Why we're supporting high-speed rail done right

Posted by jamie - 17 January 2012 at 1:18pm - Comments

HS2 is great in principle, but the plan has plenty of holes

Last week, the government gave the thumbs-up to the first phase of the new high-speed rail network (aka HS2). Since then, debate between those for and against has filled the media including a piece in the Mail claiming Greenpeace is opposed to the project. We're not of course, but it does need correcting.

So: we do support high-speed rail in principle. If you were an Airplotter, you'll know it's one of the main alternatives we used to show how the case for a third runway at Heathrow didn't stack up. Developed properly, HS2 could start the move towards a rail system that got people away from short-haul flights and onto trains, with enormous potential to reduce carbon emissions.

But (and it's a big but) it needs to be part of a wider transport strategy across the country. One train line between London and Birmingham isn't going to address the various transport issues we have, and the plans released by the Department of Transport are lacking in several key areas.

For instance, will it actually reduce CO2 emissions? It's hard to be sure, as the plans don't really make a substantial case for this. If more freight transport goes by conventional rail, that could be a big saving on emissions. Building the new line will free up capacity on existing lines, and lack of room has often been an argument against sending freight by rail instead of road or air.

Again, it depends how the new line will work as part of the wider transport network.

On the flipside, it's not clear where the passengers for HS2 will come from. If they're using the train when they would have flown or driven big cars instead, that could bring down overall emissions. But if they're new passengers who wouldn't have travelled otherwise, then the number of passenger journeys will increase along with emissions.

Neither of these questions (along with many others) are fully tackled by the government's plans. It's because of these gaps that Greenpeace, along with many other organisations, has signed up to the Right Lines Charter. The charter supports high-speed rail with various conditions: that it's part of a national transport strategy, that there's proper public participation in the scheme, and that impacts on the local environment and communities are minimised.

The case we made during the third runway campaign in favour of high-speed rail still stands, but now it's becoming a reality the details of the government's plan need to be assessed. At the moment, they're falling short of what's really needed.

Article tagged as: climate change, co2 emissions, emissions, high speed rail, hs2, transport

Comments Commenting is now closed

A 75-mtr-wide swathe across AONB designated sites and historic woods while blighting the treasured countryside of residents that can't benefit from the proposed high speed rail route with its stations 50-100 miles away, is only the tip of an unsubstantiated financial iceberg.

Neither does HS2 stack up in a commercial sense for regional employment, productivity and desperately needed welfare.

By polleetickle - 17 January 2012 at 2:40pm

there are too many big "ifs and buts" in your statement.

why would frieght need to be moved from London to Birmingham (or vice versa) 30 minutes faster than it is now? with increasing amounts of business done online (especially since most "business" is virtual - the shifting of fictions and profits from one shareholder to another), why do commuters need a slightly quicker journey...?

sorry, but this is all nonsense. we do need less trucks and more trains. but we don't need our money spent on a nonsense - and a destructive one at that.

Oh, unless the rail way is entirely hand-made of course. that'd be an interesting carbon reducing experiment...

By I'm graham (why can't the system cope with more than one?) - 17 January 2012 at 4:10pm

@ polleetickle and @ graham

I recommend you read the proposals submitted by Right Lines Charter (RLC), to which Greenpeace has signed up to, before making substantially inaccurate or flippant comments. The 13 organisations involved with RLC are wholeheartedly opposed to the Government's planned route through the Chilterns AONB, nor do they support claims that permanent new employment will be guaranteed. There is also no intention that freight will run on the new line. However the subsequent removal of most inter-city trains from the classic parallel rail routes which are increasingly congested, will free up capacity for freight traffic generally to be transferred from the roads, and for more new commuter and regional services that are needed. This is what the true advantages are, not the "sexy" high speed of up to 250 mph. In fact 180-200 mph is good enough or even slower to avoid tight spots and to serve city centres better. One suggested route is to follow closely the route of the M1 and M6 instead, routes already blighted, but the Government claims this is "impractical" while refusing to provide evidence of their detailed research - if any! Go on - read the reports instead of making knee-jerk comments.

By Ian McDonald - 17 January 2012 at 6:03pm

Cameron Down Dear Ian McDonald. I dont want a spat. But you seem to.

The Midlands had, and ruined, the UK's motor industry because of poor quality and woeful productivity - yet now protests it has been left out of development policies. Reap the whirlwind. Midland businesses are not going bust due to a lack of London or Manchester visitors.

There is a great deal of talk about Birmingham-Paris rail times being reduced; Instead, expand Birmingham Airport.

You raise yet another post-HS2 ill effect; regional rail becoming bogged down with freight. How does this deal with Capacity in the 45 minutes commuter radius around London - the most highly taxed and thereby most deserving of UK residents for solutions?

There is also a great deal of talk made about Capacity. But how can this be borne out as an issue while 1st Class and Private Hire Trains continue.

If the peak 90 minutes at each end of the working day is a huge concern, either get up earlier or travel the night before/after. Until the case for this is improved it will be regarded as insignificant.

By Polleetickle - 18 January 2012 at 2:05pm

@Ian McDonald - 17 January 2012 at 5:03p: "Go on - read the reports instead of making knee-jerk comments." Perhaps you expect too much - I've found that more than 95% of the hot air (sorry I mean discussion) expended concerning this vexed topic is ill-informed claptrap, masquerading as rational debate - unsurprsingly this thread also fails to break the mold.

By Peter Davidson - 19 January 2012 at 10:05pm

I spent last summer trying to inform people in the London Borough of Ealing about HS2 because so many who live close to the proposed route still know nothing about it. I live very near one of the bridges that will be replaced, the only thing between HS2 and our home will be the Central Line which runs across an embankment at the end of our garden. I attended one of the HS2 Ltd consultation shows and was stunned at how little their experts were able to tell me about the impact it would have during construction and once it was up and running. All the impact studies would be carried out after they had decided to go ahead!

I appreciate that there is a big picture but it is hard to see it when you are standing on a platform waiting for a local train that hasn’t turned up. The screen that should tell you what is happening hasn’t worked for months and the cost of that essential journey continues to rise, unlike your pay. I have a minimum wage part time job and my partner is being made redundant. I will never be able to afford a journey on the route that will render our home valueless. I walk the three miles home from work to save £1.50 and cannot face walking both ways, I’ve tried it and it doesn’t work when you spend all evening on your feet. I have never learned to drive.

Those who talk about areas that are “already blighted” should take a closer look at the communities who live there. It is too easy for you to assume we can take a little more because, well, we already have rail lines in our back yards! What are we complaining about?! You would be less glib if you had to look us in the eye and say it to our faces. HS2 is a different animal. It will not stop anywhere in Ealing, will bring no benefits to the area and will have a profound effect on the small nature reserve we all treasure, Perivale Wood. But, hey, it will keep the wealthy off short haul flights and that’s what counts. I know my place.

By Albertina McNeill - 25 January 2012 at 2:02am

Whilst I can see that you are pro HS2 may I ask a simple question - is Greenpeace for or against HS2 if it is to run on the proposed route? Yes or no please.

Thanks

Trevor

By Trevor Johnson - 4 February 2012 at 1:42pm

That fantastic! realy! these website is way better then everything I ever saw. Thanks admin.

Y8
Friv Girls
Games Miniclip

By y8girlsgames - 5 February 2012 at 8:56am

1 person agrees

Can we have a plain 'yes' or 'no' answer to Trevor's question?

Is Greenpeace for the proposed HS2 route?

By Nicholas Batty - 14 February 2012 at 1:48pm

Sorry for the delay in responding - when things get busy here, it's difficult to keep track of everything.

But I'm afraid I can't give a yes or no answer to the question, as there are many other things that would need to be addressed before Greenpeace would support (or not) any particular route. Like (as mentioned above) a national transport strategy covering aviation as well as trains and road vehicles, with clear evidence of reductions in carbon emissions. Without that as a starting point, questions about the specific route are difficult to answer.

Our head of policy gave me a useful analogy: it's like someone deciding to build a house next to yours and asking whether you'd be in favour of a green front door - you might be or you might not, but there are some more basic questions you'd want answering first.

I know that doesn't answer your question in the way you'd hoped, but I hope that explains how things currently stand.

By jamie - 16 February 2012 at 11:37am