Written evidence from Campaign for Better
Transport (HSR 161)
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Campaign for Better Transport has been involved
in the debates on the merits of the proposals for the HS2 route
from London to Birmingham and beyond since they were initially
developed by the last government. Campaign for Better Transport
chief executive Stephen Joseph is a member of the HS2 challenge
group and we have also worked with a range of other environmental
organisations to coordinate responses to the proposals and to
arrange meetings with officials and ministers.
1.2 There is a tendency for much of the debate
on HS2 to be dominated by those backing the idea of high speed
rail on the one hand (who can be less concerned with discussion
of alternatives in the desire to see the scheme through) and those
opposed at all costs to the proposals (often because they are
directly affected but using wider arguments to try to oppose the
plans). With other organisations, we have focussed on the details
of what is being proposed and are backing the Right Lines Charter
Group's work to ensure that if high speed rail proposals do go
ahead, then they are done well.
1.3 Campaign for Better Transport's focus generally
is more on people's everyday transport and, in the context of
rail, that services are accessible, affordable and convenient.
There is a danger that too much focus on the new proposals for
high speed rail will deflect attention away from the improvements
we need on the existing "classic" railway.
1.4 Our initial work on high speed rail was informed
by five priorities for any proposals for high speed rail. These
were that the Government should:
Prioritise
investment in existing public and local transport and ensure that
high speed rail does not abstract funding from these.
Use
high speed rail to shift existing trips from planes and cars,
not generate new ones.
Use
pricing to encourage people to choose raillower train fares
and increased taxes on short distance flights are needed.
Include
a moratorium on airport expansion and major road development.
Integrate
the high speed line with wider planning and regeneration.
Avoid
or if absolutely necessary mitigate impacts on environmentally
sensitive sites and protect tranquil areas.
2. RIGHT LINES
CHARTER GROUP
PROPOSALS
2.1 Campaign for Better Transport is a member
of the Right Lines Charter Group, which is a grouping of environmental
NGOs seeking to ensure that if high speed rail proposals are to
go ahead, they are done well. We have worked closely with the
Campaign to Protect Rural England in the development of the Charter,
including organising a recent meeting with Secretary of State
Philip Hammond. The Charter[259]
sets out four priorities for high speed rail:
Principle
1. National Strategy: High Speed Rail proposals need to
be set in the context of a long-term transport strategy stating
clear objectives.
Principle
2. Testing the Options: Major infrastructure proposals,
such as High Speed Rail, need to be "future-proofed"
by comprehensive testing against different scenarios. This will
help identify the best solutions for genuinely furthering sustainable
development.
Principle
3. Public Participation: Early public involvement in the
development of major infrastructure proposals, including High
Speed Rail, is essential. People need to be involved when all
options are open for discussion and effective participation can
take place.
Principle
4. Minimising Adverse Impacts: High Speed Rail proposals
need to be designed from the start to avoid significant adverse
impacts on the natural environment, cultural heritage and local
communities (including biodiversity, landscape, tranquillity and
access) during construction and operation.
3. NATIONAL TRANSPORT
STRATEGY AND
THE BUSINESS
CASE FOR
HS2
3.1 Campaign for Better Transport has called
for a clearer national transport strategy for a number of years.
Decisions about transport investments, particularly when the sums
involved are of the scale of tends of billions of pounds over
a number of decades, must be clearly part of a coherent national
strategy rather than merely justified on the basis of a benefit
cost ratio (BCR).
3.2 Both proponents and critics of HS2 have focused
on the published business case and its assessment of time savings,
demand forecasts and carbon savings. The reality of HS2 is that
the numbers are inherently unreliable. They are based on business
as usual forecasts extrapolating past trends, which for a long
term business case will inevitably not prove accurate.
3.3 For example, higher oil prices will drive
up rail demand beyond the level assumed in the business plan,
while extra rail capacity, if used for railfreight or local passenger
trains, will help reduce carbon beyond the HS2 forecasts, especially
if allied with supportive planning policies and less rather than
more roads and runways. The time savings values are also spurious
and we have criticised reliance on them in transport appraisal
more generally.
3.4 The real question for HS2 is how it fits
with a wider package of policies in a coherent transport strategy.
It is difficult to make assumptions about HS2 without clarity
on what will happen to roads, airports, planning, local public
transport, lorry charging, aviation taxes and other Government
policies. The business case does address this to some extent with
a short discussion on scenarios based on changes in relative pricing
and this should be subject to wider discussion than it has been.
4. REMAINING
QUESTIONS FOR
HIGH SPEED
RAIL
4.1 The plans for HS2 still need to do more to
demonstrate that the line will result in a real shift to rail
from driving and flying and, as a result, cut carbon emissions
from transport. Transport produces a fifth of our domestic emissions
and is still the sector where little fundamental progress on carbon
has been made. The Department for Transport's model for the first
phase of the high speed network suggests that there will be just
a one per cent drop in motorway traffic as a result with most
trips on the new line being from those who would otherwise have
travelled on the old west coast mainline. Not surprisingly, the
best that this scenario can do is to be "broadly carbon neutral".
4.2 But the scale of the climate change challenge
requires us to do much more - particularly with HS2's price tag
running into the tens of billions. To do this, the government
has to do three things. Firstly, it must continue to invest in
the existing (or "classic") rail network. Secondly,
it needs to enable investment in local sustainable transport access
to stations. And thirdly, it must introduce complimentary measures
to make rail more attractive than driving or flying.
4.3 Philip Hammond has recognised in public statements
that spending on HS2 needs to be additional to continued investment
in the classic network. The confirmation of electrification to
Cardiff is a good sign. Spending on rail has been maintained in
this CP4 spending period (if at the expense of massive rises in
most ticket prices). But the real challenge will be after 2015
when the main costs of HS2 will come in and when it will compete
with other schemes that have been "moved to the right"
in the next CP5 investment period. To cut carbon, the government
must continue with further electrification of lines in this period
and in growing the railways.
4.4 Continued investment in rail is also essential
if the benefits of the "liberated capacity" on the West
Coast Mainline are to be fully realised. Released capacity could
deliver benefits for passengers,[260]
for instance through new timetabling to enable more services and
investment in improved links and lines like the proposed East
West rail link, and could help deliver increased freight usage.
This requires continued support for rail freight, for instance
by ensuring that the new National Planning Policy Framework for
spatial planning supports the development of rail freight depots.
4.5 Using the planning system to foster growth
and locate new development (such as warehousing and housing) to
take advantage of these extra services would increase the benefits
from HS2, which are not currently taken account of in DfT's business
case.
4.6 New stations on the high speed route must
be accessible by public transport if they are not to add to congestion
and carbon. Local transport investment has been significantly
scaled back to 2015 but new stations need to be linked to existing
and improved local transport networks, as well as being easily
accessible for those coming on foot or by bike. Providing investment
for local transport improvements will be key and will help avoid
overloading already stretched local transport services. The new
stations for the second phase of HS2 should be located close to
existing city centres rather than in stand-alone parkway stations.
4.7 Both high speed rail and classic rail must
be attractive in terms of pricing relative to flying and driving.
Since 1997 the cost of motoring has fallen by seven per cent in
real terms and the cost of flights within the UK fell by a third.
Rail fares rose by 17% over the same period, and will now rise
even faster with the Government's decision for most fares to rise
by 3% above the RPI inflation rate.
4.8 The detailed business case published with
the HS2 consultation shows that if rail fares continue to rise,
its benefits will be much less - so much less that they will be
outweighed by the costs of the project. Campaign for Better Transport's
Fair Fares Now campaign shows the strength of feeling from those
facing fare rises.
5. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
5.1 On public participation, we are aware that
the Government's view is that there are limits to the changes
that can be made now for this phase, given the need to avoid further
blight and stay within the current timetable for delivery. We
remain seriously concerned, however, about the limitations of
the current approach to public consultation on the route. Campaign
for Better Transport will continue to raise concerns about the
preferred route, but we would also be keen to explore what options
are available in practice to changes in design and alignment on
this section to avoid the valuable and sensitive sites and places
that are currently likely to be affected.
5.2 On the second phase, we believe that in looking
north of Birmingham, it would be worth considering ways of planning
and public engagement that are different and more inclusive than
the way in which phase one has been done. There is a tension between
being open and inclusive in planning the route and the need to
avoid casting blight over a wide area but the Government should
explore the options for early engagement, with reference to good
practice in other countries and on other major infrastructure
projects in this country including HS1.
6. ACCESS TO
HEATHROW
6.1 Campaign for Better Transport agrees with
Lord Mawhinney's conclusion in his report[261]
for the Department for Transport that a Heathrow link is not necessary
at this stage and that the existing rail network is used to link
Heathrow with high-speed rail connecting London with other British
cities and the rest of Europe.
6.2 We also believe that the question of HSR
connections to Heathrow is linked to whether there is a full link
and through trains between HS2 and HS1. This will enlarge the
market where rail can substitute for air to include journeys between
the UK regions and near-Europe destinations.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 HS2 could deliver the step-change in travel
that we need to cut carbon and support the future needs of the
economy, but it must be part of an overall strategy to shift to
rail for many journeys. A decision to go-ahead with this level
of spending needs wider support. Failure to demonstrate how HS2
fits into an overall strategy for transport will risk losing green
groups as a key element of that wider support.
7.2 However, critics of the proposals need to
address how the increase in demand for travel for the BirminghamLondon
route will be met. Even if there is little change in the split
of modes for travel on the BirminghamLondon route, demand
for rail travel on this route will outstrip the capacity of the
existing network. If there are policies to restrain demand for
car and air travel (and even with policies to reduce the need
to travel overall), there will still be a need to address the
capacity issue and this would be likely to lead to an overall
rise in the demand for rail travel.
May 2011
259 See http://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/transport/item/download/531
for details of the Charter Back
260
See Capturing the benefits of HS2 on existing lines, Greengauge,
February 2011 Back
261
High speed rail access to Heathrow: a report by Lord Mawhinney,
Department for Transport, July 2010 Back
|