Written evidence from the London Borough
of Camden (HSR 134)
Whilst the Transport Select Committee will be examining
specific issues as set out in the terms of reference there are
a number of significant concerns that Camden will be making representation
on in our response to the HS2 consultation undertaken by DfT.
These will be forwarded to the Select Committee before 29 July
2011 and the committee is urged to give this detailed assessment
full consideration.
4. The Strategic Route
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?
1. Euston—The proposed main terminus of
HS2 is at Euston which was selected by HS2 Ltd following their
assessment of 27 locations across London including Paddington,
Kings Cross, St Pancras, Old Oak Common, Stratford and Liverpool
Street. The HS2 Ltd requirements for a terminus included the provision
of sufficient space for 10 high speed platforms, access and dispersal
areas, good public transport links and minimal impact on surrounding
area. HS2 Ltd has not provided sufficient detail or justification
as to why alternative locations for the terminus were discounted.
As a result, there is currently insufficient evidence to take
an informed view as to whether Euston is the most appropriate
location for that terminus.
2. It should be noted that prior to HS2 proposals,
TfL and Network Rail were working on options to redevelop Euston
station to address the existing overcrowding within the station.
It is likely that a project to provide additional station capacity
would have increased the station footprint (but to a significantly
lesser extent than HS2 propose and only to the south). The HS2
proposals at Euston would mean demolition of existing buildings
(between 190 and 350 Council homes), loss of designated open space,
and major construction disruptions over many years. These impacts
are clearly significant and of great concern for affected communities
and businesses.
3. The HS2 proposals would lead to all platforms
and train lines at Euston to be lowered to below ground level
and the ground level would become a large area for development
(approximately 65% the size of King's Cross Central). Should the
project go ahead HS2 future proposals would need to include space
to re-provide homes for people displaced, provide new homes, employment
opportunities, shops and new open space.
4. Whilst the principle of providing a central
London terminus for HS2 may have passenger benefits, there is
currently insufficient evidence to take an informed view as to
whether Euston is the most appropriate location for that terminus
or that the benefits would outweigh the significant negative impacts
on the local community. Should HS2 go ahead, there are a number
of issues that will need to be addressed, such as re-provision
of housing and designated open space.
5. A further important issue would be the onward
distribution of HS2 passengers potentially coming into Euston.
Analysis undertaken as part of developing the Central London Transport
Plan shows that whilst additional capacity is currently being
provided on the transport network this will soon be absorbed by
the increased demand as a result of population and employment
growth and consequently there will still be significant pressure
points on the network. Therefore how the onward journeys are
going to be accommodated and any upgrades funded, is a key consideration
as to whether Euston is the right location for the HS2 terminus.
Potential solutions that could accommodate the likely future demand
at Euston would be the implementation of Crossrail 2 (Chelsea-Hackney
line) and the DLR extension between Bank and Euston to address
the effective dispersal of passengers. These need to included
in and funded from any business case associated with High Speed
rail at Euston before any decision to proceed is made.
6. Old Oak Common—The case for Old Oak
Common as a terminus would remove the need for significant demolition
and disruption at Euston as well as reducing the overall project
costs significantly. The Council recognises that TfL have undertaken
assessments that highlight concerns about Crossrail having sufficient
capacity to cope with the extra passenger demand from HS2 between
Old Oak Common, Paddington and Central London. Further consideration
is required by TfL and HS2 Ltd to resolve if Old Oak Common would
be an appropriate terminus for HS2.
7. The option for an intermediate station at
Old Oak Common provides an opportunity to provide good connections
to the High Speed and classic rail network without the need for
some passengers to use Euston, the Underground or other rail termini.
The HS2 proposals would see services on both First Great Western
and Heathrow Express stopping at Old Oak Common providing direct
connections to Heathrow and the west. An Old Oak Common station
would help to reduce crowding at Paddington and Euston. The station
is also proposed to have an interchange with Crossrail and the
North London Line which has further benefits for passengers and
congestion relief on the Underground.
8. There are some concerns that providing a station
at Old Oak Common would detract from the case to increase the
use of Stratford International for High Speed services. However,
Stratford station does not provide the same connectivity or congestion
relief for passengers to/from the west of London.
9. There is a good case for an intermediate and
interchange station at Old Oak Common and there should be further
consideration by TfL and HS2 Ltd to resolve if Old Oak Common
would be an appropriate terminus for HS2.
Is the Government correct to build the network
in stages, moving from London northwards?
10. The existing West Coast Main Line (WCML)
serving Birmingham and Manchester is already overcrowded despite
recent major enhancements. The overwhelming existing passenger
demand is from and to London rather than between other regional
cities. Therefore there is a clear logic to build the network
in stages starting in London to relieve the pressure on the WCML.
11. It is vital that if the proposals were to
go ahead that the construction phasing does not result in any
significant periods of line closures as these local services provide
essential transport links for people to access employment and
local services. In addition the construction phases, should HS2
proceed, need to be co-ordinated with other upgrade/maintenance
works to the transport infrastructure, such as the underground
upgrades, so that a level of service to all areas is maintained
throughout.
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?
12. HS2/HS1 link—The council is concerned
about the proposal by HS2 to connect HS1 via the North London
Line (NLL). The current proposal would have a single track tunnel
from Old Oak Common and then use track on the NLL. This could
impact on capacity and services on the NLL which may need to be
reduced to accommodate high speed trains.
13. The NLL has seen considerable investment
in recent years to upgrade capacity and reliability on the line.
The recent upgrade to rolling stock and infrastructure has contributed
to significant extra demand which is forecast to increase. There
are concerns about the impact on constraining future capacity
enhancements to the NLL. There is concern about the impact
of the proposed link on the NLL service patterns and the degree
of alteration which would be needed to the existing NLL to allow
the operation of High Speed trains. This could involve bridge
or tunnel widening or additional track side infrastructure.
The impact of these proposals on Camden's other transports networks
(eg the strategic route network, footpaths, cycle paths, bus services)
and development sites (eg Hawley wharf) and open spaces adjacent
to the line is not currently clear and needs to be incorporated
into any proper assessment of the HS1 link.
14. Analysis undertaken by London Rail shows
that with the existing infrastructure only one high speed train
per hour would be able to use this link. However, the current
proposal by HS2 is to allow three trains per hour to connect to
HS1 at substantial cost. The issues are:
— There
is no detail on the demand analysis for through running trains.
The analysis needs to clearly demonstrate the benefits of such
a direct link outweigh the costs and impacts on the local community.
— Lack
of consideration of a link that would not impact on the NLL and
allow HS2 and HS1 to link to a wider domestic high speed network
in the future.
— Providing
the HS2/HS1 link via a single track on the NLL provides no resilience
in the network and alternative options should be considered that
provides a resilient network and provides a network to future
standards.
— Further
technical details are needed on the link to fully understand its
impacts including: its alignment, specifications and impact on
bridges and structures. It is understood that HS2 Ltd are undertaking
further work on how this link would be delivered. However, this
it is understood that this level of detail will not be available
before the closing date for the public consultation responses.
15. The council's preference is that if the proposals
were to go ahead that a link between HS1 and HS2 is provided that
is able to cope with future passenger demand and to enable a more
comprehensive High Speed network in the future. As part of this
the it is essential that businesses cases for additional network
investment, both on existing networks (eg reinstate plans to extend
four tracks to Camden Road) and the possible Crossrail 2 and DLR
extension from Bank to Euston are considered alongside HS2, not
in isolation. In the absence of this the HS proposal will have
significant negative impacts.
16. In addition agencies such as Central Government,
GLA, London Councils and London Boroughs will need to work together
to understand the wider development of the UK's and London transport
network to maximise the network benefits of HS2 not just for High
Sped Rail. For example improvements to local and inter-regional
services should be delivered at the same time as creating a HS2/HS1
link.
17. Heathrow link—There is a clear rationale
for providing an interchange to Heathrow via Old Oak Common rather
than a direct link on HS2. These issues are as follows:
— A station
at Heathrow would increase journey times for all through passengers.
— The
Old Oak Common interchange would enable HS2 to connect with the
Heathrow Express and Crossrail which would be high frequency and
provide a relatively fast journey time at a significantly reduced
cost than a direct HS2 link.
— An
additional station at Old Oak Common would relieve the pressure
on Euston as not all passengers on HS2 would go into central London.
— Those
passengers who are most likely to transfer to high speed rail
from air are unlikely to be influenced by how HS2 serves Heathrow
(ie Heathrow is not a destination in itself).
— It
is not certain that passengers who currently fly from regional
airports to Heathrow in order to transfer to long haul flights
would necessarily switch to high speed rail for this part of their
journey. In addition, given that HS2 is already planned to serve
Birmingham International the case for connecting Heathrow Airport
is far from clear.
18. In future the case for a direct link from
HS2 to Heathrow as part of phase 2 may be greater, however, at
this time it is understood that the HS2 Ltd's modelling results
for phase 2 are not available. Therefore there remains a case
to include passive provision for such a link as part of a later
phase.
5. Economic Rebalancing and equity
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?
19. If the HS2 project progresses it should be
primarily funded by the Government using private finance initiative
from a combination of long-term train operating contracts and
maintenance contracts in a similar method to that used to finance
HS1. A significant portion of the funding for the project should
also be sought from Europe as HS2 would be a key element of an
efficient trans-European transport network which is a key element
in the relaunched Lisbon strategy for competitiveness and employment
in Europe. If Europe is to fulfill its economic and social potential,
it is essential to build the missing links and remove the bottlenecks
in our transport infrastructure, as well as to ensure the sustainability
of our transport networks into the future. Funding from fares
is also a likely to be a key element of the financing package.
20. Camden has strong concerns about the Government
introducing a development tariff similar to the Crossrail levy.
Current experience shows that the Crossrail levy is already impacting
on our ability to provide affordable homes which is a major concern
for the Council for many years to come. A similar levy for HS2
would severely restrict our ability to address the affordable
homes issue over the longer term which would have negative impacts
on London's residents and workforce. In addition, the funding
of HS2 is likely to draw funding away from other transport improvements
eg investment in tube and station upgrades.
21. Other suggestions for financing HS2 should
include additional passenger aviation taxes on short haul flights
covered by High Speed Rail. This would have the added benefit
of encouraging a greater shift to HS1 and HS2 thereby increasing
their profitability.
22. It is vital that the funding for HS2 adequately
takes into account the required investment in the area most impacted
by the changed Euston Station, and in the wider impacts upon the
London transport system—including local public realm and
walking and cycling links. In transport terms this infrastructure
need would include ensuring that all related public transport
infrastructure projects are fully funded by any High Speed rail
proposal.
6. Impact
23. Overall impact of high speed rail on carbon
emissions—There is no definitive information on the environmental
case for or against HS2 that assesses environmental impacts on
HS2 against business as usual or alternative transport options,
taking account of all whole life cost impacts and benefits. Therefore
further, detailed analysis taking into account all of the factors
needs to be completed. Therefore at this stage the case does not
appear to be made.
24. Impact on existing services at Euston during
construction—HS2 proposes to undertake the redevelopment
of Euston in phases to minimise disruption to existing services
and passengers and to keep the station operating. As a result,
the proposal is to extend the station to the west initially to
provide temporary platforms for the existing services to operate
whilst the remaining platforms and new station were constructed.
A similar phased approach was taken to the construction at St
Pancras which broadly worked well. Camden would want to see details
of the construction programme, as currently there is no indication
of how the work would be phased and for how much of the seven
to eight year programme services to and from Euston will be impacted.
Camden would want to ensure that passengers and residents are
not adversely affected during construction.
25. During the construction phase and in the
longer term there are concerns about the impact of HS2 on the
"classic" services between Watford and Euston. Should
the project progress, there would need to be a high degree of
confidence that there would be no significant negative impacts
on these suburban services as they provide vital transport links.
In addition there are links to the underground network as if
these overground services were not provided these passengers would
be displaced onto the underground network, which is already operating
at capacity.
26. Whilst the terms of reference for the Transport
Select Committee specifically ask a question regarding the level
of disruption during the construction of HS2 there are potential
longer term impacts on services operating to and from Euston as
a result of HS2 proposals. A potential negative consequence of
the HS2 proposal is that the overall capacity at Euston and on
the approach for WCML services will be reduced. The potential
for conflict between trains arriving and departing could increase
resulting in delay and reduced reliability.
27. Impact on the Euston area—The construction
of the proposed Euston Station will mean significant negative
impacts on the lives of residents and the viability of businesses
in the Euston Area. This threatens the overall functioning of
Euston as a place and the potential blight arising from the proposals
will stymie investment prior to and during construction. This
will be to the detriment of the communities in and around the
proposed station.
CONCLUSION
28. Camden opposes the HS2 and the terminus at
Euston Station. There would be negative impacts on residents including
the loss of people's homes, businesses and communities in the
area. The proposals are not justified in transport or impact terms.
There is also inadequate information to explain how an unacceptable
impact on the existing public transport network would be addressed.
Given this lack of evidence and the scale of the negative impacts
in the Euston area the case for to terminating the High Speed
line here is not made. In addition long-term projects of this
type carry a risk of planning blight, Euston and the surrounding
area would be negatively impacted.
29. The proposal from HS2 Ltd does not provide
adequate detail or a full comparison of the alternatives which
include expanding and enhancing the existing rail network on an
incremental basis. A proper assessment of the costs and benefits
of upgrading the West Coast Mainline should be undertaken which
includes:
— Optimising
existing capacity by converting some first class carriages to
standard class at peak times.
— Operating
longer trains, without major infrastructure expenditure.
— Infrastructure
modifications to selected bottlenecks to increase frequencies.
— Investment
into platform lengthening, track reconfiguration and additional
platforms where required.
30. Were high speed rail to progress as currently
proposed then Camden would need to be convinced that the following
needs are addressed at no cost to the Council.
— The
replacement of and an increase in the number of affordable homes
which are currently proposed to be demolished.
— An
improvement in the quality of homes re-provided.
— The
funding of all infrastructure upgrades required as a result of
HS2.
— Re-provision
of open space.
— Funding
to improve impacted schools.
— Funding
for resident support during process, such as West Euston Partnership
model.
— A large
number of apprenticeships and jobs created for local people.
May 2011
| 
