The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) welcomes the Government's commitment to invest in rail rather than seeking to promote new roads or air travel.  But there is a long way to go before we can be sure that High Speed 2 (HS2) will not have an unacceptable impact on the landscape and local communities.

Secretary for State for Transport, Justine Greening, has today announced that HS2 will proceed, with some welcome changes to the proposed route, with more tunnelling and mitigation, and a commitment to further local consultation [1].

Shaun Spiers, CPRE Chief Executive, says: “We are pleased the Government has shown its commitment to Britain’s railways while being sensitive to the impact that HS2 will have on communities and the countryside. 

“It appears that Ministers really have engaged with the consultation responses.  So we welcome the changes that have been announced, notably the further tunnelling in the Chilterns and alterations to the route to avoid important heritage sites. Justine Greening is right that in delivering this important scheme we must safeguard the natural environment and our beautiful countryside.

“Today's announcement is just one step in a very long process. There is still much more work to be done.  The route proposed today requires detailed study and it is likely that further changes will need to be made.  In particular, CPRE would like to see flexibility on the maximum design speed to allow more sensitive routing with greater curvature of the track. This will allow for necessary alterations following further local consultation.

“But the Government deserves congratulation for showing commitment to the future of our railways and to addressing regional economic imbalances, rather than concentrating development in the south east.  We are particularly pleased that this appears to have been a genuine consultation and that legitimate concerns about the likely impact of HS2 on the landscape have been heard. 

“CPRE has branches and member parish councils across the country and we will continue to engage closely with the Government and HS2 Ltd to ensure that the new railway is as environmentally sensitive and beneficial to local communities as possible.”

End

Click here to find out more about CPRE's extensive work and research on HS2

Notes to Editors
[1] DfT, 10 January 2011 http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/greening-20120110
[2] In announcing next steps the Government has confirmed it will implement an 'engagement programme' along the London to Birmingham route on Environmental Impact Assessment issues in spring of this year and consult on an Environmental Statement for phase 1 in spring 2013.

A new report shows that, contrary to Government forecasts, High Speed 2 (HS2) could in fact cut carbon emissions, but only if specific policies are put in place.

The interim report on The Carbon Impacts of HS2 discovered that far from being carbon neutral, the proposed new high-speed railway line between London and the West Midlands has the potential to actually reduce UK carbon emissions.

The report, the result of research carried out by Greengauge 21 and commissioned by Campaign for Better Transport, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), examined all the factors which will affect the carbon impact of high speed rail and identifies several areas which will have the greatest influence:

• how electricity in future is generated, for instance, how much comes from renewable sources
• how transport and land use planning are integrated, in particular where new stations are sited
• how successful HS2 is in attracting passengers from other modes of transport
• how much capacity HS2 frees up on existing lines in order to accommodate more freight
• how HS2 might be operated, in particular its service patterns and normal operating speed, which could be more important that its top speed
• Jim Steer of Greengauge 21 said: “We need to move beyond the will it, won’t it level of debate about the carbon impact of HS2. Our research has looked at a wide range of factors that might affect the carbon case for HS2 and discovered the impacts are complex and inter-related. But if the detailed planning is done properly, HS2 should make a positive contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Ralph Smyth, CPRE, said: “Integrating land use and transport planning will be of critical importance if high-speed rail is to cut carbon. Well sited high-speed rail stations could stimulate brownfield regeneration and create attractive, walkable neighbourhoods.”

Stephen Joseph, Campaign for Better Transport’s chief executive, said: “The Government view is that HS2 is neutral in carbon terms, but this does not take account of the impact on the rest of the rail network. The West Coast Main Line is a very busy mixed use railway and if capacity for better rail services is freed up by HS2, mode shift from road to rail could – if combined with other policies – result in big carbon reductions, especially in freight and in medium distance commuting and business travel.”

Melanie Coath, RSPB, said: “Climate change poses the greatest long term threat to wildlife so we need transport systems that help us deliver a low carbon economy. A robust analysis of the carbon impacts of HS2 will help us understand the role high-speed rail might play compared to other modes of transport.”

The report is an interim document ahead of the full results of the research, which will be published in 2012. In the next phase of the study will examine the knock-on effects on other modes of transport, examining for the first time the carbon impacts of freeing up capacity on existing railways for more rail freight or local passenger services, and identify the policy measures that will have the most impact on the carbon emissions for high speed rail.

Ends

Notes to Editors

1. The research study, The Carbon Impacts of HS2, is being carried out by Greengauge 21, a not-for-profit research organisation on high-speed rail. Greengauge 21 has in turn commissioned various experts in the environmental and transport fields and coordinated the research programme.
2. The Carbon Impacts of HS2 was commissioned by Campaign for Better Transport, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). The groups are all signatories of the The Right Lines Charter, which was launched in April 2011 and which ten other organisations have now signed up to. It sets out four principles for 'doing High Speed Rail well', including highlighting the need for high-speed rail to be planned and justified as a strategic element of a sustainable, near zero carbon transport system.
3. The Carbon Impacts of HS2 is sponsored by Siemens, Systra and the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC).
4. The interim report will be available on the Greengauge 21 website (www.greengauge21.net/publications) from 00:01 Friday 2 December 2011.

Supporting technical reports to the main interim report will be available on the Greengauge 21 website:

• An analysis of the environmental, transport, energy and other policy issues that will influence the carbon case for HS2, commissioned from Dr Ian Skinner of Transport and Environmental Policy Research (TEPR)

• An analysis of the energy consumption and carbon performance of high-speed trains and how this varies according to speed, rolling stock design, operating practices and infrastructure configuration. This analysis was carried out by SYSTRA

Following the autumn statement by the Chancellor George Osborne, Ralph Smyth, Senior Transport campaigner at the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), says:

“These new plans to build old road schemes have clearly been picked off a dusty shelf without time for much thinking. A return to building new roads in the name of job creation will lead to more traffic, move bottlenecks along rather than solving them, often at an irrevocable cost to the local environment. The idea is sadly all too characteristic of a Chancellor who has shown little concern for protecting our countryside.

“Laying new tarmac to allow the building of new out of town housing and superstores is not a plan for economic success but a road to disaster. It will weaken already struggling high streets and permanently disfigure our countryside.”

Examples of damaging new road schemes:

Lower Thames Crossing – Proposed in 1989 in the ‘Roads for Prosperity’ White Paper, this bridge could unleash so much new traffic that much of North Kent and South Essex could grind to a halt. The Government has 'committed' to this scheme before detailed plans for any route have been drawn up let alone costed. The environmental impact on the Kent Downs could be devastating.

Kingskerswell Bypass, Devon - The Department for Transport awarded Devon millions this summer to cut car trips and reduce the need to travel around Newton Abbott, now the Treasury is proposing to do the opposite by spending millions on this bypass first planned in the 1930s. Despite the cost of slicing through rare and beautiful habitats on Kerswell Downs, the road is predicted simply to move traffic jams down the road into Torbay.

A453, Nottingham - Though described as widening, most of the dual carriageway would be off the existing route, ploughing through agricultural land in the Green Belt. Even with the road built, by 2030 congestion during the morning peak is predicted to be worse than it is now. If High Speed 2 goes ahead, East Midlands Parkway station, which the road links to, may see its rail services cut, damaging the justification for the road.

Manchester Airport Link Road (M56 to A6) - Originally scrapped in 1998, this dual carriageway would rip through Cheshire Green Belt and decimate ponds near Styal that are the home of protected Great Crested newts. It would generate significantly more traffic, which would make air pollution even worse in the designated Air Quality Management Areas around the airport and Hazel Grove.

Ralph Smyth concludes: “The French investment plan proposes spending just a fifteenth on roads, with most of the rest going to rail and local public transport schemes. Osborne clearly has a lot of learning to do if he wants to catch up with our competitors.”

This document has been submitted as written evidence to the House of Commons Transport Committee and is now the Committee's property.

This document is CPRE's consultation response to the Department for Transport's consultation on High Speed Rail that ended in July 2011. CPRE welcomes the Government’s ambition to make rail the longer distance transport mode of choice. We support the principle of High Speed 2 between London and the Midlands as part of the step change in rail capacity that would be needed to achieve this. However, we consider the current proposals and process by which they have been drawn up and are being consulted on to be flawed in a number of respects. In particular there is no broader national transport strategy to judge the proposals against.

A powerful alliance of respected organisations has agreed a Charter [1] that will hold the Government to account on its approach to High Speed Rail [2]. The Right Lines Charter, which is published today [Thursday], sets out four core principles ‘for doing High Speed Rail well’.

The Charter calls for a national transport strategy, better future-proofing of big transport proposals, effective public participation and a more strategic approach to minimising adverse impacts. Its supporters seek to engage positively with the Government, as they believe the approach to High Speed Rail currently falls well short of the Charter's principles.

Many groups commenting publicly on High Speed Rail to date have represented either people living along the proposed route or businesses and cities that could profit from it. Today’s Charter draws together for the first time many well known national charities, covering environmental, heritage, countryside, legal and wildlife issues, in addition to other organisations. It seeks to achieve the best long-term outcome from high speed rail for the country, the climate, communities and the countryside.

Leading representatives of each organisation [3] have made the following comments as to how the Government should react to the Charter’s principles:

Campaign to Protect Rural England
Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive, said: “It is understandable that those who would benefit or lose from the proposals want to be cheerleaders or gravediggers for High Speed Rail. The Government needs to be listening rather than shouting encouragement at one side. A new high speed line can help provide the extra rail capacity the country needs, but the current HS2 route would cause unacceptable damage to the beauty and tranquillity of much-loved countryside. The Government must consult properly and show that it is prepared to listen to legitimate concerns.”

Campaign for Better Transport
Stephen Joseph, Chief Executive, said: “High speed rail needs to be part of a broader policy to reduce road and air traffic, with extra rail capacity to improve people’s travel choices and to get freight off the roads. Only if there is this broader policy can the full impacts of high speed rail be assessed properly.”

Civic Voice
Tony Burton, Director, said “Major development projects like High Speed Rail can be intimidating for local communities and need to demonstrate a real sensitivity to the people and places they affect. People should have meaningful influence over key decisions – such as the design speed of the line – if we are to avoid unnecessary damage to intimate townscapes and landscapes and reap the benefits of investment in rail.”

Environmental Law Foundation
Debbie Tripley, Chief Executive, said “There is always a tipping point when major projects like High Speed 2 (HS2) become controversial and that is when people see that there is a lack of fairness in the decision making process. The Aarhus Convention requires the public to be consulted when all options are open and effective participation can take place. The public should be given the opportunity to participate on all aspects of the HS2 project and to have a real say on all the issues, both environmental and strategic. “

Friends of the Earth
Andy Atkins, Executive Director, said: “Carbon emissions from UK transport must be urgently cut – but the current High Speed Rail proposals will do little, if anything, to help.The majority of journeys are relatively short, so the Government’s top priority should be to cut emissions from these trips. This means action to encourage greener travel and measures to reduce the need to travel for work or essential services."

Greenpeace UK
Doug Parr, Policy Director, said: “Tackling transport emissions means an increase in rail capacity. High speed rail can only help if it’s in a proper policy framework which ensures people move from car and plane onto the train.”

RSPB
Mark Avery, Director of Conservation, said: "A switch to rail is critical if our future transport system is going to be green and clean. But the environmental benefits won't materialise on their own. Government must demonstrate how High Speed 2 plans will respect nature, minimise damage to important wildlife sites, and help us in the fight against climate change."‪

The Wildlife Trusts
Paul Wilkinson, Head of Living Landscape, said: “As it stands, HS2 is on track to deliver a damaged natural environment. We need efficient and sustainable transport systems but they must not be achieved at the expense of the environment. The proposed HS2 route will have a detrimental impact by dissecting and fragmenting the landscape and threatening important wildlife sites and undermining action to support nature’s recovery.”

Woodland Trust
Nikki Williams, Head of Campaigning, said "Although we support moves towards green transport, the proposed route would destroy or irrevocably damage ancient woodland, the UK's richest wildlife habitat that is literally irreplaceable. Government plans to compensate by planting 2 million trees will not recompense this loss of our rarest habitats. Environmental impact should be valued equally with journey times and costs when assessing new transport options.”

Chiltern Society
Mike Overall, Vice-Chairman, said: “The current HS2 proposals stem from a badly conceived and highly constrained remit, resulting in little regard being given to options that would avoid harming some of England’s finest landscapes. A wholly objective balancing between the wider economic benefits claimed for High Speed Rail and the impact of specific proposals on the environment can not be achieved in the absence of a comprehensive framework of national transportation strategies that address broader future sustainability issues.”

Ends

Notes to Editors
[1] Copies of the High Speed Rail Charter can be downloaded here: The Right Lines – Charter for High Speed Rail
[2] The Government launched its High Speed Rail consultation on 28 February and it runs to 29 July. Full details are available at: http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/
[3] The following organisations support the Charter: Campaign for Better Transport, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Chiltern Society, Civic Voice, Environmental Law Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace UK, RSPB, The Wildlife Trusts, Woodland Trust. These organisations are individually bound by their specific charitable and constitutional objectives and will want separately to emphasise their own particular priorities through the consultation process. There is, however, sufficient common ground between them to create a powerful joint approach on a range of fundamental issues.

Our Charter sets out four principles for doing High Speed Rail well, urging the Government to rethink it's approach to HS2.

Over a million people across England could gain access to the rail network, if the recommendations of a new report due out on Monday 15 June are taken up by the Government and regional bodies. The vision, Connecting Communities – Expanding Access to the Rail Network, published by the Association of Train Operating Companies, has been strongly welcomed by the Campaign to Protect Rural England.

Report proposes to connect communities to the rail network

1. Over a million people across England could gain access to the rail network, if the recommendations of a new report due out on Monday 15 June are taken up by the Government and regional bodies. The vision, Connecting Communities – Expanding Access to the Rail Network, published by the Association of Train Operating Companies, has been strongly welcomed by the Campaign to Protect Rural England. [1]

2. The report shows the popularity of rail, noting that ‘For all new lines built since 1995, demand has exceeded forecast’. It proposes new stations on existing lines, reopening freight only and disused lines to passengers again and even introducing passenger services on heritage lines.

3. The report chimes with 2026 – A Vision for the Countryside that CPRE launched last month, which calls for a ‘revitalisation of rural railways’.[2] Many of the schemes proposed have been supported by CPRE county branches. The opening of new smaller stations, rather than the continued focus on main stations, which has resulted in congestion on surrounding roads and pressure to create ever larger car parks, will make rail a better option for more people.

4. CPRE is particularly keen for innovative schemes to be trialled to ensure even better value for money, such as:

• using of ultra-light rail, which can run as a tram on roads to connect town centres and residential areas;
• reducing red tape on minor railway lines, rather than the one-size-fits-all approach to regulation that treats branch lines the same as main lines; and
• upgrading walking and cycling routes to stations and introducing new demand responsive taxibus services to make stations accessible for those without cars and reduce the need for more car parking.

5. Ralph Smyth, Senior Transport Campaigner, said:

‘The report’s focus on small schemes that can be delivered quickly to benefit the maximum number of people is long overdue and very welcome. Politicians have been happy to make promises on high speed rail, with the comfort of knowing that spending decisions are in the distant future. Let’s see if they are willing to support rural rail now when hard choices need to be made on funding.’

6. Decisions on regional bids for transport [3] submitted this February are due to be made by Government in July 2009. Regions such as the South West and East Midlands have been missing out on rail improvements because their regional bodies seem to believe that rail improvements are not their core responsibility. CPRE has lobbied and met with regional bodies and ministers to raise rail up the agenda.

7. Ralph Smyth warned:

‘All the main political parties seem to be keen to improve trains and to shift power from the centre to local communities. But many local councillors prefer to fund old road schemes, claiming that it is just Network Rail’s responsibility to fund rail.  We need joined-up government if we are ever going to have a joined-up transport system.

Notes for Editors

1. CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England. We advocate positive solutions for the long-term future of the countryside. Founded in 1926, we have 60,000 supporters and a branch in every county. President: Bill Bryson. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk

2. CPRE launched 2026 - A Vision for the Countryside in May, setting out a positive and optimistic vision for the future of the beautiful English countryside in 2026, the charity’s centenary year. The Vision’s key issues include: affordable, high quality housing; urban regeneration; Green Belts; better planning; green energy; local food and farming; more walking and cycling; light pollution and valuing the countryside as a national asset.  For further information go to www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/environment/2026-a-vision-for-the-countryside

3. Through the Regional Funding Advice process, regional bodies (in most areas regional assemblies) draw up lists of transport schemes for approval for Government funding.  Lists were submitted by the end of February 2009 and are now being considered by civil servants.  These include controversial road schemes, see: http://www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/transport/roads/road-building-threats

Proposals for a new high speed line between London and Scotland [1] must include funding for tunnels where the line would pass through protected landscapes, says CPRE [2]. 

The price tag of £34 billion only allows for 34 miles of tunnels out of 1,500 proposed miles of new track [3].Most of these would be for reaching stations in urban areas rather than protecting the countryside.

Ralph Smyth, CPRE’s Senior Transport Campaigner, said:

“Bulldozing a new line straight through the Lake District National Park and Chiltern Hills would be both unacceptable and unrealistic.  Network Rail seems to have ignored the need to protect our most valued landscapes in order to come up with a lower price tag.  Allowance must be made for extensive tunnelling, as is normal for new lines in Germany.  CPRE successfully campaigned for additional tunnels for the High Speed 1 line through the Kent countryside.”

CPRE’s Vision [4] is for a significant increase in rail capacity, with an extended and upgraded rail network forming the low carbon backbone of a sustainable transport system.

Ralph Smyth continued:

“If we are serious about reducing carbon emissions we need to focus on moving more people out of cars and planes and in to trains, not generating new long distance commuting.  Small rail schemes across the country must be given at least as much priority as a new high speed line.”

– END –

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1.Network Rail published its Strategic Business Case for New Lines on 26 August, setting out a plan for a £34 billion new line to link London with Scotland as its preferred option.

2.CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England. We advocate positive solutions for the long-term future of the countryside. Founded in 1926, we have 60,000 supporters and a branch in every county. President: Bill Bryson. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk

3.These figures are found in section headed The costs on page 7 of the Synopsis of Network Rail’s New Line Study.  As the route is to be twin-tracked, the 1,500 miles of new track would mean about 700 of new route, meaning that less than 5% would be in tunnel.  By comparison of the 68 miles of High Speed 29 miles, or 43% are in tunnel (Source: London & Continental Railways).  Additional tunnelling could cost as much as £12 billion, which would use up almost the entire contingency budget for the new line (Table 11.1 in the Strategic Business Case).

4.CPRE launched 2026 - A Vision for the Countryside in May, setting out a positive and optimistic vision for the future of the beautiful English countryside in 2026, the charity’s centenary year. The Vision’s key issues include: affordable, high quality housing; urban regeneration; Green Belts; better planning; green energy; local food and farming; quality of life; light pollution and valuing the countryside as a national asset.  For further information go to www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/environment/2026-a-vision-for-the-countryside.

As the country awaits plans for a new London to Birmingham High Speed Rail (HSR) line, due to be announced tomorrow (Thursday), the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)[1] is calling for the plans to live up to environmental expectations.

HSR has been promoted as an answer to rising carbon emissions, gaps between regional economies and unemployment. CPRE has published five tests which it says the new line, known as High Speed 2 (HS2), should meet if it is to match the hype while protecting the countryside.

CPRE’s five tests have won the support of a wide range of organisations. CPRE is calling for any new HSR lines to:

1. Protect the local environment
2. Tackle climate change and minimise energy needs
3. Shift existing trips rather than generate new ones
4. Improve local transport
5. Integrate with planning and regeneration

Ralph Smyth, CPRE’s Senior Transport Campaigner, says: “New rail lines can be green as well as good value for money. But this all depends on how routes are chosen and how well they integrate into the wider transport system. So CPRE will be judging HS2 carefully against our five tests for sustainable High Speed Rail.”

CPRE is a supporter of an expanded rail network as well as defender of the countryside [2]. CPRE was heavily involved at both a national level and through its extensive network of local groups during the planning of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (now know as HS1) through Kent. Widespread community engagement helped ensure that HS1 received local support and met high environmental standards. CPRE believes this approach should be followed for HS2.

The controversy over the proposed Third Runway at Heathrow and current legal challenge [3] by CPRE shows what happens when developers try to ride roughshod over local communities.

Ralph Smyth continues: “High Speed Rail (HSR) could be the low carbon backbone of a sustainable transport system. But communities need to be involved in the planning process and any damage to the countryside needs to be minimised. Careful routing and landscaping of the new line combined with measures to limit flights are needed for HS2 to live up to its promise.”

CPRE has more information about High Speed Rail on its website:
www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/transport/rail/highspeedrail

End

Notes to Editors

1.CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is a charity which promotes the beauty, tranquillity and diversity of rural England. We advocate positive solutions for the long-term future of the countryside. Founded in 1926, we have 60,000 supporters and a branch in every county. President: Bill Bryson. Patron: Her Majesty The Queen. www.cpre.org.uk

2.CPRE launched 2026 - A Vision for the Countryside in May 2009, setting out a positive and optimistic vision for the future of the beautiful English countryside in 2026, the charity’s centenary year. The Vision’s key issues include: affordable, high quality housing; urban regeneration; Green Belts; better planning; revitalisation of rural railways; green energy; local food and farming; quality of life; light pollution and valuing the countryside as a national asset. For further information go to www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/environment/2026-a-vision-for-the-countryside.

3.CPRE challenged the Government’s decision to proceed with the Third Runway in the High Court last month as part of a coalition of local councils and green groups. Judgment is expected in the next week. Some proponents of HSR see it as offering an alternative to flying while others see it as key to expanding Heathrow. More information is available on our website: www.cpre.org.uk/campaigns/transport/airport-expansion/airport-expansion-what-cpre-is-doing