Response to the DfT Consultation on High Speed Rail
Introduction
The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Department for Transport (DfT) consultation High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future. RMT organises around 80,000 members across the transport sector and is the largest of the rail unions. Our support for an integrated, publicly owned and environmentally sustainable rail network is well established.
Question 1: Strategy and wider contextDo you agree that there is a strong case for enhancing the capacity and performance of Britain’s inter-city rail network to support economic growth over the coming decades?
Yes; our railways now carry more passengers, on a considerably smaller sized network, than at any time since the 1920s.
Furthermore, Network Rail’s, East Coast Main Line Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) predicts passenger growth of over 50% on long distance journeys over the next few years.
On the West Coast Main Line passenger demand between London-Manchester is expected to grow by 54% to 2024. Network Rail’s, July 2011 WCML Route Utilisation Strategy explains;
“As previously identified, the crowding issues worsen to 2024. Whilst there is the potential to run a small number of additional fast commuter services during the peak and extra Long Distance High Speed services in the inter-peak, the WCML is then effectively full, particularly at the south end of the route. The lack of capacity will become even more acute beyond 2024 as demand continues to grow. The most effective and best value for money way to create additional capacity will be through building a new line. The RUS, therefore, supports the development of the proposed new high speed line, initially between London and the West Midlands and then onwards to Manchester and beyond.”
On the freight side, the Rail Freight Group forecasts a doubling of rail freight traffic by 2030. Passenger and freight growth on this scale will place a huge strain on existing north-south main line arteries.
It is therefore self-evident that in order to support economic growth and to keep pace with the projected increases in passenger and freight demand, the inter-city rail network will need enhancing for the future.
Question 2: The case for high speed railDo you agree that a national high speed rail network from London to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester (the Y network) would provide the best value for money solution (best balance of costs and benefits) for enhancing rail capacity and performance?
RMT supports the development of a national high-speed rail network which will deliver passengers from city-centre to city-centre, support economic regeneration, create tens of thousands of jobs and tackle environmentally damaging carbon emissions from domestic and short-haul flights.
Indeed, this is one of the very few areas where we are in agreement with the Government’s coalition agreement, which commits itself to establishing a high speed rail network as part of creating a low carbon economy. Our view is that the high-speed network should extend into Scotland, connecting both Glasgow and Edinburgh, at the earliest possible time and that Government should also develop plans for high-speed routes to the south west of England and into Wales.
RMT’s view is to ensure that unnecessary operational interfaces and fragmentation, which have had such a damaging effect on the railways since privatisation, do not hamper the development of a safe and efficient high speed rail network, HS2 should be integrated into a publicly owned, national network. That means there should be one infrastructure owner/controller across the whole network for both the new high-speed network and the ‘classic’ routes.
As the June 2008 RMT commissioned “Who says there is no alternative” report on high speed rail and Heathrow Airport expansion explains; “A high-speed rail network has most to offer as part of an integrated transport system, not replacing local and regional rail services, but linked to them. Integration offers the prospect of both train stations and airports becoming coordinated transport hubs. But integration will remain an unattainable goal under the UK current transport set-up: uncoordinated; deregulated; privatised. Government, in conjunction with local and regional authorities, needs to set out a long-term transport strategy, framed by what it wants transport to achieve for the country’s citizens, its environment and its economy”.
The economic benefits of a high-speed network are well documented. WS Atkins published research in 2006 which found that high-speed links from London, via Heathrow, to Birmingham and Leeds would cost £31bn to build and deliver benefits £63bn over a sixty year period.
In August 2007, The Northern Way explained that the economic benefits of a high-speed link are substantial; they noted; “Research for the SRA in 2002/03 for example identified total benefits of a new high speed network linking London to the North West and North East and Scotland of £89.9billion giving a benefit ratio of over 2:1. The benefits comprised £20.6 billion in additional revenue, £64.4billion in non-financial benefits (welfare gains by users and non-users) and £4.8billion in benefits from freeing up capacity on the existing network”.
In terms of creating jobs, the DfT’s HS2 London to West Midlands Appraisal of Sustainability documents forecasts that HS2 could attract 30,000 jobs in London and the West Midlands. Furthermore 1,500 operational posts will be created and 9,000 jobs constructing the line.
Research published by KPMG in February 2010 suggests that a national high speed rail network could, as businesses become more productive and offer higher wages due to productivity improvements deliver up to 42,000 additional jobs.
However, important as a high speed network is in the fight against climate change and the renaissance of the rail industry, RMT's view is that to simply invest on 'grand projects', to the detriment of the existing network, runs the risk of repeating some of the mistakes made on the French railway network in recent decades.
The TGV network is rightly lauded across the world. However, investment in regional networks has often suffered, the result being inadequate local service provision and old rolling stock. Additionally, the track on the traditional routes has often been subjected to 'maintenance holidays' leading to widespread temporary speed restrictions; a further disincentive for people to make use of the local and regional services.
Finally, the manufacture and maintenance of the high speed stock represents an opportunity to create high skilled employment in the domestic train manufacturing sector, still reeling from losing out on the Thameslink rolling stock contract. RMT’s strongly held view is that the DfT should, where legally possible, work into the procurement process factors that consider the social impact of the contract award on domestically based train manufacturers and on the wider engineering supply chain.
Question 3: Delivering the Government’s proposed networkDo you agree with the Government’s proposals for the phased roll-out of a national high speed rail network, and for links to Heathrow Airport and the High Speed 1 line into the Channel Tunnel?
For some years RMT has supported the development of a national high speed network as an alternative to environmentally damaging domestic and short haul flights. RMT is therefore strongly in favour of linking High Speed 2 with High Speed 1 at St Pancras International station. RMT does not have a position on HS2’s connectivity with Heathrow Airport.
Question 4: The specification of the line between London and the West MidlandsDo you agree with the principles and application used by HS2 Ltd to underpin its proposals for new high speed rail lines and the route selection process HS2 Ltd undertook?
RMT has no comment to make on this Question.
Question 5: The route for the line between London and the West MidlandsDo you agree that the Government’s proposed route, including the approach proposed for mitigating its impact, is the best option for a new high speed rail line between London and the West Midlands?
RMT has no comment to make on the proposed London to West Midlands route and/or the approach proposed for mitigating its impact.
Question 6: The Appraisal of SustainabilityDo you wish to comment on the Appraisal of Sustainability of the Government’s proposed route between London and the West Midlands that has been published to inform this consultation?
The Appraisal of Sustainability discusses the number of jobs that the London-West Midlands phase of a national high speed rail network will create. We have addressed the issue of job creation in our response to Question 2.
Whilst recognising high-speed rail’s potentially larger carbon footprint than conventional rail and the need for the rail industry to constantly improve its’ energy efficiency, RMT would point to research commissioned by Eurostar in 2006 indicating that passengers who fly between London, Paris and Brussels generate ten times more emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) than travellers who go by rail.
The research found that a passenger on a return flight between Heathrow and Paris generates 122 kilograms of CO2, compared with just 11 kilograms for a traveller on a London-Paris return journey by train. A round trip between London Heathrow and Brussels airport generates 160 kg of CO2 per passenger, against only 18 kg of CO2 for a return journey by rail.
Question 7: Blight and CompensationDo you agree with the options set out to assist those whose properties lose a significant amount of value as a result of any new high speed line?
RMT has no comments to make on the issues of blight and compensation.
July 29, 2011