High-speed rail – we have to get it right

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Investment in high-speed rail could be a better option than continual expansion of motorways and aviation. But, warns Stephen Joseph, executive director of Campaign for Better Transport, it must be balanced against wider issues

We have seen a new unity among the three main parties in their commitment to building a high-speed rail line from London to the north. Yet as recently as December 2006, a government report rejected the idea, saying there was no evidence that major new rail infrastructure was needed. What happened?

First, people could see a high-speed link in reality when the Channel Tunnel Rail Link to St Pancras opened in November 2007. This began a debate about the UK lagging behind other countries. Second, a convergence of forces has supported the high-speed rail option; these can be summed up as capacity, aviation and Lord Adonis. Capacity: Despite all the criticisms levelled at the rail network, its use has been growing rapidly: even during the recession. Many lines and trains are full, and commuter trains round cities are massively overcrowded. So the question of how to grow capacity is becoming an urgent one, and new lines are a favourite way forward. Making them high speed is seen as inevitable – but the need for capacity is the lynchpin that makes the case for spending money.

Aviation: Expanding aviation is controversial and strongly opposed by environ-mental groups. Labour is committed to supporting expansion plans, while the Conservatives are committed to oppose the expansion of Heathrow and have announced their support for a high-speed line from London to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and possibly the North East and Scotland, and have worked on how to finance and progress it. Lord Adonis: The government's cool approach to high-speed rail changed abruptly with the arrival at the Department for Transport of Lord Adonis, who has always wanted to pursue it. The government announced its support for a third Heathrow runway in January 2009, but at the same time Adonis secured agreement to set up High Speed 2 and has been at pains to get widespread support for his proposals.

At first sight, high-speed rail looks attractive – future growth in inter-city demand should be by rail rather than expanding motorways or domestic aviation. But five key issues must be resolved:
• HSR plans must prioritise investment in existing public and local transport. It is unclear where £30bn or more for high-speed trains is to come from. A high-speed line must not suck funding away from the existing rail network and everyday transport. We do not want to emulate the French experience of gleaming high-speed trains paired with a shabby and neglected conventional network. High-speed rail must not detract from the imperative to lower fares, buy new trains, electrify lines, build or reopen lines and stations, and provide better bus services.
• HSR plans must include a moratorium on airport expansion and major road development. On some figures, high-speed trains can be almost twice as polluting as conventional ones. The London- Birmingham section could result in a range of CO2 impacts, including an increase of 27m tonnes over 60 years. Yet the Climate Change Act requires CO2 reductions of 80 per cent by 2050. Spending £30bn for no reduction in CO2 raises questions about value for money. Therefore HSR must be an alternative to a third runway at Heathrow and other airport expansion.
• HSR must integrate the high-speed line with wider planning and regeneration. High speed rail could strengthen city centres (as it has in other countries), or it could lead to development around parkways, adding to congestion and undermining regeneration.
• HSR must mitigate impacts on environmentally sensitive sites. There is deep concern about the proposed routing of the line through the Chilterns, and impact in the vale of Aylesbury and Warwickshire. The government must explain why it has not used existing transport corridors. High-speed rail must be part of a package that reduces carbon emissions and protects biodiversity and landscape.
• HSR must shift existing trips from planes and cars, not generate new ones, and use pricing to encourage people to choose rail. Pricing and taxation needs to ensure that high-speed rail costs less than flying or driving and that a new line is accompanied by measures to restrain short-distance flights and long- distance motoring. All parties say they want high-speed rail to be affordable. In practice, however, the temptation to jack up fares may be too great.

All these tests suggest that high-speed rail needs to be part of a wider package of measures. It will require integration of rail with wider planning policy, local transport investment and economic development strategies.