high speed rail access to heathrow: baa 2nd submission to lord mawhinney’s review

8/8/2019 High Speed Rail Access to Heathrow: BAA 2nd Submission to Lord Mawhinneys Review

1/18

High Speed Rail Accessto Heathrow

BAA 2nd

Submission toLord Mawhinneys Review

11th June 2010


2/18


3/18

_ _ _

Error! No text of specified style in document.

265424 242 AC:\Documents andSett ings\hod30226\Desktop\3RR3\HSR\100414 BAA_Submission to th07 April 2010

High Speed Rail Access toHeathrow

April 2010

BAA - Heathrow A irport Ltd

High Speed Rail Access to HeathrowBAA 2ndSubmission to Lord Mawhinneys Review

This page is intentionally blank


4/18

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

High Speed Rail Access to HeathrowBAA 2ndSubmission to the Lord Mawhinney Review

Executive SummaryThis document builds on BAAs 1

stsubmission to the Lord Mawhinney Review (dated April 2010) and the

draft interim advice in our letter dated 28th

May 2010.

It examines the addressable market share, economic, carbon and station design implications of alternativeoptions for connecting HS2 to Londons hub airport Heathrow assuming it is at maximum capacity with 2runways in 2030. It is structured around 5 sections, as follows:

Heathrow Connection Options: Description of on or near airport options for connecting HS2 toHeathrow relative to a baseline off airport connection at Old Oak Common.

Addressable Market: The maximum potential market and likely conversion of this addressablemarket of air to rail substitution and its implications for flights from Heathrow and UK regions.

Carbon Savings: The maximum potential and likely carbon savings from air to rail substitutionfrom High Speed Rail (HSR) network connections with Heathrow.

Economic Benefits: The maximum potential and likely economic benefits to the UK and regionsresulting from increased international connectivity arising from HSR.

Station Design: Preliminary feasibility assessment of possible on airport station designs.Key Findings

The location of the High Speed Rail connection to Heathrow airport is fundamental to securingeconomic, carbon and passenger experience benefits.

This analysis shows that an integrated on or near Heathrow airport connection offers positiveeconomic, carbon and passenger experience benefits compared to an off airport connectionsuch as at Old Oak Common.

Addressable Market

There is a maximum potential for up to 29,000 air traffic movements (ATMs) to be substituted atHeathrow by HSR.

In addition up to 62,000 ATMs from UKs regional airports to EU hub airports could be avoided bychannelling UK origin/destination long haul transfer passengers to Heathrow (by HSR) where theycould connect to long haul destinations.

Not all of this potential market will be converted, since passengers are guided by considerationsof travel time, frequency and integration with onward travel.

A fully integrated on or near airport connection converts 9,000-10,000 domestic flights toHeathrow and 29,000-35,000 regional short haul transfer flights to Europe from the regions to railgiving a total of 38,000-45,000 saved flights.

This compares to 7,000 domestic flights and 13,000 regional short haul flights converted to rail forthe off airport connection giving a total of 20,000 saved flights.

Significantly fewer flights are converted with an off airport connection since passengers translatethe additional transfer to the airport into a penalty that reflects their anxiety over the reliability andfrequency of the transfer, lack of familiarity with the interchange and managing their luggage andthe additional journey time to complete the journey. The issue of direct services to the airportrather than a remote interchange is therefore significant.

Extending the High Speed Rail network to Scotland increases the maximum potential market aswould consideration of HS1 which has not been considered here.

Heathrow can accommodate the extra passengers re-routed from alternative European hubs withonly a minor increase in load, even if 100% of in-scope air passengers were to switch to rail.

i


5/18



The saved air traffic movements provide an opportunity to increase high value, non substitutablelong haul journeys which deliver maximum economic and carbon efficiencies.

Carbon Savings (see Section 3 and Appendix I)

Rail to air substitution offers a maximum potential for net global savings of 0.5 million tonnes ofCO2 (MtCO2) per year in 2030 in our base scenario, rising to 0.75MtCO2 in our upside scenario.

In the base scenario, taking into account the likely number of passengers that would convert anintegrated on or near airport connection offers a likely saving of up to 0.26 MtCO2 per year in2030. This compares to 0.12 MtCO2 with the off airport Old Oak Common baseline, a differenceof 0.14MtCO2.

In the upside scenario, taking into account the likely number of passengers that would convert anintegrated on or near airport connection offers a likely saving of up to 0.4 MtCO2 per year in2030. This compared to 0.2 MtCO2 with the off airport Old Oak Common baseline, and differenceof 0.2MtCO2.

Discounting the carbon savings over a 60 year life using Committee on Climate Changeassumptions on the value of carbon results in 1bn of economic benefit from an on or nearairport connection, 0.5bn more than for the off airport connection at Old Oak Common.

Extrapolating this analysis to include HS1 is likely to offer additional carbon (and economic)benefits.

Economic Benefits (see Section 4 and Appendix II)

In the base market share scenario the likely value of the converted passengers is up to 9bn forthe integrated on or near airport connections

This compares to a value of 6.6bn for an off airport connection, a difference of 2.4bn in favour ofthe on or near airport connection.

In the upside market share scenario the likely value of the converted passengers increases to12.3bn for the integrated on or near airport connections, compared to a value of 9bn for an offairport connection, a difference of 3.3bn.

Station Design (see Section 5 and Appendix III)

Five high speed rail station locations have been identified as being feasible at or near to HeathrowAirport: Central Terminal Area (CTA), Terminal 4, Terminal 5, Bath Road, and a HeathrowInternational Hub on the Great Western Mainline between Iver & West Drayton.

Each station location has been assessed in terms of its connectivity, constructability, and capitalcosts.

In terms of connectivity, the Bath Road, Terminal 5 and CTA locations are preferred due to theirproximity to the terminals and public transport interchange facilities.

In terms of constructability, all locations are challenging to construct, although less central stationsoffer some benefits over more central options.

In terms of capital costs, station costs including airport transit links range between 2.3 and 2.5bnwhere the HSR route is realigned through the airport (option 4) and to approximately 1.8bn if a

loop or relief line is provided (option 5) since the station footprint and platform faces are reduced.

Further work is required to refine and develop the assessment.This study has only examined HS2 which is the context of the Lord Mawhinney review. Due toHeathrows unique status as a major European hub we believe the benefits identified here could be

greater when considered in the context of HS1 and we would therefore recommend that these areexamined further.

ii


6/18


Potential London station location optionsBase assumed HSR route

Description Illustration

Old Oak Commoninterchange only

1 Birmingham OldOakHSRtrainsstopatOldOakCommonandEustononly;connecttoLHRviaHeathrowExpress

Common(dispersal)

LondonLHR (Euston)

ModeledHSRnetworkPotentiallinktoLHRPotentialextensiontoScotland

Glasgow Edinburgh

LeedsManchester

Birmingham

Heathrow London

Newcastle(notonroute)

HSR link to LHRvia on-airportloop

5 HSRloopgives BBiirrmmiinngghhaamm OOllddOOaakkpassengersoptionof C

)(dispersalC(dispersal)oommmmoonndirectserviceseither

toLHR

or

OOC

LLoonnddoonn

LLHH (RR (EEuussttoonn))Source: CCCreport;GovernmentCommandpaper

HSR link to LHRvia spur (CCCmodelled)

2 OldOakBirminghamCommon(dispersal)HSRlinkdirectto/fromHeathrowand

theNorthviaaspurline(withreduced Londonfrequency) LHR (Euston)

HSR link to LHRvia Iver Hub

3 Birmingham(dispersal)Iverhub~4kmnorthofLHR,

providingdispersalwithInterchangestation

Londonairportaccessby LHR(Euston)unmannedshuttle

HSR link to LHRvia on-airportstation

4 LHRstationonmainHSRroute,alsoprovidingdispersaltootherconnecting

Birmingham

LondonLHRservices (Euston)(dispersal)


1. Heathrow Connection OptionsThis study takes the Command Paper proposal of a Y-shape HSR route network with a station at Old Oak

Common as its base scenario. In order to understand the potential benefits of greater Heathrow

connectivity it has examined 4 additional Heathrow to London connection options. See below.

The assessment has categorised the connection options into a baseline off airport (option 1 above) and

integrated on or near airport options (option 2-5).

The assessment has also examined as an additional scenario the implications of extending the core Y

shaped HSR network to Scotland.

In addition this analysis has also examined more detailed configurations of station location and airport

connectivity. These are described further in Section 5.

No consideration has been taken of HS1 although it is likely that this would increase the benefits identified

later in this analysis.

iii


7/18


_________________________


2. Addressable Market

2.1 KeyFindings

There is a maximum potential for up to 29,000 air traffic movements (ATMs) to be substituted atHeathrow by HSR.

In addition up to 62,000 ATMs from UKs regional airports to EU hub airports could be avoided bychannelling UK origin/destination long haul transfer passengers to Heathrow (by HSR) where they

could connect to long haul destinations.

Not all of this potential market will be converted, since passengers are guided by considerationsof travel time, frequency and integration with onward travel.

A fully integrated on or near airport connection converts 9,000-10,000 domestic flights toHeathrow and 29,000-35,000 regional short haul transfer flights to Europe from the regions to rail

giving a total of 38,000-45,000 saved flights.

This compares to 7,000 domestic flights and 13,000 regional short haul flights converted to rail forthe off airport connection giving a total of 20,000 saved flights.

Significantly fewer flights are converted with an off airport connection since passengers translatethe additional transfer to the airport into a penalty that reflects their anxiety over the reliability and

frequency of the transfer, lack of familiarity with the interchange and managing their luggage and

the additional journey time to complete the journey. The issue of direct services to the airport

rather than a remote interchange is therefore significant.

Extending the High Speed Rail network to Scotland increases the maximum potential market aswould consideration of HS1 which has not been considered here.

Heathrow can accommodate the extra passengers re-routed from alternative European hubs withonly a minor increase in load, even if 100% of in-scope air passengers were to switch to rail.

The saved air traffic movements provide an opportunity to increase high value, non substitutablelong haul journeys which deliver maximum economic and carbon efficiencies.

2.2 SizingtheaddressablemarketforHSR1In 2030 with Heathrow operating at full capacity from its two runways (480,000 ATMs) this assessment

estimates that a maximum of 11.5 million air passengers per annum could be shifted to rail if the HSR

network were in place. The base scenario assumes the governments proposed Y-shape route HSR

network which will end at Manchester and Leeds, with onward connections to Scotland at normal speed.

1All passenger and air traffic movements are quoted as annuals

iv


8/18


_________________________


These passengers split into three categories for a two runway Heathrow operating at maximum capacity in

2030, as follows:

Heathrow passengers bound directly for London2: 2.6 million passengers per annum (in 2030)are predicted to fly point to point between Heathrow and a UK regional airport near the HSR

network (an HSR airport), using ~18,000 ATMs.

Passengers transferring via Heathrow: 1.6 million passengers per annum (in 2030) arepredicted to fly between an HSR airport and Heathrow and transfer to an onward connection,

using ~11,000 ATMs.

Passengers transferring via other European hubs: 7.3 million passengers (in 2030) arepredicted to fly from an HSR airport to other European hubs apart from Heathrow, and then

connect to an onward flight, using ~62,000 ATMs since capacity constraints on Heathrows two

runways will create a spill-over effect, forcing UK passengers to transfer via other hubs.

If, by 2030, all 11.5 million of the passengers from these other flights were to switch to HSR (by travelling

directly to London by rail, or taking a train to Heathrow to connect to an onward flight), it is estimated that

up to 91,000 short haul ATMs could be eliminated globally (see Table 1), of which 29,000 would be at

Heathrow3

(18,000 from point-to-point and 11,000 from transfer passengers).

Based on the input of industry experts this analysis assumes that Heathrows freed-up ATMs would be

used to increase long haul capacity. Because these extra Heathrow flights would be taking the place of

flights operated for UK passengers from European hubs, within this study it is assumed that the net effect

is that the total global number of ATMs does not increase.

2.3 EstimatingHSRsmarketshareResearch studies

4of air-to-rail modal switching show that the proportion of air passengers who will

convert or migrate to HSR depends directly on generalised journey time (GJT): i.e., the sum of journey

time, transfer time, frequency penalties, interchange penalties, egress time, and check-in time.

The location of the HSR station serving Heathrow will greatly affect all of these components, and hence

the extent to which air passengers will migrate to rail and therefore the resulting economic and carbon

benefits.

Current case studies suggest that rails market share is ~40 percentage points lower for transfer

passengers travelling to an airport than for point-to-point passengers heading directly for the city centre.

There is evidence to suggest that offering check-in and baggage consignment facilities at rail stations can,however, significantly improve take up by transfer passengers. We have assumed that a seamless

passenger interface between rail and air would reduce the difference in market share by 20 percentage

points (see case study).

2Flights between regional airports on the HSR network have been ignored in this analysis. This analysis also ignores the 8.2 millionpassengers projected to fly point-to-point in 2030 between airports on the HSR network and London airports other than Heathrow.

3Heathrow ATMs are calculated using projected load factors as per forecast schedules; for non-Heathrow ATMs, we assume 156seat plane (e.g., A320) with typical 75% load factor

4See for example Committee on Climate Change Aviation report, December 2009

v


9/18


Case Study integrated rail-air service

A high speed rail line opened in 2002 linking Cologne to Frankfurt Airport in around an hour. Passengersconnecting to flights from Frankfurt can check-in, or drop-off baggage, at Cologne or Stuttgart train

stations. They can also earn frequent flyer points and miles when on the train. Within a year, Lufthansa cutair capacity between Cologne and Frankfurt by over 40%. 5 years later, Lufthansa cut all flights betweenthe two cities

The analysis has assessed five connection options as described in Section 1 earlier. Based on the GJT

methodology, it estimates that the integrated on or near airport connection would result in between

38,000-45,000 saved ATMs (41-49% of the addressable market in 2030) switching to rail versus 20,000

ATMs (21%) for the off airport Old Oak Common connection. (see Table 1).

The key driver for this difference is passengers reluctance to transfer during their journey. This is

represented through an Interchange Penalty (IP) and is added to the GJT to represent passengers anxiety

over the reliability and frequency of the transfer, lack of familiarity with the interchange and managing their5luggage. For long journeys, such as those on the HSR network IP is significant and will translate intosignificant loss of passenger demand. The issue of direct services to the airport rather than a remote

interchange is therefore significant.

Heathrow would be able accommodate the extra passengers re-routed from alternative European or

London hubs with only a minor increase in load (less than 3 additional passengers), even if 100% of in-

scope air passengers were to switch to rail.

Table 1: Reduction in air traffic movements, 2030 (thousands)

Savings at 100%

market share

Integrated on/near

airport connection

Off Airport

connection

Heathrow passengers bound directly for

London

18 6 6

Passengers transferring via Heathrow 11 3-4 1

Passengers transferring via a

European hub (or other London hubs)

62 29-35 13

Total 91 38-45 20

_________________________


Extending the HSR route network to Scotland and consideration of HS1 is likely to increase the potential

market.

5The IP methodology is defined in the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook

vi


10/18


_________________________


3. Carbon Savings

3.1 KeyFindings

Rail to air substitution offers a maximum potential for net global savings of 0.5 million tonnes ofCO2 (MtCO2) per year in 2030 in our base scenario, rising to 0.75MtCO2 in our upside scenario.

In the base scenario, taking into account the likely number of passengers that would convert anintegrated on or near airport connection offers a likely saving of up to 0.26 MtCO2 per year in

2030. This compares to 0.12 MtCO2 with the off airport Old Oak Common baseline, a difference

of 0.14MtCO2.

In the upside scenario, taking into account the likely number of passengers that would convert anintegrated on or near airport connection offers a likely saving of up to 0.4 MtCO2 per year in

2030. This compared to 0.2 MtCO2 with the off airport Old Oak Common baseline, and

difference of 0.2MtCO2.

Discounting the carbon savings over a 60 year life using Committee on Climate Changeassumptions on the value of carbon results in 1bn of economic benefit from an on or near

airport connection, 0.5bn more than for the off airport connection at Old Oak Common.

Extrapolating this analysis to include HS1 is likely to offer additional carbon (and economic)benefits.

3.2 Quantifyingthecarbonsavings(basescenario)In estimating the potential CO2 savings from air-to-rail shift this analysis has assumed that air travel will

increase its carbon efficiency at 0.8% per year6

to 100-150 grams per passenger-kilometre in 2030. (The

exact figure will depend on the length of the flight). We have assumed that rail emissions in 2030 will be 43

grams of CO2 per passenger-kilometre7.

Switching the entire addressable market to rail, therefore, could generate a saving of 522 kt of CO2 per

year in 2030. Of this, 226-262 kt could be captured through an integrated on or near airport connection,

around double the 118 kt saved under the off airport Old Oak Common alternative (see Table 2). Thesesavings apply at a global level, however since some long haul flights from European hubs will now be

leaving from Heathrow this will increase absolute UK emissions.

6EMEP/EEEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook (2009)

7Based on AEA Environmental Performance of HSR (2008)

vii


11/18


Savings at 100% Integrated on or near Off Airportmarket share airport connection Old Oak Common

Heathrow passengers bound 90 28-30 31

directly for London

Passengers transferring via 54 13-18 3

Heathrow

Additional assengers transferring 378 185-216 84

via a European hub (or other

London hubs)

Total 5228

226-262 118

_________________________


Table 2: Reduction in global aviation emissions (CO2kilotonnes)

When assessing the impact of HSR connection to Heathrow on aviation emissions, this analysis has also

briefly considered how mainline rail passenger emissions could be affected. It is believed that any mainline

diversion which passes through a station at or near Heathrow could add between 5 to 15km in distance

versus the Old Oak Common alternative and this could result in a marginal increase in emissions.

3.3 AssessingpotentialupsidescenarioThe likely CO2 savings from air to rail substitution are highly sensitive to various assumptions, including:

the extent of the HSR network and the carbon efficiency of electricity generation (and hence rail travel) in

2030.

The base scenario used conservative assumptions. Flexing these, as described below, could result in

savings of up to 357-408 kt of CO2 a year for the integrated on or near airport connection, again aroundtwice as much as the 188 kt saved under the Old Oak Common alternative (see Table 3).

Extend HSR network to Scotland: under the governments proposed scheme, HSR would stopat Leeds and Manchester. Extending the route north to Edinburgh and Glasgow would reduce rail

travel times to these destinations by around 45 minutes, and consequently increase take up by

Scotland-bound passengers

Increasing the carbon efficiency of power generation: generating the electricity required topower rail rolling stock currently emits 537 kg of CO2 per megawatt-hour. In our base case 2030

scenario we have assumed carbon intensity of 414 kg of CO2 per megawatt-hour, but in our upside

scenario we assume more efficient generation technologies (mainly nuclear) reduce this to 100 kgof CO2 per megawatt-hour

8Total is for the best and worst case station location scenarios, rather than the sum of each of the minimum and maximumcomponents

viii


12/18


Savings at 100%market share Integrated on or nearairport connection Off airport connection

Total carbon savings under

base case assumptions

522 226-262 118

Impact on market share of

extending HSR to Scotland

- +29 +14Impact on emissions of

more efficient electricity

generation

+223 +102-116 +56

Total 745 357-408 188

On or near airport Off airport Incremental value of on

connection value, connection or near airport vs. off

million value, million airport, million

Economic impact with 633-734 331 302-403likely market share

(base case)

Additional economic +367-409 +196 +171-213

impact of potential

upside scenario

Total Economic value 1,000-1,045 527 473-518

in upside scenario

_________________________


Table 3: Reduction in global aviation emissions9

(CO2kilotonnes)

3.4 EstimatingtheeconomicbenefitsofsavedcarbonTo estimate the economic benefit associated with the carbon savings from the alternatives HSR

connections, this analysis has assumed that:

the carbon price in 2025 will be 50 rising to 200 per tonne in 2050 (as the Committee on ClimateChange believes) thereafter increasing in line with inflation,

the benefits will accrue for 60 years starting in 2025, and the appropriate discount rate is 3.5% until 2040, 3.0% from then until 2070, and 2.5% from 2071

until 2085 (as the DfT typically assumes).

Under these assumptions, the value to society of an on or near airport connection is 302-403m (at 2010

prices) greater than the off airport Old Oak Common alternative in our base case (see Table 4). In the

upside scenario, the benefit could rise to 473-518m.

Table 4: Economic benefits of CO2saving for an on or near airport vs. off airport connection

9These savings apply at a global level, although because some long haul flights from European hubs will now be leaving fromHeathrow this will increase absolute UK emissions.

ix


13/18


_________________________


4. Economic Benefits

4.1 KeyFindings In the base market share scenario the likely value of the converted passengers is up to 9bn for

the integrated on or near airport connections.

This compares to a value of 6.6bn for an off airport connection, a difference of 2.4bn in favour ofthe on or near airport connection.

In the upside market share scenario the likely value of the converted passengers increases to12.3bn for the integrated on or near airport connections, compared to a value of 9bn for an offairport connection, a difference of 3.3bn.

4.2 CalculatingandvaluinginternationalconnectivityThe approach to valuation is based on the 2007 study for IATA on the Economic Benefits of Aviation. That

was one of a number of reports reviewed as part of the British Chamber of Commerce10

2009 study and

the one which produced the lowest elasticity of productivity with respect to international connectivity. The

results from other research indicated much higher returns.

There are good reasons why it is reasonable to expect international connectivity to improve productivity.

International links open up new product markets, new labour markets and the ability to exchange ideas

and innovations all of which drive improvements to UK productivity.

International connectivity is measured by bringing together:

The destinations served and the numbers of users of the airport at each destination, The size of the planes serving each destinations (number of seats), and The frequency of flights.

Thus under the international connectivity measure it is better to fly large planes to major destinations than

small planes to minor airports. Domestic flights do not count in the calculation of international connectivity,but the BCC report used changes in connectivity from the regions to show how the overall growth was

distributed.

The air demand changes brought about by HSR (see Section 2) are important because Heathrow is

capacity constrained, it is not possible to increase international flights unless some domestic flights are

removed.

The international connectivity benefit is expressed as the increase in Gross Value Added (GVA) that would

be brought about by the scheme. The benefit is calculated using the following assumptions:

10Economic Impacts of Hub Airports, 2009 Colin Buchanan for the British Chambers of Commerce

x


14/18


Integrated on or near

airport connection

Off airport connection Difference

Total connectivity benefit 9.0 6.6 +2.4

Integrated on/near

airport connection

Off airport

connection

Incremental benefit (On/near

airport vs Off airport)

Total connectivity benefit

under base case assumptions

9.0 6.6 +2.4

Total connectivity benefit with

extension of HSR to Scotland

12.3 9.0 +3.3


60 year lifetime of benefits Discount rate of 3.5% a year until 2040, reducing to 3.0% after 30 years and 2.5% thereafter (in

line with Department for Transport appraisal guidance)

Real GVA growth of 1.5% a year The addressable market share assessments outlined in Section 2

Table 5 compares the likely connectivity benefit between an off airport and on or near airport connection

Table 5: International connectivity benefit (bn PV)

An integrated solution would offer benefits of approximately 9.0bn in Present Value terms, 2.4bn (35%)

greater than the benefits from an off airport solution.

4.3 PotentialupsidescenarioThe results are largely driven by the extent to which air demand between regional airports and Heathrow

switches to rail, since this determines the scale of capacity that would become available to increase

international flights from Heathrow. An upside of extending the HSR network to Scotland has also been

examined consistent with the upside scenario described in Section 3.

This would see a higher shift to rail for passengers from Edinburgh and Glasgow who are either interlining

at Heathrow or travelling point-to-point to London. Table 6 shows the results for this scenario compared

with the base case.

Table 6: International connectivity benefit in upside scenario (bn PV)

The benefits would increase with an extension of the network to Scotland. Under that scenario the benefit

of an integrated on or near airport solution would be approximately 12.3bn, and 3.3bn greater than the

benefit of an off airport solution in the same upside scenario.

Consideration of HS1 would also likely increase benefits further.

xi


15/18



5. Station Design

5.1 KeyFindings Five high speed rail station locations have been identified as being feasible at or near to Heathrow

Airport :Central Terminal Area (CTA), Terminal 4, Terminal 5, Bath Road, and Heathrow

International Hub on the Great Western Mainline between Iver & West Drayton.

Each station location has been assessed in terms of its connectivity, constructability, and capitalcosts.

In terms of connectivity, the Bath Road, Terminal 5 and CTA locations are preferred due to theirproximity to the terminals and public transport interchange facilities.

In terms of constructability, all locations are challenging to construct, although less central stationsoffer some benefits over more central options.

In terms of capital costs, station costs including airport transit links range between 2.3 and 2.5bnwhere the HSR route is realigned through the airport (option 4) and to approximately 1.8bn if a

loop or relief line is provided (option 5) since the station footprint and platform faces are reduced.

Further work is required to refine and develop the assessment.5.2 StationLocationOptionFeasibility/ConstructabilityFigure 1 shows the location of the five potential high speed rail station at or near Heathrow. A sixth location

has previously been considered in relation to a sixth terminal/third runway, but is now discounted due to

revised government policy.

All of the identified options are considered to be feasible from a construction perspective. Key

differentiating features between the options are:

The station beneath the Central Terminal Area (CTA) is the most difficult to construct but offers theoptimum connectivity.

The T5 and Heathrow Hub Stations would offer least disruption to the airport but greater overallenvironmental impacts.

Due to existing and proposed underground structures any of the CTA, T4 or T5 stations wouldneed to be constructed within bored tunnels.

Bath Road Station could be provided at lower cost within a shallow cut and cover structure The Hub Station is likely to have to be raised above existing ground levels in relation to its location

within the River Colnes flood plain.

Connecting routes would vary with station location, but all could potentially link to both HS2 andthe Great Western Mainline.

xii


16/18


17/18



Considering overall connectivity to terminals and public transport interchange facilities, these preliminary

connectivity options suggest the following principal comparators:

The CTA station would have the best overall connectivity to Terminals and Public TransportInterchange facilities, with T5 and Bath Road also providing good connectivity and a reasonable

level of equivalence between terminals.

The Hub Station would have the worst airport connectivity. Further work will be required to optimise transit system provision, and confirm preferences.

5.4 CapitalCostsTable 8 provides as summary of station and transit link capital costs.

It illustrates the differences in costs where 4 platform faces are required (where the HSR routes isrealigned to Heathrow) and where only 2 platform faces are required (where the station connects to a

loop).

Table 8: Summary of Station Capital Costs

Scheme Station cost(billion)

Airport TransitLinks (billion)

Total(billion)

CTA High Speed Rail Station (4 Platforms)

2 Platform Variant

1.8

1.2

0.7

0.7

2.5

1.9

Bath Road High Speed Rail Station (4 Platforms)

2 Platform Variant

1.4

0.9

0.9

0.9

2.3

1.8

T4 High Speed Rail Station (4 Platforms)

2 Platform Variant

1.8

1.2

0.7

0.7

2.5

1.9

T5 High Speed Rail Station (4 Platforms)

2 Platform Variant

1.8

1.2

0.7

0.7

2.5

1.9

Heathrow Hub High Speed Rail Station 0.8 1.6 2.4

xiv


18/18

265424///242/A 07 April 2010


Appendices