Adonis knew the power of that lobby, and it had already captured the Tories (then in Opposition, of course). So, in a cunning move, he appointed another Tory to conduct a review of whether or not the line should go via Heathrow. Adonis knew the chances were it would be reporting to a Tory Secretary of State, so in a breathtakingly smart move he appointed an unreconstructed old Thatcherite, "Lord" Mawhinney, who he knew would focus almost entirely on the economics.
Mawhinney reported the other day and, lo, Adonis pulls the strings from beyond his (political) grave, because Mawhinney recommends that the new line should not run via Heathrow and that the original plan for serving the airport should be stuck to.
But him being a Thatcherite and all, there's inevitably a sting in the tail: in this case, Mawhinney pisses over the plan to take the high speed line to a new terminal at Euston and, instead, recommends that the outer London interchange station at Old Oak Common should be the southern terminal.
Now for the "I told you so" moment -- you may recall aeons ago I predicted exactly that would happen.
However, it's not such an insane idea as it might at first appear, particularly with the additionality that Mawhinney is now proposing.
The advantage of Old Oak Common is that it's on the Great Western Mainline, the route along which current Heathrow Express services operate and which will also be served by the new cross-London railway, Crossrail. It's the obvious place for people to change from the long-haul rail system to a Heathrow service.
But the two western lines of the London Overground happen to cross the GWML at almost exactly this point (from Richmond and from Clapham Junction -- itself one of the biggest rail interchanges in Europe -- before going on to connect with the rest of the orbital network at Willesden Jct); this provides the potential for further connections into both high speed rail and the Heathrow shuttles (the original plan ignored these lines -- Mawhinney is effectively proposing they should stop at the new Old Oak Common terminus). And Crossrail is a brilliant system for diffusing both airport and high speed rail passengers across the rest of the London transport network.
The other big advantage of an Old Oak Common terminus is that it knocks maybe several billion pounds off the initial construction price (not just by avoiding the need to rebuild Euston but, more importantly, to avoid constructing a massive tunnel under west London). And that's not to be sneezed at. Mawhinney argues such a cut in the price would enable the high speed scheme to be accelerated by two years.
Additionally, it would remove at a stroke the source of the major opposition so far to have emerged to high speed rail -- not, as expected, country Tories in the Chilterns, but the rich bankers of Primrose Hill who objected to the tunnelling beneath their vast villas that would be necessary for HS2 to reach Euston.
Mawhinney also pushes hard for movement on the other "classic" rail connections into Heathrow -- Airtrack, from Waterloo and with connections from Woking and Reading (which will transform rail access to Heathrow from the south-east and south coast), and links via Langley to the western part of the WCML, opening up the Thames Valley for easy access (at the moment passengers have to whizz past Heathrow to Paddington, and change there to the HEX where they then retrace the 10 miles of railway line to whizz back to the airport).
There's currently no connection from the railway lines to the south of Heathrow. Airtrack will provide a through connection:
Mawhinney urges the Secretary of State to commission a new study into this issue.
Overall, Mawhinney rubbishes the idea of routing the high speed railway via Heathrow (the cost of "£2-4bn" is "not likely to represent value for money for either the taxpayer or the train operator"). In any event, he goes on, "such a route is not supported by the evidence of benefits": if I were the Tory Opposition Transport Spokesperson who'd pushed hard for this, I'd be looking pretty sheepish by now.
He does add that by the time the high speed network has reached Scotland there might be an argument to have some trains serving Heathrow, so he proposes that the works to build HS2 should make allowances for such a connection at some point in the future. The far, far distant future.
Mawhinney has further suggestions, including that BAA, the airport operator, undertakes some major rebuilding works to co-locate all rail and underground stations and make interchange easier. He also suggests a single terminus under the central terminal area (what used to be Terminals 1, 2 and 3), which is a bit of a snub to BA way out in the sticks at T5 -- he pointedly says "in the UK we do not have a national airline".
Mawhinney suggests postponing any decision about having a more central London terminus way into the future, and argues that HS2 should not be held up while that debate rages. Interestingly, he suggests exploring whether "such a terminus could be located so that it would serve HS1, HS2, and perhaps the Heathrow Express and Crossrail". I can't actually think of a single possible configuration that could do all of that, short of extending Crossrail somehow and excavating all the ground under King's Cross/St Pancras; or diverting HS1 to, er, Farringdon and hollowing out Crossrail to take HS gauge trains, rejoining HS1 at Stratford-ish...? No, I can't even begin to imagine the cost of that.
Mawhinney pushes hard for the Secretary of State to look, again, at whether regional trains should run to the continental mainland (eg, Manchester-Paris), asking that "further work on this issue be authorised urgently". At this point he abandons rational economics and states that:
Only once in a generation, or less frequently, do we as a nation think strategically about national transportation. With the concept of high speed rail we are at such a moment. I believe we should grasp the opportunity with maximum, though realistic, vision.
In that spirit it seems sensible to me to link Heathrow into a high speed rail network which might extend from Scotland to Paris. Clearly, it is both right and important to develop confidence in the business case. This does not need to be overwhelmingly positive, but it does need to be reasonable enough to enable the Secretary of State to take a major decision in the national interest. It makes sense if possible to create a seamless link between HS1 and HS2, and I believe such a decision would be popular. We should aim to deprive our grandchildren of the opportunity to criticise our lack of vision or determination – as long as this can be achieved in a way that taxpayers deem reasonable.
Blimey. I wasn't expecting such romance from him of all people.
No comments:
Post a Comment