Westbourne and HS2 astroturfing

Anna Minton’s report ‘The local lobby and the failure of democracy’ has some observations on the Westbourne Communications Biz4HS2 campaign.

Speaking at a conference of distinguished guests in 2012 the lobbyist went on to explain other lobbying strategies for winning the case for HS2: how they create compelling stories designed to change the parameters of the debate. They didn’t want the HS2 ‘narrative’ to be about shaving minutes off journey times to Birmingham and in the process cutting through swathes of countryside. The debate they sought to create was about pitting wealthy people in the Chilterns worried about their hunting rights, against working class people in the north. The strategy was “posh people standing in the way of working class people getting jobs” the lobbyist said. The lobbyist went on to explain how they enlisted support for HS2 with a bus tour of the big northern cities, working with celebrities, local radio and high status politicians with the aim of enthusing local people to tell 1,000 stories about just how good high speed rail would be.
[…]
Also in the audience was an academic who was shocked by the “cold, militaristic approach” outlined and the use of intimidation and threats promoted by the lobbyist. “This is a debate which is tricky and nuanced. But this wasn’t open at all, it was very coldly targeted and very strategic in the way that images were put forward. That’s the way PR works but it was so calculating. I came away thinking this has implications for the way democratic debate develops in this country, particularly the element about the scaring the living daylights out of people,” the academic said.

The lobbying company leading the HS2 Campaign is Westbourne Communications and their employees James Bethell and Lucy James were described on the invite list as representing the Campaign for High Speed Rail. […]

Westbourne’s Biz4HS2 Campaign was behind the creation of an ‘All-Party Parliamentary Group for High Speed Rail’, whose press contact was Lucy James.

But outside Westminster, the Biz4HS2 operation was less successful. No ‘real people’ were on hand when the Biz4HS2 bus reached Birmingham’s Victoria Square, and nationally the only celebrity endorsement was from Pete Waterman. ‘Their lawns or our jobs’ leafleting was apparently abandoned.

The Campaign Youtube video saying “Yes to jobs, yes to high speed rail”, featured some strange ‘vox pop’ soundbites, and was narrated by someone who seemed to metamorphose from Sean Bean to John Prescott in half a minute. The narrator worked himself up into a frenzy of indignation, which ended, 32 seconds in, presumably when nurse managed to give him his injection.

HS2 capacity per metre width

According to David Begg, railways offer an hourly capacity of 9,000 passengers per hour, per metre of width. But that figure would be only be found in the top tier of urban mass transit systems, generally with large numbers of standee passengers. In general, railway utilisation is Great Britain is fairly inefficient, and capacity is much lower than portrayed by Mr Begg. With efficient operating practices, the existing West Coast, Midland, Chiltern, and East Coast Main Lines could carry far more passengers than they do now.

It might be worth considering the proposed HS2 high speed railway, which is described as a high capacity system. According to the December 2009 Technical Appendix HS2 would have a normal ‘fenced width’ of 25 metres, or 12.5 metres per track. One-way capacity would be ’18 trains per hour’, and trains would carry up to 1,100 passengers.

So its hourly track capacity would be 19,800 passengers, or 1,584 passengers per metre of width.

The width of the spin

David Begg, of high speed rail and Edinburgh trams ‘fame’, has written a report on London’s transport system. It tries to examine “the extent to which Transport for London’s achievements are ‘world class’, which has been more of a subjective exercise than anticipated given the lack, and often inadequacy, of international benchmarking data”.

Mr Begg’s Siemens-sponsored document has a diagram purporting to show passenger carrying capacity of different transport modes per unit of width, with rail at the top of the performance scale, and private cars at the bottom. But there is no evidence provided to back up the claims.

It’s often claimed that reserved track systems have higher capacity in land use terms. But doing the sums on reserved track systems in Britain frequently ends up with railways and bus-only lanes near the bottom of the capacity league. Examples that spring to mind include the Cambridge busway, and Birmingham’s Tyburn Road bus lane.

In Britain, railway capacity utilisation is remarkably low, even on main lines like Chiltern. In capacity terms, how well does the West Coast Main Line, Britain’s “busiest mixed traffic railway”, perform against the M1? The answer, on the information available, is ‘not very’.

A few days ago, at the London Beeching 50 event, Andrew Adonis was reported as saying that the Cotswold railway line is “highly profitable”. But how likely is it that a railway carrying one short train per direction, per hour, is covering its costs? The Cotswold rail corridor must be running at *less than 5 per cent* of its theoretical capacity.

‘The most successful high speed railway in Europe’

In a 19 January 2012 lecture at Nottingham University, Biz4HS2‘s David Begg said “the most successful [high speed] line in Europe would be Cologne to Frankfurt… 110 miles, similar to London to Birmingham” [23 minutes, 12 seconds in].

The Neubaustrecke (NBS) Köln-Rhein/Main in the European high speed network

But like Spain’s AVE, the Frankfurt to Cologne high speed line is not something that Great Britain should seek to replicate. According to Table 9 of the Bartlett School of Planning’s Neubaustrecke (NBS) Köln-Rhein/Main study, actual passenger numbers were well below forecast, and in 2002 its ‘capability’ was just ‘five trains per hour and direction’.

HS2 is a much bigger project than Frankfurt — Cologne, or Madrid — Sevilla, so the risks are much larger. But what’s common to all these schemes, is a near-total lack of transparency.

Build more roads, says Biz4HS2 director

The Campaign for High Speed Rail (Biz4HS2) website says that David Begg is “the” director, and Adam Raphael is “a” director. Mr Begg is also publisher of the Transport Times magazine, where Adam Raphael is the associate editor.

In the September 2012 edition of Transport Times, Mr Raphael described the Campaign for Better Transport’s call for a moratorium on roadbuilding as a “counsel of despair”.

In July 2011, in a press release titled “Background briefing on the IEA’s HS2 report” (and story for Left Foot Forward), Biz4HS2 attacked the Institute of Economic Affairs assessment of the HS2 project.

the [IEA] authors are clearly obsessed by roads – particularly in the South East – and would happily privatise the railways on which Britain’s families and local business people depend.

Back seat Begg

Although still named as the Director of the Campaign for High Speed Rail (Biz4HS2) on its ‘About‘ webpage, David Begg has apparently taken a back seat, and handed decision-making to a PR company. (This is a similar situation to Centro, where a lobbyist is in charge of transport ‘strategy’ for the entire West Midlands county.)

Biz4HS2 is apparently now being run by Westbourne Communications‘ Lucy James, who is described as the ‘Director’ in the ‘Busting more myths‘ document, dated July 2012. ‘Busting more myths’ portrayed the problems of HS2 as coming from within the Westminster village, which doesn’t say much for Westbourne’s persuasive abilities. After all, the company is supposed to specialise in changing opinion at the Parliamentary pump.

[…] a small band of brothers have been determined to play politics with high-speed rail and jobs in the North. This group is taking the fight away from tunnels in the Chilterns and onto the terraces of the Houses of Parliament.

At its core, this is a group of politically motivated individuals who carry influence amongst certain sections of the Westminster “commentariat”.

Biz4HS2 / Westbourne went on to claim that the “red light from the Major Projects Authority” is not a serious blow to HS2; the Treasury are not holding back funds; and chancellor George Osborne is not getting cold feet. Actually, it is not clear to what extent the Treasury are opposing HS2, or how significant the Major Projects Authority red light is (because its report is secret). What is clear, is that the economy is flatlining, and the capacity, environmental, and business arguments for HS2 are bust. Together, these make HS2 a very difficult sell.

There is no upside from HS2 for the parliamentary seats along the route (mostly held by Conservative MPs), because trains would not stop anywhere between London and northwest Solihull. And because most West Midlanders are not regular rail travellers to London, there is no public clamour for HS2 to be built.

The main beneficiaries of HS2 would be property, consultancy, and civil engineering companies, and it’s no surprise to find many of them in the list of supporters of the Biz4HS2 campaign. But improvements of the type planned for the Chiltern and Midland Main Lines in the High Level Output Specification 2014 – 2019 offer a much more cost-effective and greener way forward for rail.

It’s a mythtery

On May 29, David Begg’s Campaign for High Speed Rail (Biz4HS2) warned of the “dangerous conseqences [sic] of not taking the capacity crisis on Britain’s railways seriously”.

Accompanying the press release was a ‘myth-busting’ statement about West Coast Main Line capacity.

Despite the large growth in long-distance journeys, it is currently the passenger numbers for suburban commuter journeys in and out of Euston that are putting the [West Coast Main] line under the greatest pressure. At the moment, at peak times, trains are running at 75% capacity.
[…]
Whilst the West Coast Main Line is creaking at the moment, in less than a decades’ time it will be bursting at the seams. In the July 2011 RUS, Network Rail predicts that by 2031 the number of long-distance journeys in and out of Euston will grow by 76% and the commuter journeys by 50%. As a result, Network Rail predicts that the line will be full in just over a decades’ time. If we do not prepare for growth in passenger numbers, the West Coast Main Line, the trunk line for the UK’s railways, will cease to work effectively as it will be unable to accommodate the demand.

Clearly, if Euston commuter trains are at “75% capacity” overall, they aren’t ‘full’. That might explain some of the vacillation about running faster and longer trains to Milton Keynes and Northampton.

It’s also abundantly clear that the Euston lines (suburban and long distance) are not particularly well used, compared to those into other termini. Network Rail (NR)’s current London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy shows that

• in 2010, Fenchurch Street’s peak hour suburban commuter numbers were *nearly twice* those of Euston
• NR’s prediction for growth on the Great Eastern Main Line (Liverpool Street) between 2010 and 2031 is 8,100 (compared with 2,800 for the LMS main line into Euston)
• the NR prediction for passenger number growth between 2010 and 2031 on Great Western fast trains (Paddington) is 4,600 (compared with 2,800 at Euston)
• in 2010, Euston long distance and suburban trains were just 4 per cent of National Rail peak London traffic.

The lines into Euston are *underused*, and other termini are forecast to experience larger increases in passenger numbers. So why no enthusiasm from Biz4HS2 for a new line towards, say, Chelmsford? The clamour for building HS2 has little to do with the realities of rail capacity, and everything to do with special interests. Rail capacity planning needs to be based on rational analysis, and optimal use of assets.

Nottingham is ‘in the wrong place’

Having the mastermind behind the Edinburgh trams fiasco as an ‘advisor’ on long distance rail planning, just begg-ars belief. Because, according to Biz4HS2 chief David Begg, Nottingham is “in the wrong place” for high speed rail services.

“when you get to the East Midlands you get this classic case of three population centres all competing with one another and the problem is that Nottingham is in the wrong place for the rail network.
[…]
“I’m an adviser to the HS2 on the route and I’ve sworn to secrecy, but the likelihood is that there will be a station serving Nottingham and Derby. But it’s difficult to find a station that will also serve Leicester. And that’s why the outcome of HS2 is not as attractive as it is for other cities.”

Begg believes that Nottingham’s connection to HS2 will be best served by extending the NET tram system to the new station.

Well I always thought that the idea behind railways was that they should to go to where cities actually are, but apparently, in Begg — McNaughton world, that’s an outmoded idea. It’s now much more important for trains to go in straight lines between beetroot fields in the ‘general vicinity’ of large conurbations. And rather than having the train come to you, you go out to the train.

This weird reconceptualisation of rail travel is not limited to the East Midlands. In the West Midlands, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Walsall, and West Bromwich are all of similar size to the East Midlands localities mentioned by Mr Begg — and they aren’t served by the Y network either.

If the NET tramway were extended to some field in Broxtowe — where the HS2 station were located — who would be paying for that? And as NET trams stop every few hundred yards, how long would it take to get from the beetroot field, into central Nottingham?

HS2 is not planned to run into central Sheffield, because that’s “in the wrong place” too. So I suppose Mr Begg would suggest having the Supertram extended to Sheffield Rhubarb Interchange out in the sticks. Again, people need to know how long the journey from Rhubarb to Sheffield by tram would take. And why isn’t the cost of Supertram extension to Rhubarb added to the Y network cost statement?

Jeremy Clarkson backs HS2 (reports Biz4HS2)

Finally, HS2 has a deep-thinking environmental heavyweight on side. David Begg’s Biz4HS2 campaign tweeted an Express and Star article in which Jeremy Clarkson expressed his support for high speed rail. In the article, Mr Clarkson branded the objections of those living close to the proposed line as “a bit weak”, and

“poked fun” at why London needs to be connected to Lichfield.

I guess it’s not important for Barlaston to be connected then, either? The improbability continued, with Mr Clarkson expressing an interest in the aesthetics of HS2:

“This is something I hope the high speed rail engineers are thinking about,” Clarkson said. “Not just the bottom line. Not just the accounts. But how the thing will look.”

The good news is: the high speed rail people do look at design.

The bad news is: this is what they’ve come up with:

.

Begg baloney briefing

Earlier this month, Biz4HS2 honcho David Begg had the following briefing sent to MPs, prior to the Parliamentary debate on HS2.

Campaign briefing for MPs in advance of HS2 Commons debate

October 13, 2011

On Tuesday, we sent a letter out to all MPs making the case for HS2 in advance of the Common’s [sic] debate later today. The letter is pasted in full below or can be downloaded as a PDF online here.

House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
11th October 2011

Dear MP,

High Speed 2 (HS2) is the only long-term solution for Britain’s railways

On Thursday 13th October 2011 there will be a general debate on HS2 in the Chamber.

There are three main reasons why you should support HS2 in this debate all of which are not about speed, but capacity:

1. Britain’s rail network is increasingly close to being full

2. Proposed alternatives to HS2 do not release enough capacity

3. HS2 is the only viable solution that will release enough capacity in the long-term

So far, the debate has been hugely polarised. The construction of any large-scale infrastructure project inevitably generates opposition from those who are likely to be affected. With HS2, opposition groups from along the proposed route have worked relentlessly to create as much negative publicity as possible.

Whilst they are still continuing to fight HS2 on environmental grounds, opponents have shifted their focus to fighting the project on the basis of its business case. This begs the question as to why they did not voice similar opposition to transport projects such as Crossrail and the Jubilee Line Extension, whose business cases had a far lower rate of financial return.

On the other hand, because increased connectivity has a positive impact on economic growth, businesses across the UK stand in support of HS2. So too does the leadership of each of the three main parties, all of whom reiterated their commitment to the project at this year’s party conferences.

**Prime Minister’s conference speech:** “When in modern business you’re either quick or you’re dead, it’s hopeless that our transport infrastructure lags so far behind Europe’s. That’s why we need to build high speed rail.”

**Shadow Minister for Transport’s conference speech:** “Let’s set out a long term strategy for investing in our rail infrastructure. No more talk of classic rail, but a network transformed with a programme to complete electrification and introduce a new generation of high speed inter-city trains. And, yes, let’s also tackle capacity problems between north and south. And in the only credible way it can be done. That’s why it was Labour that set out plans for a new high speed line.”

**Deputy Prime Minister’s conference speech:** “Ultimately, it comes down to a short-term ‘make-do-and-mend’ approach against a long-term vision for transport in this country. This is why businesses up and down the country support HS2. They understand that a sustainable transport model requires a long-term solution, in order that our infrastructure remains efficient and their businesses can continue to succeed in a competitive global market.”

[…]
The main reasons why we should support HS2 are not due to increased speed, but due to the need for long-term capacity solutions.

1. Britain’s rail network is increasingly close to being full
Rail travel as a whole has been growing at 5% a year and more than doubled between 1994/1995 and 2009/2010. Sections of the East Coast Main Line are blocked, and the West Coast Main Line (WCML) is predicted to be full by 2024. In fact, the number of passenger journeys on the West Coast Main Line is twice as high now as it was in 2004.

The Government’s business case for HS2 predicts an average growth forecast of 2% per year. Yet the actual growth on Virgin Trains between 2008 and 2011 was around 10%. As such, the demand level forecast for 2021 has already been reached.

Add to this the soaring demand for rail freight. Container freight on the North-South axis has grown by 56% in the last eight years and there is pressing demand for extra space, particularly from the retail sector that recognise the reliability, low cost and carbon benefits of putting freight on railways.

The WCML is the main trunk route for freight, and already carries 50 to 75 freight trains per day on its southern section. The Rail Freight Group estimates that, by 2030, with traffic from the London Gateway and other developments taken into consideration, freight will need six paths per hour in each direction just to keep up with demand.

Remember, if the extra demand for freight is not accommodated by the railways, it will add more traffic to our congested road network. With these demand estimates, we would see around 200 extra lorries per hour.

2. Proposed alternatives to HS2 do not release enough capacity

Those opposing HS2 have been forced to admit the pressing need for extra capacity on Britain’s railways. However, their proposed solutions do not provide sufficient capacity for the long-term and, as such, have been referred to by Lord Adonis as a ‘classic British patch and mend’ solution.

These groups claim that their alternatives would increase capacity on the railways by 215%. However, only 68.9% of this capacity would be released at peak time and even this claim is made on the basis of 2008 capacity figures. As such, it fails to take into consideration the fact that the Government have now committed to capacity-upgrade schemes such as lengthening many Pendolinos to 11 cars. Once this is taken into consideration, the extra capacity that their alternatives would provide at peak time drops to only 38.2%. Such a limited increase in capacity means that we would be revisiting projects like high-speed rail in ten years’ time.

What is more, their solutions rely on upgrading ‘live’ lines. Their proposals, which include four-tracking sections of the line and lengthening the Pendolino fleet to 12-cars, would require substantial infrastructure works. The WCML is the busiest mixed-use rail line in Europe, and such upgrades would create unprecedented disruption for commuters. The previous upgrade of the WCML took ten years to complete.

3. HS2 is the only viable solution that will release enough capacity in the long-term

HS2 will have 400m-long, European-sized trains, with up to 1100 seats on each vehicle. Initially, the infrastructure will allow up to 14 trains to run each hour, although this is expected ultimately to rise to 18 trains.

This does not include the space that will be freed on the existing lines as long-distance journeys transfer across to a dedicated line. This space will be used to run extra local commuter services in and out of congested cities, as well as running freight on rail. The railways therefore have the potential to ease the severe levels of congestion that we have on some of Britain’s road network.

In the words of Network Rail, after 2024, the WCML “is effectively full and any interventions will be disproportionately expensive compared with the benefits gained”.

The UK is currently relying on a Victorian rail network that is unable to cope with a 21st century demand for travel. If you believe in the future sustainability of the railways for the next hundred and fifty years, then it is critical that you give your support to HS2.
For your information, find below links to our campaign ‘myth busting’ document, as well as a more extensive deconstruction of the opposition’s ‘proposed alternatives’. If you require any further information prior to Thursday’s debate, please don’t hesitate to contact the campaign.

Yours sincerely,

Professor David Begg
Director, Campaign for High Speed Rail
info@campaignforhsr.com
07758 019 351
Additional campaign resources:
1. ‘10 Myths: bringing balance to the debate about high-speed rail’.
2. ‘A better alternative to HS2: why the alternative to HS2 doesn’t stack up’.

The briefing shows how dependent Biz4HS2 is on emotion and weirdwonk (as seen previously in the “lawns and jobs” flyers, and “HS2 will underpin the delivery of 1 million jobs“, etc). For Mr Begg, “Britain’s rail network is increasingly close to being full”. I imagine that when the Chiltern railway through Solihull was reduced from four to two tracks, that line became “increasingly close to being full”.

For Andrew Adonis, upgrading the West Coast or Chiltern lines is “patch and mend”, but upgrading the Great Western Main Line to Bristol is “faster, quieter and more efficient trains“.

And Shadow transport minister Maria Eagle wants no more talk of “classic rail”. Er, it’s a term used – often by pro-HS2 people like Andrew McNaughton – simply to distinguish existing railways, from new-build-high-speed. Does Ms Eagle (or her speechwriter) not know that?