It is time to move on from the debate around the value of Heathrow as an air hub, and recognise the value of Heathrow as a rail hub.
In the past, airport rail connections have sometimes been regarded as a planning gain for the airport, and with that approach have come obligations for airports to fund them. So HS2 Ltd contends as of now, for instance, that a station to serve Manchester Airport depends on local funding. This is really nonsensical.
Connecting the rail network to airports was the subject of an episode of Yes Minister - a blindingly obvious development to Minister Jim Hacker, but a subject that crossed departmental fault lines and thus a cause for excruciating obfuscation from Sir Humphrey.
We may be past that particular hurdle, but imposing funding obligations for mixed use surface access schemes on competing private sector airport owners remains problematic. Entirely different perspectives on the matter are held by the two regulators, ORR and the CAA.
The case for creating the necessary rail infrastructure west of London is not something to insist on the airport owner providing (although a contribution would be sensible), because the rich mix of M25-style rail journeys and benefits that a rail hub will bring come regardless of whether Heathrow gets a third runway or not. The funding mix needs to reflect this point.
It is important that development plans for the airport’s third runway do not inhibit the rational development of surface transport west of London, which will rely on a rail hub at Heathrow - especially because this facility could be crucial to proving the acceptability of the third runway proposal in terms of air quality.
On this subject, the Government statement on Heathrow’s third runway makes clear that final decisions will include conditions requiring the airport to meet both local air quality and road traffic congestion limits.
The detail of those conditions will be one of the matters covered in the consultation on the National Policy Statement, and also in the subsequent consideration of the detailed planning applications. If Government wants to give itself a good chance of negotiating the planning hurdles ahead, it would do well to initiate a strategic examination of the scope to develop the rail network at Heathrow in the way described.
It could do worse than re-read the review conducted by Lord Mawhinney on the question of how HS2 should best serve Heathrow (to which the answer was St Augustinian - yes, but not until later).
Published in July 2010, Lord Mawhinney concluded: “I judge it to be important that Heathrow should be made as accessible as possible by both high speed and traditional rail infrastructure. In my view this is more likely to take place if a staged building approach is adopted, in accordance with a pre-agreed master plan.”
In the past, incremental decisions on rail links as conditions of serial planning consents have created an inefficient rail infrastructure at Heathrow. The habit needs to be broken. Road traffic in the Heathrow area (including from the major motorways) creates around half of the air quality problem, and aviation contributes much of the balance. Of course, road vehicles and aircraft will become less polluting over time. But none can match the air quality standards that electrified rail brings.
Developing rail as a network west of London, with a hub station at Heathrow, requires the master planning that Lord Mawhinney called for. Indeed, it may be crucial for progress with the third runway. The National Infrastructure Commission should demand a rail master plan as a pre-requisite.
