High-speed rail will ‘suck money’ from transport
Plans to deliver a high-speed rail network will not cut the use of cars and planes, according to the leading UK authority on sustainable transport.
Transport secretary Andrew Adonis today announced proposals for an initial core high-speed rail network linking London to Birmingham, Manchester, the east midlands, Sheffield and Leeds, with train speeds of up to 250mph.
The development of a 335-mile 'Y'-shaped network would ‘revolutionise Britain's rail network’, according to the government.
But the Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) said the government had ‘failed to prove its high-speed rail plan would be green’.
CBT executive director Stephen Joseph said: ‘The danger is that a high-speed line will suck money out of the current transport network.
‘The last thing people want is service cuts, higher fares and more potholes, while the executive classes are treated to gleaming new high-speed trains.
‘Even with extra money on the table, there must be a strategy to get people onto rail. The government’s plan is high-speed rail plus business as usual. It will make no difference to carbon emissions, and could even make things worse. Fares must be cheaper than flying and driving and high speed rail must be an alternative to new motorways and airports.’
Ralph Smyth, senior transport campaigner for the Campaign to Protect Rural England commented: ‘By using existing and disused transport corridors as well as tunnelling, the impact on the Chilterns is less than feared. But the impact on the Warwickshire, where the line is proposed to run through open countryside, is a major concern.
‘There is a strong need for more than just fine-tuning. The firm commitment to community consultation made by Lord Adonis must be backed up by real engagement and flexibility. As with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, local people’s contribution can help turn a contentious route into something that works both national and locally.’
Neil Darwin, Regional Cities East director, described the decision to ‘completely bypass the east of England’ as ‘a big disappointment’, adding: ‘There’s also a danger that the huge costs of high-speed rail will drain investment from other parts of the rail network. Routes like the Great Eastern Mainline, which connects Norwich, Ipswich and Colchester to London, are in desperate need of upgrades.
‘Important though high-speed rail is, we can’t afford to leave other areas lagging behind.’
The announcement was welcomed more positively by the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA). Interim chief executive, Kate Henderson said high-speed rail had a ‘big part to play in delivering a sustainable future for the nation’.
‘Large infrastructure projects such as this, which will span over several electoral cycles, are vital to Britain’s economic viability and competitiveness, as well as being part of the route to a low carbon economy with less dependency on short haul flights and car travel.’
‘High-speed rail must also fit in with a larger integrated transport investment strategy in which each piece of the system makes its own optimal contribution, linking together into a seamless web of efficient and sustainable connections.’
The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) also declared support for the rail proposals. David Frost, director general, said: ‘Continued investment in Britain's transport infrastructure will underpin economic growth, support business in driving recovery and create jobs.
‘That is why the BCC supports a comprehensive high-speed rail network that provides vital extra capacity and helps British companies compete on a global scale.
‘With the public finances in such a poor state, the budget for this important project needs to be carefully considered. High-speed rail is a long-term investment but it cannot be built at the expense of the current rail network.
‘There must now be a binding, cross-party political consensus to ensure that both HSR and upgrades to the existing rail system proceed over the next two decades.’
by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
