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

High Speed slowing down?

Saturday 18 June - Today, I caught up with the HS2 display at New Street station. It was just a young woman and some leaflets. She seemed quite personally sympathetic to my alternative of diverting any investment into the existing rail system, instead. I met a couple from Pelsall in the street, who just wanted their station re-opened. How much of the railway system the Victorians built is still derelict or under-used?

On to the Water Hall, behind the Council House, where a posse of officials, offered their exhibition to a trickle of the public. Someone from Lichfield told me they had 2,000 there - protestors he implied. Again, the junior (female) staff I spoke to seemed quite happy that I was questioning HS2. I got really annoyed with the men from the ministry, as they had no alternative use of £34,000 million for people to compare this with. Isn't the country desperate to pay off our huge national debt and suffering cuts to vital services? What will happen to the costs of HS2, once the system is half-built and the contractors have the government over a barrel?

The officials

• couldn't explain who would pay for HS2, as this 'has yet to be decided',
• were clearly using 'predict and provide' - stretching demand for future inter city travel ever upward,
• admitted that a lot of the 'quickie' trips to London will be new leisure ones, generated by a superfast journey time, so they were left with some 'businessmen' (who work on trains anyway) as the beneficiaries. I suggested the cost should be divided among them and they should be asked if they are willing to pay the billions required.

My conclusions were that HS2 is the wrong kind of capacity in the wrong place and the wrong answer to the wrong question. Investment is needed to make public transport a viable alternative to the car for journeys to work in every part of the country, as we have a huge backlog of local schemes awaiting funding. The officials told me I could tell the government so, in the consultation, which is online and open to all (for 40 days) at http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/

John Newson

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.

2 Men Inhabiting Different Worlds

On Tuesday I attended 2 events organised by the city council. Firstly there was the Birmingham transport summit where we had many flashy presentations on Birmingham's future connectivity and the importance of international links to bring inward investment. Then, in the evening I went along to receive an award for the green community work we'd done through our Faith and Climate Change project and also heard a talk by Rob Hopkins of the transition towns initiative on how we need to re-localise our supply chains and move away from a dependence on oil.

At the transport summit we had a new cabinet member for transport leading it, in councillor Huxtable, and there was a marked change from the previous incumbent. Cycling was mentioned far more times than last year and there was more of an emphasis on walking, too, but still the main overarching obsessions are with large-scale vanity projects, such as HS2, the airport runway and the new “gateway” station at New Street. It is a bizarre world that the leader of the council, Mike Whitby, lives in when he talks about the need for consistency and there not being contradictions in their policy, yet can talk about cutting CO2 emissions and sustainability and doubling the number of passengers at the airport by bringing in more people from the South East in one breath.

I asked a question in the second part of the event (after Councillor Whitby had left, unfortunately) about the rise in oil prices due to the problems with supply and the unsustainable nature of planning to use motor cars and planes in the (relatively near) future. Cllr Huxtable passed this question on to an officer who had been to Abu Dhabi recently and I was surprised by his frankness when he said that supplies are likely to run out in 2040 or 2045 and that although there are other ways of powering motor vehicles, planes are much more difficult. How any sensible leadership can put all their eggs in a basket that is going to be empty in less than 30 years seems incredible – what legacy are they leaving behind them?

The quote that they put up about leaving the city a more beautiful place than they had found it felt rather like a sick joke in this context.

In the evening Rob Hopkins spoke eloquently about the transition movement and the projects springing up all over the country where people are trying to re-connect with their local areas and that, as much as being an environmental movement, this is a social movement too, as people who've done it talk more about the friends they've made than the carbon they've saved. Once again we saw figures about how quickly oil is going to run out and some reminders of the ridiculousness of how our economy works at the moment with the same goods travelling back and forth from country to country needlessly, wasting precious resources and disconnecting consumers from the producers.

There certainly are some impressive things being done with local currency schemes, energy generation ventures and food growing initiatives, although he admits that it's only a small part of what needs to be done. He also spoke of his admiration of the work being done by Localise West Midlands in promoting real policy solutions on the economic changes that are needed. On how to fight the power of supermarkets, I found his answer a little unconvincing, as at the moment there seems to be no stopping them and getting people to change habits when their local shops have already gone is very hard indeed.

In the question and answer session I once again got my question in, this time about the need for campaigning when it comes to trying to stop politicians doing the stupid things that they are prone to, such as those mentioned above. He admitted that this was very much needed too, but he had become burned out after doing this for a few years himself, so different types of activities are all needed.

So, are we doing the hard stuff here at BFoE and leaving the nice fun stuff to the transition groups? We used to do a lot of practical things, too (and still do in places), but when covering a city the size of Birmingham, cannot keep such a focus on small areas as a transition group for Kings Heath or Sutton can. It is a real challenge to get people involved in campaigning and policy work as it's not as glamorous, nor are the results as immediate, but it really is a crucial area of work, so we appreciate all the volunteers who get involved with our group to help it happen.

We also got an award on the night for our work in being a green community organisation. Here's a picture of me getting it from Rob Hopkins:

When the leader of your council lives in such a state of denial as ours and his deputy (who was there to introduce the event with Rob Hopkins, but didn't stay to hear what he said) claims to be a champion of climate change and sustainability, but goes along with all those policies too, you need a strong campaigns group with a positive alternative vision of the future. The difference we can make depends on the support we get, so please come along and get involved if you can, or if you are unable to contribute your time and expertise, become a financial supporter instead.

Joe Peacock

Dream scheme Longbridge?

Confused by the big roadworks scheme on Bristol Road South A38 at Longbridge ? Birmingham City Council planning application explains all. Documents in 2008/02787/PA explain how the vision of a new Longbridge, a process in which public involvement was invited, is translated into bulldozers on the ground.

One drawing in the pack, ‘Proposed Highway Works Phasing’, helpfully explains the land ownership serving the Longbridge site. Serving the site, or cutting through it, is a railway formation that from Longbridge Station to Bristol Road South is owned by English, Welsh, and Scottish Railway (owner of a fleet of freight trains). The railway, that would in some cases be seen as an asset, is part of the Longbridge to Frankley railway. The potential railway sits alongside the construction training college as assets earmarked for removal.

The gain from the pain is planned to be a better road alignment; a smooth curve with traffic signals at the junction rather than the current roundabout that has sent many a visiting motorist towards Lickey Hills rather than the M5. The planned new junction sets up the start of the Longbridge to M42 route (a route that has failed to gain approval) and firmly places the Longbridge Vision as one where continuing and expanding road transport is a given.

The scheme, in its enthusiasm, bypasses itself by having a new two-ended road to and from Bristol Road South; one end lies opposite the much widened Longbridge Lane.

Developer of the site, St Modwen, are going through a stormy time with Birmingham City Council. In May, City Planning Committee chairman, Councillor Peter Douglas Osborn, accused St Modwen of behaving in a cavalier fashion when trying to force through the ‘Longbridge Tombway’, an underground access to the proposed shopping centre. The Tombway was described by city planners as off-putting to pedestrians. Stung by criticism St Modwen grudgingly dropped the idea (Birmingham Post May 20^th).

Ripping on with the project in a changed economic environment might raise the hackles of the Taxpayers Alliance. From the money spent, there might be a good outcome in the fantasy tarmac league, but a physical asset that is worthless or even a liability. The Longbridge site, given breathing space, might be devalued by having a road across it whereas it might otherwise be a new manufacturing site or a new home for Pinewood Studios.

To top and tail the sorry story, the developer had been expected to pay some of the infrastructure costs (a £35m contribution) but opted out (Property Week, 31 March 2009). The public foots the bill.

This then is the reality of Birmingham: an authority laying off staff and struggling for money, relentlessly pushing ahead with a project that may well be obsolete. The elected and employed people making up Birmingham City Council have a great deal of talent and that is needed now – Longbridge needs a rethink.

John Hall

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 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.

Response of Birmingham Friends of the Earth to the West Midlands Rail Development Plan

As those who follow our activities will know, recently we ran a very successful public campaign to get as many people as possible to respond to the consultation on the WM Rail Development Plan. We got over a thousand letters from local people asking for the re-opening of stations on the Camp Hill line stopping at Balsall Heath, Moseley, Kings Heath and Stirchley, as well as being part of the wider rail network.

In addition to that, we did also submit a very detailed response of our own, running to over 20 pages. If anyone would like to see a copy of that, I am very happy to email it to them - contact me at campaigns@birminghamfoe.org.uk and I'll send it to you, but here for everyone is the summary of what we want without all the detail.

What should a Regional Rail Network Achieve?
The Network should be one that is consistent with other policies such as Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), West Midlands Regional Economic Strategy, Local Transport Plans, National policies (such as those relating to Climate Change), demographic changes (accommodating different groups). To work, the Network has to be structured support passenger journeys of those not using the private car (rather than assuming that all have access to a car), and must address the following:

• Movement of goods and materials (so it is not solely about passengers)
• Reliability in all seasons
• Low energy demand
• Improved quality of life
• Incorporation of innovation to design, maintenance of the railway
• Changes in the type of rail vehicles including those for freight
• Upcoming challenges such as Peak Oil, Volatile energy prices, reduction in long distance commuting, localisation
• Railway as a workplace
• Accommodating tourism, coping with other languages

Trends in demand
The market for rail is large and being fixed infrastructure, customers and users have confidence that it will remain in place.
Access to the railways for potential freight in Birmingham is currently very limited as the provision is for large volumes to a limited number of destinations. To achieve the Climate Change mitigation targets, the current arrangements whereby goods are moved principally by road and over long distances, has to change. Rail has to play a part in such change and to suit such change, current short termism (such as eliminating the freight potential of Longbridge and (outside Birmingham) Longbridge, has to be reversed.
Department for Transport statistics on bus travel indicates that of non bus users, half would be willing to use buses. This indicates that there is potential for growth in bus as collector for the rail network (and for journeys wholly undertaken by bus). Currently residents of Birmingham communities suffer the severance resulting from high volumes of car traffic; reduction in traffic levels and transfer to bus and train can improve road conditions for other travellers (including pedestrians and cyclists) and enhance journey time reliability.
Contact with the public by Birmingham Friends of the Earth has clearly established that there is strong support for available rail transport within walking distance of homes and workplaces at such places as Balsall Heath and Kings Heath. The case for reviewing past studies such as the Multi Modal Study for the West Midlands (that advocated Benson Road Curve, Bordesley Chord and other passenger train enhancements including stations), should be undertaken but with a fresh perspective.
The market for rail to serve journeys for recreation has barely been explored: many attractions that target Birmingham residents are genuinely (or are perceived to be) not easily accessible by rail or bus. This applies also to some towns that are not served by a rail station such as Market Drayton, Alcester, Newport (Shropshire). Need for a comprehensive Network Transport planners have a hierarchy of passenger flows and the type of public transport provision that is justified. Generally, however, each settlement in the West Midlands Region should be setting out to improve its degree of sustainability. This means that shared use developments (i.e. employment and residential and services) and increased attractiveness of each settlement should be the policy around which transport is based. The current policy of accommodating long distance commuting is not consistent with meeting carbon targets.
Taken in this context, all settlements should be connected by public transport feeding into the railways. The current layout of the railways and the way that they are used, directs many passenger train services to or through central Birmingham even if that is not on the way. In future, connections between substantial or expanded settlements shall be required to be by rail and this will require some railway reinstatement or new provision: the rail strategy should state this. Settlements that currently have a station (such as the town of Polesworth) should retain that station, and if patronage is low, measures to promote the usage instigated. Passenger growth has been substantially developed in the past at various places including Lichfield, Cannock, Pershore, Redditch and Bromsgrove.

Door to door journey
Overall journey time is generally dictated by time spent waiting for a connection rather than by the speed of the bus or train. In Birmingham, particularly if the pressures imposed by peak journey to work usage can be reduced, a frequent service to all Birmingham local stations (including the new ones on the Kings Heath /Camp Hill route), will attract more passengers to the West Midlands Rail Network. To benefit the greatest number of people at the lowest cost, provision has to be concentrated on those arriving at their station without wishing to store a vehicle (i.e.on foot, cycle, bus, taxi, dropped-off).

Journey information
The occasional user of the railways can feel daunted by uncertainty of frequency, time of last train etc. The railway in Greater London addressed this by its underground map and successors showing conventional lines. The key to building confidence is continuity, if this is not there patronage will suffer. Close to Birmingham, interchange at Smethwick Galton Bridge varies year by year whilst uncertainty hung over the link between Walsall and Wolverhampton for so long that passengers all but gave up on it.
Generally, access to information needs to be a portable and affordable version of the Traveline website (with fixed versions at stations). For the motorist, navigation is simplicity itself with the talking map ‘sat nav’.
Visitors to Birmingham are deterred from arriving by train because the local rail network is geographically incomplete. The Rail Strategy has to acknowledge that businesses operate in parts of the city served by a railway but with no local station or with an infrequent service. For the city to exploit its rail infrastructure, this needs to be addressed. There are opportunities for businesses to locate to Birmingham if local rail services are available. Local rail provided by the Docklands Light Railway was a major factor in East London regeneration.

Effect of Climate Change
The effect of climate change has been variously interpreted. For the rail network, having a human presence is probably prudent. For this reason, removing such on the spot monitoring such as that from permanent way inspectors and gangs and staff at stations, should be undertaken with caution.
Previous episodes of extreme weather have already caused disruption, for example the storms during the summer of 2005 which flooded a number of routes around the West Midlands. Predictions of more occurence of extreme weather conditions such as intense rain that overwhelms drainage and damages signalling, intensely hot summers that result in rail expansion, and extreme storms bringing down trees, signal trouble ahead. We are surprised that there is no identification of the issue in the draft strategy.
If there is unavoidable disruption to the West Midlands Rail network, on an increasingly frequent cycle, contingency measures need to be in place.

The Business Case
For interventions on the rail network that are seen as enhancements, a Business Case has to be prepared. Unfortunately, enhancements that are required as part of a regeneration or for other external benefit, are unlikely to emonstrate the required rate of return. This has to change. This has long be n the case when construction of an access road has to be justified, those circu stances using a Cost BenefitAnalysis model; an equivalent model for rail is needed. For Birmingham, funding for rail improvements other than through Network Rail and Central Government may have to be sought.

The Role of the RUS
The Railways Act 2005 envisaged that the railway infrastructure owner, Network Rail, would be given instructions when it came to strategic planning decisions. Network Rail’s role is a ‘steady state’ one and it is therefore envisaged that the Regional Rail Strategy would be imposed and its direction reflected in the Route Utilisation Strategies. The RUS (Route Utilisation Strategy) is a mechanism set up under the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) to plan maximum return from the existing rail network. In the days of the SRA, there was a degree of involvement in RUS preparation from transport planners and some consideration of the Local Transport Plan (LTP). Abolition of the SRA has meant that the RUS preparation has passed to Network Rail who do not have a duty to consider strategic rail planning.
It is evident from the content of recent Network Rail Route Plans that they are the output of train planners. Whilst done with the best intentions, the approach has harmed the Birmingham local train services. The services have been reshaped (for instance to accommodate additional long distance trains whilst avoiding addition of new track), examples including the skip stop service and irregular intervals on the Coventry route. The old fashioned hierarchy of displacement of local train services to suit long distance trains (rather than building capacity and signalling that copes), is at variance with the Department for Transport DaSTS policies. This Regional strategy needs to make a stand on this issue.
Currently the RUS and Network Rail’s business plan submissions for funding are separate and sometimes opposed to the Local Transport Plan process. It would be progressive for the railway expenditure process to be directed by a Regional Planning body.

Rail stations meeting news

Last Wednesday a public meeting was held about the progress (or lack of it) in the campaign to re-open stations in Balsall Heath, Moseley and Kings Heath. The meeting was jointly hosted by Moseley and Kings Heath forums and included speakers councillor Martin Mullaney and John Newson from Birmingham Friends of the Earth.

Councillor Mullaney spoke first and answered questions from the audience for over an hour. The main points from what he said (disregarding the irrelevant parts about High Speed Rail and the new station at New Street) were:

A feasibility study was done for the stations in 2007. The full report is on his website www.martinmullaney.co.uk
This showed there would be passenger demand to justify £40m to build a curve into Moor Street and the stations at Moseley, Kings Heath and Hazelwell..

There may be a case to include a station at Balsall Heath to bring in visitors and allow residents to access jobs, e.g. at Longbridge.

City planners will protect the entrances to Moseley station. A lift for disabled access can be included in station design.

The Business case is for a Moor Street to Kings Norton service only, but train operators may be interested in running trains form cross country trains from Cardiff via Bromsgrove, and/or a through service via Snow Hill and Handsworth to Walsall.

Electrification of the line may be possible by lowering the track under the Moseley tunnel.

An updated business case is now being prepared, to include a 2nd curve bringing in the line from Fort Dunlop & Sutton to Walsall. More passengers helps the business case. This is for inclusion in the West Midlands Rail Development plan 2014-2019 rail programme – hoping to open in 2018.

This is part of relieving capacity at New Street station, which is full, using the renovated Moor Street station that has under-used capacity.

After this other points were made by transport experts in the room, such as Tony Woodward of rail future, who said the rebuilding of New Street station has funding agreed. It will cause disruption and loss of capacity during the construction phase, so they should bring forward the building of the new curves to allow more trains to be diverted to Moor Street as soon as possible, rather than doing this years down the line.

Kevin Chapman from Campaign for Better Transport added that the Camp Hill line should complement the local bus service as part of an integrated public transport network. It needs to be part of a wider strategy both for the West Midlands rail network and for the Alcester Road corridor. In order for a viable local service to be provided (i.e. more than three trains an hour) freight trains will need to be diverted to the Walsall - Stourbridge line.

Tony Woodward responded that freight trains weigh 2,000 tonnes, so moving them to the Stourbridge line, and bringing in more passenger trains could reduce the noise and vibration for trackside properties.

Residents need to have a simple demand. Just ask for your local passenger stations and services as a high priority - do not complicate or mix with other issues.

Kevin Chapman also emphasised that other areas (including Manchester and the South East) are pushing for improvements to their local rail network, but the DfT budget has been frozen due to the state of the public finances and all parties are committed to the High Speed 2 line. It is likely that some projects will be cut and if we do not make the case for the Camp Hill line it is likely that DfT may choose it as one to cut.

John Newson spoke last and spoke passionately about the need for rail stations in these areas. He said that these are railway suburbs, built so that thousands of people could walk to the stations. Also, journey time will be much faster than by bus or car, especially in peak periods. He also said that we have to provide low carbon alternatives to the private car.

Centro is asking which schemes should be prioritised in its West Midlands Rail Development Plan.

If people in the area don’t reply, the scheme could be pushed into the future. Non response could be understood as lack of support for it, and plans could be decided that exclude our local stations. Public consultation is open already and ends 11^th September. Therefore, everyone who cares about this should respond here

Public meeting about Rail stations for Kings Heath and Moseley

Kings Heath Forum & Moseley Forum Public Meeting

One issue that Birmingham FoE has campaigned on a lot over the last few years is local rail and particularly the Camp Hill line, which would allow stations to be re-opened in King Heath, Moseley and Balsall Heath, thereby relieving a lot of congestion travelling into the city centre from that side of the city. Unfortunately, although there is public and political will for this to happen, progress on it is very slow. Come along to this meeting and find out what the current situation is.

Future Rail Stations for Moseley and Kings Heath

Wednesday, 15th July, 2009

7:30 p.m. at Queensbridge School in Fox Hollies School Hall

Councillor Martin Mullaney will lead a public discussion on the re-opening of the Camp Hill Rail Line

Light refreshments will be provided and all are welcome.

Phone Jimmy on 07778 636 910 or Joss on 07941 516 744 for details and directions

or check www.moseleyforum.org.uk

Railway plans not sustainable

Railway track owner ‘Network Rail’ (NR) has published, with the train operators club ATOC, a new document called ‘Planning Ahead’. The slim volume, available on the Network Rail website (networkrail.co.uk) at http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/imagelibrary/detail.asp?MediaDetailsID=2285, claims to be a vision of the next thirty years for rail.

Why NR is spending money on strategy documents (when that role is a Government one), is a puzzle. The bonus-paying ‘company’ not only does not have transport planning expertise, but it is also struggling for funding. NR’s track record in the West Midlands is patchy as lack of capacity on the Wolverhampton to Coventry route means the local trains run on the skippy principle (missing some stops) that is also proposed for other routes.

A possible funding source for Black Country Rail improvements, the RSS, was soured by a statement that ‘Network Rail’s view is that rail is to move people to and from large cities quickly’. That statement is hardly in tune with a local rail network and local stations as part of economic revival.

Piling on the grief, NR have sneaked a paragraph into the internet version of their West Midlands Route Plan advocating that Longbridge’s freight branch railway be grubbed out (having cooperated in moves to deny Frankley a passenger train service). Unhelpfully too, despite strong support and a report backing up its feasibility, NR are not programming-in the Kings Heath local stations plan.

To be charitable, perhaps different parts of NR have different agendas. For the West Midlands, NR’s agenda is not sustainability focussed.

John Hall

Train Drought

There is still a train builder in UK - its at Doncaster and its called Wabtec. There was a train builder in Birmingham called Metro Cammell - but they were allowed to quietly close. The loss of Birmingham's train builder was in contrast to the noisy barks that accompanied the death of car maker Rover (since reborn).

In the Midlands it seems we can drop anything from the railways with barely a simper. If you think that is wrong, the chance to take action has arisen.

Please think about whether it is reasonable for a train service between two West Midlands centres to be withdrawn. If it is not, then add your postal address to the words below and send to your MP (find yours and how to contact them at www.theyworkforyou.com) and to Geoff Hoon (Transport Minister) contact@geoffhoonMP.co.uk

You only have this one chance. Here is an idea for text:

In December 2008, the Walsall-Wolverhampton passenger rail service will be withdrawn.
It is a vital link for many Walsall and Wolverhampton residents, providing a quick and reliable connection between the two boroughs and giving much needed access to connecting rail services. Existing bus services take over 40 minutes to cover the 15-minute rail journey.

Thanks to the increase in reliability and punctuality on the Walsall-Wolverhampton line, the number of people taking advantage of this service has risen significantly to 60,000 per year. The planned withdrawal will result in a great opportunity lost to build on this success further.

I urge you to think what measures can be taken to retain and develop this service. The service could even operate using older trains usually only hired out to train enthusiasts.

John Hall