CHAPTER 4: OTHER BARRIERS TO GROWTH |
72. Apart from the governance structure of the
Channel Tunnel, there are a number of other potential barriers
to growth. Some are particular to the Channel Tunnel, while others
apply to the European rail market as a whole.
Projected passenger and freight
73. The projected levels of passenger and freight
services were both overestimated when the Channel Tunnel was conceived.
Initial British and French forecasts estimated around 17-20 million
passengers per annum. Instead, figures have ranged between 6-7
million in 2004 and 9-10 million today. Eurotunnel was confident
that there was potential for the market to grow to 15 million
passengers within the next decade, and up to 20 million in the
long term if necessary improvements were made. For freight services,
the initial forecast was 8-10 million tonnes per annum. However,
after rising to only 3 million tonnes per annum shortly after
the Channel Tunnel opened, it stagnated at this level until 2001
and then declined. Eurotunnel told us that, after a near collapse
of the market in 2007, it worked with the respective governments
to recover the market, which preserved traffic at a level of one
million tonnes. After a further dip in 2010 it is now growing
at rate of 15% per annum in 2011. As a result, Eurotunnel is confident
that the level can be increased to 3 million tonnes and indeed
beyond 6 million tonnes over a longer period of time.
Figure 1 plots both passenger and freight levels since 1994.
Number of passengers and tonnes of freight
(in millions) from 1994 to 2010
Source: Eurotunnel annual traffic figures
74. Capacity within the Channel Tunnel is not
a constraint. Eurotunnel told us that it allocated pathways between
passenger and freight services, and of these less than 50% of
the passenger capacity was used, with only about 10% utilisation
for freight. They further explained that a 50:50 split of overall
capacity was currently in place between the railway network connections
and the road network connections. The Eurotunnel Shuttle services
used the latter connection and there were occasionally periods
when 100% utilisation of their capacity was achieved.
Roy Griffins, head of the UK delegation to the IGC, told us that
50% of the Channel Tunnel's capacity was currently reserved for
Eurostar and the freight operators under the current Rail User
Contract, with the remaining 50% being available for other operators
to enter the market under the open access rules.
High Speed 1 told us that there was also spare capacity on their
though the ORR indicated that there were some issues on the network
in northern France.
75. There is therefore a great deal of spare
capacity available in the Channel Tunnel in which further international
passenger and freight services could easily be accommodated.
76. Our earlier report recommended that the Government
should work with the French government to ensure fair and open
access through the Channel Tunnel, with competitive access charges.
Despite this, many of the contributors to this inquiry considered
high access charges to be the main barrier to growth in international
passenger and freight services through the Channel Tunnel. While
the Minister told us that an operator unhappy with the charges
set by Eurotunnel could appeal to the IGC,
Network Rail suggested that the IGC should examine Eurotunnel's
charges to see if they were consistent with the "letter and
spirit of EU rules".
In any event, the principles on which these charges are actually
formulated remain unclear.
A barrier to growth?
77. Many witnesses called for Eurotunnel to reduce
their access charges in order to stimulate greater competition.
The Rail Freight Group called for Eurotunnel to cut these charges
by a third as a first step to increasing competition.
Eurostar explained that the high charges set a minimum on the
fares they could offer to customers and suggested that these charges
would limit future growth of international services. It also suggested
that different operators appeared to be charged different tariffs
and argued that the charging regimes should be fairer and more
transparent between different types of operators.
Deutsche Bahn also argued that the access charges were too highrepresenting
50% of total charges on some servicesand that lower costs
would make higher service frequencies and more destinations possible.
78. Brian Kogan, a member of the IGC, stated
that access charges to the Channel Tunnel were "extremely
high relative to other networks", but that he did not know
whether they were "just inexcusably high or ... justifiably
considered it to be a "no-brainer" that reduced charges
would increase competition; however, he warned that they could
not simply be reduced to an uneconomic level, as Eurotunnel needed
to "make a living".
He stated that the IGC was reviewing Eurotunnel's charging scheme
and confirmed that the IGC has the power to direct Eurotunnel
to lower access charges, as well as to enforce any such decision.
Roy Griffins noted, though, that the IGC had received only one
appeal from a railway undertaking about the charges that applied.
79. The Minister argued that access charges should
be for the market to determine and suggested that a reduction
in charges would result in additional Government subsidies to
freight operators, thus placing greater burdens on the taxpayer.
The Rail Freight Group strongly disagreed with the Minister's
view. It referred to Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC, which
states that the freight charges should, as a minimum, be what
the market can bear. It stressed that if charges went down then
the level of traffic would increase as a result.
However, Article 8(2) allows for different charging principles
to be applied for specific long term investment projects: higher
charges may be imposed if the project could not have been undertaken
without such higher fees. This provision could, ostensibly, apply
to the Channel Tunnel.
Rail User Contracts and network
80. The Treaty of Canterbury prohibits subsidies
to Eurotunnel, but allows it the freedom to make its own commercial
decisions regarding the operation of the Channel Tunnel. The Treaty
also allowed Eurotunnel to conclude a Rail Usage Contract (RUC)
with the then state-owned UK and French railway companies. After
privatisation, Eurostar and English Welsh and Scottish Railway
assumed British Rail's preferences and liabilities under the contract
through 'back-to-back' agreements, which account for 50% of Eurotunnel's
capacity. The contract guarantees a minimum level of income for
Eurotunnel, which helped it meet its liabilities for construction
costs and now also serves as the basis for how access charges
are levied on all railway undertakings using the Channel Tunnel.
81. Each infrastructure manager, including Eurotunnel
and High Speed 1, publishes a network statement which specifies
the charges that apply to rail passenger operators and rail freight
operators, alongside the conditions of use.
Following criticism from the IGC, we heard that improvements have
been made to the statement which is published annually by Eurotunnel.
The charges in that statement sometimes differ from those in the
Rail Usage Contract, which are subject to negotiations between
Eurotunnel and the operator and remain confidential. Brian Kogan
considered the current charging scheme to be too "opaque"
and suggested that more transparency was needed.
Domestic access charges
82. Eurostar asserted that the calculation of
charges was influenced too much by domestic funding conditions,
and argued that there should be more EU involvement in their future
development in order to ensure greater affordability and predictability.
Eurotunnel stressed that it received no public subsidy and was
the only infrastructure manager in Europe to be funded entirely
from access charges, unlike its national equivalents who were
primarily funded by their taxpayers. Its level of access charges
were now set at approximately the sum of both these national access
charges and were also subject to an indexation formulaRPI
minus 1.1%that had been in place since 1987, resulting
in no increase in real terms since then. Eurotunnel maintained
in supplementary evidence that the increases were as a result
of the significant rise in the levels of access charges levied
by the UK and French infrastructure managers, which it said should
be limited. It also called for the indexation formula to be applied
to all infrastructure managers in the EU, in order to reverse
the upward trend in charges at the national level.
None of our other witnesses raised any concerns about national
83. While it stressed that it was for the UK
and French governments to justify the current level of composite
access charges that applied to services running through the Channel
Tunnel, Eurotunnel also stated that these charges were set at
an "appropriate level" and were "bearable",
with prospective new operators assessing that new services would
be profitable. However, it admitted that problems might arise
in the long-term, if charges continued to rise, with operators
potentially withdrawing services through the Channel Tunnel.
84. Access charges set by Eurotunnel and the
United Kingdom and French governments constitute a large part
of the cost of running a service through the Channel Tunnel. However,
we appreciate that Eurotunnel is a private company, and that its
access charges constitute a significant share of its income. It
should be free to set access charges at a market rate subject
to their obligations under EU law.
85. New entrants could be deterred from seeking
authorisation to provide services if access charges are not fair,
predictable and available more easily. We recommend that the Intergovernmental
Commission's review of access charges is expedited and any changes,
whether by Eurotunnel or by the United Kingdom or French governments,
are made without delay. We would welcome a reduction of the charges
in the medium-term as a means of encouraging use and increasing
Security and border controls
86. Most international trains travelling through
Member States on the Continent do not have to worry about security
and immigration controls, as they are part of the Schengen Area.
The border control system for services running through the Channel
Tunnel is explained in Box 6.
The Schengen Area and Juxtaposed Border
|The Schengen Area includes 25 EU Member States alongside Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. The Schengen rules became part of EU law when they were incorporated into the Amsterdam Treaty in 1999. Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus will also join the Schengen Area in due course. Internal border controls no longer exist within the Area. The United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, which maintain a Common Travel Area between them, are not full members of the Schengen Area and therefore still maintain border controls with the other Member States.
As a result, Eurostar services between London, Brussels and Paris must still operate border controls. This is achieved by so-called "juxtaposed controls" at the station of departure. A traveller leaving London will be checked first by the United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA) and then by French or Belgian officials before boarding the train. The passenger does not need to show his passport on arrival. This means that UK officials have to operate on French and Belgian soil, and the French and Belgians on UK soil. A similar arrangement would be necessary for any extension of the service to other countries such as Germany or the Netherlands.
87. The question we posed was whether the system
was necessary and viable in an expanding market. Many witnesses
were satisfied that a greater volume of traffic through the Channel
Tunnel did not pose any additional security risks to the infrastructure.
Eurostar supported the current system of juxtaposed border controls
between Belgium, France and the United Kingdom but suggested that
they might not work for other, smaller, destinations.
Some argued that the security and immigration requirements for
travel through the Channel Tunnel were already too onerousnegating
some of the advantages of train travel over flying. The International
Rail Journal considered the check-in times for Eurostar services
at stations in Lille and Brussels to be too long,
while High Speed 1 and the International Air Rail Organisation
favoured on-board passport checks as a quicker alternative.
The Man in Seat Sixty-One also supported on-board security and
immigration checks as a means of cutting journey times and benefiting
the consumer. He suggested that the current juxtaposed system
might hinder the development of other international routes due
to the complexities involved of setting up such checks at new
Bahn also suggested that there may come a time when prospective
new operators would examine the arrangements and say, "This
is too expensive for us and we cannot afford it".
88. Eurotunnel considered that the continued
application of passenger and luggage searches would limit the
growth of international passenger services, as only the major
stationsParis, London and Brusselscould accommodate
the necessary infrastructure costs. It viewed the checks as discriminatory
and excessive, given that similar procedures do not apply to passengers
on domestic British and French rail networks, notwithstanding
the fact that the only major terrorist attack to have occurred
in either country targeted domestic rail services.
89. The Minister suggested that the juxtaposed
border controls system may no longer be viable with respect to
new services, including the prospective Deutsche Bahn operation,
"because neither Germany nor the Netherlands is currently
keen on the idea of UK border officials on their territory".
She suggested that an alternative would have to be found, possibly
involving an increased reliance on the United Kingdom's e-Borders
system, the use of Advanced Passenger Information and on-board
checks. She also suggested that an interim procedure might allow
the Deutsche Bahn service to commence in the short term, to be
replaced by a more permanent arrangement in due course.
90. The development of new international services
may render the current system of juxtaposed border controls unsustainable.
We welcome the Government's open-minded approach to this matter,
and would welcome a statement on their proposals. All feasible
solutions should be considered, including the reintroduction of
on-board passport checks. Any revised security policy must be
proportionate and avoid an adverse impact on passenger waiting
91. To take advantage of expansion opportunities
in the European rail market, interoperability is integral; rolling
stock must be compatible with infrastructures across Member States.
A new service running through the Channel Tunnel from London to
Amsterdam would need to run on HS1, Channel Tunnel, French, Belgian
and Dutch infrastructures. Alstom explained some of the issues:
"There are several systems ... The question is whether the
train can carry the technical systems on board to switch between
the two. On top of that ... there are 25 train protection systems
in operation in Europe across the countries ... A train can go
everywhere but it will be an expensive train. That will not change
by 2020, but it will be improved".
High Speed 1 pointed to other constraints including platform lengths,
station layouts and signalling issues.
92. A number of Directives have been adopted
in order to facilitate progress in this area.
The ERA also provides advice and assistance in promoting interoperability,
in part, by producing a number of Technical Standards for Interoperability
(TSIs). Funding and technical support is also provided for projects
like the European Rail Traffic Management System, which is described
in Box 7. Alstom was enthusiastic about this project, regarding
it as providing "a pillar for the future of European rail".
While the system was progressing well so far,
they considered faster deployment to be the "highest priority"
for the future development of an EU rail market.
The Government favours greater interoperability and suggested
that Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) funding for high-speed
projects should become conditional on compliance with the relevant
European Rail Traffic Management System
|The European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) aims to increase safety and interoperability on Europe's high speed rail network. It uses Global System for Mobile communications-Railways (GSM-R) to transmit data about a train's location and speed. This, coupled with automatic train protection (ATP), enables the automatic supervision of the train's speed and braking. High-speed trains can therefore travel more frequently and safely on ERTMS routes. The provision of ERTMS is a condition of EU funding for infrastructure upgrades which incorporate signalling improvements.
93. Deutsche Bahn also considered that there
was still work to be done to remove technical and administrative
market entry barriers, particularly with respect to the homologation
of rolling stock. However, it suggested that progress was being
made by the ERA to increase the predictability and transparency
in obtaining safety certificates.
94. Providing a cross-border rail service
will continue to be expensive as long as rolling stock is required
to meet multiple safety and interoperability standards. TSIs should
be extended in scope wherever possible in order to facilitate
market entry for new operators. We urge the European Rail Agency
to be more proactive in this area.
95. We endorse the continued rollout of the
European Rail Traffic Management System, subject to the costs
being controlled adequately. Alongside other interoperability
initiatives, this will be crucial for the future development of
the European rail services market.
96. The Channel Tunnel and HS1 should be seen
in the context of Europe-wide infrastructure development. The
Commission's Transport White Paper argues that "no
major change in transport will be possible without the support
of an adequate network and more intelligence in using it".
However, rail infrastructure is variable across Europe and is
generally more developed in the West than the East, and the EU
has identified priority areas for EU infrastructure through its
Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) designation. The core
network envisaged for 2030 is shown at Figure 3.
TEN-T 2030 Core Network Map
Source: European Commission, Revision of TEN-T
97. TEN-T funding was previously used to build
HS1 and the TGV Est, which operates between Paris and Strasbourg.
However, transport infrastructure funding to date has been criticised
as serving national rather than cross-border interests. Delays
and environmental concerns have also beset other projects such
as the Turin-Lyon rail tunnel, and there is evidence of under-spend
in other areas.
98. Witnesses were divided as to whether funding
should be focused on developing high speed lines,
or upgrading existing normal speed lines.
The Minister argued that the priorities could not be split. She
said that the focus should be on where the most significant economic
return in terms of jobs and growth could be achieved.
99. Alstom called for a higher funding allocation
to be made under the next MFF to TEN-T rail infrastructure, with
a focus on cross-border projects with high European-added value.
This was echoed by the European Rail Infrastructure Managers.
The Minister said there was a case for prioritising limited resources
on transport but that a better result could also be achieved if
regional and cohesion funding was looked at alongside TEN-T funding.
100. Network Rail argued that TEN-T funds should
focus on core networks, removing bottlenecks, and on projects
that would not proceed without assistance and where return on
investment was considered to be high.
High Speed 1 and the Minister also argued that the resolution
of bottlenecks was paramount.
Deutsche Bahn suggested that TEN-T funding should be based on
assessment of the contribution to traffic development, the environmental
impact, the safety advantages, the network effects and the saving
in travelling times. They argued that funding should be allocated
so as to encourage optimum interoperability.
101. Some witnesses suggested that TEN-T funding
should be contingent upon other factors such as compliance with
EU measures, the
promotion of low-carbon and sustainable transport, interoperability,
the use of the ERTMS and meeting project deadlines.
Eurostar cited HS1, which was built with TEN-T funding, being
standardised with high speed rail lines in Belgium and France,
in accordance with the relevant TSIs.
The Government agreed with condition-based funding, arguing for
compliance with High Speed Rail TSIs and the implementation of
102. TEN-T funding should be prioritised for
cross-border transport infrastructure projects that contribute
to economic growth by overcoming bottlenecks and helping to achieve
the completion of the Single Market. The decision should not be
prejudiced in favour of either conventional or high-speed rail
projects. It is imperative that the risks should be properly assessed
before funding is allocated.
103. If funding is to be provided at EU-level,
projects should advance EU aims to develop a competitive and resource
efficient transport system. Conditions on interoperability and
fair access should be attached to any such funding.
REVISION OF TEN-T FUNDING
104. On 19 October 2011 the Commission published
a new infrastructure package, including a proposed revision of
the TEN-T guidelines
and a "Connecting Europe" funding instrument, as part
of the next Multiannual Financial Framework for 2014 to 2020.
Under "Connecting Europe", the Commission intends to
invest 31.7 billion upgrading infrastructure, building missing
links and removing bottlenecks in order to increase the flow of
goods and people around Europe.
This will be aimed particularly at sustainable cross-border transport
links, but funding is also likely to be earmarked for the further
development of the ERTMS. The package also designates 10 core
cross-border corridors, including Dublin-London-Paris-Brussels
and Warsaw-Berlin-Amsterdam/Rotterdam-Felixstowe-Midlands, which
should be completed by 2030. This will be supplemented by a comprehensive
network of feeder routes at regional and national level, to be
completed by 2050 and mainly funded by the Member States.
105. The new infrastructure package also focuses
on the use of innovative funding instruments
and other means to secure more private sector investment. Alstom
supported the use of such instruments, while the European Rail
Infrastructure Managers and High Speed 1 argued for more private
investment. They stressed that a stable regulatory climate, which
accepted a reasonable return for investors, was needed to facilitate
Ferrovie dello Stato suggested that public-private partnerships
should play a more significant role in funding high speed rail
106. In the interests of promoting economic
growth, funding for the development of the European rail network
should be a priority during the next financial perspective. We
welcome the inclusion of 31.7bn of "seed capital"
in the next Multiannual Financial Framework to help complete necessary
cross-border links which might not otherwise be built.
107. Given the constraints on European public
funding for the foreseeable future, policies should be developed
which seek to maximise contributions from the private sector whilst
ensuring a fair allocation of risk. A more predictable EU regulatory
framework and the use of innovative financial instruments where
appropriate should be pursued to facilitate more commercially
Inter-regional services and intermediate
108. When Eurostar began operating services in
1994, it was anticipated that regional and 'Nightstar' sleeper
services from Paris and Brussels to locations beyond London would
also be introduced. While rolling stock was ordered for these
services, they were eventually abandoned due to concerns about
their economic viability. The feasibility of regional services
was revived during the construction of HS1;
but while domestic services now use this line at a lower speed,
alongside faster Eurostar services,
no such services have been introduced since it opened fully in
2007. Professor Vickerman suggested services between Kent
and Nord-Pas de Calais were feasible, and made clear his support
for their introduction. He pointed to similar services between
France, Belgium and the Netherlands that had been successful.
However, he acknowledged that while it would be technically possible
to run such a service, a major constraint was the access charges
to the Channel Tunnel that, on a short journey, would represent
a large part of the operator's service cost.
109. We have already noted the spare capacity
available in the Channel Tunnel for new services, including inter-regional
ones, but we received evidence that longer-distance operators
were disinclined to stop at intermediate stations on HS1 because
of time considerations.
Eurostar stressed that the bulk of their market was between the
big citiesBrussels, Paris and London. Intermediate stops
would increase journey times and make services less competitive
High Speed 1, though, are working to make stations such as Stratford
International appealing for international operators.
The Minister stressed that stopping at Stratford International
was a business decision for international operators to make but
considered that the 2012 Olympics could only bolster such a business
110. While the increased provision of inter-regional
services through the Channel Tunnel is desirable, it is ultimately
a commercial decision for the operators. Fixed costs, such as
access charges and train control systems, mean that longer-distance
international services should be more viable. Ways of rendering
such services more sustainable and making stoppages at intermediate
stations more attractive should be examined further.
Fair competition between different
111. The Commission's Transport White Paper states
that: "by 2050 the majority of medium-distance passenger
transport should go by rail".
The question is how to achieve this. Some witnesses told us that
there was already healthy competition between rail and air on
the London, Paris and Brussels routes, with Alstom reporting that
the displacement from air to rail travel was significant where
high-speed rail routes were available.
The Man in Seat Sixty-One attributed an increase in enquiries
he received from people interested in switching from air to rail
to the desire for reduced stressavoiding "the airport
checks, the delays and the extra charges"and environmental
concerns. He estimated an 80:20 split: "80% stress of flying
versus 20% carbon footprint".
Some witnesses argued that the key factors that influenced choice
of transport mode were journey times, competitive pricing and
efficacy of services.
However, the Government suggested that factors underlying modal
shifts were more complex, including infrastructure improvements,
and argued that people should not be coerced into changing travel
112. Eurostar and High Speed 1 stressed the importance
of consistent application of regulatory principles across rail,
road and air in order to facilitate modal shift, and also emphasised
the environmental benefits that would result from such an approach.
Examples of disparity cited include the exemption of cross-border
flights from VAT (unlike cross-border rail), and the application
of the EU Emission Trading System.
Deutsche Bahn also called for equal treatment between these transport
modes in terms of taxation.
Alstom argued that modal shift not only required fairer taxation,
but also fairer infrastructure charging. It called for the internalisation
of external costs
and the full application of the polluter-pays principle.
113. Against this, the Minister did not accept
that there was currently unequal treatment between the two modes
in terms of taxation. She argued that although airlines did not
pay VAT, Air Passenger Duty was levied on flights and noted that
the aviation industry was soon to be included in the EU Emission
Trading System. She further argued that adopting a uniform approach
to taxation across transport modes would rule out imposing higher
taxes on the most polluting forms of transport and said that "we
do not rule out the option of aligning the tax system more closely
to the emissions of the transport mode in question".
114. Achieving a greater degree of competition
between rail and air transport, in terms of taxation and the application
of the EU Emission Trading System, is necessary before rail travel
will become an attractive alternative to short haul flights.
123 QQ 339-340 and Eurotunnel Back
QQ 336-338 and Eurotunnel Back
QQ 290-291 Back
Q 135 Back
Q 184 Back
European Union Committee, 4th Report of Session 2004-05: Liberalising
Rail Freight Movement in the EU (HL Paper 52) Back
Q 288 Back
Network Rail Back
DB Schenker, Eurostar, Deutsche Bahn, Professor Vickerman and
the RFG Back
Q 307 Back
Q 77 and Q 79 Back
Q 121 and Q 123 Back
Q 174 Back
Q 188 Back
QQ 189-190 Back
Q 292 Back
QQ 287-288 Back
Q 307 Back
Q 176 Back
As required under Article 3, Directive 2001/14/EC Back
Q 174. 2012 Eurotunnel Network Statement:
Q 188. RFG and Professor Vickerman agreed. Back
Q 349 and Eurotunnel Back
Q 349 Back
But they can apply to the Council to participate in some aspects
of the Schengen acquis. The UK successfully applied to
participate in police and judicial cooperation but not in immigration
Network Rail, Deutsche Bahn, IRJ, HS1, EIM and the Government Back
Q 44 and Eurostar Back
IRJ. Minimum recommended check-in times are 30 minutes for standard
class and 10 minutes for business premier class passengers. Back
Q 143 and IARO Back
Q 248. Deutsche Bahn agreed with this view. Back
Q 105 Back
Q 363 and Eurotunnel. The 7 July 2005 bombings in London. Back
Q 255 Back
Q 272 Back
Q 202 Back
QQ 136-138 Back
These are Directive 96/48/EC, which applies to high-speed rail,
Directive 2001/16/EC, which applies to conventional rail and Directive
2004/50/EC, which aligned both these measures and extended their
scope. These have since been superseded by Directive 2008/57/EC,
which also contains safety provisions. Back
Q 218 Back
Q 91 Back
COM (2011) 144, p. 4 Back
Eurostar, Q 63 and Q 225 Back
Q 111 and Ivor Morgan Back
Q 268 Back
Q 228 and Alstom Back
QQ 269-271 Back
Network Rail Back
Q 151 and Q 268 Back
Deutsche Bahn Back
Q 62 Back
Q 139 Back
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European
transport network, COM (2011) 650/2 Back
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, COM
(2011) 665/3 Back
The provision of financial support from the EU budget through
instruments other than pure grant funding. See Appendix 4 for
further information. Back
EIM, Q 152 and HS1 Back
Ferrovie dello Stato Back
Q 155 Back
Q 133 Back
Q 21 Back
Professor Vickerman Back
These include Stratford International, Ebbsfleet International
and Ashford International. Back
Q 71. Eurostar currently offer a once-daily service from Ashford
International to Brussels. Back
Q 154 Back
Q 272. Stratford International is located within the eastern boundary
of the London Olympic Park. Back
COM (2011) 144, p. 9 Back
Deutsche Bahn and Q 200 Back
Q 235 Back
Network Rail, Alstom, EIM and HS1 Back
Eurostar and HS1 Back
Q 44, Q 66, Q 68 and Eurostar Back
Q 115 and Deutsche Bahn Back
Such as charging road users for the environmental and noise consequences
of their transport choice. Back
QQ 276-281 Back