We say demand for rail travel will grow in future. Why? This thread explains./1
Our Green travel strategy for a zero-CO2 world involves: 1 reducing total travel; 2 moving fully to sustainable modes of travel; 3 integrating sustainable modes so multi-mode journeys are easy (Objectives: TR011 policy.greenparty.org.uk/tr.html#TR011). So why will rail travel increase? /2
To reduce CO2 for distances further than you can walk or cycle, shifting from car or air to electrified rail is by far the best option. (BBC: 👇. The numbers are here: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…). /3
(Rail in future will create less than 41g as that includes obsolescent diesels. #HS2 will be about 10g rather than 6g at the start, but it will reduce as grid electricity decarbonises). There is a big CO2 gain for every journey taken by electric train rather than car / plane. /4
Several studies have looked at how we will be travelling in a zero-CO2 UK - such as this excellent one by @centre_alt_tech: cat.org.uk/info-resources…. (Transport is section 3.3.2) /5
In the @centre_alt_tech scenario, total travel will be 17% lower even though population will have grown by 7% by 2030 and 11% by 2040. This is because there will be more working from home, as we have seen recently, and we will tend to live nearer to where we work. /6
A chunk of the car travel will shift to rail as it’s lower CO2. And ⅔ of domestic air will go to rail. As a result, though total travel falls, distance travelled by rail will need to rise by 30%. Other studies have similar shifts. This diagram 👇 shows these shifts. /7
Similarly, our own @TheGreenParty manifesto at the last general election (greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/E…, page 16) envisaged a huge shift to rail which would result in an increase in train travel by about 50%. /8
So even in a Green future where we are travelling much less, we will see much more travel by rail. And that will be locally, into and out of town; between centres (such as Birmingham, Derby and Nottingham, or Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds), and nationally. /9
In the next mini-thread, we’ll show why upgrading our current rail network, which is nearly full at key points, isn't enough for this growth. The only way to handle it is to build new lines. And in another thread we’ll look at how CV-19 might impact things in the long run. /end
We've seen a lot of evidence over conference week and today that @TheGreenParty is still some way from being able to discuss #HS2 constructively, based on a good understanding of what it offers as well as what it costs. The party's policy on high speed rail remains confused. /1
We say again: we are Party members who support #HS2 because it furthers the Green agenda rather than hinders it. We are happy to explain this case to any other member, including senior party figures, if asked. We aren't shills, trolls, astroturfers or trainspotters. /2
HS2 is being built. We aren't going to stop it. But we can campaign along the way: for HS2 Ltd to behave respectfully to the habitat and communities they disturb, for freed capacity to be used for local benefit, for transport policies to be put in place for road pricing, ../3
We often hear from Greens, including very senior ones, that #HS2 is a climate disaster because it won’t be CO2-neutral for a long time. “120 years!” is quoted, “HS2’s own figures!”. One big problem with this: it isn’t true. Let’s take a look at HS2 and CO2... /1
HS2’s official position is that after 60 years #HS2 will either be slightly CO2-negative (if construction doesn’t improve its CO2 efficiency) or slightly CO2-positive (if it does). (The Oakervee review covers this: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl… - sections 5.30 to 5.37) /2
The modelling is covered in more detail in this document: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…. We’ve extracted the numbers below from that. They consider 2 future scenarios - Scenario A in which electric cars and grid decarbonisation happen slowly, and a more optimistic B. /3
There has been a call to cancel #HS2 and use the money on more immediate needs like properly funding the NHS or buying everyone a bike. We all want the NHS to be funded - but it doesn't work that way: in fact we'd be worse off. A thread to explain why... /1
We Greens believe in borrowing to invest. Our 2019 manifesto proposed £94bn, to be invested in the national grid, energy storage, renewable electricity, home insulation, R&D, railways, cycle paths, electric vehicle infrastructure and so on (greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/E… p85) /2.
The point about investing is that you invest *in* something - an asset which has value and generates a return (in accountant-speak, "CAPEX"). /3
One of the criticisms of #HS2 is that because it's so fast, it uses up much more energy than normal trains - so Greens should push for lower speed railways. There is just enough truth in this to make it plausible, but it's not the whole story. A thread to explain why... /1
For sure, if you run a train twice as fast, it needs nearly four times as much energy to maintain speed. (check out Davis Equation if you want to know more. Aerodynamic resistance, that dominates at high speeds, goes up by the square of the speed). However .... /2
... other things to consider. Firstly, a better measure when comparing is how much energy is used to move *each passenger*; and if our interest is really CO2, it's how much greenhouse gas is generated to do that. /3
We keep coming across some misunderstandings from Greens about what #HS2 is, where it goes , what it's for and how much it costs. So here's a thread dealing with a few. /1
Let's start with where it goes. "Just 20 minutes quicker to Birmingham", people say. Nope: on the day that #HS2 starts, in 2029, its trains will also serve Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow. Here's the service pattern for day 1. Each line = one train per hour both ways: /2
The trains run on the new railway between London and Birmingham, then continue their journeys on the existing railway - which will be being upgraded in the meantime to smooth things out. This is just like French TGVs do. /3
As Greens we share with all our party colleagues a huge respect for the natural world and a love of our country's woodland and the wildlife it supports. We mourn the loss of ancient woodland wherever it happens. HS2 sadly causes the loss of some of this woodland. /1
However, one of the reasons why we've set up this group is all the fake news about HS2's environmental impact, some echoed by prominent people who should know better. The debate should be based in fact and a sense of proportion. So a thread about HS2 and woodland... /2
First up - no, 108 ancient woodlands are NOT being "destroyed" by HS2. The source for that, the Wildlife Trusts' report (wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/…) has listed all the woodlands in a 1-km wide strip around the railway, whether it actually crosses them or not. /3