COMMENT
The Heathrow hub concept, as supported by the Bow Group, costs less – using Gov- ernment’s own figures for their current proposal, phase 1 of HS2 between London and Birmingham, is estimated at between £16.0-17.7bn. To this must be added the cost of a Heathrow spur (£2.5-3.9bn) and a Western Connection between Heathrow and the GWML relief lines (estimated by various promoters at ca. £0.7bn), bringing the total to £19.2-22.3bn.
This increases to £23.3-27.7bn if the pro- posed spur is extended to form a loop to allow through running via Heathrow (as it must to allow through trains from Europe to Heathrow, to allow air/rail substitution).
For the Heathrow Hub proposition, Gov- ernment estimates an additional cost of £2.9bn. Adding this to the cost of the cur- rent route gives a total of £18.9-20.6bn. A better solution therefore costs billions less – and there are further savings still to be made.
For example, Government’s costings of Heathrow Hub (which assume the inter- change must be underground) are clearly overstated. In addition the proposed (very expensive) Old Oak Common interchange can be omitted giving further savings (with HS2 dispersal taking place instead at Heathrow Hub, via limited stop Read- ing-Heathrow Hub-London Crossrail ser- vices – or interchanging at Stratford). And Heathrow Hub Ltd proposes to privately finance the whole of the Heathrow inter-
change, further reducing the cost to the taxpayer.
Heathrow Hub has little or no impact on journey times – Government confirm only a 3 minutes penalty for a route via Heath- row Hub, and even this may be overstated since their route assumes a slow speed curve to the west of the Hub.
In any case, the provision of through lines at Heathrow Hub allows non-stop services which would be 1 minute faster between London and Birmingham than the current HS2 proposal;
Heathrow Hub reduces HS2’s environ- mental impacts – avoiding a surface route through London’s suburbs, and allowing an alignment through the narrowest part of the Chilterns AONB (rather than the wid- est followed by HS2);
Heathrow Hub reduces Heathrow’s envi- ronmental impacts – providing seamless integration, and enabling significant modal shift, from road and air to rail (including air/rail substitution), in the first phase of HS2. The co-location of an ‘on-airport sta- tion’ (terminal) with the rail interchange also releases space within the current con- gested and constrained airport, allowing more efficient aircraft operations;
Heathrow Hub brings more benefits to the UK regions – connecting Heathrow to South Wales, and the West and South West of England, as well as enabling a network
Above: The Bow Group’s alternative route
approach to transport planning in London and the South East;
Heathrow Hub assists HS2’s business case – reducing its cost and allowing all trains to serve Heathrow, the UK’s largest single traffic generator, and avoiding the need for an inefficient, infrequent service of dedicat- ed airport trains over a spur, each taking up one or more train paths (allowing for decel- eration/acceleration to and from the spur).
The Conservative Party got high-speed rail right in 1991 and 2008, and the Party can again lead on the subject and back the right track for the next section of Britain’s high speed railway. The recommendations of the Transport Select Committee are equally clear. European experience is unambigu- ous. The Coalition Government should be delighted that there is now a potential con- sensus around a better, cheaper, less envi- ronmentally destructive scheme that can progress with all-party support.
Tony Lodge is Chairman of the Bow Group Transport Committee. The Bow Group first published, ‘The Right Track – Deliv- ering the Conservatives’ Vision for High Speed Rail’ (with a foreword by Lord Hes- eltine) in January 2010 and in December 2011 published ‘Winning the Consensus on High Speed Rail – why all Parties should now support the best route for HS2’.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Visit
www.tinyurl.com/Bow-Group-HS2 rail technology magazine Dec/Jan 12 | 23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92