Taxes /Air Passenger Duty/Pollution......any better solution?

This article recently appeared in the aviation press. It gives us an opportunity to open the debate about the Air Passenger Duty applied to all passengers leaving any UK airport, and relook at the whole problem. From 1 January 2021, The Netherlands will levy €7.45 tax per passenger ticket," (Aviation24.be   14-11-20)

https://www.aviation24.be/airports/from-1-january-2021-the-netherlands-will-levy-e745-tax-per-passenger-ticket/

The Dutch have opviously found that the UK ´s tax can be a very useful tool to raise money even though the premise on which the tax is based is wrong.The most eloquent remarks came from the French who are trying to introduce a similar tax to APD, to be decided next year. "France and its new environmental eco tax on aviation", (Business Traveller, 19-11-20)

https://www.businesstraveller.com/features/france-and-its-new-environmental-eco-tax-on-aviation/

France’s Directorate General for Civil Aviation (DGAC) estimated that the tax would cut the number of air travellers by 14-19 per cent, lead to 150,000 job losses, and cost the French economy €5-6 billion in lost GDP.

Alexandre de Juniac, CEO and Director General of IATA responded that,“This proposal cannot be taken seriously. It is not the time to add €6 billion and 150,000 lost jobs to the economic destruction already being levelled on the French aviation sector by Covid-19. And it will all but eliminate the 160,000 jobs that the government is trying to create with €100 billion in its economic re-launch plan." 

This is in addition to the latest French government diktats which have demanded that Air France abolish short-haul domestic flights where alternative train services exist.This was the price to pay for government loans and subsidies to see the airline through the Covid19 crisis in 2020.

Even Greenpeace is jumping on the band wagon to further its agenda. "Greenpeace asks the European Commission to ban short-haul flights", (aviation24.be    25-11-20)

https://www.aviation24.be/miscellaneous/greenpeace/greenpeace-asks-the-european-commission-to-ban-short-haul-flights/ 

Even the frequent flyers are vilicated for ......flying!!!"Frequent fliers cause half of aviation’s passenger emissions: report", (Business Traveller,  22-11-20). This is a questionable propagandistic headline which sounds shocking. However, If I fly 6 times per year to any destination (work or holiday) versus somebody who flies 24 times per year (which is more likely to be for work than for pleasure) then their effect is 4 times times greater than I. Of course what is not taken into account is the net benefit to the country which is likelier to be be higher for the work flights than the pleasure ones.So it is totally erroneous to concentrate on the flights of individuals but one should look at more the effect of the flights themselves - i.e. by the aircraft used.

https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2020/11/22/frequent-fliers-cause-half-of-aviations-passenger-emissions-report/

How can we look at this problem? To begin at the beginning..........

What is Air Passenger Duty(APD) for?

Initially the tax was introduced to make the airline industry assume part of the cost it causes by its activity, apart from airport usage and air traffic control (air usage) which it pays religiously. As the airline industry did not pay anything towards the cost outside normal usage then this was considered a reasonable application. Add to that the UK government´s international agreements to reduce CO2 emissions then the application of a tax to achieve a reduction was considered acceptable.

How is APD applied?  

The UK government lays out its conditions for the tax in this link.Here are explained the rates that are applied and to which destinations.Basically the planet is divided into short-haul and long-haul flying with a tariff applied according to the distance travelled.

GOV.UK Guidance: Rates for Air Passenger Duty

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rates-and-allowances-for-air-passenger-duty

What is wrong?

However, is the the APD being applied correctly?After all the kerosene consumption, the fumes produced by flying, and the noise heard on take off/landing or when flying low overhead, these are not caused by the passengers but the aircraft. If I were Superman and able to fly, I would not consume any fuel, produce any toxic fumes nor produce much noise. However, we are not Superman nor will we ever be able to fly independently outside of a machine.

The APD is being applied to the people, the passengers who have no control over the apparatus in which they fly. they are mostly manufactured by Boeing and the Airbus Consortium, plus a few minor manufacturers. Therefore, the passenger has no choice but to accept the limited offer of aircraft for flights. I view a tax based on this as inordinately unfair and wrong.

In fact the APD comes down to being nothing better than a poll tax on people who fly from or within the UK. The Poll tax that Mrs.(later Lady) Thatcher as Prime Minister tried to impose resulted in her downfall. It was shown to be wrong and the solution found by Michael Heseltine has proved to be simple in application, fair, effective, and long lasting. Moreover, if we look at the present situation in autumn 2020 we have a dreaded covid19 virus which has decimated the world´s economy, and the airline industry in particular. In this particular case the millions of passengers who flew long and short-haul routes have been reduced drastically. What was a lucrative source of income for the Treasury has been reduced to an unimaginable all time low. Thus, it is time to question the wisdom of following the present fiscal policy, look at the roots of the questions and find acceptable answers. 

A long list of airlines from large to small has demanded the abolishment of APD. Loganair is the latest to join the list asking for APD to be withdrawn. 

"Loganair calls for APD pause as it announces S21 plans",  (UK Aviation News, 9-9-20) 

https://ukaviation.news/loganair-calls-for-apd-pause-as-it-announces-s21-plans/

Solutions:

1- Abolish APD completely.

2-  The airlines pay no VAT or excise duty on fuel. This is unfair. The airlines should apply the same VAT on the kerosene it burns as do other forms of public transport - such as taxis, buses and coaches.This would apply to all aircraft filling their tanks in the UK. This can go a long way to substituting the income lost by the abolishment of APD.

3- APD should be replaced by a levy on aircraft, to be called Aircraft Pollution Tax (APT) (for simplicity`s sake).

There are two types of pollution - noise and fumes. The amount of noise is created by the type of engine used. Jet engines tend to make much more noise than propeller driven engines.Plus the larger the engine the greater the noise. It is also true that the age of an engine has a big role to play. Engines produced in the 1970s and 80s make far more noise than those manufactured these days to produce the same amount of horsepower. Thus engines should be divided into different categories  between those that can or not achieve limits on the decibels produced. This does not have to be complicated but can be a division into two categories.

Noise is also produced by the aircraft themselves. The more modern models tend to be more streamlined with less drag and thus more efficient producing less noise. The same criteria can be applied to airframes as are applied to engines. 

The other type of pollution concerns consumption of fuel. The latest engines are always promoted by the manufacturers as achieving a certain percentage improvement in consumption - (e.g.)they burn 10 or 20% less kerosene than previous generations of engines thus obtaining a decrease in operating costs. They thus lead to higher profits and/or lower fares.

An illustration of this is the product description on the extended range single aisle Airbus being bought by Iberia, Aer Lingus and other airlines." Airbus says that the next step up from the A321LR will have a range of 4,700 nautical miles, 15% more than the A321LR. The A321XLR will also have a 30% lower fuel burn per seat than its competitor’s previous-generation aircraft,"...

With the abolition of the Poll Tax Michael Heseltine was given the task of coming up with a clear system simple in its application to replace it. This he did and it has lasted since then - for over 30 years now. Such an action is needed now to replace APD. This would result in a   tax being fairer and easier to apply as you only have to apply it to each take off from UK airports and thus collect from each company regardless of the number of passengers being carried.

4- Laws to permit or prohibit something are all very well, but they are somewhat useless without an inspection system which is accurate and fair. 

a)- Therefore, we have to ensure that there is an extensive range of monitors on and around the airfield. These should also be outside the airfield`s limits on the approaches to the runways so that measurements can be taken for take-offs and landings.

b)- Monitors round the perimeter of the airfield are also essential. These would establish the parameters in which to work including any outside influences which could corrupt the data. To give one example: monotoring devices along the northern perimeter of Heathrow airfield can give us a base point for pollutionary effects on a windless day. On a day when the breeze or wind is in a northerly direction that data will tell us the effect that traffic pollution has coming down from the M25 motorway just to the north of the airfield. As a result more detailed data can be compared to real data to reduce the unwanted external effect. 

c)- What cannot be ignored is the airside non-aircraft pollution.In any airport there are vehicles moving about, pushing and pulling airplanes, taking luggage and supplies to and from the airplanes, moving cargo and luggage to and from one airplane or warehouse to another, transport vehicles moving crew and passengers to and from aircraft, and other ancilliary vehicles on airport business.

d)- not to be ignored are the vehicles that operate to and from the terminals from outside the terminals but inside the airfield (i.e. landside). These can be trucks for cargo, buses and coaches for passengers, taxis and cars for passenger and worker use and others. These vehicles at some stage in the future (non-specified) as yet will be prohibited entry to airports,- or at best their entry will be strictly limited. I refer, of course, to those powered by petroleum products. The permitted vehicles will be those powered by electricity or someother non-polluting energy source.

 

Therefore, solutions exist to the problems of pollution and discrimination. Such measures to promote the use of renewable sources of energy while penalising the present overuse of toxic producing forms of energy, are available but need to be improved. Incentives to use better forms of air transport together with penalties to airlines for not putting these measures into use can be applied effectively. All this together with the application in a forced but resasonable time period means that the aims of achieving a greatly reduced production of toxic polluting fuels can be achieved by 2050.Obviously any measures have to applied gradually in a progmatic way. Those airports that have a higher volume of traffic (passengers and/or cargo) would have to come first then on a scale downwards to the lesser used airports.

All of these pointers refer to the institutions who promote their use and the machines used. NONE refer to the customer using these machines. The measures should discriminate between the good and the bad machines. It is not the customer`s fault which is which. Penalise the use of the bad and incentivise the use of the good, then the customer will choose by price or conviction the good to use. 

Such is the case to abolish the Air Passenger Duty.

Heathrow closure: 1/2 - it should not happen.

Is it not shocking that nobody tells us the real plans about what is going to happen to Heathrow airport in the next 50 years?

I have to admit that the plans are not clear. If you read institutional and non-institutional websites, transport blogs, transport forums etc. you still come to two conclusions.
One: nobody knows what they are doing but still go along with their plans come what may.
Two: there is a hidden plan to expand Heathrow come what may orchestrated by government (or big interested parties) so that the politically unspeakable becomes reality.

Short-termism is the rule of the day. When any sort of expansion of airport capacity in the South East of England is mentioned, be it Heathrow, Gatwick or an Estuary airport, or whatever, then the politicians get nervous. Why? Votes.

If runways/airports could be built in three- five years (a la China)  then the politicians would have what it takes to put the necessary infrastructure into place. As it is at present they do not have the guts - meaning both the government and the legislators (election cycles being up to 5 years means that no politician wants to put his job/constituency on the line). It is so wishy-washy of politicians (whatever their colour) to negate development when that means re-election. The word "NO" does not solve any problems but only puts them off to another occasion (obviously when it would not affect the individual concerned) - how cowardly.

Both the Conservatives and Labour have switched from supporting a third runway at Heathrow to being opposed to it. At least the Liberal Democrats (though not offering any practicable solutions) have been consistent in opposing a third runway. That was their price for forming a coalition with the Conservatives so as to be able to form a workable government

The party political conference season has just finished. Each and everyone was saying what the faithful wanted to hear and so imprisoned themselves into straightjackets with policies which have no future.

The governing coalition partners now have this to say in their transport policies.

"The Liberal Democrats believe that the aviation industry shouldn’t get special treatment and must cut emissions just like the rest of the country. Air pollution is already terrible around Heathrow airport and expansion will only make matters worse.
We will reverse Labour plans to expand Heathrow Airport and oppose Boris Johnson's proposals for a new airport in the Thames Estuary. Unlike the Conservatives we oppose all airport expansion serving London and the South East and so would block expansion at Stansted and Gatwick as well."

"The Conservative Party states as its policy.....

......The Conservatives opposed the building of a third runway at Heathrow. This commitment was met in the Coalition agreement. Our position on a third runway at Heathrow has not changed.

Planned actions

• We will pass the Civil Aviation Bill into law. This will deliver much-needed reforms to our aviation regulation system.

• We will press ahead with the consultation process on our draft aviation policy framework.

• The independent commission into aviation capacity will publish an interim report in 2013, and its final report in 2015 on options to maintain our hub status. Any decision will be taken after the next general election."

The Labour party actually says nothing on its website. The only two mentions are those stated below (and even so you have to look hard for them) of which only the first has anything to do with air transport (though nothing relevant to what this article is about).

http://www.campaignengineroom.org.uk/flyaway
http://www.campaignengineroom.org.uk/getagripboris

On 14th June 2012 the Labour Party published "a Policy Review document on Empowering Communities to Improve Transport." which is the only document of any weight to see the light of day this year. While it is long on generalities it has nothing of note about specifics.


It should be noted that with the Cabinet reshuffle in September 2012 the new Secretary of State for Transport, the Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP, replaced the former occupant, the Rt Hon Justine Greening MP, who is an opponent of any airport expansion. As is stated in the Conservative policy, he has set up an independent commission ...."tasked with identifying and recommending to Government options for maintaining this country’s status as an international hub for aviation."  It will present an interim report before the end of 2013 while the final report must be presented by the summer of 2015. As has been pointed out on every political forum as well as the DfT itself, this date is conveniently after when the next General Election must take place. That way the coalition should hold together. However, when the content of the interim report is known it could break up the coalition prematurely. This could well mean the election is brought forward to late winter or early spring 2014. We shall have to wait and see but it does illustrate how politics is dominated by vote seeking and not necessarily the national good.

Meanwhile the rest get on with doing things and trying to find solutions to the problems.

Another document, which has just been published (October 2012), is a report by
the Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment at MIT in collaboration with the Energy Efficient Cities Initiative at Cambridge University   
called "Air quality impacts of UK airport capacity expansion".

The most important point to note in this 5 page summary is that the number of deaths attributed to airport workings (not just aircraft) UKwide are 110(at Heathrow 50) annually.  This number is expected to increase(for a variety of reasons but without airports expansion) in 2030 to 250 in the UK (of which 110 will be attributed to Heathrow). With a third runway at Heathrow this figure is expected to grow from 110 to 150 annually. However, if a new hub were built in the Thames Estuary (with Heathrow being closed) the early deaths attributable to the (new) hub airport would be 50 annually.

The report goes on to make statements about the effects of air pollution which we are unable to see from the information written in the summary. As the summary stands I would question some statements made. To do that in any fair way we would have to read the full report as published in the UK-based scientific journal Atmospheric Environment. Despite obviously not having read anything other than the summary, many commentators have seen the document as the definitive "nail-in-the-coffin" for any expansion at Heathrow. However, things are not so clear.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, presented his Transport Strategy in June 2010. 
It states (point 5.22.5 page 242) in the section Reducing CO₂ emissions from aviation
"Government has a target to reduce aviation CO_{2  emissions to below 2005 levels by 2050."}

This is significant and explains why so many documents are being produced concerning pollution. It is the Mayor´s legal obligation to ensure the reduction of the pollution levels.

At the instigation of the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, the Institute of Occupational Medicine published a report in June 2010 called "Report on estimation of mortality impacts of particulate air pollution in London". Here it looked at all the issues of air pollution (not just aircraft) and estimated that 4267 premature deaths are caused by air pollution in Greater London annually(the figures therein mentioned refer to 2008).

This, however, is only one document in a series published by the Mayor´s office to protect human health. The EU has set ‘limit values’ for PM10 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). PM10s are emitted mainly by cars, factories and domestic heating systems. In the Mayor´s Transport Strategy (previously cited) it mentions(page 104) that "since 1990 CO2 emissions from ground-based transport in London have remained largely constant" at about 22% of all air pollution. Of this fraction 14% is attributed to "ground-based aviation" (including landings and take-offs to 1000 meters) as seen in the graph on page 104. It should be pointed out that of that 22% fraction, 72% is attributed to road transport (cars, taxis, bus coaches, lorries and vans), and the other 14% to rail. The air pollution attributable to  ground-based aviation(up to 1000 meters) thus comes to 3.1% of the total.

The studies have not stopped and do not stop as these questions of air pollutants (particles and noise) are important and ways have to be found to remedy them. Such is the case that the London Assembly Health and Environment Committee is having hearings into "curbing airplane noise and emissions" (from 16th October 2012).

Not only government but also other institutions or agencies produce reports.
  
Stanford Engineering  "Do airplanes have to be so loud?"
Professor Lele says:  "They don´t. In fact, if you were to compare a jet engine today with one from 40 years ago, you´d find that it is about 100 times quieter for the same engine power." 

This is an interesting article which explains that not only engines but also airframes produce noise - something which is remediable.

Another source, The Register (quoting Science magazine) on 18th June 2009 published a report announcing the results of tests made by US engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney. It claimed its new engine "the PW1000G offers a 15 per cent saving on fuel, correspondingly less CO₂, and a 50 per cent cut in NO_x emissions." These are significant figures. The first "planes will come into service from 2013."
  
Thus we arrive at the basic question to be asked.

Are we to be limited in development of active resources because of the problems of today without looking at the developments of tomorrow? 
  
The engine manufacturers and the airframe constructors are already planning the next generation of aircraft after A380, B747-8, B787 and A350. Airbus already has plans for aircraft with steeper descents to the runways and steeper climbs from takeoff. Engines are about consumption(for the layman: miles per gallon), efficiency of use(mpg and toxic fumes produced) and noise(efficiency of the engine). It cannot now be disputed that there have been substantial improvements in such areas since the introduction of the B707, the VC10, the B747(first generation) the Trident, the BAC111, the Caravelle, the DC8 etc. etc. The noise pollution over Richmond and Twickenham now has no comparison to the same when these aircraft were first introduced. 45 years ago the noise was even unbearable while now it is a mild irritant at most. Obviously the closer to the airport the greater the irritant - that has been, is and  will still be a point of discussion for all time wherever an airport is situated. If it is not the aircraft then it is the traffic going to/from the airport, or the airport itself, and if you are really at a loss for complaint then the passengers themselves. 

What has not been said so far is that not all airplanes should necessarily be jets. When they are propeller driven then they make far less noise and produce far fewer fumes than jets. Their noise/fume footprint outside the airport boundary is practically non-existant. If any third runway at Heathrow were built it would provide the necessary accessibility to destinations in the British Isles of which many would gain access by propeller driven aircraft.

Consider that the opponents of airport expansion today are basing their criticisms on the negative aspects of air travel. They conveniently forget the improvements in engine efficiency and reduction in noise since the initial explosion in jet air travel. Are there not going to be similar improvements in the next 50 years (as have been in the previous 50)? How can they  reject even aircraft which will not bother them? Are they not, therefore, being Luddites in rejecting any development? 

                                         ------------------------------------------------------------------

The next blog explains how Heathrow will not be closed.

Consider also the blog published 23rd February 2012 "Heathrow´s 3rd runway - how to focus"

a new airport for London

The whole debate about the question of a new airport for London (or extension of the present airports) is ridden with prejudice, misinformation and self-interest. It should, therefore, be valued with those thoughts in mind.

The coalition government´s decision to prohibit any extension of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted was a preelectoral sop to voters to ensure their parties´ election - take note that no mention was made of Luton where there are Labour held seats.

The expansion of Southend, Lydd and Manston airports together with "London" Oxford smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order. Airports are not just runways and terminals. They are ancillary services, connexions, public transport, taxis, cars, lorries, noise and air pollution. By expanding these airports are you trying to alleviate the problems at other established airports? - I doubt it, you are just creating more problems than ones you are supposedly resolving..

The established airports have the infrastructure in place. London is privileged to have four major airports (plus London City) to serve its and the nation´s needs. The problem is and has been the lack of political will to solve the problems of lack of capacity in the South East. In comparison Frankfurt has one airport, Paris has two while New York has three.

Heathrow has grown to full capacity because everyone wants to connect through there - to the detriment of the UK traveller who sees his connexions reduced. Therefore, the need for a third runway is obvious, not for long distance traffic but to ensure connexions with the rest of the British Isles and near Europe(the Benelux countries and Paris). Any limitations on such extra traffic should be based on noise and engine pollution.

Gatwick´s new owners say they do not want to expand to a second usable runway. They cannot anyway , until 2019, at least. What they really want is to get everything up and running well  before that date so they can present a good convincing business case when the time comes and then show what a mess everything is elsewhere so their case for extension is incontestable(which airport owner would deny the opportunity to expand?).

Stansted was pushed as London´s second airport in the early 1970s (and rejected). It has grown by stealth since then. The traffic levels subsequently achieved were probably not even imagined then. Even though there is now a dip in passenger numbers, growth will continue in the mid to long term. Here the basic infrastructure is in place and any improvements would have to be made anyway (especially in the rail corridor).

Luton is the one airport not mentioned but in the best position. Forget that the majority of its traffic is devoted to charter and holiday flights (was that not the case for many years at Gatwick?). Luton has excellent connexions on the Midland Main Line(MML) to East Midlands, South Yorkshire and Leeds - which could be improved through electification and even to Manchester. When the Thameslink project is eventually finished then 24 trains per hour will provide direct service to South of the Thames and the South coast.

The solution is therefore, based on demand. Heathrow must expand to three runways with the view that that is the limit. Then another airport must be named as its major compliment. By the type of present traffic Gatwick would be the ideal place to lay a second runway. However, the affluent residents of that near area would not be too keen and so would probably ensure it is not built.

Stansted was proposed as the second airport and has been trying to achieve that objective. However, it is in an area where it is out on a limb which would need tremendous investment to make it an attractive proposition. The Crossrail project could give it good connexions to Central London, the M4 corridor and Heathrow if such were the desire. On the other hand, like Gatwick the affluent nimbys would probably put a stop to it.

What is left is Luton. This is well connected to both Gatwick and East Midland airports. Customers from south of the Thames will be able to  reach it as well as those from north of London who could do so without entering the capital. As said before it is on the MML giving it excellent connexions northwards meaning passengers would not have to put pressure on London´s transport system.

(c) The Times

Thus our conclusion is that Luton should be focused on as the next major London airport.(this was explained in our blog of 5 July 2010 - Luton, the Next Best Bet?) A second runway should be laid down and land reserved for a possible third and even fourth runway. If not then all the airports should be permitted to expand to at least two runways. The cost should be born by the owners of the airports. If there were free choice in the matter of expansion then market forces would come into play to ensure that the costs to the users do not become prohibitive. The cost to the government would be the necessary upgrading of the infrastructure to the airports (this has to be done anyway so is not extra).

The onus must be on public transport and connectivity. Where public transport exists it should be bettered, making it more attractive to use and encouraging the public to leave the car at home. The connexions to London, other cities and other airports have to be a priority to increase the attractiveness of public transport thus reducing traffic and subsequently pollution. Until the love affair with the car is broken then the problems of traffic volume, air pollution and noise will not be reduced.  

New Government - the Queen´s speech and the Government programme

On Tuesday 25th May Her Majesty the Queen opened the new parliament giving her customary speech highlighting the new government´s programme.

With regard to transport the legislative programme is summed up in the following short paragraph.

My Government will support investment in new high-speed broadband internet connections, enable the construction of a high-speed railway network and reform the economic regulation of airports to benefit passengers.

This is not very much for such important development projects. However, at least there is already one Bill being prepared for the regulation of airports as published on the government´s own website, which is as follows..

  
Airport Economic Regulation Bill. 

“My Government will…reform the economic regulation of airports to benefit passengers.”

The purpose of the Bill is to:

• Having ruled out new runways in the South East, we will engage with all stakeholders in the sector to develop a new vision for a competitive aviation industry, supporting UK economic growth and designed within the constraint of the existing runway infrastructure. This Bill will reform the framework for the economic regulation of airports to benefit passengers and drive investment in airport facilities.

The main benefits of the Bill would be:

• To sharpen incentives on airports to deliver better outcomes for passengers.
• To drive investment in improved airport facilities for passengers.
• To allow the removal of unnecessary regulation in order to help competition to thrive and deliver benefits for passengers.
• To reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and political involvement in the regulatory process. 

The main elements of the Bill are:

• Replace the existing system for setting price caps at airports which are subject to economic regulation with a more flexible framework focused on the outcomes that matter to passengers.
• Ministers are considering the detailed content of these reforms and will say more in due course.

Related documents:    None

Existing legislation in this area is:

• This Bill would replace the existing system for setting price caps at airports which is set out in Part IV of the Airports Act 1986.

Devolution:

Airport economic regulation is a reserved matter as regards the power to legislate. However, the existing legislation in Northern Ireland is separate from that in Great Britain, and we are in discussions with Northern Ireland as to whether to adopt these reforms there.

Quite honestly, this means very little -  twiddling the pieces - getting the airport owners to bring in improvements  - but no new runways in the South East - and no expenditure. Not much can be done that way. Well we will have to wait and see.

New Government - the Full Agreement

After signing the initial agreement to form a coalition government on 12th May, The Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties presented the full coalition agreement on 20th May last. With regard to transport it is laid out thus:


30. TRANSPORT 

The Government believes that a modern transport infrastructure is essential for a dynamic and entrepreneurial economy, as well as to improve well-being and quality of life. We need to make the transport sector greener and more sustainable, with tougher emission standards and support for new transport technologies. 
• We will mandate a national recharging network for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. 
• We will grant longer rail franchises in order to give operators the incentive to invest in the improvements passengers want – like better services, better stations, longer trains and better rolling stock. 
• We will reform the way decisions are made on which transport projects to prioritise, so that the benefits of low carbon proposals (including light rail schemes) are fully recognised. 
• We will make Network Rail more accountable to its customers. 
• We will establish a high speed rail network as part of our programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for creating a low carbon economy. Our vision is of a truly national high speed rail network for the whole of Britain. Given financial constraints, we will have to achieve this in phases. 
• We support Crossrail and further electrification of the rail network. 
• We will turn the rail regulator into a powerful passenger champion. 
• We will support sustainable travel initiatives, including the promotion of cycling and walking, and will encourage joint working between bus operators and local authorities. 
• We are committed to fair pricing for rail travel. 
• We will work towards the introduction of a new system of HGV road user charging to ensure a fairer arrangement for UK hauliers. 
• We will stop central government funding for new fixed speed cameras and switch to more effective ways of making our roads safer, including authorising ‘drugalyser’ technology. 
• We will tackle rogue private sector wheel clampers.

Most of this sounds like waffle, unfortunately. However, there are two points which do stand out and should be benchmarks to see what the coalition does at least.

These are the national network for recharging electric and hybrid vehicles. While the other is the confirmation of the Crossrail scheme together with the other electrification schemes already proposed.


The most important points left unstated are the LibDem promise to reopen closed branch lines  - that has conveniently been forgotten. The other point is the extension of High Speed Rail lines, where their is only a vague recognition that a national strategy should be thought out which can only be brought in little by little according to the level of finance available.


Quite frankly this is not much of a programme but admitedly reflects the austere times in which it is drawn up.

New Government - What it offers transport

After the British election a new coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrtas has been decided upon.

With regard to transport and infrastructure what most interests us is laid out in the agreement document which appears on the websites of both political parties and states:

Tax Measures:The parties agree that a switch should be made to a per-plane, rather than per-passenger duty; a proportion of any increased revenues over time will be used to help fund increases in the personal allowance.

Environment:
The establishment of a high-speed rail network.
The cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow.
The refusal of additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted.
The replacement of the Air Passenger Duty with a per flight duty.


These are not many words to express transport policy for the next (fixed?) five years of coalition government. Let us look at them anyway.

The first and last points are the same referring to the Air Passenger Duty(APD). This is a long demanded and logical reform. Planes produce the pollution not persons. If the aim is to tax pollution then it is quite logical to tax a half empty plane as much as a full one. In fact the next logical step would be to apply such a tax to cover a mixture of fuel consumption, engine efficiency, gas pollutants and noise footprint.
If that were the case then (a) airlines would be pushed into acquiring more efficient and less polluting planes - accelerating their fleet renewal plans (b)it could be carried over to the rest of Europe so that it would not result in being a discriminatory tax only applied in Britain - here Britain would occupy the moral (environmental) high ground and find tremendous support in many countries(principally Northern Europe).
However, beware. The Treasury does not give up any tax hikes easily. This modification of APD will not mean a big reduction for passengers. There might well be a nominal one - to satisfy public opinion and ensure votes - but the overall tax income wiil be higher than before - with the excuse that the deficit has to be covered.

The stopper put on any runway expansion at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted is a logical step for the Conservatives and the LibDems. In our opinion it is quite erroneous. Instead of building an airport in the Thames estuary, the best of the present infrastucture should be taken advantage of. Instead of building macro airports like Schipol or CDG, London should realise it has a marvellous patrimony of airport infrastructure with five airports serving both the country nationally and the South East regionally. Take note that H,G & S were mentioned by name but Luton was not. 
Is that the get out option? In fact Luton is the best option for development. It lies next to the Midland Main Line with services direct into St.Pancras (with the HSR1 and Kings Cross connections) and is also served by Thameslink (for Gatwick and the south coast). While for any body who lives north of Watford it is(and will be) a much more convenient and better connected airport on the updated and electrified MML than any of the other three (H, G & S).

The establishment of a high speed rail network has to be looked at again. Obviously, the present proposal(HSR2) through the Chilterns will prove too difficult for the Conservatives to accept(it runs through too many Conservative constituencies). Expect a new line to proposed which follows the M40 more closely and so is not so straight (therefore, not so fast - which after all will mean less energy consumption).
On this blog we have made several proposals for a HSR strategy. Let us hope that a logical, affordable, accessable high speed rail strategy is drawn up by this new government. The Birmingham connection will most probably the first line to be laid but what will happen after that? Take note that the important decisions (concerning money) will not be applicable until 2017 which will be the next parliament after this (fixed?) term of five years. So the financing problems will be for a new government not the present coalition.

The date 2017 was used because Labour envisaged starting the high speed rail line to Birmingham after Crossrail will have been finished. The construction can start with new finance and the present engineers and operatives will be freed up from Crossrail and available for new projects. However, Crossrail was one of the projects to be "looked at" in the spending review and so was not certain to continue. The majority opinion we read is that the project is too far advanced to be cancelled. Also the UK government does not finance it all, with businesses paying special taxes for it and local authories putting up some of the money. We reckon that, at worst, some parts of the project might well be delayed.  

The Crossrail project was conspicuously absent from the coalition agreement which could well bode well for the project. However, there are other approved projects which have not been mentioned either. Will they be under review, with the possibility of getting the chop? 

The most important is the GWML electrification to Bristol and South Wales. This line from (Heathrow) Airport Junction to Maidenhead is to be electrified as part of the Crossrail project so that should go ahead. There were talks of extending Crossrail to Reading which is logical and not a difficult proposition. Extending the electrification westwards from there is relatively easy since the original GWML built by Brunel was constructed at a high standard. No great modifications are needed to make this line a semi-highspeed one. It would be well worth the investment and not relatively expensive.

The other important investment is the Liverpool - Earlestown - Manchester electification for only(!!) GBP100 million. This is hardly a candidate for the chop when it is so necessary. Also there are the infill electrification projects: L/P - St.Helens - Wigan NW; M/C - Bolton - Preston; Preston - Blackpool North; Crewe - Chester. All these are necessary and overdue to make operations on the lines easier and faster(only using electric traction) and greener (no diesels). Beware, however, most of the projects run through Labour held constituencies so anything could happen. We now have to see how things develop.

Manifestos on Transport - what is on offer after 6th May 2010

With the election just a short time away you have here the policies of the most important political parties, concerning transport, as stated in their manifestos without any "filtering" by the media. You read them and you make the choice.

Labour: Rebuilding our transport infrastructure

Britain needs to invest in modern, high-capacity and lowcarbon transport infrastructure. At the heart of our growth plan is the commitment to a new high-speed rail line, linking North and South. Built in stages, the initial line will link London to Birmingham, Manchester, the East Midlands, Sheffield and Leeds, and then to the North and Scotland.
By running through-trains from day one, cities including Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle and Liverpool will also be part of the initial network. Journey times will be slashed – those from the West Midlands to London will be as little as 31 minutes. We will consult fully on legislation to take forward our high-speed rail plans within the next Parliament.
High-speed rail is not just about faster journey times. It will free up capacity on existing intercity rail lines, enabling more rail freight, commuter and local services. We will press ahead with a major investment programme in existing rail services, hugely improving commuter services into and through London, and electrifying new rail-lines including the Great Western Main Line from London to South Wales. We will complete the new east-west Crossrail line in London adding ten per cent to London transport capacity.
Rail passenger numbers have increased by 40 per cent in the last ten years and
punctuality and quality of service are improving steadily.
We will encourage more people to switch to rail with an enforceable right to the
cheapest fare, while trebling the number of secure cyclestorage spaces at rail stations.
We will welcome rail franchise bids from not-for-profit, mutual or co-operative franchise enterprises and will look to remove unfair barriers that prevent such bids benefiting passengers and taxpayers.

Tackling road congestion is a key Labour priority. We will extend hard-shoulder running on motorways, alongside targeted motorway widening including on the M25. Too much disruption is caused by local road works: we will increase tenfold the penalties on utilities who allow work to overrun. We rule out the introduction of national roadpricing in the next Parliament.

Heathrow is Britain’s international hub airport, already operating at full capacity, and supporting millions of jobs, businesses and citizens who depend upon it.
We support a third runway at Heathrow, subject to strict conditions on environmental impact and flight numbers, but we will not allow additional
runways to proceed at any other airport in the next Parliament.

Through our investment, Labour has put Britain at the forefront of electric and lowcarbon vehicle manufacturing. To promote the rapid take-up of electric and low-carbon cars, we will ensure there are 100,000 electric vehicle charging points by the end of the next Parliament.

Conservatives: Create a modern transport network

A rebalanced economy requires an extensive and reliable infrastructure. But transport has been a low priority for Labour, and the hassle of getting around is bad for business, bad for families and bad for everyone’s quality of life.
A Conservative government will begin work immediately to create a high speed rail line connecting London and Heathrow with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. This is the first step towards achieving our vision of creating a national high speed rail network to join up major cities across England, Scotland and Wales. Stage two will deliver two new lines bringing the North East, Scotland and Wales into the high speed rail network.

Because travel abroad is so important for our economy and for family holidays, we need to improve our airports and reduce the environmental impact of flying. Our goal is to make Heathrow airport better, not bigger. We will stop the third runway and instead link Heathrow directly to our high speed rail network, providing an alternative to thousands of flights.
In addition, we will:
• block plans for second runways at Stansted and Gatwick; and,
• reform Air Passenger Duty to encourage a switch to fuller and cleaner planes.

To improve life for commuters and encourage people to switch to lower carbon public transport, we will reform our railways to provide a better focus on tackling problems that matter most to passengers, such as overcrowding. We will grant longer, more flexible rail franchises to incentivise private sector investment in improvements like longer trains and better stations. We support Crossrail and the electrification of the Great Western line to South Wales. We will turn the rail regulator into a powerful passenger champion and reform Network Rail to make it more accountable to its customers. And we will introduce a moratorium on building on disused rail lines still in public ownership, so they are available to be re-opened.

Britain has the chance to lead the world in making our transport system greener. So we will introduce incentives for electricity network operators to establish a new national car recharging network, making it much easier for drivers to move to electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. We will support sustainable travel initiatives that work best for local communities by:
• giving the concerns of cyclists much greater priority;
• encouraging partnerships between bus operators and local authorities; and,
• helping people cut down on work-related travel.
We will stop central government funding for new fixed speed cameras, and switch to more effective ways to make our roads safer, including authorising ‘drugalyser’ technology for use in testing for drug-driving. We will make companies that dig up our roads accountable for the congestion they cause and crack down on rogue clampers. Councils will get more powers to get traffic flowing more
smoothly.
We will consult on the introduction of a ‘Fair Fuel Stabiliser’. This would cut fuel duty when oil prices rise, and vice versa. It would ensure families, businesses and the whole British economy are less exposed to volatile oil markets, and that there is a more stable environment for low carbon investment.

Liberal Democrats: public transport you can rely on

Britain needs a well-run, efficient transport system. Public transport is an
important part of a fair society and the best way to cut carbon emissions from transport without trying to limit people’s opportunities to travel. We want to improve the experience for the traveller and cut carbon emissions.
We will:
• Switch traffic from road to rail by investing in local rail improvements, such as opening closed rail lines and adding extra tracks, paid for by cutting the major roads budget.
• Cut rail fares, changing the contracts with Train Operating Companies so that regulated fares fall behind inflation by 1 per cent each year, meaning a real-terms cut.
• Make Network Rail refund a third of your ticket price if you have to take a rail replacement bus service.
• Overhaul Network Rail to put the interests of passengers first and bring it under the Freedom of Information Act to make it more open.
• Set up a UK Infrastructure Bank to invest in public transport like high speed rail.
• Give councils greater powers to regulate bus services according to community needs so that local people get a real say over routes and fares.
• Include the promotion of safer cycling and pedestrian routes in all local transport plans.

restricting aviation growth
The emissions from rising aviation are a serious problem in the fight against
climate change. But in some more remote parts of the country, flights are
a vital lifeline, and aviation is important for the economy as a whole. Liberal
Democrats believe that we should do all we can to ensure people use alternatives where that makes sense.
We will:
• Replace the per-passenger Air Passenger Duty with a per-plane duty (PPD), so capturing freight movements by air for the first time.
• Introduce an additional, higher rate of PPD on domestic flights for which alternative and less polluting travel is readily available.
• Cancel plans for the third runway at Heathrow and any expansion of other airports in the South East.

a fair deal for motorists
Our planned expansion of public transport will provide much-needed alternatives to private cars, and cut carbon emissions. However, in many places there will always be a need for car travel, so we need to ensure that it is as environmentally friendly as possible.
We will:
• Work through the EU for a zero emissions target for all new cars by 2040 and extend targets to other vehicles.
• Undertake preparations for the introduction of a system of road pricing in a second parliament. Any such system would be revenue neutral for motorists, with revenue from cars used to abolish Vehicle Excise Duty and reduce fuel duty, helping those in rural areas who have no alternatives to road travel. Some of the revenue from lorries would be used to fund further extensions of high speed rail through the UK Infrastructure Bank.
• Introduce a rural fuel discount scheme which would allow a reduced
rate of fuel duty to be paid in remote rural areas, as is allowed under EU law.

ALSO.....
• Investing £140 million in a bus scrappage scheme that helps bus companies to replace old polluting buses with new, accessible lowcarbon ones and creates jobs.
AND...
• Require airlines to be honest and upfront about pricing, ending the practice of adding hidden charges.
• Cut rail fares, changing the rules in contracts with Train Operating Companies so that regulated fares fall behind inflation by 1 per cent each year, meaning a real-terms cut.
• Make Network Rail refund a third of your ticket price if you have to take a rail replacement bus service.
• Regulate the parking system to remove unfairness and stop private sector wheel-clamping.
AND..
• Bring in stop-on-request for night buses. You should be able to ask the driver to let you off between stops, so you’re as close to home as possible.

Scottish Nationalist Party:

....We are fully committed to fair and effective policies such as the concessionary travel scheme for older Scots and free personal care.

....We will argue for a fair deal for motorists. There should be a fair fuel regulator so that when oil prices increase motorists are not doubly punished with soaring taxes and prices at the pumps. and the UK should also adopt the same sort of tax derogation on fuel sold in our island and remote communities as exists elsewhere in the EU.

...Since the Scottish election the SNP government has implemented almost three quarters of our headline manifesto commitments. These include:
• Abolishing tolls on the Forth and Tay Bridges
• Completing the M74
• Accelerating the electrification of the central Scotland rail network

...Connecting Scotland is also an important part of our approach to economic growth. The new Borders Railway will provide direct access for many communities to Edinburgh, boosting local jobs and local economies. Similarly, the faster journey times by train from Aberdeen and Inverness, the improvements on the A9 and A96 and the green light for the Aberdeen by-pass will also deliver social and economic benefits for communities in the north and north east. and we will take forward the crucial Forth Replacement Crossing, in the face of the cuts proposed by the government in London.

...Clearly Scotland’s rural communities and economy have specific needs and the SNP is working hard for rural interests. That is why we have introduced road equivalent tariff on routes to the Western Isles, and will look to protect this important initiative from the proposed Labour and Tory cuts.

Plaid Cymru:

...Our action plan would bring high-speed electrified railways to Wales, develop an infrastructure for electric vehicles

...Sustainable Travel
We cannot tackle climate change without considering the impact of transport. The UK will not achieve its target of 80% carbon emission reductions by 2050 if air travel continues to expand.
Plaid Cymru opposes plans for a third runway at Heathrow, which is another example of incoherent and divided thinking by the Labour government in Westminster. We call for the removal of hidden subsidies for air travel and the introduction of tax on aviation fuel. The revenue generated should be invested in improving the public transport network and in reducing rail and long-distance bus fares substantially.
Plaid Cymru has demonstrated in government that it is committed to building an all-Wales, modern, integrated public transport system. We recognise that the railway system will never achieve our environmental objectives unless it is both
cheap and attractive to use, and that will not happen without a significant and ongoing commitment of public funds. We reiterate our call for the railway system to be brought back into public ownership.
With much of the responsibility for the rail network still resting at Westminster, the UK Government must play its part too. We need cheaper and faster high-speed electric rail links from Wales to mainland Europe. We call for a review of the National Assembly’s powers over freight transport and a phased transfer of heavy freight from road to rail.Because Plaid Cymru recognises that in many parts of Wales road travel is unavoidable, we are committed to upgrading key
major road routes, especially north-south links.

UK Independence Party:

...4) A transport investment programme centred on high-speed rail lines, reopened railways, new bypasses, road improvements and port and airport links. The lion’s share of this investment would go to British-based firms.

...· Incentivise and support electric road vehicles, the comprehensive electrification of rail lines and accompanying infrastructure.

12 Transport
UKIP believes the British people have a right to a reliable public and private transport system at an acceptable cost. UKIP will invest in a transport network that meets the needs of the British people and Britain’s economy.
UKIP will:
· Invest an extra £3 billion p.a. in the UK’s transport infrastructure, using money made available by leaving the EU and saving the £6.4 billion net Britain pays every year in EU membership contributions
· Invest in an enhanced and safer road network, building new bypasses and widening major roads
· Offer a ‘Windfall Return’ on fuel duty above a set world dollar oil price. When this level is reached, government receipts from oil duties will be returned to motorists as fuel tax cuts
· Be fair to motorists by subjecting parking charges and revenue-raising devices, including speed cameras, to greater democratic control
· Repeal EU-generated road directives that impose unnecessary and expensive burdens, such as the new Road Transport Directive
· Introduce a ‘Britdisc’ which foreign lorries will have to pay for using major British roads.Currently, many of these lorries pay nothing for the wear and tear they cause
· Veto EU attempts to force the UK into accepting EU lorries that are a third longer and a third heavier than currently allowed - up to an unacceptable 60 tonnes
· Invest in three new 200mph plus high-speed rail lines including a new line between London and Newcastle with a spur to Manchester, a London-Bristol-Exeter line and a linking route via Birmingham
· Expand the rail network by re-opening rail lines where there is a proven need
· Improve passenger rail franchises by demanding higher standards of customer satisfaction, and by extending standard franchise terms to up to 20 years to encourage greater investment and stability
· Encourage a major transfer of freight away from road and onto rail and canal
· Invest in better rail and road links to ports
· Oppose a sixth Heathrow Airport terminal and third runway and the expansion of
Gatwick and Stansted in favour of a major new Hong Kong-style Thames Estuary airport with motorway connections and a high-speed rail service to London, the UK and the Continent.

Download the full Transport policy from the Policies section of www.ukip.org
The Green Party:

...• Introduce VAT and fuel duty on aviation, raising £7bn in 2010 and £10bn by 2013.
• Replace vehicle excise duty by a new graduated purchase tax on vehicles that heavily penalises over-sized or over-powered vehicles. Overall this would be tax neutral.

...On Government spending we have first of all a modest programme of savings...
£1bn initially rising to £3bn on road-building (page 38),
...we have a programme of additional expenditure...
investment in public transport (£4bn, rising to £5bn; page 38),

...• Every young person under the age of 18 and in full time education should be entitled to free off-peak bus fares, to encourage public transport habits in young people early on with a view to making this a behaviour for life.

Promoting safety and sustainability
The emphasis in transport policy should be upon improving access to local facilities and everyday transport.We would prioritise transport modes according to the following hierarchy:
1. Walking and cycling
2. Public transport (trains, trams and buses) and rail freight
3. Cars
4. Heavy goods vehicles
5. Flying
To encourage walking and cycling for shorter journeys and improve road safety we would:
• Reduce speed limits (e.g. to 20mph in built-up areas, including villages).
• Make streets safe; make them public spaces again. Plan for mixed-use developments where shops, housing and businesses are closely located and connected by pavements and cycleways.
• Introduce a maximum speed limit of 55mph on motorways and trunk roads, and
40mph on rural roads, to make them safer for all road users.
• Introduce schemes such as Home Zones, Safe Routes to School and pedestrianisation.
• Ensure that at least 10% of transport spending is on securing a shift to more active travel like walking and cycling.
• Reallocate the £30 billion the Government has earmarked for road-building over the next 10 years. Spend the money on a programme of investment in public
transport over the Parliament.
• Provide affordable, cheaper local transport that is accessible to those with disabilities by investing in buses and subsidising some routes. Make public transport public.
• Reregulate bus services nationally.
• Assist businesses with green workplace travel plans.
• Give higher priority to railways and plan for a growing railway network.
• Open additional stations on existing routes.
• Invest in new Light Rapid Transit systems (using appropriate technologies).
• Simplify fares for all public transport, with discounted fares for off-peak journeys and for those with low incomes.
• Support free local transport for pensioners.
• Return the railways, tube system and other light railway systems, including both track and operations, to public ownership.
• Support in principle a new north–south high-speed line, which would reduce
the number of short-haul flights within the UK.
We would make the cost of private cars more effectively mirror their environmentalcost to wider society:
• Abolish car tax and replace it with a purchase tax on new cars that reflects their
emissions. That way we would affect the types of car chosen at the time that matters, when they are bought new.
• Prioritise public transport, then if necessary work towards the introduction
of road pricing schemes like the London congestion charge.
We would reduce heavy freight and shift it from the roads to the railways:
• Reduce the demand for freight transport by localising the economy.
• Expand the rail freight network and make greater use of waterways, where suitable.
• Safeguard land adjacent to railways for use in freight distribution projects.
• Introduce road user tolls for heavy lorries.
We would reduce air travel:
• Introduce taxation on aviation that reflects its full environmental costs. Failure to tax aviation fuel, and choosing not to levy VAT on tickets and aircraft, amounts to a subsidy worth around £10bn every year in the UK alone.
• Stop airport expansion and shift shorter air journeys to the railways (45% of all air trips in the EU are under 500Km) .
• Ban night flying.

Investing in public transport
Expansion of public transport (and walking and cycling) is critically important to decarbonising our transport infrastructure, which is the only sector in which climate-altering carbon emissions are currently growing.
We would divert money currently being wasted on huge road projects and put more of the UK’s transport budget into public transport, and especially into local schemes for walking, cycling and bus travel.
We would spend £1.5 billion subsidising existing public transport to make fares up to 10% cheaper, and £30 billion over the Parliament on investing in a better system. This will have the effect of strengthening communities, promoting a greater appreciation of place, reducing crime, improving the health of the population and reducing traffic fatalities. It would also create 160,000 jobs.
The new investment in public transport should itself be in low-carbon technologies as far as possible.

Other Manifestos:
BNP: http://bnp.org.uk/pdf_files/BNP-Manifesto-2010-online.pdf
SDLP: http://www.sdlp.ie/images/files/41562_Manifesto_Final.pdf
DUP: http://www.dup.org.uk/DownloadManager.asp?file=DUPManifesto2010.pdf&force=true
ULSTER CONSERVATIVE & UNIONIST NEW FORCE: http://www.voteforchangeni.com/index.php?command=FILES_DOWNLOAD&download=eb222ceb6341a079116bbfca8e639143
Alliance Party: http://www.allianceparty.org/resources/sites/82.165.40.25-42fa41bb0bef84.24243647/Alliance+2010+General+Election+Manifesto.pdf
Traditional Unionist Voice: http://www.tuv.org.uk/files/TUV-Manifesto.pdf
English Democrtas: http://www.voteenglish.org/assets/Uploads/PDF/English-Democrats-Manifesto-2010.pdf
Scottish Socialist Party: http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/new_stories/election2010/ssp-mini-manifesto.html
other manifestos not published.

Fast Trax 2 - The case for a southern high speed alternative (SHSL)

It is all well and good that a debate is established about the need for High Speed rail services. It is another thing to look at the inherint problems and decide where to establish such lines, or where they should end up. The Heathrow debate is hotting up with the latest offering from Greengauge 21"The Heathrow Opportunity"(12/2/10).


In the previous blog (Fast Trax - 13/2/10) we mentioned briefly the need to look at rational alternatives. Greengauge 21 has not done that and is becoming imprisoned by its own proposals. It is a case of an original proposal being accepted as gospel and thereafter self perpetuating. Basically they say that Heathrow should be a rail hub with connections all over the country. Building a new hub at West Drayton is just a waste of money and a unnecessary blight for the people who live in that area. 


1-Our initial proposal was that a high speed line should be built from Reading through Heathrow to Gatwick Airport and on to Ashford to provide the connection with the Channel Tunnel. - We shall call this the Southern high speed line (SHSL). - This would provide an important connection to an existing major hub at Reading (already being updated and extended), providing the possibility of connections or extensions of services further north, west and even south. 


In the central section the all important overdue and needed high speed connection between Heathrow and Gatwick would enable the two airports to be interdependent. At Ashford the connection to the Chunnel opens up the possibility of direct services to near mainland Europe from both airports and beyond while avoiding the bottleneck of London. Also with the SOUTHEASTERN "Javelin" services to St.Pancras it has been shown that the North/North East Kent towns achieve better and more rapid connections to the capital. The same improvement in connections could be achieved along this SHSL.




The fast track line would run  Reading- Heathrow T5- Heathrow Central- Heathrow T4- Gatwick- Ashford- Channel Tunnel.Take note that the part of the line Heathrow T5-Central-T4 would need no new construction because the tunnels already exist so no disruption would be implied for the airport unless a turn were needed at the Central area to connect with the line south to T4.


2-In the electrification scheme for the GWML (Great Western) the route to Oxford from the GWML is to be electrified. It would be not very much more expensive to extend this scheme northwards to connect to the new high speed line from London to Birmingham(Chiltern high speed line - CHSL) where the two lines could intersect somewhere to the south of Banbury. This way passenger services can be provided from Birmingham to Heathrow at a lower cost than the deviatory idea from Euston (Greengauge 21´s idea is figure 3.2 illustrated on page 15 of their document). Of no less importance but perhaps greater is the linking of the electrified lines CHSL and WCML to the Channel Tunnel (through the Reading to Ashford high speed line)without going through the bottleneck of London and thus offering the possibility of freight trains direct though the Chunnel.


3-The main direction of the electrification of the GWML is to Bristol and South Wales. However, the updating is to stop at Cardiff or even Swansea.


The first consideration is that the original Great West Line was built(in the 1800s) to such a standard that without substantial track straightening higher speeds than those actually used are possible. Therefore, why not go the whole way and update the line to high speed. Another consideration is that the line Cardiff to Swansea is only two track while high speed lines should be four track, at least in this case in the most used corridor up to Swansea.


Stopping  this update at Cardiff or Swansea does not take into consideration the potential benefits of any extension to the west and especially the ports. Is it not better, therefore to continue on to Fishguard at least? Of course this would benefit local services in South West Wales but that is not the only consideration. Fishguard is a major ferry port for services to/from Ireland. If Eurotunnel were given the go-ahead then that company could offer services for cars and lorries direct from Fishguard through Reading and along the SHSL to Calais (or even onward to Lille). That would take the through Irish traffic off British roads directly on to mainland Europe. No traffic fumes would be emitted on the British part of the journey. The volume of demand would have to be looked at in detail but the potential is tremendous.


Fishguard-to-Rosslare ferry by the quayside
©Rudi Winter and licensed for reuse under
the Creative Commons Licence.                                   




At present Stena Line offers 3 services per day Rosslare-Fishguard. Moreover, Stena Line offers 4 services weekly Cork-Swansea where a number of vehicles also travel through Britain on to mainland Europe (either through the Chunnel or through other ports such as Harwich). Without doubt what would be of greater interest and a direct target for through Eurotunnel services are the ferries from Ireland to France (from Cork 1 weekly while from Rosslare 8 weekly to Roscoff and Cherbourg). What also has to be mentioned is the probable additional effect on the ferries Rosslare-Pembroke(2 services per day)and the       possible knock-on effect on ferry services Dublin/Dun Laoghaire - Holyhead. It can be seen, then, that such direct Eurotunnel (or any other company) services along the GWML and SHSL would reduce the volume of traffic on British roads and the toxic gasses in the air. 


4-To extend this idea further Eurotunnel services could also be offered from a site near Bristol(Almondsbury) where the M4 and M5 motorways cross. This would provide services for traffic from the rest of South Wales,Bristol and South West England and even eastwards to Swindon. Also another site for Eurotunnel services to Europe could be offered from the West Midlands either in the region of Bristol International airport or Wolverhampton, where the M6 and M54 motorways connect. That way as well as serving the local conurbation, traffic from the north and/or East Midlands  would also be taken off the roads when going to Europe. Thus the crowded South East England bottleneck would be aleviated. These services from the West Midlands would travel south to Reading and then along the SHSL to the Chunnel. In these ways it can be seen the potential for taking off the roads of Britain tremendous volumes of cars and heavy traffic with all that implies in cleaner air and less crowded roads.This would be most notable effect in the crowded South East bottleneck. But that is the endgame - is it not?


The time taken for journeys from Fishguard to Lille would  be under 6 hours, from Bristol to Lille under four hours and from the West Midlands to Lille (though Reading) under 5 hours. These times are conservative estimates based on present rail timetables on non(as yet) upgraded lines. Therefore, with implementation of the SHSL, in addition to the other line upgrades, the time saving could be substantially greater. The faster the times, the more attractive the service becomes.


5-The SHSL can also be used for regional services such as the SOUTHEASTERN services from St.Pancras to North East Kent. The intermediate stations and stopping pattern could be 
Reading - Maidenhead- HeathrowT5- Heathrow Central- Heathrow T4- Feltham- Esher- Dorking- Gatwick- Tonbridge- Ashford- North East Kent.
(A direct line from Feltham to Esher and Dorking might not be the best route and could suffer modification - the rest of the line is the most direct and potentially beneficial).


These would replace Heathrow - Gatwick coaches (up to 6 per hour) also Railair coaches to Reading (3 per hour), Woking (2 per hour) and Feltham (10 buses per hour) That means a lot of heavy vehicles occupying road space with each belching out diesel fumes. The gain, even in the Heathrow area alone, would be enormous.


6- The implications for Airtrack: Airtrack will have to be re-looked at. This is important anyway as there are objections to the services - especially on the Bracknell line to Reading. Most of the objections refer to the extra rail traffic on the line causing more and longer level crossing closures. However, that is only part of the case.


The report (Review of Business Case for AirTrack Scheme Proposals (Assignment Number 2004/00229)) prepared by  Ove Arup & Partners for the Strategic Rail Authority in July 2005 stated
"The AirTrack services that we have appraised would provide two trains per hour from each of Guildford,
Reading and Waterloo to Heathrow Terminal 5. To provide sufficient capacity the introduction of these
AirTrack services would necessitate the withdrawal of three trains from Reading to Waterloo in the
morning peak period, two trains from Waterloo to Reading in the morning peak period, and 5 trains from
Waterloo to Reading in the evening peak period. To compensate for the withdrawn services, additional
stops to those assumed in the OBC would be required on some AirTrack services between Reading and
Terminal 5."


Obviously,then, the benefits of Airtrack are not as great as they are being sold. Since only 2 stops are proposed to Reading - at Bracknell and Wokingham - with SHSL from Reading to Heathrow the need for this Aitrack service is called into doubt. As we can see  the service on the SHSL would be faster with only 1intermediate stop at Maidenhead. Moreover, the service would be better because the service would stop at T5 - T1,2,3 -T4 on its way to Gatwick and Ashford. 


A subsequent Airtrack service could have a stopping pattern Heathrow T5- Heathrow Central- Heathrow T4- Feltham- Twickenham- Richmond- Clapham Junction- Waterloo (maybe even starting at Reading with an intermediate stop at Maidenhead). BAA envisaged only 2 services per hour (mainly due to lack of train paths) but we are sure that the resulting demand from the stopping places south of the Thames, particularly at Clapham Junct. and Waterloo, could well rival the Heathrow Express service from Paddington.


The case for the Airtrack service to Guildford is also called into question. If there were a regional stopping service on the SHSL stopping at Feltham, Esher and Dorking then the case for Guildford fails. We are then left only with the proposal for HE trains to run from T5 to Staines. This only benefits the BAA owned HE and Airtrack systems. The connection from T5 to Staines (with the disruption of the new chord at Staines) would be unnecessary. BAA could be compensated with the aforesaid extra services to Waterloo. Also what can be looked at is the extension of the HE services through Crossrail to connect at Liverpool Street and merge with the Stansted serices of Stansted Express thus becoming the Heathrow-Stansted Express. This would have a knock-on effect of freeing up platforms at both Paddington and Liverpool Street mainline stations for more long distance services. Also passengers along the Crossrail route up to Stansted airport would be better served without having to travel on the Underground to Paddington. Everyone turns out to be a winner.


To conclude, the southern alternative, SHSL, must be considered. It would benefit both Greater London and the rest of the country. Rapid rail services attract passengers as we have already seen with the WCML and ECML upgrades. The ill-informed narrow-minded viewpoints of politicians and self serving pressure groups have to be shown to be wrong. Better alternatives do exist.