Railways for gains concerning climate and inequality
Despite 29 global conferences on the climate, and thousands of illustrative academic papers, climate policy failures remain. As Gareth Dennis observes in this book, a third of global end-use emissions are from transport. As a step away from the climate emergency, he offers a railway renaissance focussed on this country particularly, with emphasis on public ownership.
Many observations also reference what he calls “private individualised transport” as part of the wider pattern of inequalities and pollution in our society. He attempts to “describe how railways fit into the future, but also how they can act as a lens through which to filter and understand what future we want to see, allowing us to think clearly about our relationship with organised labour, with technology and with democratic principles.”
This holistic approach is complemented by a general attack upon inequality, of which he suggests vehicle driving is a major part. He points out that only half of the 20% of households with the lowest income in the UK have access to a car. He argues dealing with car dependence is part of reducing poverty, pollution, and inequality.
The physical advantages of rail infrastructure
Physical advantages of rail go beyond mass transportation. When a single locomotive can pull the equivalent of 80 heavy goods vehicles, but with far less energy use and fewer environmental impacts, it is hard to see how road-related expenditures can be justified.
I have argued elsewhere that much of what passes for national infrastructure in the UK has notional benefits. However, considering costs, efficiencies, and the environment in infrastructure use advantages rail considerably. The collapse, in stages, of aspirations for HS2 suggests that the funds lavished on it would have been better deployed in re-opening disused lines for a much wider range of localities to benefit.
Railways for transport integration and best use of what we already have
Dennis offers a set of principles which integrate railways with each other, with levels of government, workforce needs, appropriate investment, long-term planning, and a supporting policy framework. This, like the rest of his book, is an indirect contribution to the integrated transport strategy, about which the government has issued a ‘call for ideas.
Centralised government expanding rail with minimal environmental impact?
Dennis condemns the UK for having “the most centralised government of any advanced economy in the world” combined with the impacts of austerity which damage the rail system and much else.
Whilst we can all agree that the arrested development of a sustainable railway system needs far more investment, increasing the use and utility of rail by increasing its physical footprint is a more questionable argument. Apart from making use of disused rail lines, a substantial long-term investment in new underground rail lines to offer faster, sustainable alternatives to cars would be good; as might upgrading existing rail lines.
No, rail expansion is not all about more cash
Is the state of railways simply a matter of underspending in the UK? Not when such spending is four times greater than Russia per capita, nearly twice as much as France or Germany, and over 30 times more than the vast Indian rail system on which I have travelled during a 15-month spell in India.
Dennis identifies factors at work in UK rail spending: catch-up after under-investment; high levels of freight and passenger demand generating a need for investment; the supply of intensive rail services on a generally “unexpanded” network. As he points out, railway renationalisation has been going on for some time – notably in northern England. So, the partial return of rail to public ownership by the current UK government continues a constructive trend in addressing market failures.
Restraining private vehicle use for the public good
Dennis believes private vehicle usage should be far more restricted. A limit upon the rate of transition to electric vehicles may, in any case, result from scarcity of minerals and materials. Reduction in private vehicle journeys might assist in moving resources to the long-term pavement and road repairs neglected in past decades. A pavement parking ban in England, and far more pedestrianisation could help as would more investment in active travel, which Dennis does not emphasise enough.
However, Dennis is careful to point out that increasing the modal share of rail also has to be linked to better bus services. After all, buses can and do reach locations not served by existing, or imaginable, rail services.
Bringing the climate failure of aviation expansion to a close
The backdrop to expanding rail use includes the risk of further expansion in civil aviation. This is so substantial that it is likely to mean aviation would account for about 20% of human-related carbon emissions globally by 2050. As Dennis observes, only demand reduction can stop this – a necessity for any national climate policy – especially in the UK, where arguably avoidable domestic flights are unconstrained, as are short-distance flights to the continent.
There is substantial demand for rail use… what would it be with lower fares?
A major justification for acceding to the arguments Dennis offers is the continuing rise in demand for passenger rail, despite insufficient carriages, services, and coverage. Incentives to increase such demand on sustainability grounds, helping to fund goals like full electrification, could certainly include improved punctuality.
But I would find further expansion more believable if it included a big decrease in immense rail fares. A 50% cut in prices immediately, with future fare increases held lower than inflation each year, would be a signal to travellers that rail is a part of their future. With only 10% of individual and 8% of freight journeys taken by rail, there is a good case for rail investments of many kinds.
Concluding
Dennis has provided a compelling case for railway expansion. Making this work through maximising lower-cost options should be part of how this is achieved. He also makes a detailed case for rail in full public ownership based on the comprehensive failings of private organisations to run railways. He is very keen to see rail options provided for more locations, but new surface infrastructure is physically very damaging for a country that has seen far too much of it already. Greater emphasis on underground rail, disused line re-openings, and integration with active travel in particular could all be more strongly emphasised.
We want to hear your views. Please send any comments to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
