Letters: High speed rail

Dear Sir,

After years of involvement in the university sector, I had always found that UoW seemed at its best in the fields of business and research. After reading Charlie Small’s article, I may have to make a reassessment as the author seems to have skipped the research, ignored to the facts of the business case and gone for the easy option, saying things which sound like they might be right, but have little basis in fact. That is the problem with high speed rail, it sounds like a really good idea, but the thing is when you look into it, you find that the benefits end there. When I first saw the announcement, I thought it would be a really good idea, but then I looked into the details and I was shocked. As the author is so fond of Keynes, I feel complied to quote him “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?”

The article starts off with a completely false assumption, stating that the key issue is the route. The easy and lazy criticism made by supporters of HS2 is that all the opponents are motivated by NIMBY concerns. If the author had bothered to read any of the publicity produced by the bemoaned action group, he would have seen that the core message is “No business case, no environmental case, no money to pay for it.” HS2 is a vanity project and nothing more. At a time when the country is supposedly bust and we cannot afford anything, why are we investing in what can only be described as a fast train for fat cats? I’m sure students faced with ever increasing debts may not be too pleased to learn that they will, as everyone in the country will, have to shell out £1,400 for this, before we look at the subsidy it will need for time immemorial.

The stated ‘transformational’ benefits deny a host of academic evidence, with the most recent, the Barcelona report into high speed rail in Spain showing clearly that when you link a stronger economy to a weaker one, the stronger one benefits. Besides create even more debt and a never ending subsidy, HS2 will do nothing but reinforce the dominance of London. It is an excuse for not bothering with having any regional policy to develop the rest of the nation.

The simple fact is that the economic case is completely flawed. When Alison Munro, the CEO of HS2 Ltd gave evidence to the Parliamentary Transport Select Committee on Tuesday (I also gave evidence in the same session), besides saying no risk assessment or comparison against alternatives had taken place, she admitted that just a 20% shortfall in passenger numbers would see the NBR fall from 2.4 to 1.5. This is significant because HS2 claim a 267% rise in passenger numbers to 2033, but the DfTs own projections suggest just 73%. I could go on at length about the business case, but I suggest you use the link to a presentation made at a Parliamentary Lobby day by UoW Professor Mike Geddes as a podcast lecture – http://www.vimeo.com/16237224. You may also find what Chris Stokes, former board member of the Strategic Rail Authority had to say useful- http://www.vimeo.com/16237588.

The other thing I have to point at as a ludicrous position and completely bereft of fact are the comments about the Kenilworth Greenway. To say it was ‘mothballed’ for such a use is just plain wrong. It is how it is because it has been used as a footpath for approaching 50 years. To say it has been used to save money and not cut up Warwickshire is just plain wrong. Less than a mile of the Greenway is being used, and it is not the old railway line that is of interest, it is purely the Cromwell Lane Bridge, as this is the only way planners found they could get what is meant to be a perfectly straight line to (near) Birmingham Airport without actually going through Kenilworth or Leamington. Instead, most of Burton Green would have to go. You may find actually looking at the map useful. However, you should note that the red line is a ‘notional centre line’, when the width of the tracks (22m) and the no vegetation zones either side (25m) are taken into account, you get a total width of 72m. The pitch at Wembley is 69m and the construction zone is 100m. You may notice Cryfield and Lakeside in squares H1 and I1. The noise generated by HS2 will be above levels which permanently damage human hearing, completely destroying the ‘rural idyll’ that is UoW. [http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/route/mitigatednorthernroutesection/pdf/03213.pdf)

The other thing I am surprised the author pays little attention to is the fact that instead of encouraging travel, we should be using the advances in technology to discourage it. The 40,000 car parking space at the planned Birmingham Interchange station show it is merely intended to increase the London commuting belt, but will they really be needed in the future? All the major businesses are telling employees not to travel for meetings, but to use video and audio conferencing instead. The most notable firm in this list is of course ARUP, the very firm which drew up the plans for HS2.

Joe Rukin

Chair, Kenilworth Stop HS2 Action Group; Campaign Director, Stop HS2, NUS National Executive Committee 2003-2007

**Dear Sir,**

**As Chairman of the STOPHS2 campaign www.stophs2.org I am perplexed by Charlie Small’s article on HS2. Seeing as the chair of the Kenilworth Action Group, also STOPHS2’s Campaign Director, is the ex Treasurer of the NUS and an honorary life member, it concerns me that he appears so removed from the real facts about HS2 and seek to attack one of your own. There is no No Business Case, No Envrionmental Case and No Money to Pay for it. I would like to think that when we gave oral evidence at the Transport Select Committee this week we made it very clear that we have 20,000 supporters across the UK, and many of those are not directly affected by the route.I fear he may have swallowed the deliberate ploy of the Government to dispell opposition to HS2 on the basis that it is only NIMBYs who object thus invalidating the true facts.**

**We are most certainly not NIMBYS. We believe, because we have examined the facts, that HS2 will be an economic and environmental disaster for this country. The Campaign for Better Transport does not see HS2 as a priority and neither should the unions. HS2 is a vanity project and based on completely false promises. HS2 does not provide value for money and investing in this Fast Train for Fat Cats takes investment away from local transport infrastructure investment in this country. Students and workers need good local connectivity and they need it now. What people also need is jobs and they need them now not in 15 years time and it is very clear from the Wider Economic Impact reported produced by Professor Mike Geddes of his own university that the jobs are unlikely to materialise. If you are struggling to feed your family now HS2 is not a priority and neither should it be for the Government.**

**It is not Green at this speed, he is deceived if he believes that and I attach a report I wrote today on this very issue. STOPHS2 looks forward to joining many of your members at the Climate March in London on Saturday to protest against this environmentally damaging proposal.**

**We are holding a national convention on 22 January 2010 at Stoneleigh Agricultural Centre and would welcome him and any of his members. Come and listen to the real facts about HS2. We ask everyone to Listen to the arguments, Look at the facts and Stop this nonsense. Full details will be available in due course, please see the events page on our website www.stophs2.org.**

**We are trying to protect his and our children’s future here, please realise that.**

**Kind regards,**

**Lizzy Williams, Chairman, STOP HS2**

Dear Sir,

I was forwarded a link to the Charlie Small’s article. I must say that I found this a mixture of myth and misunderstanding.

The HS2 project would be staggeringly expensive, and I find it extremely disappointing that financial support for student fees is being eradicated in order to pay for something with more
social and economic disadvantages than advantages.

Sincerely,

Professor Peter Topping, University of Warwick

**Dear Sir,**

**Last week, Charlie Small tried to argue that HS2, the proposed high speed line between London and Birmingham, is ‘a necessity’. In fact, the necessity is to stop it.
Why? Well, let’s look at Charlie’s arguments. He says it will create jobs. Yes, but so will any other transport investment – and investing in improving our creaking existing transport infrastructure would spread those jobs much better around the country. He is impressed by the economic value of the proposal, quoting the Department for Transport’s line that it will have a 2.7:1 cost-benefit ratio. This figure has been so comprehensively trashed that even the Transport minister, Philip Hammond, now hesitates to use it. It relies on vastly inflated demand forecasts, a failure to recognise competition from other routes, and ignores the fact that time on the train is often not wasted but productively used. He says it is necessary to reduce congestion, while in fact, because there would be no stations between London and Birmingham, there will be increased traffic and congestion as people try to get to the stations from many miles around. This is being demonstrated in Kent where HS1 stations are now new centres of congestion. The HS1 planners also grossly overestimated demand and we are all paying for that now. Finally, Charlie thinks that HS2 is the best and the most environmentally-friendly way to cater for the increased demand for travel. This is mistaken on several counts. Making improvements to existing routes, such as the Chiltern and West Coast Main Line, would provide much quicker and cheaper solutions. And HS2 is not environmentally friendly. The very high speed proposed (250mph) means that energy consumption is far higher than that of ordinary trains, and only a small proportion of passengers will be transfers from planes. And anyway why should we be seeking to cater for any and all projected increases in demand for transport? If we are concerned about moving to a low carbon economy, we should be seeking to limit demand – while the forecasts for HS2 show that it will actually increase demand – over one quarter of passengers will only travel because it has been built.**

**So, Charlie, snap out of your dreams about this fast, pointy politician’s vanity project! If we are thinking about what transport improvements Warwick students need (as well as the rest of the country) it is primarily better and more integrated local transport. For Warwick, this must mean better local bus services, and how about those proposals to upgrade train services between Coventry and Leamington, with stations in Kenilworth and at Gibbet Hill? Such real life improvements will get pushed to the back of the queue for decades if we throw tens of billions at HS2.**

**Professor Mike Geddes, University of Warwick**

Dear Sir,

I have rarely read an article with so many factual inaccuracies than Charlie Small’s article in favour of high speed rail. Just to pick one, the suggestion that “HS2 planners have made a wise money-saving choice” is almost laughable; HS2 and “money-saving” hardly belong on the same page. The DfT Business Case, if you read it, states quite clearly that the expected revenues from passengers will only cover about half the costs of building and running the railway, even assuming a 267 per cent increase in demand for transport into London.

Undeterred by the economics, the Coalition Government plans to press ahead anyway, requiring about £11.9 billion of taxpayer money to subsidise additional long-distance travelling, 70 per cent of which are estimated as leisure journeys.

Government is about making choices and it is my view that the Coalition Government could make better use of £11.9 billion – assuming it has £11.9 billion to spare – by investing in pretty much anything else, although my vote would be for education, training and raising the skills of the workforce. Indeed, I thought that I had voted for that, when I voted Lib-Dem at the last election. Some of your readers might prefer the Coalition Government to prioritise the costs of a University education, rather than shifting costs onto students and building a large new railway.

On a comparatively small point of fact, Charlie Small suggests that HS2 planners have chosen the route of the Greenway/old railway line between Kenilworth and Burton Green as a cost-reducing measure. Firstly, if you check the published route, the HS2 line will run alongside the Greenway, in adjacent fields and at a different height; the routes only join at the Cromwell Lane Bridge in Burton Green, which will be demolished; Sunday walkers on the Greenway wearing noise-reducing headgear will be able to wave at HS2 as it zooms by. Secondly, the choice of route by the HS2 planners is determined by the inability of a very large train travelling at 225 mph to take corners, although Charlie’s speculation about reusing the old railway line is quaint.

I guess Charlie is right to suggest that only people affected by HS2 are likely to complain about the noise and disruption but do you really think that this could be built and operated without a significant environmental impact upon the Warwick University campus? And in 15 year’s time, as the HS2 mega-train roars by, you can be comforted to know that the decision to increase student loans is helping to subsidise HS2’s passenger costs.

Kyn Aizlewood, Burton Green, Kenilworth