HEATHROW AND HIGH SPEED RAIL The Transportation Case Against Airport Expansion A study by Colin Elliff BSc CEng MICE 1/144 Author’s Foreword The impact of transport on the environment is huge. Aside from more local issues of noise and pollution, it is one of the principal contributors to global warming. Transport is responsible for over 25% of world CO2 production, whether emitted from jet engine flume, from vehicle exhaust pipe, or from power station chimney (in the case of electrified railways). Further emissions come from the kilns and furnaces that create the cement and steel necessary to build the infrastructure on which the planes, lorries, cars and trains will move. The link between global warming and the rising levels of atmospheric CO2 is now commonly accepted. Indeed, the catastrophic consequences of global warming are taken so seriously that Government has committed to an 80% cut in emissions by 2050, in the recent Climate Change Act. What is less well understood is the equally direct historic link between CO2 emissions, energy use and economic prosperity. The challenge of maintaining the standards of living that we all enjoy, whilst achieving the necessary reductions in CO2 emissions, is extreme and unprecedented. It will only be met through a radical re-examination of all aspects of the way in which we live, work – and travel. Yet the argument for the proposed third runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow Airport is principally economic, paying little attention to environmental issues. It is based on the perceived threat posed to national prosperity by the severe congestion on the existing two runways; and expansion has been advanced as the only viable solution. But while there is no doubt that Heathrow’s congested runways constitute a very serious aviation problem, it does not necessarily dictate the aviation solution of another runway. The smarter approach is to examine whether Heathrow’s many short-haul flights – to which the congestion can reasonably be attributed – could instead be diverted to other modes. And with around one quarter of Heathrow’s flights to destinations potentially within 4 hours of London by high speed rail, it is clear that rail could provide a viable alternative to expansion, and at a fraction of the environmental cost and energy use. So, in the modern carbon-critical world, there seems to be no justification to fly these short-haul routes, and hence none to expand Heathrow – but an imperative instead to develop an alternative rail-based solution, with the high speed necessary to deliver equivalent journey times. There is nothing particularly new or radical in the high speed rail solution. It’s commonly acknowledged as the best option in transport to achieve mode shift and reduce CO2 emissions, both through superseding short-haul aviation, and through creating the extra capacity on the existing network for more local journeys and freight transport. With 15 years of successful operation, the Eurostar service from St Pancras now dominates the cross-channel travel market to Paris and Brussels. There is an even longer history of high speed operation within many western European countries, and a sophisticated cross-border network is now developing. Almost alone among its principal European neighbours, the UK has remained aloof from the high speed revolution. The benefits are self-evident, in both reduced journey times and in capacity relief to existing congested networks; yet the line has been peddled, that British geography and demography are different, in some mysterious way unsuited to high speed rail. 2/144 There is no denying that the UK is different from say France and Spain on one hand, or Belgium and Holland on the other. But the commonalities are far greater than the differences. A high speed corridor linking London with Edinburgh and Glasgow – along which over 5% of Heathrow’s flights currently operate – is of a similar length to the successful TGV route between Paris and Marseille, linking similar populations. The population densities in the Low Countries, and the resultant congestion on the rail networks, are similar to what prevails in many parts of the English rail network. So there seems no reason why the benefits of high speed rail cannot be realised in the UK; and at last the political consensus is growing to make high speed rail happen. Many proposals have already been advanced for the development of high speed rail in the UK, by Greengauge21, Arups, and now the Government’s HS2 Company. But while these proposals are to be welcomed, they do not appear to comprise the rounded, inclusive and environmentally-friendly transport solution that the UK so urgently requires. All appear to focus on Heathrow before continuing through the Chilterns towards Birmingham and Manchester along the North-West Corridor, with little or no attention to other areas of the UK. And with the continuing threat of expansion at Heathrow, compounded by the growing issue of climate change, the importance could not be greater, of getting the UK high speed rail solution right. My belief, based on nearly 30 years’ experience in railway civil engineering and a lifelong interest in railways, is that the current thrust of high speed rail development is misdirected, offering neither viable alternatives to short-haul nor an effective, optimised intercity railway – which, after all, is the true purpose of high speed rail. The aim of this study is to advance the alternative vision of an inter-regional intercity high speed network that can benefit all parts of the UK, and at the same time draw Heathrow into the wider solution. It builds on the excellent analysis work already undertaken by the transport planners at Greengauge21 and at Atkins, that has established the fundamental economic case for high speed rail. But in addition it seeks to impose the discipline of railway engineering, to develop an enhanced UK rail network that addresses contemporary, rather than 19th century needs – and one capable of achieving sufficient mode shift from higher-emitting aviation and road transport to produce an overall decrease in transport emissions. This study documents as never before the wide range of benefits that a properly-oriented high speed network could bring to UK transport. This is not to say that the High Speed North scheme and associated Heathrow Compass Point network proposed herein comprise the perfect, fully-finished transportation solution. The same applies to this study; all should be considered ‘works in progress’, requiring further input to fully develop the solution for UK strategic surface transport, integrated with international connections. But I believe that collectively they raise the bar, setting new standards for what can be achieved with sensible, joined-up transport proposals. By laying bare the detailed thinking behind these proposals I am opening them up to scrutiny and challenge – as integrated solutions addressing transport, environmental and economic needs. This is the same rigorous examination that should be applied to all the competing solutions, both for high speed rail and for airport expansion. It is vital, both for the future of UK transport and of the wider environment, that we find the right solution. Colin Elliff BSc CEng MICE 3/144 Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the valuable assistance of my father George Elliff MSc CEng MICE MCILT, in the compilation and editing and of this document. Heathrow and high speed rail both comprise vast topics, and it was essential to keep me to the factual and the relevant!! The best efforts of all contributors have been devoted to eliminating all errors and typos; but the responsibility for any errors that remain is mine. I would like to express my gratitude to various members of staff and councillors of the 2M Group (of London & SE councils opposed to Heathrow expansion) who have offered immense encouragement and assistance in the development and documentation of a transport scheme of national significance, that of necessity goes far beyond the immediate local concerns surrounding Heathrow. The 2M Group has consistently supported the principle of high speed rail as an alternative to expansion of aviation, at Heathrow and elsewhere. However, owing to the local sensitivities that will inevitably emerge along the potential route of a new railway nearly 1000km long, it is important to emphasise that the detailed proposals documented in Sections 7 and 9 of this study are mine; they should not in any way be construed as policy of the 2M Group of councils. My thanks go also to my wife and children for their continuing support and patience during the many evenings that I have spent, huddled over my laptop. They hope, as I do, that the results will be worthwhile. Colin Elliff Copyright Text and diagrams (except where noted from other sources) are copyright © Colin Elliff. All rights are reserved to the author. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the express permission of the author. Generally, this will be granted at no cost for any non- commercial or academic purpose in connection with the furtherance of the principles of environmental and sustainability best practice in transport. This document should be considered as a ‘work in progress’, requiring further development in many aspects. To this end, comments and potential contributions are welcome. These may be incorporated in further editions after discussion between the authors; appropriate acknowledgement will of course be given. Please send any comments to [email protected]. Version Control Heathrow and High Speed Rail : The Transportation Case Against Airport Expansion Description Version Date Pre-release consultation 01 09/07/2009 Published version 02 28/07/2009 4/144 Glossary of Terms 2M Group Grouping of London & SE councils opposed to Heathrow expansion.