Written evidence from Gatwick Airport Limited (STA0054)

Introduction

• Gatwick Airport Limited (Gatwick), the UK’s second largest airport and the world’s busiest and most efficient single runway airport, welcomes the opportunity to present evidence to the Select Committee. 
• Aviation is an important enabler of economic growth and trade as well as allowing for leisure travel and visits to friends and family.
• As a general principle, all nations and regions should have air capacity and connectivity from a local airport to the maximum extent possible. Major conurbations such as London, New York and Tokyo tend to have multi airport systems with in-built convenience, competition and resilience.
• Good surface access can help make best use of existing UK airport capacity, so we strongly support a Government policy that would facilitate and encourage growth from a network of airports supported by excellent local surface access arrangements.  Every part of the UK would benefit from a network of competing airports providing passengers and businesses with more choice, greater convenience, higher standards, lower fares and a more resilient system.
• Similarly providing good ground transport access to all airports will help maximise public transport use and also play a key role in meeting environmental targets such as noise and air quality.
• Government should play its crucial role in planning and delivering surface access to airports in co-operation with airport operators, transport providers and local and regional authorities and adopt policies that favour good surface access to airports within integrated strategic transport networks.
• We believe that there should be clear principles as to who bears surface access costs; In essence, airports should expect to pay proportionately for transport schemes that cope with the direct and material impact from the airport or which are triggered by airport needs. The principles of cost allocation should be underpinned by a rigorous testing of surface demand assumptions and resultant capacity requirements so that the latter are properly assessed with costs calculated and allocated accordingly.
• We are committed to abiding by these principles at Gatwick, both for incremental growth and for a second runway.
• These principles should be applied to any major proposals, such as for new runways; and the Government should take care not to put public sector funding arrangements in place which could fall foul of EU rules on State Aid for aviation.
• Gatwick has a record of success in developing and delivering its Airport Surface Access Strategy, which enables it to deliver a high public transport mode share both now and in the future - with a projected 60% public transport usage with a second runway. This will be the highest of any major airport in the UK.
• In part, this is because Gatwick was originally designed with public transport in mind. Indeed, it was the first airport to be fully integrated with the public transport network – with the railway and rail station at the heart of what is now the South Terminal. This pioneering multi modal interchange set the standard internationally for airport surface access development and has been the basis for Gatwick’s consistent increase in passengers’ use of public transport.
• This has continued as Gatwick has grown its annual passenger numbers by 8 million passengers since the break-up of the BAA monopoly in 2009.  The benefits of increased competition in the airport industry has also seen other UK airports, including Birmingham, Manchester, and Edinburgh record strong growth in recent years
• Gatwick’s surface access is both extensive and resilient. Our understanding of, and plans for, surface access both now and with a second runway have been tested and checked by the statutory authorities, such as Highways England and Network Rail. These plans are robust and do not rely on measures that have not yet been thoroughly examined – in stark contrast to the outline proposals for congestion charging which would be necessary with further development at Heathrow.

We have structured our response to match the Committee’s Terms of Reference for this enquiry and set out below some key evidence and proposals in an effort to help the Committee with its considerations. We have also taken the opportunity to highlight a series of surface transport issues pertinent to Gatwick’s own operation.

Responses to Committee questions

This section sets out responses to the questions asked by the Committee,

Question 1: The range and capacity of strategic connections to airports and how predicted changes in demand for capacity (both passengers and freight) are being planned for.

Range and capacity of strategic connections to airports

• If we look internationally, the most effective countries and mega-cities have a network of world-class international airports supported by an integrated and network approach to surface transport access. Examples of this are Tokyo and New York. These cities place international airports in different locations with effective access directly to transport networks that serve a variety of purposes. This network approach balances load verses capacity effectively, adds resilience, provides the swiftest access to airports and engenders competition.
• As a general principle, all UK nations and regions (including London and the South East) should have sufficient airport capacity, acting as a network to satisfy regional demand. This is because:

(a)   Passengers have a strong preference for direct air services to and from their origin and destination.

(b)   Insufficient capacity in a given region is unlikely to be remedied by the provision of additional capacity in another region, especially where the passenger volumes involved are very large, as in the South East.

This is one reason why the Airports Commission concluded that another runway is required in the South East despite spare capacity elsewhere in the UK. 

• In order to ensure the airport capacity is utilised effectively, it should be accessible by supporting surface transport infrastructure. To that extent, surface transport investment can ‘unlock’ airport capacity and help that region or sub region to achieve the desired policy objectives and benefits include balanced economic growth.
• If maximum value is to be generated from the strategic transport connections, it is important that they are designed to be fully integrated, both between modes and also with the airport.  Similarly the transport links to airports, especially rail, benefit from background demand as well as airport demand to increase financial value: hence the importance of cross-modal interchange and through rail services rather than branch line services.
• Any proposal being put forward should be thoroughly tested and thought through to understand the implications on other parts of the network.

Planning for predicted changes in demand for capacity

• Government Policy is set out in the Aviation Policy Framework 2013, which provides clear guidance to airport operators as to how they should develop their Airport Surface Access Strategy (ASAS).  The ASAS should set out what surface access infrastructure and connections are required in the future to support the Airport. These Strategies are generally agreed with key stakeholders through an Airport’s Transport Forum. How a Transport Forum should operate is also set out in the Aviation Policy Framework 2013.
• There is guidance within the Aviation Policy Framework as to when Airport Operators should fund transport infrastructure. For airports that are price regulated, Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) policy is also important.
• Significant changes of airport capacity generally need to gain planning approval, which usually requires a detailed Transport Assessment in accordance with national and local guidance. All aspects of this Assessment would be subject to detailed scrutiny. An ASAS would be an output of this Transport Assessment and would again be open to scrutiny. It would be reasonable to expect any airport operator to agree as far as possible its Transport Assessment and resulting ASAS with both Statutory and other key stakeholders.
• In balancing load against capacity for road and rail systems, particular attention is needed not just to the overall volumes of air passenger traffic, but also to the proportion of transfer passengers who will not use surface access modes. Robust sensitivity testing is necessary to ensure enough capacity is provided.

An example of how such variations can occur can be seen in the very different forecasts of Heathrow transfer passengers included in the Airports Commission’s forecasts compared to those assumed by Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL). The Commission forecasts a steady decline in the Heathrow transfer proportion in the period up to 2050 whereas HAL assume a continuation at today’s proportion. The result is the Commission forecasts that around 10 million more passengers may need surface access in 2040, rising to over 20 million more in 2050, compared to HAL’s plan. This raises questions as to whether the transport networks and the scheme proposals can accommodate the proposed increases in air traffic. Equally, if as a result of this analysis a congestion charge had to be implemented, there was no evidence that this had been thoroughly tested and the implications on other transport networks understood.

• It should also be expected that an Airport Operator would include all capital expenditure on surface access infrastructure in its Capital Plan that is triggered by expansion. With the introduction of the National Infrastructure Plan in 2010, major airport operator Capital Plans are detailed and identify the infrastructure being planned.

Demonstrating how the range and capacity of strategic connections are planned for:

• Gatwick’s own experience shows the significant benefits from having a wide range of strategic rail connections in all directions, and direct train services to 129 destinations.  Gatwick has achieved the highest rail mode share of any major UK airport, having been conceived in the 1930s as an airport fully integrated with the main line railway, a design that is still being copied worldwide in cities such as Geneva, Tokyo and Hong Kong.  This integration ensures efficient sharing of capacity and value for money when providing both peak and off peak rail capacity in all directions. The integrated approach will normally add more value, and be more sustainable, than rail spurs operating shuttle services, e.g. Heathrow Express.
• Connections to and from all compass points, such as at Gatwick, also presents a more efficient model for customers and government.  They allow the airport to be better served directly from a range of strategic routes supporting other journey types, which ensure that services contribute to regional and national connectivity rather than only serving the airport from a single direction. There are a number of other examples where an airport’s location and surface access facilitates this, including Manchester, Frankfurt and Amsterdam Schiphol. 
• As well as the range and coverage of strategic road and rail connections, it is important to consider the reliability and quality of surface transport routes. Gatwick is fortunate in having multiple rail lines and trunk roads that, with the completion of the Thameslink Programme enhancement, will operate well below saturation levels and thus aid reliability and resilience. Conversely, recent analysis by the Airports Commission showed the significant congestion affecting the M25 and M4 near Heathrow, and the impact of saturation on punctuality, delays and unreliable journey times for airport passengers.
• Gatwick has a clear understanding of its surface access needs both now and with a second runway. In developing its submission to the Airports Commission we produced a full Transport Assessment and shared our modelling, analysis, results and subsequent infrastructure designs with the statutory agencies (Highways England, Network Rail, West Sussex County Council), who checked and validated our work. We also stress tested our proposed strategy to ensure that, if there were any variations in airport-related traffic inputs, this would not put undue pressure on the transport networks.
• Members of our key stakeholder organisations are part of our Transport Forum Steering Group, which has reviewed and developed with us both our current Airport Surface Access Strategy and the Strategy to support a second runway. We do not rely on measures that have not been thoroughly reviewed and tested, such as is the case with congestion charging proposed by Heathrow.
• Gatwick has also made a clear commitment to fund the infrastructure required to support a second runway, to ensure that surface transport capacity is provided to meet the demand.
• In conclusion, Gatwick’s view is that Government policy for surface access to airports does support sustainable development and that capacity planning of strategic connections takes some account of predicted changes in demand.  However, more could be done by Government to integrate planning for national road and rail networks with ASAS development, with the onus on the Airport Operator to plan accordingly with stakeholders through its Airport Surface Access Strategy and Transport Forum.

Question 2: The importance of surface transport in freeing up existing spare capacity in airports.

• At any airport there are three key systems working in parallel: surface access, the Airport itself and the airspace: all of which need to be kept in balance. Good quality surface access will support the greater use of capacity at airports.
• Surface transport needs depend on the distribution of demand and capacity of the UK airports network.  The Government’s choice between Heathrow and Gatwick as the best location for another runway will have an important influence on the future shape of that network.
• Although the Aviation Policy Framework emphasises the need to facilitate a competitive aviation market, and emphasises the growth and importance of airports outside London, the Airports Commission's recommendation that Heathrow should be expanded runs counter to these objectives - as such expansion will tend to suck traffic into Heathrow and reduce the opportunities for direct routes from regional airports.
• These important strategic considerations, which will influence heavily the future surface transport needs of airports, merit the Committee's attention during this Inquiry.
• We do not believe that surface access can work at a pan-national level to move significant amounts of airport demand from one part of the country to another. All the evidence shows that such an approach is economically inefficient and that consumers want short and direct trips to the airport: already 80% of air passengers travel less than two hours to their airport. In that sense a “national” airport is an outdated misnomer.
• However, supporting better surface access to airports as a key part of an integrated national policy with the strategic road and rail network, will allow airports to grow sustainably. 
• We would reiterate that, as a general principle, all nations and regions (including London and the South East) should have sufficient airport capacity to satisfy regional demand. This is because:

(a)   Passengers have a strong preference for direct air services to and from their desired origin and destination airport.

(b)   Insufficient capacity in a given region cannot be remedied by the existence of spare capacity in another region, especially where the passenger volumes involved are very large as in the South East.

This is why the Airports Commission concluded another runway is required in the South East despite spare capacity elsewhere in the UK. 

• Effective surface access provided as part of investment in transport networks (and not instead of it) allows airports to better serve their local catchments sustainably.  This rationale is based on creating integrated networks that have balanced demand at different times of the day and in each direction, making best use of capacity and delivering value for money to taxpayers and Government.
• The benefits from investing in airport surface access are not limited to the airport itself, or to the associated industries and employment, where the access links are fully integrated with surrounding communities.  Outside of peak commuter periods, travel to and from airports can be important for maintaining commercially viable public transport services and infrastructure improvements, which provide important benefits for surrounding areas. 
• Improved surface access links, particularly to the strategic road and rail networks are essential to help spread the economic benefits and prevent overheating small parts of the National Networks. These regional networks of airports/roads/railways provide higher levels of reliability and resilience than an “all eggs in one basket approach”. This is best seen in the networks of airport/road/railway systems serving New York and Tokyo.
• In summary, good surface access can make best use of spare capacity across the airport system.  Government policy for airport surface access and investment should support both national and regional networks of airports: concentration and monopoly should not be encouraged. Secondly, airport surface access policy should look to spread airport passenger loads across the nation and across the regions to improve access, aid reliability and resilience, and to foster competition.

Question 3: The Government’s role in planning surface access to airports in conjunction with airport owners, local authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships

• Government policy has been successful in many instances in helping to deliver effective transport infrastructure for airports and promote the greater use of public transport. This has been paid for in a proportionate way and which recognises that airport related surface transport investment is most efficient when the costs and benefits are shared.
• The Government should largely take a strategic role in planning surface access to airports; setting the surface access policy framework in order for the Airport Operators and their Transport Forums (which should include Local Enterprise Partnerships) to meet the overarching policy through their Airport Surface Access Strategies (as set out in the Aviation Policy Framework 2013).
• It is thus right that the Government should set out the overarching principles for surface access, but allow for local circumstances and needs to be taken into account. The fundamental principle being that Government should act to promote competition, choice and consumer surplus (to demonstrate economic value).
• It is also important that the needs of air passengers are better reflected in Government’s strategic planning for rail, recognising the customer preferences for high quality, direct, frequent and reliable services, with dedicated links where this is possible.  Service patterns should recognise the extended hours of airport-related demand and the impacts of planned maintenance during holiday periods when airports are busy. 
• However, the Government and its agencies (Highways England and Network Rail) should also ensure that airports are considered when policies are being developed for other and wider aspects, such as National Networks and Environmental considerations, to ensure a joined up, consistent and value maximising approach.
• Equally airport operators should expect to have agencies such as Network Rail and Highways England as part of their Transport Fora, as it is rightly a two way process.
• It is pertinent to note that in the 2015 Government Terms of Reference for Highways England, airport operators are classified as key stakeholders, which is a positive and welcome recognition and encourages a level of formal joint working.
• It would also be expected that Government would be more likely to have a more prominent role where strategic surface access connections are involved; however these would still be expected to meet the policy framework.
• As with any strategic role, there will always be the need to better align National, Regional and Local plans to ensure the efficient and timely delivery of transport infrastructure.
• In summary, Government surface access policy with respect to airport access should be at a strategic level and seek to support efficiency, competition and contestability, in order to promote choice and avoid over-concentration. It should also enable better coordination amongst the key stakeholders.

Question 4: The funding of strategic connections to airports

• The Aviation Policy Framework 2013 para 5.12, which relates to surface access, states the following:
  “The general position for existing airports is that developers should pay the costs of upgrading or enhancing road, rail or other transport networks or services where there is a need to cope with additional passengers travelling to and from expanded or growing airports. Where the scheme has a wider range of beneficiaries, the Government will consider, along with other relevant stakeholders, the need for additional public funding on a case-by-case basis.”
• As set out in our response to Question 3, we would expect Government to have more of an involvement in the strategic connections to airports: any funding by the airport operator should be both in line with national policy and would also need to be in line with CAA policy.
• The Current CAA Policy is contained within CAP1332 Economic regulation of new runway capacity – Update, September 2015. For surface access funding the Policy states (Section 5 page 10) that:

‘For airport capacity expansion which requires significant investment in surface access infrastructure, we would, as required by our statutory duties, assess costs from the viewpoint of airport users (such as passengers and cargo-owners). To include costs in the RAB, or for these costs to be taken into account in the setting of any pricing restrictions or commitments, we would expect the airport operator to provide robust evidence on how the investments would meet the following criteria:

• the extent to which surface access investment by the airport operator is in the long- term interests of passengers and cargo-owners (rather than third parties);
• the investment delivers positive benefits to passengers and cargo-owners (rather than third parties);
• costs have been efficiently incurred and the scope of the project minimised;
• surface access users (and third parties) would contribute to the cost where appropriate, for example, through the payment of fares; and
• the costs added to the RAB are proportionate to the benefits to passengers and cargo-owners.

Any planning obligations relating to surface access are also likely to be important additional considerations. We have previously acknowledged that it may be necessary for an airport operator to make a contribution greater than that strictly necessary for its own efficient operation, as part of a requirement to obtain the necessary planning consents. We also appreciate that we may need to consider the extent to which the costs of meeting these planning obligations can be included in an airport operator’s RAB.’

• It can be seen that there are some differences between the CAP1332 and the Aviation Policy Framework 2013. Consequently there is scope to better align Department for Transport (DfT) and CAA policy to reduce uncertainty and to ensure that differences of interpretation are avoided, as this could frustrate the timely delivery of surface access infrastructure.
• We would also expect there to be no difference in approach to funding whether a surface access scheme was strategic or not.
• We would ask the Committee to note that airport-related surface transport investment is generally most efficient when the costs and benefits are shared between airport users and the wider regional population – especially in the case of strategic connections. An element of airport use can enhance the business case for surface transport infrastructure. For example the extra Gatwick rail users estimated to result from a second runway would contribute over £3bn over 30 years to the rail fare box, and the majority travel in the counter peak direction relative to commuters, and in off peak times. This provides valuable additional income when considering rail schemes such as the Thameslink Programme, which is driven by the needs of regional users, but where air passengers from Gatwick and Luton Airports provide significant revenue benefits to Government.
• We would thus expect, for co-funded schemes, that any additional revenue streams be taken into account when considering the surface access connection.
• In summary, Government airport surface access policy should seek an appropriate financial contribution from airports for related transport schemes, on the basis that:

(a)   An airport should expect to pay proportionally for transport schemes depending on these factors:

(i)      Directness: does the expansion of the airport have a direct impact on the railway or road infrastructure requiring infrastructure investment to implement a measure that is part of the Scheme, or to offset or mitigate the impact of the Scheme?

(ii)    Materiality: is the impact on the road or railway, including infrastructure and service provision, significant, pervasive and material such that the ability of the infrastructure or service to meet its functional and capacity requirements is affected?

(iii)  Necessity: is the creation or upgrade of the railway or road infrastructure or services necessary to implement a measure that is part of the Scheme, required to achieve the financial and operational viability of the airport expansion or support the achievement of the proposed mode shares?

(b)   Secondly, that the revenue stream increases from airport rail users should be part of any cost/benefit sharing scheme.

• Gatwick applied these principles to the funding of its surface access strategy for a second runway and this led us to propose fully funding the improvements to junction 9 and 9a of the M23 and the diversion of the A23 even though they have a regional benefit. Whilst the Airports Commission recommended to Government that a third runway should be provided at Heathrow, it left uncertain the issue of whether the taxpayer should pay for some or all of the £5bn or more of surface access infrastructure required as a direct result of the Heathrow proposal.

Question 5: Department for Transport (DfT) role in ensuring that surface access infrastructure is planned and built in a joined-up way where different parts of the infrastructure are funded by different parties.

• The Department for Transport does have a key role in ensuring that, as far as possible, surface access infrastructure is planned and built in a joined up way, whether or not it is funded by different parties. This should be to ensure that the end result is an efficient and joined up system as a whole.
• In Gatwick’s case, the DfT has demonstrated its role in effectively coordinating the funding partners for projects such as the Gatwick Rail Station upgrade and in the overall planning for a second runway at Gatwick, as well as reflecting the needs of air passengers in the GTR franchise specification.
• In summary, the DfT should continue to have a role in the planning and building of surface access infrastructure for airports, especially in the balancing and integration of rail and road.

Question 6: The level of responsibility that should be borne by the taxpayer for funding access to and interface with national networks

• An equitable funding mechanism is central to unlocking the business case for surface transport investment serving airports.
• Gatwick supports the following general principles, which it adopted in developing its surface access strategy for a second runway:

(a)   Taxpayers should not be expected to fund surface transport infrastructure where the need for such infrastructure is triggered solely to serve airport users. The principles of directness, materiality and necessity should drive the contribution by an airport.

(b)   Where schemes are dual use, public funding of surface transport infrastructure may be appropriate with investment decision informed by Green Book methodology.

(c)    Any additional income e.g. rail fares received by Government as a result of airport users, should be taken into account.

(d)   The Government should not agree any proposals that risk being seen as State Aid.

• The above principles are consistent with established practice today. They are also broadly consistent with the surface access provisions para 5.12 in the Aviation Policy Framework 2013. However, we note that the language in the Framework runs the risk of unfairly burdening airport users with a greater share of cost than is appropriate as it leaves doubt as to how dual beneficiary schemes would be funded. The Framework states that (para 5.12) ‘Where the scheme has a wider range of beneficiaries, the Government will consider, along with other relevant stakeholders, the need for additional public funding on a case-by-case basis.’.
• At the same time, at regulated airports any surface access investment is also subject to CAA price regulation.
• We believe the Government should seek to further clarify the funding principles that should apply, and secondly, ensure that these principles and CAA policy are clearly aligned.
• In reviewing how any investment should be made, we believe the following should be considered:

(a)   Major airports are open 24 hours a day, and all UK airports have a demand profile with peaks spread throughout the day, which differ from the traditional commuter peaks that have the greatest influence on road and rail capacity and connectivity.  This means that airport demand supports more sustainable off peak and contra-peak service levels that benefit a whole region. 

It also delivers far greater returns on the provision of infrastructure and service capacity in national networks, particularly through franchised rail services.  Gatwick’s estimate of the additional rail franchise revenue generated by an increased rail mode share and demand from a second runway at Gatwick is around £3bn over 30 years, the vast majority being generated outside of peak periods when there is plenty of rail capacity.

(b)   A reasonable and supportive approach to infrastructure cost sharing should be taken by airports, which recognises the importance of surface access, and this should be evidenced in their airport surface access strategies (ASAS).  These are a statutory requirement required by the 2013 Aviation Policy Framework along with a Transport Forum

Gatwick’s current ASAS goes beyond the statutory requirement for a five year plan to look at the longer term, and considers trends and innovation affecting travel behaviour as well as setting the objectives, schemes and targets that will drive surface access to 2030.  This is important for successful infrastructure planning and enables effective engagement and planning with regional and national stakeholders for strategic road and rail networks.

• In summary, we believe that Government policy on the taxpayer funding of surface access to airports should be subject to some limited clarification and ensure that Government and CAA policies are aligned.

The areas that should be clarified by Government to ensure this alignment are that:

(a)   Taxpayers should not be expected to fund surface transport infrastructure where the need for such infrastructure is triggered solely to serve airport users.

(b)   Where schemes are dual use, public funding of surface transport infrastructure may be appropriate, with investment decisions informed by Green Book methodology.

(c)    Any additional income e.g. rail fares received by Government as a result of airport users, should be taken into account.

Question 7: The Government’s effectiveness in ensuring that its own policies, such as modal shift, are being achieved in decisions about surface transport to airports

• Aligning surface access for airports with national policies for sustainable transport (and mode shift to public transport) is essential for Government policy to be truly effective and for surface access to be integrated with national networks.  This should also extend to directly related policies such as air quality and noise policy as surface access to airports directly impacts these and are determining factors in achieving adherence to legal limits.
• Airports already have clear policy guidance in the 2013 Aviation Policy Framework on what should be included in their Surface Access Strategies and how their Transport Fora should be run. Gatwick’s current ASAS and Transport Forum fully meet this Guidance, as does the ASAS for a second runway which we published as a separate document, following a thorough review by our key stakeholders. It is essential that an ASAS is based on clear, well thought through plans which have been tested to ensure that they deliver the required mode shift, and any implications are well thought through.
• Compared to national and regional figures for other journey purposes, travel to and from airports exhibits a higher than average public transport mode share.  This means that, proportionally, surface access journeys make a greater contribution to sustaining public transport networks and create a better spread of the benefits from public transport investment with demand throughout the day.
• Supporting air passenger travel on strategic routes also helps to create resilient networks where they are developed in a co-ordinated way with strategic stakeholders. Gatwick has taken an approach to expansion that ensures demand is routed onto the strategic links that can most easily accommodate it.  This reflects the need for airports to be “good neighbours” and reduce the impact on local roads and communities.
• Government should continue to encourage airports to maximise the use of public transport modes for surface access, at a level consistent with the networks and facilities available to them.  It is not appropriate to set targets for rail use, for example, that disadvantages airports with no railway station.  However, Government should require and support airports to optimise use of available networks and facilities.  This could extend to identifying where successful measures and innovations are adopted and providing Government-backed incentives, including a matched investment fund for example, to encourage airports to take the next step.  This engenders a virtuous cycle of good practice at the airports with a mechanism for Government to provide support, which is aligned to both airport and national objectives.
• Gatwick advocates giving consideration to the practicalities of outputs that support an objective of a “minimum standard” of public transport access for all UK airports, with these standards reflecting the full range of connections available (rail, bus, coach, light rail) and at a level commensurate with the size of the airport.  It is not economically feasible to provide direct rail access to all UK airports, but effective and reliable road links serving nearby interchanges and the major towns and cities nearby would provide an alternative. 
• The Committee should also consider the role of coach network providers in supporting surface transport connectivity. 
• Furthermore, an airport provides an opportunity for a transport hub, which can support the efficient delivery of inter-connecting services that may not otherwise be viable.  This can support the role of regional airports in promoting choice and creating a more varied offering, with a sustainable model for meeting demand.
• Our recommendation to the Committee is that Government policy for airport access should support all modes, foster innovation and look to create holistic solutions that create wider benefits.

Question 8: The extent to which airport customer preference and DfT policy concur in terms of preferred modes of transport to airports

• Airport customers have a preference for direct rail and coach connections.  Air passengers are often encumbered with luggage and more commonly travel in family groups. Therefore rail access to airports needs to create as many “origins” as possible. By way of example, when the Thameslink Programme enhancement is complete, Gatwick will be served by directly from around 175 stations, and over 1,000 with a single change of train. Government policy for public transport by rail is to prioritise capacity and, to some extent station facilities, for the commuter. We consider that this narrow approach should be broadened to reflect better support to airports in general.
• In an ideal world there would be sufficient capacity to offer dedicated rail services to match customer preferences, which are different for air passengers than for other regular rail users.  Dedicated services allow these preferences to be reflected in the service and rolling stock provision, which benefits the passenger experience and increases brand awareness, loyalty and mode share.
• The current approach for air-rail services within rail franchises is that dedicated services are generally offered at a premium fare and the all-day demand ensures that they make a significant contribution to farebox revenue.

Whilst this is not ideal, there needs to be a balance struck between delivering rail capacity to airports and providing services for commuters and other users.  Gatwick’s view is that where dedicated airport services and commuter services are integrated into the overall rail timetable and the needs of all users are adequately reflected, the widest benefits of serving airports directly can be achieved.

• Convenient connections and optimum choice can lead to reduced cost for passengers and can support more sustainable services and transport links.  Concentration onto a small number of routes, with little or no choice of mode, is inefficient and leads to unsustainable congestion, increasing costs of delay and loss of productivity.
• By contrast, there is significant economic value and journey time benefits that can be achieved from integrated regional transport hubs.  This is the rationale behind the Gatwick Gateway proposal, which will provide a regional interchange available to airport and other users equally and is centred on Gatwick Airport railway station.  Heathrow also benefits from being a hub interchange for express coaches, but suffers from having a dispersed arrangement of terminals and onward connections by rail, remote from the coach station.
• There is also considerable supporting evidence that passengers’ preference is to limit their surface transport journey to less than two hours for the majority of journeys by air.  Evidence (CAA data) has shown that a 2 hour catchment area covers approximately 80% of air passengers. This thereby reduces the notion of “national” benefits from a single hub. It is thus important that effective surface access is needed to a network of “regional and local” airports, especially as the nature of air travel changes.
• Our recommendation to the Committee is that Government policy should seek a broader view of rail, especially in the context of airports and the rail services to them: convenience, connectivity and dual-use being most important.

October 2015