You are on page 1of 3

Thanks for a thoughtful article that doesnt stoop to the usual mud-slinging that abounds with this subject

(and thanks for the site Ive been using it for years for trip planning). I also passionately believe that short-haul flights are extremely wasteful, for the reasons you describe, particularly on an island the size of ours. That was brought home to me after my first TGV ride back in 1996. The TGV is a byword for quick, but at the time I was amazed by the ground it covers in a short time without the associated hassle of the airport. I started investigating the benefits and effects of bringing it to the UK and came to the conclusion that they are substantial and positive. However youve hit the nail on the head about rail/air market share in your last section. HS2 must continue to Scotland to give the full benefits that come with significant high speed rail market share; particularly on London Scotland routes, but also Newcastle and to an extent, routes from Southampton. Additionally, HS2 must fully integrate with Heathrow to capture transit passengers and HS1 to allow (for example) Birmingham Paris or perhaps Manchester Paris flights to be reduced. It is a real pity that Arups 2009 proposal for Heathrow hub was not pursued by the then government (see http://www.arup.com/News/2010_04_April/01_Apr_2010_Heathrow_Transport_Sup er_Hub.aspx) as it would have done that extremely well. I note now Labour are calling for something similar after much of the planning for HS2 has been done. It has been shown many times in many countries that where rail has a 2 hour journey time, it can capture 90% of the total market. This percentage decreases on an S curve so that at 3 hours, market share falls steeply and is only 45% (see http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/strategy-and-research/publications-andconsultations/j202923-06.htm#figuretwo for one example). So, in order to capture significant market share, a London Scotland HS2 (or HS3) route would have to have a maximum journey time of 2 hours and preferably 2 hours. Is this possible? Well, the West Coast Main Line is 399 miles long and the East Coast Main Line is 393 miles, meaning an average speed of approximately 160 mph is needed to achieve 2 hours or 200 mph is needed for 2 hours. By comparison, today a French TGV service operates at an average speed of 173 mph and in China a CRH3 service has averaged 194 mph in commercial operation. Both achieve this with lower top speeds than HS2 is being designed for. At the present time, both France and China are reported to be developing trains with 250 mph top speed. South Korea with a demographic similar to us is producing the KTX-III, a 232 mph train. It seems very likely that we will be able to buy 250 mph or faster trains for HS2 in 2026, that they will be able to average at least 200 mph (6 mph more than the Chinese have achieved to date) and thus they will get from London to Glasgow in two hours. This illustrates why the Secretary of State for Transport must hold her nerve and ensure HS2 is built for at least 250 mph running with minimal speed fluctuations. This is not about saving 10 minutes to Birmingham as has been claimed by protesters, but about saving 2 hours on the current London Scotland journey times

to get high market share. To get to Scotland, one must go through the Midlands first The total rail/air market to Scotland today is 6.8m people a year. If trains can run from London to Glasgow or Edinburgh in 2 hours with 90% market share, then on to Aberdeen or Inverness on classic lines with 50% and 20% market share, then this gives the 6 million passengers figure that has been reported. To put it in perspective this is enough for 32 *non-stop* trains a day from London to Scotland (around one every daytime hour, each way) *in addition* to the trains serving English cities and other stopping services that will use the line. If rail captures that much of the Scotland market, the CO2 emissions including construction emissions can be as little as a sixth of the equivalent air traffic. That is derived using figures from todays electricity generation mix (renewables only further improve the case). However, the high speed track must reach Scotland it is not, as you rightly point out above, enough to stop at Manchester or Leeds, as we will then be much further down that S curve for London Scotland journey times. Not reaching Scotland means that construction emissions would be spread over fewer passengers and may only break even with todays per-passenger emissions from air. Claims that HS2 is merely carbon neutral (not better, not worse) than the status quo have been misstated. This was previously used by the government to describe the HS2 first phase to Birmingham *in isolation*, where there is currently no air traffic to displace, but since then campaigners have seized upon it and applied it to high speed rail in general. This is very far from the truth and has been analysed in detail by many organisations worldwide. Emissions aside, the benefits of energy security and freed airport capacity for long haul flights shouldnt be overlooked and clearly the airports know this. If high speed rail is used to the full, then enough short haul routes are removed from London airports to offset the capacity proposed to be created by the third Heathrow runway. This clears the way for more useful and more profitable long haul air traffic. At under 40 minutes, Birmingham International is closer to central London than Stansted. As for the project cost it has been pointed out that we are currently spending 2bn on the Crossrail project. This budget is expected to be taken over taken over by HS2 in 2016 when Crossrail is finished. That allows the system proposed as far as Manchester and Leeds to be built by 2032. The Scottish government has said that extending the line to Glasgow and Edinburgh would cost a further 15bn, meaning if the same budget were continued then central Scotland could be reached by 2040. EU funding may even be available for such a link across a border. It should be pointed out this timeframe is similar to the length of time it took to build the Paris to Marseille TGV line the first project phase was approved in 1971 and the third phase reached Marseille in 2001, a total of 30 years. HS2 is affordable. Leaving aside issues such as the 60% Treasury optimism bias already in the headline numbers and the fact that the French seem to be able to build similar lines for half the cost, the same 2bn budget that is funding Crossrail now (and was started in the recession) is just 0.1% of British GDP, 0.3% of government spending and 9% of the transport budget. This seems a reasonable sum to spend to

create an entirely new and badly needed high speed transport infrastructure that isolates us from future increases in the price of imported oil. Nevertheless, despite its high capital cost, if HS2 achieves low journey time and high market shares, then construction cost can be amortised across a large enough population of passengers to actually reduce fares relative to today. This is another reason to ensure attractive journey times are possible. More details, references and data on these and other HS2 topics can be read here: http://is.gd/JsEAwq

You might also like