So stupid, it's almost clever?

Tweet

 

It is a feature of the UK’s electoral system that one party gets absolute power on the basis of a minority of votes, whilst opposition parties are rendered impotent. Occasionally – very occasionally – however, circumstances conspire to place a certain amount of power in the hands of the opposition.

The possibility of a future resurrection of HS2 is a case in point. In an attempt to not merely kill the project, but to drive a stake through its heart and garland the coffin with garlic, Sunak is rushing to try and cancel contracts and sell off the land already purchased. But land sales can take time, and in all probability there are less than 12 months to go before an election which all the polls and pundits predict will usher in a Labour government. If Starmer really wanted to resurrect the project (as most of his party colleagues north of Birmingham seem to be demanding), then he could announce that he will immediately reverse any land sales as soon as he gets into office. It wouldn’t stop land being sold, of course; but if people really believed that the time, effort, and money that they would need to put into acquiring the land would, in all probability, be wasted, most of them would think twice before rushing into any deals. The government could respond by selling off the land cheaply (rather than at a higher price as some have predicted), but any valuer looking at a repurchase by the government would presumably take that lower price into account when assessing market value. Instead of which, Starmer is standing on the sidelines bleating about the Tories tying his hands by selling off land, and using that as an excuse not to commit. It’s possible, of course, that he doesn’t want to build HS2 – a respectable position, even if large swathes of his party disagree with him – but he’s choosing to hide behind the Tories instead.

Meanwhile, it turns out that, despite what he said and what most of the media reported last week, Sunak most emphatically did NOT announce the electrification of the north Wales mainline. Not only is the figure he placed on the cost little more than a finger in the air estimate, he’s now saying that nothing on the long list published last week was intended to be taken seriously, it was just a list of illustrative examples. A bold attempt to counter the fact that he had p***ed off large swathes of the north of England by pleasing a larger number of people elsewhere has ended up p***ing them off too. Perhaps he was just insufficiently clear about the actual status of his little list, but it looks more like a wholly deliberate intention that people would be so delighted at his ‘announcements’ that they wouldn’t scrutinise the detail too closely. Or maybe he’s enough of a realist to understand that nothing he can or say do will avoid the looming defeat and that his best strategy is to make things as difficult as possible for an opposition which has committed to accepting his policies and budgets as a starting point, no matter how unrealistic and incoherent they might be. He might almost be so desperately incompetent as to be clever: perhaps the stupidest one is the one who accepts unrealistic budgets and incoherent policy as a valid starting point and tries to work from there.

Is going nowhere a viable option?

Tweet

 

They say that Christopher Columbus was a man who didn’t know where he was going when he set out, didn’t know where he was when he got there, and didn’t know where he’d been when he got back. In all sorts of ways, that makes him an eminent role model for the current Prime Minister. In Sunak’s case, he doesn’t know whether the best time to announce the cancellation of the high speed link to Manchester is before he goes, while he’s there, or after he comes back. It’s not a question to which there is any ‘right’ answer, although his difficulty is probably based, at least in part, on a lack of understanding as to why on earth anyone would want to go to Manchester anyway, compounded by incredulity as to why people who really must go there don’t just follow his example and charter a helicopter. He could, of course, simply announce that the line will go ahead and that he never intended to cancel it in any case. That might lead to a few awkward questions about why he didn’t just say that a few days ago when the suggestion of cancellation started being floated, but a man who has never knowingly given a straight answer to any question should not find that too much of a problem. And it’s not as if scrapping policies which he’d never proposed in the first place is exactly a new tactic for him, given that he’s already scrapped the non-existent seven-bin policy, the meat tax, and compulsory car-sharing. (Just think how much money he could save by cancelling the UK’s manned mission to Mars. Or even to infinity and beyond. Indeed, if he scraps enough non-existent policies, he could save enough money, mathematically, to solve the cost-of-living crisis and put the UK’s budget into a very healthy surplus.)

The more substantive question – whether or not there should be a high-speed line to Manchester – is not as simple or straightforward as many suggest. There is no doubt that the construction is hugely expensive, although (even accepting that the UK is more densely populated), there are serious questions to be asked as to why it takes so much longer and why the cost is so much higher in the UK than in countries such as France and Spain which have built entire networks. And there is no doubt that the construction is environmentally damaging; if the question were as simple as ‘build it or don’t build it’, the arguments against would be strong ones, particularly if the argument for is little more than saving a little bit of time on the journey. The alternative, though, is most definitely not to do nothing. Short of actively preventing people from travelling (either by direct prohibition or else by making the cost prohibitive to those who can’t simply charter a helicopter), the demand for travel is increasing, and that leads to a need for more capacity. The question is about how to provide that capacity.

There are options. The UK could build more roads – either completely new ones or by adding lanes to existing ones. Or it could expand airport capacity, involving extra runways and terminals, more planes and higher frequency flights. There are already multiple daily flights from Heathrow to Manchester and back, with a flight time of a little over an hour, but Heathrow is more or less operating at full capacity already which is why it wants to build an extra runway. With its extensive network of high speed lines, France has already announced an (albeit imperfect) ban on all internal flights where the train journey takes less than 2.5 hours. If high speed trains were to run all the way to Scotland, and if the high speed network were to be extended to the south of Wales and the West of England, a similar policy in the UK would eliminate most domestic flights.

The question is not whether HS2 is environmentally damaging, but whether it is seen as a stand-alone project or part of a network linking the UK to the European network and how the degree of damage caused compares with the other options. The cheapest and least damaging option is very clear – reduce the extent to which people travel at all. If that’s unpalatable, then a network of new fast and reliable rail links is probably the least-worst option. But ‘doing nothing’ is no option at all. Unless you're Rishi Sunak and looking no further than the next election.

What's the alternative?

Tweet

I was surprised to see that Plaid are apparently signing up to the campaign to stop HS2 completely, using the hashtag #NoToHS2 on the propaganda which has appeared on social media over the last day or two.  I understand the argument that Wales should receive a Barnett consequential for the expenditure which benefits only England, although the extent to which I agree with that argument depends on whether HS2 is seen as the beginning and end of high speed rail in the UK or as just the next phase of a plan to connect the whole UK.  As presented by the UK Government currently it is a stand-alone project, and as such should unquestionably generate a consequential under the Barnett formula.  But if it were just the first phase, with a subsequent phase being a connection to Wales, then the argument that it is a UK-wide project becomes much stronger.  Arguing for either a consequential budget payment, or else for Wales to be part of the next phase, seem to me to be entirely valid stances for Plaid to pursue – arguing that another country (England) shouldn’t go ahead with the project at all seems a strange position to take.

I’m not entirely convinced by the argument that Wales won’t benefit at all, either.  Certainly, Glamorgan and Gwent won’t benefit (and will even lose out if they remain excluded), and that’s where the majority of the population live, but it isn’t the whole of Wales.  There is no necessary reason why high-speed trains are confined to operating on high-speed lines if the system is designed appropriately (and the whole network electrified) from the outset.  French TGV trains, for instance, travel beyond the high-speed network to a range of destinations on the ‘normal’ network, albeit at lower speeds.  There is no fundamental obstacle to using HS2 trains for direct services from North Wales to London, joining the high-speed network at Crewe.  It might be a benefit at the margins, but it’s still a potential benefit, subject to the big ‘if’ of whether it’s planned that way.  And, in the same way, parts of Wales west of Cardiff could benefit from a future high-speed link to Bristol/Cardiff from London.

There are, of course, sound environmental arguments for opposing the project; there is no doubt that it will do damage along the whole of the route, wherever it’s built and however many phases it comprises.  And I’m completely unimpressed by the argument that shaving time off journeys to and from London is adequate justification for such a project.  The question is, though, whether the project can be looked at in isolation, or whether we need to compare it with the alternatives.  What, in short, happens if it doesn’t go ahead?

The ‘best’ alternative, in environmental terms, is for people to travel less, but I doubt very much that that will happen if it’s left to millions of individual decisions, and I can’t imagine any elected government taking measures to prevent people from making journeys around the UK.  The demand is growing, not falling, and the question is about how to cope with that.  If rail transport is not expanded, then either road traffic will increase or else domestic air traffic will increase, both of which are likely to be more damaging than a high-speed rail network. 

Ultimately, that strikes me as the best argument for developing a high-speed rail network across the UK – fast, reliable surface transport using low carbon energy is a better alternative than continued growth in air traffic.  One of my biggest criticisms of the current plans is the use of a new terminal in London rather than the existing HS1 terminal, a decision which makes it impossible to have an easy interchange onto trains bound for the mainland, let alone have the direct through trains which I’m sure I remember we were promised at the time of the agreement to build the Channel Tunnel.  Reducing the number (or at least halting the growth) of short-haul flights should be a key element of government policy, and that means either restricting the right to travel or else providing a viable alternative.  It’s not the most ringing of endorsements, but high-speed rail appears to me to be the least-worst option available.

Slipping down the pecking order

Tweet I’ve long thought that it’s something of a tactical error for Wales to focus on seeking a Barnett consequential for the HS2 railway – not because Wales shouldn’t get its fair share of UK investment, but because I’d sooner have our share in the form of a High Speed line to Wales than in the form of cash to be spent on anything else.  Coincidentally, the amount involved in doing that might even turn out to be higher that a simplistic percentage share of HS2 expenditure as well.

I’d hoped that the next part of building the network, HS3, would be that line to the west, but in the absence of anyone attempting to make the case, it now looks as though the HS3 designation is allocated to the Trans-Pennine route.  I guess that means that the best we can hope for now is to be in there somewhere pitching for HS4, although I’m still seeing little sign of such a pitch.  HS5 anyone?

Agreeing with the opposition 2

Tweet Following on from Friday’s post, the second story in Thursday’s Western Mail leading me to agree with a comment from an unusual quarter was this opinion piece by Stephen Crabb.  The devil is in the detail, however.

His core argument – the bit that I agree with – is that we should see major transport infrastructure investment not just in narrow terms about what Wales does or does not get, but as a wider question of vision for the future.  A proper transport infrastructure does not stop at, nor is it confined to, national borders or jurisdictions. 

It’s a pity, however, that he seems to see the issue merely in terms of which borders confine the vision.  He attacks insular politics in Wales but seems to want to replace a narrow focus on Wales with a narrow focus on the UK, seeing everything from a London-centric viewpoint.

The two biggest concerns that I have had about HS2 from the outset are: firstly that it’s been looked at as a stand-alone investment, rather than a first step (HS2 isn’t a network, as he described it, it’s a line – I only wish that it were indeed part of a network); and secondly, that using a different London terminus from that used by HS1 creates an artificial and unnecessary break in a European network.

Whilst Crabb and the UK parties – to whatever extent they still support the project – are looking solely at transport within the UK, the rest of continental Europe is busy building an integrated high speed network allowing direct connections across the continent.  Now that is truly a vision freed of Crabb’s insular politics (using insular in its more literal meaning).  And it recognises that building a line through one country can often benefit another; joint planning is key.

For a nationalist wanting to see Wales taking her place as a European nation, the link to Brussels is every bit as important as the link to London, which from this perspective is merely a stop along the route.  An important stop, sure, but just a stop all the same.

Shifting the traffic

Tweet In recent weeks, the HS2 rail scheme has come under increasing and sustained attack from a range of directions.  At least some of the government’s problems on the HS2 project are entirely self-inflicted – they’ve been using the wrong arguments from the outset.

Building a business case for the project on the basis of the minutes shaved off the journey was always a dubious approach.  The claim that it would free up the time of businessmen and women to do other things was equally dubious – and I’m even more sceptical about the methodology being used to convert that time into increased GDP.  As Parkinson’s Law tells us, work expands to fill the time available: much of the “work” done - on trains or elsewhere, come to that - has little impact on anything.

It was also a mistake to concentrate so heavily on business travel.  Having used France’s TGVs on a number of occasions, I reckon that few of the passengers – on trains which always seem to be full – are travelling on business.  A fast – and cheap compared to UK fares – service attracts all sorts of people to use it; for leisure, for visiting family etc.

The debate, from the outset, should have been about capacity and the best way to provide it, and the government at last seems to be moving in that direction, albeit focused far too narrowly on rail capacity.  The case for building a high-speed rail network in the UK is based on the answers to two simple questions, in my view.

The first question is this: given that the demand for travel is growing inexorably, are we going to provide the infrastructure to accommodate that demand, or are we instead going to try and manage that demand downwards?

The “greenest” answer of course is to try and manage the demand downwards; take away the demand and there is no need for any new infrastructure.  In theory, that could be done; but I doubt that the will or the means exist do it consistently and over the decades of timespan which would be necessary to sustain such a policy effectively.

If the demand cannot be produced or managed, and more capacity is needed, that brings us to the second question: what is the best (or perhaps “least worst”) way of providing that extra capacity?

The “default”, if we make no attempt to plan and manage the demand, is that the number of road trips will increase, as will the number of short haul flights.  There are limits to the extent to which simply adding more cars to the roads and more planes to the skies is possible without more roads and runways, but we haven’t reached those limits yet.  Short-term, the effect of increasing the use of existing capacity is to increase congestion and make delays more likely, but there is no doubt that more capacity can be squeezed out of the system.

Eventually, however, continued growth makes investment in more infrastructure inevitable – hence the question “how?”.  Of the alternatives available, I’m convinced that electric railways are the “least worst” option, despite all the difficulties associated with building them. 

Do they need to be high speed?  Strictly speaking, and seeing them solely as a means of solving the capacity problem, the answer would have to be no.  However, if we see them also as an alternative to short haul flights, as well as an alternative to road journeys, speed becomes more important.  The faster the train, the greater the distance of the short haul flights which can be supplanted by rail travel.

And that ultimately is the attraction of HS2 – and HS3 and HS4 which I hope will follow.  Not as a single stand-alone project to cut a few minutes off journey times for businessmen and women, but as a long-term planned approach to shifting travel onto a less environmentally damaging platform.  Sadly, that aspect seems, thus far at last, to be peripheral to the considerations of those making the decisions.

And another thing about that dam...

Tweet There’s a good reason why all the mockups and impressions of the proposed Severn Barrage show a road across the top.  Although the scheme’s proponents talk about the barrage itself being entirely privately financed, it is unlikely that the barrage would ever be built without the public sector financing that such a road requires.

In theory, it could be a rail link rather than a road link –  a 21^st century alternative to the Severn Tunnel would surely be worth having.  The proposed barrage is really in the wrong place for that though – the alternative (smaller and less environmentally damaging) Shoots Barrage would be much better placed to form part of HS3 – Wales’ link to the European rail network.  So road it would be.

That of course means connecting it to the M4; and I do wonder whether any of the proponents has really looked at a map to consider the implications of a four or six lane highway between Lavernock and the M4.

Assuming that little problem could be overcome, it also raises the question as to how such a road would be funded in practice.  For reasons which escape me, and which seem to defy logic, most, if not all, of our elected politicians seem to be wedded to the idea that road tolls are a very bad idea unless the road crosses a stretch of water, in which case they become a very good idea.  So much so that two parties (Labour and Plaid) are now in favour of using roads-which-cross-water as a source of taxation revenue to fund other projects.

It’s probably reasonable to suppose therefore that any new road crossing would be funded by tolls and that those tolls would have to be set at a higher level than the tolls for the existing crossings – the proposed bridge is, after all, considerably longer than either of the existing crossings and more expensive to build in consequence.

Using the logic applied when the second Severn Crossing was opened, we can’t really have a situation where the crossings are priced differently, since few people would then use the higher-priced crossings.  So I think we can assume that all three crossings would be priced at the new higher level – and that such tolls would continue for the foreseeable future, rather than being reduced (or even abolished) at the end of the current contract period.

So how much of a leap is it really to say that those politicians and others supporting the Hain barrage are, in effect, also supporting not just the retention of Severn tolls but increasing them to a higher level and maintaining them at that level for the indefinite future?

Compare and contrast

Tweet I’ve expressed disappointment previously with the response in Wales to the plans to expand high-speed rail in the UK.  Instead of lobbying for Wales to be next in the plans, the response of those in parties which claim to be ‘standing up for Wales’ has wavered between outright opposition to an ‘England-only’ project and a demand for a Barnett consequential so that Wales can spend the equivalent money on something completely different. 

It’s worth comparing that with the attitude of the SNP Government in Scotland.  As this story shows, they have demanded a ‘concrete timetable’ for expanding the network to Scotland.  They’ve also started planning their own high-speed link between Edinburgh and Glasgow, which could be up and running by 2024 on their forecasts.

There’s a clear contrast there between being bold and having a whinge.  Yet again, Salmond and the SNP have shown us what a nationalist response, pushing the interests of Scotland, looks like.  And there’d be no prizes here for guessing which approach is most likely to succeed.  Scotland is pushing itself up the list of contenders for HS3, whilst Wales seems to be doing its best to remove itself from contention completely.

PS – the UKIP response to the HS2 announcement, as reported by David Cornock, left me more than a little puzzled.  Instead of spending the money on HS2, they say that “the UK should invest that massive amount of money in developing better infrastructure, including transport between and within towns and cities”.  But if HS2 is not about transport infrastructure between cities, what is it?  It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that they are calling for a programme of road-building.

Lack of planning

Tweet It's interesting to contrast the attitude of those living in the cities designated as destinations for the UK's high-speed rail network with that of the areas closer to London through which the lines will need to travel. Destination cities are, by and large, competing vigorously to demand that they be served; whilst those closer to London are rubbishing the whole concept.

I've never been entirely convinced that high-speed rail will be quite the panacea as which some seem to see it; I suspect that the benefits in terms of economic growth have been somewhat exaggerated. I am convinced though that once a network starts to come into being, not being on it is not a good place to be – the disbenefits of not being served are likely to be greater than the benefits of having the service. What I am also convinced about, however, is that faced with an ever-increasing demand for transport, a reliable high-speed surface system is going to be much less damaging than continued expansion of air transport.

The problem with the UK Government's approach is that, even after the routes to Leeds and Manchester (High Speed 2A) have been made public, it's still a piecemeal approach. There is no overall plan for a comprehensive UK network. The result of that is that it positively encourages those not included to oppose the whole scheme rather than to look at how they elevate themselves up the list.

Here in Wales, specifically, it's led to some arguing that Wales sees no benefit, so the scheme should either be scrapped or else a Barnett consequential paid over to us. But if what is being proposed now were truly to be seen as just one step in a process – and having laid that foundation, Wales would in due course benefit - the whole picture would look very different. It's a short-sighted approach by the UK Government.

Preparing for the next step

Tweet From a UK perspective, the one part of yesterday’s announcement on HS2 that I don’t really understand is why the Government has decided to terminate HS2 at Euston, rather than at St Pancras which is virtually next door, and which would allow through-running to continental Europe without having to change train.  Even if through-running were not to be an immediate feature of services, it should certainly be a longer term objective.  After all, it was what we were promised right at the start of the building of the Channel Tunnel.

From a Welsh perspective, the proposals are far from ideal, with a danger that we will be left behind in a world where reliable high speed surface transport is increasingly seen as the norm, and preferable to aviation.  It’s time, though, to stop arguing about the detail of HS2 and start the debate about HS3.  Continued argument about HS2 will only further delay the Welsh connection.

HS2 will initially connect London and Birmingham, with connections to Manchester and Leeds – and a possible spur to Heathrow – seen as being phase 2 of the scheme.  The timescales are lengthy, and if we wait until HS2 is finished – or even well under way – or if we try and continue the argument, rather than widening the issue out, we run the risk not only of further delaying HS3, but also that the ‘competition’ will get there first.

There are two obvious candidates for HS3.  The first is to continue HS2 north to Glasgow and Edinburgh, and the second is to build on westwards from Heathrow to Cardiff and Bristol. 

I’d prefer that we didn’t have to be in competition with our Scots colleagues, but they should gain significant benefit from HS2.  There is no inherent reason why the rolling stock purchased to run on HS2 cannot continue over existing rail infrastructure, albeit at slower speed, all the way to Scotland once HS2 is completed.  This is exactly the approach taken by the TGV services in France, which serve many more towns than are actually on high-speed lines, providing direct rather then merely connecting services.  It just requires foresight and commitment.

We need to make sure that it’s our turn next.  A far sighted, strategically-thinking Welsh Government would now stop all whingeing about HS2, and start lobbying and making the case for an early decision on what follows.  And on getting the right decision.

Half full or half empty

Tweet Whether or not better communications links have the business impact that is claimed is unclear to me.  I’m sure that poor links are unhelpful, but less convinced that good links, in themselves, will make the level of difference often claimed.

When it comes to rail links, I am convinced that better, faster, more reliable links will encourage a shift from road or air to rail, and are worth doing for that reason alone.  The claim that Wales could lose 21,000 jobs as a result of the HS2 link from London to Birmingham and points north is a figure which I’d treat with some caution, though.

As I recall, the French experience with the TGV services was that demand grew faster, and to a higher total level, than any of the advance projections suggested; but that the vast majority of those travelling were doing so for leisure rather than business purposes.  I rather suspect that the UK experience will mirror that - if a network is ever actually built.

And that ‘if’ was my main concern with this story today.  Although those quoted didn’t actually go so far as to say it, it almost seemed that they were arguing against building HS2 at all, because of the possible adverse impact on Wales.  It’s a tempting conclusion from a Welsh perspective – but it would be the wrong one.

The problem with consideration of high speed lines in the UK is that it’s all being done on such an ad hoc basis; there is no master plan, no vision for an integrated transport network linking up major cities across the UK as well as linking with cities on the mainland of Europe.  The result is that there is a danger of pitting areas against each other.  There’s nothing wrong with a bit of lobbying, or even a lot of lobbying, to be first in the queue; but it rapidly becomes destructive if the queue only has room for one.

I think there are good arguments for the link to Wales and the West to come ahead of the northern link, but if we can’t have first place then it’s better to be arguing for an early extension to the queue than to argue against the northern link.  An excessively negative approach could simply mean that we’d all lose in the end.

How much will we benefit?

Tweet

There seems to be a general welcome for the proposal to build a rail hub at Heathrow with a direct connection from South Wales, but I’m not entirely convinced that it will be as beneficial to Wales as is being claimed.  As with so much else, the devil is in the detail.

Whilst in principle, any improvement in the rail network will help to encourage a switch from road to rail, there have been no hard numbers in the reports which I’ve seen.  I don’t know how many people actually travel from South Wales to Heathrow in the first place, but that will surely be a key factor in determining how many trains run direct rather than involve a change at Reading, and thus how much benefit the proposal brings. 

My guess is that most of those travelling from South Wales to airports in London do so for leisure purposes rather than business purposes – which would make Gatwick a more likely destination.  It also seems that most of the services to Heathrow are likely to involve a change of train; and no matter how good or frequent the shuttle service from Reading to Heathrow, a change of train will always reduce to some extent the number of people choosing rail rather than road.

Linking into the European high speed rail network would be a definite plus, but from the information available to date, it appears that the link to HS2 is a one-way link – good for going north to Birmingham etc., but not for heading east to the Channel Tunnel, leading to a danger that the proposal encourages, rather than supplants, air travel to near continental destinations.

But the biggest claimed benefit is in terms of the boost to the economy, something for which I’ve seen no evidence at all.  Whilst it is clear that poor communications links can put us at a disadvantage, the negative doesn’t prove the positive, and I fear that the business benefits are being significantly over-hyped.

And one final question which none of the reports has answered as yet – is this an English project, which means a largish sum of capital money available for investment in Welsh infrastructure under the Barnett formula; or would I be right in suspecting that it will be regarded by the Treasury as a UK project - from which the Welsh share of the benefits is likely to be considerably less than the Welsh share of the costs?

A lot more than cuckoo clocks

Tweet The story a week or so ago about the completion of the Gotthard Base Tunnel in Switzerland was a triumph of engineering; but also a triumph of vision and foresight. It dramatically highlights the difference in attitude towards rail transport between the UK and the rest of Europe. Whilst we wait to hear whether a line built over a century and a half ago will be electrified, the rest of Europe presses ahead with an ambitious, long term programme to develop a network of new high speed lines.

For us in Wales, electrification is in doubt – and high speed isn’t even a line on a map yet. There are plans for a high speed link to the north of England, and eventually on to Scotland, but where is the comprehensive vision for a rail network of the future? It requires the sort of long term thinking of which UK governments – of any party – seem to be completely incapable.

The 35 mile long Swiss tunnel was started in 1996, they’ve been drilling for 14 years – and it’ll be another 7 before the first trains will run. That’s serious long term visionary thinking about the right approach to transportation. And it isn’t the only such project – they started another, shorter (a mere 21 miles!) tunnel at the same time on a parallel route further west. But the Swiss vision isn’t just about high speed passenger transport – the line will also handle significant amounts of freight.

It will help with the implementation of the Traffic Transfer Act passed in 1999, which aims to ensure that most freight passing through Switzerland from Germany to Italy will go by rail rather than road. Another piece of visionary thinking, seeing rail as a real alternative to more road building, and removing the most damaging traffic from their roads.

It’s an idea with some resonance – imagine if all the freight from Ireland which goes from Pembrokeshire right across Wales (and across England as well, often, en route to the ferry ports) were mandated to go by rail instead of road. A few trains per day would remove a significant amount of heavy traffic from the roads, quite apart from the environmental benefits.

Of course it’s not an entirely fair comparison. Switzerland is far more ‘central’ to Europe, purely by dint of geography; and traffic flows are therefore much higher. Switzerland is also about twice the size of Wales, and their population about two and a half times ours; although if we think the terrain in Wales is difficult for construction, just take a look at Switzerland.

But the really key difference is about clear government direction and political will, and the sort of long term vision and investment which is needed to improve the rail infrastructure. I won’t hold my breath, then.

Who decides what is a white elephant?

Tweet Today, Network Rail have announced their proposals for a high speed rail link between London and Scotland. It's disappointing, to say the least, that they have rejected the option of a line through Bristol to Cardiff, and I hope that the government's own review will correct that omission, and ensure that plans are brought forward for both.

Last week, by way of contrast, the Reform think tank produced a report opposing investment in high speed rail projects, referring to them as 'white elephants'. Two very different views on the same subject – obviously coming at the subject from quite different starting points.

Although formally an 'independent' think tank, one of the founders of Reform is now a Tory MP, and the other is a former head of the Political Section in the Conservative Research Department. The report's conclusions are clearly based on at least a degree of political preconception.

Reform seem to start from a position of believing that the job of government is simply to respond to demand rather than seek to influence the nature of that demand. The result is that, in their view, spending on roads should be increased and spending on rail decreased, since 90% of all journeys are made by road. And they would abandon any attempt to build a high-speed rail network.

It is a logical conclusion for people who believe that individuals should have maximum freedom to use resources as they wish and can afford, and that the free market should reign supreme. It is not, however, a sensible position to adopt if we want to seriously reduce our ecological footprint and build a more sustainable society for the long term.

Some people have talked in recent years as though the age of ideological differences is dead. I don't think that is true, but it is sometimes harder to find the dividing lines when much of what passes for politic discourse is reduced to sound bites. The divergence in views over high speed rail highlights for me one of the key dividing lines in politics for the future - do we plan to allocate resources, including access to mobility, on the basis of competition and ability to pay, or do we plan to meet transport needs in a more co-operative and collective fashion?

Staying on the rails

Tweet There were quite a few blog posts about the announcement a week or so ago that the main railway line through South Wales is to be electrified – and quite a robust debate took place as a result of a post by Alwyn. Clearly not everyone thinks it was a good decision.

Fundamentally, there are three reasons why I thought, and still think, that electrification is the right thing to do. The first is that electric trains have a lower carbon footprint overall than the diesel alternative. The second is that they are more reliable - and reliability of public transport is one of the key issues in persuading more people to make the switch from car to train. And the third is that, over the long tem, an electric railway is cheaper to run than a diesel railway.

The main counter argument seems to have been that, if we have money to invest in the transport infrastructure in Wales, then the main east-west link in the south is the wrong place to invest it. It's not an argument against electrifying the railways; it's more an argument about transport priorities for Wales. I understand the argument; but disagree.

Part of the problem is that the announcement is very much a 'stand-alone' announcement; not really placed in the context of a wider strategy for rail in Wales. The strategic context itself is not as clear as it could be, at either UK or Wales level. Even the National Transport Plan for Wales published a couple of weeks ago, for all the very positive aspects of it, seems to me to be based on an opportunistic, incremental approach to developing the rail network in Wales, rather than on a vision of where we want to be and how we get there.

In terms of what is achievable within likely budgets, that makes it a realistic, deliverable plan – but I'd still like to see a wider strategy behind that. There's nothing at all wrong with an opportunistic approach to developing the network, as long as those opportunities take us towards the realisation of an overall strategy.

Plaid in this constituency has tabled a motion to this year's annual conference on the issue, where we will debate that wider strategy for the longer term future. Some of the main elements of that strategy should be, in our view:

• Electrification of the whole network in Wales
• High-speed links from both the South and the North to join with the European network of high speed railways, including a new crossing of the Severn estuary
• A high-speed link direct from North to South

This is neither a cheap nor a short term strategy; high speed links in particular require planning well ahead, but we are calling for the UK and Welsh governments to at least start the process of designating clear routes which can be protected. (And, incidentally, there are those who seem confused about the difference between electrification and high-speed links, mistakenly referring to the former as being a step towards the latter.)

In the context of this sort of strategy, electrification of the line between Swansea and the Severn Tunnel is probably the best place to start on realising the first of those objectives. Rejecting the idea primarily because the line then extends on to London is to ignore two key facts – firstly, that a great deal of use is made of the line for internal traffic within Wales, and secondly, that it is precisely because it can be seen as an extension to the work on the London to Bristol line that it becomes a more cost-effective proposal from the point of view of the funding body – in this case, the UK government.

Far from being an alternative to the electrification and further development of Wales' internal network, I think it can be – and should be – a spur to doing precisely that.

Electric rail

Tweet Today's formal announcement that the main railway line from London is to be electrified as far as Swansea is good news, as others have already noted. It's something for which Plaid have been campaigning for many years, and given that not so long ago there was considerable doubt as to whether the scheme to electrify the line would go any further than Bristol, there can be little doubt that having a Plaid minister in charge of transport has been a major factor in extending the project to Swansea. I know that Ieuan has done a tremendous amount of lobbying for this decision, and am pleased that it's paid off.

Following on from last week's announcement that the M4 relief road will not be built, it demonstrates a clear commitment both to a lower carbon footprint for transport, and a switch in emphasis to public transport.

It's important, however, that things don't stop there, and that we continue to campaign on a number of fronts, and there are two things in particular which I'd like to see.

Firstly, a clear forward plan for electrification of the line further west than Swansea. Not all the trains from London stop at Cardiff or Swansea - some come to Carmarthen as well, and an electrification programme which stops at Swansea is likely to lead to a requirement to change trains there for travel further west.

That's acceptable as an interim measure while the work continues – it would be wholly unrealistic to expect the whole job to be completed before starting to replace diesel rolling stock with electric trains – but I wouldn't want to see it used as a reason for ending the service to Carmarthen on a permanent basis.

Secondly, a commitment to a high speed link. Electrification of the existing line is not at all the same thing as linking Wales to the High-speed network; that would require the construction of a new line to the required standard – including a new crossing of the Severn. It's an ambitious and expensive project, but it's a key part of switching at least some short haul air traffic to the railways.

We need a route to be designated and protected, and we need a clear plan to be developed, for the delivery of this link, and we need the Welsh government and the UK Government to be undertaking preliminary work now.

It's excellent news that we are seeing a more strategic approach to transport planning, but we mustn't stop there.

Just passing through

Tweet Interesting article in today's Western Mail by Martin Evans, of the Wales Transport Research Centre at the University of Glamorgan. He's picked up on a letter from a number of business leaders to The Times this week, in which it became clear that the battle lines over the third runway at Heathrow are nowhere near as clear cut as they had seemed.

There are some pretty influential business leaders here arguing that building a third runway is the wrong thing to do – and that's a long way away from the impression given previously that business was very much in favour.

There was a similar story in the Business Section of the Sunday Times. For me, perhaps the most interesting sentence was the one that talked about the need for extra capacity being "driven by transit-passenger growth, rather than improving Heathrow as a hub for the UK". In short, rather than serving the needs of the UK for good links, much of the extra capacity would be swallowed up by people who are simply using Heathrow as a convenient place to switch from one aeroplane to another.

In terms of jobs at the airport itself, of course, that may not make a vast amount of difference. Extra flights means extra jobs, although the type of job might vary. More catering, less car hire, for instance.

But there are three major issues.

The first is that investment diverted into a transit-passenger hub is investment which is not available for other purposes. And, as I've commented before, investment in high-speed rail links would be much more useful to us here in Wales. And a great deal less damaging in environmental terms.

The second is the environmental costs and impact on the local area. Even supposing one accepts a need for a transit hub (and there is room for some scepticism at least), then is Heathrow really the right place to put it?

And the third is about the business case. Certainly, the businesses directly involved will gain major benefits – but from the perspective of UK plc, wouldn't we really be better off trying to plan capacity around the needs of those who are actually coming to or going from these islands, rather than those who are just 'passing through'?

To fly or not to fly

Tweet It seems certain that the UK Government will today give its stamp of approval to the scheme for a third runway at Heathrow, and that the scheme will include a new rail hub at the airport as well.

I think that the reference to a rail hub first surfaced in The Sunday Times, the week before last. The idea was being floated by the Transport Minister, Lord Adonis. His argument included the idea that such a hub would link the north of England and Scotland to the European High Speed rail network, so that some travellers could use the opportunity to avoid air travel completely for short haul flights to the continent. In short, it was an attempt to put something of a green spin on the Heathrow announcement.

I've argued before that we should be planning to connect Wales to the European network of high speed trains, so my initial reaction to the article was quite favourable. On further reading however, there did seem to be two significant pieces of the jigsaw missing.

Firstly, it was not at all clear to me how exactly the hub would be linked into the high speed network at St Pancras, on the east side of London, which seemed to be the plan. The implication was that it would be by tunnel under London - and a different tunnel from the CrossRail project which has already been approved. But CrossRail has taken many years to get to this stage, and it's not just cynicism which left me wondering whether a second East-West tunnel under London is really going to happen.

Secondly, there is absolutely no intention as part of this plan to build a high speed link from Heathrow to South Wales. That would have to be a separate future project. Despite the Western Mail headline, the government is not about to announce a high speed link from South Wales to anywhere.

Without answers to those, pretty fundamental, questions, I have to say that it looked to me that what we were left with was a diversion of the existing 125 trains from South Wales to Paddington onto a new track which allowed them to make an additional stop at Heathrow. And the main function of that has nothing to do with connecting South Wales to the European high-speed network, and a great deal to do with enabling passengers to use the extra capacity planned for Heathrow without having to travel there by road. In short, it's more to do with 'selling' the third runway and the Heathrow expansion plans.

Yesterday, the Assembly government announced its support for the plan. From the terms in which they were talking, it seems quite clear that they understand the weaknesses outlined above, because they seem to have been talking solely in terms of the advantages of Wales having a direct link to Heathrow airport.

I'm not as convinced as the Assembly government seems to be that connecting South Wales to Heathrow will have a significant effect on economic development. If the scheme is genuinely part of a wider scheme, albeit long term, to provide high speed rail links to Europe, then I'd certainly support the rail hub idea – but as an alternative to air travel, rather than as a means of facilitating it. I'm not convinced about the idea that the planned expansion of capacity at Heathrow is the right thing to do, and I have real concerns that linking the two issues means that we still aren't taking a sufficiently strategic view about the relative importance of rail.

Missing strategy

Tweet Professor Stuart Cole returned yesterday to a topic on which he has written before – the need for Wales to be plugged into the European high speed rail network. This is an area where the UK has lagged far behind the rest of Europe, which has been prepared to make a massive strategic investment in rail over the past few decades, and is planning to continue with that approach for some time to come.

'Strategic' is very much the key word. The Assembly government has made a number of good investments in improving rail infrastructure, and more are planned, but in comparison with Europe, these are relatively small scale tactical improvements, addressing particular issues and problems. What is missing is the sort of long-term vision which France, Germany etc. have had for their rail networks. The only strategy that seems to exist in the UK is to take short term decisions and ignore the longer term consequences.

Of course, I accept entirely that there is no purpose in the Assembly Government having a strategy for a high speed rail link across the south of Wales if there is no strategy in England for a link from London westwards. Additionally, it's absolutely key to linking Wales into the network that we plan to build a new Severn rail crossing to replace the outdated and problem-prone tunnel. On both of these issues, we need to work jointly with English authorities and the UK government.

But that sort of joint work between authorities is already happening elsewhere in the UK, and as Prof Cole points out, it seems highly likely that the next two high speed lines to be built in the UK will both be from London northwards. It is vital that we not only press for a coherent strategy for a high speed network to be built, but that we make sure that Wales figures prominently in the plans. We are in serious danger of missing out completely as things stand.

Dams and Bridges

Tweet The logic of putting a new Wales-England link along the top of any barrage as part of a single engineering project seems at first sight to be obvious, as was highlighted in the Western Mail last week. I'm not convinced, however, because the two things are responding to two very different needs; and the arguments surrounding the two are very different.

I am not at all convinced about the building of a barrage across the Severn in the first place, and never have been. (I remember back in the 1970's calling it an idea which didn't hold water. Poor joke, I know, but at least the South Wales Echo used the press release.) The environmental damage done by such a barrage will be significant, and the carbon cost of construction will be enormous. Tidal lagoons, on the other hand, will be far less damaging in environmental terms, and are likely to produce electricity at a cheaper unit cost, even if the total amount of electricity produced might be lower.

So I hope that no barrage will ever be built - which is why creating a dependency between such a barrage and a new crossing looks like a major mistake to me.

I am not convinced of the need for a new road link across the Severn estuary either, but I am absolutely convinced of the need for a new rail link. The Severn Tunnel is expensive to maintain, and the near continuous maintenance works make it a bottleneck on the rail network, frequently causing delays and diversions. And as long as the rail link eastwards from South Wales depends on the Tunnel, our capital city will never be linked into the European high speed rail network. The tunnel needs to be replaced, and we should be planning for that now.

Continental Europe is surging ahead with a modern high speed rail network. Plans exist to link the continent from North to South and from East to West with new additions to the high speed lines. Whilst the rest of Europe has spent the last 30 years investing in rail, the UK has been fragmenting and privatising the railways in the name of right wing dogma; and instead of being used to fund investment, UK government subsidies to the rail industry have effectively gone into paying dividends to shareholders.

There are plans in existence stretching to at least 2020 for investment and expansion on the continent, and in the UK, we have... well, no plans at all to expand high speed rail beyond the link from London to the Channel Tunnel, just vague, empty discussions. We need to bring the railway network fully back under public control, and we need an imaginative and bold plan to extend the high speed network across the UK. A new rail crossing of the Severn has to form part of that.

As far as Wales is concerned, the high speed network certainly needs to reach the ferry ports – and why not plan for a north-south link as well? Expensive – certainly, and tremendously so. It will take many years to bring to fruition. Our European neighbours have all recognised the advantages, and have had the imagination and courage to make that infrastructure investment, but we are already 30 years late and haven't even started.

Against that background, linking the future of South Wales rail links to the barrage creates an unnecessary dependency, and is just a recipe for further prevarication.