Cuts, cuts, cuts - pensioners to lose free travel?

Aside from whether cutting things is the right approach, if funds have to be found, what about a tax on workplace car parking that is currently a gift ?

 

Placing a fee on pensioners for West Midlands transport use, in some cases will be a burden on very low income people. With the poor standard of driving and the problems with the elderly having slower reaction times to 'jack the lad' manoeuvres, encouraging the elderly to drive more, may be unwise.

 

Car parking is not charged at most railway stations but has been funded by all. The person walking to the station is paying the same for the journey ticket as the person driving the same mile. Is this right?

 

Annual maintenance of each car parking space is between £200 and £400. A charge per use of £1 would not be unreasonable. An annual all car parks sticker would be easier than paying daily.

 

However, all changes need to bear in mind Air Quality issues - we breathe in the consequence of wrong decisions.

Is there anything else we can do to save money, not encourage more driving and not disadvantage those most in need of subsidised travel?

John Hall

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

BFoE goes to Holland – day 1

Last month I got a very exciting invitation; to go to a Friends of the Earth Holland (Mileudefensie) conference for the weekend and meet activists from all over the Europe. I asked a few of our other more experienced campaigners to see if they wanted to go, but when nobody else was available Hil (my partner) and I were delighted to accept the offer.

So, on Friday, four of us set off from Birmingham New Street (the others being our 6-month old baby, Fred and Tim Atkinson, the network developer for FoE in the Midlands). Being Friends of the Earth, there was no question of us flying, so it was train down the Euston, Eurostar to Brussels, train to Amsterdam, another local train to Beverwijk and then a short bus ride to Wijk aan Zee where the conference is being held.

The journey was pretty easy, if rather long with all the connections working (although 2 of the lifts didn't – at New Street to get onto the platform and at Beverwijk to get off the platform, making it a little difficult with Fred's buggy). Luckily for us, little Fred likes train travel, as he's already had experience of going on a 5-hour trip to Wales by train, so his first trip abroad was taken in his stride and even though we arrived long after his bed time (it was nearly 10.30pm) he remained good natured throughout.

Tim went off to set up his tent with Job from Mileudefensie (who joined us on the train in Haarlem), but we opted for comfort staying in a lovely B&B where they even offered us a beer when we arrived - most welcome.

We had a comfortable night's sleep and now feel fresh and ready for the first day of this gathering of European activists. The only disturbance being that we seem to be under the flight path to Schiphol. I wonder if that is just unavoidable around this area, as in many parts of Europe which are blighted by aviation noise.

Park and Ride – in perspective

Superficially Park and Ride seems good as cutting off a trip by a motorist at the edge of a city and reducing pollution and traffic on residential and commercial roads, is surely a good thing. Well, for people already owning a car (and car ownership weaves a special pattern into the lifestyle), having a car park provided on the edge of town to remove aggravating city driving, is really good. But wait, here's another view:

Expecting people to drive to railway stations puts an artificial limit on the number of passengers the system can support. Car parks are expensive to build and maintain, are space-intensive, lock up valuable land near stations. The users of the system are required to own just as many cars as if public transport didn't exist. In well-patronised rail systems around the world, most train passengers arrive at the station by feeder bus or tram, not by car; it would simply be impossible to provide enough car parking to get all these passengers there by car instead.

So how does this work in practice ? Well for Network Rail's effort at attracting people to the Preston / Birmingham to London Euston trains, £89 million pounds was spent on car parking, this amounting to more than £24,000 per parking space. On the economic side, putting aside the possibility that the private car might become a scarcer resource in the future, will the parking spaces ever pay for themselves ?

Centro has built car parking spaces for railway stations, does not charge for them, and can present evidence to show that people have been attracted to the train who would not otherwise travel that way. However, there seems little trouble filling Birmingham's trains, and to invest £24,000 to attract one passenger perhaps spending £400 per year on a ticket, may not be so wise.

The parking place game diverts money from other places. It is understood that some people who would never travel on a bus, will use a train. The same people will take a taxi or go by coach during holidays, so perhaps a better bus will attract someone to travel from home without including a car in their journey at all.

Real people are the test. A parking-gift beneficiary at Selly Oak Station car park revealed her travel arrangements: Bartley Green to Selly Oak by car, Selly Oak to Birmingham by train. Easily explained as although the 20 and 21 buses are fairly close and run through to University Station (for onward train travel), they are not reliable.

An unreliable bus ? An investment of £24,000 per user could certainly buy a lot of good bus service.

(The author credits PTUA of Melbourne, Australia, with the text in bold).

John Hall

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 - 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

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.

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.

In Town Without My Car Day 2009

Every year we moan about the council not doing anything about In Town Without My Car Day and then leave it too late to organise a big event. But leaving your car at home shouldn't be such a big deal, should it?

Tens of thousands of people travel to work every day without using a car and over 30% of households in Birmingham don't actually own a car so are reliant on other means of transport to get around.

So, what happened when Birmingham Friends of the Earth challenged the 50 most powerful and influential people in the region (according to the Birmingham Post) to give up their cars for the day?

What did we expect? Polite refusals? To be completely ignored? For everyone to say yes?

I was not sure what would happen, but I thought that, in the current climate of individuals being seen to take a lead on being greener, it might just work. Over the past few weeks I have been collecting responses, prompting those who didn't reply, contacting the press and other media about the story and the interest has grown and grown to the extent that Birmingham City Council actually put up a message of support for it on their website.

If you want to know what the results of this challenge were person by person, then read on.

1)Paul Thandi: NEC Group – No reply, other than acknowledgements from his PA that she had passed on my emails to him.
2)Paul Kehoe: BIA – I was informed by his PA that as he was away on leave until just before it he could not do it.
3)Lord Digby Jones – I was informed by his PA that he is out of town and not able to participate.
4)David Bintley: Birmingham Royal Ballet – No response received at all.
5)Gary Taylor: Argent Group – Informed us that he cycles at least once a week to work now and will be away on Tuesday, but will cycle the day before.
6)Neil Rami: Marketing Birmingham – Will also be away on the day, but the rest of his company will be doing it, apparently.
7)Clive Dutton: Birmingham City Council Planning and Regeneration – Said he would certainly do it.
8)Professor David Bailey: Coventry University – Said he would be taking bus and/or train as usual.
9)Andris Nelsons: CBSO conductor – Is in Vienna on the day, so unable to take part.
10)Mike Whiby; Leader of Birmingham City Council – Has “long-standing commitments on the day in question which make it difficult to honour if he could not use a car”, although he will try to walk between meetings.
11)Christine Braddock: Birmingham Metropolitan College – No response
12)Julie Moore: CEO of local NHS – No response.
13)Andrew Mitchell: MP for Sutton Coldfield – Will be in London cycling to work as every day.
14)Glynn Purnell: Celebrity Chef – Unable to do it for “personal reasons”.
15)Paul Tylsley: Deputy Leader of Birmingham City Council – Not in Birmingham on the day.
16)Liam Byrne: MP for Hodge Hill and cabinet member – No response.
17)Stephen Hughes: Chief Executive, Birmingham City Council – Will catch a train to the airport, which, unfortunately, is unavoidable to keep commitments. Always walks to work when in the city.
18)Suzie Norton: Screen West Midlands – Is on maternity leave.
19)Professor Lord Kumar Bhattacharyya: Warwick Manufacturing Group – No response.
20)Ravi Kant: Head of Tata – Didn't attempt to contact him.
21)Randy Lerner: CEO, Aston Villa – Not in town on the day. I requested someone else high profile from the club, but got no response.
22)Anthony McCourt: Birmingham Development Company – Walks to work every day.
23)Jason Wouhra: East End Foods – No response.
24)Salma Yaqoob: Councillor – Will walk or use public transport instead of car for the day.
25)Stuart Griffiths: CEO, Birmingham Hippodrome – No response.
26)Phillip Singleton: City Design, Birmingham City Council – Will take the bus.
27)Professor Nick James: University of Birmingham – Cycles at least once a week and takes the train from Longbridge other days.
28)David Smith: Jaguar-Land Rover - Didn't attempt to contact him.
29)Dr Waldemar Bujalski: University of Birmingham – No response.
30)Justice Williams: Inner City Creative Media Group – Unable to contact.
31)Clare Edwards: Gigbeth – Works from home most days and says she'll take public transport if needed on the day.
32)Trevor Foster: Bigwood/Lockton – No response.
33)Paul Bassi: Bonde Wolfe – Unable to contact.
34)Tom Lawes: The Electric Cinema – No response.
35)Andeep Mangel: ICAEW – Unable to contact.
36)Paul Bradshaw: BCU – May well be working from home, but doesn't own a car for environmental reasons, anyway.
37)Helga Henry: Fierce Earth – No response.
38)Simon Wales: THSH – Was supportive and often takes the bus to work, but has to take equipment to the NEC for a stall on the day in his car.
39)James Yarker: Stan's Cafe Director – Always cycles around the city and takes the train when travelling to other towns.
40)Professor Julia King: Vice Chancellor, Aston University – Out of town on the day, but encouraged all staff at Aston to take part and leave their cars at home.
41)Kerry Thomas: Fused Magazine – Very supportive and would have done it if in town, but away on the day.
42)Steve Dyson: Editor, Birmingham Mail – Unable to do it due to meetings and commitments in several parts of the city.
43)Bennie Gray: Custard Factory – No response.
44)Mick Laverty: AWM – Unable to contact.
45)Stuart Rogers: Birmingham Rep – Happy to do it and will take the bus.
46)Paul Hadley – Rhubarb Radio – Works from home and says he always takes the train when travelling in and out of Birmingham.
47)Adrian Goldberg: The Stirrer – Will be in London on the day, where he will use public transport for all his journeys. Wishes the same was possible in this area.
48)Jerry Blackett: Birmingham Chamber of Commerce – Will take train and folding bike, as he often does.
49)Ian Austin: MP, Dudley North and regional minister – No response.
50)Martin Mullaney: Cabinet member, Birmingham City Council – Will be taking his scooter.

So, what can we see from this?

Well, apart from the lack of responses from 14 people – about a third, I was encouraged by the number of people who are very much aware of the issue and already use other forms of transport on a regular basis. Almost half of the “power 50” gave us such positive responses about their travelling habits and I would suggest that this means a minority of these people take their cars into town every day.

What about being without a car every day?

This is, of course, the most important point to be made. It's all very well doing a one-off attempt to be more sustainable, but if we're going to cut transport emissions and congestion and deal with the related health issues in this city we need to get more people out of cars and onto public transport, bikes or walking as a matter of course. This would enable us all to use the space we have in this city more usefully.
We are working hard on campaigns such as “20's plenty for Birmingham”, “Re-open Our Stations” and “Better Buses for Birmingham” to tackle the issues that prevent people feeling that they can get around the city without using a car. If you want to help us with any of the campaigns, please contact us on campaigns@birminghamfoe.org.uk to find out how.

Future events

By next year I sincerely hope that steps will have been made to improve the experience for people using public transport, walking or cycling in the city and that when the council launches its own In Town Without Your Car Day events, we'll see streets filled not with cars, but with people out there talking to one another and enjoying sharing the space together.
Does anyone else agree that it would be a good idea?

How to respond to the rail consultation to re-open stations

The time is now for people to use their opportunity to ask for a new passenger service at Moseley, Balsall Heath, Kings Heath and Stirchley (closed 1941). 10,000 people probably live along this line, today.

As I may have mentioned a few times recently, Centro has a draft 'Rail Development Plan' and this is open to public consultation until 11th September 2009. It includes a passenger service along the existing ‘Camp Hill line’ calling at these stations and using a new curve, to be built to connect the line into Moor Street station.

Centro is asking if this scheme should be a priority for funding. The danger is that if people don't reply, it may move down the priority list, and further into the future. Currently, a service is at least 9 years away.

Public consultation is open already and ends on September 11th. Please;

· Use this opportunity to register your concern, by sending an email to David Ride at Centro (rdpfeedback@centro.org.uk)

Feel free to use the draft email below, and do add your own comments

· If you represent an organisation and can write a letter on their behalf, this will carry even more weight

· Pass this email on to others

If you want a map of the route see http://www.mappa-mercia.org/

To see pictures of your former stations click on map at http://www.railaroundbirmingham.co.uk/regional_map.php

For Centro’s draft Rail Development Plan see http://www.centro.org.uk/consultation/rail_development_plan.asp

Summary (Table 1.4 & 1.5 pp13-15)

email; rdpfeedback@centro.org.uk

To David Ride

Centro, 16 Summer Lane

Birmingham B19 3SD

From Name;

Postal Address;

RE; Draft West Midlands Rail Development Plan - Public Consultation

I am writing to you to support the re-opening of the stations on the 'Camp Hill' rail line across South Birmingham.

A frequent local passenger service is urgently needed to relieve traffic congestion and parking problems, by offering an alternative to cars and buses in South Birmingham

A curve at Bordesley to take trains into Moor Street should be built to add rail capacity, preferably before the rebuilding of New Street station begins.

Therefore, the South Birmingham ‘Camp Hill’ rail line and its stations should be a high priority for funding in the West Midlands Rail Development Plan, and the dates in the draft plan 2014 for funding, 2018 for re-opening should be brought forward, by any means possible.

I would appreciate a reply, and would like to be kept informed of the progress of the above project.

Yours faithfully

E-petitions R Us

The council now has a site with e-petitions where we can ask them to do things that are within their power. I had a bit of trouble getting them to accept the wording of mine about train stations, but generally I think this has to be a good way of promoting campaigns in the digital age.
Anyway, we have three big transport campaigns at the moment and each one now has its own e-petition. Please sign them if you want Birmingham city council to do something about giving us a better transport system.

Firstly for our 20's plenty campaign to make the roads safer for everyone and encourage greener forms of transport, such as cycling and walking go here:

http://epetition.birmingham.public-i.tv/petition.php?id=51

Secondly, for our Better Buses for Birmingham campaign, this is the link:

http://epetition.birmingham.public-i.tv/petition.php?id=60

Thirdly, for the campaign to get railway stations re-opened in Birmingham: http://epetition.birmingham.public-i.tv/petition.php?id=67

I hope that we can get a lot of support behind these campaigns, but at the moment the old fashioned ways have got us far more signatures for each one than the electronic forms. Let's promote them wherever possible and show that we can mobilise support through the net.

Government plans for transport offer Climate Change appetiser

July 23^rd brought news of two schemes that may indicate progress on the ground toward installing transport that results in less greenhouse gas emissions. The first is electrification of the Liverpool to Manchester railway (via Newton in le Willows); the second is an extension of the Midland Metro tram through the streets of Birmingham from Snow Hill to Moor Street. The railway scheme hopefully means that skills will be built-up for projects around Birmingham where electrification will also be required.

In both tram and train cases, the use of the vehicles requires generation of electricity, sometimes in distant power stations. The way in which this power is generated needs to be considered as does the longevity of the vehicles manufactured to ensure it is as low carbon as possible.

For Midland Metro, the existing vehicles look set for the scrapyard (although hopefully they can be sent somewhere else where it’s flat) as new trams (that can cope with slopes) will form part of the new service. Positive aspects of the plan are that the street running will make it more obvious that Birmingham has a tram, and the changes at Snow Hill will give an extra platform to the train service. An unresolved flaw to the plan remains, however, in the shape of proposed Corporation Street bus expulsion; whatever powers them, Birmingham still needs buses.

John Hall

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

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