Richard Brown, Chief Executive Eurostar
High Speed 1 is transforming rail travel between the UK and mainland Europe. It has cut journey times by 40 minutes compared with the days before the line was built, improved punctuality even further, and brought Eurostar’s high-speed services within reach of millions more people, thanks to better connections at St Pancras International.
When the name High Speed 1 was chosen, we were conscious that it would also stoke the debate over whether there should be a High Speed 2 as the next link, building in turn towards a larger high-speed network. My answer is yes, and the time to begin planning it is now.
High-speed lines do much more than simply cut journey times and improve reliability, vital though these are for travellers. As has been shown across the continent, they are catalysts for economic growth, giving businesses confidence that they can establish themselves in provincial locations while being sure that their staff can travel quickly and reliably to important meetings in the big cities.
High Speed 2 could take the pressure off the overheated South East economy and its overcrowded transport systems. It could spread economic growth more evenly across the country, improving opportunities and the quality of life for workers who want to live away from traffic jams and highly-priced homes.
Where could it serve? The Government’s July 2007 Delivering a Sustainable Railway White Paper focuses on the need for extra capacity in and between the major cities of London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds – where growth has been fastest. Both ministers and Network Rail have warned that the West Coast main line will run out of capacity within 15 years. And a High Speed 2 serving the London-Birmingham-Manchester corridor would be the only way of meeting the government’s key objectives of increasing capacity, cutting journey times and reducing emissions.
Indeed, the Towards a Sustainable Transport System White Paper, published last October, argues that economic growth and CO2 reduction are both essential and mutually consistent if the UK is to achieve a 60 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. It recognises that the biggest challenge is the growth in airline travel. There may never be a Eurostar service to New York or Dubai, but within Europe there are major opportunities to sustain both the planet and economic growth by switching from plane to train.
For instance, independent research using actual load factors has shown that a Eurostar journey generates one-tenth of the CO2 emissions of an equivalent London to Paris or Brussels flight. The comparison on other routes where rail and air compete will vary but the general outcome will always be the same – the train is (much) greener than the plane.
However, the opportunities can only be realised by making new rail infrastructure a priority. And as The Stern Review concludes, the decisions we make in the next 10 to 20 years will determine whether we lock ourselves into very high emissions for the next half-century, or move on to a more sustainable path.
So it is disappointing that the recent rail White Paper argues that rail demand cannot be predicted with any confidence over 20 years because it will be heavily influenced by developments on other modes, the different growth rates of cities and even their marketing plans. Given the long planning horizons for any major rail project, this reads like an argument to do nothing.
Why not start from the other end of the telescope, and produce forecasts and a high-speed rail strategy based on national and regional economic, regeneration and environmental policies – and then let that strategy influence other developments? Which, by contrast, is exactly what the 2003 Future of Air Transport White Paper does in setting out a 30-year strategy for airport development.
The trouble is that we are not used to planning for continuous growth in rail – it is only in the last decade that we have seen such an enormous and sustained upturn. The Government’s go-ahead for schemes such as Crossrail, Thameslink, and the redevelopment of Birmingham New Street, is clear recognition of this.
But these major projects have all been planned for 20 years or more – there are no more in the pipeline. We must start planning further enhancements now, because history shows they will take at least 15 to 20 years to be built.
I am optimistic because, for once in a generation, there is a clear political consensus over the need for further major investment in rail. The most recent Transport White Paper, published in October, has moved on from its predecessor that called for an additional North-South rail link at conventional speeds, and now recognises that there could be a case for high-speed lines.
Our industry needs to make the case for high-speed rail in the context of the wider corridor demand for transport as a whole, and the benefits it will have on the cities along such corridors. I believe government policy is changing – and we must keep it moving forward.
Views expressed in our 'guest opinion' column are those of the author and not necessarily shared by Railnews.