It will have escaped few readers' notice that the Government is currently embroiled in a bitter war with rural interest groups over the re-writing of the planning framework. While that conflict currently burns brightly in the foreground, the equally controversial plan to build a High Speed Rail link between London and Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds continues to simmer gently in the shadows. At the Countryside Alliance we are in no doubt that, of the two, it is the HS2 proposal that poses the greater risk to Britain's countryside and those who live in it.
There are many similarities between these two rural flash points. For both the Government is prioritising growth over green spaces, and opponents are being unfairly labelled as Nimbys. However there are some clear differences. Most notably, while reforming the planning rules is largely cost-free, the Coalition has estimated that building the High Speed Rail link will cost upwards of £32 billion and the benefits won't be seen until 2025.
Last month, to coincide with the Government consultation, the Alliance ran a survey of its members who live along the proposed route. Even the most hardcore proponent of the growth agenda would have read the responses and felt a deep sense of compassion for the people whose lives and livelihoods - and those of their families - are being destroyed. It is all very well for people living in the South East or North West to label them as Nimbys, but it is also very easy to forget that these are family homes and businesses being demolished to welcome in a train line for which they will never see any benefit.
It is not even certain that the very areas that are purported to gain from HS2 will see anything near the economic boost the Government claims. Thinktanks and campaign groups ranging from the TaxPayers' Alliance to Friends of the Earth have all shown that the economic case is flawed. Meanwhile studies have estimated that High Speed Rail will cost the South West over 50,000 jobs and 21,000 jobs in Wales; and MPs in the North East have also turned against the huge costs of the project. With the railways already creaking and the national coffers stretched to breaking point, spending even a tenth of the cost of HS2 on upgrading the current system would yield greater benefits for everyone in Britain, cheaperand much sooner.
We also have significant environmental concerns about the High Speed rail proposal. The Countryside Alliance believes that before any large-scale infrastructure project is undertaken, there must be a comprehensive analysis of the implications for the countryside, important wildlife habitats and biodiversity. The initial line between London and Birmingham cuts through the Chilterns - an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB). AONB is a national designation intended to protect some of England's finest landscapes, and confers on it the highest level of protection. Any development which would cause damage to an AONB has to be shown to be in the national interest and demonstrate why it cannot be located elsewhere. To the human cost I detailed above, you can add an environmental cost in terms of species, habitats, noise and views, which will permanently and irreparably damage some of Britain's most cherished countryside.
The Countryside Alliance therefore proposes an alternative. Alongside upgrading the current network to electrify the Chiltern Mainline and Cross Country lines, we believe that investing in a nationwide superfast broadband network would deliver the economic returns of HS2, without destroying homes, lives and the environment. Better still, rather than demolishing the rural and semi-rural communities between London and Birmingham, it would be empowering them to grow and invest in the economy.
According to the Commission for Rural Communities, in 2005, England's rural areas hosted at least 476,000 VAT or PAYE registered enterprises. They earned £304 billion and employed 2.96 million people. This represented at least 27% of England's enterprises; 13% of employment, but only 9% of the country's business revenue or turnover. In some rural areas businesses were contributing proportionally less economic output than would be expected thus showing the existence of unfulfilled potential from firms and workforce in rural areas. The lack of broadband or slow internet speeds consistently polls highest as the top concern of rural businesses. There is a wealth of untapped economic potential that is waiting to be given the right tools to grow.
With a programme of rail upgrades and investment in superfast broadband, the Government could deliver the economic growth it desires, for a fraction of the cost of the High Speed Rail 2 project and in a fraction of the time. That's why we say High Speed Broadband, not High Speed Rail.
Follow Sarah Lee on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cacmpaigns
Dylan Sharpe: Never Mind Superfast, for Some, Just Plain Broadband Would be a Result
Paul Maynard: Expecting the Government to Abandon HS2 is Unrealistic
oh Come on, a rail line wont occupy much of the green belt, besides it is going to be a tourist attraction as passengers wonder the beauty of the "green and pleasant land" as they look through train windows.
Both investments are job creators.
the tree-huggers have already killed so many jobs in Wales and the West Midlands.. enough. It is time for the job-creators to have more voice and make appease with the tree-huggers by investing in both environmental protection alongside industrial development.
To enable people to have a lie-in in bed? Do you seriously expect the taxpayer to pay for this?
For capacity? The a regular speed train line will do nicely, especially since (after the much-delayed electrification of the Cardiff-Paddington line) we will have a lot of 125 trains rusting away.
Our 19th century rail infrastructure is already bursting at the seams and this is a much needed improvement. The East line is already of a sufficiently high standard and the 'new' St Pancras/ Chunnel link is excellent. The West line is woefully inadequate for the 21st century and encouraging our Midlands/Northern manufacturing (the real lifeblood of our economy) to start using rail transportation again should be a real priority.
Of course I'll be most interested when we have the technology to teleport a 10' diameter titanium gas turbine casing from Birmingham or a 10T stainless steel heat exchanger from Sheffield by fibre optic cable, but until that time comes should we not concentrate on real infrastructure?
Ms. Sara Lee is entirely right to doubt the benefits of the proposed high speed rail links.
The following should be considered:-
Firstly, I believe that few high speed rail links make money.
Secondly, to be effective, a high speed rail line has to go long distances. It would be effective serving say, London to Edinburgh, or London to Newcastle, but would make no sense if the rail stopped frequently in-between. The cities in-between would therefore suffer.
Thirdly, the UK is already served by a relatively fast rail system. Manchester and Leeds, for example, are only just over two hours from London at present;and there is no evidence that lopping 30 minutes from the journey would help heal the so-called north-south divide..
Fourthly, high speed rail networks sometimes exacerbate regional divides, rather than healing them. A super-fast link between say Newcastle and London would probably benefit London more than Newcastle; after all, why have a regional office in Newcastle if the city can be reached conveniently in a day trip by rail?
Fifthly, as Sara Lee rightly points out, the money would be far better spent on up-grading the UK’s woefully inadequate broadband network.
Sadly, the high speed rail is seen as a glamour investment and useful as a prop for the pointless posturing of our politicians. There are many other more worthy (if less glamorous) projects on which we could spend the money.
Sincerely, Derek Lantin. http://dereklantin.booksabuzz.com
I think this is very true. No rational analysis could lead to the present positioning of the three main parties.
And by the way. The biggest unused brownfield site in Britain is OVER the rail-tracks which pass through London. Many are five to ten tracks (50-100 feet) wide for miles. There are existing buildings over parts near major stations. It would be possible to build over large sections, say three or four levels with their own light transport to nearest station. Probably room for couple of hundred thousand starter flats for singles working in the city.
Intrusion on green belt is not necessary. Transport system itself has underused land. Trains are electric now. Building over track is now feasible.
Lastly trying to claim that High speed lines are damaging to the environment is nothing more than a big joke. As for High speed Broadband, I already have it.
I understand. According to the government figures, the UK will receive major benefits for the outlay. But whereas the money is real, the benefits are more nebulous. Very few people travel by train, and HSR is a small part of the rail network. So how much benefit will it provide?
As has been already noted, the existing rail services have high time costs, because people cannot sit and work - yet trains have large numbers of 1st class carriages, which is nice if it can be afforded, but when the trains are crowded in standard class, where is the justification?
The killer fact for me is that vastly more people travel using buses, bicycles, local commuter rail, and cars, and these also need to be paid for. The government can spin like crazy, but either HSR or the local facilities can be upgraded, not both. My fear is that we will have HSR, but without the necessary and more important improvements in local facilities.
"Lastly trying to claim that High speed lines are damaging to the environment is nothing more than a big joke."
Yes, I didn't think it rang true either. It seemed like chucking something else into the way of the tracks.
In Paris and Madrid, they had the effect of bolstering business in the capital cities, at the expense of the regional areas served by the high speed rail link.
I think that the money would be better spent developing better infrastructure within the Midlands, - as Ms. Lee points out, - broadband would probably be far more beneficial than high speed rail.
Regards, Derek Lantin
Next week, I'll have to travel in Germany from Hamburg to Berlin. I take the high speed train. I HAVE to take the high speed train if I don't want to drive, because there are no flights between Hamburg and Berlin anymore. Because by the time you go to the airport, checked in, got through security, boarded the plane, got airborne and reached Berlin, the train already got there long ago, from city centre to city centre
by those in whose backyards these intrusive monstrosities are not going to be built presumably?
"a wealth of untapped economic potential"
Not only could the existing rail routes be upgraded. Those arteries could be brought into the twenty-first century in the same way that container freight revolutionized shipping. Computerized control of movements, promoting the maximization of efficient usage. Bringing the work and wherewithal to communities, rather than making everyone commute. The rail routes themselves could provide ready made cableways, for a world class communication optical transmission cable system. As far as the country is concerned, crony capitalism is no substitute for inspirational ideas.
Which mean that to address this, communities are having to do something about it themselves and thankfully that is what's happening in my area with a project called B4RN (Broadband For Rural North). A non profit, community project that will deliver a 1Gbs, affordable fibre connection to all properties in its area. Details can be seen at www.b4rn.org.uk for anyone who is interested.
My personal opinion is that I think a fast, future proof, reliable broadband network can be seen as the "railway" of the modern age. Whereas the railways were critical to the Industrial Age for the Victorians, broadband is critical for us in the digital age. The only difference is that the commodities are data and knowledge instead of steel and cloth, the the benefits for the UK could be the same if done properly.
How can the UK hope to compete, if it cannnot provide good internet access throughout the country?
Many so-called "underdeveloped countries" have broadband connection that is far more advanced than in the UK.
Regards, Derek Lantin
Care to give an example of a business being held back through lack of broadband access?
It may not get the interest it needs to be successful, but I sure hope it does as the alternative for areas like what B4RN is covering is not very good at all.
At least someone is trying to do something about it, which is more than can be said for what the government or BT are offering.