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

265424 242 A
Heathrow C:\Documents and

Settings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\100414_BAA_Submission_to_th
07 April 2010
e_LHR_HSR_Access_Review_Final.doc
This page is intentionally blank
April 2010
This page is intentionally blank
BAA - Heathrow Airport Ltd
Mott MacDonald, Prince House, 43-51 Prince Street, Bristol BS1 4PS, United Kingdom
Mott MacDonald,
T +44(0) 117 906 Prince
9500 House, 43-51 906
F +44 (0)117 Prince Street,
9501 Bristol BS1 4PS, United Kingdom
W www.mottmac.com
T +44(0) 117 906 9500 F +44 (0)117 906 9501 W www.mottmac.com
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
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
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

265424///242/A 07 April 2010

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
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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

 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.
 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
265424///242/A 07 April 2010

7

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

Reliant almost entirely on local traffic.
proportion of transfer traffic.
Larger aircraft with fewer routes required to

Smaller aircraft, more routes and flights.
serve a set number of destinations.
Full connectivity achieved through using transfer Connectivity limited to destinations with
traffic as a supplement on “thinner” routes. sufficient originating/departing demand.
An additional destination offered from a hub An additional destination offered benefits just
benefits the whole network. that route in the network.
Normally, a variety of aircraft types with Simple fleets, high aircraft utilisation and fast
complex fleet management. ground turnaround.
Constrained by available capacity at hub. Not normally airport constrained.
Where sufficient capacity exists, airlines tend to No benefit in “wave” patterns – flights can
operate in “wave” patterns to maximise the depart at times to meet specific requirements
transfer capability. of local markets.
Table 1: Characteristics of network and point to point operations
265424///242/A 07 April 2010

8

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

9

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
2.1 million 460 thousand 22%
Movements
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

10


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
‡‡
265424///242/A 07 April 2010

11

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).
150.0
145.0
140.0
135.0
Pax per Total ATM
130.0
125.0
120.0
115.0
110.0
105.0
100.0
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Figure 8: Heathrow average aircraft size (Pax per ATM) 1988-2009

(Source: CAA airport statistics)
265424///242/A 07 April 2010

12

120
100
Destinations Served
80
60
40
20
0
Domestic Short Haul Long Haul
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

13

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.
Difference in Average
Airport 1989 1999 2009 Annual Volume Growth
(2009 v 1989) (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
869,897 2,920,231 3,665,181 2,795,284 7.5%
Schiphol
Sub-total
1,678,134 5,117,185 6,712,553 5,034,419 7.2%
European Hubs
Heathrow 7,115,240 7,141,253 5,254,605 -1,860,635 -1.5%
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

14

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.
100.0
Paris-Brussels
Paris-Lyon
Tokyo-Osaka
Stockholm-
Gothenburg Madrid-Seville
80.0 Paris-London (New) London-Leeds
Rome-Bologne
London-Paris
% Travel by Rail v Air
Paris-Bordeaux (Original)
60.0
London-Brussels London-Newcastle
(Original)
Paris-Amsterdam
40.0
New York- Rome-Milan
Washington
StokholmMalmo
London-Edinburgh
20.0
New York-Boston
0.0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Rail Journey Time (hrs)
Figure 11: Share of travel by rail on selected city pairs

(Source: Greengauge & International Union of Railways)
265424///242/A 07 April 2010

15

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.
_________________________
§§
265424///242/A 07 April 2010

16

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

17

 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

18

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

19

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

20

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:
Ω
 A station „at‟ Heathrow (located centrally within the existing airport campus ) , 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

21

Min.Route
Min.Route
Length/Journey
Length/Journeytime
time
a.
a. b.
b.
Alternative
Alternative MBesraking
Best Best Use
Integration
Heathrow
Heathrow Option Preferences ? Existing Heathrow
Connections?
Connections? Assets ?
Min.Tunnel
Min.Tunnel
c.
c. Length/CAPEX
Length/CAPEX d.
d.
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

22

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

23

Heathrow Hub with Tunnel On-Airport Station with Tunnel

Connection from Old Oak Common Connection from Old Oak Common
Surface
Surface HSR
HSR Link
Link Surface
Surface HSR
HSR Link
Link
Tunnelled
Tunnelled HSR
HSR Link
Link Tunnelled
Tunnelled HSR
HSR Link
Link
Through
Through Routes
Routes Through
Through Routes
Routes
a.
a. Old
Old Oak
Oak -- Heathrow
Heathrow HubHub –– Denham
Denham b.
b. Old
Old Oak Heathrow –– Denham
Oak -- Heathrow Denham
(24km,
(24km, 18km
18km in
in tunnel)
tunnel) (33km
(33km length,
length, 27km
27km in
in tunnel)
tunnel)
Heathrow Hub with Tunnel „On-Airport‟ HSR Station with

Connection from Northolt Tunnel Connection from Northolt
Surface
Surface HSR
HSR Link
Link Surface
Surface HSR
HSR Link
Link
Tunnelled
Tunnelled HSR
HSR Link
Link Tunnelled
Tunnelled HSR
HSR Link
Link
Through
Through Routes
Routes
Through
Through Routes
Routes d.
d. Northolt
Northolt -- Heathrow
Heathrow -- Denham
Denham
(28km
(28km length,
length, 22km
22km in
in tunnel)
c.
c. Northolt
Northolt -- Heathrow
Heathrow HubHub –– Denham
Denham tunnel)
(19km,
(19km, 13km
13km in
in tunnel)
tunnel)
Old Oak Common Station Hub
Tunnelled
Tunnelled HSR
HSR Link
Link
Surface
Surface HSR
HSR Link
Link
Old Oak
Station Hub
HSR
HSR via
via Old
Old Oak
Oak Station
Station Hub
Hub
e.
e. Old
Old Oak
Oak -- Denham
Denham
(20km
(20km length
length at
at Surface)
Surface)
Figure 13: Route & station options considered
265424///242/A 07 April 2010

24

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

25

[-] 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
at Hub, but additional journey to Terminals link, with minimal/no connection from
- Rail unlikely to compete with Air Links
Air/Rail Substitution
if station only station to Terminals
'Broken Link': Need to change train, is this
(Passenger Experience)
significantly better than now?
[=]
[+]
[-]
Reduced airport impacts

Highest airport impacts
Minimal airport impacts
Higher Environmental Impacts

Environmental Impact may be contained
(Hex enhancements only)
Deliverability
Planning Consents more
within the airport boundary
Brownfield Development, but with wider
(Impact, Environment,
challenging/complex to Green belt and
Planning Consents eased by location
residential/community impacts
Planning)
further airport expansion
within existing airport boundary
Planning benefits
[=]
[=]
[+]
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
Future Proofing/Flexibility 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
Frequency & Range of Intercity, Hex, Crossrail, Airtrack, GWML Intercity, Crossrail, Central Line,
Intercity, Crossrail
Rail Services to LHR 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
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.
265424///242/A 07 April 2010

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.
265424///242/A 07 April 2010

28


First
Country Main Routes Year of Airport Connections
Service
Full high speed running achieved 2007 – No
United London Paris 1994
direct airport rail connections with London
Kingdom London Brussels 1994
Eurostar Terminal.
All lines connected to CDG Rail Station.
Paris – Bordeaux 1990
Paris – Lyon line serves LYS.
Paris-Lyon 1981
France
Paris-Amsterdam 2009
Conventional (225 km/h) running between Tours
Paris-London 1994
and Bordeaux.
No airport connection – Full high speed running
Brussels – Paris 1994 to London commenced in 2007*
Belgium Brussels – London 1994
Brussels - Cologne 2008 Conventional speed running between Liege and
German border.
Direct connection but with conventional speed
Netherlands Amsterdam-Paris 2009 running between Amsterdam Centraal and
Schiphol.
Cologne – Frankfurt 2002 CGN and FRA airport connections (Conventional
speed running CGN to Cologne Centre)
Nuremburg – Munich 2006 No direct airport connections
Germany
Manneheim - Stuttgart 1991 No direct airport connections
Berlin - Hamburg 1998 No direct airport connections

FCO linked to Rome centre by rail shuttle and
Rome-Florence 1991
metro.
Italy Rome-Naples 2005
MXP connected to Milan centre by „Malpensa
Turin-Milan 2009
Express‟ rail service – about 40 minutes‟ journey.
„Arlanda Express‟ connects ARN with Stockholm
Stockholm-Malmo
Sweden 1999 city centre in 22 minutes, for onward „high speed‟
Stockholm-Gothenburg
connections to Malmo/Gothenburg.
Madrid-Seville 1992 MAD connected to city centre (and to the main
Spain
Madrid-Malaga 1993 rail network) by underground from airport.
Tokyo-Osaka 1964 Currently, Narita Express offers fast alternative to
„normal‟ train.
Japan
NRT set to gain high speed rail („Skyliner‟
service) from July 2010, connecting airport and
city centre.
TPE‟s high speed rail station is about 8km from
the airport, and currently connected by bus. A rail
Taiwan Taipei-Kaohsiung 2007
link is expected to connect the airport and the
high speed rail station in 2013.
265424///242/A 07 April 2010

29


First
Country Main Routes Year of Airport Connections
Service
Wuhan–Guangzhou Shanghai Maglev Train designed to connect PVG
Beijing-Tianjin to the outskirts of central Shanghai, where pax
China Shanghai Maglev Train 2004 can interchange.
PEK served by Metro connection to Beijing city.

Seoul-Busan 2004 Incheon airport Railroad Express is planned to
Seoul-Mokpo Planned connect ICN with Seoul Rail Station in the city,
South Korea
for 2014 construction began in 2007 and is expected to be
completed in 2010.
Boston-Washington DC 2000 JFK AirTrain service connects the airport to the
USA (via New York, NY Metro.
Philadelphia, Baltimore)
Rio de Janeiro-São Planned High speed rail is planned to operate between
Paulo for 2014/ Sao Paulo and Rio by 2014 although formal
2016 bidding for the project is yet to begin (2016
Brazil 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
265424///242/A 07 April 2010

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.
265424///242/A 07 April 2010

31

High Speed Rail Access To Heathrow BAA Submission To The Lord Mawhinney Review

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

High Speed Rail Access To Heathrow BAA Submission To The Lord Mawhinney Review

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

High Speed Rail Access

High Speed Rail Access to

Heathrow C:\Documents and

This page is intentionally blank

This page is intentionally blank

BAA - Heathrow Airport Ltd

Chapter Title Page

1. An integrated transport solution 1

1.2 Optimising carbon emissions __________________________________________________________ 2

1.3 Low carbon benefits – Air to Rail substitution ______________________________________________ 3

1.5 West London public transport interchange ________________________________________________ 5

2. Importance of Heathrow as an international hub airport 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

2.5.1 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

3.1.1 Passenger experience ______________________________________________________________ 19

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

265424///242/A 07 April 2010

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

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

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

Figure 2: The rise of the European hubs ____________________________________________________________ iv

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

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

Figure 6: Hub network __________________________________________________________________________ 7

Figure 7: Point to point operation __________________________________________________________________ 7

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

Figure 13: Route & station options considered_______________________________________________________ 24

265424///242/A 07 April 2010

Integrated transport for reduced carbon

“The right journey on the right mode”

Integrated transport and Air/Rail substitution

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

Integrated transport and airline networks

265424///242/A 07 April 2010

265424///242/A 07 April 2010

In 1991 there were 23 UK airports

Displaced passengers are being forced

Figure 1: The decline of domestic flights to Heathrow Airport

265424///242/A 07 April 2010

With the withdrawal of many domestic services to