How About High Speed 2 Wheels?

For a long time, when asked about the need to reduce the environmental impact of aviation, my stock answer would be that transferring shorthaul flights on to high-speed rail services should be an obvious aim for governments. Yet, the more I have learnt about this governments high-speed two proposals, the more I have felt that it would be a very poor investment indeed, whether measured on economic or environmental grounds. Yes, having high-speed trains would shift some people from shorthaul flights onto less polluting rail services, but it has to be remembered that this big switch has already been largely made, especially on flights from London to Leeds, Liverpool and Durham Tees Valley, which no longer operate.

So if high-speed 2 is a bad investment, what would be a better investment? Obviously, any comparison between rail and air travel is about longer distance intercity journeys, whereas the vast majority of journeys take place within built-up environments, or are commutes between outlying towns and city centres. What if all the money collected from air passenger duty was actually put towards genuinely environmentally beneficial projects? Few things are better for the environment than high-quality off-road walking and cycling tracks, using existing historic transport corridors, especially disused railway lines. Yet, this can be done for a fraction of the cost of building new ones — the figure quoted by cycling charity Sustrans is that new cycle paths can be built for around £200,000 per mile, compared to the £155,000,000 per mile cost of high-speed 2.

Now, can these really be comparable, when high-speed 2 must surely carry far more people at much higher speeds? Yes, it might well do, but its entire business model is based on very ambitious estimates of user figures. Why put so many billions of pounds into such an inherently risky project? Whether high-speed 2 is viable or not (and we are certainly in the no camp), investing in better facilities for pedestrians and cyclists would still provide a much quicker win, both in terms of transport and human health.

The BNP v Eco-fundamentalists – both are equally fascist

I have no problem with the vast-majority of environmental campaigners, but there are a dangerous few out there who seem to think it is perfectly reasonable to impose a total ban on all domestic flights within the UK. More worrying than this opinion being widespread is the way it is allowed out on news reports without any kind of counter-argument. Yet whenever there is a suggestion of the BNP getting more air time, there is uproar.

So what is so wrong with suggesting a ban on domestic flights, in the name of the environment?  As the United Kingdom is made up of many islands, a sizeable portion of travel within her borders is always going to be made by air. Even over-land, there are many journeys which are totally unrealistic to make by rail, especially for business travellers wanting to head to important meetings and make it back in a day. People who think that it is an easy switch from air to rail tend not to be the ones that take the trains all that often.

Where rail services have improved, such as between London and Manchester, the proportion of people travelling by train has increased, but there will always be some people who will want to choose to fly, or who want to take a plane because the next step of their journey is an onward flight to another destination. As the network currently stands, travelling by train from Manchester to Heathrow is a great deal less convenient than flying.

Of course, some communication can be done by electronic means, but if travel broadens the mind, then those people who seek to prevent people from travelling must have very narrow minds. Except that they masquerade as intelligent, educated people acting in our best interests. At least we know what we are getting with the BNP – mindless thugs who want to see certain sectors of the population sent away. But we should never forget that freedom to move within our borders is just as important as the freedom to cross borders. I have spent time in Saudi Arabia, where we had to get a ’50k pass’ to travel internally, and it was a bureaucratic nightmare.

The environmental damage caused by flying is already healthily compensated for by existing APD (Air Passenger Duty), which is levied twice on internal flights – both on the outbound, and on the inbound journey. Even moderate increases in APD, when not counter-balanced by our European neighbours, result in a huge discouragement to travel within the UK, as flights abroad are proportionally taxed at a lower rate.

So by all means, let’s have a reasoned debate about choices in travel mode, and about their environmental impacts. But let’s not be fooled by people who think an outright ban on domestic flights, or even steep increases in their taxes, is remotely in the UK’s best interest.