Written evidence from Conserve the Chilterns
and Countryside (HSR 126)
1. SUMMARY
1.1 Conserve the Chilterns and Countryside (CCC)
is a group of residents based close to HS2 Ltd's preferred route
for the high speed rail link. We seek to protect the interests
of those living around and between Amersham, Chesham and Wendover.
1.2 We believe that the UK should continue to develop
a modern, efficient transport system and that high speed rail
may have a part to play in this, but only if a robust business
case can be made for it. We are concerned that the government
has overstated its case for High Speed 2 (HS2); underestimated
its impact on the environment, especially in the Chilterns Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); and ignored the case for
alternative routes with a better business case or a lower environmental
impact.
1.3 In this submission we focus on one such alternative
route which runs via a new hub just north of Heathrow airport.
In examining this alternative we stress that we are not advocates
for the route or for HS2, but believe that a fuller examination
of the alternative routes should be undertaken and the results
made available as part of the consultation process. If necessary,
the government's consultation should be delayed to allow this
to happen.
2. CONSERVE THE
CHILTERNS AND
COUNTRYSIDE
2.1 Conserve the Chilterns and Countryside is committed
to protecting the Chilterns AONB. We are a non-profit based organisation
funded by its founding members and public donations. We are committed
to rational discussion and debate on the location of HS2, and
its value to the national infrastructure and economy.
2.2 CCC believes that if HS2 is to proceed, it must
be on the basis of a robust economic case, delivered in a way
that spreads the benefits of HS2 to communities along the route,
and offer the best protection possible to the Chilterns countryside.
In detail, the criteria we are calling on the government to ensure
are met are as follows:
2.3 Economic
— A full
economic cost/benefit analysis should be carried out by the government
to demonstrate there are concrete advantages to be had from HS2.
— HS2
must have a central London terminal, with a direct link to Heathrow,
Crossrail and, via HS1, to the Continent.
— The
government must make a commitment that over time the high speed
network will link the continent, via HS1 and HS2, to the north
of England and Scotland.
2.4 Environmental
— Full
environmental mitigation must be put in place along the entire
route, but particularly in the Chilterns AONB.
— The
route should also follow existing major transport corridors or
travel through tunnels, wherever possible.
— The
line must traverse the shortest viable route across the Chilterns.
2.5 Community
— The
government needs to provide viable and tangible benefits to communities
along the route, including javelin services for nearby towns.
— There
must be robust planning that makes provisions and commitments
to reducing visual, traffic and noise impact during construction.
— Unlike
the previous administration, the government must ensure communities
play a leading role in the consultation.
2.6 In our submission to the Transport Select Committee
we will be concentrating on the strategic route, namely why we
believe HS2 must directly connect to Heathrow in the first stages
of its construction, and also touch upon the environmental issues
surrounding HS2 which are threatening our nation's precious AONB.
3. THE OBJECTIVES
OF HIGH
SPEED RAIL
3.1 All too often the UK's major infrastructure projects
have been short-sighted and pushed through to navigate the planning
system more easily and to appease opposition. The huge detrimental
effect is that many places have been left with sub-standard national
infrastructure which the tax payer has had to pay to upgrade subsequently
and users have been left to suffer the impacts of poor planning
and unreliable services.
3.2 We are currently seeing this very problem with
the long term upgrade works taking place on the M25. Experts warned
all along that this project would require more lanes and could
have been incorporated at the time of initial construction with
no extra impact on road users and at a fraction of the multi-billion
pound cost the country is now incurring during a period of austerity.
3.3 CCC believes that the government's current proposals
for HS2 are, at best, a compromise that cannot possibly achieve
its full potential nor deliver its full benefit. CCC urges the
government to look at alternative options and not build a line
that threatens to be a white elephant that will not meet the full
objectives set out for a successful HS2.
3.4 The previous government, the current government
and HS2 Ltd have consistently set out key objectives for HS2.[327]
These objectives included the following criteria:[328]
— A Heathrow
International station - this must provide an interchange between
HS2, HS1, the Great Western Main Line (GWML) and Crossrail with
convenient access to Heathrow.
— Increase
passenger capacity.
— A freight
capability - taking freight off the roads.
— Modal
shift from car to rail.
— Modal
shift from air to rail.
3.5 CCC believes that the preferred route chosen
for the current public consultation fails to meet these objectives
and that alternative options must be looked at if the government's
objectives are to be met, as demonstrated below:
A Heathrow International station
3.6 Independent engineering firm Arup has designed
both the Heathrow hub option and the current route the government
are consulting on. It is noteworthy that Arup has shown a preference
for the route via Heathrow, but we understand that they are now
contractually prevented by HS2 Ltd from promoting the Heathrow
alternative.
3.7 The current plans do not allow for the seamless
integration of transport modes required to maximise the benefits
and revenue of HS2. While current plans do incorporate HS1, HS2,
the GWML, Crossrail and Heathrow airport, they are not to be found
at a central hub. A properly integrated hub would achieve this,
as well as the added benefits of freight distribution, a coach
and bus station and close links to the M25 and M4.
3.8 Any suggestions that an Old Oak Common interchange
or a spur/loop is the answer is perhaps best dismissed by quoting
Guillaume Pepy, Chairman of SNCF. In May 2009 he said: "We
have more than 12 years of experience and are fully confident
in the value of an easy connection between TGV and plane. The
commercial success of TGV is due to the fact that Roissy is a
through station. There must be a seamless connection between rail
and air".[329]
As the Bow Group has declared any "non direct HSR link
with Heathrow, represented by a loop or spur, would represent
folly in Britain's
ambition to develop a truly integrated transport policy".[330]
The Bow Group's report was endorsed by Lord Heseltine, who promoted
the change to the original Channel Tunnel Rail link in the 1980s.
3.9 There have been some concerns that a Heathrow
hub route alignment would result in a significant increase to
journey times. However, for a non-stop train from Euston to Birmingham
City Centre, the route via Heathrow hub will take just three minutes
longer than the alternative using HS2 Ltd's preferred route, according
to train performance modelling of journey times carried out by
Arup.[331]
This is a small increase that is mitigated when offset against
the benefits of a fully integrated transport network, less environmental
damage and reduction in cost of the spur option. Furthermore,
the increase in journey times is almost negligible when put in
the context of overall time savings expected on the entire high
speed network from phase two to Manchester and Leeds and beyond.
3.10 If a hub at Heathrow is not built, the UK will
be the only country with a high speed rail network not incorporated
with its major airport. The success of a high speed rail network
is, in part, dependent on its integration with air travel. Air
passengers will not use a rail service in any great numbers if
the interchange is not simple and direct.
3.11 The government has tried to tackle this by incorporating
a future spur or loop to the line connecting to Heathrow. Yet
the designers of the preferred option concede that doing so would
"compromise the ability of rail services to compete with
domestic and short haul air services"[332]
largely making any spur/loop redundant and a vast waste of money.
3.12 Heathrow is one of Europe's most difficult airports
to reach. If an integrated, effective and long term solution is
not sought, Britain risks losing many potential passengers and
business opportunities to other European hubs.
3.13 In summary, a hub would tackle many of the problems
the High Speed network should look to tackle and that the current
preferred route ignores. It provides exceptional connectivity
between classic and high speed rail services and between domestic
road and rail services at a single interchange; significantly
improves rail access to Heathrow for many UK cities; improves
productivity by reducing journey times for business trips to Heathrow;
improves reliability of journeys by rail to Heathrow; improves
access to international markets for businesses, including the
growing markets of China and India; attracts international firms
to locate and invest in the regions; releases short haul air slots
at Heathrow; improves access to the rest of the country for international
tourists visiting; improves access to Heathrow for the West and
North of the UK; improves local air quality and reduces both carbon
emissions and noise pollution; and increases farebox revenues
- which provides a far more sound financing model for HS2 than
current proposals. CCC fails to understand why this is not being
considered more seriously by the government and HS2 Ltd.
Increase passenger capacity
3.14 The government has a poor record when it comes
to predicting passenger numbers on new rail lines. Government
figures on capacity for the consultation route on HS2 have inevitably
come under great scrutiny from a number of sources. A line that
only links central London and Birmingham is not maximising the
potential benefits and use of the service. In order to achieve
its potential, a line must be linked with Heathrow to allow passengers
to access the airport from the West and North, to promote a modal
shift from car to rail and also from air to rail, and to link
up in a highly integrated hub.
3.15 The main advantages of a Heathrow hub would
be to link a rail station, airport terminal, coach and bus station,
freight distribution terminal, a connection for HS1, HS2, the
Great Western Mainline, Crossrail and the M25 all in one place.
The current proposal simply cannot match this potential to maximise
capacity.
A freight capability
3.16 While current proposals may be able to incorporate
a freight capability, alternative options such as a hub based
at Heathrow would create the potential for high value freight
to be conveyed more quickly between continental Europe and areas
around London, the south of England and the Midlands. In the same
way, it also brings the UK's major centres - areas of economic
activity - closer together, increasing opportunities for productivity
gains and trade in a way the government's current plans fail to
do. Furthermore, by allowing a high proportion of lorry journeys
to be moved to rail, there are significant environmental benefits.
Modal shift from car to rail
3.17 According to Arup's figures, a Heathrow Hub
will increase public access to Heathrow by 21% and take 10-20
million cars off the road. In turn, combined with the modal shift
of air to rail (see below), this will reduce carbon emissions
by between 500,000 and 800,000 tonnes a year.[333]
Modal shift from air to rail
3.18 According to Arup's figures, a Heathrow Hub
will shift between 92,000 and 150,000 passengers from air to rail.[334]
3.19 The Rail Minister, Theresa Villiers, has said
that high speed rail was a "viable and attractive"
alternative to short haul flights[335]
and would reduce road congestion, generate economic benefits and
improve transport links without the "considerable" environmental
penalties of a third runway.
3.20 The government has cancelled the proposed third
runway at Heathrow and therefore it is a key objective for high
speed rail to take both cars off the road and passengers off planes;
their current proposals will simply fail to achieve this with
anywhere near the degree of success that a Heathrow hub option
or other alternatives could offer.
3.21 Does the current plan deliver the government's
desired outcomes?
3.21.1 While the construction of a Heathrow hub and
other alternative options would not incur any significant extra
financial costs to construction - particularly if a spur or loop
option is to be built - the huge benefits of integration on capacity,
road to rail and air to rail modal shifts, increased freight and
other opportunities vastly outweigh the current proposals to maximise
benefits. Furthermore, these more efficient solutions would increase
passenger numbers and therefore revenue, making the economic case
for the project far more sound. For example, for passengers travelling
from the west of England to Heathrow, initial estimates indicate
journey time savings with a present value at government discount
rate of £640 million.[336]
3.21.2 The Prime Minister, David Cameron, cited his
own particular objective for HS2 back in November 2010. He told
journalists that "If we think about governments of all
colours, they have all failed - over 50 years - to deal with the
North-South divide. With high-speed rail we have a real chance
of cracking it".[337]
CCC believes that high speed rail cannot tackle a North-South
divide effectively unless its use and potential is maximised.
Providing the people of Manchester, Leeds and Edinburgh with a
direct link to the UK's only international hub airport through
a truly integrated transport interchange is a far more effective
solution than the current preferred route. Alternative routes
must be fully considered otherwise the government risks choosing
the wrong route for Britain's second high speed railway.
4. PROTECTING
THE CHILTERNS
4.1 One of CCC's greatest concerns about HS2 is that
it severely threatens the unspoilt beauty of the Chiltern's AONB.
We are insisting that the government gives more consideration
to the environmental impacts of high speed rail and, if HS2 proceeds,
offers full environmental mitigation where possible.
4.2 We recognise that the government has already
taken steps to reduce the environmental impact of HS2 in the Chilterns,
for example by lowering the vertical alignment to reduce noise
and visual intrusion. However, in our view this does not go far
enough. Ideally the route would be diverted around the AONB or,
failing that, would not follow the widest route through it. Yet,
even if the current preferred route were endorsed, we believe
the route should be carried in a tunnel under the entire width
of the AONB. Such a move would greatly reduce the environmental
impact and reduce the construction impact in the Chilterns, not
least from the reduced level of spoil to be removed.
4.3 Whilst we accept that every route option will
cause some damage to the environment, we are disappointed that
other routes which offer more environmental mitigation have been
given less consideration by the government. According to the evidence[338]
given by Arup to Lord Mawhinney for his review, the Heathrow hub
proposal would be far less environmentally damaging and impact
less upon the Chiltern's AONB. Additionally, the noise pollution
in residential areas would be reduced, which would be a great
relief for homeowners in the Chilterns area.
4.4 Furthermore, if HS2 linked directly to Heathrow
it would achieve the greatest shift from road and air travel to
rail, and would also traverse the narrowest part of the Chilterns
- one of the criteria we are insisting upon if HS2 goes ahead.
It must also be noted that if HS2 were to follow the Heathrow
hub route option and provide greater environmental mitigation
than the current preferred route offers, the economic case would
be improved. According to Arup's figures,[339]
a direct alignment to Heathrow would cost £400 million less
than the least expensive loop or spur alignment, and would avoid
the blight and costly duplication associated with such options.
4.5 CCC is calling on the government to further consider
the environmental impact that the current proposed HS2 route would
have, to acknowledge the greater environmental mitigation that
the main alternative route offers, and to shift the current preferred
route accordingly.
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 The Chilterns AONB is a beautiful, unspoilt landscape,
which the government has a duty to protect. The current plans
for HS2 do not pay sufficient attention to this duty, the business
case is poorly argued, and too little attention has been paid
to alternative routes. The government should withdraw its existing
proposals and consider a full range of alternatives.
May 2011
327 P Hammond letter to B Briscoe, "remit for
work" http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110131112903/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2remit/remiths2june2010.pdf Back
328
Objectives and remit for HS2 http://www.hs2.org.uk/assets/x/55864 Back
329
Transport Times conference, London May 2009 Back
330
http://www.bowgroup.org/files/bowgroup/The_Right_Track_PDF.pdf Back
331
Arup's submission to Lord Mawhinney's review http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110131042819/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/lordmawhinneyreport/pdf/appendix3_4.pdf Back
332
Arup submission to HS2 Ltd. Full report http://www.arup.com/News/2010_04_April/~/media/Files/PDF/News_and_Press/2010_04_April/091210_Arup_submission_to_HS2_Ltd_Full_Report_c_ARUP.ashx Back
333
Arup submission to HS2 Ltd. Full report http://www.arup.com/News/2010_04_April/~/media/Files/PDF/News_and_Press/2010_04_April/091210_Arup_submission_to_HS2_Ltd_Full_Report_c_ARUP.ashx Back
334
Arup submission to HS2 Ltd. Full report http://www.arup.com/News/2010_04_April/~/media/Files/PDF/News_and_Press/2010_04_April/091210_Arup_submission_to_HS2_Ltd_Full_Report_c_ARUP.ashx Back
335
Conservative party conference 2008 http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2008/09/29/290908_hi_speed_rail_feature.shtml Back
336
Arup submission to HS2 Ltd. Full report http://www.arup.com/News/2010_04_April/~/media/Files/PDF/News_and_Press/2010_04_April/091210_Arup_submission_to_HS2_Ltd_Full_Report_c_ARUP.ashx Back
337
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8158342/David-Cameron-high-speed-rail-link-will-go-ahead.html Back
338
Arup's submission to Lord Mawhinney's review http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110131042819/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/lordmawhinneyreport/pdf/appendix3_4.pdf
Back
339
Arup's submission to Lord Mawhinney's review http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110131042819/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/lordmawhinneyreport/pdf/appendix3_4.pdf Back
| 
