Web Agenda/Minutes Summary Document

Meeting Name:
Aviation Forum

Meeting Date:
11/23/2010 Pick

Meeting Time:


Location:


Sub Committee / User Forum etc (if required):




Members Present:

Non-Members Present:

Confidentiality: Part I


Document Type: Agenda


Document Status: Final

ITEM	SUBJECT	PAGE NO
	1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE	-
	2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST	-
	3. MINUTES To receive the minutes of the last meeting of the Forum held on 10 August 2010.	i-iv
	4. MATTERS ARISING To consider any matters arising.
	5. ITEMS i) Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee (HACC) - Verbal update (Cllr. Beer) ii) Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group (SASIG) - Verbal update (Cllr. Thompson) iii) Local Authority Aircraft Noise Council (LAANC) - Verbal update (Cllr. Thompson/Beer) iv) 2M Update – verbal v) NATS – Airspace Changes update (attached) vi) Swiss Study – Link between Aircraft Noise & Heart Attacks (attached) vii) Flight Changes post Cranford viii) Miscellaneous Aviation Matters including Alternation - verbal update ix) BAA Noise Insulation Scheme – dual glazing in conservation areas (attached) x) Noise Action Plans – verbal update. xi) Night Flying update xii) Towards a Sustainable Heathrow – BAA report – for noting (attached) xiii) Heathrow Train Link (Peter Hooper – Minister’s speech attached) xiv) Update on the 'Future of UK Aviation' paper by Michael Sullivan xv) Press Relations (Frances Hewitt)	- - - - 1 5 - - 7 - 9 17 - -
	6. ITEM SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE FORUM MEETINGS The Forum is invited to make suggestions for items to be considered at future Forum Meetings.
	7. DATES OF FUTURE FORUM MEETINGS Dates of future meetings are confirmed as follows: 8th February 2011 May 2011 – to be confirmed

Date: 23^rd November 2010

Member Reporting: Phillip Bicknell, Lead Member for Public Protection, Chairman, Aviation Forum.

Contact Officer(s): Philip Turner, Team Leader – Environmental Protection.
Tel;: 01628 683645

Wards affected:
All Wards of the Borough are potentially by any aviation related issues but especially the towns and Parishes of Windsor, Eton, Wraysbury, Horton, Datchet and Old Windsor, Maidenhead and surrounding areas.

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 At its meeting on 23^rd April 2008, the Forum received a report entitled, ‘NATS^[1] Consultation on Proposed Changes to Airspace’. A copy of the report is attached as an Appendix.
^[1] The National Air Traffic Control Service for the Civil Aviation Authority.

1.2 Whilst it was denied at the time there remained a suspicion that the proposed changes were, in part, clearing the skies for the then proposed third runway.

1.3 The purpose of that report was to advise members of a report, ‘Terminal Control North (TCN): Consultation on Proposed Changes to Airspace had been published by NATS (copy attached), of its implications for the Borough and to seek the Forum’s authority to respond to the consultation. This was done: the response followed the recommendations in that earlier report..

1.4 All of the ‘Heathrow’ local authorities responded but by far the greatest level of opposition came from the Stansted local authorities. In response, the Forum was advised that revisions would be made and that a further consultation exercise would be undertaken.

1.5 In October 2009, NATS announced that this second consultation had been postponed until at least September 2010. Now that second consultation has been further postponed with the announcement that the proposals will be incorporated into a wider review of airspace over southern England.

Note:
Terminal Control North (TCN), along with Terminal Control South (TCS) forms London Terminal Control (LTC) which in total covers much of southern England, as far north as Ipswich and west to Bournemouth with Banbury roughly marking the north-west corner. NATS says it is reviewing the airspace structure in overall area to take account of new navigation technologies and tools under development to improve air traffic management techniques. Its aim is to improve safety in this most complex area of airspace, to provide additional capacity to meet forecast long term demand and to meet environmental targets.

2.1 On 13^th October NATS announced that due to the downturn in air traffic levels since the 2008 consultation on proposed changes in the Terminal Control North (TCN) area, there is less urgency on capacity grounds to achieve the changes. Current forecasts show that air traffic levels are not expected to return to the peak levels of 2007 until at least 2013/14. This will give NATS more time to arrive at a hopefully better series of options.

2.2 The aim now is to combine the necessary changes in the TCN proposal with other projects currently under way. NATS is already working on a wider project involving the airspace over much of southern England. It is claimed that the TCN proposals are very much a part of helping NATS to deliver bigger benefits, albeit on a longer timescale. These include keeping aircraft higher for longer on more direct routes, which saves fuel burn and CO2 and means less noise for people on the ground. This at least looks promising and could provide benefits for Borough residents though we should naturally, await full details before supporting the changes.

2.3 This work is still in early stages but is expected to deliver improvements in the period 2016-2020 with some earlier enabling improvements possible from 2013.

3.0 COMMENTARY

3.1 Effectively this means that there will be nothing changed before 2013 which is fine but not in the longer term. For that longer term this must await the further documents resulting from the southern England airspace review..

3.2 It looks likely now that the changes will occur post 2016.


RECOMMENDATION

Members of the Forum are recommended to note the further postponement and await developments in due course.

Background Papers.

NATS Press Release dated 13^th October 2010

NATS^[1] CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO AIRSPACE
^[1] The National Air Traffic Control Service for the Civil Aviation Authority

1. Purpose of the Report
To advise Members that NATS has started a consultation process returnable by 22^nd May on proposals for more efficient use of the airspace in the south-east. Undoubtedly this connects with the need for changes to accommodate DfT’s proposals for | third runway at Heathrow, the second runway at Stansted and the proposals in abeyance for Gatwick Airport.

The consultation is divided into regional components: this report deals only with the region of interest to the Borough – the west and north-west London area..

2. Background to the Proposals
Airports in the south-east handle 2.4 million flights annually with a consequent 235million passengers. Air space is, to a degree, shared and all London’s airport traffic interacts. The proposals have been five years in development. Noise control and emissions to atmosphere have all been taken into consideration as the need for attention to these aspects (especially the latter) is a central part of national policy.

A principal concern was air traffic congestion around a central focus at Brookmans Park, Herts. To address this the air space for holding operations has been separated into individual holding areas for each of London’s airports.

The Proposals
The proposals concern aircraft using both Heathrow and Northolt. Northolt flights will continue to have little impact as aircraft are well elevated (beyond 4,000 feet) when passing over this area.

Insofar as the Royal borough is concerned:

1. there are no changes proposed for landing arrangements;

2. changes concern only departures to the north & north-east.

Precision navigation (PRNAVs^[1]) will be employed to ensure aircraft stay on track. This is both good and bad. Good because there have been many instances reported to the PPSU of ‘stray’ aircraft. Bad because PRNAVs will ensure aircraft are concentrated accurately with consequent noise impacts on specific areas. These routes will use the Noise Preferential Routes (NPRs), three km. wide corridors, as before, which contain aircraft within one mile of the desired line.
^[1] Precision Area Navigation technology.

NATS quotes that (para 7.1) ‘The use of Precision Area Navigation technology in this proposal means that some routes will change . . . However, it will also mean that even where routes remain the as they do today, aircraft are likely to follow the route centre-lines more closely.’ (para 7.2) ‘However, the exact nature of the concentrating effect is not known for certain . . . but it is not known to what extent.’ (Para 7.3) ’In noise terms, the effect of concentrating aircraft along P-RNAV routes will be to concentrate noise generated . . within a more confined area.’ NATS claims to have taken a ‘worst case scenario and that is to what the comments relate.

3. Impact of Changes - Noise
The maps provided by NATS confirm no impact from any flight departures other than those to the north & north-east.

However the flights departing to the north & north-east show changes of movement to the south of the present routes which will show mild benefits to Colnbrook and in the Slough areas but which will show an increasing impact on Wraysbury areas to the north of Old Windsor and, on the worst case scenario stated, a minor increase probably of a hundred metres (max.) on a line stretching from Old Windsor boundary to Bray then departing from that line to include more properties in Bray and to the east of Maidenhead towards Bourne End. By this time flights will be at some altitude – at least 2,500 – 3,000 feet and therefore of low impact. However this is a fresh precedent for a greater impact on this area.

4. Impact of Changes – Emissions & Climate Change issues
In this respect the document talks of precision flying, minimising delays and stacking as being supportive of reducing aircraft exhaust emissions including carbon management. The proposals cannot calculate types of aircraft, patterns of use and other relevant issues which could potentially have a greater impact.

.

5. Responding to the Consultation
Questions to be answered are only available to the public once they have registered on the NATS website. They require respondents to indicate if they are:

5.1 Support

· In support of the proposals;
· Neutral regarding them;
· Not in support.

· Other questions asked include:
· Aircraft noise;
· Air traffic control procedure & efficiency;
· Changes to controlled airspace boundaries;
· Climate change/CO₂ emissions;
· Economic effect for the UK;
· Flight delays.

· For the various airports;
· Safety considerations;
· Tranquillity;
· Visual impact;
· Wildlife impact;
· Other to be specified.

Date: 23^rd November 2010

Member Reporting: Phillip Bicknell, Lead Member for Public Protection, Chairman, Aviation Forum.

Contact Officer(s): Philip Turner, Team Leader – Environmental Protection.
Tel;: 01628 683645

Wards affected:
All Wards of the Borough are potentially by any aviation related issues but especially the towns and Parishes of Windsor, Eton, Wraysbury, Horton, Datchet and Old Windsor, Maidenhead and surrounding areas.

1. BACKGROUND

Past research has tried to establish a link between aircraft noise and the risk of heart attacks. An earlier report by Willich, Wegscheider, Stallman & Keil (2005) made such a claim it was debunked the following year by Babisch the following year but the original claim was defended by its authors & the work remains ‘open’.

1.2 The recent study was carried out by a team of researchers from the University of Bern in Switzerland led by Matthew Egger and funded by the Swiss Science Foundation. It has been published in October 2010.

2. SUMMARY

2.1 The study sought to establish whether there is a link between aircraft noise & the risk of death from heart attack. The study used Swiss census statistics between December 2000 & December 2005, comparing people over the age of 30 who had suffered fatal heart attacks and their home location in relation to exposure to aircraft noise in excess of 60dB which had been experienced for over 15 years..

2.2 The study covered 4.6 million people of whom 15,532 died from a heart attack, 282,916 from other causes. Noise exposure during the night as well as the day was also assessed (only the airports of Zurich, Geneva and Basle have air traffic after 10pm).

2.3 The study found that long-term exposure (15 years) to the highest category of aircraft noise (60db or more) was associated with a 50% increase in the risk of heart attack death, compared to exposure to 45db or less. However, this was not statistically significant, so there is high risk that this is a chance finding.

2.4 On its own, this study is not convincing evidence that long-term exposure to aircraft noise increases the risk of death by heart attack. The researchers referred to the increase in likelihood as ‘small’. This does not mean there isn’t a link, but further studies would be needed to ascertain this.

2.5 The researchers also pointed to high levels of aircraft noise leading to higher levels of psychological stress which can lead to high blood pressure & heart disease. Aircraft noise had no influence on the risk of dying from any other cause.

2.6 The researchers attempted to adjust their data for confounding factors that may have influenced the results. For example, they found that the population who lived closer to the Swiss flight paths tended to be of lower socioeconomic status and were less likely to have been to university. It is possible that this may not be the case for the UK population who live along flight paths.

2.7 It is important to assess how our environment can affect our health. However, these findings are not robust enough to convincingly show that long-term exposure to aircraft noise increases the risk of dying from a heart attack.

2.8 Further studies are necessary to assess whether noise pollution in the UK can affect health.

RECOMMENDATION

Members of the Forum are recommended to note the existence of this report but cautioned that it is considered inconclusive pending further research into the subject.

Background Papers.

Aircraft Noise, Air Pollution, and Mortality From Myocardial Infarction, Epidemiology, November 2010, Volume 21, Issue 6, pp 829-836.

Noise burden and the risk of myocardial infarction, Willich, Wegscheider, Stallman & Keil (2005) Eur Heart J (February 2006) 27 (3): 276-282. doi: 1093/eurheartj/ehi658 First published online: November 24, 2005

7

Date: 23^rd November 2010

Member Reporting: Phillip Bicknell, Lead Member for Public Protection, Chairman, Aviation Forum.

Contact Officer(s): Philip Turner, Team Leader – Environmental Protection.
Tel: 01628 683645

Wards affected:
All Wards of the Borough are potentially by any aviation related issues but the report concerns listed buildings in the Windsor Conservation Area and listed buildings elsewhere in qualifying areas,.

1. BACKGROUND & PURPOSE

1.1 There are several schemes which are summarised in an appendix. They aim to provide a measure of relief against the impact of aircraft noise in the most badly affected areas. Owners and occupiers of listed buildings cannot benefit from the scheme which proves an anomaly & weakness of the provision of any such scheme.

1.2 A significant part of the central Windsor area is subject to the requirements of the conservation area. For the purposes of home improvements these are quite prescriptive and are at odds with the available options of the scheme. These are either PVCu sealed dual glazed units (which are unacceptable) or secondary glazing which may be acceptable but is bulky, less practical and may be unsuitable from an installation viewpoint.

1.3 This results in a significant number of residents being excluded from the benefits of this scheme.

1.4 At the inception of the scheme, BAA met and discussed the scheme with the Council’s conservation officer. Following that meeting in July 2008 it was hoped that there would be a degree of flexibility towards owners & occupiers of listed buildings.

1.5 Some recent correspondence with residents affected has indicated that BAA is unwilling to discuss the possibility of compromise. This is unhelpful.

RECOMMENDATION

Members of the Forum are requested to authorise officers to write to BAA Heathrow requesting that the scheme be amended to allow a grant to be made to owners of listed buildings towards appropriate windows.

Background Papers.

Published information only.

APPENDIX: BAA Noise Insulation Schemes Available

Residential Day Noise Insulation Scheme

This scheme provides acoustic insulation to residential buildings in the community. It is restricted to the 18-hour 1994 69dB LAeq noise contour, enhanced to take account of early morning arrivals noise.

Those eligible to apply can choose from:

· Free secondary glazing to fit existing windows

· A 50% contribution to standard double-glazed PVCu replacement windows

· A 50% contribution to high-specification double-glazed PVCu replacement windows, specially designed to reduce noise levels

· A combination of these options.

.

Night Noise Insulation Scheme

This is a domestic noise insulation scheme to address the impacts of night flights on local communities. It is designed to protect residents who are regularly exposed to noise from night flights.

It is based on the noise footprint of the noisiest aircraft that operates in the night quota period (23:30 - 06:00).

Rooms eligible for insulation are bedrooms or bed-sitting rooms only (which are used as bedrooms on most days of the year).

The scheme provides noise insulation for all bedrooms or bed-sitting areas in approx 41,000 homes around Heathrow.

Community Buildings Noise Insulation Scheme

This scheme applies to noise-sensitive buildings in the community that fall within the 2002 63dB Leq Noise Contour over the current runways. It offers acoustic insulation.

Noise-sensitive community buildings eligible in this scheme are those with widespread use within the community, where people spend long periods of time, or where they are vulnerable – for example hospitals, schools, nursing homes, registered nurseries, libraries and community halls.

BAA has developed a community-led body which is responsible for making necessary decisions involved in administering this scheme. BAA Heathrow provides funding of up to £5 million in any full financial year towards this activity.

The noise mitigation can extend to window replacement, mechanical ventilation or any other activity related to provision of noise insulation.

 Meetings 101123 Baa Sustainable Heathrow Report

17

Introduction

It’s a pleasure to be here today, and I would like to thank David Begg and his team for giving me the opportunity this morning to tell you about the progress to date on HS2 and our commitment, at a political level, to taking the agenda forward.

I’d also like to thank you for your patience, given that it is now this afternoon.

One thing I’ve learnt about the transport portfolio in six months is that it’s never predictable!

You’ve already heard from Sir Brian Briscoe this morning on the work HS2 are doing to make high speed rail a reality.

I don’t think there’s much I can add to the excellent overview he’s given you on how he and his team are going to progress this project in the coming months.

So what I want to talk to you about today is the bigger picture for high speed rail. And the political dimension to the project.

The role it plays in the Coalition’s transport strategy.

The huge benefits I believe it can bring to our country.

How it fits in our wider agenda for rebalancing and rebuilding Britain’s economy.

And why - even in these difficult economic times - we are committed to pursuing such a huge investment.

Economic Context

Let me set the scene by putting our decisions in context:

You don’t need me to tell you that we faced an unprecedented fiscal crisis when we came to office.

We were saddled with the biggest budget deficit in the G20 and had just limped out of the longest and deepest recession in our peacetime history.

Every single day we were adding £400 million to our national debt.

Had we kept to the spending plans we inherited, we would be paying out nearly £70 billion a year in interest alone by the end of the Parliament - more than we spend on schooling our children and defending our country combined.

If we’d let those debts go on rising, it would have led to higher interest rates, undermined confidence in Britain and put the recovery at risk.

So we have had to take tough decisions to get the deficit under control.

By cancelling £6 billion worth of planned public spending this year.

By setting out, in our Emergency Budget in June, an ambitious four year plan to eliminate entirely our structural deficit and get debt falling as a percentage of GDP.

And two weeks ago, by delivering the conclusions of the Spending Review, with firm and fixed spending totals for each government department for the rest of this Parliament, and far-reaching reforms to welfare and our public services.

And it’s working already.

Our early action to balance Britain’s books is already paying dividends.

Our AAA credit rating has been reconfirmed and we now have a clean bill of health from the IMF - who described our budget as ‘essential’ to securing the conditions for sustainable economic growth.

But that vital fiscal readjustment is only part of the story.

A necessary, but not sufficient, condition for Britain’s recovery.

Growth and importance of infrastructure investment

The challenge is to secure the growth, the jobs, the investment that will drive our prosperity in the future.

So now the hard work really begins, as we seek to lay the foundations for building a strong, competitive economy for the longer term, while delivering on our climate change targets.

And the Chancellor made clear in his Budget speech that infrastructure investment will be a key part of our approach.

We will not repeat Labour’s mistake of spending too much and investing too little.

Or of indiscriminately cutting infrastructure investment - previously seen as the easy option behind which countless governments, of all persuasions, have sheltered from taking the tough decisions on current spending, and on welfare in particular.

Our recently published National Infrastructure Plan – the first ever published by a UK Government - underlines our commitment to investment in infrastructure as a platform for growth.

And transport infrastructure in particular.

The settlement Transport received in the Spending Review - £18 billion of rail investments; £4 billion in Highways Agency investment, and £6 billion on local transport investments - overall an 11% reduction in capital spending against a Government-wide 50% benchmark - the plans our predecessors put in place in their last budget - demonstrates the Coalition’s commitment to prioritising the projects that will support economic growth and job creation.

That settlement also included over £750 million to fund the development of our plans for a national high speed rail network over the Spending Review period, with the bulk of capital expenditure occurring after 2015 - when, on our plans, the public finances will be back in balance.

So today I want to explain why I believe high speed rail can make a critical contribution to our economic future, as well as our climate change agenda. And talk through the processes and the politics that lie ahead.

The Government’s transport strategy

When I took over this brief, the challenge was clear: with limited resources, support economic growth and rebalancing, and support greenhouse gas reduction.

The need for a cross-modal approach was obvious.

For instance, our decision to reject new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted because of local environmental impacts and CO2 concerns, coupled with the need to ensure that the scarce capacity at our international airports is available for the medium- and long-haul routes that are vital to our economic success, inevitably points to modal shift.

The success of high speed rail across Europe has shown how effectively such links can cater for journeys that had previously been dominated by aviation.

That’s why our commitment to a high speed rail network has been a key factor in taking the difficult decisions we have taken on additional capacity at London's airports.

And that’s why we have said from the outset that a meaningful High Speed Rail network must include a link to our principal gateway airport.

But high speed rail isn’t just about modal shift. It’s also about addressing the rail capacity challenges that are facing our most congested inter-urban routes.

Reducing crowding, improving reliability, speeding up journeys, and catering for the increased demand that comes from continued economic growth.

And, of course, it is not only inter-city journeys that would benefit from a new high speed line. As long distance point to point services transfer to the new line, valuable capacity is released to meet the growing demand for longer-distance commuter travel and for services to intermediate towns.

High speed rail will be an unbeatable option for inter-urban travel. With none of the hassle of short-haul flying. Even I could not contemplate driving from London to Birmingham in 49 minutes. It took me that long to Park Royal last time I did it.

The role of high-speed rail in delivering the Government's growth strategy

But high speed rail isn’t just a central plank of our transport strategy. It is also key to our wider plans for securing sustainable economic growth.

In the short-term it has the potential to create thousands of jobs planning, constructing and operating the proposed line.

New high speed rail lines, on which construction would begin as Crossrail is completed, would also form part of a predictable pipeline of major rail infrastructure projects.

Allowing the UK supply chain to plan for the long term, reducing costs and building a skills base for the future.

In the medium term, the proposals put forward by HS2 Ltd would lead to the regeneration of significant brownfield sites in West London and Birmingham.

Further regeneration opportunities in Manchester, Leeds, the East Midlands and South Yorkshire will open up.

But in the longer term, I firmly believe high speed rail would deliver a transformational change to the way Britain works and competes in the 21st century. Just as profound a change as the coming of the original railways delivered in the 19th century and the advent of motorways did in the 20th.

It would slash journey times between major urban centres and international gateways.

It would free up capacity to enable the continuing shift of freight from roads and onto rail, reducing carbon emissions and cutting congestion.

It would allow the economies of the Midlands and the North to benefit directly from the economic engine of London and the south east, tackling the North-South divide more effectively than half a century of regional policy has done as we expand labour markets and merge the travel to work areas of our major conurbations.

Providing a railway for the 21st century.

Recent route developments

It was the transformational potential of high speed rail that captured the imagination of David Cameron back in 2008.

And since we have been in Government, we've lost no time in developing our plans for a truly national network.

At the beginning of October, following work by HS2 Ltd, I announced that our preferred option for High Speed Rail north of Birmingham was for two separate corridors.

One direct to Manchester, and then connecting onto the West Coast main line, and the other to Leeds via the East Midlands and South Yorkshire - with stations in both areas - before connecting onto the East Coast mainline south of York.

As Brian has already said, this would reduce journey times to Manchester and Leeds to around 80 minutes - only slightly longer than many journeys across the capital.

Meanwhile, the trip from Birmingham to Leeds would be almost halved - dropping from around 2 hours today to just an hour and 5 minutes.

And by shifting long-distance services onto the new line, we would free up valuable capacity for commuter, regional and freight services on the West Coast Main Line, the East Coast Main Line and the Midland Main Line.

Meanwhile, I’ve commissioned and received advice from HS2 Ltd on the options for the link to Heathrow, and for connecting to the wider European high speed network via the HS1 line.

Addressing the critics

Now, I know that our plans for high speed rail are not universally popular.

If I didn't know it before, I found out doing a series of meetings in the communities through which the proposed route will run.

People claim it’ll damage the environment.

That the business case doesn’t stack up.

And that we’ll never get this through Parliament in a million years.

Well, I am happy to take each of those challenges head-on.

Environment

Of course, I am not blind to the environmental impacts of HS2.

And I understand that the national benefits of high speed rail have to be balanced against the impact on local environments.

That’s why, in recent months, I have been visiting communities that will be affected by the proposed route. Listening to them.

And why I, personally, have been over every mile of the route with HS2 engineers, looking at the stress points; challenging the alignment; exploring different approaches to mitigating the most intrusive local impacts.

I love our countryside - its beauty and its tranquillity.

And I am determined that we will do everything we practically can to mitigate the noise and visual impacts of the proposed line and deliver a solution that far exceeds the expectations of those who would be outside the statutory blight arrangements but who are understandably apprehensive of the impact of HS2.

I intend to personally monitor the mitigation proposals - visual and acoustic - of every mile of this railway.

We have launched an Exceptional Hardship scheme for homeowners who need to relocate urgently, and whose property values have been affected by the published route proposal.

And we’ve committed to consulting on a further scheme to help those whose property values are significantly eroded by a high speed line.

Business case

Of course, it's not only the route and the environmental impact that has come under scrutiny.

There are also many people who have questioned the business case for the project and, indeed, whether a line of this kind is needed at all.

Paul Plummer from Network Rail has already spoken about the capacity challenge that our inter-urban railways face.

But it seems clear to me that the question is not whether demand will increase, but what are the options for dealing with it.

Some people have argued that upgrading the existing West Coast Main Line is the best way to meet demand increases.

But I am unconvinced that that is a credible option.

First, because reliability would undoubtedly deteriorate through trying to squeeze ever more capacity out of existing, mixed-use, railway lines.

In contrast, a new high speed line could improve reliability by creating increasing segregation between different service types.

Second, trying to deliver such a massive capacity upgrade on working lines – particularly the main commuter routes into London from the north – would try the patience of the hardiest of rail passengers. Not to mention the occupiers of the very large number of houses that would need to be demolished.

We all remember the last West Coast main line upgrade.

And finally, because no upgrade of existing infrastructure can deliver the huge improvements in journey times, and step-change transformation of our economic geography, that a new high speed network would bring.

Political consensus

And as for getting the Bill through Parliament – well, don’t think I underestimate the scale of the challenge.

I’ve heard enough war stories over the years from colleagues who have served on hybrid Bill committees to know just how challenging it is to get them onto the statute book.

The key to the success of a project like this is cross-party consensus.

This is not a plan for a Parliament. It is a plan for a generation. And we can only invest in it if we are clear that it will proceed over four or five Parliaments, whatever the political weather.

So I’m grateful for the supportive position adopted by Opposition transport spokesmen – and of my predecessor.

I will maintain an open and constructive dialogue with them as we move forward with this exciting project.

On High Speed Rail, if on nothing else, I believe they will agree that “we are all in this together.”

What happens next?

Brian in his presentation to you this morning, gave you an outline of what’s going to happen next.

We intend to announce the package for consultation, including a preferred route between London and the West Midlands, a corridor preference to Leeds and Manchester, and detailed plans for links to Heathrow and HS1, later this year.

The consultation we will be launching in the New Year will be as comprehensive, inclusive and wide ranging as possible…….an opportunity for everyone to make their views clear.

It will cover both the Government’s overall high speed rail strategy and the route of the initial London-Birmingham phase of High Speed 2.

We will analyse the no doubt numerous responses, and publish our response, setting out our proposed way forward, in December 2011, with the aim of getting the first hybrid Bill for the London-Birmingham route to Royal Assent by the end of this Parliament.

Conclusion

There is still much that needs to be done. And I do not for one minute underestimate the challenges involved in making high speed rail a reality.

I first looked at this project through the sceptical eyes of a Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

And to those who ask how Britain can afford to invest in a project of this scale, I reply that we cannot afford not to invest in our future.

And that if we are to prosper as a nation, every part of that nation has to prosper, has to contribute.

And strategic transport projects like HS2 have a vital role in making that happen.

Even while I still held that Shadow Treasury post, I convinced myself of the strategic potential of this project.

The potential to transform the social and economic geography of Britain.

By delivering greater mobility and connectivity; slashing journey times; and becoming the mode of choice for intercity travel.

The potential to reduce our carbon footprint, shift demand from air to rail and to transform the way we use our existing railway.

Above all, the potential to tackle the North-South gap in economic growth rates, a prize that has eluded all modern governments, boosting economic growth across the whole UK and helping to secure our competitiveness in the global economy.

In short, a vital part of our plan to build a better Britain.

Thank you.

(This speech represented existing departmental policy but the words may not have been the same as those used by the Minister.)