COMMENT: Airlines and HSR - Uneasy Bedfriends?

In an article in the Evening Standard in June, Peter Dominiczac reports that Boris Johnson's aviation adviser, Daniel Moylan, believes that there is a better business case for the proposed Thames Estuary Airport (I'll call it TEA for now) than for the planned High Speed 2 (HS2) rail project. Johnson has long been one of the most outspoken proponents of the TEA project over a third runway at Heathrow.
Moylan quotes budget figures for the two projects, pointing out that TEA will have a much higher return-on-investment than HS2, owing to the business connections it can foster.

But why should these projects oppose each other? I mean, yes, a new "four-runway mega-hub" airport would bring more economic benefits than a domestic rail network (well, not even a network) but realistically there's hardly any reason to compare them to each other.
Firstly, a new mega-hub in the south-east of the United Kingdom would reduce congestion at the full-to-bursting London Heathrow, and provide those all-important business travellers with their beloved onward connections to the Middle East, Asia and North America, and would create jobs.


On the other hand, HS2 will give passengers a quick, easy and presumably affordable alternative to flying between the north and south of the UK. Not bring investment from abroad (apart, perhaps from sponsorships and advertising?). It will also create jobs, up and down the west of the country. I don't see how you can compare them.

Airlines and high-speed rail have a mixed history. Most people see rail as a 'green' alternative to flying, and the commonly held belief in the industries (yes, both of them) is that on overland journeys up to around 800km, aeroplanes are less efficient. Not necessarily so. Several articles from both the New Scientist and The Guardian show that, in fact, depending on how full they are running, the fuel used to power them, and the infrastructure needed to run them, they could as environmentally damaging or worse than flying. Now, I can't say for HS2 for certain as I don't know the exact details, but it is something to bear in mind.

Environment aside, I strongly believe there is the capacity for HS2 (and, indeed, other rail networks) to compliment airline route networks. In fact, it has been proven. In Germany, Deutsche-Bahn's Rail&Fly initiative allows passengers to board onward train connections using the same ticket as for the flight, for an extra fee. France has a similar, albeit more limited service with the subjects this time being Air France and SNCF, the French national rail company. They call it TGVair.

The tech-mag Wired also thinks collaboration is key. The opportunities are endless; codesharing, alliances, marketing opps, connections for passengers... However, at the moment it is dubious as to whether these opportunities will be grasped with HS2 as some are claiming that Heathrow might not even have its own station built after all, and if it is the trains would be leaving at a low frequency. No good for businessmen and women!

Regardless of the final decisions on HS2 and the Thames Estuary Airport projects, I see great scope for integrating rail networks with those of airlines, and I hope that those in charge of the planning of them will see it too.