Engagement is a broader process than consultation. It should involve the public in developing solutions – if not defining the problem – rather than simply having a say once a shortlist of infrastructure proposals has been drawn up.

In December 2011 some Right Lines Charter signatories held a seminar on public engagement and High Speed Rail. A diverse range of experts discussed the range of different experiences and techniques available and the particular challenges for using them in relation to major infrastructure proposals. We are encouraging the Department for Transport to consider the findings and how they could be used in future.

Further information

• Note of seminar on public engagement and high speed rail (pdf)
• Presentation by Deborah Mattinson of Britain Thinks (pdf)

Postscript

Although there is detailed case law in relation to the principles of consultation (as set out in a January 2012 Administrative Law Bar Association seminar), public engagement is a broader, context-sensitive concept that is more difficult to pin down. For example, the right to public participation in decision-making is the second of the three pillars of the Aarhus convention but the least developed. Without an effective remedy to resolve any breach, principles may be more of academic rather practical interest.

The lack of a remedy is a particular issue in relation to major infrastructure projects that are to be authorised using the hybrid bill process. Judicial review is an option of last resort, which means that all alternative remedies – such petitioning against a bill – should be exhausted before an attempt to challenge a decision through judicial review is made. However the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty means the courts cannot overturn an Act of Parliament.

The Right Lines Charter’s ‘Next Steps’ report described the hybrid bill process as outdated and recommended that it be phased out.

Click on the links below to see responses of individual signatories.

Campaign for Better Transport

Campaign to Protect Rural England

Chiltern Society

Environmental Law Foundation

Friends of the Earth

Greenpeace

Railfuture

Ramblers

RSPB

Wildlife Trusts

Woodland Trust

The other two signatories made the following comments:

Civic Voice

‘Given the controversy over first phase of #HS2 will the Government improve the way it engages public on choices north of Birmingham?’

Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings

‘In announcing minor alterations as part of the go-ahead for the planned route of HS2, the Government continues to ignore most of the irreplaceable historic buildings that face outright demolition or direct impact. The concessions, though welcome, fail to address the wider issue. It is now essential that the Environmental Impact Assessment accurately identifies the built heritage at risk, as we believe the previous appraisal to be flawed. Only then can proper measures be considered to reduce the number to be knocked down or left severely compromised.’

The interim report on The Carbon Impacts of HS2 discovered that far from being carbon neutral, the proposed new high-speed railway line between London and the West Midlands has the potential to actually reduce UK carbon emissions.

The report, the result of research carried out by Greengauge 21 and commissioned by Campaign for Better Transport, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), examined all the factors which will affect the carbon impact of high speed rail and identifies several areas which will have the greatest influence:

• how electricity in future is generated, for instance, how much comes from renewable sources
• how transport and land use planning are integrated, in particular where new stations are sited
• how successful HS2 is in attracting passengers from other modes of transport
• how much capacity HS2 frees up on existing lines in order to accommodate more freight
• how HS2 might be operated, in particular its service patterns and normal operating speed, which could be more important that its top speed

Jim Steer of Greengauge 21 said: “We need to move beyond the will it, won’t it level of debate about the carbon impact of HS2. Our research has looked at a wide range of factors that might affect the carbon case for HS2 and discovered the impacts are complex and inter-related. But if the detailed planning is done properly, HS2 should make a positive contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Ralph Smyth, CPRE, said: “Integrating land use and transport planning will be of critical importance if high-speed rail is to cut carbon. Well sited high-speed rail stations could stimulate brownfield regeneration and create attractive, walkable neighbourhoods.”

Stephen Joseph, Campaign for Better Transport’s chief executive, said: “The Government view is that HS2 is neutral in carbon terms, but this does not take account of the impact on the rest of the rail network. The West Coast Main Line is a very busy mixed use railway and if capacity for better rail services is freed up by HS2, mode shift from road to rail could – if combined with other policies – result in big carbon reductions, especially in freight and in medium distance commuting and business travel.”

Melanie Coath, RSPB, said: “Climate change poses the greatest long term threat to wildlife so we need transport systems that help us deliver a low carbon economy. A robust analysis of the carbon impacts of HS2 will help us understand the role high-speed rail might play compared to other modes of transport.”

The report is an interim document ahead of the full results of the research, which will be published in 2012. In the next phase of the study will examine the knock-on effects on other modes of transport, examining for the first time the carbon impacts of freeing up capacity on existing railways for more rail freight or local passenger services, and identify the policy measures that will have the most impact on the carbon emissions for high speed rail.

Further information

The research study, The Carbon Impacts of HS2, is being carried out by Greengauge 21, a not-for-profit research organisation on high-speed rail. Greengauge 21 has in turn commissioned various experts in the environmental and transport fields and coordinated the research programme.

The Carbon Impacts of HS2 was commissioned by Campaign for Better Transport, Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). The groups are all signatories of the The Right Lines Charter, which was launched in April 2011 and which ten other organisations have now signed up to. It sets out four principles for ‘doing High Speed Rail well’, including highlighting the need for high-speed rail to be planned and justified as a strategic element of a sustainable, near zero carbon transport system.

The Carbon Impacts of HS2 is sponsored by Siemens, Systra and the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC). 

Supporting technical reports to the main interim report are available on the Greengauge 21 website:

• An analysis of the environmental, transport, energy and other policy issues that will influence the carbon case for HS2, commissioned from Dr Ian Skinner of Transport and Environmental Policy Research (TEPR)
• An analysis of the energy consumption and carbon performance of high-speed trains and how this varies according to speed, rolling stock design, operating practices and infrastructure configuration. This analysis was carried out by SYSTRA

When the Right Lines Charter [2], supported by environmental, transport, heritage and legal charities with over 600 combined years of involvement in the planning of major infrastructure, was launched in April 2011, then Secretary of State for Transport Philip Hammond said that ‘[these] respected organisations…should be assured that the Government is already acting on their points of concern.’ Over half a year later, on the verge of the Government announcing its decision on High Speed 2 (HS2), these organisations are launching a report to set out for the benefit of the new Secretary of State, Justine Greening, what still needs to be done.

Karen Gardham, Campaign Manager for the Right Lines Charter, says: “The two transport policies the Government is clear about are that they want High Speed Rail, but they do not want a third runway at Heathrow. We strongly support the commitment to shifting intercity transport from air and road to rail, but so far HS2 has been developed in a vacuum. If HS2 is to meet its environmental or economic potential, it needs to be planned properly within a long-term national transport strategy that cuts carbon.”

Besides setting out the need for such a strategy by 2014, before phase two of HS2 is formally consulted on, the report outlines how changes are needed to the way the future is forecasted and how communities are engaged in consultation on major infrastructure proposals. It also calls for better recognition and protection of the value of the natural and historic environment. The groups are calling for the lessons from previous schemes, such as High Speed 1, to be learned from.

Karen Gardham added: “Justine Greening has shown her environmental credentials and eye for detail during the successful challenge to the third runway at Heathrow. Now she has been promoted to run the Department for Transport, we’re hoping she will once again secure the best outcome for communities and the country by improving the planning of High Speed Rail.”

Unlike early media reports, it does not recommend the building of the route start in the North – it does in fact confirm that starting in the South addresses where the capacity issue is most urgent. But in a contradictory amendment proposed by MPs on the Committee, they also call for a study into starting construction from the North (even though they’re convinced it should start from the South!).

Especially interesting is their “calm down dear” moment of calling for pros and antis to treat each with respect and refrain from the quite frankly quote appalling public slanging matches seen over the last eight months. While the Committee identify a “good case for proceeding with the High Speed Rail network” it has concerns around the issues below.

National strategy. In line with the Right Lines Charter’s first principle, the Committee emphasised the need for an overall transport strategy for HS2 to be assessed against. They’re a bit annoyed that the Government have been ignoring their calls for a White Paper on Transport and the Economy. They call for a long term strategy for transport and how HS2 fits into this, plus recognition that other rail-related policies coming out this year need to look at the wider context. They also recommend the publication of statements on service patterns and spending across the whole railway network. This would secure wider capacity benefits than just to those who use the HSR line, and in conjunction with other rail improvement could free up routes. Although they mention freight in terms of spending priorities for the classic network (i.e. non-HSR railway) they missed the opportunity to underline that one of the benefits of freeing up classic network capacity is being able to move freight from road to rail.

Speed. It’s a “I told you so” moment as I sit here trying not to feel smug following an earlier post as speed was identified as a possibly unnecessary restriction, meaning detrimental impacts could not be avoided. The report didn’t mention that as well as the economic case assessment requiring high speeds, the Secretary of State effectively set a minimum speed of 300kph for HS2 Ltd when they were assessing the possible routes, limiting them from the start.

Carbon. If the aim is to increase inter-urban travel, they acknowledge that HS2 will have lower carbon impacts than non-rail capacity measures such as new motorways. But they missed a trick here as reducing carbon is all about the context and wider strategy. That’s why some NGOs have commissioned research into the wider context and affects on carbon, and I’m looking forward to viewing the interim ideas in the next month or so. Unfortunately they didn’t question Lord Wolfson’s suggestion that roads should have a higher investment priority: if the aim is to reduce carbon emissions and the wider environmental impacts of transport this would be ludicrous. By building more rail capacity this isn’t so much about predict and provide, but acknowledging we cannot go on building more road capacity and we need to encourage modal shift from road to rail through many means, including by providing the capacity for it.

Natural capital. Following on from the ecosystem assessment work published early this year the Committee picks up on the need to put a monetary value on natural capital and include this in a revised economic case. While they were right to conclude that the impact on natural capital should have an influence on the route alignment and design, nature has a wider value than one you can place money on, which the ecosystem assessment does acknowledge, but is often missed when this work is referred to.

Information and engagement. The Committee saves its criticism of Government mainly for the way it handled communication, information sharing and engagement. The lack of consistent information has been a hindrance in deciding the impacts and benefits of this or any other proposed route. The Committee felt the Government wasn’t clear on technical issues and didn’t engage in the debate sufficiently, with some of the discussions conducted through “a series of nods and winks in the press”. They call for a more detailed explanation of why the scheme is better than alternatives and a degree of consensus on the, mainly technical, issues.

So that’s why I see it as an “amber light” report (or should I say amber aspect if I’m using railway-speak?) – indicating that HS2 has a good case, but highlighting problems. Unfortunately they ask the Government to “consider and clarify” rather than address fully each of those issues.

MPs in attendance including John Woodcock, a Shadow Minister for Transport, Aidan Burley who works for the Secretary of State for Transport, Jeremy Wright, a Government Whip, the Co-Chairs and Vice Chair of the new Parliamentary cross-Party group on High Speed Rail and some Transport Committee members (who are currently inquiring into High Speed Rail as a separate process to the decision being made by Justine Greening on HS2). MPs who couldn’t attend sent their support for the Charter. Those who I spoke to recognised there needs to be a consensus, and felt that the Charter was helpful in moving on the debate. Paul Maynard MP, who couldn’t make the event, blogged recently that he was disappointed that “those both strongly for and strongly against still struggle to find any common ground”. If he had been able to come along he would have found a focus for the common ground he’s seeking.

Speakers from CPRE, the Woodland Trust, the Campaign for Better Transport and Warwickshire Wildlife Trust outlined how the need for extra capacity was extremely important, but shouldn’t need to be achieved at the expense of those things we find most precious to us, such as the tranquillity of the countryside, irreplaceable ancient woodlands, and wildlife sites many people enjoy. It was acknowledged that HS2 was a difficult issue for environmental groups, who had campaigned against the third runway at Heathrow and wanted to support a modal shift to rail travel. Although the Charter signatories have campaigned on different aspects of HS2, they were all able to come together under the Charter, and it very much felt like those in attendance were able to do so too.

Few people would be against High Speed Rail in principle, but the HS2 proposals have implications for footpaths and walkers that have not yet been analysed. So far, the Ramblers has identified around 150 footpaths that could be directly affected as they cross the proposed line of the route. The reams of consultation documents for the HS2 proposals did not mention footpaths or rights of way at all other than to say they will be considered later. We have no idea exactly what will be considered later, and how footpaths will be addressed, especially as the number of footpaths HS2 Ltd identified (27) is far less than the ones we have identified.

Another issue is that whilst the Ramblers back more local links to provide access to footpaths by public transport, and HS2 could free up capacity to provide those links, current plans don’t identify what this would look like.

The diversity of views amongst our members has led to a more nuanced stance that fits with the Right Lines Charter. We need to ensure the proposals are part of a national transport strategy that provide a modal shift to public transport, with more local links, and ensure the impact to all rights of way are adequately assessed, explained and mitigated at an early design stage. In our Walk magazine article Fast Track to Folly we identify some of the issues around the HS2 proposals that concern walkers.

Far from this being the end, this consultation marks an early stage of a much longer process should the Government give the go-ahead to the proposal when they analyse the consultation response and announce their decision in December.

If the decision is yes, there will be

- An environmental impact assessment in early 2012

- Informal consultation on phase 2 in 2012

- Preparation of Hybrid Bill for Phase 1 2012-2013

- Phase 1 Hybrid Bill going through Parliament 2013-2015

- Formal consultation on Phase 2 in 2014

- Hybrid Bill for Phase 2 going through Parliament 2016-2021

- Construction of Phase 1 2016 – 2024

But between September and December 2011, a number of papers are being published that should have an influence on the HS2 proposals.

In September, Network Rail (the company who run the country’s rail infrastructure) with the Association of Train Operating Companies, the Rail Freight Operators’ Association and the Rail Industry Association will publish the Initial Industry Plan, setting out what they think is necessary on outputs and expenditure for what is known as Control Period 5 (the period of time between 2014 – 2019). This will provide an input to Government decision-making. As the Network Rail route utilisation strategy for the West Coast Mainline is supportive of a High Speed Rail line to relieve capacity on this line, this Plan is likely to support HS2.

An important month is November, when the Government will publish for consultation the National Networks National Policy Statement (NPS), covering trunk roads, rail and Rail Freight Interchanges. NPSs provide a policy context for decision making on major infrastructure projects of national significance. Applications will be assessed using criteria on national need, benefits and impacts set out in the NPS. NPSs have now been finalised for energy infrastructure, with drafts published for ports and, hazordous waste and waste water.

In the same month it is also expected that the Government will publish a statement on rail, as a response to the McNulty Rail Value for Money Review and looking to the future for rail.

The Transport Select Committee will report on their inquiry into High Speed Rail at some point in the Autumn. Although an inquiry into the strategic case for HSR rather than the details of the route, the Government is likely to be influenced by their findings.

These papers, the NPS in particular, highlight the importance of the wider context that HS2 sits in, that has been missing in the debate so far. Inputting to the NPS, which Right Lines signatories will be doing, could give the opportunity to set a context for HSR proposals that emphasises reducing carbon emissions, and making rail the priority for investment for long distance travel. Getting these policies right will have a much more profound effect on jobs and lawns than many of the lobby groups seem to realise.

Unfortunately the green dream seems to be seriously lacking substance. The official Appraisal of Sustainability says that HS2 will broadly be ‘carbon neutral’ but that it is not possible to be precise the because a range of factors are unknown, from the details of the materials to be used for construction, to whether runway slots that are no longer needed for domestic flights are used for long haul flights instead.

The anti groups have used the lack of information on carbon emissions as one of their reasons for opposition to HS2. Jerry Marshall says that “HS2 will increase CO2, hence opposition from the Green Party and a long list of environmental organisations (under the Right Lines Charter)”.

But this is not an accurate summary of what Charter signatories are saying. HS2s net impact on carbon emissions would depend on a number of issues, including how fast it runs at, whether other policies are introduced that increase or decrease the attractiveness of road or air vs rail, oil price predictions, the degree to which the grid can be decarbonised, and strategies for use of capacity freed up on existing lines. Right Lines signatories give a more detailed analysis of these factors .

The anti’s also rubbish the business case. Indeed there are many flaws in the business case. Petrol prices are predicted to be just £1.30 in 2030, while air tickets are expected to be 30% cheaper! The impact of bigger changes such as the introduction of Road User Charging, which would drive many people onto the railways, has not been considered. Ironically, all of these mean that officials could be significantly underestimating the business case for HS2.

Freeing up capacity on the existing lines is essential if there is going to be a major modal shift from road to rail (for freight as well as passengers) and therefore reduction in carbon emissions. A shift from air is also needed, but a corresponding closure of those runway slots so they are not filled by long-haul flights will be the only way of securing the carbon benefits of such a shift. But other policies could negate any reductions from the transport system as a whole, such as e.g. allowing longer lorries, having higher speed limits on motorways.

That’s why we need a national transport strategy that can look at transport as a whole, and one of its aims should be to reduce carbon emissions from transport as a whole to a minimum. That way HSR can be looked at in this broader context, and its part in a near-zero carbon transport system can be properly evaluated. The Committee on Climate Change advised Government on a 50% carbon reduction target by 2027. This was agreed by Government, whose coalition agreement says that the purpose of HSR is to create a low carbon economy. The Coalition Agreement says “We will reform the way decisions are made on which transport projects to prioritise, so that the benefits of low carbon proposals (including light rail schemes) are fully recognised”.

So the Government finds itself in a tricky position. To be low carbon, HS2 needs complementary policies on air and road. But these complementary policies will need HS2 to create enough capacity. Mr Hammond, I have three words for you: strategy, strategy, strategy.

The well-rehearsed rebuttal to that is that time on a train is not time lost, many people work on the train, so the calculation of lack of economic value doesn’t stack up. So what are the other issues around speed?

Definition of “High Speed Rail”
We already have the potential for HSR – on the West Coast Mainline. The EU define high-speed rail as systems of rolling stock and infrastructure which regularly operate at or above 250 km/h (155 mph) on new tracks, or 200 km/h (124 mph) on existing tracks, of which the Virgin Pendolinos meet the latter requirement, running at 125 mph, with the potential to run faster. The current HS2 proposal is for Very High Speed Rail.

How much time is actually saved by faster trains?
35 minutes is the total anticipated saving in time for the London– Birmingham route, yet the majority of the time saving is because there will be fewer stops, not because of the faster speed. This is often missed by those who suggest ways of making HS2 more beneficial for certain towns by having stops there – if speed is the crucial factor behind the business case, any more stops will lose that advantage.

Evidence for desirability of speed
The business case on speed hinges on people wanting to make train journeys that they hadn’t made before, or that they made by car, because the train was now faster. Although speed and ease of travel is a highly rated reason why people choose road or aviation over rail, the top reason that would make people use rail for long distance travel is reduced cost (Public experiences of and attitudes towards rail travel survey, DfT, 2009)

Work or leisure?
The increase in travel by rail shows a much higher percentage is for leisure rather than business reasons, with research indicating 70% of travellers will be for reasons other than business. It’s not clear how much more desirable a higher speed is for leisure passengers to bolster the business case for the line.

What’s the speed in other countries?
The proposed HS2 line has a design speed of up to 400kph (249 mph), though will run at no more than 360kph (224mph) at the opening of the line (less depending which bit of the line you’re looking at). China is lowering the speed of their trains to no more than 300kph (186mph) to reduce their energy use and therefore cost. Japan also run their trains at up to 300kph, and the average speed in France is the same.

Speed restricts
By rigidly sticking to a requirement for a line that could provide 400kph services, the route is constrained and it is more difficult to avoid negative environmental impacts.

The proponents of speed at this point use the Charter against us. Ah ha, they say, we are “future proofing” the line as per your Principle 2 – we are preparing lines that can do up to 400 km/h but are only talking about running at speeds of 300 km/h (with lower carbon emissions).

So where does that leave us? Some of the red light (anti) groups contradict themselves by saying capacity is not needed and yet proposing alternatives high speed routes for this line that isn’t needed. There is no doubt in my mind that more capacity is needed. A new direct service line would free up capacity on other lines for more frequent services along those lines, new services at closed stations, east-west services and more freight. But this is not going to happen by itself, no matter what the free-marketers think – it needs a national transport strategy and funding identified to deliver it.

But the fundamental point is this – the current proposal has been led by engineering concerns rather than good design. The consultation on HS2 is flawed because the 400kph straightjacket limits the options and means consultees were offered a “take it or leave it” option, rather than a full discussion of the options and opportunities a lower speed requirement for HS2 could provide. The technicality of speed has been given a high prominence in making the business case at the expense of design that is beneficial for non-monetised impacts. Future proofing does not mean the scheme needs to be able to meet any possible scenario – it means that it we need a scheme that is robust to future changes that are a threat to sustainable development. Whether that scenario is one where a slightly faster speed and its economic benefits is more sustainable than a design that avoids negative impacts is debateable. Perhaps what we should be talking about is High Capacity Rail rather than High Speed