London Luton Airport Rail Connectivity

Transcription

1 A review of current airport-rail services operating via the Thameslink and East Midlands line and future opportunities with the 201/15 Thameslink/East Midlands franchise renewals.

2 Executive Summary s CONTENTS SCOPE This Paper examines London s (LLA) rail connectivity in light of the pending Thameslink franchise and subsequent East Midlands franchise re-tenders. INTRODUCTION Improving rail service connectivity between the Capital and LLA through the two franchises offers the opportunity to make LLA a recognisable, official gateway to the South East. To do so will help alleviate the S. East s congested airspace by opening up LLA s available runway capacity, enabling more airline passengers to travel using greener, sustainable means of transport, delivering social and economic benefits for the region. THE PROBLEM Today s Thameslink services calling at are poorly timetabled, resulting in a large proportion of airport users being unable to consider rail as viable means of transport. Furthermore, the lack of a suitably branded and developed Airport Express brand, which could be incorporated into the Thameslink franchise, or more simply into the fast train East Midlands franchise, diminishes the ability to fully realise the airport s rail service s true potential. ANALYSIS METHODS The paper is split into two distinct case studies. The first, focusing on the rail timetable inadequacies, details LLA s arriving and departing passenger profile against the current Thameslink rail services to highlight the significant service gaps that exist. The second case study extracts key highlights from an independent study. This examines the feasibility of increasing the number of fast East Midlands train services stopping at from one per hour to an ideal four per hour. KEY FINDINGS A review of data clearly shows a distinct lack of early morning rail services when the airport is at its busiest. This rail service shortfall during key airport operational peaks excludes 20% - 1% of total airport traffic, c million passengers per year, from considering rail. Based on the current level of passengers who use rail to access the airport, this represents 80, ,000 additional journeys each year which could be made by rail if minimum service levels existed. Furthermore, the study into the share of Greater London air passengers using London s five main airports reveals that LLA, without an Express service, lags behind its four competitors in its rail mode share by 8-1% (c. 1m passenger journeys in latent demand if an Express service existed at Luton). RECOMMENDATIONS Department for Transport Require future rail franchise bidders to set minimum twice hourly rail service levels aligned with airport passenger demand (early morning in particular) Encourage growth in airport-rail patronage by requiring future bidders to begin the process of establishing a Express (LEX) brand and services Ensure the new Thameslink franchise has the flexibility to incorporate adjustments to accommodate future LEX services Use industry standard travel demand models to further examine latent demand Shortlisted Thameslink Bidders Timetable all future services to accommodate the busy airport operational peaks Establish minimum twice hourly services to call at Luton as they do at Gatwick Create or provide scope for non-stop services from Luton to St. Pancras Work with London and its partners more closely Other interested stakeholders e.g. airlines, neighbouring businesses Vocalise support for the aspiration to see services to the airport extended and developed by responding at INTRODUCTION POLICY CONTEXT THE 201 THAMESLINK FRANCHISE FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES Case study one future timetable changes THE 201/2015 EAST MIDLANDS FRANCHISE - FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES Case study two developing fast train services marketed under an airport-rail London Express (LEX) brand TARGETS AND ACTIONS 2

3 Scope of this Paper s 1 Introduction This Paper examines rail access to London Luton Airport and most importantly, the opportunities that exist with the forthcoming Thameslink franchise tender, due to begin in October 2012 with the successful bidder to be announced in May 201 and the subsequent tendering of the East Midlands Trains franchise in March Both franchise tenders represent a significant opportunity to increase the number of passengers accessing London via public transport, both today with improved scheduling of the current timetables so that they align with airport passenger demand, and in the future to grow this usage through the development of fast train services presented under a seamless airport-rail London Express (LEX) brand. In order to highlight the benefits of a more appropriately aligned timetable and creation of a LEX brand, this Paper uses two case studies to demonstrate the current inadequacies and opportunities for improvement that exist. Firstly from the current timetabling, which excludes a large proportion of today s airport users from using rail as a viable means of transport to access and egress the airport, and secondly, the opportunity through the development of fast train services, adequately promoted under an umbrella LEX brand to raise the overall attractiveness of rail as a mode of transport. With foresight and a desire to improve and expand on the existing rail services through the new seven year Thameslink franchise, there is a real opportunity to strengthen and legitimise London Luton Airport s position as an official London airport in passengers and airlines minds. This has a series of beneficial consequences, not least helping to alleviate the South East s congested airspace as increasing numbers of passengers and airlines use London as a convenient gateway to London, the South East and beyond. In doing so more airline passengers can manage their need to travel using greener, more sustainable means of transport to access the airport delivering social and economic benefits for the surrounding communities, regions and businesses. Improved public transport links will also benefit the environment by reducing the significant contribution that airport surface access journeys make to total airport-related C02 emissions. Furthermore, the additional farebox revenues raised by train operators will reduce taxpayers subsidy of UK rail services. The Airport now calls upon the Department for Transport and shortlisted bidders on commercial, operational, environmental and policy grounds to establish minimum rail service levels aligned with passenger demand, and to promote growth in airport-rail patronage through the establishment of a LEX brand and associated services. 1. Introduction 1.1 Recent airport history London grew substantially in the mid-2000s. Today it is the fifth busiest passenger airport in the UK handling almost 10 million passengers in In 2011 London was the fastest growing airport in the London market as airlines and passengers sought a less congested, convenient gateway to London, the South East and beyond In June 2012, the Airport Operator, abertis TBI, and the Airport owner, Luton Borough Council agreed Heads of Terms which will result in an application being made later this summer to develop the Airport to handle up to 18 million passengers by Airport rail station was opened in 1999 to cater for the increasing number of passengers using the Airport, served by East Midlands Trains (EMT) and First Capital Connect (FCC), providing connections to London, the South coast, the Midlands and the North of England (see Appendix 1 on page 27) Station is operated by First Capital Connect. A rail-air shuttle bus service runs between the station and the main terminal area. Since January 2008, this service has been operated by First Group, on behalf of First Capital Connect FCC operates the Thameslink franchise and provides direct trains to key destinations including: Station Typical weekday peak frequency Typical journey time Bedford trains per hour 27 mins St Albans 6 trains per hour 12 mins London St. Pancras 6 trains per hour 2 mins Brighton trains per hour 108 mins (Source: FCC timetable May 2012) 1.2. EMT operates services between London St. Pancras and stations in Yorkshire. For those departing St. Pancras calling at these are once hourly services, typically between the hours of 06:55 and 00:15. London St. Pancras can be reached in as little as 20 minutes by such fast train services. Key destinations and typical journey times from parkway are: Station Typical weekday peak frequency (Source: EMT timetable May 2012) Typical journey time Nottingham 1 train per hour 90 mins Leicester 1 train per hour 60 mins London St. Pancras 1 train per hour 20 mins Typical journey times and the number of associated stops between St. Pancras and are: Journey time Service type Operator 6 mins Slow 9 stops FCC 2 mins Faster 2 stops FCC 20 mins Fast trains 0 stops EMT (Source: FCC timetable May 2012) The 6bn Thameslink Programme is currently in progress. Its aim is to relieve congestion across London s transport network by allowing longer, and potentially more frequent trains to run to and through the capital. It will also open up additional direct journey opportunities In December 2011, the maximum train length on Thameslink services was increased from eight to twelve carriages, providing additional passenger capacity to and from September 201 and March 2015 will see the current FCC and EMT franchises come to an end and operate under new franchises, with scope to change current services The five companies shortlisted to run the current FCC Thameslink services from September 201 are: First Group Stagecoach Govia MTR Abellio 5 5

4 Policy context 2 The 201 Thameslink franchise - future opportunities 2.1 Introduction Case study one future timetabling changes It is recognised that the aims of this Paper sit within a national and local policy framework Successfully delivering against these frameworks ensures London performs its function as an international gateway for London and the South East, whilst providing maximum benefit to the local area and wider region Enhanced surface access links to and from London, combined with greater public transport use, will deliver social, economic and environmental benefits for the surrounding community. Furthermore, improved public transport links can help to reduce the significant contribution that airport surface access journeys make to total airport-related C02 emissions at London. 2.2 National The Coalition Government is currently consulting on a new, sustainable framework for aviation in the UK. The consultation document, Developing a Sustainable Framework for UK Aviation: Scoping Document (March 2011), sees an urgent need for such a framework to guide the aviation industry in planning its investment and technological development in the short, medium and long term. The Government accepts the need for aviation to grow sustainably in support of the economy over the longer term, and aims to adopt a new framework for aviation by The consultation document states that aviation is an important element in the UK s transport system, and should be seen in the context of the Government s vision for a greener transport system which acts as an engine for future growth. The Government s overall goal for UK aviation also includes improving the passenger experience at airports The Department for Transport s Aviation Policy Framework, released in July 2012 has announced that the DfT will be undertaking a review of existing rail access and conducting a high level business case assessment, to identify how rail access can be improved at six of England s biggest airports, including Luton The Government s wider transport policy continues to reflect sustainability goals as well as its localism agenda. The 2011 local transport White Paper, Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon: Making Sustainable Local Transport Happen, sets out its vision for a transport system that is an engine for economic growth, but one that is also greener and safer and improves quality of life in communities. Local Transport Plans remain in place although with more flexibility than before. 2. Local 2..1 In line with the Department for Transport s (DfT) Guidance on Airport Surface Access Strategies (1999), the aims of this Paper are entirely cognisant with the Luton Local Transport Plan s vision and aims The Luton Local Transport Plan (LTP) was published in March It includes a long-term strategy for the period up to The LTP s vision for the long-term strategy involves providing an integrated, safe, accessible and more sustainable transport system which supports economic regeneration, prosperity and planned growth in the Luton conurbation. The vision also involves reducing unnecessary car use and carbon emissions while enhancing the environment and improving the community s health and quality of life

5 201 Thameslink franchise 201 Thameslink franchise.1 Introduction. Supporting the hypothesis: Figure 1. LLA departing passenger profile and current rail use as a % of departing passengers.1.1 The aim of this case study is to demonstrate the basis for setting a minimum rail service level aligned with airport passenger demand which becomes a requisite of the 201 Thameslink franchise..1.2 The grounds for doing so are supported by the environmental, social and economic benefits for the surrounding communities, regions and businesses..1. Based on current airport-rail usage, a minimum rail service level scheduled to coincide with the airport s passenger demand would see a significant modal shift from road to rail. Present timetables exclude 29-8% of departing and 1-22% of arriving passengers from considering rail as a viable means of transport to get to and from the airport (see timetable analysis, section. onwards)..2 Current operational data analysis and gap identification.2.1 The data presented from. onwards use the underlying hypothesis that: Service frequency on the Thameslink corridor of one train or less per hour makes rail an incompatible option for travel, based on: It being unable to compete with the speed, frequency, reliability and convenience of other available modes of transport, i.e. higher frequency coach, taxi, or car; The untenable penalty wait time and uncertainty of a misaligned once hourly train departure and the arrival or departure time of a flight...1 As shown in Figure 1. a review of current rail penetration levels of total airport passengers (red line series) clearly shows that train usage dramatically increases and decreases in line with the number of available train services. Peaking at 1% during the 18:00-19:00 hour, the same time First Capital Connect (FCC) have 9 trains running in the hour (with a minimum being the faster service), whilst dropping to only % penetration at 05:00, the same time FCC only have 1 slow train during the hour (Monday to Saturday only), and when airport passenger demand is at its highest (blue line series)...2 Moreover, examining mode of transport by type, at the 05:00 and 18:00 hour day parts reveal passengers dependency on private car and taxi. At 05:00, 76% of all departing passengers choose car and taxi in the absence of frequent public transport services. At 18:00, when public transport links are at their highest frequency, the dependency on car and taxi reduces by % percentage points to 2% of all departing passengers, as shown in the table: Station 05:00 18:00 Rail % 27% Coach 15% 0% Car % 18% Taxi 2% 1% Table 1. Airport access transport mode by day part (Source: CAA 2011).. Figure 1 s red line series also usefully displays the penetration of rail as a ratio of departing passengers across the day. For the purposes of the timetable analysis (from. onwards) the mid range 20% will be used to calculate the actual number of passengers who would use rail if services existed. 5% 0% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 01:0002:000:000:0005:0006:0007:0008:0009:0010:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 1:0015:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:0020:00 21:00 22:002:0000:00 Airport Dep Pax demand (-1 hour) 0% % 11% 12% 9% 5% % % 5% 5% 6% 5% % % 6% 6% % % 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% Dep Pax rail use as a % of total pax 0% 0% 0% 0% % 6% 6% 15% 12% 16% 20% 16% 16% 20% 20% 19% 25% 27% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% (Source: LLA 2012 passenger statistics [blue line] and CAA [red line]) 1 The Civil Aviation Authority s (CAA s) yearly Passenger Survey programme provides data on passengers mode of travel to the airport as well as demographic data. The survey data include weightings that match the survey population to the volume of passengers on each air route. This detailed examination of passenger travel patterns, as well as staff is available on request

6 201 Thameslink franchise 201 Thameslink franchise. Rail timetables and airport passenger demand..1 Departing passengers..1.1 Figure 2. illustrates First Capital Connect s (FCC) St. Pancras train departures (bar graph) with an overlaid percentage of London Luton s departing passenger profile (red line series). The departing passenger profile is plotted minus 1 hour to reflect the time when the demand for rail services exists, rather than plotting the time the survey was undertaken...1. Figure. accepts the same hypothesis, but removes the least attractive slow (6min) train services from the timetable (based on their inability to compete with the speed and frequency of alternative modes of transport). This diminishes the number of viable rail options further, therefore increasing the number of passengers who would be unable to arrive at the airport to catch a departing flight to 8% (c.1.8m passengers) Based on the 20% who use rail to access the airport, this would represent an additional 60,000 passengers using rail to get to the airport for departing flights if minimum service levels were available where demand from passengers exists. 12 Figure 2. LLA s departing pax profile & FCC St. Pancras train departures to 1% 8 Figure. LLA s departing pax profile & FCC s St. Pancras train departures to LAP (removing all slow trains) 1% No. of departures % 00:0001:00 02:000:000:0005:0006:0007:0008:0009:0010:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 1:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:0021:00 22:00 2:00 Mon-Fri Sat (from June 0) Sun (July to sept) % of dep pax (-1 hour) 0% 0% % 11% 12% 9% 5% % % 5% 5% 6% 5% % % 6% 6% % % 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% (Source: LLA 2012 passenger statistics [red line] and FCC May 2012 timetable [bar graph])..1.2 Accepting the hypothesis in section.2, Figure 2. shows that in those periods where rail services only operate once in any given hour, 29% of departing airport passengers are prevented from considering rail as a viable mode of transport to get to the airport...1. Based on LLA s 2012 passenger numbers, this 29% represents c.1.m passengers. Using the average rail penetration rate of 20%, this equates to an extra 280,000 passengers using rail to get to the airport to catch departing flights if minimum service levels were available. 12% 10% 8% 6% % 2% No. of departures :0001:00 02:000:000:0005:0006:0007:0008:0009:0010:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 1:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:0021:00 22:002:00 Mon-Fri (real) Sat (real) Sun (real) % of dep pax (-1 hours) 0% 0% % 11% 12% 9% 5% % % 5% 5% 6% 5% % % 6% 6% % % 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% (Source: LLA 2012 passenger statistics [red line] and FCC May 2012 timetable [bar graph]) 12% 10% 8% 6% % 2% 0%

7 201 Thameslink franchise 201 Thameslink franchise..2 Arriving passengers..2.1 Again, using FCC s full timetable, but this time examining it against the inbound (arriving) passenger profile requiring a departing parkway service (without the need for any applied time lag), reveals that between the hours of 00:00 and 05:00 1% (c.60,000 passengers) of LLA s arriving traffic does not have a viable rail solution Using the average penetration rate (20%) of those who use rail to access the airport, this would represent another 10,000 arriving passengers travelling via rail if minimum service levels were available Figure. LLA s arriving pax profile & FCC train departures to St. Pancras 10% 9% 8%..2. Extending the hypothesis to omit all least attractive slow (6min) train services for those departing station diminishes the number of services considered a viable mode of transport further, preventing 22% (c. 1.1m passengers)...2. Based on the 20% who use rail to get to and from the airport, this would represent an additional 215,000 arriving passengers travelling via rail if minimum service levels were available where demand from passengers exists Figure 5. LLA s arriving pax profile & FCC train departures to St. Pancras (removing all slow trains) 10% 9% 8% 7% No. of departures 8 6 7% 6% 5% % % No. of departures 2 6% 5% % % 2 2% 1% 1 2% 1% 0 00:0001:00 02:000:00 0:0005:0006:0007:00 08:0009:0010:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 1:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:0021:00 22:00 2:00 Mon-Fri % 0 00:00 01:00 02:00 0:00 0:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 1:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 2:00 Mon-Fri (real) % Sat (from June 0) Sat (real) Sun (from July to Sept) Sun (real) % of Arr pax 7% % 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 8% 6% % 1% 5% 8% % 9% % % 2% 5% 7% 5% % 6% 6% % of Arr pax 7% % 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 8% 6% % 1% 5% 8% % 9% % % 2% 5% 7% 5% % 6% 6% (Source: LLA 2012 passenger statistics [red line] and FCC May 2012 timetable [bar graph]) (Source: LLA 2012 passenger statistics [red line] and FCC May 2012 timetable [bar graph])

8 201 Thameslink franchise The 201/2015 East Midlands franchise future opportunities.. Conclusion...1 Clearly evident from the data is the misalignment between the current rail timetables and airport operations....2 The lack of available, twice hourly services during the airport s operational peaks excludes 20% - 1% of total airport traffic, c million passengers from considering rail.... By comparison, Gatwick, which is also served by the Thameslink line, has a minimum of two trains per hour throughout the night.... This pool of passengers represents (using average rail penetration levels [20%]) 80, ,000 additional journeys which could be made by rail if minimum service levels were available where demand from passengers exists....5 The issue of preventing passengers from considering rail as a viable means of transport to get to and from the airport will be exacerbated over time by the airport s traffic growth profile which is most prominent in the early morning peak, a result of airline demand. This has seen the number of passengers using the airport before 07:00 grow 21% since 2009, a trend forecasted to increase over time which the present rail timetables do not cater for. Case study two developing fast train services marketed under an airport-rail London Express (LEX) brand

9 201/2015 East Midlands franchise 201/2015 East Midlands franchise.1 Introduction.1.1 The aim of this case study is identifying the opportunities and possibilities that exist in creating a London Express service..1.2 Government policy means there will be no further runways for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. This will have wide ranging implications for future growth in air travel to London and the South East since Heathrow and Gatwick currently operate at near full capacity. By contrast, London (LLA) has capacity to potentially grow from 9 up to 18 million passengers per annum..1. A key tenet of the Government s new aviation policy is to improve the passenger experience and the Department for Transport has set up a South East Airports Task Force to explore measures to help make the most of existing airport infrastructure and improve conditions for all users..1. LLA s rail product suffers from the current quality and perception of the train services. This is suppressing demand from passengers wishing to use rail mode for their journey whilst also suppressing the demand for services from LLA and, as a result, increasing the demand for the other, already congested, London airports..1.5 We have undertaken an initial assessment 2 of the potential to grow the rail mode share and believe that with a suitable fast train service to London, an increase of 8-1% rail mode share would occur c.1 million extra passenger journeys to and from the airport..1.6 Our research indicates that this could begin to be achieved by supplementing the one fast service per hour with a second which would allow the marketing of a 20 minute journey time from London. Ideally the aim would be to achieve four fast trains per hour to make rail access at LLA comparable, if not better, with the other three London airports. It is expected that this would help deal with the perception that LLA is not close to London..1.7 The study (.2 onwards) examines the likely effects of a fast four train per hour service and feasibility of achieving such an increase taking an incremental approach..1.8 This approach demonstrates how achieving two or three fast trains per hour is relatively easy by an adjustment to the existing East Midlands Trains timetable serving Luton Airport. Achieving the ideal of four trains per hour requires investment in infrastructure and trains. The scale of this change should be considered as part of the 201 or 2015 East Midlands re-franchise, particularly with electrification and provision of an Intercity Express Programme or equivalent rolling stock and train lengthening on the agenda..1.9 Complementarity exists between the Thameslink and East Midlands services. Based on the recent Vienna Airport example, its regular rail services grew market share by 8% off the back of a competing 0 minute frequency City Airport Express that entered service. The Thameslink services are also expected to see passenger numbers grow as a result of creating LEX services as part of the East Midlands franchise..2 analysis.2.1 Scope of the analysis In order to provide a comparable sample, the following analysis focuses on 19 common air service destinations which are served across all four London Airports and the revealed preference of airport choice based on 2010 CAA data. By comparing London s (LLA) relationship with the Greater London market with that of both Stansted and Gatwick it is possible to estimate the likely impact of a proposed fast service on the modal share for rail at LLA. Heathrow is markedly different from the other London airports in terms of size, customer profile (nearly twice the share of business of each of the other airports) and it is the only airport accessible by London Underground..2.2 Choosing comparators The almost identical passenger type profiles between LLA, and Gatwick and Stansted, (both of which have frequent rail express services) provides the best example by way of comparison of what could happen at LLA One key difference at LLA in comparison to all the other London airports is that the trains do not call at the airport itself. A bus transfer is required between Luton Airport station and the Airport. This analysis will assume that commensurate with an airport express style service being introduced, a strengthening of the bus transfer service will also occur, so that a branded airport transfer bus will always be visible on the station forecourt when trains arrive. It is assumed this will minimise any interchange penalty resulting from the bus transfer because: The visibility and branding of the bus will mean the passenger will know exactly where to go upon exiting the station i.e. no anxiety around which bus-stop/or direction It is comparable to a customer arriving by rail at Gatwick South for a flight leaving from Gatwick North and having to use the people mover transit It will provide a better transfer than the medium and long term Car Parks.2.2. The contribution of Greater London by Airport (of the sample) is shown in Figure 6: Figure 6. Passenger origination by airport 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 0% 0% 20% 10% 0% 67.67% 5.5% 55.8% 0.28% 2.% LTN LGW STN LHR Non London Greater London 6.7% (Source: Northstar consultancy 2011).16% 59.72%.2.2. The contribution of Greater London passengers as a share of the total at London Luton is 1% less than Gatwick and 12% less than Stansted. The absence of an Express service is a contributing factor. 2 Full study results and analysis available by request

10 201/2015 East Midlands franchise Stansted Express in 2009 was more of a legacy brand than a genuinely aspirational Airport Express brand like Gatwick or Heathrow Express. Stansted Express suffers from: Old, worn and poor quality rolling stock well past its prime (A new modern fleet was phased in for launch in May 2011) It stops at intermediate Stations, Tottenham Hale and (alternating) Harlow Town and Bishop s Stortford Stansted has good fast road access to East London (M11/A12/A1) which means the journey time advantage is severely eroded. The current journey time achieved is 6 minutes providing only an average journey time saving of only 9 minutes against road vehicles. This is why both Private Car and Coach have significantly higher modal share than at Gatwick Luton Express would be more like Gatwick Express because of: High quality Rolling Stock The journey time advantage over slower National Rail services would be 18 minutes which is much more significant than the minutes on Gatwick Express Table 2. below compares key factors in determining modal choice. Determinants of modal choice Luton Gatwick Stansted Heathrow Proposal Airport Express frequency per hour Airport Express journey time 20 mins 0 mins 6 mins 15 mins Airport Express intermediate stations Average road mileage (Central London, Google maps) Estimated Drive (Coach) 60 mins 80 mins 55 mins 1 mins National Rail (in the peak) Average rail journey time 8 mins mins - - Table 2. Determinants of modal choice (Source: Northstar consultancy 2011).2. Bus/Coach Share (from the Greater London market).2..1 At Gatwick, the percentage share of Bus/ Coach is 2.2% and at Stansted, 21.%. Relative to travel by coach, their rail Express services offer a journey time saving of 50 and 9 minutes respectively. Using the Gatwick and Stansted coach market share rail time saving correlation, we are able to project a future coach share for LLA in the event of a rail Express service being available Because a LEX service at LLA would offer a journey time saving of 9 minutes at Luton, the percentage share of Bus/ Coach, based on the Gatwick and Stansted evidence, is projected at 7.% as plotted in Table. Bus/Coach Share Share 0 0 Bus & Coach Share Bus & Coach Share y=-0.68x Journey Journey Time Time Saving Saving Bus/Coach Share Share Linear Linear (Bus/Coach Share) Share) Table. LGW, STN and estimated LLA bus/coach share (Source: Northstar consultancy 2011) Bus & Coach Share Private Car Share (from the 10 Greater London 7. market).2..1 At Gatwick, the percentage share of Private Journey Time Saving Car is 21.6% and at Stansted 25%. Relative Bus/Coach Share Linear to (Bus/Coach travel Share) by car, their rail Express services offer a journey time saving of 50 and 9 minutes respectively. Using the Gatwick and Stansted car market share/rail time saving correlation, we are able to project a future car share for LLA in the event of a rail Express service being available Because a LEX service at LLA would offer a journey time saving of 9 minutes at Luton, the percentage share of private car, based on the Gatwick and Stansted evidence, is projected at 22.5% as plotted in Table. Private Car Share Private Car Share 201/2015 East Midlands franchise Bus/Coach Share Private Car Share 21. y=-0.68x Private Private Car Car Share Share y= x Journey Journey Time Time Saving Saving Private Car Share Private Private Car Car Share Share Linear Linear (Private (Private Car Car Share) Share) Table. LGW, STN and estimated LLA private car share (Source: Northstar consultancy 2011) 25 y= x Estimated Current modal shift 22.5 distribution at Luton 21.6 New Distribution Change Tansted % 26.0% Journey Time Saving Express Private Car Share Linear (Private National Car Share) Rail 1.8%.% -8.% Bus/Coach 16.7% 7.% -9.% Taxi 9.6% 9.6% 0.0% Private car 0.8% 22.5% -8.% Hire car 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% Total 100% 100% - Table 5. Estimated modal shift at LLA (Source: Northstar consultancy 2011).2.. Table 5 above shows the change in modal split projected for LLA.. EMT timetable study (Source: Northstar consultancy 2011)..1 Introduction..1.1 The above section details the likely effect of an Airport Express style service to LLA at the same 15 minute frequency as enjoyed by other London airports. This section concentrates on today s East Midlands Trains timetable and examines the feasibility of achieving such an increase. Based on the survey sample of total Greater London short/medium haul traffic on 19 routes available across all four London airports

11 Extract from 2011 East Midlands Timetable Amended Timetable to give 2 trains per hour calling at St. Pancras International d a St. Pancras International d a Today s timetable..2.1 The table right shows a typical hour of today s East Midland Trains timetable between London and Leicester The two trains to Nottingham only just fit between the two trains to Sheffield between St. Pancras International and Leicester because of their differential calling pattern. The fast train to Nottingham is close behind the slow train to Corby at Kettering. The slow train to Nottingham calls at Loughborough (north of Leicester) just in front of the fast train to Derby and Sheffield. A similar pattern applies in the southbound direction...2. These constraints, together with other trains which serve Leicester and Derby, effectively fix the times at Leicester in both directions. At the south end of the route, four Thameslink trains per hour use the Fast Lines between East Midlands trains (between St. Pancras and Luton) in order to overtake stopping Thameslink trains on the Slow Lines. Because of these constraints, it is not possible to achieve four trains per hour spaced at 15 minute intervals by inserting additional stops in East Midlands trains at Luton Airport. Stopping the (fast) Sheffield services would duplicate stops in the slow services five minutes later or earlier and be of little value. To avoid a substantial redrawing of the whole timetable, an incremental approach is recommended. Luton d Bedford d Wellingborough d Kettering d (11/0) Corby a d Leicester a Train goes to Sheffield Nottingham Sheffield Nottingham Sheffield fast fast semi-fast slow fast Origin time Train from Sheffield Nottingham Sheffield Nottingham Sheffield fast slow semi-fast fast fast Leicester d d Corby d Kettering d (11/2) Wellingborough d Bedford d Luton d St. Pancras International d a One extra train per hour to Luton Airport...1 The table right shows how a half-hourly service from and to St. Pancras International could be achieved by transferring the Luton stops in the trains to and from Corby. Because these trains turn round at Corby in 7 minutes and are constrained by the fast Sheffield trains in both directions, there is no scope for stopping at both and Luton....2 There does not appear to be any great value in stopping at Luton every hour when Thameslink provide a train every 15 minutes to St. Pancras Low Level, Farringdon, City Thameslink, Blackfriars and London Bridge, giving better interchange facilities to and from other parts of London than are available at the East Midlands platforms at St. Pancras International. The Luton stop is of no value to link Luton with Leicester and the North as a change of train at Bedford is necessary. Thus substituting a stop at instead of the stop at Luton would easily achieve a 0-minute service as a first step to developing a more frequent link.... However, if there was a requirement to maintain the Luton Town service, the current Thameslink line speed improvements do offer the opportunity on the Derby path to potentially add in a stop at without preventing the train from achieving its aim of reaching Derby within two hours. Luton d. Bedford d Wellingborough d Kettering d (11/0) Corby a d Leicester a Train goes to Sheffield Nottingham Sheffield Nottingham Sheffield fast fast semi-fast slow fast Origin time Train from Sheffield Nottingham Sheffield Nottingham Sheffield fast slow semi-fast fast fast Leicester d d Corby d Kettering d (11/2) Wellingborough d Bedford d Luton d. St. Pancras International d a

12 Amended Timetable to give trains per hour calling at Amended Timetable to give trains per hour calling at. St. Pancras International d a St. Pancras International d a Two extra trains to Luton d. Bedford d Four extra trains to Luton d. Bedford d The table right illustrates how, in addition to the previous table, one 0-minute interval each hour could be split to provide a third stop in the hour. It would be necessary to depart from St. Pancras International minutes earlier and arrive there minutes later in the opposite direction in order to maintain the times at Leicester. Although it would only achieve an unevenly-spaced trains per hour service from and to London, it would provide a second and faster service to and from Leicester with excellent connections for many destinations north of Leicester. Wellingborough d Kettering d (11/0) Corby a d Leicester a Train goes to Sheffield Nottingham Sheffield Nottingham Sheffield fast fast semi-fast slow fast Origin time Train from Sheffield Nottingham Sheffield Nottingham Sheffield fast slow semi-fast fast fast Leicester d d Corby d Kettering d (11/2) Wellingborough d Bedford d Luton d. St. Pancras International d a Splitting the other 0-minute interval to give four trains per hour can only be achieved by providing an additional dedicated train. Paths for such trains are available and are shown in the table right These however, incur an increase in costs over the train solution. There are no turn-back facilities at. The trains could terminate in the Northbound Slow platform, run empty to Luton to reverse and return to start from the Southbound Slow platform at. Unfortunately, the platform equipped for reversing trains at Luton is occupied at the relevant time by a slow Thameslink service which terminates and starts back. Hence a second reversing facility would be needed for the additional dedicated train. If this solution were adopted it would require either one or two additional train sets, depending upon whether interworking with the Corby trains at St. Pancras International could be achieved. However, starting this train from the Southbound Slow platform, with the other three trains in the hour calling at the Southbound Fast platform, would be very confusing for passengers arriving from the Airport, and would detract from the concept of a turn-up-and-go service. The additional dedicated trains could use the Fast platforms but this would require them to run empty to Bedford to reverse, requiring even more additional train sets than the one or two required for reversals at Luton. Wellingborough d Kettering d (11/0) Corby a d Leicester a Train goes to Sheffield Nottingham Sheffield Nottingham Sheffield fast fast semi-fast slow fast Origin time Train from Sheffield Nottingham Sheffield Nottingham Sheffield fast slow semi-fast fast fast Leicester d d Corby d Kettering d (11/2) Wellingborough d Bedford d Luton d. St. Pancras International d a

13 201/2015 East Midlands franchise Targets & Actions..6 Outside of core hours..6.1 As explained in the first case study in this paper, rail services would need to extend operations outside of the core hours to ensure best fit with airport passenger demand...7 Conclusion of timetable analysis..7.1 In summary, increasing the fast service between St. Pancras International and Luton Airport to a half-hourly frequency would be fairly easy. Adding a third train would also be fairly easy though it would only achieve uneven intervals of 12, 18 and 0 minutes between trains. To achieve four trains per hour at approximately 15-minute interval, while feasible in pathing terms, requires a step change in train provision. Improving access before is feasible by adding return trips within the existing train fleet. Improving access after 2.00 is more difficult due to the lack of fast train paths.. Benchmarking: the case for London..1 Demonstrated so far is LLA s market share of Greater London for passengers travelling to destinations that are common to all four London airports is considerably lower. The assertion therefore is largely due to the inferior rail service which is demonstrable when drawing comparisons with Gatwick and Stansted...2 Also shown, whilst has six trains per hour to London via the Thameslink services (operated by First Capital Connect), it also has a single East Midlands Train that is 12 minutes quicker than the fastest Thameslink service. This service stops at because it was a requirement in the DfT specification for train services of the franchisee. Despite its speed, a train operating to a one hour frequency to London cannot be marketed successfully to airport passengers... The analysis of the opportunities in the timetable for stopping four (evenly spaced) trains per hour at LLA has identified difficulties, hence an incremental approach is recommended. By comparison, getting to two or three trains per hour is relatively easy... The key factors, practiced widely on successful train services to airports, that could be improved are as follows: Increase service frequency to two, three or ideally four non-stop trains per hour to London the 20 minute journey time to/from London Distribute and sell throughout the travel chain Improve wayfinding from plane to station Fully integrate the bus service, removing the separate fee for a seamless transfer..5 A good example of a similar situation, whereby existing rail services to Vienna Airport were augmented with an additional 0 minute frequency Express service ( City Airport Express ) saw the overall market share of those using rail increase from 6% to 25% within years. The pre-existing regular ( S-Bahn ) services also benefiting from the heightened awareness with patronage up 8% in the same period (Source: Vienna International Airport)..5 Conclusions.5.1 London has a surface access strategy (ASAS) that promotes public transport as a means of reaching the airport which has been reasonably successful in increasing the public transport mode share..5.2 Despite this, LLA lags behind its London competitors considerably in its mode share by rail by 8-1% (c. 1m passenger journeys). There are a number of factors influencing this but ascertained is that the perception of the availability of a suitable rail service is a very likely barrier. This conclusion is reached by both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the current rail service provided and its associated bus transfer..5. Through a series of small changes there is an opportunity to promote rail patronage which will deliver associated commercial, operational, environmental and policy benefits. It is necessary to take steps now with the retendering process to require such developments to be written into proposed tender bids

14 Targets & Actions Three key targets 1. Improve today s timetable so supply meets demand 2. Develop the airport-rail product by increasing non- stop fast services. & brand a London Luton Airport Express Service 5.2 Key Actions DfT Thameslink Bidders Stakeholders Require future rail franchise bidders to set minimum twice hourly rail service levels aligned with airport passenger demand (early morning in particular) Encourage growth in airport-rail patronage by requiring future bidders to begin the process of establishing a Express (LEX) brand and services Ensure the new Thameslink franchise has the flexibility to incorporate adjustments to accommodate future LEX services Use industry standard travel demand models to further examine latent demand Timetable all future services to accommodate the busy airport operational peaks Establish minimum twice hourly services to call at Luton as they do at Gatwick Create or provide scope for non-stop services from Luton to St. Pancras Work with London and its partners more closely Vocalise support for the aspiration to see services to the airport extended and developed by responding at 5. Useful link: Airport Surface Access Strategy Appendix 1 - Rail services connecting with

15 Contact details: Oliver Jaycock General Manager ing & Communications Tel: + (0) Oli.jaycock@ltn.aero London Operations Ltd Navigation House Airport Way Luton Beds LU2 9LY