Posted 7th December 2009 | 8 Comments
High Speed rail 'imperative' for major airports, say MPs
Paddington station
A report on aviation from the House of Commons Transport Committee says high speed rail links to major British airports are 'imperative'. However, it warns that new high speed lines cannot completely replace domestic flights in the UK.
The new report, The Future of Aviation, acknowledges that High Speed rail is essential, and cites Heathrow as a major objective in a future network. But it also concedes that new High Speed rail routes are unlikely to replace east-west flights, and neither will they replace air links to remote areas, such as the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
The Committee has also raised questions about the taxation of aviation, although it admitted that it had been unable to obtain a 'factual account' of the position. However, it says that the level of Air Passenger Duty should "be set according to the Government’s revenue needs, taking careful account of the economic importance of the aviation industry".
Meanwhile, air passengers may soon be able to check in for their flights aboard Heathrow Express trains. Plans have been revealed to restore check in facilities at Paddington station, using automatic machines rather than staffed desks, and the next step will be to allow passengers to check in during their train journeys to the airport. BAA said Delta Air Lines, Iberia and United Airlines are expected to be first, followed by British Airways, Finnair and Virgin Atlantic 'at a later date'. Check in desks at Paddington were scrapped some time ago by British Airways to reduce costs.
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
John Airey, Peterborough
Leslie Burge - where are these good links between airports? As far as I know there are currently no direct trains between any two airports in the UK. Some stations are a long way from airports (eg East Midlands Airport and Luton). So the only links between airports are by road and these are normally congested.
John Jefkins, Croydon, UK
Right now anybody travelling long haul via Heathrow to reach Scotland, Manchester. Paris, Amsterdam or other nearby places uses air rather than train, because Eurostar etc do not run from Heathrow. One third of Heathrow's passengers do that. The large West London/Reading market also finds is hard to reach St Pancras. So of course we need High Speed Rail to reach Heathrow. 14% of Heathrow traffic is going to Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Geneva and Zurich. All could be reached in under 4 hrs if direct trains ran from Heathrow. HS2 could run north via the M40. A spur by the M25 down to Heathrow could be extended to run trains into those empty Waterloo platforms (at 100mph). 2 extra tracks could be put in tunnel between Richmond and Barnes for only £160m. Whilst most trains to Scotland would run from Euston, some could also run from Waterloo via Heathrow.
David Copping, Polegate, United Kingdom
For an absolute debauch, why not travel by Eurostar to Paris and fly long haul from CDG?
Anoop, London, UK
We only want to link two major airports to the high speed lines. The main reason is to allow trains to replace connecting flights.
One is Birmingham International, which is already a major rail station. It can become a new cross-country hub, with some trains diverted out of the overcrowded New Street Station onto new high-speed lines radiating to Bristol, Newcastle and London.
The other is Heathrow, which can be served by a loop off the main high-speed line (e.g. taking over the Heathrow Express service from Paddington to Heathrow, then leaving Terminal 5 via a new line to the north-west). Trains which are not due to stop at Heathrow can avoid the loop and take a faster direct route e.g. the GCR/GWR joint line via Ruislip and Greenford.
Mick Rogers, Cardiff, Wales
Eliminating internal flights between Britain's major mainland urban population centres (and the nearest continental ones) after building an integrated high speed rail network.will have other benefits. The take-off and landing slots released at regional airports such as Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow, could be used instead for more long haul flights - this would drastically reduce the need for people to travel (by rail or air) via Heathrow and Gatwick just to make long distance connections. In that eventuality, the requirement for extra runways and routing the proposed high speed line(s) via Heathrow would surely become redundant.
Paul Davis, Birmingham, England
I agree with the thrust of Leslie's comment. I think of the GARL link - an expensive proposition, whichever wildly varying estimate of its costs that might end up being closest to the 'truth'. GARL illustrates soome of the dilemmas that building rail-based airport links poses. First, they open up access to airports and thus make flying more attractive. This is therefore a patently anti-sustainable action. Such links encourage trip maximisation using air, not trip minimisation using low-impact transport modes. Second, airport links support air travel mainly for higher income social groups. Given the relatively high price of rail travel, it is highly unlikely that they will appeal to mass tourist market segments. Third. such links eat up some of the funds available for other rail investments and the sustainability impacts of these will tend to be far more positive. Each of ATOC's Connecting Communities rail reopenings would yield much greater benefits for society and the physical environment. Rail is green in itself, but it should also be green in its wider shaping of citizen choices and air links must feature (if at all) very lowly on this criterion.
Sam de Freyssinet, London, United Kingdom
@Leslie : Airports should be linked to the High-Speed Network. Just as Thalys provides direct links between Paris CDG and Amsterdam Schiphol airport, diminishing the requirement for transfer flights, Heathrow to/from CDG would also have a similar effect if they both were connected by HSR.
If all the major UK airports were connected by HSR, the country effectly becomes one big airport with many terminals, rather than the many airports/few terminals currently available. This in turn would reduce the need for more runways at Heathrow or Stansted Airport as the extra capacity could be provided at Gatwick, Birmingham or East Midlands with HSR interconnects.
leslie burge, leicester, england
We Don't need high speed links to airports we already have good links.
How much time will be saved going to heathrow via an expensive unnecessary
link?
Typical MP.s with no idea at all about how to link up the major cities of this country without stupid diversions.