Written evidence from James Russell (HSR
190)
1. I have a extensive experience in the senior
management and science of transport, especially in air, freight
and public transport. Having had the opportunity to examine the
written evidence submitted to the High Speed Rail Inquiry after
consulting colleagues I believe that I can make two responses
that may assist the Committee and thus be of sufficient utility
to be accepted at this stage.
2. The evidence on carbon and climate change
impacts in response to question 6, 1 lack any authoritative discussion
of the science appropriate to the climate change impact of increasing
or decreasing the volume of Electric Traction. Such a discussion
makes understanding and assessing the widely varying viewpoints
much more practical. In the course of a study in which I have
been involved Professor Nash has identified Professor Kageson
as a key authority. I believe that Professor Kageson's paper 'Environmental
Aspects of Intercity Transport' will be of great assistance to
the Committee and ask that they take it into evidence.
Professor Kageson establishes that the impact of
electric rail is to increase the level of coal burning above what
it would otherwise be. He also treats some aspects of modal transfer
and thus of congestion relief. The effect of his findings is to
indicate that until Carbon Capture and Storage can be implemented
on at least a pan European basis the carbon intensity of electric
propulsion energy is that of coal not the average carbon intensity
of the generating fuel mix. The carbon intensity of coal as a
generating fuel is around double that of the current average of
the generating fuel mix so the estimated propulsion emissions
of high speed rail must be doubled and the estimation that that
HS2 will be carbon neutral seems unviable.
The requirement that CCS be implemented on a pan
European basis arises from the operation of interconnectors and
[eventually] super grids. If a state, such as France, with little
or no coal burning increases its use of electricity for traction
it has less low carbon electricity to sell to replace coal burning
in Germany or remoter parts of the EU. Similarly if new sources
of low carbon electricity are bought on stream but total electricity
demand is increased by electric traction some or all of the low
carbon electricity is not available to reduce coal use. For illustrative
purposes Professor Kageson assumes that CCS might be implemented
on a sufficiently wide scale by 2025 but he does not examine the
realism of this assumption which may be highly optimistic given
the technical uncertainties and extent of the area over which
existing power stations would have to be replaced. A joint examination
by the Transport Committee and the Committee on Energy and Climate
Change of the timing for adequate introduction of CCS to support
transport electrification would be valuable.
The possibility that an area larger than Pan Europe
must be considered arises when coal burning is reduced by increasing
consumption of lower carbon generating fuels such as gas. In a
world with limited gas supplies the pre-emption of supply by one
user may enforce coal burning on another.
The Professor Kageson's report can be found here.[465]
I have corresponded with Professor Kageson and he
has confirmed that recent research has established that an RFI
of 1 is the e carbon intensity appropriate to short haul domestic
air services. His paper uses an RFI of 1.5 which substantially
overestimates the carbon intensity of domestic air services.
Professor Kageson concludes "… The rail
sector, however, often claims that investment in rail infrastructure
will bring large environmental benefits (Banverket, 2008, UNIFE
2008, UIC 2008). Independent research, on the other hand, concludes
that these benefits are not so important (de Rus, 2008, WSP and
KTH Järnvägsgruppen, 2008, Nilsson and Pydokke, 2009).
The results of this report support the latter view. Investment
in high speed rail cannot be expected to contribute much to climate
change mitigation. Investment in conventional fast trains may
in some circumstances be significantly more beneficial. It may
be time for many environmentalists to reconsider their attitude
to high speed rail …".
3. The submissions offered in response to questions
2 and 5 seem inadequate in the context of the recently completed
Inquiry into Transport and the Economy. Many respondents do not
consider how far projects of greater economic value may be unaffordable
due to a commitment to HS2. Unfortunately the current regime does
not facilitate judgements of how far commitments to what Eddington
describes as "grands
projets" and "solutions in search of a problem",
displace higher value projects which enhance the existing road
and rail network. There are indications in
the SW region that existing rail "grands projets" may
be having this effect. The value of the inquiry will be greatly
increased if the respondents can be pressed to examine this aspect
further, at least to the extent of identifying what funding they
seek for other projects whose value is equal or higher than that
of HS2.
Some other projects may be found to be essential
on implementation of HS2 but may not yet have been identified
and have a low intrinsic value. For example since DfT has shown
that across all journeys by train to and from London 25% involve
a trip to the train by road so there may be highways works necessary
to provide improved access to rail stations.
4. My intention in offering these comments is
more that of a friend to the inquiry than that of a witness but
if I can assist the inquiry by expanding on 2 and 3 in any way
I shall do my best to respond.
June 2011
465 http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/5kmmnc9dlcbs.pdf?expires=1308839165&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=FA8425038A8594C83E4EA1B0D7A969DB Back
| 
