New High Speed Rail to cut through Chilterns AONB

[Ed1979]

Recently, the government released its proposed route for the High Speed 2 (HS2) rail link. The route proposed is for a non-stop service from London Euston to Birmingham and cuts straight through the heart of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The reduction in journey would be between 20-30minutes. A total of 440 properties will be demolished to make way for this track from farm houses to 250+ homes in central London and more in Birmingham. The people I have spoken to that will lose there home in Buckinghamshire found out by watching the news or by being told by friends. The report states their intention to run 18 trains an hour at 400m in length with a capacity to move 20,000 people an hour (who the 20,000 people who travel from London to Birmingham and back each hour are I’m not quite sure). The cost of construction for the complete HS2 system will be £30 Billion (not that I can remember any government plan coming in on budget no matter which party is running the show).

There is great debate over the business model for this rail link but, leaving that to one side, there is grave concern over the environmental impact of the proposed route. The Chilterns Conservation Board's chief officer, Steve Rodrick has said "It's going to slice through prime countryside, it's going to sever farms, it's going to mean the grubbing up of hedges, the loss of woodland, the loss of grassland, the severance of rights of way. Practically every aspect of what makes this area special will be affected,"

The benefit to the wider environment is not much better after construction is complete. In a study performed by Professor Preston of South Hampton University it was concluded that travel by high speed rail produces equivalent amounts of carbon emissions as driving due to the high voltage required to run the electric trains. Also, in a presentation by Professor Roger Kemp of Lancaster University to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers he concluded that if energy is produced from fossil fuels (over 70% of UK energy is) ‘over a 600 km sector, travel by high speed rail is as environmentally unfriendly as air travel’.

Sorry to post such a lot, there is fierce debate over this topic and I just wanted to show some of my reasoning for why I oppose the HS2 and, more specifically, running the HS2 though the Chilterns AONB. If you feel the same way please sign this petition every name counts.

Petition to: reconsider destroying the Chilterns with the high speed rail proposal. | Number10.gov.uk

Many Thanks

Edward Rainsford

[Jaeviatrix]

I've travelled to Birmingham from London before, the existing route seemed perfectly adequate. I don't know why they feel they need it!
I hope there is some serious resistance building to this!

Jay

[SheffieldLass]

It is not just about the London-Birmingham travel times, it is more particularly about high-speed links to Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield and the North, and Scotland. Travel times to Leeds, Sheffield would be about 1 hour quicker, cutting the Leeds time from 2hrs 20 mins to 1 hr 20 mins (a very significant cut). The economic viability of these cities is linked to ease/speed of travel connections to London.

There are a number of rail routes through very scenic areas already. OK, some are not main route lines (e.g. Manchester-Sheffield through the Peak District), but the East Coast Route runs through the Northumberland Coast AONB. It doesn't spoil that area for me.

The CO2 argument isn't that straightforward either. There is an easy-to-read summary of why it is not straightforward here :
Fast rail can mean slower CO2 progress | Leo Hickman | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

[Ed1979]

Hi, I take your point that this would be more useful further north and from some things I have read there is great support for it in Scotland. So why not start the line in the north and make it to Birmingham then change trains (something I do almost every day)? The line isn’t planned to go to Heathrow so the government argument that it would help divert internal flights doesn’t really hold water. There are alternative routes such as the one proposed by the 2M group, who are lobbying against the third runway, that do go to Heathrow and don’t impact at all on the AONB. The electric gantries and cables stick up quite high and in my opinion would impact the country side much more than normal train lines.

I agree with the article that the environmental impact depends upon the method used to generate the power and I did note that in my post. To quote the concluding sentences of the article ‘Use renewables and/or nuclear to produce your electricity and you're already more than half way to your destination – namely, creating a decarbonised transport network. But continue to rely on fossil fuels to generate your power and you'll barely get beyond the station platform’. Nuclear power in this country is still on the drawing board and I don’t believe any government will just make it all work sometime in the future.

Also, I think it is worth noting that the East Coast Mainline does not run through the Northumberland Coast AONB it runs near the boundary of the AONB.
Northumberland Coast AONB - Map

[thunder]

Originally Posted by SheffieldLass

It is not just about the London-Birmingham travel times, it is more particularly about high-speed links to Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield and the North, and Scotland. Travel times to Leeds, Sheffield would be about 1 hour quicker, cutting the Leeds time from 2hrs 20 mins to 1 hr 20 mins (a very significant cut). The economic viability of these cities is linked to ease/speed of travel connections to London.

I can't really believe that this statement is true. In the age of the internet and computer conferencing, speedy travel from city to city is surely becoming less and less important.

henrya

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by thunder

I can't really believe that this statement is true. In the age of the internet and computer conferencing, speedy travel from city to city is surely becoming less and less important.

henrya

If I go to London to do some field work &c I either have to pay a lot of money to travel early or I get the cheaper tickets which leave me about five hours of daylight in London! A fast direct train service to London would be great for lots of people.
My one disappointment with the proposal is that it is going to Euston rather than St Pancras ....

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by Ed1979

Hi, I take your point that this would be more useful further north and from some things I have read there is great support for it in Scotland. So why not start the line in the north and make it to Birmingham then change trains (something I do almost every day)? The line isn’t planned to go to Heathrow so the government argument that it would help divert internal flights doesn’t really hold water. .............

That's rather a bizarre argument. People go to Heathrow to catch the planes - there are not millions of people in Heathrow needing flights! I don't see why Heathrow or any other airport needs to come into consideration on this plan - the aim is to get from city centre to city centre and then to have reliable public transport to finish the journey.

[Gill Catton]

Think I'd want to see what mitigation they are putting in before deciding it was all bad bad bad, wildlife may end up better off if they are improving habitats away from the line.

[Chiltern Ben]

Gill,

You may be right, HS2 may not be too bad but I've been professionally involved with implimenting the environmental protection works associated with Heathrow Terminal 5, Channel Tunnel Rail Link / Rainham Marshes, Cross Rail and the proposed rail link to Heathrow. Environmental mitigation has had to be dragged out of all of all the development consortiums and habitat enhancement cannot be imposed on infrastructure developments because of how our legal system works i.e. the disassociation of planning and consenting powers for public works.

Mini rant coming up It's also interesting that you used the term "mitigation". Mitigation is only there to minimise impacts, not to compensate for damage or enhance the environment. Mitigating developments just leads to a slow degradation of our wildlife, rather than helping to halt the loss of biodiversity.

Much of the problem is the disingenuous way that significance criteria are set in Environmental Statements. Generally significance is set in many ES at a level which does not require much compensation, fails to give wildlife corridors a significant status and cumulative effects are not adequately dealt with.

So, I agree we should look at the ES that comes out this but I have little faith that it will adequately describe the significance of the proposal or its impact, as few Environmental Statements for large infrastructure projects ever do.

Next time I'm on top of Coombe Hill looking over the Aylesbury Vale from the Chiltern escarpment, I'll imagine the Vale sliced in half by the railway and wonder how significant it will be. Stand at the top of Aston Rowant NNR where the M40 cuts through the escarpment and down onto the Vale (about 10 miles from this proposal) and you'll see how significant it is from a landscape perspective despite what the ES said.

[Jez]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

If I go to London to do some field work &c I either have to pay a lot of money to travel early or I get the cheaper tickets which leave me about five hours of daylight in London! A fast direct train service to London would be great for lots of people.
My one disappointment with the proposal is that it is going to Euston rather than St Pancras ....

Why not reduce fares instead of cutting though unspoilt areas which will cost how much?