Written evidence from Hammersmith and
Fulham Council (HSR 38)
1. What are the main arguments either for
or against HSR?
Bringing London closer to other cities—Birmingham
49 mins, Manchester/Leeds 80 mins, Glasgow/Edinburgh 3.5 hours—will
help to maintain London's prosperity by giving it better access
to the UK's varied markets for labour, goods and specialist services.
As well as helping to bridge the north south economic divide,
HS2 will also ensure London's competitiveness with other major
European cities such as Paris, Frankfurt and Madrid, which are
all already at the centre of high speed networks.
The creation of a new destination in Old Oak Common
will provide a global employment destination closely linked to
Central London, Heathrow and the Greater London transport network,
reducing strain on the Central London transport network. The development
will be capable of attracting national and global inward investment
that will both develop the local labour supply and skills base
and provide enhanced access to employment for socially excluded
groups. The value this will bring to the immediate vicinity will
help enhance important industrial locations, such as Park Royal,
as an investment location and natural home to major blue-chip
companies.
As well as revitalising the local economy, this will
help to rebalance London by providing new employment opportunities
where they are most needed. HS2 will be the catalyst for regenerating
an area of London containing some of the most deprived communities
in England, supporting the creation of an estimated 20,000[1]
new jobs in west London and 10,000 new homes.[2]
2. How does HSR fit with the Government's
transport policy objectives?
2.1 HSR is designed to improve inter-urban
connectivity. How does that objective compare in importance to
other transport policy objectives and spending programmes, including
those for the strategic road network?
Cities have become fundamental to the UK economy
as traditional industries such as manufacturing decline and sectors
such as finance, culture, tourism and higher education, concentrate
within city centres have become more important. HSR offers unrivalled
possibilities to strengthen inter-urban connectivity and support
economic growth in these services, knowledge and consumption sectors.
It is vital that the strategic road network operates
efficiently, but investment in this network without corresponding
investment in rail would be likely to attract more road traffic,
negating any reductions in congestion resulting from the investment.
HSR can release capacity on the classic rail network, allowing
more freight trains to operate, thereby removing some lorry movements
from the strategic road network and improving the efficiency of
that network.
2.2 Focusing on rail, what would be the implications
of expenditure on HSR on funding for the "classic" network,
for example in relation to investment to increase track and rolling
stock capacity in and around major cities?
HSR in itself can be an effective method of increasing
capacity on the classic rail network, by removing some longer
distance trains. For example, towns such as Rugby and Milton Keynes
will benefit from the first phase of HS2, having more trains and
less crowded trains. Towns and cities on the classic network beyond
HS2 will benefit, with significant time savings on journeys between,
for example, Lancaster, Warrington, Preston and London, with further
benefits when the full Y-shaped network is introduced. HSR can
also release capacity for freight traffic (see response to Q6.3
below). HSR complements the classic rail network, and will reduce
the need for some of the investment in the latter, but it will
not eliminate it.
2.3 What are the implications for domestic
aviation?
High speed rail travel is a viable alternative to
short haul aviation routes and accordingly would benefit both
those travelling between the UK's major cities, and people living
close to air traffic hubs. For many years, for example, people
living on the west London flight paths to Heathrow have suffered
from significant noise pollution problems.
In the wake of recent decisions to limit the expansion
of both Heathrow and Stansted airports, and the impact of austerity
measures on the development of the road network, HS2 is the right
option for the future of long distance travel in the UK. Forecasts[3]
indicate that the total number of long distance (over 100 miles)
road, rail and air trips per person will increase by 36% between
2008 and 2043.
Being the UK's only international hub airport, the
direct link to Heathrow via HS2 will provide a viable alternative
for those in the north to access long haul flights.
3. Business case
3.1 How robust are the assumptions and methodology—for
example, on passenger forecasts, modal shifts, fare levels, scheme
costs, economic assumptions (eg about the value of time) and the
impact of lost revenue on the "classic" network?
We believe that the methodology used by the Department
for Transport is robust and conservative. Direct benefits of £32
billion have been identified with a further £1.6 billion
of wider benefits. This is a conservative estimate, as due to
the uncertain nature of the wider effects on the economy these
benefits are difficult to quantify. It is sometimes claimed that
people use time spent on trains productively (eg working with
laptops) and therefore the pursuit of shorter journey times is
not worthwhile. However, this is only true up to a point. Studies
in Europe have shown that a journey time of three hours or less
is necessary to enable rail to compete with air transport.
In any case, by enabling some people to transfer
from car to train, and enabling some existing rail passengers
who have to stand, where they cannot work, to have a seat, where
they can HS2 will increase the amount of productive use of travel
time.[4]
A conservative estimates of £2 billion for agglomeration
benefits. Businesses benefit financially from clustering together,
both in terms of actual distance and time. HS2 will bring businesses
in the north and Midlands closer to each other and to those in
London. Experience has shown from HSR in other countries that
the weaker economic regions gain more from this than the stronger
ones, for example the arrival of TGV in Lyon, significantly enhanced
the economic competitiveness of the city and wider region.[5]
Businesses that currently wish to tap into the London
markets tend to congregate within 60 to 80 minutes of London,
with back office functions of London firms being displaced to
areas within the same time. Bringing northern businesses within
these times will mean that they are better able to access London
markets while London businesses will have a greater range and
choice of service suppliers.
Gross Value Added (GVA), a key indicator of local
economic performance, is greater in areas closer to London, by
bringing more areas closer to London, HS2 will increase GVA.[6]
3.2 What would be the pros and cons of resolving
capacity issues in other ways, for example by upgrading the West
Coast Main Line or building a new conventional line?
Upgrading the West Coast Main Line is likely to cause
prolonged disruption to travellers, as was demonstrated by the
line's recent upgrade, which took much longer to complete and
cost much more than initial estimates suggested. Providing a new
conventional line would be unlikely to give the time savings for
longer journeys (London to Manchester, Newcastle, Edinburgh and
Glasgow) necessary to affect a significant transfer from air to
rail. Advanced rail technologies mean that High Speed Rail need
not consume more fuel than conventional rail. For example, the
latest Japanese Shinkansen trains (series 700) uses less energy
per seat than a West Coast Main Line Pendolino travelling 100
kilometres per hour slower.
3.3 What would be the pros and cons of alternative
means of managing demand for rail travel, for example by price?
Managing demand for rail travel by price would be
likely to increase travel by less environmentally sustainable
modes, ie car and air, and would have negative distributive effects
in that lower and middle income people would have less opportunity
to travel by train. The north/south divide would become more pronounced
as businesses in the northern regions would be less able to take
advantage of London's economic strengths, and resulting overcrowding
and congestion in London may in turn adversely affect the latter's
economic vitality.
3.4 What lessons should the Government learn
from other major transport projects to ensure that any new high
speed lines are built on time and to budget?
The government should study other major transport
projects, both in the UK and abroad, to see which ones have been
on time and on budget, and which ones haven't and why. This will
help them determine the common causal factors in each and follow
best practice. The West Coast Main Line upgrade is an example
of a project that ran over time and over budget, which may be
related to the fact that it involved working with an existing,
heavily-used railway. HSR, by providing new lines, will avoid
this difficulty. HS1 is a very relevant example of a project which
was delivered on time and on budget.
4. The strategic route
4.1 The proposed route to the West Midlands
has stations at Euston, Old Oak Common, Birmingham International
and Birmingham Curzon Street. Are these the best possible locations?
What criteria should be used to assess the case for more (or fewer)
intermediate stations?
The case for Old Oak Common station is overwhelming
given the unrivalled transport connections (Crossrail, Great Western
Main Line, Heathrow Express, with further links to the West London
Line, North London Line and Bakerloo tube). The interchange will
allow passengers to disperse—taking pressure off the main
London terminal at Euston—which is vital for a Central London
HS2 terminus to work. Without Old Oak the underground system will
not cope given that an HS2 train can carry 1,100 people, with
a frequency of 12 trains an hour.
The Old Oak interchange would also properly link
Heathrow to the rest of the transport network through the nation's
first truly integrated high-speed hub. Journey times to the airport
would be just 11 minutes. Approximately 90% of the London rail
network would be accessible from Old Oak Common either directly
or with just one change. It will be possible to connect to Paddington
with one stop on Crossrail thereby creating a link between HS2
and all points west (Bristol, S Wales, S West).[7]
Old Oak Common is very close to the West London line,
TfL and HS2 are looking at the options for direct connections,
including Gatwick and the south. A station at Old Oak Common would
also be compatible with a longer term station at Heathrow, which
could be served by a spur, and in the very longer term, by an
HS3 line to the west of England and South Wales.
4.2 Which cities should be served by an eventual
high speed network? Is the proposed Y configuration the right
choice?
The Y-shaped network will link the key cities of
London, Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Glasgow and
Edinburgh, as well as direct links to the HS1 line and into Heathrow
Airport, this will provide a real alternative to current road,
rail and air links. With demand for long-distance rail travel
rising, not only will HS2 increase rail capacity, easing overcrowding,
but it will slash journey times and enable the UK's key urban
economies to improve their productivity, attract new businesses,
and access more directly the economic strength of London and the
South East.
4.3 Is the Government correct to build the
network in stages, moving
from London northwards?
Building the network in this way makes sense by capitalising
on the existing HS1 line, allowing users travelling from the continent
to join up with the new HS2 line, and facilitating people from
all over London to access HS2 for direct high speed access to
Birmingham and beyond. For example, Canary Wharf to Leeds will
take just 1 hour 40 minutes. Given the issues with capacity on
the tube lines servicing Euston, the early construction of Old
Oak is key.
4.4 The Government proposes a link to HS1
as part of Phase 1 but a direct link to Heathrow only as part
of Phase 2. Are those the right decisions?
Yes. It makes sense to connect HS2 to the existing
HS1 line as part of Phase 1 of the project as connecting the south
east (and links to the continent) with the north of the country
has to be the priority for HS2. Moreover, demand for a high speed
link to Heathrow will naturally be stronger when the second phase
of the network—extending to Manchester and Leeds—is
in place. This is further supported by the fact that there is
still some work to do to agree the construction of the proposed
spur into a station at the airport that would allow HS2 services
to start at Heathrow and split on route to serve a number of destinations
in the Midlands, the North and Scotland.
5. Economic rebalancing and equity
5.1 What evidence is there that HSR will promote
economic regeneration and help bridge the north-south economic
divide?
The first phase of HS2 alone would support the creation
of more than 40,000 jobs[8]
and contribute to major regeneration programmes in Britain's inner
cities. None more so than Old Oak Common, which is located at
the eastern edge of Park Royal, within the Park Royal Opportunity
Area. Park Royal is the largest and most important industrial
location in London, employing around 40,000 people in over 2,000
companies across a 649 acre site.
Park Royal is identified in the Mayor of London's
planning framework as an Opportunity Area with the potential to
provide an attractive location for industry, business and logistics,
supported by mixed use developments at the gateways to the site.
Park Royal's long term sustainability is critical for the future
of London. There is obviously a significant opportunity to develop
further businesses across the 90 hectare site, and in the White
City and Earls Court Opportunity Areas directly to the south should
HS2 bring the Midlands, the North and Heathrow within easy reach.
5.2 To what extent should the shape of the
network be influenced by the desirability of supporting local
and regional regeneration?
HS2 will present an unparalleled regeneration opportunity
for Old Oak Common—a major inner city brownfield site in
an area greatly affected with employment and housing issues. The
fact that the scheme will enhance transport connectivity and exploit
the potential of significant underappreciated natural assets such
as the Grand Union Canal and Wormwood Scrubs without affecting
them adversely only goes to heighten the offer to prospective
residents, developers and businesses.
5.3 Which locations and socio-economic groups
will benefit from HSR?
A new station at Old Oak Common will transform a
part of London with employment rates well below national levels
and includes communities where over half of residents lack basic
qualifications[9]
necessary to compete in a modern labour market.
Located in the Western Wedge Growth Corridor (London
Plan), Old Oak Common is well positioned for future west London
development and urban growth opportunities. An interchange would
open up the opportunity of redeveloping 90 hectares of land situated
alongside the Grand Union Canal and produce a major increase in
accessibility to regeneration and opportunity areas at White City
and Earls Court.
While close to a number of prosperous neighbourhoods,
Old Oak contains some of the most deprived communities in England.
At the time of the last census only 55% of 16-74 year olds living
within 2km of the Old Oak site were in employment, falling to
47% for those living within 1km. Across much of the 2km zone between
20-39% of people aged between 16-79 did not hold level 2 qualifications
and overall Old Oak is in the bottom fifth of the most deprived
areas in Britain with one part of Old Oak falling within the 1%
of most deprived areas nationally[10]
It goes without saying that the projected 10.000 new homes and
20,000 new jobs created by the high speed rail station
would have a significant positive affect on the area.
5.4 How should the Government ensure that
all major beneficiaries of HSR (including local authorities and
business interests) make an appropriate financial contribution
and bear risks appropriately? Should the Government seek support
from the EU's TEN-T programme?
The EU's TEN-T programme would seem to be a logical
source of funding for the project. A CIL (Capital Infrastructure
Levy) should be devised to capture development gains from the
project, although this should not be set at such a high rate as
to threaten the viability of the development.
6. Impact
6.1 What will be the overall impact of HSR
on UK carbon emissions? How
much modal shift from aviation and roads would be needed for HSR
to reduce
carbon?
The overall impact of HS2 on UK carbon emissions
is estimated to be between 24 and 28 million tonnes over 60 years.[11]
This is dependent upon the level of reduction of car journeys
and flights that HS2 encourages and facilitates. The latter is
particularly relevant to journeys made from the North and Scotland
to London, and visa versa.
The extent to which the electricity powering the
high speed trains can be generated through low carbon technologies
such as nuclear and renewable sources is also a significant factor.
The lower figure of 24 million tonnes is based upon the most pessimistic
scenario of no improvement in the carbon efficiency of electricity
generation and no reduction in flights. Needless to say, given
transport accounts for 21% of UK carbon emissions and bearing
in mind high speed trains give rise to low CO2 emissions compared
to other transport, HS2 can only have a positive impact.
6.2 Are environmental costs and benefits (including
in relation to noise) correctly accounted for in the business
case?
Yes, although it is worth making the point that the
business case naturally concentrates on the noise generated by
the high speed trains, but there should also be some consideration
given to the noise generated by road and air traffic that will
be moderated as a result of HS2. Residents in Hammersmith and
Fulham, and other areas close to major airports such as Heathrow,
have long complained of noise pollution. Given HS2 will undoubtedly
persuade more people out of planes by providing an excellent alternative,
it should be recognised as part of the environmental benefit to
the country.
6.3 What would be the impact on freight services
on the "classic" network?
We believe that the impact on freight service on
the "classic" network will be positive, particularly
on the West Coast Main Line, which is Britain's busiest freight
route. By removing some of the longer distance passenger trains
from the WCML, HS2 will enable greater use of that line by freight
trains as well as medium distance passenger trains. In particular,
this could result in the growth of intermodal traffic which could
achieve a major switch away from road haulage.[12]
6.4 How much disruption will there be to services
on the "classic" network during construction, particularly
during the rebuilding of Euston?
This would depend on the detailed construction plan,
but one great advantage of a completely new line, as opposed to
piecemeal improvements to the "classic" rail network,
is less disruption. An example is the recent upgrading of the
West Coast Main Line, which caused major disruption to the classic
network.
There are several options to minimise the disruption
caused by the building of Euston, notably diverting some of its
services to other termini during the building works. The LSE RUS
recommends a second branch of Crossrail along the west coast main
line, eg via a connection in the Willesden Junction/Old Oak Common
area and if this were provided in advance of the HS2 works at
Euston, it could remove a large number of shorter distance services,
eg from Northampton and Milton Keynes, from Euston, enabling building
works to take place. Other options could include diverting some
of these trains into Waterloo via the West London Line, making
use of the disused international platforms there, or diverting
trains into Marylebone or Paddington via the Chiltern Line, or
St Pancras or Kings Cross via the North London Line.
May 2011
1 Source-Department for Transport "HS2 Consultation
Summary", p18 Back
2
Source-AECOM Design and Planning, 2009, "Old Oak Common:
Regeneration Case for a High Speed 2 Interchange", p114 Back
3
Source-Department for Transport "Economic Case for HS2",
p16 Back
4
Source-Urena, J, Menerault, P and Garmendia, M (2009). "The
high speed rail challenge for big intermediate cities: a national,
regional and local perspective" Cities Back
5
Source-Chia-Lin Chen, Peter Hall, (2009) The Impacts of High-Speed
Trains on British Economic Geography, UCL Back
6
Source-Chia-Lin Chen, Peter Hall, (2009) The Impacts of High-Speed
Trains on British Economic Geography, UCL Back
7
Reports by Lord Mawhinney (Jul '10) and David Ross et al (Jun
'10) concluded a route through Old Oak is the most cost effective
and practical solution for the initial London to Birmingham HS2
line. Back
8
Source-Department for Transport "HS2 Consultation Summary,"
p3 Back
9
Source-Census 2001 Back
10
Source-Census 2001 Back
11
Source-Department for Transport "HS2 Consultation Carbon
Factsheet", p2 Back
12
Source-Greengauge 21 report "High Speed Rail: Capturing the
Benefits of HS2 on Existing Lines", p15 Back
| 
