Kenilworth and Southam Liberal Democrats

HS2 Consultation Response from Local Party

High Speed Train

This consultation response has been submitted on behalf of Kenilworth & Southam Liberal Democrats, the local party representing Liberal Democrat members living in Kenilworth & Southam parliamentary constituency. The proposed HS2 route would bisect the constituency, entering it near Wormleighton in the south and leaving it at Burton Green in the north.

The local party declared its opposition to HS2 soon after it was first announced in March 2010, and nothing that has happened or has been published since has changed its view that the HS2 proposal is fundamentally flawed.

Q1: Do 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?

No. We support a policy of long-term, consistent investment in the rail network as a whole, rather than focussing such a massive investment as HS2 on selected inter-city routes only. Development of local rail services should be given at least equal weight to inter-city services, in order to support economic growth, especially in slower growing regions of the country.

Q2: Do 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?

No. We support investment in the "Optimised Alternative to HS2" proposal prepared by Chris Stokes (51M Group submission to Transport Select Committee, May 2011), as a relatively low-cost, low-risk means of enhancing rail capacity and performance on the selected inter-city routes. This could be implemented incrementally, starting now. If the demand forecasts are to be believed, we cannot wait until 2026 yet alone to 2032/33.

The London-Birmingham route is already high speed, with good and improving city-to-city journey times. It is valid to deal with known capacity and performance constraints (as the Optimised Alternative would do), but not make it the focus of such massive and concentrated public investment. There are many other priorities for improved high speed services elsewhere on the inter-city rail network, e.g. to the North (Leeds, Newcastle and Scotland), to the West (Bristol, Plymouth and South Wales) and to the East (Norwich).

Any future additional high speed line linking London to the north of the UK should follow a more direct route to those areas (i.e. Leeds, Newcastle and Scotland), rather than divert via the Birmingham area.

Q3: Do you agree with the Government's proposals for the phased roll-out of a national high-speed network, and for links to Heathrow airport and the High Speed 1 line to the Channel Tunnel?

No. As stated in answer to Q2, if the HS2 demand forecasts are realistic then we cannot wait until 2026 to address current capacity and performance issues. Incremental investments would be essential over the period to 2026 (i.e. some or all of the Optimised Alternative measures), so the starting point for HS2 in 2026 could be very different from the "Do minimum" position assumed.

In practice there is considerable evidence to suggest that HS2 demand forecasts are unrealistically high. A strategy based on incremental increases in capacity and performance, in line with real increases in demand, would be far lower risk than the HS2 "big bang" approach.

The economic cases for both the Heathrow and HS1 links are weak. Existing rail linkages to airports have suffered from lack of investment and poor connections, while direct services connecting the Midlands to Eurostar have been removed. The priority should be to reinvest in existing/previous link services, to improve connectivity and reliability. This would deliver national shorter journey times, intermodal connections and environmental benefits at a fraction of the HS2 cost.

Q4: Do you agree with the principles and specification used by HS2 Ltd to underpin its proposals for new high speed rail lines and the route selection process HS2 Ltd undertook?

No. We do not accept that a 250 mph design speed is appropriate or justified in our small, crowded island. Seeking to attain it has resulted in a proposed scheme that would impact very negatively on people's lives and the natural environment across this constituency. Route options have been severely curtailed by the design speed chosen, and in particular options to follow existing transport corridors have been discounted. A lower design speed range (say 130 - 185 mph) would have made little difference in terms of journey times, but could have greatly reduced the negative impacts of any chosen route.

Q5: Do you agree that the Government's proposed route, including the approach proposed for mitigating its impacts, is the best option for a new high speed rail line between London and the West Midlands?

No. We do not believe that a new super high speed line between London and the West Midlands is necessary or desirable. There should be sustained long-term investment in the current WCML and Chiltern services to increase capacity, reduce bottlenecks and address conflicts between passenger and freight service priorities.

Insufficient detail has been provide in the Appraisal of Sustainability (AoS) to allow a considered response on the mitigation approach proposed.

Q6: Do 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?

It is unacceptable that such a massive national infrastructure project should be put forward on a "carbon neutral at best" claim, when the Government is committed to an overall 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. The project would need large quantities of high-energy materials (e.g. concrete) in its construction, and is based on extreme operating speeds. Energy consumption of moving vehicles is nearly proportional to the cube of speed.

Lower maximum speeds (e.g. 180 mph) would mean lower costs, lower energy usage and significantly less impact on people's lives and the natural environment.

Q7: Do 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?

We support the bond-based property purchase scheme, as the only option which could address the fundamental principle that individual citizens should not suffer financial loss from major projects that are claimed to benefit the whole country. However, it is important that the scheme is announced quickly, and that it applies to all households blighted by the HS2 proposals.