HS2 Airport Demand Model: A Report For HS2

HS2 Airport Demand Model (ADM):
A Report for HS2
Final Report
February 2010
HS2 Airport Demand Model (ADM):
A Report for HS2
Final Report
February 2010
Sinclair Knight Merz

Victoria House
Southampton Row
London
WC1B 4EA
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7759 2600
Fax: +44 20 7759 2601
Web: www.skmconsulting.com
COPYRIGHT: The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Sinclair
Knight Merz (Europe) Limited. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the
written permission of Sinclair Knight Merz constitutes an infringement of copyright.
LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Sinclair
Knight Merz (Europe) Limited’s Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions
of the agreement between Sinclair Knight Merz and its Client. Sinclair Knight Merz accepts no
liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any
third party.
The SKM logo trade mark is a registered trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd.
Contents
1. Foreword 2
2. Background 3
3. Methodology 6
3.1. Adaption of LASAM 6
3.2. Catchment Area 8
3.3. Air Passenger Segmentation 9
3.4. Time Period 10
3.5. Base Year Data 10
3.6. Forecast Year Data 12
3.7. Mode Choice Hierarchy 13
3.8. Cost Data 15
3.9. Generalised Cost Equations 18
3.10. New Rail Methodology 21
4. Elasticity Validation 22
5. Conclusion 23
Appendix A DfT Air Passenger Forecasts: Transfer Demand 24
SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ
PAGE 1
1. Foreword
High Speed 2 (HS2) is a proposed high speed rail link from London to the West Midlands.
For the purposes of this document it is assumed that the only potential stops will be
Manchester, Birmingham, a Heathrow Hub, London and an intermediate stop between
London and Birmingham. The provision of a link to Heathrow itself will also be considered.
The remit for HS2 is to:
operate a High Speed Rail scheme between London and the West Midlands;
provide access to Heathrow (either directly or via Heathrow Express or Crossrail);
possibly include an intermediate station (between London and Birmingham e.g. Milton
Keynes, Oxford) – possibly a parkway station;
connect with HS1;
provide a case for running international services; and
provide opportunity to extend further north of Birmingham (Manchester and beyond).
SKM has been commissioned to deal with three specific segments of HS2 passenger demand
that cannot be easily represented in the Planet Strategic Model (PSM):
diversion to HS2 of current Heathrow surface access trips in the HS2 corridor –
excluding trips from London1;
diversion to HS2 of air passengers that take a domestic flight to/from Heathrow and an
international flight to/from Heathrow; and
diversion to HS2 of air passengers that fly internationally from non-London UK airports
who could use HS2-HS1 as an alternative.
The first two market segments are modelled using a spreadsheet mode choice model,
drawing upon knowledge from LASAM2; this is described in Section 3. The third segment is
handled by a separate spreadsheet model, drawing heavily upon existing high speed rail links
in Europe and Asia which compete against air; this is described in a separate document3.
The base year for all cases is 2007/8; the forecast years are 2021 and 2031.
1
There are already 3 rail options (and a 4th planned) for travel between London and Heathrow, this is
not a market that HS2 is targeting.
2
London Airports Surface Access Model v2, created by SKM for BAA. BAA has given permission
for the use of LASAM parameters for this project.
3
International Rail Travel Demand Model (IRTDM): A Report for HS2, SKM, February 2010.
PAGE 2
2. Background
An analysis of CAA air passenger surveys from 2007 and 2008 at Heathrow Airport reveals
the mode of transport used to access the airport. Table 1 contains the mode shares for all
surface access trips to the airport as well as a breakdown by catchment area4. Car is the
dominant mode for (Non-London) areas close to the airport, while rail gains a greater mode
share as distance from the airport increases.
Table 1: Heathrow Airport Annual Surface Access Mode Shares by Catchment

Area, 2007/08 CAA Data5
Catchment Areas
All UK
Main Mode Share Intermediate Birmingham Manchester
Bus/Coach 11.1% 20.3% 12.9% 8.4%
Rail 8.8% 15.5% 39.9% 26.7%
Taxi 15.8% 9.8% 2.6% 25.6%
Park-and-Fly 27.3% 23.7% 19.3% 11.1%
Kiss-and-Fly 31.6% 24.4% 17.9% 23.0%
Charter Coach 3.7% 2.3% 3.3% 2.4%
Other 1.7% 3.9% 4.2% 2.9%
Total demand (over 2 years) 2,961,447 3,603,594 1,437,877 85,456,697
% of Heathrow surface access
trips 3.5% 4.2% 1.7% 100.0%
In principle, a direct airport rail service to Heathrow Airport could be expected to attract
significantly improved rail mode share compared with the existing connecting services
through London, which are considerably longer and more complicated. Current in-vehicle
times are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Indicative Time and Distance
In Vehicle Time (hours:mins)

Origin Destination Distance (road) Current Current Current With
Rail* Car Air HS2
Manchester London (Euston) 208 miles 2:10 3:10 - 1:30
Manchester Heathrow Airport 207miles 3:15 3:30 1:00 1:15
Birmingham London (Euston) 116 miles 1:25 2:10 - 0:55
Birmingham Heathrow Airport 115 miles 2:30 2:00 0:35 0:40
*Current rail connection is via WCML with a connection to tube at Euston
4
Refer to Section 3.2 Catchment Areafor further details
5
CAA expansion, mode shares recalculated to reflect main mode rather than the final mode reported
in CAA publications
PAGE 3
High speed rail will also compete against the domestic air market where passengers transfer
at Heathrow Airport for international destinations. Since there are no domestic flights from
Birmingham, East Midlands or Liverpool to Heathrow, the primary market is Manchester,
with the possibility of attracting some of the domestic air market from Newcastle, Edinburgh
and Glasgow to Heathrow, see Figure 1.
In 2008 the Manchester to Heathrow route carried 910,000 passengers (approx one third of
domestic passengers at Manchester and one sixth at Heathrow), although the total has
declined in recent years, as shown in Figure 2. This is consistent with the trend from
Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow Airports (see Figure 3).
Figure 1: Domestic Air vs Rail
PAGE 4
Figure 2: Domestic Air Passengers between Manchester and Heathrow Airports,
1990-2008. Source: CAA
Figure 3: Domestic Air Passengers to Heathrow Airport, 1990-2008. Source: CAA
PAGE 5
3. Methodology
3.1. Adaption of LASAM
The new rail service (HS2) has been modelled along with all existing access modes to
Heathrow Airport. To facilitate the choice of mode from each origin zone, LASAM v2 was
adapted to a spreadsheet model with the following key features and simplifications:
focus on the study corridor: London – West Midlands – North West (excluding the
London area);
three catchment areas - Manchester, Birmingham and an Intermediate area containing
Oxford and Milton Keynes, each containing all PSM zones in those catchment areas;
retain the same hierarchical mode choice structure as LASAM;
remove Heathrow Express, Underground, RailAir Coach and Airport Transfers as main
mode options as they are only relevant to trips from London;
add HS2 as a rail sub mode;
add Air as a public transport sub mode;
retain the same sensitivity parameters as LASAM;
select an appropriate modal constant for HS2;
select an appropriate modal constant for Air; and
use one zone to represent Heathrow. The central terminal area is used as a reference for
level-of-service.
As most air passengers using Heathrow who originate in the catchment area will be
travelling on international rather than domestic flights from Heathrow, international model
coefficients and economic assumptions were adopted from LASAM rather than the domestic
equivalents.
The spreadsheet mode choice model is used to forecast the change in mode shares from a
current situation and can therefore be referred to as an incremental model. To accommodate
HS2 being a completely new service, the rail sub-nest uses an absolute model. Where the rail
mode share is less than 5% in the base year, forecasts with HS2 are instead be incremented
off the bus/coach mode share.
The model structure, including all data inputs, is shown in Figure 4.
PAGE 6
Figure 4: Airport Demand Model Structure
CAA 2007/08 base DfT growth forecasts

demand matrix and
mode shares
PSM base cost

skims
Base Generalised
Costs
LASAM base
cost skims
Airport Spreadsheet Model

(LASAM Incremental
Model)
PSM forecast cost
skims – with and
without HSR Forecast
Generalised
Costs
Economic
Assumptions
Forecast mode shares by

segment and zone
PAGE 7
3.2. Catchment Area
The expected catchment areas for HS2 rail trips are highlighted in Figure 5. As the
catchment areas contain less than 10% of the air passengers accessing Heathrow, the number
of CAA interviews (combining 2007 and 2008) was 2,900 from Birmingham, 1,200 from
Manchester and 5,100 from the Intermediate area. The catchment areas could be extended to
any non-London zones to accommodate a change in HS2 station location.
Figure 5: HS2 Route and Catchment Areas
Note: Manchester catchment area extends northwards to include all of Scotland
PAGE 8
3.3. Air Passenger Segmentation
LASAM segments air passengers at Heathrow into 6 passenger segments. To limit the
segmentation of data, and to remain consistent with PSM, the Airport Demand Model has
aggregated these into the following four major segments6:
UK Business – air passengers residing in the UK and travelling on business;

Foreign Business – air passengers residing outside the UK and travelling on business;
UK Leisure – air passengers residing in the UK and travelling for leisure purposes; and
Foreign Leisure – air passengers residing outside the UK and travelling for leisure
purposes
PSM is focused on UK rail journeys and segments passengers differently to LASAM. Table
3 shows the assumed equivalence between PSM and LASAM passenger segments. PSM
also provides highway and air cost skims, the passenger segments of these differ for each
mode and are described in Table 4 and Table 5.
Table 3: Equivalent Segments of Rail Passengers
PSM segment SKM equivalent segment Reason

Business, car available to / from UK Business Car available at home/workplace origin for
Foreign Business departing air passengers
Others, car available to / from UK Leisure Car available at home/workplace origin for UK
Foreign Leisure departing air passengers.
Foreign travellers have option of being dropped
off by friends/relatives (Kiss and fly)
Table 4: Equivalent Segments of Road Passengers
PSM segment SKM equivalent segment Reason

Business UK Business Same time and distance skim for all air
Foreign Business passengers, higher Vehicle Operating Cost
(VOC) for business segment
Other UK Leisure Same time and distance skim for all air
Foreign Leisure passengers, lower VOC
Table 5 Equivalent Segments of Air Passengers
PSM segment SKM equivalent segment

Business UK Business
Foreign Business
Leisure UK Leisure
Foreign Leisure
6
LASAM further splits the UK market segments into domestic and international destinations
PAGE 9
3.4. Time Period
PSM matrices represent an annual average weekday (16-hours) whereas LASAM models
annual air passengers by separate time periods. There are four time periods, one representing
the weekend and three to represent different time periods within a weekday. Details of the
weekday time periods and how they relate to the CAA air passengers surveys is shown in
Table 6. The overall proportion of trips by time period is for combined data for 2007 and
2008, noting that the CAA air passenger survey is on departing air passengers and then
scaled to represent all air passengers.
To be consistent with PSM, the airport spreadsheet model does not distinguish between time
periods. In order to use LASAM cost skims they are averaged using the weights listed in
Table 6.
Table 6 LASAM Time Periods (Weekdays)
Time Period Airport Entrance CAA Survey Time 2007/08

Proportion
AM Peak (weekdays) 0700-1000 0900-1200 22%
PM Peak (weekdays) 1600-1900 1800-2100 17%
Interpeak (weekdays) Rest of the day Rest of the day 61%
The Airport Demand Model uses base data covering a full year. To convert this into an
annual average weekday, for output to PSM, the CAA data for 2007 and 2008 was analysed
to calculate the most appropriate factor. It was found that on average 121,800 air passengers
access the airport by a surface mode on weekdays, compared to 107,900 on the weekend.
Taking the average weekday total and dividing by the annual total gives a conversion of
0.28% of the annual air passengers on an average weekday.
3.5. Base Year Data

A base year matrix of annual air passengers by segment, origin and mode is created by
combining surface access modes and domestic air passengers as described below. The base
matrix represents all people that could switch to HS2 in order to access Heathrow Airport.
Surface Access
CAA surface access mode shares and the overall total of air passengers at Heathrow Airport
were found to be very consistent between 2007 and 2008. Using the same process as in
LASAM, SKM allocated each air passenger a main mode of surface access based on the
combination of modes used to access the airport as stated in the CAA survey. The resulting
mode shares, excluding ‘other’ modes such as walking and bicycle, are shown in Table 7.
PAGE 10
Table 7: Surface Access Main Mode Shares, Excluding Other Modes
Mode 2007 2008 2007/08 average
Bus/Coach 8.3% 9.0% 8.6%

Rail 26.5% 28.2% 27.3%
Taxi 26.5% 25.7% 26.1%
Park-and-Fly 12.3% 10.3% 11.3%
Kiss-and-Fly 23.0% 24.0% 23.5%
Charter Coach 2.7% 2.1% 2.4%
Airport Transfer 0.7% 0.6% 0.7%
Total pax (million) 42.48 41.14 41.81
Domestic Air Access
This model only includes air passengers that are travelling via a domestic flight to Heathrow
in order to transfer onto an international flight. Those travelling to Heathrow only are
accounted for within PSM. Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Newcastle were the only
airports considered for inclusion in the model.
CAA surveys on air passengers travelling between Manchester and Heathrow Airports were
analysed to find out the proportion of number passengers transferring to another flight at
Heathrow. Table 8 shows that on average in 2007/08, 65% of air passengers on the
Manchester-Heathrow route transfer to another flight at Heathrow. A small number also
connect at Manchester or both airports, these trips are ignored along with the point to point
trips.
Table 8: Domestic Air Passengers, Manchester to Heathrow
2007/08
Connection type 2007 2008 Average
Connect at MAN 23,375 8,645 16,010
Connect at Heathrow 642,759 575,207 608,983
Connect Both Ends 11,911 4,091 8,001
Point to Point 300,075 319,602 309,838
Total 978,120 907,544 942,832
SKM analysed the CAA survey data to see if any of these trips should be excluded based on
characteristics that would suggest they would be unlikely to switch to HS2. Reasons may
include:
packaged flight deals which include the UK domestic leg at (or close to) zero fare -
although it may be possible that airlines could arrange for the domestic leg to be
provided instead by train – similar to Air France;
PAGE 11
transit passengers that do not have to leave the plane at Heathrow; and
transfer passengers that have a simple connection at Heathrow, either with the same
airline or a codeshare airline.
The analysis proved inconclusive with the following findings:

‘all inclusive packages’ are on a steady decline, from 23% of transfer passengers in
2005 to 12% in 2008; and
only two airlines fly between Manchester and Heathrow (British Airways and British
Midland). These two airlines account for 48% of all flights in/out of Heathrow inferring
that a high proportion of transfer passengers will naturally (rather than by specific
choice) fly the domestic and international leg of their journey with the same airline.
For these reasons all transfer passengers have been included in the analysis.
The same detailed level of analysis was not possible on Edinburgh, Glasgow or Newcastle
Airport as CAA does not survey them as regularly as other UK airports. The last available
survey at each Airport was in 2005. Overall totals can, however, be obtained from the
Heathrow survey, as shown in Table 9. The distribution of trips by segment and zone from
the 2005 survey was applied to the 2008 total transfer passengers at Heathrow.
Table 9: Domestic Air Passengers, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Newcastle to

Heathrow, 2008
Connection type Edinburgh Glasgow Newcastle
Connect at Heathrow 555,569 563,361 292,138

Connect at
Edinburgh/Glasgow/Newcastle 4,824 6,140 -
Connect Both Ends 11,541 3,214 -
Point to Point 748,364 570,499 168,881
Total 978,120 907,544 942,832
3.6. Forecast Year Data

Similar to the base year matrix, a forecast matrix is required which represents all people that
could switch to HS2 in order to access Heathrow Airport. It is a matrix of annual air
passengers by segment and origin, which is created by combining surface access and
domestic air passenger trips. The forecast data obtained is outlined below.
PAGE 12
Surface Access
The Department for Transport (DfT) provided forecasts for the number of non-transfer air
passengers at Heathrow, segmented by zone and segment for 2020 and 20307. These
forecasts were used to represent 2021 and 2031.
Domestic Air Access
The Department for Transport (DfT) provided forecasts for the volume of domestic air travel
from UK airports to Heathrow for 2020 and 2030. Only air passengers from Manchester,
Edinburgh, Glasgow and Newcastle that transfer to another flight at Heathrow were
included. These forecasts were used to represent 2021 and 2031. Note that the number of
transfer passengers has dropped considerably in the DfT forecasts as shown in Table 10.
Further discussion of this issue can be found in Appendix A.
Table 10: Transfer Air Passengers at Heathrow Airport
Airport 2008 - CAA 2020 - DfT 2030 - DfT
Edinburgh 555,569 343,635 371,390

Glasgow 563,361 288,015 448,980
Manchester 608,983 330,413 429,696
Newcastle 292,138 292,369 384,797
Total 2,020,051 1,254,432 1,634,863
3.7. Mode Choice Hierarchy

PSM cannot supply separate skims by each existing rail type; it can, however, supply skims
with and without HS2 so that the new rail mode can be modelled separately. To
accommodate this, all existing rail modes are combined and referred to as standard rail. This
combined mode uses the LASAM modal constant for standard rail, as the majority of the trip
is made on this mode. HS2 uses the modal constant for Non-London Heathrow Express
passengers8.
The airport spreadsheet model has adopted the same tree structure as LASAM with the
following modifications:
RailAir Coach (overall 0.6% mode share) treated as standard rail;

Passengers arriving at the airport by London Underground or Heathrow Express are
modelled as standard rail;
Air added to PT (or equivalent) nest;
HS2 added to the rail sub-nest (an absolute nest);
7
All forecast data is from the Central demand case, for the central "s12s2" runway development
scenario as reported in the DfT's 'UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2 Forecasts, January 2009.
8
No recent research into modal constants for long distance high speed rail services could be found.
PAGE 13
Charter Coach fixed at the 2007/8 mode share by zone (overall 3.0% mode share);
Other modes (3% mode share) ignored; and
Air Transfer9 not modelled as it is not valid within the catchment area.
The resulting mode choice hierarchy for each passenger segment is shown in Figure 6 -
Figure 8. The added modes (HS2 and Air) are highlighted in each diagram.
Figure 6: UK Business Mode Choice Hierarchy
Air Rail Bus/ Park and Kiss and Taxi

Coach Fly Fly
High Standard
Speed 2 Rail
Figure 7: Foreign Business Mode Choice Hierarchy
Park and
Other Fly
Taxi Kiss and Rail Air

Bus/
Fly
Coach
High Standard
Speed 2 Rail
9
The Air Transfer mode refers to air passenger transfers by designated coach between Heathrow,
Gatwick and Stansted airports.
PAGE 14
Figure 8: Leisure Mode Choice Hierarchy
Park and Kiss and

PT Taxi
Fly Fly
Air
Rail Bus/
Coach
High Standard
Speed 2 Rail
3.8. Cost Data

To ensure the Airport Demand Model is as compatible with PSM as possible, where
available, cost skims from PSM are used in preference to those from LASAM. A detailed list
of the rail cost skims and how they are used in the LASAM generalised cost equations is
provided in Table 11. Similarly, highway cost skims are described in Table 12 and air cost
skims in Table 13.
PAGE 15
Table 11 Components of Generalised Cost - Rail
PSM Cost Description SKM equivalent

Component
Rail Fare (£) Average yields by journey purpose produced in Atkins’ EDGE model Rail Fare – converted
based on inputs from NMF (DfT) revenue and journey data. to pence
In Vehicle Time Time spent on the train. In Vehicle Time
(mins) (mins)
Auxiliary Transit For Heathrow trips the auxiliary transit time includes car access time Access time + Walk
Time (mins) to the station or PT access time to the station (it also includes tube time
transfer times between terminals in London). It also potentially
includes PT transfer times at the destination end, i.e. the distance
from the station to the airport terminals, or requirement to transfer.
Total Wait Time 40% of headway. Increased to 50% to
(mins) be consistent with
LASAM, capped at
40min
Rail Only This is the average number of trains required to get from A to B. Interchanges = rail
Boardings Using the tube to transfer between stations is included in the "aux only boardings – 1
transit time", and not counted as a boarding.
Bus Add Crowd Skim of PDFH crowding function (minutes) Not included
Time
Table 12 Components of Generalised Cost - Highway
PSM Description LASAM equivalent

Vehicle A combination of fuel and non-fuel operating costs, related Vehicle Operating
Operating Cost to distance and average speed. Cost
Auto Times Time spent in the car. Time
(mins)
Auto Distance Highway distance. Distance
(kms)
Table 13 Components of Generalised Cost - Air
PSM Description LASAM equivalent

Air fares (£) One way fares. Air fare
In Vehicle Time Time spent in the plane. In Vehicle Time
(mins)
Auxiliary Transit Car time +park/access penalties + VOCs. Access
Time (mins)
Wait Time Time spent in airport waiting. Wait time
(mins)
PAGE 16
Table 13 shows that the PSM Air skims do not include the check-in time. This is a
considerable amount of ‘waiting time’ which needs to be included in the generalised cost
equation. LASAM applies a distribution of lead times to simulate the time it takes an
arriving air passenger between entering the terminal entrance and the plane departure time.
Separate distributions are applied for business and leisure passengers; leisure passengers
typically arrive at the airport earlier. To simplify this procedure the average lead time has
been extracted from LASAM and used in the Airport Demand Model. The implemented
values are shown in Table 14.
Table 14: Assumed Check-In Times
Segment Departure Lead time

Business 1hr 45min
Leisure 2hr 15min
Since transfer passengers are modelled, there is a possibility that this ‘check-in’ time is being
double counted for some passengers who have a streamlined check-in at Heathrow Airport.
PSM contains a mode choice model. However, it does not include coach due to “unreliable
coach travel data being available” and the hypothesis that “existing coach travellers would
not switch to high speed rail where a rail alternative is already available which they have
chosen not to use”.
The Airport Demand Model does model coach trips. There are twice as many coach trips in
the study area compared to all surface access trips to the airport (16%), this figures is almost
on a par with the number of rail trips from the study area (17%). Coach cost skims are
derived from LASAM by aggregating time periods and applying the following assumptions:
2008 coach level of service from LASAM used as a base;

no changes assumed to coach services in the catchment area in 2021/31;
headway, access time and number of interchanges remain unchanged;
base coach fares grown to forecast year using growth rates that SKM agreed upon with
DfT for the recent Stansted Airport Planning Application;
base coach IVT grown to forecast year using growth in highway times by zone; and
where the PSM zoning system is more detailed than LASAM, the same cost is allocated
to each PSM zone. Where LASAM is more detailed the costs from the most populous
LASAM zone is applied.
PSM outputs highway times and vehicle operating costs, but it does not provide information
on associated charges such as taxi/minicab fares and airport parking charges. Parking
charges, parking duration and group size are applied by passenger segment as per LASAM.
Taxi/Minicab fares are extracted from LASAM as follows:
assume that no one uses the more expensive black cab from Non London zones (as
LASAM), only Minicab;
fare is the same regardless of time of day;
PAGE 17
adopt base Minicab fares collected in August 2008 by SKM and used in LASAM; and
base fares grown to forecast year using WebTAG growth rates.
3.9. Generalised Cost Equations

The components of generalised cost described in section 3.8 are combined to form the
generalised costs by mode, segment and zone using the following equations:
UK Business Passengers Generalised Cost Formulae

Rail (L,S,X): α p Time + βWait +δWalk + φAccess + η X/L/M/H Fare
+ Z R * ( Interch .)
( D )θ
Bus/Coach: α p Time + βWait +φAccess + η X/L/M/H Fare
+ Z B * ( Interch .)
( D )θ
Taxi: ⎡ Fare ⎤
⎢⎣α p Time + η X/L/M/H N ⎥⎦
( D )θ
Park and Fly: ⎡ ( PCost + VCost ) ⎤
⎢α pTime + ηX/L/M/H ⎥
⎣ N ⎦
( D)θ
Kiss and Fly: ⎡ ⎡ PCost + VCost ) ⎤ α d Time ⎤
⎢α pTime + 2η X/L/M/H .⎢ ⎥+ N ⎥
⎣ ⎣ N ⎦ ⎦
( D )θ
Air: α p Time + βWait + φAccess + ηFare
(D)θ
where D = Highway Distance, θ = 0.4 and N = Group Size
UK Leisure Passengers Generalised Cost Formula

Rail (L,S,X): α p Time + β Wait +δ Walk + φAccess + η X/L/M/H Fare
( D )θ
Bus/Coach: α p Time + β Wait +φAccess + η X/L/M/H Fare
( D )θ
PAGE 18
Taxi: ⎡ Fare ⎤
( D )θ
Park and Fly: ⎡ ( PCost + VCost ) ⎤
⎢α pTime + ηX/L/M/H ⎥
⎣ N ⎦
( D)θ
Kiss and Fly: ⎡ ⎡ ( PCost + VCost ) ⎤ α d Time ⎤
⎢α pTime + 0.35η X/L/M/H .⎢ ⎥ + + ψTime 2 ⎥
⎣ ⎣ N ⎦ N ⎦
( D )θ
(D)θ
Foreign Business Passengers Generalised Cost Formulae

Rail (L,S,X): α p Time + βWait +δWalk + φAccess + η X/L/M/H Fare
+ Z * ( Interch .)
( D )θ
Bus/Coach: α p Time + βWait +φAccess + η X/L/M/H Fare
+ Z * ( Interch .)
( D )θ
Taxi: ⎡ Fare ⎤
( D )θ
Park and Fly: ⎡ ( HireCost + VCost ) ⎤
( D)θ
⎢α pTime + 2η X/L/M/H .⎢ ⎥+ N ⎥
⎣ ⎣ N ⎦ ⎦
( D )θ
(D)θ
PAGE 19
Foreign Leisure Passengers Generalised Cost Formulae
Rail (L,S,X): α p Time + β Wait +δ Walk + φAccess + η X/L/M/H Fare
( D )θ
Bus/Coach: α p Time + β Wait +φAccess + η X/L/M/H Fare
( D )θ
Taxi: ⎡ Fare ⎤
( D )θ
Park and Fly: ⎡ ( HireCost + VCost ) ⎤
( D)θ
⎢α pTime + 0.35η X/L/M/H .⎢ ⎥ + + ψTime 2 ⎥
⎣ ⎣ N ⎦ N ⎦
( D )θ
(D)θ
PAGE 20
The generalised cost parameters used in the formulae are given in Table 15 below for both
the base year and forecast future year (2031).
Table 15: Generalised Cost Parameters
2008 2031
UK Business
UK Business
UK Leisure
UK Leisure
Business
Business
Non-UK
Non-UK
Non-UK
Non-UK
Leisure
Leisure
Value of time (Heathrow) p/min 73.60 27.01 64.77 26.97 110.90 37.52 97.63 37.46
Vehicle operating cost p/km 11.79 5.39 5.39 5.39 10.54 4.81 4.81 4.81
Time coefficient α(p) 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.25
Wait coefficient β 0.49 0.55 0.47 0.66 0.49 0.55 0.47 0.66
R_Walk coefficient δ 0.17 0.25 0.22 0.30 0.17 0.25 0.22 0.30
Access coefficient φ 0.55 0.96 0.93 1.17 0.55 0.96 0.93 1.17
Rail Interchange coefficient 0.81 0.61 0.44 0.74 0.81 0.61 0.44 0.74
Bus Interchange coefficient 1.63 0.90 0.44 1.09 1.63 0.90 0.44 1.09
K&F time coefficient 2 α(d) 0.13 0.22 0.02 0.10 0.13 0.22 0.02 0.10
K&F time coefficient 3 ψ - 0.001 - 0.002 - 0.001 - 0.002
Distance exponent θ 0.40 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.40 0.50

3.10. New Rail Methodology

Where the rail share is less than 5% in the base year for a particular zone, forecasts with HS2
are incremented off the base bus/coach mode share for that zone. Note that if HS2 is not in
the forecast scenario then this methodology is not used.
PAGE 21
4. Elasticity Validation
To test that the model produces sensible results, a number of sensitivity tests have been run
and compared against equivalent runs using the full version of LASAM. As HS2 is not
coded in LASAM, the most comparable test is a 2008 run. Even though the two models have
different input costs skims (except for bus and taxi) the resulting elasticities are expected to
be consistent within the catchment area, as defined in Figure 5. The results are shown in
Table 16 with the Airport Demand Model showing sensitivity levels similar to LASAM.
Two further elasticities were calculated from the ADM base model to access the sensitivity
of the model to changes in Air fare and Air IVT, see Table 17.
Table 16: Elasticities from LASAM and ADM
All Zones Catchment Area LASAM Estimation

Sensitivity LASAM LASAM ADM Report
All rail demand to All rail fare -0.25 -0.70 -0.30 -0.20 to -0.28
All rail demand to All rail IVT -0.45 -0.70 -0.61 -0.37 to -0.52
Car demand to Car time -0.49 -0.49 -0.54 -0.23 to -0.42
Table 17: Elasticities from LASAM and ADM
Sensitivity Catchment Area All Non-London Zones

Air demand to Air fare -0.22 -0.23
Air demand to Air IVT -0.05 -0.06
PAGE 22
5. Conclusion
LASAM has been adapted to a simplified spreadsheet format so that it can be used to predict
the mode choice made by air passengers to access Heathrow Airport. Two modes, Air10 and
HS2, which are not modelled in LASAM, have been included. One of the key simplifications
is that it only represents air passengers that originate from Non-London areas.
Base and forecast cost skims for rail, car and air are taken from PSM and are the key input to
the spreadsheet. Cost skims for other modes such as coach and taxi are provided from
LASAM as a fixed input for each forecast year. The spreadsheet model has been set up to
allow different HS2 routes can be tested, although it was calibrated based on the assumption
of HS2 passing through the West Midlands up to Manchester.
The model produces forecasts of air, car, standard rail, high speed rail and bus demand by
zone, business and leisure passenger segments and direction for an annual average weekday.
10
Domestic air travel
PAGE 23
Appendix A DfT Air Passenger Forecasts:
Transfer Demand
All forecast data is from the central demand case, for the central "s12s2" runway
development scenario as reported in the DfT's 'UK Air Passenger Demand and CO2
Forecasts, January 2009.'
DfT expect to see all transfer passengers grow at Heathrow at significantly slower rates than
direct point to point traffic. The DfT’s forecasting consultants have provided the following
explanation for this phenomenon (in descending order of importance):
The DfT forecasts are constrained to runway capacity. As underlying demand exceeds
capacity at Heathrow a "shadow cost" or fare premium is imposed on each air transport
movement (ATM) using a Heathrow runway. This shadow cost is distributed among all
passengers on the aircraft: therefore passengers on large fully loaded aircraft will pay
less per head than those on smaller aircraft. Long haul routes will therefore do relatively
better as constraints "bite". Domestic transfer passengers face a double shadow cost
because a single transfer trip is charged twice for runway use, once on the domestic leg
and once on the international leg. One of the legs will also by definition be on a smaller
domestic aircraft with higher shadow costs per head. Shadow costs can cause the trip to
either re-route away from the congested hub or be suppressed from travelling altogether.
Sensitivity to shadow costs varies by passenger purpose - leisure passengers with lower
values of time being more sensitive. Shadow costs are modelled at Heathrow from 2006-
2030 and because of the growth in underlying demand are not cleared by the
introduction of the new runway in 2020.
The DfT models all major UK airports and routeings via the three largest continental
hubs. The passenger to airport allocation procedures examine the viability of transfer
passengers switching to direct flights from the regional airports or alternatively
transferring to an alternative hub e.g. Amsterdam, Paris or Frankfurt. Neither the
regional airports nor the overseas airports have shadow costs so direct routes and use of
foreign hubs becomes progressively more attractive as the Heathrow (and other London
area) shadow costs rise. Where a direct route from a regional airport does not exist at
present, a route viability test checks for the future viability of the route in every
modelled year given the potential to "claw back" transfer passengers from the London
hubs, thereby potentially further decreasing the attractiveness of the London hubs.
The surface access inputs to the airport to passenger allocation process take account of
changes to future airport accessibility by road and rail. Improvements to the West Coast
Main Line are included in the forecast years but not in the base. This will make a surface
journey to Heathrow relatively more attractive than a domestic air journey from certain
ground origins in the forecast years.
PAGE 24

HS2 Airport Demand Model: A Report For HS2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HS2 Airport Demand Model: A Report For HS2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HS2 Airport Demand Model (ADM):

A Report for HS2

Sinclair Knight Merz

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

The remit for HS2 is to:

 Table 1: Heathrow Airport Annual Surface Access Mode Shares by Catchment

 Table 2: Indicative Time and Distance

In Vehicle Time (hours:mins)

 Figure 1: Domestic Air vs Rail

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

 Figure 3: Domestic Air Passengers to Heathrow Airport, 1990-2008. Source: CAA

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

The model structure, including all data inputs, is shown in Figure 4.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

CAA 2007/08 base DfT growth forecasts

PSM base cost

Airport Spreadsheet Model

Forecast mode shares by

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

 Figure 5: HS2 Route and Catchment Areas

Note: Manchester catchment area extends northwards to include all of Scotland

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

 UK Business – air passengers residing in the UK and travelling on business;

 Table 3: Equivalent Segments of Rail Passengers

PSM segment SKM equivalent segment Reason

 Table 4: Equivalent Segments of Road Passengers

PSM segment SKM equivalent segment Reason

 Table 5 Equivalent Segments of Air Passengers

PSM segment SKM equivalent segment

 Table 6 LASAM Time Periods (Weekdays)

Time Period Airport Entrance CAA Survey Time 2007/08

3.5. Base Year Data

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Mode 2007 2008 2007/08 average

Bus/Coach 8.3% 9.0% 8.6%

Domestic Air Access

 Table 8: Domestic Air Passengers, Manchester to Heathrow

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

The analysis proved inconclusive with the following findings:

 Table 9: Domestic Air Passengers, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Newcastle to

Connection type Edinburgh Glasgow Newcastle

Connect at Heathrow 555,569 563,361 292,138

3.6. Forecast Year Data

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Domestic Air Access

 Table 10: Transfer Air Passengers at Heathrow Airport

Airport 2008 - CAA 2020 - DfT 2030 - DfT

Edinburgh 555,569 343,635 371,390

3.7. Mode Choice Hierarchy

 RailAir Coach (overall 0.6% mode share) treated as standard rail;

 Figure 6: UK Business Mode Choice Hierarchy

Air Rail Bus/ Park and Kiss and Taxi

 Figure 7: Foreign Business Mode Choice Hierarchy

Taxi Kiss and Rail Air

Park and Kiss and

3.8. Cost Data

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

PSM Cost Description SKM equivalent

 Table 12 Components of Generalised Cost - Highway

PSM Description LASAM equivalent

 Table 13 Components of Generalised Cost - Air

PSM Description LASAM equivalent

Table 1: Heathrow Airport Annual Surface Access Mode Shares by Catchment

Table 2: Indicative Time and Distance

Figure 1: Domestic Air vs Rail

Figure 3: Domestic Air Passengers to Heathrow Airport, 1990-2008. Source: CAA

Figure 5: HS2 Route and Catchment Areas

UK Business – air passengers residing in the UK and travelling on business;

Table 3: Equivalent Segments of Rail Passengers

Table 4: Equivalent Segments of Road Passengers

Table 5 Equivalent Segments of Air Passengers

Table 6 LASAM Time Periods (Weekdays)

Table 8: Domestic Air Passengers, Manchester to Heathrow

Table 9: Domestic Air Passengers, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Newcastle to

Table 10: Transfer Air Passengers at Heathrow Airport

RailAir Coach (overall 0.6% mode share) treated as standard rail;

Figure 6: UK Business Mode Choice Hierarchy

Figure 7: Foreign Business Mode Choice Hierarchy

Table 12 Components of Generalised Cost - Highway

Table 13 Components of Generalised Cost - Air

Table 14: Assumed Check-In Times

2008 coach level of service from LASAM used as a base;

Table 15: Generalised Cost Parameters

Table 16: Elasticities from LASAM and ADM

Table 17: Elasticities from LASAM and ADM