The Transport Committee of the House of Commons published on 21 July 2008 a report on a 30 year strategy for Britain’s railways. This is in part a response to the Government’s Railways White Paper published just a year before. 

The Committee argues that the Government’s plans for growth of the rail system are too modest, given projected growth in demand.  The Committee notes the massive increase in the price of oil over the past year.   This strengthens the case for rail electrification, which has environmental benefits. Where new lines are to be constructed to increase capacity, the Committee is keen for these to be High-Speed Rail.

My take is that this is sensible stuff, with one qualification.  If speeds are increased, people will travel farther.   Time limits travel.   We have a lot of things to do in the 24 hours of the day, and travel can command only a limited amount of our daily time – an hour or so, as it turns out on average.   Higher speeds overcome the constraints of time on the destinations we can reach.   But higher speeds mean more travel and so more detriments associated with travel, carbon emissions and so forth.   So, high-speed rail allows rail to compete with air travel over short-haul distances, which is good for carbon emissions.   But the very same track allows longer distance commuting, which means more travel and more carbon. 

An example: Ebbsfleet International station on the High Speed One link from the Channel Tunnel, 17 minutes from central London, is due to open in 2009 with park-and-ride for 5000 vehicles.   Good perhaps for the economic development of central London, less clear about the economic benefits or disbenefits for north Kent, and likely additional carbon emissions from road and rail traffic.