HC Deb 30 June 1987 vol 118 cc54-5W
Mr. Dicks

asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received the consultants' report on surface access to Heathrow airport; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Channon

The report of the Heathrow surface access study on travel between Heathrow airport and central London, which the Government commissioned in March 1986, is being published today by the consultants Howard Humphreys and Partners, who undertook the study in association with the MVA consultancy and Kennedy Henderson Ltd. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library and sent to those most closely involved. Further copies are available direct from the consultants.

The consultants were asked to examine the implications of growth at the airport over the next 20 years, including the possibility of further terminal development on the Perry Oaks site. There are no plans for such a development, but it would have been wrong to conduct a long-term review of this kind without examining how the transport options considered could meet the increased passenger demand which would be created by any further development of this kind within the timescale dealt with by the study.

The report confirms the general experience that roads in the Heathrow to London corridor are already heavily loaded and traffic is continuing to grow. If nothing is done, delays will get worse. While Healthrow traffic is only a small proportion of all traffic using these roads, the report proposes various ways of assisting the flow of traffic on the M4 and A4 to make journey times to Heathrow shorter and more predictable. Three of the schemes, to the west of Chiswick, are relatively straightforward; these have already been incorporated into the Department's programme of projects for the A4-M4 corridor. The report also identifies possibilities for more far-reaching schemes to the east of Chiswick.

The study revealed that rail and road options were complementary rather than competing, and the report identifies a large number of possible rail developments involving both British Rail and improved Underground services. These have been evaluated on a financial basis using a computer model developed specially for the study. The report finds that some of these rail schemes should be commercially viable.

In accordance with their remit to look beyond the end of the century, the consultants have considered the scope for more radical solutions. One possibility considered is the use of new technology to provide a dedicated link connecting the terminals at the airport directly with central London. A further possibility involves a tolled tunnel from Boston Manor on the M4 to the Shepherds Bush area. In view of the promising options that have been identified for cheaper and more conventional solutions, both road and rail, I do not propose to have these ideas taken forward as public sector projects for the time being.

The Government will need to reflect carefully on the findings of this major study. I am therefore inviting comments on the report's conclusions from the main transport operators (British Airways, British Rail, Civil Aviation Authority, Heathrow airport, and London Underground), the relevant local authorities, and other interested parties. The Government will also be considering how the private sector might be involved in the development and financing of the schemes discussed in the report; no decisions have yet been taken on the provision of public sector finance.