East West Rail Carbon Emissions

[jfowkes]

The Cambridge Approaches group have produced a document that claims EWR (East West Rail) will not pay back its carbon cost: https://cambridgeapproaches.org/ewr-bedford-to-cambridge-does-it-reduce-co2-emissions/

The CO2 from construction exceeds that saved from modal shift by orders of magnitude. Although the analysis here is approximate, it is very unlikely that the EWR project would reduce CO2 emissions. If you just want the answer have a look at table 1 below.

EWR CS3 CO2			Unit:TCO2e
	Construction	Modal Shift	Net
Existing Residents	322,500*	-5,403	317, 907
EWR Houses	8,125,714	-18,523	8,107, 191
Total	8,448, 214	-23,926	8, 424, 288

Table 1 Summary of CO2 Emission estimates in Tonnes discussed in this article. *EWRCo. figure 5x less than equivalent HS2 figure of 1,510,000 and excludes important aspsects of the construction.

I am not knowledgeable enough to know if their analysis is sound, but if a railway serving a relatively high population density area like Cambridge/Bedford/MK/Oxford can't pay back its carbon cost then it puts a lot of potential other lines in the same box, which is very bad news environmentally speaking.

Things I've noted about it from a high level reading:

• They attribute the CO2 emissions from housebuilding to EWR. This seems unfair. The housing is required anyway, why attribute the CO2 emissions to EWR? This immediately makes me suspicious of the rest of the document.
• They are only considering travel to/from Cambridge, not any of the other destinations that EWR serves.
• They are not considering any modal shift driven by additional measures such as a zero emissions zone, workplace parking levy etc. Which seem likely to happen within the considered timespan.
• They are not considering that projected passenger figures for rail schemes are consistently below actual numbers. The Borders railway and Crossrail being two examples where passenger figures surpassed expectations very quickly.

I hope they're wrong about this or my worldview will implode.

 

[Carlisle]

Is there a broad consensus on how to reach these type of conclusions or is it more of an emerging science with a multitude of differing opinions, approaches & outcomes?

 

[fgwrich]

In short, isn’t this the group which is opposed to East West to Cambridge via the proposed route so will attribute most things to it to make it appear worse than it really is?

 

[jfowkes]

In short, isn’t this the group which is opposed to East West to Cambridge via the proposed route so will attribute most things to it to make it appear worse than it really is?

Yeah, basically. Buncha NIMBYs worried about house values and noise. While that makes me suspicious about their work, it doesn't need make them wrong though.

 

[Magdalia]

The Cambridge Approaches group have produced a document that claims EWR (East West Rail) will not pay back its carbon cost

Cambridge Approaches are the NIMBY pressure group mainly for residents of Harston, Haslingfield and Barrington, villages close to the proposed East West Rail route near to where it joins the existing Shepreth line.

I am not knowledgeable enough to know if their analysis is sound

I haven't looked at this particular analysis, and I don't know much about how to estimate carbon emissions. But I can say a bit about the Cambridge Approaches track record on economic analyses more generally. In the past their analyses have usually been based on the wrong data, with a special feature of using the 2011 census data, when the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC) was still fields, instead of using the more recent 2021 census data. In those 10 years the populations of Cambridge and Bedford both grew by about 16%. They then distort downwards the economic growth impact of EWR, in particular by excluding the company profits contribution to GDP. I'd not be surprised if there were similar sleights of hand in their carbon emissions analyses.

I usually follow the activities of Cambridge Approaches by reading about them in the Cambridge Independent. I shall be looking out to see if this gets any coverage.

 

[paul1609]

The Cambridge Approaches group have produced a document that claims EWR (East West Rail) will not pay back its carbon cost: https://cambridgeapproaches.org/ewr-bedford-to-cambridge-does-it-reduce-co2-emissions/

I am not knowledgeable enough to know if their analysis is sound, but if a railway serving a relatively high population density area like Cambridge/Bedford/MK/Oxford can't pay back its carbon cost then it puts a lot of potential other lines in the same box, which is very bad news environmentally speaking.

Things I've noted about it from a high level reading:

• They attribute the CO2 emissions from housebuilding to EWR. This seems unfair. The housing is required anyway, why attribute the CO2 emissions to EWR? This immediately makes me suspicious of the rest of the document.
• They are only considering travel to/from Cambridge, not any of the other destinations that EWR serves.
• They are not considering any modal shift driven by additional measures such as a zero emissions zone, workplace parking levy etc. Which seem likely to happen within the considered timespan.
• They are not considering that projected passenger figures for rail schemes are consistently below actual numbers. The Borders railway and Crossrail being two examples where passenger figures surpassed expectations very quickly.

I hope they're wrong about this or my worldview will implode.

Given the likely timescale of East-West reaching Cambridge is their any carbon advantage to modal shift from road to rail or will rail just encourage longer distance journeys to be made with an increased carbon footprint?

 

[jfowkes]

Given the likely timescale of East-West reaching Cambridge is their any carbon advantage to modal shift from road to rail or will rail just encourage longer distance journeys to be made with an increased carbon footprint?

Well I guess that's what Cambridge Approaches would say. I don't know if they're right.

If EWR were electrified the train would likely still win against EVs but with diesel traction I'm not sure.

 

[The exile]

Sounds to me like one of those areas where you will basically be able to make statistics “prove” whatever you want unless and until there are accepted parameters (which will themselves be rejected by those that want to show something different). You can only attribute house building carbon to the railway, for example, if that house would never have been built anywhere had the railway not been built. Carbon costs of any houses built to replace ones needing to be demolished - that’s a different matter.

 

[al78]

Sounds to me like one of those areas where you will basically be able to make statistics “prove” whatever you want unless and until there are accepted parameters (which will themselves be rejected by those that want to show something different). You can only attribute house building carbon to the railway, for example, if that house would never have been built anywhere had the railway not been built. Carbon costs of any houses built to replace ones needing to be demolished - that’s a different matter.

The question is whether the railway will encourage additional house building above the base rate which is what should count towards the carbon footprint. I don't know how that could be estimated without a bunch of assumptions related to future projection.

 

[jfowkes]

The question is whether the railway will encourage additional house building above the base rate which is what should count towards the carbon footprint. I don't know how that could be estimated without a bunch of assumptions related to future projection.

I doubt that any housing development would be built solely because the railway was there. You've still got to have the demand for the housing in the first place (because of employment or whatever other factors). The railway might shift preferences for choosing where to site a development, but it's not going to encourage building for the sake of it. So if you were to attribute some carbon cost for a development to EWR, you'd have to do some pretty in-depth analysis to work out what proportion it was "responsible" for, relative to the same development being built somewhere else.

 

[The exile]

I doubt that any housing development would be built solely because the railway was there. You've still got to have the demand for the housing in the first place (because of employment or whatever other factors). The railway might shift preferences for choosing where to site a development, but it's not going to encourage building for the sake of it. So if you were to attribute some carbon cost for a development to EWR, you'd have to do some pretty in-depth analysis to work out what proportion it was "responsible" for, relative to the same development being built somewhere else.

Certainly, the net increase in the national housing stock solely attributable to the railway would be negligible.

 

[bib]

Sounds to me like one of those areas where you will basically be able to make statistics “prove” whatever you want unless and until there are accepted parameters (which will themselves be rejected by those that want to show something different). You can only attribute house building carbon to the railway, for example, if that house would never have been built anywhere had the railway not been built. Carbon costs of any houses built to replace ones needing to be demolished - that’s a different matter.

Agree with this. There's so many assumptions baked into the calcs. If you assume the houses will have to be built somewhere regardless of whether the railway gets built then that gets rid of ~97% of their listed EWR emissions, and I would say that the fundamental assumption of CO2 savings based on passenger car at 69gCo2/km and rail at 47gCo2/km in 2035 could be quite a bit out. On the other hand if the trains are diesel then the rail emissions could be quite a bit higher.

But the underlying point of whether there's any CO2 savings from rail vs car when cars are electrified is a valid question, and noting the scale of embedded emissions in construction, whether there's any overall carbon savings may depend on whether EWR actually would prevent any extra road building or whether the ~2000 daily trips into Cambridge that were predicted to be taken on EWR can fit on the existing road network. When it comes to embodied carbon, doing nothing is often the best option.

Of course if you assume we become magically carbon-neutral in 2050 then all the calcs are wrong and probably don't really matter anyway.

 

[70014IronDuke]

It's threads like this one that make RailUKforums so valuable - highly intelligent, well reasoned discussion about a highly complex subject - including from (of course) several of the usual suspects.

If only 30% of the general UK media were so considered.

Thanks to all contributors.

 

[WilliamH]

As the author of the Cambridge Approaches post referred to in this thread I would like to clarify a few points raised by J. Fowkes

1. The analysis shows that the net effect of building this new railway is net negative even without the housing.
2. The housing is an integral part of the case for building this railway - see Appendix 4 of East West Rail's Economic and Technical Report which is referred to in the post, but also for convenience here. https://eastwestrail-production.s3....nouncement/9a2d6ec314/ETR-Appendices-2023.pdf
3. The housing does not look like it will be built anyway, see this recording of the last meeting of the South Cambs District Council Cabinet meeting where they were asked if they had any plans to expand Cambourne as suggested in 2. above. The question and answer occur at 1:07 into this recording https://scambs.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=293&MId=10027&Ver=4. I am sorry but there are no meeting minutes as yet.

 

[WilliamH]

Cambridge Approaches are the NIMBY pressure group mainly for residents of Harston, Haslingfield and Barrington, villages close to the proposed East West Rail route near to where it joins the existing Shepreth line.


I haven't looked at this particular analysis, and I don't know much about how to estimate carbon emissions. But I can say a bit about the Cambridge Approaches track record on economic analyses more generally. In the past their analyses have usually been based on the wrong data, with a special feature of using the 2011 census data, when the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC) was still fields, instead of using the more recent 2021 census data. In those 10 years the populations of Cambridge and Bedford both grew by about 16%. They then distort downwards the economic growth impact of EWR, in particular by excluding the company profits contribution to GDP. I'd not be surprised if there were similar sleights of hand in their carbon emissions analyses.

I usually follow the activities of Cambridge Approaches by reading about them in the Cambridge Independent. I shall be looking out to see if this gets any coverage.

We have used the 2011 data because that is what EWRCo. used in their Economic and Technical Report Appendix 4. See here https://eastwestrail-production.s3....nouncement/9a2d6ec314/ETR-Appendices-2023.pdf

I believe the reason that they chose not to use commuter numbers from the 2021 census was that they were severely reduced by COVID lockdowns.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

It's threads like this one that make RailUKforums so valuable - highly intelligent, well reasoned discussion about a highly complex subject - including from (of course) several of the usual suspects.

If only 30% of the general UK media were so considered.

Thanks to all contributors.

I know. It really is a very valuable forum.

 

[Magdalia]

We have used the 2011 data because that is what EWRCo. used in their Economic and Technical Report Appendix 4.

This EWR report uses the travel to work data from the 2011 census in the specific context of modelling commuter behaviour, the maximum distances/times that most commuters are prepared to tolerate, and in particular the 45 minute journey threshold.

The 2021 census population numbers are not significantly affected by covid, apart from a few areas with high numbers of second home owners. The reservation on the 2021 census data due to covid applies to the travel to work data, not the population data. The EWR report does not use 2011 census population data in preference to 2021.

 

[WilliamH]

This EWR report uses the travel to work data from the 2011 census in the specific context of modelling commuter behaviour, the maximum distances/times that most commuters are prepared to tolerate, and in particular the 45 minute journey threshold.

The 2021 census population numbers are not significantly affected by covid, apart from a few areas with high numbers of second home owners. The reservation on the 2021 census data due to covid applies to the travel to work data, not the population data. The EWR report does not use 2011 census population data in preference to 2021.

But it is travel to

This EWR report uses the travel to work data from the 2011 census in the specific context of modelling commuter behaviour, the maximum distances/times that most commuters are prepared to tolerate, and in particular the 45 minute journey threshold.

The 2021 census population numbers are not significantly affected by covid, apart from a few areas with high numbers of second home owners. The reservation on the 2021 census data due to covid applies to the travel to work data, not the population data. The EWR report does not use 2011 census population data in preference to 2021.

Your are absolutely right, COVID did not affect population data much. Looking at §4.3.2 of the EWR Economic and Technical report they are using projected population data for 2050 with pretty high growth assumptions. If it had been operating in 2021 the population would have been much lower.