the demand and economic analysis of hs2 station options serving heathrow

8/8/2019 The Demand and Economic Analysis of HS2 Station Options Serving Heathrow

1/38

High Speed 2 Ltd The Demand and Economic Analysis of HS2 Station Options Serving

HeathrowJuly 2010

The following presentation was given on behalf of HS2 Ltdto Lord Mawhinneys team reviewing high speed access to Heathrow

Airport


2/38

High Speed 2 LtdWhile High Speed 2 (HS2) Limited has made every effort to ensure the information in this document is accurate,HS2 Ltd does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness of usefulness of the information contained in thisdocument and it cannot accept liability for any loss or damages of any kind resulting from reliance on theinformation or guidance this document contains.

Copyright, High Speed 2 Limited, 2010.

Copyright in the typographical arrangements rests with HS2 Limited.

This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for non-commercialresearch, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproducedaccurately and not used in a misleading context. The title must be acknowledged as copyright and the title of thepublication specified.

For any other use of this material please contact HS2 Limited on 020 7944 4908, or by email [email protected], or by writing to HS2, 3rd Floor, 55 Victoria Street, London, SW1H 0EU.

Unless specified, all maps, tables, diagrams and graphs in this report are a product of HS2 and its consultants.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/38

Analysis of HS2 station options toserve Heathrow

High Speed 2

July 2010


4/38

4

Agenda

The HS2 Day 1C and Y Reference Cases Heathrow options under consideration The case for an Iver or T123 station as an alternative to OOC The case for an Iver or T123 station in addition to OOC The impact of the HS2 Y Network on the case for an Iver or

T123 station

Preliminary Conclusions


5/38

Reference scenarios for Heathrow

Analysis HS2 Day 1C and "Y" BusinessCases


6/38

Reference Case Scenarios Assumed 2033 one-way long distance rail service levels with introduction of HS2 Are additionally some released capacity timetable changes on Classic Rail lines,not shown, that reflect opportunities abstraction to HS2 affords These specifications (with or without Old Oak Common) provide the reference

against which the introduction of an HS2 station to serve Heathrow is forecast

Day 1C Y Test 6


7/38

Current HS2 Business CasePVB, Bill, 60 year appraisal (2026-2085) , 2009 prices/values

Current (July 2010) draft HS2 benefit and revenue forecasts Reflect updating of areas of forecasting and appraisal since March 2010 HS2

Report

Updates are subject of current review and consideration by HS2 Ltd and henceshould be treated as draft

Benefits / RevenuesEuston

OnlyDay 1C Y Test

22.6 27.3 56.5

User BenefitsIVT 12.6 12.4 29.4

Crowding 4.6 5.0 9.7

Local Leg -0.1 4.4 7.4

Wait 3.3 3.4 5.0Boarding 0.3 0.3 0.5

Non-user Benefits

Road 1.6 2.0 4.6

Air -0.1 -0.1 -0.1Wider Benefits (air q/noise/accidents) 0.0 0.0 0.1

Revenue (included in PVC) 13.2 14.4 32.9

Total PVB (2009 prices/values)

7


8/38

8Y Test

Reference Case Origin of Rail User Benefits 2033 Annual GJT benefits in ,000 (2009 prices, 2033 values) by zone of origin

Day 1C

Origin of benefits reflects the key rail corridors HS2

serves in each case plus locations whereabstraction from other lines creates releasecapacity / crowding benefits

Expansion of the origins from which benefitsderived in Y reflects the expanding network,(Northern Scotland benefits reflect very large area

over which benefits are being captured),


9/38

Station choice for HS2 trips Old Oak

Common (OOC) vs Euston Presents forecast share of demand between OOC and Euston for access

to/from ultimate destinations and origins in London

Impact of access to Crossrail that OOC provides, in terms of making that anattractive station choice for a large number of London zones, is very apparent

9

Euston (100%)

OOC (100%)


10/38

Conclusions 2033 Base demand reflects very significant forecast growth from

2008 levels a recognised key area for review in due course

Latest Day 1C and Y scenario forecasts and business case reflectkey areas of review and adjustment to model and appraisal that have

resulted in refinement of demand, benefits and revenue forecasts

Net impact is to reduce the overall PVBs, revenues (andconsequently BCRs) from those reported March 2010

PVBs excluding WEBs (subject to HS2 Ltd review) 22.6bn for Euston Only 27.6bn for Day 1C scenario 56.5bn for Y test

Old Oak Common generates significant benefits being primarily localleg, while also opening up a number of markets to HS2 and improvingconnectivity for GWML users

10


11/38

HS2 Heathrow Options UnderConsideration


12/38

12

Iver Heathrow station option Tested as either a station on both a through or loop HS2 alignment For testing purposes assumed to be an offsite parkway station with ideal

case connectivity between HS2 and Crossrail and GWML services

Access to Heathrow via fast people mover (theoretical 11 mins traveltime from station to all terminals to which GJT weightings would thenapply)


13/38

Iver Interchange / Service Assumptions Service connectivity assumptions:Service Iver (Loop) Iver (Through)

HS2 1/3 of services stoppingAdds 9 mins to HS2 service time for

serving Iver

All services stoppingAdds 7 mins to HS2 service time for

serving Iver

GWML All services stopping with quick interchange availableAdds 3.5-5 mins to GWML service time for serving Iver

Crossrail 5 tph services stopping with quick interchange available

(compares with 24 tph at OOC)

HEX N/A

LUL Piccadilly Line N/A

Airtrack N/A

When Iver is considered as an additional station to Old Oak Common it isassumed no fast GWML services stop at Old Oak Common whereas in thewithout Iver situation it is assumed all do

Hence any additional GWML journey time of introducing Iver whencomparing Eus+OOC+Iver to Eus+OOC scenarios is for users of GWMLstopping services only 13


14/38

HS2 Heathrow station options T123

Tested as a station on either a through or loop HS2 alignment For testing purposes assumes a theoretical ideal case level of

connectivity:

between HS2 and all other Heathrow rail services

from HS2 to all airport terminals

14


15/38

T123 Interchange / Service Assumptions Service connectivity and impact assumptions:

Service T123 (Loop) T123 (Through)

HS2 1/3 of services stoppingAdds 9 mins to HS2 service time for

serving T123

All services stopping

Adds 7 mins to HS2 service time forserving T123

GWML N/A

Crossrail 4tph services stopping with quick interchange

(compares with 24 tph at OOC)

HEX All services stopping with quick interchange

LUL Piccadilly Line Quick interchange available to all Piccadilly line Heathrow services

Airtrack N/A ( to be subject of supplementary analysis)

15


16/38

Station choice for HS2 trips - Heathrow Station choice for Iver or T123 station where Euston and Iver / T123

Old Oak Common is also available On-site (T123) location sees greater London connectivity

(e.g Heathrow Connect and Piccadilly Line)

However, London market capture limited to western edge

Iver would provide greater connectivity for west ofLondon (not shown) via GWML

OOC / Euston

16

IVER T123


17/38

Case for an Iver or T123 station as an alternative to Old Oak Common (OOC)


18/38

Station share - Eus+Iver vs Eus+OOC (Day 1C) (Daily (16hr) HS2 inbound alighting passengers, 2033)Station (% Share) Eus + OOC Eus + Iver (Through) Eus + Iver (Loop)

Heathrow option - 18,000 (25%) 6,500 (10%)

Old Oak Common 29,000 (40%) - -

Euston 44,000 (60%) 53,000 (75%) 61,500 (90%)

Total Daily Alighting HS2 73,000 71,000 68,000

As an alternative to OOC, Iver reduces overinto London area stations

all HS2 demand

reflects its poorer comparative connectivity and longer local legjourney time to London

Iver through attracts nearly 2/3 of the station share of OOC(of a smaller total demand)

Loop option attracts about 35% of Through option,representing only 10% of total station share

18


19/38

Eus+Iver(Loop) vs Eus+Iver(Through)(Day 1C)PVB, Bill, 60 year appraisal (2026-2085) , 2009 prices/values

Benefits Eus+Iver (Loop) Eus+Iver (Through) Change

PVB 22.6bn 24.6bn 2.0bn

Revenue 13.4bn 13.5bn 0.1bn

Iver (Through) outperforms Iver (Loop) due to

Greater local leg benefits - as all services serve the extra station Reduced wait times for passengers to London

19


20/38

Eus+Iver(Through) vs Eus+OOC(Day 1C)PVB, Bill, 60 year appraisal (2026-2085) , 2009 prices/values

Benefits Eus+OOC Eus+Iver (Through) Change

PVB 27.3bn 24.6bn -2.7bn

Revenue 14.4bn 13.5bn -0.9bn

Disbenefit of providing Euston+Iver over Euston+OOC Iver is much further out and less frequently served - thereforetradeoff between Crossrail and HS2 is not as attractive Additional IVT for trips to London

Partly offset by benefits of a more westerly connection toGWML Reducing IVT from HS2 to Western corridor/SW and Allowing GWML trips to London to transfer to Crossrail earlier

20

S i h E T E


21/38

Station share - Eus+T123 vs Eus +OOC (Day 1C) (Daily (16hr) HS2 inbound alighting passengers, 2033)Station (% Share) Eus + OOC Eus + T123

(Through)Eus + T123 (Loop)

Heathrow option - 9,000 (13%) 3,500 (5%)

Old Oak Common 29,000 (40%) - -

Euston 44,000 (60%) 58,000 (87%) 63,500 (95%)


Eus+T123 attracts fewer HS2 alighters at London area stations thanEus+OOC

T123 less well served and provides longer journey times than OOC foraccess to London

Accounts for less than 15% of total alighters in Through option comparedto 40% for OOC Loop option attracts about 1/3 of demand attracted by Through

Reflects advantage of Through connections over the Loop, in a withoutOOC situation

Due to better access for HS2 users for Crossrail and other London-boundLUL / Rail services

T123 (Through) more closely approximates functionally to OOC for HS2users than T123 Loo

21


22/38

Eus+T123(Loop) vs

Eus+T123(Through) (Day 1C)PVB, Bill, 60 year appraisal (2026-2085)Benefits Eus+T123 (Loop) Eus+T123 (Through) Change

PVB 22.0bn 22.4bn 0.4bn


T123 (Through) performs slightly better than T123 (Loop) Marginally greater benefits due to:

Better access to Crossrail services for local leg

Reduced wait time losses

Almost offset by a greater loss of IVT benefits for HS2journeys to Euston

22


23/38

Eus+T123 vs Eus+OOC (Day 1C)PVB, Bill, 60 year appraisal (2026-2085)

Benefits Eus+OOC Eus+T123 (Through) Change

PVB 27.3bn 22.4bn -4.9bn


Disbenefit of providing T123 in comparison to OOC Reduced local leg benefits

Crossrail access is much less attractive from T123 due to poorerfrequency and longer journey time from location further from London

GWML fast services no longer stop at OOC reducing local legbenefits for trips from Wales/SW

Loss of IVT benefits for HS2 trips to Western Corridor T123does not provide GWML connection

Partially offset by some IVT savings on GWML Resulting from the removal of stops at OOC for GWML services

into London23


24/38

Case for an Iver or T123 station as anadditional station to Old Oak Common

(OOC)


25/38

Station share Eus+OOC+Iver vs Eus + OOC (Day 1C)

(Daily (16hr) HS2 inbound alighting passengers, 2033)

Station (% Share) Eus + OOC Eus + OOC + Iver(Through)

Eus + OOC + Iver(Loop)

Heathrow option - 16,000 (22%) 5,000 (7%)Old Oak Common 29,000 (40%) 16,000 (22%) 22,500 (32%)

Euston 44,000 (60%) 40,000 (56%) 43,500 (61%)


Introducing an additional HS2 station at Iver leads to a smallreduction in HS2 demand reflected in fewer alighters overall atLondon area stations

Through option abstracts about 50% of OOC station share Combined OOC+Iver share is 10% greater than OOC alone but

reduced number alighting at Euston is greater

Loop option attracts less than 1/3 of the demand attracteThrough station

d to a

25


26/38

Eus+OOC+Iver(Loop) vs

Eus+OOC+Iver(Through) (Day 1C)PVB, Bill, 60 year appraisal (2026-2085) , 2009 prices/valuesBenefits Eus+OOC+Iver

(Loop)Eus+OOC+Iver

(Through)Change

PVB 25.9bn 26.0bn -0.1bn


Iver (Through) station performs marginally better than Iver(Loop)

Increased benefits include: Larger improvements in IVT for trips to Western Corridor/South West

due to more frequent connections with GWML Wait time savings relative to the Loop Option (but potential exists for

optimisation to reduce the difference)

Relative benefits are largely offset by losses in IVT benefits Mainly for trips to Central London due to increased journey time for all

services 26


27/38

Eus+OOC+Iver(Through) vs Eus+OOC

(Day 1C)PVB, Bill, 60 year appraisal (2026-2085) , 2009 prices/valuesBenefits Eus+OOC Eus+OOC+Iver

(Through)Change

PVB 27.3bn 26.0bn -1.3bnRevenue 14.4bn 14.1bn -0.3bn

Eus+Iver(Through) performs less well than Eus+OOC Reduced benefits due to:

IVT increase for London flows and Loss of local leg benefits for trips from Wales - as GWML long distance

services do not stop at OOC Partly offset by benefits of a more westerly connection to

GWML

Reducing IVT from HS2 to Western corridor/SW and Allowing GWML trips to London to transfer to Crossrail earlier

27


28/38

Station share Eus+OOC+T123 vs Eus + OOC (Day 1C)

(Daily (16hr) HS2 inbound alighting passengers, 2033)

Station (% Share) Eus + OOC Eus + OOC + T123(Through)

Eus + OOC + T123(Loop)

Heathrow option - 7,000 (10%) 3,000 (4%)

Old Oak Common 29,000 (40%) 24,000 (34%) 26,500 (37%)

Euston 44,000 (60%) 39,500 (56%) 42,000 (59%)

Total DailyAlighting HS2

73,000 70,500 71,500

Introducing an additional HS2 station at T123 leads to a smallreduction in HS2 demand reflected in fewer alighters overall atLondon area stations

T123 Through option abstracts about 20% of OOC station share Combined OOC+T123 share is 5% greater than OOC alone but

increase is outweighed by a greater reduction in alighters at Euston

Loop option attracts around 40% of demand attracted to Throughstation28


29/38

Eus+OOC+T123(Loop) vsEus+OOC+T123(Through) - (Day 1C)PVB, Bill, 60 year appraisal (2026-2085) , 2009 prices/values

Benefits Eus+OOC+T123 (Loop) Eus+OOC+T123(Through)

Change

PVB 26.4bn 25.5bn 0.9bn

Revenue 14.2bn 14.0bn 0.2bn

T123 (Loop) option performs better than T123 (Through)as an additional station to OOC

Reflecting the full impact of greater IVT to London in T123 (Through) option

Not being offset by improved IVTs to Western Corridor due toGWML interchange (as in Iver options)

29


30/38

Eus+OOC+T123(Loop) vs Eus+OOC (Day 1C)

PVB, Bill, 60 year appraisal (2026-2085) , 2009 prices/values

Benefits Eus+OOC Eus+OOC+T123(Loop)

Change

PVB 27.3bn 26.4bn -0.9bn


Adding T123 (Loop) to OOC reduces the benefits andrevenues derived through introducing HS2

As with Iver, driven by increased IVTs for primary Londonmarket flows

30


31/38

Impact of Y Network on the case for anIver or T123 station as an additional

station to Old Oak Common (OOC)


32/38

Station share Eus+OOC+Iver vs Eus + OOC (Y Network)(Daily (16hr) HS2 inbound alighting passengers, 2033)Station (% Share) Eus + OOC Eus + OOC + Iver

(Through)Eus + OOC + Iver

(Loop)


Euston 78,500 (58%) 70,500 (54%) 75,500 (58%)


As with Day 1C, introducing an additional HS2 station at Iverleads to a small reduction in HS2 demand reflected in feweralighters overall at London area stations

Iver Through option abstracts about 50% of OOC station share Combined OOC+Iver share is 10% greater than OOC alone but

reduced number to Euston is greater

Loop option attracts about 40% of demand attracted to Throughstation

32


33/38

Eus+OOC+Iver(Through) vs Eus+OOC

(Y Network)PVB, Bill, 60 year appraisal (2026-2085) , 2009 prices/valuesBenefits Eus+OOC Eus+OOC+Iver

(Through)Change

PVB 56.5bn 53.3bn -3.3bn


As with Day 1C, Eus+Iver(Through) performs less well thanEus+OOC

Reduced benefits due to: IVT increase for London flows and Loss of local leg benefits for trips from Wales - as GWML long distance

services do not stop at OOC

Partly offset by benefits of a more westerly connection toGWML

Reducing IVT from HS2 to Western corridor/SW and Allowing GWML trips to London to transfer to Crossrail earlier

33


34/38

Station share Eus+OOC+T123 vs Eus + OOC (Y Network)(Daily (16hr) HS2 inbound alighting passengers, 2033)Station (% Share) Eus + OOC Eus + OOC + T123

(Through)Eus + OOC + T12

(Loop)


Euston 78,500 (58%) 70,000 (54%) 74,000 (56%)


As with Day 1C, introducing an additional HS2 station at T123 leadsto a small reduction in HS2 demand reflected in fewer alighters overallat London area stations

T123 Through option abstracts about 20% of OOC station shareCombined OOC+T123 share is about 5% greater than OOC alonebut the increase is outweighed by a greater reduction in alighters atEuston

Loop option attracts around 40% of demand attracted to Throughstation

34


35/38

Eus+OOC+T123(Loop) vs Eus+OOC

(Y Network)PVB, Bill, 60 year appraisal (2026-2085) , 2009 prices/valuesBenefits Eus+OOC Eus+OOC+T123

(Loop)Change

PVB 56.5bn 53.5bn -3.0bn


As with Day 1C, Eus+T123(Loop) performs less well thanEus+OOC

Key influence loss of IVT benefits for trips to London due toincreased route length and additional stop for services viaT123(Loop)

35


36/38

The case for a HS2 station at Heathrow

Preliminary Conclusions

Conclusions


37/38

Conclusions Heathrow Airport air passenger market a very small proportion of overall

market for HS2 services

Current forecasting will be failing to capture some of the air passengermarket (East Midlands) but additional numbers likely to be very small andvery unlikely to affect conclusions

Through vs Loop Analysis indicates that in the case of Iver, Through or Loop configurations

perform similarly

In the case of T123, Loop outperforms Through as an addition to OOC reflects through passenger journey time disbenefit not being ameliorated byGWML access benefits secured with Iver

When comparing to a Euston only situation, the addition of an HS2 stationat either Iver or T123 does increase HS2 benefits and revenues

Analysis indicates a HS2 station at either Iver or T123 instead of OOCreduces the HS2 case PVB and revenues

Analysis indicates that a HS2 station at either Iver or T123 in addition toOOC reduces the HS2 case PVB and revenues

Conversely, the analysis indicates that a case could be made for an HS2station at OOC in addition to an HS2 station at Heathrow37

Conclusions


38/38

Conclusions A key driver is the difference in access to London via Crossrail:

the significantly reduced level of Crossrail service being accessed at Iver orT123 compared to OOC the significant increase in journey time to central London on Crossrail from Iver

or T123 compared to OOC; OOC allows access via HS2 to a station muchcloser to central London

Means OOC is an attractive station for London access for HS2 andGWML users via Crossrail much less the case with Iver or T123

When Iver or T123 are considered in addition to OOC the HS2 case isfurther worsened by the additional journey time to HS2 users to/fromOOC/Euston

Conclusions are consistent across Day 1C and Y HS2 scenarios disbenefits of adding Iver or T123 increase as the market to access

London expands with the Y network Consequently, it appears difficult to justify an HS2 station at Iver or

T123 on PVB and revenue grounds given the underlying assumptionswith respect to Crossrail and HS2 services

Analysis takes no account of the costs (capital / O&M) associated withproviding a station at either T123 or Iver

the demand and economic analysis of hs2 station options serving heathrow

Documents