Written evidence from Thomas Hart (HSR
91)
This submission argues that HSR should be examined
not only in relation to conflicts or synergy with other aspects
of rail strategy over the next 20 to 30 years but also in the
context of the economic importance, and climate change benefits,
of more rapid moves to a low carbon and energy efficient economy.
It considers whether a high priority for HSR investment might
prejudice more beneficial investment (and other fiscal and regulatory
actions) not only in other parts of the rail system but in other
parts of the economy.
The conclusion is that there is a justifiable place
for phased HSR development in wider programmes for transport and
other aspects of moves to a low carbon and energy efficient economy.
CHANGING TRENDS
IN TRANSPORT
AND THE
ECONOMY
As noted in the attached summary paper on changing
trends presented at Glasgow University on the occasion of the
25th anniversary of the formation of the Scottish Transport Studies
Group, transport trends entered a period of major historical change
in the later 1990s characterised by:
— a near
stabilisation of passenger movement per head within the UK (even
in conditions of economic expansion and increasing car ownership);
— a significant
shift from car to rail passenger use (not evident in any previous
decade since 1910); and
— a substantial
slowing of previous rates of aviation growth from around 2000
(including a near stabilisation of air miles per head within the
UK but continuing, though moderated, growth in longer-distance
travel by air.
Freight was not dealt with in the paper but there
is evidence of longer distance freight remaining overwhelmingly
dependent on sea and rail with rising road fuel and labour costs
and improving rail quality also leading to expansion of general
rail freight in addition to bulk traffic parts of which—such
has coal and oil—are shifting from growth to decline under
low carbon policies).
These changes have been poorly reflected in existing
UK methods of movement forecasting. This requires urgent re-examination,
especially in relation to longer distance trips and to patterns
of movement within city regions. Even in the absence of low carbon
issues, changing trends reflect a new situation where rising real
incomes and aspirations for a different quality of life seem certain
to see an increase in preferences for travel by rail over longer
distances and also in, and around, larger cities and tourism centres
i.e. a sharp contrast from the car and aviation preferences which
were dominant from the 1960s to the 1990s.
Low carbon issues, higher energy costs (notably for
oil and gas), changing fiscal and regulatory policies and improved
efficiency within the rail sector (both in procurement and in
operations) are likely to reinforce an existing trend towards
rail over the next 20 to 30 years with increasing probability
of some absolute decline in car and lorry vehicle miles (with
the possible exception of a few UK regions with above average
rates of growth in population). Though it is arguable that an
ability of the road motor sector to adapt to low carbon or a superior
ability in other sectors to achieve cost-effective carbon reduction
may permit a re-expansion of road use relative to rail, this is
now highly improbable. It is worth noting that the recent EU draft
of a revised transport strategy expects the rail and water share
of medium distance movement to rise from around 20% to 50%.
This evidence suggests that rail growth over the
next 20 to 30 years will continue at a high level with road traffic
stabilising or falling. Recent rail passenger growth on the West
Coast Main Line has been as high as 10% a year with the Virgin
Rail/Stagecoach partnership confident that growth will continue
in the 6% to 8% range over the next five years and beyond if key
capacity constraints are removed. There are particularly strong
prospects for business and discretionary travel shifting from
air to rail , not only on shorter trips into continental Europe
but also on corridors such as the Scottish Central Belt to London,
Birmingham and other English and Welsh cities. Within England
and Wales, the greatest prospects are for changes in business
and discretionary travel decisions from car to rail use.
IMPLICATIONS FOR
TRANSPORT AND
ENERGY STRATEGY
The above scenario, though it may vary in intensity
and by corridor, indicates a clear and cumulative shift of mode
share from road and air to rail within a stable level of total
movement within the UK—demand for substantial increases
in road capacity has virtually disappeared with attention shifting
to a few localised schemes , better use of the existing inter-urban
road network , absolute falls in road traffic levels within cities
and some expansion of maintenance and localised schemes yielding
clear gains.
In all transport sectors, more attention (and investment—much
being private) will require to be given to more efficient use
of energy and shifts to low-carbon fuels. But rail offers particular
opportunities for increasing the use of low carbon electric traction
for both passenger and freight—justifying enlargement of
the present electrification programme and the introduction of
lower energy usage by both local and longer-distance trains (Present
Virgin and Eurostar trains compare poorly with the latest continental
HSR trains in terms of energy per seat mile while there are also
opportunities to vary pricing to improve seat utilisation).
In terms of track capacity, the present rail network
offers much scope to increase usage through provision of more
rolling stock, additional and longer platforms and signalling/timetabling
changes. However, a key issue is to identify:
(a) those corridors on which demand is rising
beyond the ability to cope through relatively small improvements;
and
(b) gaps in the network and interchange/ticketing
deficiencies which inhibit rail growth not only on corridors to,
and within, London but also between, and within, other cities
and tourism/leisure areas. This includes the topic of access to
principal airports, using rail access to inter-link with flights
increasingly to and from longer-distance overseas origins and
destinations.
Under (a), rising demand (and the ability to release
capacity on existing routes for freight and additional regional
and "intermediate express" services) justifies planning
now for new sections of HSR route (as in the present Y strategy
from London to the West Midlands dividing for Lancashire and Leeds)
fully completed by 2030 but including complementary work to facilitate
shorter trip times north from Leeds and Lancashire and also on
other inter-city corridors.
Lengthy sections of new route should be designed
for HSR operation (defined as speeds of 200 mph or higher) but
with most HSR trains also operating over sections of improved
existing route—including extra opportunities for overtaking
freight or intermediate passenger services or diversion of some
of these to alternative routes. While some HSR trains may be designed
to the more commodious continental loading gauge (including double-deck
operation) but precluded from operating over existing lines with
more limited clearances, the most cost-effective and realistic
approach over the next 20 years is likely to lead to most HSR
trains in Britain being capable of operating over the inter-city
network - though with strictly limited stops and average speeds
in the 135-150 mph range (higher on longer sections of new build
route).
HSR plans should proceed in parallel with:
— city
region rail/Metro/tram /bus improvements;
— strengthened
rail freight strategy (including a large rise in electric haulage);
— an
expanded national and regional rail electrification programme;
— major
improvements in interchange and ticketing;
— specific
programmes for improvements in the inter-urban passenger network;
(involving shorter sections of new construction, line redoubling,
line reopening and measures to raise speeds to 140 or 150 mph
on some sections of route—together with timetabling adjustments,
this could raise average speeds on inter-city links to the 90-110
mph range if demand so justified. On several routes, the preference
may be for improved frequency and lower fares but somewhat lower
average speeds—especially for links to, and within, tourist/leisure
areas).
RAIL FUNDING
Expanded rail usage could be funded from a variety
of sources such as:
(1) increased usage and income.
(2) savings arising from shifts in business and
discretionary spend from car and air to rail use; reduced HGV
levels, energy and fossil fuel savings; cuts in trunk road and
airport investment;
(3) since most savings and benefits under (2)
would have no direct reflection in rail income, consideration
should be given to allocating a proportion of net proceeds of
road fuel taxation and aviation taxation towards rail schemes
shown to be offering benefits not fully reflected in income (or
reduced if attempts were made to maximise income);
(4) earmarking part of the proceeds of carbon
trading or fossil energy taxation towards the costs of approved
rail projects;
(5) savings in procurement and more efficient
operations (McNulty estimates suggests that, on the basis of continental
comparison, rail project procurement costs could be cut in real
terms by at least 30% while electrification offers considerable
savings in operating costs (especially with a rising trend in
usage) plus other opportunities for cuts in operational and signalling
costs with gains for transport safety;
6) expansion of public/private partnerships subject
to assessment of risk transfer eg private finance could be expanded
in some areas of rolling stock provision, track/signalling maintenance
and interchange improvement but with public finance (and lower
borrowing costs) utilised for the formation of new rail alignments
and for payments towards franchise specifications for sub-commercial
networks. On some busy corridors, payments from operators to government
could help fund borrowing costs but with care taken to ensure
that such payments did not contradict the aims of encouraging
mode shift from car and air to rail); and
(7) potential levies on increases in property
values or earmarking of other taxes towards contributions to borrowing
costs.
May 2011
| 
