Some may say "Well its alright for you, you won't have it at the bottom of your garden" This is quite true, but anyone who knows me, will know that I have both the Midland Mainline Railway and the M1 at the bottom of my garden, so I know a little about the subject of noise, pollution and disruption. If I had the choice, I'd much rather have the railway (which is one of the UK's busiest) than a road. It is impossible to sleep with the windows open at the back of the house for the noise and there is a huge amount of dust and grime, which is primarily from the diesel vehicles on the road. Hopefully when the Midland Mainline electrification is completed, then the diesel trains that work long distance services will all but disappear. Even so, the 15 or so diesel trains an hour that pass through are nothing compared to the 20 lorries a minute, in terms of pollution and noise.
When it comes to HS2, there are quite a few considerations. When it comes to trying to work out the environmental justification of any project, there are quite a few factors to consider. Here is my take on it.
1. Does the UK need a new railway to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds?
When I started to research this article, I started with a quick google of the question "Do we need HS2". I have to admit that I was disappointed with the quality of the articles arguing against HS2. For example, the Taxpayers Alliance state "What the North possibly needs is not better connections to London and the South East, but better connections between its own cities. Indeed, according to a report published by a House of Lords committee, ‘there is a strong case’ for prioritising investment in northern east-west transport links over investment in south-north links. Arguably, whatever is left of that £55.7 billion could be put to much better use. "
This is a poor argument. Of course we need better links across NW/NE England. A high speed line between Leeds/Sheffield/Manchester/Liverpool would be highly beneficial and I doubt any HS2 supporter would argue against this. This is however a completely different argument to whether we need HS2. Given the money that has already been spent, to call a halt and start again, would simply demonstrate that the UK is incapable of delivering large infrastructure projects. You can always make a strong case for competing projects. What the Taxpayers Alliance singularly fail to do is make the case that there is no requirement for extra capacity between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Having a son at Manchester University and a daughter at Leeds, I travel to both cities regularly, by both car and train. The M1/M6 corridor is log jammed. The trains are packed. There are clear economic cases for the new services. Although HS2terminates in London, it will transform travel from Leeds and Manchester to Birmingham, which is the UK's second city. The taxpayers alliance remit should be to ensure that public money is wisely spent on infrastructure projects. Given that this railway will be a permanent fixture for the lifetime of anyone reading this article there is a long term benefit, but if it is not built will simply be a waste of the billions already spent. The Taxpayers Alliance is actually arguing for a massive waste of taxpayers money.
Another article I read was one written by the StopHS2 campaign. They state "It is true that any new railway will increase capacity, but unlike alternative rail programmes, HS2 would not deliver any incremental gains: it is all or nothing with no additional capacity being delivered until Phase 1 is expected to be completed in 2027. But the reality is that overcrowding is worst on commuter and regional trains and other major rail corridors into London are closer to their capacity limits. The bottom line is that HS2 would deliver capacity where it is least needed at a far higher cost than alternative ways of increasing the number of both seats and trains." The argument that HS2 should be cancelled because it won't deliver any capacity until it is finished is a fundamentally weak argument. Of course there are plenty of other schemes that would deliver benefits in a shorter timescale, but these deliver nothing like the extra capacity. Once opened, there will be far more train paths on the existing routes for stopping services, freight and cross country trains. The need for express trains from Euston to Manchester and Birmingham over the existing lines, limits the number of slower stopping services on these lines.
Much as it may not suite the arguments of those opposing HS2, there is a strong case that HS2 will address many of the problems. The Stop HS2 Campaign state as a 'fact' "It has also been said that HS2 is needed to increase freight capacity. If space for freight is needed, why build a railway which will not carry freight?" It could not be clearer that they do not understand the benefits of segregating high speed trains and slower commuter and freight services. By shifting express trains to the new route, far more freight and slower services can be run on the existing infrastructure.
From an environmental perspective, there is a requirement for more transport capacity between London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Given that the existing rail lines are full, this means that the options are either a new railway, more roads or more flights. Of these choices, a new railway is by far the most environmentally favourable.
Is it worth the damage?
Any new road, railway or airport takes a heavy toll on the local environment. We have to ask "is it worth it?". When we look at HS2, we have to say "what is the alternative?". There are several. We could have lower economic growth. The Green Party and the Extinction Rebellion protester argue that we should look at travelling less. I don't think there has ever been a proper debate about how we could redraw our lifestyles to devour less of the planets resources. It may well be that teleconferencing, working from home, etc will reduce the need for such transport links and I would support any government that offered incentives companies to do this. But given that there is no data at all indicating whether this could remove the need for HS2, it would be an act of negligence not to plan with the estimates we have based on the existing models. The stop HS2 campaign state that the route would simply cause more commuter villages to spring up, taking advantage of lower prices further out of town. There is little recognition that these commuters create wealth, jobs and opportunities locally. By definition they will be in well paid jobs and will need shops and local services. It would be far better if we had a planning system that took a holistic view of such developments and ensured they worked for the existing local populace, but this is an issue for local govt, rather than HS2 planners.
The route will undoubtedly cause a huge amount of damage to local eco systems. This is true of every road, railway and airport. It is also true that every car and lorry on the road and every new air route also has an environmental cost. Trains are the most energy efficient method of getting people from A to B and electricity is the only form of energy that can be generated without creating by products that are bad for the environment (not that most of it is currently). With regenerative breaking and modern design, trains have the lowest carbon footprint of any mode of long distance travel. Is it worth the damage that the route will cause to benefit from this? On balance my view is yes. As we move to a carbon neutral world, I suspect the investment will become even more justifiable.
Is there an alternative?
There are lots of alternatives. I don't like the route of phase 2 at all. If it had been down to me, phase 1 would have been a High Speed link between Leeds/Sheffield and Manchester/Liverpool. Phase 2 would have been from Manchester to London via Birmingham. I would have preferred the Midland Mainline to have been fully electrified and upgraded as far as Leeds, with the route to Manchester via Matlock/Buxton reopened and electrified. I would have seriously investigated the proposal to reopen the Great Central Railway as a freight/commuter route to free up capacity on the West Coast mainline. I suspect that ultimately we will end up doing all of these and we will have done them in the wrong order, but we are where we are. Cancelling HS2 would simply mean we've spent £4.1 billion on nothing. The bird has flown and we are past the stage where it would be sensible to go back to the drawing board.
Will HS2 ever pay the investment back?
Until humans wipe themselves out, develop the art of teleporting, or decide that they'd rather sit in their house all day watching TV and writing blogs, we will need transport. The anti HS2 protesters are claiming that it will cost far more than the £57 billion current estimates. Lets assume it costs £100 billion. That is a huge amount of money. Lets assume that the line is used for 100 years, that means it has cost a billion a year, that is a huge cost. But lets look at the benefits. First of all, that £100 billion has been mostly spent in the UK and has added to our GDP. Every worker on the project pays taxes, shops in shops etc. It will create jobs and better technology. It makes the UK a better place to do business. My belief is that one way or another we will get the investment back in droves. The income from passengers is just one aspect of the payback. If you look at the amazing regeneration of St Pancras and Kings Cross, you will see just how well rail led regeneration projects can transform an area. The Institute of Charted Engineers stated in 2013 that HS2 would boost GDP by £15 billion a year. As such the £1 billion a year cost seems like a bargain. Even if they are out by 50% that is a huge benefit.
Why are we building a High Speed Railway?
Groups such as StopHS2 claim that the we don't need High Speed trains and that most high speed lines are 'expensive white elephants'. It would seem to me that if you are building a new line, to a selection of destinations that there are already several mixed traffic routes operating to, then it makes sense to make the line a specialised service. Given that routes such as the West Coast Line and Midland Mainline already have freight and slow services and will continue to have them, moving the fastest services seems a logical step. Having trains travelling at the same speeds rather than a mix of fast and slow services creates more capacity on both lines. Once you have decided to have a dedicated fast service, then it would be perverse to not try and achieve the fastest speed possible. High Speed Rail is not new, the Japanese have been doing it since the early 1960's. The French have an amazing High Speed network. It makes sense to make rail travel a viable and fast alternative to cars and air travel. This will support the environmental case for the railway.
Should HS2 finish at Old Oak Common?
One of the suggestions of opponents of HS2 is that it should finish at Old Oak Common. If the route wasn't stopping there already I could see some virtue in this, but as the interchange opportunities are already there, this would seem perverse to me. By taking the route to Euston, there is a proper interchange with the North/South Underground links of The Northern Line and The Victoria Line. I am a firm believer that if we are going to build things, then do them properly and take them to the most sensible places. A high speed rail line going into central London is surely the most sensible destination if you want the scheme to work. Of course if you don't.......
Will it be as bad for neighbours as they are making out?
This is a very interesting question. As someone who backs onto a mainline railway, I have some experience of this. In the summer, when the windows are open, it is late night motorbikes and speeding cars that wake me up. As for the trains. There used to be coal trains on the Midland Mainline that would shake the whole house. These seem to have stopped and the last time a train woke me up was when the Flying Scotsman went through early on a Saturday morning honking its horn. The new trains are lightweight designs and the railway is being built with sound baffles ( a luxury we don't have). My experience of the railways is that the trains are not that noisy. The diesel freight services that travel slowly can be noisy, but there won't be any of these. The new Thameslink electric trains that pass through Mill Hill at 100 mph cause little disturbance. I would assume that the new route will be engineered to make even less disturbance. If I had the choice, I'd rather a High Speed electric line than a mixed route with diesel freight and passenger services. The fastest trains on our line are the aged Inter City 125 trains. The noisiest element of these are the diesel motors.
So is HS2 environmentally justifiable?
This very much depends on your viewpoint. If you are a supporter of Extinction Rebellion and you want to see a carbon neutral UK by 2025, then no. But this would require us all to also abandon our cars and only make essential journeys. If you want to see the UK have good transport and infrastructure built in as sustainable long term manner as possible and you believe rail is a key part of this then, yes it is. It is far from perfect, it is probably not the best scheme for the money, but we have spent £4.1 billion on it, so it would be insane not to proceed. If we went back to the drawing board, we'd be another ten years and another £4 billion before we got anything comparable on the way. The idea that a few minor upgrades here and there could fix the same problem is truly crazy. The one thing I would agree with the Taxpayers alliance on is that we do need the fast Pennine link.
No comments:
Post a Comment