HS2 - select committee findings

Somehow the transport select committee today gave support for the government's High Speed Rail plans, yet with such caveats that you wonder quite how the overall report they provide can come to that conclusion.

Almost everyone accepts that capacity on the rail network needs to be dealt with and that many rail services across the country fall well the below the standards we would like. What is baffling, however, is that whilst saying;

"A high-speed line operating at less than 250mph may offer greater opportunities for mitigation, as well as an opportunity to follow existing transport corridors.

"We are concerned the decision to build a 250mph line prematurely ruled out other route options."

they still gave the HS2 plan support. Why could they not say "We cannot support it at this design speed and until the issues over the country's transport strategy are resolved"?

I was on the radio this morning and spoke after Louise Ellman (chair of the select committee), who was quite clear that there are no environmental benefits of the scheme and that it will not cut carbon. The report says;

"It is not clear that even the Y-network will substantially reduce demand for domestic aviation.

"HS2 should not be promoted as a carbon-reduction scheme."

yet at this time when we desperately need to be cutting CO2 emissions from transport, they still approved it. Why not say "We cannot support it unless it is part of an overall strategy to cut carbon emissions from transport"?

Friends of the Earth are signed up to the Right Lines Charter along with many other environmental NGOs and this report does seem to endorse a lot of what that says about what the plan should do in order to be a good plan for High Speed Rail, yet it doesn't go far enough.

We need a transport system that is fit for a low carbon future of scarce resources and that means a much better plan than currently exists. I'm glad the the select committee have identified so many the flaws in the government's plan, but wish they had gone further with their recommendations and recognised the value in protecting the environment above the rather dubious job-creation claims.

Joe Peacock

Is 1% a majority?

Yesterday Birmingham city council released the results of their consultation on HS2.

On their website they proudly announced that the "Majority of residents on HS2 route back plan". To me that would mean more than half of the people living there have replied and are in favour, but in fact they say that of the respondents "53 per cent fully supported the proposals" and on checking how many respondents there were (600) that means about 300 people. When you consider that nearly 30 000 consultation documents went out and it was available to many more people on the internet, it turns out that this is actually 1% of the number of leaflets that went out and if a number of those responses were from people responding on the website, not from those who received the leaflets, the percentage could be even lower.

How can they justify a claim that the majority of residents on the route back it in this case?

Gridlock City

Yesterday a problem with a crane caused chaos. One incident in town and all the streets are gridlocked. Buses are nose to tail and can't move the queues of people who are waiting.

Birmingham is in transport crisis because it is the largest city in Europe without a mass transit system. It has failed to create this over the last 30 years and is dying as a result. People can't get around reliably and its fatal for any city. Our transport system is worse than 60 years ago. We should be bloody furious.

I don't want to go to Leeds or Manchester, particularly. I don't want 30 minutes trimmed off the journey to places that I don't go anyway.

Birmingham people deserve an effective convenient public transport system in this city. London has underground and suburban rail stations within walking distance of most streets. That's why it gets the investment and jobs, not Birmingham. We don't need a faster link to London. We need faster links to other parts of Birmingham. Let's forget HS2 and get onto the real business, before the price of oil goes through the roof and people can't get to work. It's urgent.

John Newson

HS2 Debate Questions

We had a few of the questions that were submitted in advance answered by the panel at our debate yesterday, but didn't have time for all of them, so I promised to post some of them online today. Here they are and if anyone would like to answer them, then please do so in the comments section:

1) "HS2 is being developed after the main LTP plans have been agreed regionally. What will be the impact of HS2 be on local planning and on funding which could have been used instead to support local transport networks; particularly in the more deprived North of Solihull Borough where its inadequacies are a much greater economic and social barrier to the local economy than the need for a very expensive rail HS2 line?"

2) "223 mph (360km/h) trains use more than twice the power of 124 mph (200km/h) trains, add this to the emissions from construction and the increase in air traffic at Birmingham Airport as a result of HS2 and this will actually result in a substantial increase the UKs carbon emissions over the next 60 years. Should we be spending 34 billion on a transport project that does nothing to help the UK reduce CO2 emissions?"

3) "Why is the Government continuing to promote HS2 when there is a greener alternative, Rail Package 2, that will provide all the forecast capacity needs more quickly and at significantly lower cost?"

4) "The HS2 prospectus tells us that some 40 million passenger journeys into London per year will be slowed down or scrapped as a result of HS2. Will nobody spare a thought for the long suffering rail commuter (I am one of them) and consider upgrading our existing rail network at a fraction of the cost of HS2, so that ALL working class people can have access to a faster train service, rather than enabling a few executives to get from Birmingham to London 10 minutes quicker than they can already?"

5) "Why do we not go for a new line which runs at a slower speed and can therefore avoid damaging environmentally sensitive areas as it won't have to run in a straight line?"

6) "Instead of going to Euston station and disrupting the West Coast Mainline, why doesn't the line go into Stratford and onto HS1 there? Surely that's the way to really get people off planes."

The balance here isn't quite the same as it was in the audience, as there were more people there who were pro-HS2, but they didn't submit written questions. There have been a lot of positive comments about the debate, but many people feel that more evidence is needed to back up the claims by both sides. If you would like to contribute to this, please do.

Joe Peacock

Scare Stories

I thought I should write a short extra post on the issue of rail from the transport summit. The first half of the summit was all about promoting HS2 with all the speakers giving a big push to it to try to ensure everyone would go away and actively support it.

As has already been reported in the press, Adrian Shooter of Chiltern trains told a story of how there was a collection at the end of a meeting in a village hall where they collected £100 000 in 10 minutes to fight the campaign opposing HS2. I don't know whether this is true or not. I do know that many of the opponents are very well educated and in a lot of cases well connected so this is a different kettle of fish to fighting residents groups over environmental matters.

The campaigners are being very careful to ensure that they focus on more than just the local issues, despite Phillip Hammond's continuing attempts to label them as NIMBYs. They are looking very carefully at the economic arguments, the process of the consultation, the alternatives to the HS2 proposal for improving our transport systems in this country and the environmental arguments.

Nobody really argues that we need to do something to improve our rail services in this country and that if we are to create a modal shift from road to rail, then we will need to spend money on new infrastructure. The argument is whether this is the right way of doing it, whether speed is the key or whether people just want a more comfortable and affordable option. The contradictions in the case for HS2 are huge, as it is sold as green, yet will create more long journeys and take people off more environmental forms of transport, gives a business case that relies on people not working on trains when all the evidence is to the contrary – business people do like to work while travelling. It is neither low cost nor low carbon and the consultation is not giving us a chance to examine other options for improving our transport systems.

Birmingham City Council is so determined to have another big vanity project that they're putting £50 000 in to promoting it at a time when cuts are being made to frontline services all over the city and jobs are being lost in bigger numbers than even HS2's wildest predictions for 15 years time. The fixation with supplying the airport with extra passengers via fast trains to pollute the skies even more can't be worth that, surely.

There is also a contradiction in the words of the council and the actions of London Midland at the moment. There is a stated desire to get more people using local rail services (and councillor Huxtable is very supportive of re-opening stations along several lines in Birmingham that we've been campaigning for) yet they are closing ticket offices at many of the local stations meaning there will be no facilities open there, making them a much less pleasant, safe and accessible place for passengers. My colleague asked councillor Huxtable about this and he did at least confirm that they were speaking to them about this and had been asked to attend a meeting next week.

Let's hope that stations in Birmingham will be maintained for people's comfort and safety on local services, that other local stations are re-opened and that the government doesn't commit huge amounts of money to the wrong type of infrastructure for the benefit of the few who will use it when investment is badly needed all over the country. Let's have a grown up debate over what type of transport system we need to cut the country's environmental impact, wean us off oil and ensure that everyone has access to affordable and reliable public transport when they need it.

Birmingham Transport Summit 2010 – Len Gregory's last one!

A couple of weeks ago I attended the Transport Summit at the council house in Birmingham. Whilst it wasn't quite so full of middle-aged businessmen in suits as the High Speed Rail conference the week before, it still seemed a case of style over substance and trying to impress everyone with big flashy projects, rather than local transport improvements on the ground.

Councillor Gregory was first up and did make some of the right noises about low carbon transport, but there was an insistence that this was a “carrot not stick” approach. To me this misses the point, as he is not offering a carrot to cyclists, as there is a lack of safety for them on the roads of Birmingham, to public transport users whose buses get snarled up in the congested roads of the city without being given priority or to pedestrians for whom the pavements are often in a shocking state of repair, aren't gritted and are often expected to cross busy roads without proper crossings or enforcement of speed limits to make it safer. Even though there is a pedestrian taskforce and I have heard good things of the meetings, there is little evidence of improvements on the ground.

Also notable was that he did not once mention cycling in the time he was speaking until a question was asked by John from Pushbikes at which stage he gave an answer that they had invested over a million pounds in cycling – really? I still remain convinced that he would rather bikes were kept off the agenda as much as possible, though.

There was much talk of the Camp Hill line and re-opening the stations that we have been campaigning for, which was encouraging in terms of the fact that we are listened to when public opinion is so strongly in favour, but short on substance of how quickly it can be done. With all the fervour about HS2 and “the opportunities” this brings (when it won't open for another 16 years at least), I would really like some more urgency on getting rail sorted locally in the short term, not in another 10 years' time. Unfortunately, he'd rather focus on glamorous projects like the “Gateway” project at New St, the new coach station (Mike Whitby called this the Selfridges of coach stations!) and HS2.

On buses, Councillor Gregory suggested that “the bus network works well”, which will be news to many people who suffer unreliable services and are unable to reach anywhere but the city centre with any ease. He instead blamed Birmingham's climate and the fact that it rains here, which prevents people from walking to a bus stop apparently, for the fact that people still choose car over bus. Well, in my experience, it's the waiting times and lack of reliable information at bus stops, anti-social behaviour on buses and fact that they get snarled up in traffic (making reliable journey times impossible) that puts most people off. Many people do use the bus, so obviously it's not always that bad, but I'm not sure everyone would agree that perception matches Gregory's claim that the safety record has improved dramatically and the operation to do this has been “highly successful”.

What he seemed to be most proud of was the PFI for the highway network, which he claims will bring in huge amounts of investment into this infrastructure, sort out all the problems with pavements and potholes. Generally, PFIs fall well short of what is promised, so we'll have to wait and see on this one and I don't see any point in commenting further at this stage.

There was also mention of a freight hub for distribution of good throughout the city and using canals for freight with waste carried along them too, as facilities are next to them. Promising projects, but there was not enough detail on those for BfoE to comment at this stage.

Len Gregory admitted that he would not be missed by many when he leaves his post during this speech and I for one will be looking for much more ambition from the next cabinet member for transport, to take Birmingham towards a low carbon transport future.

HS2 Station - A new Masshouse Circus? Opinion piece

Whilst looking over the plans for the proposed HS2 station at Curzon Street, I thought there seemed to be benefits, but also a few quite glaring and serious issues with the current design and its location as it stands.

The station is proposed to be built in the Eastside area alongside the current Birmingham to London railway line and places the terminal building adjacent to Moor Street Station on Moor Street Queensway. Undoubtedly Eastside is the best location in the city centre for any new high speed station, given there is available land, access to the proposed high speed route and it is an area in need of further investment. The general location may be convenient for these purposes, but unfortunately the proposed positioning could have bad consequences for the area in terms of urban planning and investment potential. Looking at the plans, the station cuts a swathe through the area, which looks to cut off several streets linking the Northern Eastside area to the Southern Digbeth area, and thus creating a significant barrier between these areas. Many will remember the much loathed Masshouse Circus that once corralled the city core and restricted development and people's movements across into the Digbeth area, and how this was removed in favour of an open boulevard which was to allow the expansion of the city into the area beyond. It strikes me that the new station design is likely to resurrect this physical barrier, curtailing people's movements and cutting off potential economic opportunities for both existing and future business in Digbeth. What streets remain will cross the station underneath, which when added to the existing railway bridges will mean for a dark and foreboding environment to greet anyone wishing to venture beyond. So in this design, are we simply recreating Masshouse Circus, albeit in railway form?

In addition, the proposed station's position also swallows up a great deal of development land, much of which already has development proposals and planning approvals. Most notable of these is BCU's Media Campus, which was due to be approved for detailed planning permission very soon and BCU are already very committed to this project. The station would also slice through Park Street gardens (which is also a graveyard) cutting the far end of the proposed Eastside City Park off from the Bullring area and causing a further barrier.

The main design mantra behind city centre transport hubs is that high density development should cluster around them, thus generating a critical mass of use around the hub to support it, and affording easy access and maximum benefit to these surrounding uses. Currently as the station would take up so much of the development land in the area, there would be little left for the development of these high density building clusters. Plus, as the station is slated to take up so much room, we'll be left with the barren wasteland of Eastside for the next 10 years or more before the new HS2 line becomes operational.

So is there another option? Where in Eastside could we put a 400m long high speed station without carving up the urban fabric, without displacing current developments, without losing a mass of development land, and without leaving the area undeveloped for 10 years or more? Well the proposed Eastside City Park is around 500m long, is linear in form, and follows the right geometry for the incoming railway. No, I'm not suggesting dropping a station right on top of where the park would go, I'm thinking of placing it underneath. Much like Gare Montparnaise in Paris, which has Jardin Atlantique above it, the station would sit in a sunken box below ground level with the new park above, perhaps with sculptural lanterns and elements of glass floor to let daylight down onto the platforms below (we don't want another dark New Street Station). Access by trains to the main line could be via a short tunnel under the canal, ring road and container terminal. The concourse could pop out on Moor Street Queensway to integrate with the City Park Gate development. It would be a short walk to Moor Street Station, and if the Metro were routed via Priory Queensway, Moor Street Queensway and under the Bullring tunnel, all four of Birmingham's city centre stations would be linked together for easy transfers. A secondary entrance could even pop out into the old Curzon Street station building to allow easy access to the wider Digbeth area too.
Above: Location of Curzon Park Station.

Above: Map showing re-routing of metro.

So would this new Curzon Park Station be preferable to that proposed by the government? Well, it would allow development to continue around Eastside, not cut through a graveyard, not form a new barrier to access and development, and still ensure a city centre terminus for HS2, and one merged with a beautiful park. Yes, it would no doubt delay the City Park a little, but the basic 'box' and park above could be constructed early on and then fitted out later. It may also cost more money, but then again what's an extra few million when you're spending £30bn on a rail route? On the opening of the station passengers would be greeted by the sight of a beautiful park flanked by successful and established development all around, ready to be connected to London and Europe.

So I'm putting out the idea for comment. Any thoughts on a Curzon Park Station?

Ben Mabbett

HS2 - the big day!

Rather than write another long piece about our opinions on the whole HS2 debate, this post will just round up a few of the articles that have been published on it.

I have been on the radio twice commenting on it. The first appearance was on the Ed Doolan show on Radio WM along with Paul Kehoe from Birmingham International airport (or London Elmdon as it seems to want to become), who was obviously loving the fact that the route takes people direct to his airport so they can fly more and not happy that anyone was being critical of the plans. He wondered "what planet Friends of the Earth are on" - umm that'll be the one in the name, you know, the one with dwindling supplies of fossil fuels and an urgent need to reduce carbon emissions. I also recorded a few comments for Smooth Radio and sent out press releases to other media folk. A copy of the one from the day before is on our website.

If you like reading the whole long detailed reports on the scheme, then this is the place to go. A few key things I drew out of the section on HS2 and climate change in the appraisal on sustainability were that the carbon reductions are not dependant on this scheme, but many other factors in government policy and investment outside it. Reductions in flying are the only thing that will make significant carbon savings - and then only if slots for domestic flights freed up at crowded airports aren't replaced by more international ones. Also, power generation is key to its success and so far the government's record on getting renewables onto the grid isn't great, so we'll either be reliant on a lot of nuclear, which is also extremely problematic, or more polluting power stations to run these trains.

Advantage West Midlands have been talking about key transport projects (HS2 being one of them), but then also talk about the extension of the runway at BIA and more capacity on the motorways, yet still talk about tackling climate change. Talk about mixed messages.

Passenger groups and CBT were given their say in one article in the Birmingham Post, which was again fairly positive apart from CBT stating "Fares must be cheaper than flying and driving and HSR must be an alternative to new motorways and airports."with which I agree.

The Tories responded by rubbishing Labour's plans because they don't go to Heathrow! I agree that their plans are flawed, but so are most and more airport stations aren't the answer.

The business people had their say about how wonderful it all is, although where they got the time of over 2hrs for the average journey to London now, when it's easy to do it in under 1hr 20 if you want to pay Virgin prices I don't know. Lord Adonis gave the game away a bit with one quote in his official statement "As we grow wealthier as a nation, so we travel more and move more freight." he said, which is a problem if we are looking to reduce resource use, localise and build a more sustainable and resilient economy.

The stirrer's article asked "will Brum become a North London suburb?", which is a line that concerns us in this debate. How do we stop it from just being part of the commuter belt with people buying property here and taking the train to London to work. Will this whole scheme just suck money out of the region as it's easier to travel away, rather than bringing it in?

Much more has been written, but that gives a bit of a round up for this day. See last week's post on my reflections after the summit for more opinion.

HS2 Conference Reflections

I have previously written about our views on High Speed Rail, but we seem to be in a real minority of people with anything to say other than what a great opportunity it is.

Last week I attended a conference where people who were mainly enthusiasts for the project were being encouraged by Mike Whitby and other interested parties in becoming even more dedicated to the cause. There was almost universal acceptance of the claims that HS2 will bring huge amounts of money into the West Midlands economy and that this was some panacea to cure all our economic and transport ills.

The phrase that everyone kept repeating was that we've been given the ball and it's ours to drop, as though we're being given the most wonderful present. This ignores many previous transport schemes which show that new transport infrastrcuture into deprived areas tends to suck people and money out as they can travel away from the area to work, rather than bringing investment in. We don't want Birmingham to be turned into a distant commuter city for the South East with a rise in house prices, but no real improvement in local connectivity and employment.

One question was asked by Kevin Chapman of Campaign for Better Transport about whether this incredibly expensive high profile scheme will take all the money that can be invested in transport infrastructure away from local projects, especially in such difficult economic times. The answer came back in the room that this was not the case and that the money, as with HS1 and the eurostar route, comes from "a different pot". However, as this article shows, projects to get traditional rail improvements done are already struggling to get funding. Also, in the Birmingham Post last week, Jerry Blackett tells of a very poignant encounter with a young person from a disadvantaged area of Birmingham who can't believe £250 million is being spent on making Chilterns journeys to London 20 minutes quicker when there are people in this city who don't even have a home to live in. How many people are really going to benefit from HS2 compared to the amount of money spent? Is it not just going to be the business elite who rake in some lucrative contracts, while most ordinary people in Birmingham and especially the rest of the West Midlands gain no benefit whatsoever?

It was claimed that HS2 will increase capacity for providing improved local services by taking trains off the mainline and yet not affect the standard of provision on routes from places like Coventry and Wolverhampton (concern over this was raised by Gerald Kells from CPRE). Is it just me who can't see how that works? Either they take faster trains off the lines feeding other towns in the area and make those slower and less frequent, or there won't be any extra capacity, surely.

I really found all the figures given in this conference as unbelievable as those the airport bandies around about the wealth and jobs that would be created by expanding their activities, extending the runway etc. Here is the article published in the local press which says that 42 000 jobs could be created. It is not actually as outrageous as some of the airport's claims, but still, as one of the people there confessed, job creation figures cannot be believed as there would have been zero unemployment long ago if they were true just from projects completed over the last decade.

BIA are desperate for HS2 to call at Birmingham International as well as the city centre, but this would once again go against all the claims of creating emploment opportunities in the most environmentally beneficial areas (i.e. city centres). What we would get is a parkway station causing more pressure to develop greenbelt and attracting more traffic to this already crowded road system.

It also makes the idea of our airport becoming "London Elmdon" more likely as BIA takes the strain from the South East's airport's (45 minutes from central London) and local people are subject to more air and noise pollution as air travel is allowed to grow unchecked.

The claims of HS2 reducing CO2 emissions are extremely optimistic at best. The loading ratio predicted, based on Eurostar services, which would allow them to operate only using the same amount of energy per passenger as slower trains is very unlikely as it would require large numbers of people travelling on these routes who are prepared to pay higher prices. Then, there is the carbon involved in building and maintaining the network, which is also considerably higher than for traditional trains. The savings only really stack up on the longer routes to Scotland over a long period, whereas we really need urgent action to cut CO2 now and this means the opposite will be true.

Surely, it's better to encourage people to travel less or reduce the need to travel, as this is the most benefical policy carbon-wise. I asked this question at the conference, but nobody wanted to answer it, instead concentrating on tokenistic ways of conserving energy and generating green energy.

I have a lot of reservations over whether building HS2 is really going to benefit the people who need to benefit from improved public transport. They are the ones who have no access to a car and suffer from poor provision locally, whose streets are clogged up with too many cars and those whose livelihoods are threatened by climate change all over the world and who need us to make urgent cuts in CO2 emissions now. Unless that is the case, I can't see why we are planning to throw billions of pounds at this scheme, when there are better ways of spending money to improve everyone's lives.

HS2, you won’t like the railway route

The Real HS2 route is due to be published shortly by the company charged by the Government to look into it. Others have pranced about waving maps, current railway owner Network Rail (a private company that managed to fund a speculative report), being the latest.

Chartered Civil Engineer Andrew McNaugton is a well travelled authority on railways and is the (real) High Speed 2 engineer, so his words as reported by fortnightly magazine RAIL, carry some weight.


The McNaugton vision is a railway that links other cities through London St Pancras to other centres such as Cologne and not just a drain for Midlanders to slide down to jobs in London.

The route, soon to be published, would see Manchester, Newcastle, and London, connected to Birmingham. The curves, however, to have a radius of 7.2 kilometres, would mean the new railway would not suit chasing existing motorway alignments. The rationale of the route, favouring a minimum of stops and junctions, anyway lines it up as an open country enterprise.

For trains to stop, and others to pass, any junction will have to extend back a huge distance, again to achieve that radius of 7.2 kilometres, in the same way as a slip road on a motorway runs parallel over a great length.

Putting all of these criteria together, a Birmingham station might well be in the motorway corridor near the ‘National Exhibition Centre’ with one route going somewhere near theM6 Toll Road to the North West, the other aiming to the North East. A station nearer Birmingham’s City Centre might be possible but finding and exit to the North and finding land without major demolition, presents a challenge. The station location is, of course, speculative, but maybe word will be out very soon.

Less open to debate is the shortage of money that might mean that the high speed railway is never built. If HS2 is not built, our existing railways will have to be botched about to carry ever more traffic.

There is an art to botching and the earlier custodians of our current centre to centre railway, have tried their best. Botching, sadly, is an expensive way of doing things. Network Rail (NR), constantly chided for having expensive projects, is trying to do projects whilst there is a railway there. In this way, NR is trying to replaster and redecorate with the house fully occupied. NR is trying their best, but the task is impossible: plans to bypass slow lengths of railway (such as through Stafford) and to run non-stop through many stations, are to suit fairly high speed trains but ruin the railway for door to door journeys.

NR is a private company and do what they want, but make an elegant pretence of consulting with the public. It may be fun to watch the publication of the real High Speed 2 railway route, but the decisions in the real world lie with NR and their route Utilisation Strategy (RUS). The RUS for the West Midlands is now being written with no plans for better local train services for the West Midlands, and that, surely, is worth asking Network Rail about.

It could be that Network Rail’s efforts will be the nearest we will see to high speed rail and that they need to be supported in their efforts, with direction and guidance.

Contact them at Network Rail, Kings Place, 90 York Way London N1 9AG

John Hall

High Speed Rail - Our Position After Monday's Discussion

The topic of High Speed Rail has been much in the media recently and this Monday a group of Birmingham Friends of the Earth's campaigners got together to have a wide-ranging discussion on this issue. We looked at the advantages, disadvantages, possible routes and alternatives to creating a network of High Speed Rail lines in the UK.


In the media the impression is being given that HSR is undoubtedly the greenest option for getting people around quickly and that by building this network we will be saving huge amounts of carbon from flights. Green groups have generally given qualified support to plans, but in most of the articles I've seen in the press, there hasn't been much real discussion of certain aspects of the plan that should be key.

In terms of carbon emissions (reducing them is often given as a major reason for building HSR), there should be a full independent analysis of the impact of building and running this network compared to other scenarios before it is given the go-ahead. If this doesn't show an overall cut in greenhouse gases emitted as a result of having High Speed Rail, there is no point in spending all that money and using all that carbon doing it.

We must ensure that we use the most energy efficient models possible. Apparently, the Japanese bullet trains have the same energy efficiency as Pendolinos, but travel twice as quickly. Speed should not be seen as the only factor in what choices people make when they travel. This can be seen in the numbers of people who currently take coach or slower trains to London rather than the 85-minute Virgin service, which is prohibitively expensive for many.

In terms of social and environmental justice, we must ensure that when public money is invested, it is beneficial for all members of society, not just the affluent few and that those who live in areas near the proposed sites of the lines will also not suffer. Just because it is a rail rather than a road-building project doesn't mean we will apply any less rigour in assessing its environmental impact.

£50 billion is an awful lot of money to spend when there are many other projects that could make a significant difference to the everyday lives of people in their travelling to and from work, study or social events. Currently the carbon costs of transport are not properly reflected in what the consumer has to pay, with large increases in rail and bus fares, but decreases in the costs of air fares and driving in real terms. This should be addressed and would possibly have just as big an impact on the choices of transport modes people make.


As you can see from this map, Europe has some good coverage by High Speed Rail and getting people to these destinations by rail rather than air should be the main focus. That means having a hub that connects the UK to the continent easily and conveniently (London Stratford was designed for this) and not stations at Heathrow or other airports. A station at Birmingham International would also put more pressure on greenbelt land being used for development in the M42 corridor rather than encouraging regeneration of areas in central Birmingham.

In the UK the biggest carbon savings could be made from longer routes, such as up to Scotland, where air has the largest market share. However, all development of transport should be done as part of an integrated strategy, not as a stand-alone project. If we do not consider door-to-door journeys, people will still either travel by car to stations or be forced to rely on unreliable public transport (which rather defeats the object of High Speed Rail) and stations without proper cycling facilities.

Overall, we should be encouraging less travel (as it all uses carbon) not more, so HSR should only be used to shift people from more polluting modes, not create new journeys. That means we also need to encourage more investment in economic development of places outside the South East, so that less commuting is necessary. Providing jobs in places such as the Black Country, Stoke and the more deprived areas of Birmingham through economic development and planning measures would ensure that existing infrastructure can be utilised more effectively and local transport networks will work more efficiently and profitably. Video conferencing should be the preferred option to travelling whenever possible as it has a much lower carbon footprint.



There is an existing network that is being and can be further improved, so there must be conclusive proof of the need for new lines over and above what is already available. Also, if new conventional rather than high speed lines are built, will this not result in just as much benefit at a much lower cost.

So, while High Speed Rail has been shown to work well in reducing the need for air travel on the continent, we have many reservations as to whether it is the best use of resources now. All of the above points need to be looked at very carefully before committing to such a scheme.