Minutes of stakeholder group on surface access to Heathrow airport - 1 Feb 2006

Attendees: Martin Capstick (DfT), David Gray (DfT), Jeff Thompson (DfT), Victoria Robb (DfT), Becky Wood (DfT), Victoria Mayo (DfT), David Knight (DfT), Sharon Maddix (DfT), Graham Hanson (GOL), David Cooper (GOSE), Mike Carrivick (BAR-UK), Maurice Hudson (HACC), Mike Forster (BAA), Mike Noakes (BAA), Tabitha Stebbings (BAA), John Rider (BAA), Denvil Coombe (DCP for BAA), Paul Ellis (BA), Paul Harwood (HA), Richard McGreevy (GLA), Peter McClymont (flybmi), Vanessa Tamms (Virgin), Julia Bray (TfL), Bob Preston (BATA)

Item 1 - PSDH overview

1. Martin Capstick introduced the meeting and welcomed those present. David Gray then gave an update on the key areas of the PSDH work programme.

Mixed Mode

2. NATS had finalised a working concept of operations for mixed mode which would satisfy air traffic control requirements and could be operated feasibly at the airport, with appropriate support measures. This was being assessed for safety and noise impacts by CAA, with an assessment of air quality impacts still to come.

3. BAA were exploring a number of surface access measures to support mixed mode - see agenda item 2 - as well as developing options for airport layout.

Air Quality

4. The Air Quality technical process had been largely completed. The Panels had recommended methodologies and modelling tools which would underpin further assessment of mixed mode and third runway scenarios during 2006. A full technical report would be published in the next month or so, following Peer Review.

Third Runway

5. A concept of operations for a third runway was being defined by NATS. Mitigation measures for surface access, noise and local air quality were being similarly developed and would be tested once the work on mixed mode was finished.

Item 2 - Surface access modelling

6. Denvil Coombe gave a presentation on the surface access workstream. He reminded the group of the key objectives and the particular areas of interest as regards air quality, and took them through the suite of models being developed for the purposes of assessment. Most of these models would be complete by the end of February. For consistency, the framework being used was the same as the one developed for the Stansted planning applications and the M25 Rapid Widening Project. Non-airport planning assumptions would be fully consistent with the Trip End Model Presentation Programme (TEMPRO).

7. A new mode share model - the London Airports Surface Access Model (LASAM) - has been developed, using CAA 2003 data. A new airport employee mode share model, HESAM, is being developed for Heathrow and would be completed by early March. Under current plans it would not be completed in time for use in the work programme to inform the mixed mode consultation but would be available for the 'full' programme (see also paragraph 14).

8. The primary sources of data were:

• Public transport level of service data from the same data source as being used for the London Airports Surface Access Model (LASAM) implementation at Heathrow
• Highway level of service from the Regional Road Traffic Model (RRTM)
• BAA employee survey

9. The RRTM was being developed by Hyder from the Highways Agency's M25 Rapid Widening Model.

10. Non-airport demand would be generated by the Non-Airport Demand Model being developed by Faber Maunsell from their Stansted Regional Demand Model.

11. Air Quality modelling would be conducted at two levels. An optioneering stage would sift options using the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges methodology. Detailed assessment of the most promising options would then take place, using Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants' (CERC) air quality model, as recommended by the AQ panels.

12. A number of scenarios and forecast years would be run through the models:

• for maximum use: years 2010, 2015, 2020 and 2030
• for mixed mode: years 2015 and 2030
• for R3/T6: years 2020 and 2030

13. A range of policy levers or mitigation measures in support of mixed mode would be tested and appraised during February and March. They would include M4 slip/link restrictions/closures, restricting parking and/or increasing charges, airport access charging, road user charging and enhanced rail/coach services. It was emphasised that this would all be without prejudice to what measures may be taken forward in due course.

14. Some modifications to the modelling approach would be needed initially to meet the timetable constraints. These were explained. It was noted that modelling is by nature an on-going activity. All the information used to inform the mixed mode consultation would be fit for purpose and the consultation document would clearly explain the origin and methodology of all the information used. The models would be re-run subsequently, once they were fully developed, before any final decisions were reached.

15. A question arose as to whether it was feasible to use the stated preference research conducted for BAA into the valuations air passengers place on aspects of airport rail services to inform TfL proposals for updating the Piccadilly Line. Julia Bray agreed to clarify the scope of the proposals with colleagues in TfL and report back. (Action: TfL)

Item 3 - Strategic road network

16. Paul Harwood gave a presentation on demand management and road user charging, in response to a request made at the last meeting of the Stakeholder Group.

17. He explained that the Highways Agency itself had no powers at present to introduce charging, but the Secretary of State might consent to local authority charging schemes which extend to the national road network.

18. The advantages and disadvantages of charging schemes were discussed, including queue dispersal and improved air quality on the one hand and high implementation costs and accessibility issues for less well-off drivers on the other.

19. Both the Thames Valley Multi Modal Studies and the Orbit study had recommended the introduction of some form of demand management measure, specifically on the motorways. A number of potential options were discussed. As the UK had limited experience in this field, lessons were being learnt from the operation of such schemes in the USA.

Item 4 - Any other business

20. It was requested that the next meeting should take place once modelling results were available and before the mixed mode consultation was launched, so that the Group could have an input to that. DfT agreed to consider.