Review of HS2 London to West Midlands Route Selection and Speed A report to Government by HS2 Ltd January 2012 Although this report was commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT), the findings and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the DfT. The information or guidance in this document (including third party information, products and services), is provided by DfT on an ‘as is’ basis, without any representation or endorsement made and without warranty of any kind whether express or implied. The Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact the Department. Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Telephone 0300 330 3000 Website www.dft.gov.uk General email enquiries [email protected] © Crown copyright, 2012, except where otherwise stated Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. You may re-use this information (not including logos or third-party material) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Contents List of acronyms 5 � Executive summary 6 � 1 Introduction 8 � 1.1 Background 8 � 1.2 This report 9 � Part 1 2 Route selection process 10 � Part 2 3 Alternative route corridors 12 � 3.1 Background 12 � 3.2 Chiltern Line and M40 alignment (Route 2) at a lower design speed 24 � 3.3 M1 alignment (Route 5) at a lower design speed 28 � 3.4 An alternative route corridor – directly serving Heathrow 31 � 4 Higher or lower design speed on the consultation route 36 � 4.1 Background 36 � 4.2 Higher design speed 36 � 4.3 Consultation route at a lower design speed 36 � 4.4 Consultation route at a conventional speed 53 � Part 3 5 Alternative stations 55 � 5.1 Background 55 � 5.2 London Terminus Station – Euston 55 � 5.3 London Interchange Station – Old Oak Common 57 � 5.4 Birmingham Interchange Station 58 � 5.5 Birmingham Terminus Station – Curzon Street 58 � 3 Contents 6 Intermediate stations 59 � 7 Additional connections from the classic network to HS2 60 � 7.1 Background 60 � 7.2 Connections from lines that cross the London to West Midlands section 60 � 7.3 Connections to other lines from the London to West Midlands section – the Midland Main Line 62 � 7.4 Linking Crossrail and the West Coast Main Line 63 � 8 Infrastructure Maintenance Depot 66 � 8.1 Background 66 � 8.2 Investigation of a new, alternative location 66 � 9 References 69 � 4 List of acronyms � AONB Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty BCR Benefit Cost Ratio ECML East Coast Main Line EIA Environmental Impact Assessment GWML Great Western Main Line HS1 High Speed 1 IMD Infrastructure Maintenance Depot kph Kilometres per hour MML Midland Main Line mph Miles per hour SAC Special Area of Conservation SAM Scheduled Ancient Monument SPZ Source Protection Zone SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest WCML West Coast Main Line 5 Executive summary � 1 � This is HS2 Ltd’s advice to Government Line of route and speed which examines, following consultation, the route selection process we adopted 6 � We conclude that routes following, to a leading to identification of the consultation greater extent, existing transport corridors route for the first phase of HS2 between would have a substantial impact on many, London and the West Midlands. often populous, communities. Extensive and complicated engineering and 2 � It examines a number of components of mitigation would be required to reduce the scheme such as station choice, the these impacts, leading to higher costs. In case for intermediate stations, options for some aspects these routes reduce connecting to Heathrow and the location impacts on the Chilterns Area of of an infrastructure maintenance depot. Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and other countryside and landscapes 3 � It also examines the view expressed compared to the consultation route. during consultation that, by more closely However, the recommended revisions to following existing transport corridors, the consultation route further reduce or adopting a lower design speed on the these impacts and the construction cost consultation route, the impacts between of the consultation route. Overall, the London and the West Midlands, in consultation route corridor provides the particular environmental impacts, could best balance between considerations of be reduced. benefits, costs and impacts. 4 � This report considers the case for alternative 7 � Every alternative corridor considered corridors. Comparisons are made with the would increase the costs and reduce the consultation route. However, in addition economic benefits of HS2, and none of to this advice we have recommended a them would result in significantly reduced number of revisions to the consultation route impacts on the environment. that would further reduce sustainability impacts and construction costs. 8 � The only environmental improvements delivered by a lower maximum design Route selection process speed would be a marginal reduction in noise impacts, which would be outweighed 5 � We consider that the route selection by a substantial reduction in economic process we adopted was robust and benefits. We consider that mitigation of the appropriate for the purposes of selecting consultation route, the approach we have a route for consultation, taking into account taken, is a more appropriate way of our remit from Government and a need to reducing environmental impacts, minimise the corridor of blight on people particularly noise. This would also be the and property. case for a line designed at a conventional speed. Adopting a lower business value of time would not alter our conclusions. 6 Review of HS2 London to West Midlands Route Selection and Speed Stations Heathrow 9 � Following further examination we 13 � Having reviewed the evidence we consider there is no reason to change our confirm our view that, given the expected recommended stations as the consultation passenger demand, Heathrow is best proposal of four stations, and their served by a spur from HS2 to a station locations, would deliver the best balance integrated with existing airport passenger between capacity of the line and benefits facilities at Terminal 5, as opposed to a to passengers. In particular we confirm station near to Heathrow as part of an the opportunity for enhanced connectivity HS2 through route. in London created by a station at Old Oak Common, which would be chosen by Infrastructure Maintenance Depot about a third of HS2 passengers thereby 14 � Having developed additional options in aiding passenger dispersal, and the case response to suggestions at consultation, for a central London terminus at Euston. we consider that the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot (IMD) is best 10 � The benefits of providing intermediate located near Calvert as shown on the stations on the London to West Midlands consultation route. route would be outweighed by their impact on capacity of HS2 and the wider network. Connections with the classic network 11 � There are a number of possible connections from the classic rail network to HS2 between London and the West Midlands, but we do not consider there is a case for providing these. We do not consider it is feasible to include a connection from the Midland Main Line (MML) to HS2 in phase one without significantly delaying the timetable. 12 � There could be a case for providing a direct link for suburban trains between the West Coast Main Line (WCML) and Crossrail, although we consider that this should not alter the designs for Euston, and that if it were to be pursued it should be built after phase one of HS2. 7 1 Introduction � 1.1 � Background 1.1.4 � The consultation asked seven questions: 1.1.1 � This is HS2 Ltd’s advice to Government • � Do you agree that there is a strong which, in light of responses to the High case for enhancing the capacity and Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future performance of Britain’s inter-city rail consultation, covers: network to support economic growth over the coming decades? • � the route selection process; • � Do you agree that a national high • � the case for following existing transport speed rail network from London to corridors; Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester (the Y network) would provide the best • � the maximum design speed of the route; value for money solution (best balance of costs and benefits) for enhancing rail • � alternatives for serving Heathrow; capacity and performance? • � the case for alternative stations; • � Do you agree with the Government’s proposals for a phased roll-out of a • � the case for intermediate stations; national high speed rail network, and • � the case for additional connections for links to Heathrow Airport and to the from the classic network to HS2; High Speed 1 line to the Channel Tunnel? • � the case for a connection from the • � Do you agree with the principles and WCML to Crossrail; and specification used by HS2 Ltd to underpin its proposals for new high • � the location of the IMD. speed rail lines and the route selection process that HS2 Ltd undertook? 1.1.2 � It presents the position at the time of the consultation, the comments that were • � Do you agree that the Government’s received, and our consideration of them.