HS2 Ltd Seminar for Warwickshire Groups 8th April 2011 at Warwick
Present:
Andrew Mc Naughton, Chief Engineer, HS2 Ltd
Mark Bailey, Environmental, HS2 Ltd
Dominic Pierce, Assistant Engineer, HS2 Ltd
Gavin Bostock, HS2 Ltd was taking notes
+c 22/24 attendees from local councils, AGs and other organisations
General Questions (not area specific)
- Design Speed - it was asked where the specific evidence could be found to support the decision that this should be 400 kph and not 350 kph or some other number?
AM talked about reduction in journey times and said that “at the high end of the range” there was not a great cost difference implied by different speeds. He used examples trains in Asia (400/450kph design speeds) and Europe (300/360kph design speeds) indicating that it was from within these ranges that design speed of 400kph had been determined. However, AM also quoted EU definition for HSR as 250kph. AM also indicated that the environmental case is based upon running speeds of 360kph. Any future increases above this speed would have to demonstrate that they would not increase noise levels or carbon emissions. Although AM talked about 360kph being proven technology he did not say why the published documents say 400kph.
AM could not recall where the evaluation of design speed leading to the decision to adopt 400 kph design speed was but said he would locate and provide it.
- The Appraisal of Sustainability - has only been done at the design speed of 400kph/running speed of 360kph - no alternatives have been looked at.
The point was made by attendees that at lower speeds sustainability would increase significantly.AM stated that a full EIA will not be produced until much later in the design and development process and that it will then meet all statutory requirements and go out for consultation.AM indicated that HS2 is actively looking for environmental opportunities “to do positive things” in accordance with their statutory obligations and encouraged interested parties to submit their ideas. AM indicated that there is a local, regional and national hierarchy of registered environmentally important sites which will determine HS2’s approach.
Action point: all interested parties to make submissions either as part of current consultation or separately both now and in future when the EIA is available for further consultation.
- Vertical Alignment - AM said that the work to date had focussed on the horizontal rather than vertical alignment – there was more work to do on the latter.
It can be cheaper to sink the line than to spend lots of money on ground or higher level mitigation. Footpaths, bridleways and any other rights of way were cited as examples of where cases might be made for lowering the line and perhaps incorporating new ‘green tunnels’. AM said that such suggestions could be made as part of the consultation process and all would be reviewed for cost:benefit impact etc.
Action point: all organisations to review their local maps and determine if they have opportunity for further submissions to HS2/consultation.
- Horizontal Alignment - AM had received many representations from Groups and individuals about variances to the route and expected many more.
Action point: all organisations should continue to submit their ideas for realignment which AM indicated would continue to receive proper evaluation.
- ‘Local Environmental Forums’ – AM stated it is HS2’s intentiontoorganise theseas part of the design and development phase after the consultation and before the EIA is produced.
Action point: all organisations to consider and take action as appropriateto ensure their involvement when these are introduced.
- Land take, track bed and vegetation management zone - prior to the Hybrid Bill (HB) they will set out the permanent and temporary land take in detail.
AM said landscaping could be on land not owned by HS2 – ie by agreement with owner stating “…..any railway needs to control vegetation – danger from falling trees and broad leaves”.
AM regrets saying corridor 25m either side of track bed was needed (it was pointed out that this is still there in the AOS). It is an area where they would seek to control the type of vegetation – did not mean no trees – or just coniferous, but care needed in form and type of planting. Above all it needs to be managed long term – pitfall with HS1 – only managed for 10 years. Wanted to discuss detailed proposals (placing, type, density etc) with local communities post Sof S decision on route and before EIA is produced.
Would involve compromises - would not be a 25m swathe through ancient woodland, broadleaved or not.
Action point: all organisations to consider their local requirements and preferences and prepare to submit ideas to HS2.
- Public Rights of Way –AM stated that the intention is to avoid blocking them off but his assurances were effectively meaningless as he emphasised that each decision on whether any right of way will severed, moved or retained will be taken on a pragmatic basisi.e. no absolute commitment was given and HS2 Ltd will do as it wishes to build the line.
8. Consultation – AM was asked what weight would be given to responses which went outside the set questions. Reply: it would be helpful if replies were structured around the 7 questions. If a response is outside these it still has to be considered. E.g. thoughts on alignment can still be fitted within questions. Am stressed that one of HS2’s success criteria is to have an effective consultation.
a) Consultation – different answers – AM was informed there was a difficulty with roadshow staff giving different answers to the same questions. AM said they were learning from the 9 roadshows so far – they were likely to be more circumspect about answers – not guessing if they were not 100% sure for example. This could hamper the dialogue.
b)Consultation – there was a complaint that the online response only allowed 2000 characters per question and that the hard copy only has a tiny box which can only be completed by hand. The process needs to be made more user friendly. Also why was postcode needed? Assurance was sought that postcodes would not be used to give differing weightings to responses from nearer the line. AM apologised that Miranda Carter could not be present to answer these points and promised to get back to us with answers.
c)Consultation – other points
- Complaint from NWBC and MHAG only one roadshow in north of county and 7 in south - AM to come back on this.
- There will be at least one HS2Ltd Director level person attending each roadshow.
- Other DfT run seminars covered the business case in other parts of the country but there is no opportunity for those on the route to attend one unless they travel long distances -AM to come back on this.
- Questions were asked as to whether any different information is being provided to regional seminars particularly for communities off the proposed line or on the proposed Y route? Assurance was given that all information is consistent at all venues.
- Questions asked as to why additional roadshows appear to be taking place (e.g. Northampton and Milton Keynes) without be advised on the published schedule of roadshows? - AM advised website is to be updated to include such additional roadshows.
12Noise (see also Addendum to this note)
AM was asked why the noise levels had been reduced from those quoted previously he said partly due to using a reduced speed (360kph), better rolling stock design (3db), and mitigation with noise barriers at 3metres – he was challenged that this did not stop airborne noise.
AM stated: “We have not done enough work to answer the questions on noise”.
HS2Ltd propose to announce NOISE SEMINARS shortly, where experts from all sides can exchange information and debate the likely levels of noise. Arup Accoustics will be present.
Action point: all organisations to note arrangements for noise seminars when advised by HS2 Ltd; to consider their own local position and whether they have the expertise or need to employ expertise to represent their position at these seminars.
13.Noise Contour Maps and Visualisations
The latter will be available at future roadshows and will be on the web when approved. This was challenged saying they are needed before the roadshows. AM promised to come back on this.
Noise maps published showing properties affected are being re-done at present – v difficult to read. Fact sheets will be released hopefully in advance of local events. Pointed out that these are not the noise contour maps the Secretary of State had promised. AM responded that accurate noise mapping can only be done when detailed design is done.
The accuracy of the maps was queried why were some houses right on the line marked as in lowest category of suffering from noise? AGs expressed the opinion that a spurious level of precision is implied.
AM was unable to explain why some properties were shown as ‘grey’ and others as ‘orange’ when each appeared to be right on the line. AM said roadshows will give more specific answers to local people. Such as will their property be taken? How will it be affected by noise?
Action point: all attendees at roadshows should ask very specific questions on this subject and confirm answers in writing to HS2 after each roadshow.
Y route Junction
Pointed out the diagram on page 63 of consultation document is misleading to lay people, implies those communities affected by Phase 1 will not suffer the Y junction - contrary to HS2Ltd statements. Later in the meeting, after looking at p63 AM stated that he felt the diagram was only representative and not definitive. This explanation was not accepted by attendees.
Road works versus Railway
AM advised in response to a question that in general terms the costs of road diversions/bridges are less than realigning the rail route – horizontally or vertically – and therefore arguments for realignment on cost grounds of new roadworks are unlikely to hold much sway.
Tunnels
AM advised that as a broad ‘rule of thumb’ a bored tunnel is c.6x more costly than track through open countryside; a ‘green tunnel’ is c.2x and that bored tunnels require venting shafts approx. every 2 kms. Short tunnels are generally more expensive per metre than long tunnels as much of the cost of installing P&M is the same irrespective of length of tunnel. Generally clay and chalk are good tunnelling mediums but tunnels through or under water tables can be very expensive. Dependant upon construction methods/design tunnels should not generally affect speed but can affect power usage because of air resistance. The Long Itchington tunnel will not require any vent shafts.
LOCAL QUESTIONS
Traffic Generation at New International Rail Terminal
AM was asked if a study had been undertaken of the impact of 10,000 cars converging on the station on local roads and congestion. AM said he thought this had been looked at but would get back on this.
Middleton
Queried why a 400kph design speed when to the north its is 350 and to the South around 325. AM said “there is no logical reason why it is 400kph”.
He also mentioned in passing that the alignment of the section to the north of M (Hints area etc.. ) might be looked at again to reduce the curvature based on a more direct route which would enable the speed to be increased. Ian Waddell said he thought that idea had already been evaluated and discounted, he replied that Hs2Ltd had made certain recommendations regarding it.
Burton Green
It appears that 3 homes are at risk of demolition on the corner of Hodgetts Lane/Cromwell Lane and 19 others may lose part of their rear gardens. The fate of the village hall remains unclear at present. AM agreed to provide specifications for the proposed ‘green tunnel’.
Action point: BGAG to review local position when spec. received and consider making further submissions to HS2 Ltd.
Ladbroke
AM acknowledged having received by hand that day a letter and CD from LAG seeking a further meeting with HS2 Ltd to discuss vertical alignment proposals, noise reduction measures and visual blight alleviation measures.
Action point: LAG to follow and ensure meeting is held.
Priors Hardwick
AM advised that PH should submit proposals to him for consideration and should also use the consultation mechanism.
Action point: as above.
END
Addendum of points arising subsequent to meeting
When the hard copy map HS2 Ltd distributed, showing properties experiencing noticeable or higher noise increase'includingAdditional Indicative mitigation', is compared with the maps on the CD they distributed (which are 'Without additional mitigation') three questions arise to which answers are needed:
1. Why are some properties very close to the route (within 100/200 metres) not shown as experiencing noticeable noise increase on either map(not even a grey blob)?
2. Why do some properties not appear on the 'with mitigation' map while others in apparently nearly identical situations do?
3. What precisely constitutes the 'Additional Indicative Mitigation' which is the basis for the new map? Without this information it is impossible to assess the impact it is claimed to make on specific properties. These mitigation measures must have been defined in order to produce the map so can this be provided to us? Until it is possible to see this, we remain very sceptical that any property within 100m of the route can be a grey blob rather than a yellow or red one.