 |
| Image: Birmingham Chamber of Commerce |
When the Green Party conference came out overwhelmingly against the HS2 proposal for a Birmingham-London 250 mph train earlier this week, Lancaster Green Councillor John Whitelegg was at the centre of the debate.
Philip Hammond, the Transport Secretary, launched the public consultation on High Speed Rail on Monday, one of the biggest public consultations ever undertaken, which will cover the Government’s proposed strategy for a wider network linking London, the West Midlands and Manchester and Leeds, and the proposals for a route from London to the West Midlands.
“The time for high speed rail in Britain has come,” the Transport Secretary said. “We have before us a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, an opportunity to reshape our economic geography. Too often in the past, Britain has baulked at the big decisions. We must invest in Britain’s future. We cannot afford to be left behind – investing in high speed rail now is vital to the prosperity of future generations.”
The government claims the proposed wider network would deliver around £44bn of benefits and would cut 30 minutes off the journey between London and Birmingham and around an hour off journeys between London and Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh. In addition, released capacity on existing lines such as the West Coast Main Line would offer the possibility of more frequent, fast commuter services from places such as Milton Keynes and Coventry.
The consultation will run until 29th July, and there will be roadshows in towns and villages along the proposed route between London and the West Midlands.
There is already plenty of opposition to the scheme, not least from people living on the route, but also from organisations such as The TaxPayers’ Alliance, whose research has already indicated flaws in the business case, but this morning said the full £30 billion cost of the project would cost every family in Britain £1000 a year, arguing it should be scrapped.
The Greens, who say they remain committed to genuine improvements in public transport, voted overwhelmingly to campaign against the HS2 project, saying proposals currently on the table would be “economically and environmentally unsound.”
The Green Party remains in favour of high speed rail in principle, but any project would need to meet strict criteria.
“The Green Party is opposed to the current HS2 proposals,” said Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MP, who visits Lancaster this week to speak to a Stop the Cuts meeting. “The economic case is unsound. The claims about reducing CO2 emissions are questionable to say the least. And the huge damage which would be caused to local communities and their environment would be unsustainable.”
City Councillor, transport expert and Green Party spokesperson on sustainable development Professor John Whitelegg says the proposed HS2 trains would burn 50 per cent more energy mile-for-mile than the Eurostar.
“HS2 would produce more than twice the emissions of an intercity train,” he claims. “It’s a ‘rich person’s railway’ – the business case assumes that a third of passengers will be on incomes of £70,000 or more.
“Everyone knows the Greens and passionately committed to social justice and to the environment. The current HS2 proposals would serve neither.”
Councillor Whitelegg proposed the motion opposing the proposal at the national conference and is very pleased with the result.
“HS2 makes no sense at all,” he told virtual-lancaster. ” The business case is severely flawed, the predictions for job creation are complete nonsense and it will not reduce carbon dioxide emissions as originally claimed.
“It is the exact opposite of what we should be doing,” he argues. “90 per cent of all our journeys in the UK are less than 10 miles in length and we urgently need a massive transformation of urban and rural transport in this country to bring us up to the best standards in Europe. Spending £16 billion to encourage rich people to travel a lot to London is not a priority.”
Speaking about the project last year before the election, the Chairman of High Speed Two company, Sir Brian Briscoe, told PublicService.co.uk the new line would “probably” aid the transition to a low-carbon economy.
“The sustainability of the project depends upon how you generate the electricity to run the trains,” he claimed. “Rail is a more sustainable option than flying or travel by road, probably – or it could be if we start providing more electricity by renewables. It is a good way of moving large numbers of people between centres.”
Other supporters of the project argue a national high-speed rail network could boost Britain’s economic output by between £17bn and £29bn a year and the up front costs should be seen as an investment rather than a drain on resources.
Web Links
• High Speed Two Ltd: www.hs2.org.uk
Includes details of the public consultation and background on the project
• PublicService.co.uk: High Speed Rail – An investment in future prosperity?
28 February 2010: A national high-speed rail network could boost Britain’s economic output by between £17bn and £29bn a year, says Julie Mills, who argues that the up front costs should be seen as an investment rather than a drain on resources
• PublicService.co.uk: HS2 – Not Blind Faith, but could it be partially sighted?
4 May 2010: Sir Brian Briscoe – former LGA chief executive and now chairman of HS2 – the company established to advise on the development of high-speed rail services between London and Scotland – tells Dean Carroll how he expects the £30bn project to proceed
• Taxpayers Alliance: High Speed Rail Research document (PDF)
Despite the severity of the fiscal crisis politicians of all parties are backing High Speed Rail (HSR), but the evidence gathered by the TPA suggests that there is no robust financial or economic case for the project and will not solve the key practical problems of lack of capacity on commuter road and rail. Instead it is a hugely expensive vanity project that requires extensive work on unnecessary new lines.