London-to-Birmingham high speed train route announced
altered after protests about its impact on homes and the countryside.
the chosen HS2 rail route.
to create the line and also for those whose homes were set to lose value.
and the coalition has been examining the plans.
by about 30 minutes.
be “one of the biggest and most wide-ranging ever undertaken by government”.
travelling times to and from the capital.
its impact on local communities and countryside.
at a new station at Curzon Street/Fazeley Street in Birmingham’s Eastside regeneration
area. HS2 will join the West Coast Main Line near Lichfield.
mitigate the impacts of the railway at local level which, when properly understood,
will reassure many of those who have been understandably apprehensive about the
potential impact on their lives and their property values.
impacts on property values.
those whose properties would not be required for the construction of the railway,
but who would nonetheless see a significant diminution of value as a result of
the construction of the line.”
stage of the project, but would be included in the second phase that will also
see extensions to Manchester and Leeds.
Primrose Hill, north London – moving a tunnel 100 metres further north and making
it deeper under groundNortholt, west London – line moved further away from housing Old Amersham to Little Missenden, Buckinghamshire – creation of a 150-metre bridge
over a cutting to reduce its visual impact and avoid severing a public right of
wayHartwell House, Buckinghamshire – line moved further away from a historic house Lichfield, Staffordshire – line moved meaning it would join the West Coast Main
Line further north.
2011.
passes through Tory heartlands, including the Chesham and Amersham constituency
of Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan.
Mr Hammond said there were opportunities for a “green bridge” over the cutting
and a longer “green tunnel”.
opposition from within his own party than from Labour MPs.
behind him,” she said.
the Secretary of State for Wales not to resign in protest at his plans.”
to HS2, said: “This project is the wrong priority for Britain.
local government and we’re expecting students to run up thousands of pounds of
debt, our politicians want to spend billions of our money on a rail link that
will shave just 30 minutes off a trip from London to Birmingham.”
benefits” and the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry said it would have “an
enormous impact on connectivity between the UK’s major cities”.
be winners and losers.
of this decision with affected communities and addresses concerns.”
Analysis
benefits, but should not be marketed as a major part of efforts to combat climate
change. The study,
on emissions from building a new high speed line connecting two major cities 500
kilometres apart. It says there is no reason to prohibit investment in high-speed
rail on environmental grounds as long as the carbon gains outweigh the emissions
during construction, but the greenhouse gas savings are sufficiently small that
it would be wrong to justify such investment as a solution to climate change.
rail. Some of them do so thinking that it will be an important part of climate
change mitigation. Intercity traffic over medium distances is particularly interesting
in the environmental context as it constitutes the only transport segment where
aircraft, trains, coaches and cars naturally compete for market shares.
link that connects two major cities located 500 km apart. It assumes that emissions
from new vehicles and aircraft in 2025 can be used as a proxy for the emissions
during a 50 year investment depreciation period. The emissions from the marginal
production of electricity, used by rail and electric vehicles, are estimated to
amount on average to 530 gram per kWh for the entire period. Fuels used by road
vehicles are assumed to be on average 80 percent fossil and 20 per cent renewable
(with a 65% carbon efficiency in the latter case).
of journeys diverted from aviation, 20 per cent diverted from cars, 5 per cent
from long-distance coaches, and 30 per cent from pre-existing trains. The remaining
25 per cent is new generated traffic. Under these assumptions would the investment
result in a net reduction of CO2-emissions of about 9,000 tons per one million
one-way trips. Assuming 10 million single journeys per year, the total reduction
would be 90,000 tons.
would amount to $3.6 million, which is very little in the context of high speed
rail. The sensitivity analysis shows that alternative assumptions do not significantly
change the outcome. One may also have to consider the impact on climate change
from building the new line. Construction emissions for a line of this length may
amount to several million tons of CO2
grounds so long as the carbon gains made in traffic balances the emissions caused
during construction. However, marketing high speed rail as a part of the solution
to climate change is clearly wrong. Investment in infrastructure for modal shift
should only be considered when traffic volumes are high enough to carry the cost.
The principal benefits of high speed rail are time savings, additional capacity
and generated traffic, not a reduction of greenhouse gases.