The Case Against High Speed Rail
The proposed High Speed Rail (HSR) project can not be part of a green solution to Britain’s transport infrastructure problems.
The carbon emissions from a trip using HSR would be only 25% less than doing the equivalent trip by air and more than doing the equivalent trip by car* hardly the sort of transport emission reductions that we should be aiming for. HSR also requires a larger capital investment than air travel with significantly higher embedded emissions for HSR than for air travel.
HSR also requires a wider rail corridor than similar but slower rail services thus requiring a larger swathe of land set aside than for slower trains. This is mostly because of the higher noise levels produced by high speed rail than their slower counterparts. Noise pollution from rail services is strongly correlated with speed.
The high carbon emissions are predominantly due to the energy required in overcome air resistance when the trains are travelling at hight speed. Providing this extra energy on the national grid will be problematic when there are going to be other demands on the national grid, for example extending the electrification of the current rail system, moving petrol and diesel powered cars, trucks and buses to electric powered vehicles will increase demand on the national grid. This is also going to happen at the same time as the national grid will gradually move to sourcing its electricity to sustainable sources and hopefully closing down coal, gas and nuclear powered power stations.
The more energy we demand for our transport system to be supplied by the national grid the more difficult it will be to close down carbon emitting power stations because the increased sustainable energy supply may not be able to meet the increase demand for energy.
HSR is far more expensive than a slower train service. The cost of the compulsory purchase of the larger swathe of land required for HSR is higher, the cost of the rolling stock is higher due to the required higher specifications, the running costs of the HSR service is significantly higher due to increased requirement for energy compared to a slower train service. Much more could be achieved with the same money if it was used differently.
Investment in our current rail system to improve reliability and capacity is necessary, for example the Cotswold rail line that I regularly use is single track for much of its length and though sections of the line are being upgraded to dual track the best solution would be to make the whole length of the line dual track. As it is delays in a train service in one direction have an immediate knock on effect on the trains travelling in the opposite direction, and the lack of dual track restricts the capacity of the line.
As well as investment in our train system some simple changes like getting rid of first class all together or limiting first class to a single carriage on a train would be sensible, all too often the standard fair section of a train is packed to overflowing with 2 or 3 people in each of the first class carriages.
There are real capacity problems with Britain’s train service that can only be fixed by adding new train lines and this is why HSR is being promoted. But I think that because of the reasons given above HSR is not the answer. I think adding new train lines to be operated at slower speeds instead of aiming for a 250 mph HSR system is sensible. For example if the new lines operated with a speed of 125 mph with sections where 150 mph is possible providing flexibility so that trains can catch up if they get behind schedule would be an improvement. But most importantly the new system should be designed to increase capacity and reliability and we would still achieve significantly shorter travel times between major UK destinations. A train system running at half the speed of HSR would use less than half the energy of HSR. The reduced cost would also mean that there should be extra money for further investment in our current rail system.
I agree with much that George Monbiot wrote in his article on HSR but I suppose I disagree with him on the need for extra capacity. Even with the incredibly expensive train fares the train to Oxford from London late in the evening is so full that passengers have been forced to miss the train. I also think that restricting the number of landing slots available for regional flights is something that should be considered.
* Assuming that HSR is powered by electricity generated using the current UK mix for electricity generation.
Whatever happened to those trains that ride on magnetic rails? Aren’t they super efficient?
Sure seems that this beats fossil fuels.
You get a similar reaction to wind farms. People espousing green philosophy suddenly change their tune when a wind turbine is proposed near their house. That’s why over 50% of planning applications for wind turbines get turned down.
Where I live, Vermont, USA, we can barely manage to keep our old trains running. People just love the convenience and freedom that a car provides.
I tried living without one, but it was not possible, unless, of course, I never went further than my legs wanted to take me.
This is about the future of Transportation.
Dear People
HSR could be so much better.
Just how much better you can see on our website.
People want to travel and they have a right to do so.
But environmental Issues can and must not be ignored.
Saying that the Aviation industry is by far the biggest polluter in the world
counting 1t+ of CO2 emissions per person per year.
This is why we invented a HSR System that is faster then Airplanes yet produces ZERO Emissions.
Implementing this Solution would save billions of Pound and also eliminate pollution by giving people the freedom to travel anywhere at low costs High speeds and no pollution.
http://WWW.ZEROEMISSIONTRANSPORTATION.WEBS.COM
“The HS2 rail project is expensive, environmentally damaging, and badly thought through.” – quote.
We agree completely and it is a waste of time work and Taxpayers money.
If we ought to put a new HSR line in place we should make it snappy and think it through to the smallest details possible.
And because thinking is our work and people don’t like to do this kind of thing anymore we just did that.
This fact and that the Aviation Industry is by far the biggest polluter on this planet brought us to sit down and try to create the best possible transport system ever.
And that we did.
A Train that is faster then an Airplane yet produces absolute no emissions whatsoever.
But it did not stop there.
We included into the Train Track an Infrastructure housing facility so that everywhere where this Train goes so does Internet electricity telephone water in fact anything that uses cables can be connected with this system.
That means that we can travel faster from A to B then dialing up with AOL.
Our Idea is no more radical as to connect every city every country and every continent with this Train and to replace ALL existing methods of Transportation with this non polluting solution and bring education energy and communication directly to the home of everyone in every village and every town no one excluded.
This concept is possible within one year of work and there is much more to it.
No tunnels need to be built for this solution and the environmental impact of this ZET HSR system is 1/10 of others maybe even better then that.
The amount of money spend into similar technology that proves everything exceeds $20.000.000 and the technology and concept is proven since the 1930’s in one way or the other.
Franz Kruckenbergs Shienenzeppelin – 1930’s
The Hovercraft – 1950’s
Jean Bertin’s Aerotrain – 1970’s
The Scramjet engine – 1910’s – 2005
All this technology combined is the result of our work.
Hypersonic Zero Emission High Speed Rail.
Now the Government knows about this technology for quite some time since we told them a long time ago and offered them our assistance.
Yet if one reads the consultation papers of the HS2 project there is not a single word mentioned about our work.
It only considers old and expensive technologies that are already outdated and have no possibility of future growth.
That leads us to the question: For whom does our Government work?
For the people or for other Interests?
Is the corruption in this Government gone so far that the people of Britain are denied the best possible technology because of self serving interests of politicians and Banksters?
You decide!
D.W. Major
CEO
Zero Emission Transportation Ltd
http://WWW.ZEROEMISSIONTRANSPORTATION.WEBS.COM
London
UK
The comparison between train and car for emissions, assumes current load factors, if I remember correctly something like 1.4 persons per car. High speed rail is incredibly energy intensive. The projection for high speed rail is that only 8% of air travellers would switch anyway. If we want it to be a replacement for air, then we will have to ban slots at UK airports for short haul flights and we could do this anyway whether we go for high speed rail or not.
In the article I’m suggesting both investing in our current system and putting in place new tracks and not just adjacent to tracks on our existing system. This needs to be done to increase capacity and could possibly follow the same or a similar path to the one intended for high speed rail.
For more details check out:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/researchtech/research/newline/carbonimpact.pdf
and
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/pdf/chapter4.pdf
Upgrading to dual track in busy regions is a must, before anyone starts considering HSR. Also, most trains aren’t long enough – adding extra carriages is the most effective way to reduce crowding, and it’s a better move environmentally. Adding a single carriage to each train generates less emissions than a new service composed of those extra carriages.
I respect this view, but wouldn’t it be viable to invest in our current system AND a high speed rail system? As greens we want better public transport, but for some commuters this is not an option.
Is high speed rail actually going to be a greater strain on resources and the environment than short-haul flights which I believe make up the majority of all flights in the UK?
When you say high speed rail pollutes more than a car, are you assuming that both the train and the car are at full capacity?