Peer review: Dr Siv Bhamra
Principal Vice President, Bechtel
Andrew’s initial focus on the benefits of strategic planning, and the funding commitments to match, is excellent. The four outcomes of strategic planning - understanding of external developments, government commitment, stakeholder engagement and effective democracy - are also clearly virtuous ones, while the six proposed areas for criteria to guide the process - 2015 spending review objectives, capacity, carbon, delivery, skills and funding - are a good match with public policy concerns.
Beyond this, as the letter moves into discussion of scenario development to support strategic planning, there is perhaps scope to cover a broader set of possible concerns for the future, such as social and demographic trends.
Whether we want to live and work in cities or in low-density suburbs is crucial to the role and competitive position of rail. Land-use planning policies both reflect and shape those preferences, and form a crucial partner to strategic transport planning. And implementation of planning policy should bring directly with it appropriate investment in rail capacity and connections - we cannot afford to repeat the experience of one government-controlled body deciding to close the Oxford-Cambridge line just weeks before another decided to build the city of Milton Keynes!
The discussion of traction energy seems a little odd in places. Railway electrification surely offers diminished (not enhanced) energy cost risk, with the electricity supply industry able to exploit multiple sources and (hopefully) incentivised to optimise the use of each of them.
Indeed, the discussion of road transport automation might prompt consideration of just what the differential characteristics of ‘rail’ against ‘roa’ are, and how those differences might change. Road automation may bring much more than the ability of a driver to make a telephone call safely - not just vehicle guidance and separation, but also other features that hitherto have been the preserve of rail, such as route control, timetabling and capacity management. Current perceptions of collective versus personal transport, planned versus unplanned journeys, or high capacity versus low capacity systems may not so neatly fit into ‘rail’ and ‘road’ modes in future.
What additional infrastructure should be provided? The simple answer is clearly that the long-term planning process will provide the answer! However, existing traffic trends and land use point very clearly to the inadequacies of the railway that we were left with when the mass closures ceased in the early 1970s. Making up for decades of network ossification is not straightforward, but it may help to consider a number of development categories:
Rectifying closure errors: Re-opening of the Oxford-Cambridge line (as mentioned above) is an obvious example, but not the only one where strong or growing centres were denied the links they should have retained. Partial re-opening of the Waverley route, now completed, is another example. There is a need to just get on with these re-openings - government has a duty to seek to correct errors of the past.
Restoring capacity and resilience: Chiltern’s redoubling of the Great Western route to Birmingham showed the way here, and other already identified schemes in this category include redoubling of the Waterloo-Exeter line throughout, restoration of the LSW route beyond Exeter to Plymouth via Oakhampton, and restoration of Lewes to Uckfield. Again, there is a need for less talk and more action.
Reflecting demographic change: Well-developed schemes in this category are harder to identify, but systematic analysis of flows to identify missing links and to make plans to fill them is required. Land use changes in the long term, and a healthy railway - especially one that has lost so much of its network density - must respond with new or revived routes and nodes. The proposed re-opening of the Portishead branch, to serve new high-density housing forming a suburb of Bristol, is an example.
City networks: The growth and attractiveness of many cities outside London continues to be hampered by the absence of high-quality internal rail networks. We cannot allow the continued strangulation of these cities by inappropriate dependency on road transport. Heavy rail enhancement and new metro and light rail schemes offer good value solutions to the internal transport problems that many regional cities (and even large towns) face. Manchester provides a model of what can be achieved. At a ‘city region’ level, the HS3 idea responds to the same need.
Freight: Although traditional rail strength in coal continues to be eroded as a result of energy policy, intermodal transport continues to show strong growth. Much of this growth (in particular, the carriage of deep sea containers) defies the shape of the surviving network, or at least its modernised parts. Investment is needed in both gauge and route capacity enhancement, with the axes from Felixstowe and Southampton to the Midlands obvious priorities. Cost allocation to freight services also needs attention, in order that appropriate dedication of routes to freight or mostly freight can be made financially sustainable. Again, land-use planning is a crucial partner, and the links between railway, port, production and distribution facility planning need to be fully restored.
