It’s about time there was a major rethink on infrastructure and climate change...

The new year has begun much as the old one ended, with HS2 again hitting the headlines and becoming a hot topic in the press and on social media.

A decision on the Oakervee report over the project’s future is imminent, and debate over whether HS2 should be built or not has been re-ignited following Lord Berkeley’s critical report.

The Government is aiming to remove diesel trains from the network by 2040, but is being pressed to achieve that transition earlier.

Whether it is road, rail or air, Government policies on emissions are somewhat disjointed, particularly in the light of cancelling electrification schemes, which although costly, would have a far greater future benefit as well as a long-term impact on emission reductions.

Neither is the playing field level when it comes to motoring. Successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have frozen fuel duty and not passed on inflationary rises since 2013, yet rail passengers have endured a fare rise of almost 20% in the same period. Fair?

There are too many domestic flights in the

UK, the majority duplicating rail journeys of fewer than 300 miles – Leeds, Manchester or Newcastle to Southampton; Edinburgh to Manchester; Birmingham to Glasgow and Inverness to Birmingham are a few examples of where modal shift can reap benefits.

Neither does it help when the cost of a flight is often less than half the rail fare. It’s simply not right and does not encourage travellers to make a green choice. It just shows how skewed focus on the environment has become.

In Europe, there are an increasing number of passengers taking trains between cities rather that flying, so why can’t that happen here, too?

It can, but it needs to be led from the front by the Government, with train operators and the public supporting the switch.

In Germany (and Sweden, too), the Green Party is advocating making rail travel far more attractive through more trains, reliable timetables and cheaper tickets, with the aim that domestic flights will be obsolete by 2035. That’s some target.

Yet in the UK, the Green Party comes out wholly against HS2 and high-speed rail, and completely ignores the fact future rail projects have the genuine ability to act as a catalyst in getting people off the road, out of planes and onto trains.

It has to be a win-win, yet people remain baffled why so many environmentalists are so opposed to new railway lines, such as HS2?

Crucial to the debate is people travel and commute further than before. Gone are the well-paid local jobs as factories and offices close. People travel longer distances to where the work is, but want to live between one and two hours from big cities and enjoy a better standard of life.

In many cases, rail helps them achieve their aspirations, but if routes are at capacity, then building new can be the only option – as in the case of HS2.

Some of HS2’s opponents are calling for money to be spent on ‘local trains’, but if the inter-city trains are not moved to a separate line, there can be no more local trains, simply because the capacity does not exist on a constrained infrastructure peppered with bottlenecks.

Neither can you reverse a Beeching closure as easily as some would have you believe, because junctions and stations are unlikely to have train path or platform capacity anymore.

Rail helps to regenerate areas, too. When

HS1 was being planned through Kent, there were extensive protests. Now it’s an accepted part of the landscape – and flourishing.

Since 2010, the line has seen year-on-year growth on domestic high-speed services of 11%. HS1 has been so successful (too successful some say) that by 2025 the trains will be full and new stock will be needed. It’s that kind of success that a high-speed line can generate.

Blogger ‘Ian Visits’ (www.ianvisits.co.uk) recently wrote: “On average, cars generate seven times more CO2 than a railway trip, and if action isn’t taken to improve the railways, which are straining to cope with demand, then we’ll push more people onto motorways instead.”

As this country grows and expands, the rail infrastructure has to grow with it, but if every major rail scheme is accompanied by vehement protests and objections, then nothing will ever be built. The country will stagnate, nothing will change, and it will lead to gridlock on the roads.

Additionally, if HS2 is cancelled, there is no guarantee any of the money earmarked would be used to benefit railway improvements along the path the line would have taken.

New lines and further electrification are becoming vital for the country. There is a need to build a robust railway infrastructure both for now and for the future – as the children of our children will not thank us for stifling their future aspirations.

If that means compromise – a word not usually found in the vocabulary of groups opposing major projects – it must be the way forward.

There is the ‘do nothing’ philosophy, continually applying sticking plaster while sweating the assets for longer. That’ll only result in more overcrowding, poor reliability, declining performance and ultimately frustrated passengers, who will switch to road and thereby create more pollution?

Or do we bite the bullet and get on with creating a railway fit for the 21st century, including HS2 and associated lines?

I know what my choice would be.

CHRIS MILNER, Editor