The Transport Select Committee have released the report of their inquiry into the strategic case for High Speed Rail. Unlikely to ever have called for a halt to the scheme, it does make some criticisms of the government, couched in the usual niceties such as expressing “disappointment” and “concern”.
Unlike early media reports, it does not recommend the building of the route start in the North – it does in fact confirm that starting in the South addresses where the capacity issue is most urgent. But in a contradictory amendment proposed by MPs on the Committee, they also call for a study into starting construction from the North (even though they’re convinced it should start from the South!).
Especially interesting is their “calm down dear” moment of calling for pros and antis to treat each with respect and refrain from the quite frankly quote appalling public slanging matches seen over the last eight months. While the Committee identify a “good case for proceeding with the High Speed Rail network” it has concerns around the issues below.
National strategy. In line with the Right Lines Charter’s first principle, the Committee emphasised the need for an overall transport strategy for HS2 to be assessed against. They’re a bit annoyed that the Government have been ignoring their calls for a White Paper on Transport and the Economy. They call for a long term strategy for transport and how HS2 fits into this, plus recognition that other rail-related policies coming out this year need to look at the wider context. They also recommend the publication of statements on service patterns and spending across the whole railway network. This would secure wider capacity benefits than just to those who use the HSR line, and in conjunction with other rail improvement could free up routes. Although they mention freight in terms of spending priorities for the classic network (i.e. non-HSR railway) they missed the opportunity to underline that one of the benefits of freeing up classic network capacity is being able to move freight from road to rail.
Speed. It’s a “I told you so” moment as I sit here trying not to feel smug following an earlier post as speed was identified as a possibly unnecessary restriction, meaning detrimental impacts could not be avoided. The report didn’t mention that as well as the economic case assessment requiring high speeds, the Secretary of State effectively set a minimum speed of 300kph for HS2 Ltd when they were assessing the possible routes, limiting them from the start.
Carbon. If the aim is to increase inter-urban travel, they acknowledge that HS2 will have lower carbon impacts than non-rail capacity measures such as new motorways. But they missed a trick here as reducing carbon is all about the context and wider strategy. That’s why some NGOs have commissioned research into the wider context and affects on carbon, and I’m looking forward to viewing the interim ideas in the next month or so. Unfortunately they didn’t question Lord Wolfson’s suggestion that roads should have a higher investment priority: if the aim is to reduce carbon emissions and the wider environmental impacts of transport this would be ludicrous. By building more rail capacity this isn’t so much about predict and provide, but acknowledging we cannot go on building more road capacity and we need to encourage modal shift from road to rail through many means, including by providing the capacity for it.
Natural capital. Following on from the ecosystem assessment work published early this year the Committee picks up on the need to put a monetary value on natural capital and include this in a revised economic case. While they were right to conclude that the impact on natural capital should have an influence on the route alignment and design, nature has a wider value than one you can place money on, which the ecosystem assessment does acknowledge, but is often missed when this work is referred to.
Information and engagement. The Committee saves its criticism of Government mainly for the way it handled communication, information sharing and engagement. The lack of consistent information has been a hindrance in deciding the impacts and benefits of this or any other proposed route. The Committee felt the Government wasn’t clear on technical issues and didn’t engage in the debate sufficiently, with some of the discussions conducted through “a series of nods and winks in the press”. They call for a more detailed explanation of why the scheme is better than alternatives and a degree of consensus on the, mainly technical, issues.
So that’s why I see it as an “amber light” report (or should I say amber aspect if I’m using railway-speak?) – indicating that HS2 has a good case, but highlighting problems. Unfortunately they ask the Government to “consider and clarify” rather than address fully each of those issues.