Trains, not planes: high speed rail plan gives airport expansion what for

Posted by jamie - 5 August 2009 at 3:16pm - 6 Comments

When the new Eurostar terminal opened at St Pancras in 2007, we gave it a big thumbs up

In one fell swoop, a massive hole has been blown in the government's aviation policy. And the person holding the detonator is not a member of the shadow cabinet or even a group of campaigners, but no lesser person than the transport secretary Lord Adonis and his plan for a network of high speed trains for the UK. Crikey.

Interviewed in today's Guardian, Adonis was unsurprisingly enthusiastic about his vision of trains travelling at 250mph between the Midlands, the north, Scotland and of course London, citing France, Spain and Japan as examples of countries which haven't let grass grow in the tracks. To get the ball rolling, he's tasked a new government-backed company to come up with an assessment for the London-West Midlands link by the end of the year.

This (long overdue) renewal of interest in the railways is fantastic in itself, but what's even better is that the transport secretary has explicitly stated that sexy trains will replace short-haul air travel. Not compete, not compliment, but (and I quote) "systematically replace". And short-haul doesn't just cover domestic flights, but to European destinations as well.

Ryanair's Michael O'Leary has moaned about rail companies receiving massive government subsidies, but neglects to mention the £9bn handed to the aviation industry to make flying cheaper and airports bigger

How about that? Just picture what it means for a third runway at Heathrow. Adonis claims that high speed rail won't affect the current plans for new runways at Heathrow or Stansted, but it's difficult to see what the justification could be if you take short-haul flights out of the picture.

According to Hacan who've spent time crunching the numbers, 100,000 short-haul planes currently pass through Heathrow every year to towns and cities which already have pretty good rail connections. Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels are the top destinations but Edinburgh, Manchester and Glasgow all feature as well. Imagine that all those flights are replaced by super-fast trains, and (as we noted back in January) the case for a third runway crumbles.

Also out the window are plans to expand regional airports. If trains are whisking travellers up and down the country, where is the extra traffic for these bigger airports going to come from?

The aviation industry has been predictably hostile to the idea, and Ryanair's Michael O'Leary has moaned about rail companies receiving massive subsidies from government while the poor old air operators need to skrimp, save and charge people to use the onboard toilets. He neglects to mention the £9bn handed to the aviation industry to make flying cheaper and airports bigger.

But now there's a big push to put rail at the centre of a low-carbon transport system, it's going to be interesting to see how the pro-expansion lobby tries to prevent itself from being grounded.

Article tagged as: aviation, climate change, heathrow, high speed rail, rail, third runway, transport

Comments Commenting is now closed

Airline industry's vision is not correct. France doesn’t have that many domestic routes, and they’re doing well thanks to train.
Planes pollute a lot. Low-cost carriers are not profitable to the UK regions: they gain subsidies from them (tax payers money) and are not environmental friendly.

By Roman - 10 August 2009 at 3:14pm

How expensive would the trains be in comparison to planes? If you look at a sleeper train it costs around £400 pounds one way, for a journey longer than on a plane; to get to Inverness, and that's about double a cheapish plane flight there and back. Will the prices be reduced, or will everyone still go for air travel, since it's the cheapest option?
I'm also not great at maths, but isn't even 250mph still a long journey compared to planes? Young families and those unable to cope i.e disabled or elderly people, may find it a lot more hassle than a quick hop on the plane. Then again, if security is lessesned....
I hope it'll work, but is it that simple??

By elkemp - 12 August 2009 at 8:52pm

If we accept this self-evident axiom it beholds the environmental lobby to concede circumstances in which some localised environmental degradation is necessary to achieve massive gains on a much wider scale.

Greenpeace has thus far signalled its support for HSR as a sustainable and less damaging alternative to the currently ubiquitous array of short-haul, intra-European airborne transport links but what happens when a limited number of communities impacted adversely by the construction of new HSR infrastructure in "their back yards" start playing the environment card in an increasingly desperate attempt to forestall developments that manifestly benefit the masses at the expense of a few unfortunately located communities?

We can only trust that Greenpeace will not act in a hypocritical manner by actively endorsing such luddite short-termist tendencies?

By padav - 21 August 2010 at 2:47pm

Airline industry's vision is not correct. France doesn’t have that many domestic routes, and they’re doing well thanks to train. Planes pollute a lot. Low-cost carriers are not profitable to the UK regions: they gain subsidies from them (tax payers money) and are not environmental friendly.

By Roman - 10 August 2009 at 3:14pm

How expensive would the trains be in comparison to planes? If you look at a sleeper train it costs around £400 pounds one way, for a journey longer than on a plane; to get to Inverness, and that's about double a cheapish plane flight there and back. Will the prices be reduced, or will everyone still go for air travel, since it's the cheapest option? I'm also not great at maths, but isn't even 250mph still a long journey compared to planes? Young families and those unable to cope i.e disabled or elderly people, may find it a lot more hassle than a quick hop on the plane. Then again, if security is lessesned.... I hope it'll work, but is it that simple??

By elkemp - 12 August 2009 at 8:52pm

High Speed Rail (HSR) will severely test the credibility of Greenpeace and other environmentalist campaign groups because whether they (Greenpeace and the environmental lobby in general) like it or not the notion that people, en-masse, will simply stop travelling between A & B is simply untenable. If we accept this self-evident axiom it beholds the environmental lobby to concede circumstances in which some localised environmental degradation is necessary to achieve massive gains on a much wider scale. Greenpeace has thus far signalled its support for HSR as a sustainable and less damaging alternative to the currently ubiquitous array of short-haul, intra-European airborne transport links but what happens when a limited number of communities impacted adversely by the construction of new HSR infrastructure in "their back yards" start playing the environment card in an increasingly desperate attempt to forestall developments that manifestly benefit the masses at the expense of a few unfortunately located communities? We can only trust that Greenpeace will not act in a hypocritical manner by actively endorsing such luddite short-termist tendencies?

By padav - 21 August 2010 at 2:47pm