UK: High-speed rail strategy not so green?

[John Ashworth]

High-speed rail strategy not so green, report says

Study argues that building and operating London-Manchester rail network will generate more CO2 than air route

* Dan Milmo, transport correspondent
* guardian.co.uk, Monday 17 August 2009

A government-commissioned report has raised doubts over the green credentials of high-speed rail by warning that a new 300kph (185mph) London to Manchester line could be less environmentally friendly than the same air route.

A study by Booz Allen Hamilton, a consultancy, argues that building and operating a new north-south rail network in England will generate more CO2 than taking the same route by air over a 60-year period.

The environment is an important factor in the case for high-speed rail and the transport secretary, Lord Adonis, has made the demise of domestic air travel an explicit target of the policy. The report, Estimated Carbon Impact of a New North-South Line, argues that travelling on a domestic air service could be the greener option if you are travelling from the capital to Manchester.

"There is no potential carbon benefit in building a new line on the London to Manchester route over the 60-year appraisal period. In essence, the additional carbon emitted by building and operating a new rail route is larger than the entire quantity of carbon emitted by the air services," said the report.

However, the report adds that a high-speed route from London to Glasgow or Edinburgh will achieve a net carbon saving, and therefore justify itself in environmental terms, if it wins a 62% market share against airlines. Currently, rail controls 15% of the rail/air market between London and Scotland and has greater potential to win passengers from airlines, as opposed to London to Manchester where rail already controls about half of the rail/air market according to Booz Allen Hamilton.

A Department for Transport spokesperson said the report, completed in 2007 but only published this year, admitted to using a "simplistic model" and had not factored in the possibility of winning market share from car drivers. High Speed Two, the company established by Lord Adonis to draw up plans for a north-south link, will submit its own report, including an environmental study, at the end of the year.

The Booz Hamilton Allen study adds that the case for high-speed rail becomes harder to justify if the number of trains operated between London and Scotland doubles from four to eight an hour. Under that scenario, rail would need a market share of between 73% and 85% in order to achieve a net carbon saving because running high-speed trains so frequently uses up more energy and generates more CO2. Instead, the report says, the government could concentrate on increasing capacity on existing lines through the removal of bottlenecks and installing more advanced signalling systems.

Another Booz Hamilton Allen report for the DfT, produced with consultancies First Class Partnerships and Temple, highlights the potential cost of a high-speed route amid pressure on the public finances. The study envisages a 1,240km London to Scotland "hybrid line", comprising new and upgraded lines, built in four sections: from London Euston to Birmingham, including Heathrow; then onwards to Manchester and Scotland; a cross-Pennine link from Manchester to Leeds and Sheffield; and an east coast branch from south east Birmingham to York.

The capital cost of a hybrid line with new high-speed tracks is priced at £39bn, plus £20bn in operating costs over 30 years, including the acquisition of trains and carriages.

The core route of London to Glasgow via Birmingham and Manchester is priced at £29bn, with London to Manchester costing £15bn.

Meanwhile, Heathrow's owner, BAA, is arguing that a north-south link will boost the case for a third runway, even if it replaces domestic air travel. BAA believes that a high-speed route joining with Heathrow will funnel more of those passengers to Heathrow, putting further pressure on capacity and boosting the case for a new landing strip.

The RAC Foundation, the roads thinktank, said the environmental analysis, contained in a series of government-commissioned reports that also outlined high construction and maintenance costs, exposed potential flaws in the government's high speed rail strategy.

Stephen Glaister, a leading transport academic and director of the RAC Foundation, said: "It is unwise for the government to have committed so heavily to high-speed rail in advance of the completion of the High Speed Two review, when they already have available their own comprehensive studies calling into question the environmental benefits and suggesting much higher costs for the taxpayer."