passengers at

Euston then the role of Old Oak Common would potentially change and in
this case options that served Heathrow more directly could have greater
prominence. However, the benefit to improving connectivity in outer
London would not be realised to the same extent.

3 
 
1. Role of Transport for London

1.1. Transport for London is the integrated transport authority for London
responsible for the operation and long term planning of the majority of
transport services in London. The TfL Board is chaired by the Mayor of
London.

1.2. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) is a statutory document, developed

alongside the London Plan and Economic Development Strategy as part of
an integrated strategic policy framework to guide the long term development
of London over the next 20 years. The MTS was published on Monday 10
May. The London Plan is the spatial plan for London, published for
consultation in October 2009 and due to progress through its formal
Examination in Public (EIP) from June this year. These two documents
together provide the relevant strategic policy framework for the introduction of
HS2 services affecting London.

Current Position on HS2

1.3. The Mayor is supportive of the development of a national high speed network.
Proposal 4 of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) states:

‘The Mayor and TfL support the development of a national high-speed

network and will work with the DfT, Network Rail, High Speed Two and other
transport stakeholders to ensure the London Terminal for any new high-
speed line in centrally located, well-connected to the existing public transport
network, and widely accessible in order to maximise access to jobs and
London’s population. It is currently considered that Euston best meets these
criteria. Further evaluation will be made of this and other potential termini, in
particular, in relation to links to Heathrow.’

1.4. In relation to the future development of Heathrow Airport, both the MTS and
London Plan express their opposition to further expansion of Heathrow
Airport and in particular plans for a third runway. Support is expressed for a
shift in long distance domestic travel from air to rail as a way to reduce the
need for further expansion at Heathrow Airport. The introduction of high
speed rail is seen as a key part of this strategy.

1.5. TfL has been working with HS2 Ltd as plans for the route of HS2 have been
progressed and there are two principal areas of interest, which are discussed
in turn below:

4 
 
 The location of the London terminal and the ability to disperse passengers
effectively to and from the terminal; and

Access to Heathrow Airport to help support a shift from air to rail for
domestic flights.

2. HS2 Terminal Location

2.1. TfL has expressed continuing support for a central London terminal location
that is well served by the underground and bus network and has the potential
to be expanded significantly to accommodate the uplift in demand from HS2
services. Euston has the greatest potential to achieve this, although, as
demonstrated below, a significant increase in demand will need to be
accommodated.

2.2. Whilst the HS2 proposals include plans for a comprehensive rebuilding of
Euston station to accommodate HS2 services, the impact on the local
transport network in London is still being assessed. The uplift in demand at
Euston from HS2 services is significant and set out in the following table:

Scenario  AM peak 3 hours  Expected to use LUL 

trips using National  AM peak 3 hours 
Rail at Euston  (50% 1) 

2008 base year  22,371  11,186 

2033 2 reference year  29,331  14,666 

2033 with High Speed 2 (no  47,321  23,661 

intermediate station) 

Table 1 – Existing and Future Demand Scenarios at Euston

2.3. Modelling undertaken by TfL has shown that the demand for onward travel at
Euston using the London Underground network is forecast to increase from
c.11,000 during a 2008 average weekday morning peak period to c.24,000 in
2033 with HS2. HS2 alone adds around 9,000 extra trips to the underground
network during the AM peak period (0700-1000). This increase cannot be

                                                            
1
 2007 surveys indicate that 50% of National Rail arrivals at Euston use London Underground for onward 
dispersal. It is assumed that this proportion remains the same in 2033.  
2
 Planet modelling uses 2033 as a base year 

5 
 
 accommodated on the existing tube network (Victoria and Northern Lines)
without a major expansion of capacity.

2.4. Work is underway to consider the different options for achieving this but one
option is to encourage passengers travelling into London on HS2 services to
change onto the local rail network outside of the central area to help reduce
pressure at Euston station.

2.5. Proposals for an intermediate station on HS2 at Old Oak Common, connected
to Crossrail services, has the ability to achieve this by encouraging
passengers to change at Old Oak Common onto Crossrail for their onward
journey to destinations across central London and to Canary Wharf and
Stratford International. TfL and HS2 jointly estimate that an intermediate
station at Old Oak Common would reduce the number of am peak period
arrivals at Euston by a fifth, from c.47,000 to 38,000. See Figure 1 for details.

2.6. TfL is also considering further options for accommodating HS2 demand at
Euston including the need for new Underground rail capacity.

3. Serving Heathrow Airport

3.1. Serving Heathrow by the high speed rail network has a number of potential
benefits:

It allows for some short haul domestic flights to switch from air to rail as
well as options for using the high speed network to access Europe. This    

becomes more significant as the extent of the HS2 network grows to

include the North West Yorkshire and potentially the North East and
Scotland;

A modal shift from car to rail for some longer distance journeys accessing
Heathrow; and

It enables some people from across the UK to access Heathrow without

having to travel through crowded parts of central London and interchange
at London termini.

3.2. Demand forecasting work undertaken by HS2 Ltd shows that the demand for
access to Heathrow using HS2 will initially constitute a very small proportion
of the overall HS2 demand. For the initial alignment from London to
Birmingham via Heathrow directly, this is forecast to be 2,000 passengers per
day out of a total of c.130,000. This will of course increase as the network is
extended north of Birmingham and passengers are encouraged to switch

6 
 
 from air to rail for domestic journeys. Demand figures for the larger HS2
network are not currently available but we expect this to increase the demand
for Heathrow access. However, this is never expected to exceed 10% of total
high speed rail demand.

3.3. For high speed rail to be attractive for passengers travelling to Heathrow it
has to be easily accessible from Heathrow Airport. Any changes from high
speed rail to other services have to be easy, quick and well designed to
facilitate an effective transfer of people. A good example of an airport in
Europe having direct high speed rail access is Frankfurt, where 15% of
passengers arriving at the airport use the high speed ICE rail network.
Frankfurt has a single terminal location, rather than a wide range of sites as
seen at Heathrow. An example of a successful high speed rail-airport multi-
site interchange is Charles de Gaulle (CDG) Paris, where the airport is
divided into 3 sites, as is the case at Heathrow. However, CDG is plugged
into a wider high speed rail network and services to Paris do not stop at the
airport TGV station; a hub station at Heathrow may not be appropriate on a
route that runs between London city centre and Birmingham city centre.

3.4. As outlined in 3.3 above, one of the issues with Heathrow is the geographic
spread of the airport and the number of individual terminals. This makes it
impossible to serve the entire airport directly from a single high speed station.
There will always be a need for passengers to make an onward connection of
some form to access individual terminals. Given this, the high speed station
does not necessarily have to be located within the airport boundary provided
the form of onward connection has the ability to access all parts of the airport
quickly and easily for airport passengers.

3.5. There is only going to be one intermediate station on the route of HS2 serving
Heathrow and therefore this station has to perform a number of different
roles. First, it has to be attractive in securing the shift from air to rail for long
distance domestic journeys. Second, it has to help disperse passengers
more effectively across London thus reducing the pressure at Euston and
third it has to be accessible to outer west and south west/north west London
to ensure the benefits of high speed rail are maximised. TfL would wish to
see a station that performs all three of these functions and current proposals
are assessed against these criteria below.

4. Assessment of Current Options

4.1. Three station options are shown on Figure 2 and are considered here as
follows:

Old Oak Common interchange

7 
 
 Heathrow hub interchange; and

Heathrow terminal interchange – option A (T5) and option B (Bath Road)

Old Oak Common

4.2. The proposal for Old Oak Common includes a new station on the Great
Western Main Line (GWML) adjacent to the proposed station on HS2 that
would be served by Crossrail, Heathrow Express (HEx) and potentially
intercity services operating on the GWML. The station would also be served
by up to 14 additional Crossrail trains per hour currently planned to terminate
at Paddington, extending to terminate at Old Oak Common. Details are set
out in Figure 3. These proposals are part of the base case set out in the HS2
Command Paper.

Serving Heathrow

4.3. It is assumed that Old Oak Common station would be connected to Heathrow
by Crossrail and Heathrow Express with a combined frequency of 8 trains per
hour and a capacity of around 7,500 passengers per hour. The proposed
journey time by Heathrow Express from Old Oak Common to Heathrow
Terminals 1,2 and 3 would be 10 minutes and to Terminal 5 would be 16
minutes. Journey times by Crossrail would be around 20 minutes to
Terminals 1,2 and 3 and 25 minutes to Terminal 4.

4.4. Passengers wishing to change from HS2 to access Heathrow would be

required to change from the HS2 platforms to the Crossrail / Heathrow
Express platforms at Old Oak Common. The two stations would be less than
100m apart but at this stage the quality and type of interchange is not
defined.

Support HS2 passenger dispersal across Central London

4.5. The HS2 proposals include plans to extend Crossrail services which are
currently planned to terminate at Paddington, further west to terminate at Old
Oak Common. This would provide up to an additional 14 trains per hour with
a maximum capacity of around 21,000 passengers per hour. Demand
modelling work undertaken by TfL has identified that up to a third of HS2
passengers wishing to access central London would interchange at Old Oak
Common for Crossrail rather than travel into Euston. Demand at Euston
reduces by around 9,000 passengers (in the AM peak) with Old Oak
Common compared to having no intermediate station. This is because
Crossrail offers journey time savings for accessing destinations such as
Canary Wharf, as demonstrated in Figure 4. It can also be seen that the
journey time from London to Birmingham is 8 minutes quicker in an Old Oak
8 
 
 Common scenario; the knock-on effect of this is to increase passenger
demand by 11%, compared to an HS2 alignment via Heathrow. This has the
effect of reducing the benefit cost ratio for Heathrow options below 2:1.

4.6. The Old Oak Common area provides the depot and stabling capability for
Crossrail, and there is little or no prospect of moving the stabling to anywhere
else on the Crossrail route – this would have to be considered in any of the
plans put forward by HS2 Ltd. Old Oak Common is critical to the success of
Crossrail and must be protected during both its construction and operational
phases, from disruption caused by HS2. However, TfL, as one of the joint
sponsors of the Crossrail project alongside the DfT, has been involved in
these discussions and the proposals put forward by HS2 Ltd for extending
Crossrail are technically feasible and could be delivered.

Provide access to HS2 from the wider area

4.7. Old Oak Common is currently a “land locked” site with no access by road.
Locating a major new rail interchange at this point would require connections
to the wider transport network to allow people to access the network and to
help realise the wider economic benefits of HS2 across outer London. There
are a number of options for achieving this and TfL is currently working with
HS2 Ltd to assess road and rail options. One option includes connecting the
station at Old Oak Common to the nearby London Overground network to
allow better orbital connectivity from south and north west London. Old Oak
Common has the potential to be within 45 minutes of around 1.3 million
people and 1.5 million jobs.

Heathrow Hub

4.8. The Iver proposal (put forward by Arup) would create an intermediate station
for HS2 at Iver to the north of Heathrow Terminal 5. This would require a
change in alignment for HS2 and a significantly longer tunnel than the Old
Oak Common alignment, adding to the overall cost by an estimated £2 billion.
The station would be served by HS2 services, GWML services and the
planned Crossrail services operating to Maidenhead (6 trains per hour). The
station would be connected to Heathrow either by an extension to the
Piccadilly Line, or by a new transit system, likely to be some form of high
capacity people mover. Details of the site location are set out in Figure 5.

Serving Heathrow

4.9. Whilst geographically closer to Heathrow, the Iver proposal would still require
passengers wishing to access Heathrow to change from HS2 onto a local
service to access to the airport. One option for this could be an extension of

9 
 
 the Piccadilly Line. Journey times to Terminals 123 & 5 would be around 5
minutes quicker than the Old Oak Common proposal but time to access
Terminal 4 would be comparable to Old Oak Common.

Support HS2 dispersal across Central London

4.10. The station at Iver would be connected to the planned Crossrail system but
onward journey times from Iver (45 minutes to Canary Wharf compared to 28
minutes with Old Oak Common) and the limited capacity (9,000 compared to
21,000) would mean that very few passengers would be attracted to
changing at Iver to access Greater London (less than half as many as in the
Old Oak Common scenario). Figure 6 indicates that the majority (65%) of
passengers changing at a Heathrow station would access areas outside
London. This is due to the proximity of the station to the GLA boundary.

4.11. Proposals for extending all 14 Crossrail services from Paddington to Iver (as
in the Old Oak Common proposal) would not be feasible unless major
widening of the GWML corridor took place to provide additional tracks. This
would add significantly to the cost and feasibility of the HS2 proposal.

Provide access to HS2 from the wider area

4.12. Iver does have good access to the motorway network. However, creating a
hub or parkway station served only by car would add to congestion of the
local road network. Accessing a station in this location by public transport
for residents and businesses in west, south west and north west London
would be extremely difficult, and difficult to provide for. Therefore the benefits
to London would be less. Modelling has shown that a Heathrow hub will be
within 45 minutes’ travel time for around 0.9 million people and 0.8 million
jobs; that is substantially less than for Old Oak Common intermediate station.

Heathrow Terminal station

4.13. HS2 have considered two options for a station serving Heathrow direct: one
option with a station adjacent to Terminal 5 (Option A), and a second option
for a station to the north of the existing runways in the vicinity of Bath Road
(Option B). Details of the Terminal 5 site location are set out in Figures 7 & 8.

Serving Heathrow

4.14. Option A would be within 400m of the T5 main terminal building connected by
a series of travelators or a dedicated transit system. This distance would
require between 6 and 8 separate travelators. Passengers wishing to access

10 
 
 other terminals would have to change onto Crossrail/Heathrow Express or
the Piccadilly Line at T5.

4.15. Option B would be up to a kilometre away from the central terminal area (too
far for a travelator connection) and connected by building a new station on
the existing Heathrow Express/Crossrail line which passes underneath in
tunnel. This would require passengers wishing to access any of the terminals
to change onto Heathrow Express/Crossrail for a short journey of between 3
and 10 minutes depending on which terminal they are travelling to.

Support HS2 passenger dispersal across Central London

4.16. Option A would not be directly connected to the planned Crossrail system and
therefore would not assist with the dispersal of passengers across central
London. Option B would be connected directly to Crossrail and could
potentially perform this function to a degree, albeit not as successfully as Old
Oak Common because onward journey times would be longer and the
capacity of the Crossrail line at this location would be less. Extending
Crossrail trains from Paddington to this point would be extremely costly as is
the case with Iver because of the need to widen the GWML corridor.

Provide access to HS2 from the wider area

4.17. Option A would have good road access from the M25 but would be limited in
terms of its access to the rest of west and south west/north west London by
rail and public transport. However, a station in this location would
complement the proposed Airtrack scheme, offering direct access to HS2
from places such as Guildford, Reading and Waterloo.

4.18. Option B, to the north of Heathrow along the
connected to Crossrail and have the potential
by bus. Unlike at Old Oak Common, there
connect a station here (or at Terminal 5) into
the wider area.
Bath Road corridor would be
to serve the surrounding area
would be little opportunity to
the local rail network to serve

Other options

4.19. We are aware that HS2 Ltd are continuing to investigate options for serving
Heathrow and we recognise that alternative options may emerge from HS2
Ltd that allow for Heathrow to be directly served by high speed rail, whilst
helping to disperse passengers more effectively across central London and
improving access to high speed rail from the wider London area. Transport
for London will continue to work closely with HS2 Ltd to consider all options.

11 
 
 5. Summary

5.1. The following table summarises the impact each option will have on each of
the three objectives (set out in section 3.5)

Objective Old Oak Common station Heathrow hub station Heathrow terminal station

Serving Requires a change onto  Requires a change onto a new  Option A 

Heathrow Crossrail/Heathrow Express  transit system / Piccadilly line  Direct access to Terminal 5 via 
400m travelator with onward 
10‐15 minutes to T123  5‐10  minutes by transit to  connections to other terminals 
terminals 1,2,3 & 5   via Crossrail/HEx 
15‐20 minutes to T4 & T5 
Terminal 4 more difficult to  Option B 
Allows access to all terminals  Bath Road option would require 
access  
all terminals to be accessed by 
Crossrail/HEx 
Support Crossrail allows capacity of over  More limited potential than  Option A 
dispersal 20,000 passengers per hour to  Old Oak Common because of  Very limited benefit for dispersal 
across central central London  the reduced Crossrail  of passengers 
London frequency/capacity and longer  Option B 
Around a third of HS2 
journey times  Some potential but Crossrail 
passengers change at Old Oak  frequency and capacity limited 
Common for central London  Arrivals at Euston = 88,000  compared to Old Oak Common 
destinations  per day (68% of HS2 demand) 
 
Arrivals at Euston = 95,000 per  Arrivals at Euston = 88,000 per 
day (66% of HS2 demand)  day (68% of HS2 demand) 

Improve Currently land locked  Good road links but risk of  Option A 

access to adding to congestion  Good road links but risk of adding 
Potential to better connect 
wider area to congestion 
west  and south west/north  Improves access to GWML  Has potential to be connected to 
west London   corridor   Airtrack, benefiting south west 
Significant journey time savings  No improvements to access  London 
to central London destinations  within west /south west and  Option B 
northwest London  Could be connected by bus but 
Would be within 45 minutes for  not rail to south west/north west 
nearly 1.5 million people  Would be within 45 minutes  London so impacts more limited 
for around 0.9 million people   
Improves access to GWML 
corridor   

12 
 
5.2. In summary, based on the current information, Old Oak Common has the
greatest potential to meet all three of the key objectives for HS2 in west
London. In taking this work forward, we believe further consideration should
be given to the following areas:

- To progress the design of the interchange at Old Oak Common to

demonstrate that movements between HS2 and Crossrail/Heathrow
Express services at Old Oak Common are as seamless as possible with
explicit provision for airport passengers including the potential for
escalator/travelator connections within the station to facilitate access.

- To investigate jointly with HS2 the potential for connecting Old Oak
Common into the local rail network to ensure access to the high speed
network is improved for residents and businesses of west, north west and
south London. This includes the potential for connecting the station to the
London Overground and London Underground networks.

- Alternative means of mitigating the demand at Euston would mean greater

emphasis could be placed on accessing Heathrow and thus the two
Heathrow options.

13