At midnight tonight ends the consultation period decreed by the UK government for the construction or not (in its present form) of a new high speed rail line from London to Birmingham then splitting into two parts one going to Manchester while the other goes to Leeds.
The thoughts of Transtraxman are submitted in the following document.
http://trans-trax.blogspot.com/2011/07/hs2-in-favour-and-against.html
The decisions to be made could affect the travel habits of many Britons. The cost is considerable and will affect many individual taxpayers, businesses and interested parties (some twice over).
Should we accept government writ on this question? Are the entrenched interests too great to be modyfied for the greater good? Can the NIMBYS knock the project down? What other questions have to be looked at?
Do you have an opinion?
Tim2sms - 29/07/2011 15:04 GMT
We simply cannot afford it, and there are other places to spend this money that would deliver far more benefits for all Brits, North / South / East and West.
I bet that there are tons of other transport solutions all over the UK that will give a better return on investment. A14 to 6 lanes for example, or a Oxford to Cambridge motorway would generate far more jobs and could be self financing.
JamesBAgold - 29/07/2011 15:08 GMT
Yes. To proceed would be a terrible waste of taxpayers money providing very little - if any - economic benefit to the country and, at the same time, blotting what little remains of the once glorious English countryside between London and the Midlands.
A third runway at Heathrow and a second runway at Gatwick, on the other hand, would both provide an enormous boost for the national economy over a long, sustained period and only cause minimal localised and marginal inconveniences - and I speak as someone with my residence (when in the UK) not too far from Gatwick under the Heathrow flight path.
Hippocampus - 29/07/2011 15:14 GMT
We have only just spent £9bn (and that was far in excess of the original budget) on upgrading the West Coast Mainline.
Far better to spend the money on more smaller scale projects around the country that will have more benefits for all and shorter lead times.
NTarrant - 29/07/2011 15:22 GMT
I like your blog transtraxman, although I didn't read all your article I think you put the arguments very well.
Whilst I like the idea of HS2, I don't think that it will be money well spent and the investment should be made in upgrading existing lines, re-opening important missing links (Lewes-Uckfield for example plus others), creating important links to encourgage rail use, such as the Reading-Heathrow-Gatwick link.
HS2 won't deliver a narrowing of the north-south divide, it also won't reduce domestic air travel. In fact when you think about it, it is better to have people travelling from MAN to whereever via LHR or LGW than via AMS, FRA, DXB et al as money spent in the airports creates jobs in the UK (whatever your thoughts about BAA!).
There is also vast overcrowding on some lines in the north and midlands with two car units when a four or six car unit would suffice. An end to the 142,143 Pacers in many parts of the country too.
HS2 is running before you can walk, I would like to see those improvements to the existing system before building an HS2. There are also too many noses in the trough of railways which mean it takes too long to get anything done. I currently lease two properties on railway land and the red tape and time wasting is unbeleivable.
We also can't afford to build roads tim2sms, modal shift is where it is at. The last major road building project, the A3 Hindhead Tunnel, opened the north bore today. According to the news the cost is £142,000 a yard.
Very interesting transtraxman. You mention Switzerland and I would like to comment here as I think the UK could learn a few valuable lessons from this major project.
I recently visited the new Gotthard high speed line as part of a delegation of British and Swiss Parliamentarians (I am neither, just helped with the co-ordination of the visit).
The cost of the main tunnel is about CHF 18 billion (total project, 3 tunnels and chf 30 billion) and the reason is a lot more than just shaving an hour off the Milan - Lugano - Zurich journey.
First, the time saving will mean Zurich - Milan, city centre to city centre by air will no longer be the fastest way.
Secondly, the idea is to put lorries on the trains thus cutting down on pollution in the Alps. For those who don't know, this is the main North - South transit axis and traffic is expected to grow considerably.
The Swiss goverment realised that to saddle the Swiss Railroad with a 30 bn debt it could never repay would be foolish, so the money had to come from Government. A proposal was submitted to the people and voted on. It was accepted and this is the solution:
1. Increase petrol price by 20c a litre
2. Increase VAT by 1/4%
In both cases the people only agreed conditional that these two taxes would be removed when the tunnel was built.
3. A proportion of the toll paid by trucks to cross Switzerland would also be used so the eventual beneficiaries are also contributing.
Till now the tunnel is on time and on budget, which consider the complexity and time (14 years and 114 kms of tunnel - 57kms each) is quite a feat. The major drilling work has been completed, which was two tunnels with two major crossover points. The rest is now the fitting out, electrics, laying of tracks etc.
It's a fascinating project, and if you get the opportunity to visit, or better are passing by on an open day, do take the time to have a look. You won't be disappointed.
More info on the project can be found here:
http://bit.ly/qMRKeU
http://bit.ly/qSTWjx
Thanks for the contribution "Luganopirate"
You have hit the nail on the head with that. It is precisely what I am trying to get people to think about.
I mentioned Switzerland just because I used to travel there frequently a few years ago - from Geneva, Zurich or Basel depending on the flight I had.That way I know how the Swiss do things and I have experienced at first hand many upgrades on those lines.I even visited tjhe Swiss railway training centre at Murten.
I think you Swiss have just about got it right and could teach a lot of (us) ostriches a great deal.
May others take note.
NTarrant - 29/07/2011 20:16 GMT
Your example of people voting for increases in petrol and VAT are way out of the reach of anything here in the UK Luganopirate. It is down to culture really. Look what happened in Manchester over the congestion charge to improve public transport, voted out. Seen as turkeys voting for Christmas!
The problem is that people don't feel that they can have a car in the drive and use public transport, unlike in some European countries. Hence the culture difference, except for the few.
Even though there are vast cases where improvements need to be made to the rail system, we are always in danger of knocking ourselves for the improvements that have been made in recent years. Higher frequencies, increased traffic.
The railways are not proactive in adapting to changing markets, mainly because of too much interference from DfT. Too many consultants with their noses in the trough. Too much box ticking distracting from providing improvement.
I have just seen this piece of news on the ABTN website. Basically it says that potential HS passengers are less concerned about speed and more concerned abouit convenience - precisely what I was arguing
http://www.abtn.co.uk/news/0416138-speed-not-enough-entice-people-hs2
Despite the piece being highly relevant, the final comments do, however, show that the AA does have to comply with its role of defending the interests of motorists.
