 |
| home |
| terms of reference |
| contact us |
| core group |
| perspectives |
| consultations |
| documents |
| photo gallery |
| links |
 |
|
| latest transport news |
|
This section is updated monthly.
As the New Year dawns, the biggest transport topic in the media is High Speed Rail. High Speed Two (HS2), the company set up by government in January 2009 to investigate this enormous potential undertaking in some detail presented their report and recommendations to Lord Adonis, the Secretary of State for Transport, on December 30th. This - and the government's response to it in the form of a White Paper - will be made public in Spring 2010.
HS2 were asked to focus primarily on a route between London and the West Midlands but to also consider alternative schemes for future possible extensions, all of which either pass through or interconnect with the North West. The White Paper, it is understood, will include a broad outline of a high speed network running from Birmingham to Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle and on to Scotland.
Lord Adonis is a self-proclaimed enthusiast for high speed rail, as is the Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) which produced a facts sheet extolling the advantages of it six years ago. However, sustainable transport proponents are beginning to divide between those who unequivocally support a new high speed rail network, those who oppose it because they believe it would not be as environmentally sound as others claim whilst at the same time taking resources away from other laudable transport initiatives and those who are asking a lot of pertinent questions which they want to receive answers to before making up their minds. When the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) conducted an internal consultation amongst its members, it found that all these points of view were represented.
Replicated below is an 'Analysis' article published in the December 2009 issue of 'Fieldwork', CPRE's quarterly newsletter, and the five tests for high speed rail drawn up by the organisation.
by Ralph Smyth, CPRE Senior Transport Campaigner
Politicians, businesses and cities are calling for a high speed rail revolution. CPRE agrees that the railways need to be improved and expanded and that taking the train becomes a more viable alternative to using planes and cars. But, as ever, matters are more complicated than headlines may suggest.
The term 'high speed rail' is used to mean several different things. A European Directive, now part of UK law, defines as high speed those train services that run over 200 kilometres per hour (125 mph) on existing conventional lines and over 250 km/h (155 mph) on purpose-built high speed lines. In fact, Britain became the second country in the world to have high speed services when Inter- City 125 trains were introduced in 1976.
Calls for 'a high speed rail network' can mean improving conventional lines so that trains can run faster. But they tend to mean purpose-built new lines such as High Speed 1 between London and the Channel Tunnel where trains run at up to 300 km/h (186 mph). Some really mean 'very high speed', which is not defined in law but tends to mean faster than High Speed 1 and as much as 400 km/h (250 mph) - though no service operates faster than 330 pm/h (205 mph) at present.
The company High Speed 2 was set up by Government to 'consider the case for new high speed services between London and Scotland'. A detailed alignment for a new line, down to the last 25 metres, will be presented to the Government by the end of this year2 and made public by about February 20103 .
There are a number of other proposals on the table. In August Network Rail published a less detailed proposal for a new high speed line to Scotland. Greengauge 21 published a proposal for a network of new high speed lines in September. The Conservatives have proposed a new high speed rail line linking London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. It is unclear whether the High Speed 2 proposal will fit with this and how the Conservatives would proceed with it if they won the election4.
Last year CPRE consulted its branches on rail policy, revealing a wide range of opinions within CPRE about high speed rail - or perhaps more accurately about building new high speed rail lines.
Public finances are stretched and target to reduce carbon emissions are becoming more demanding. So, a wide range of transport options, not just new high speed rail lines, must be subjected to detailed analysis of their costs and benefits.
How can we be sure that high speed rail will support sustainable development and respect environmental limits? We've come up with five tests (see panel) to judge high speed rail proposals against. The countryside will need protection from insensitively designed new lines, from traffic generated by park and ride stations and from any funding switch away from rural railways. Spatial planning will need to be integrated with any high speed rail proposals, so that they do not end up increasing the need to travel, particularly by car.
The publication of a detailed route will no doubt see local action groups springing up all along the lines. There will be huge scope for CPRE branches along the line to help secure the best solution for sustainable transport and the local countryside - perhaps gaining both recognition and members in the process. For the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, CPRE Kent set up 'umbrella groups', binding the local groups together as much as possible, and this is an ideal role for CPRE at the county level.
Once the proposals have been published, we plan to consult branches and to hold a seminar in February 2010 3.
New rail lines could have big impacts on how and where people live and work in the long term. New stations should be situated in towns to encourage surrounding developments to be of higher quality and density. Building new stations on greenfield sites would lead to sprawl and congestion on surrounding roads. New rail lines should be designed to redress imbalances in regional development, not increase them.
