Click on the advert above to visit the company web site

Product category: Building Trade Associations and Institutes
News Release from: Chartered Institute of Building [CIOB] | Subject: BAA questioning plan to take over Heathrow Express
Edited by the Buildingtalk Editorial Team on 18 November 2005

BAA question plan to take over Heathrow
Express

Request your FREE weekly copy of the Buildingtalk email newsletter. News about Building Trade Associations and Institutes and more every issue. Click here for details.

BAA questioning plan to take over Heathrow Express and give preference to Crossrail.

A clash between BAA as owner and operator of London Heathrow Airport, and the Secretary of State for Transport as promoter of the Crossrail Bill now before Parliament, seems inevitable if agreement cannot be reached over rail access to the Heathrow terminals At present there are three contenders for rail access to the new Terminal 5: BAA which is extending Heathrow Express from Terminal 4; Airtrack, strongly backed by a group of local authorities in the South East of England; and Crossrail

In its petition to the House of Commons, BAA summarises its concerns over the Department for Transport's proposals for Crossrail access to Heathrow by saying that there is no need to interfere with existing arrangements in the manner proposed in the Bill.

The existing arrangements comprise a rail access system which, with contributions from the airlines, has cost more than GBP750 million to instal over the past ten years.

BAA is planning to spend more on improving the rail infrastructure to the west, which accords with Government policy in reducing motor traffic to and from the airport.

But now its plans have been thrown into doubt.

The Bill proposes nothing less than compulsory purchase of the entire system of Heathrow Express and its ancillary stopping service Heathrow Connect.

As BAA's petition shows, the Bill would authorise the compulsory acquisition of the running rights and apparatus of these services both outside and inside the airport, in other words a State take-over of the entire system.

Not unnaturally, the petition questions whether the impact of the Bill's proposals on Heathrow Express and Connect have been fully thought through.

It tells the Select Committee that the express service currently conveys over 4.7 million airline passengers each year to and from Heathrow Airport, 27 per cent of airline passengers travelling to and from central London.

'Crossrail not beyond Terminal 4'.

"If Crossrail is implemented, your petitioners desire as a minimum to maintain the forecast share of airline passengers who use public railway services to and from the airport, but it is unclear, given the current proposals of the Bill both for the construction and operation of Crossrail and for changes to the existing railways regulatory regime, how and whether this can be achieved".

"In order not to prejudice future rail services to the west of the airport, Crossrail services should only run to Heathrow Terminal 4, and Heathrow Express services should be free to run to Heathrow Terminal 5, with both serving the central terminal area (Terminals 1, 2 and 3)".

BAA is also appealing to the House of Commons to ensure that if its railway is taken over by the Secretary of State it should be fully compensated not only for the land acquired but the cost of constructing its Heathrow rail services".

"If this demand were fully met, it could add costs of the order of GBP1 billion to the funding of Crossrail".

"The airport operator's plea for a negotiated settlement over Crossrail's ambitions for a connection with Heathrow is fully supported by British Airways, which informs the Select Committee that nearly GBP7 billion of its GBP7.8 billion turnover in the last financial year was generated through its global network hub at Heathrow".

"Rail services to Terminal 5, it explains, are of great importance to its daily operational efficiency and international competitiveness".

"Like BAA, BA supports the Bill and welcomes the decision to construct Crossrail".

"They are however greatly concerned about the possible effects of the works and services allowed by the Bill on facilities at Heathrow, safeguarded as they are for future western rail connections".

"The airways corporation petition expresses fears that, since the Secretary of State has not brought forward any firm proposals regarding the funding of the project, British Airways may be required to contribute to the capital and operating costs of the new railway in a way that is disproportionate to the benefits it will receive".

"There are insufficient details in the Bill and supporting documents, it says, to allow BA to assess whether the works will have a detrimental effect on its business activities or property interests".

"Pointing out that BA has contributed a significant proportion of the costs of the Heathrow rail system, the petition seeks an assurance that the introduction of Crossrail will not reduce the availability of these facilities for use by the airport's customers and staff".

'Access contracts to be modified'.

"The Bill also proposes to change the basis of regulating access to both the Reading railway and the airport railway in such a way that it gives primacy to Crossrail passenger services.

Crossrail services are not defined but can be set by the promoter".

"The promoter is seeking the power to modify existing access contracts, direct that new access contracts be entered into and make other modifications to access contracts".

"The Bill also provides for the promoter to make these directions in a way that effectively changes the Heathrow railway into a regulated railway".

"Your petitioner is concerned that these services could be specified and introduced in such a way as to undermine the current services to Heathrow and prevent future safeguarded services from the west to Heathrow".

This concern is amplified later by suggesting that the Secretary of State may require access to Terminal 5 in such a way as to degrade the existing Heathrow services and prevent provision of additional rail connections to the airport".

"With over 20,000 of your petitioner's staff and some 30 million passengers per annum using Terminal 5, it is vital that public transport services offer the widest and most sustainable range of journey opportunities to the new terminal." In a statement on its own preferred priorities for rail connections to Terminal 5, BA says first, Heathrow Express, second Airtrack or a similar service to and from the west, and last Crossrail.

Airtrack is a GBP500 million scheme which the local authorities in the South East of England Region believe is the only long term solution to the access problem from the south and west, where demand is set to increase following completion of Terminal 5.

Airtrack would create three sets of services from London Waterloo, Guildford and Reading, each with stops on the way.

The Surrey County Council petition explains that the Air Track Forum has been working with the Strategic Rail Authority - which formed a favourable view of the project - and more recently with its successor, the Department for Transport's Rail Group.

The intention is to fulfil the objectives of the safeguarding provisions already imposed on Terminal 5 by the Secretary of State.

By creating a direct or one-change rail access to Heathrow for much of southern England and south and west London, Airtrack's supporters claim that it offers an attractive alternative to road transport and would improve London's orbital transport network.

Surrey County Council is joining with other local authorities in asking that the Secretary of State be obliged to use his powers in such a way as not to prejudice future utilisation of the platforms at Terminal 5 which belong to the safeguarded route to the west.

Similar views have been expressed in the petition submitted by the South East of England Regional Assembly.

BAA and BA will leave the Select Committee in no doubt of the uses they prefer of the four platforms that are currently being built.

The Government's answer is to settle the argument by taking over the whole system.

That is a vastly expensive solution, which as in the City of London, and at Canary Wharf and London City Airport, could be resolved by reasonable compromise.

Whether the Select Committee will see it that way remains to be seen.

Chartered Institute of Building [CIOB]: contact details and other news
Email this article to a colleague
Register for the free Buildingtalk email newsletter
Buildingtalk Home Page

Search the Pro-Talk network of sites