BBC HS2 Articles

[YorkshireBear]

I have never seen a positive article about HS2 on the BBC every single one is negative (except for the odd one sayign MPs want it)

Hardly an example of unbiased reporting surely.....

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You will find that the BBC pontificates on matters where they can see advantage to their ratings in taking the line on any matter that will be their betterment in public opinion. Cynicicsm is still alive and well there.

 

[RyanB]

To be honest for the amount of money the Government intends to spend on HS2 you could upgrade signalling on WCML and ECML to enable 140mph operation, electrify the GWML and MML enable them for 140 mph running and invest in some new rolling stock for those lines.

The taxpayer will fund this, and it will only be of use to a small percentage of said taxpayers.

 

[LexyBoy]

To be honest for the amount of money the Government intends to spend on HS2 you could upgrade signalling on WCML and ECML to enable 140mph operation, electrify the GWML and MML enable them for 140 mph running and invest in some new rolling stock for those lines.

:roll: Not again! Look at the failed WCML upgrade - £10bn and still failed to deliver the promised 140mph linespeed. Besides, capacity is the issue, not speed, and the best way to deliver improved capacity is by removing (some of) the express traffic from the WCML. And if you're building new intercity lines, it doesn't cost much more to build a HS line versus a conventional line.

 

[YorkshireBear]

To be honest for the amount of money the Government intends to spend on HS2 you could upgrade signalling on WCML and ECML to enable 140mph operation, electrify the GWML and MML enable them for 140 mph running and invest in some new rolling stock for those lines.

The taxpayer will fund this, and it will only be of use to a small percentage of said taxpayers.

I dont want a HS2 debate i am just questioning the BBC's neutrality.

 

[LexyBoy]

I have never seen a positive article about HS2 on the BBC every single one is negative (except for the odd one sayign MPs want it)

Hardly an example of unbiased reporting surely.....

Well, they're reporting the news, so until something concrete happens getting HS2 underway then there may well be more negative news stories. Looking at today's offering (which I am very dubious of, as IME "think tank" = "right wing pressure group"), the related stories include this and this positive stories. (BTW, where does that horrible graphic of the yellow train come from?)

 

[RyanB]

I dont want a HS2 debate i am just questioning the BBC's neutrality.

Yes the BBC article isn't exacly neutral but I think that it speaks for most of the taxpayers in the land, £32bn and £1000 extra per taxpayer for a line that less than 25% of taxpayers will use hardly seems like a good investment. If not used on railways then there are plenty other things out there that could use that money.

 

[185]

Just take a look at the social background of the journos who work for them. Almost every one is on well over £100000 and live in Hogsfordshire, or somewhere near the HS2 route.

I say give the contract to the Chinese, to stop the budget spiralling and curtailing the project. In this age of austerity all the vultures on the route should be told tough, and to put up, and shut up.

Update-
Today's BBC article about the Institute of Economic Affairs 'a leading think tank'.....
are in cahoots with the redneck facist group 'taxpayers alliance'.....
and their most noted speaker 'John Redwood MP, conservative / alien'.



More Septic Tank than Think Tank.

 

[LexyBoy]

Just take a look at the social background of the journos who work for them. Almost every one is on well over £100000 and live in Hogsfordshire, or somewhere near the HS2 route.

Along with all the rail staff with their 6-figure salaries (not to mention £££ commission & bonuses), all paid for by the taxpayer.

I say give the contract to the Chinese, to stop the budget spiralling and curtailing the project. In this age of austerity all the vultures on the route should be told tough, and to put up, and shut up.

Sure, why not get HS2 built by a country with no proven HS experience and which hasn't managed such a project abroad. That'll definitely get it done on time and on budget.

</rant>

 

[YorkshireBear]

Yes the BBC article isn't exacly neutral but I think that it speaks for most of the taxpayers in the land, £32bn and £1000 extra per taxpayer for a line that less than 25% of taxpayers will use hardly seems like a good investment. If not used on railways then there are plenty other things out there that could use that money.

ive lost count of how many times ive said this, we either build HS2 or nothing, The return on HS2 is supposed to pay for itself so if we dont build HS2 we build nothing..... Yes we could put into NHS yes we could do lots of things but that is not how the funding will work. And i think HS2 will touch a lot more than 25% by the time the Y network is finished. Your talking about a railway between london manchester leeds sheffield east midlands that has conventiaonal rail extensions to newcastle and scotland.....

 

[Squaddie]

I dont want a HS2 debate i am just questioning the BBC's neutrality.

The BBC is simply reporting the news. And today's news (very widely reported) is that the Institute of Economic Affairs believes that HS2 is a vanity project with no economic justification.

HS2 high speed rail link flawed, says think tank

High-speed rail 'recipe for disaster

 

[Metroland]

Which you could apply to much other public spending - although transport projects are one of the few areas that have to show benefits before they are approved. These right wing think tanks tend to believe that everything bar defence (a major economic sink) and front line policing should be funded publicly and everything else paid for privately. They'd make an argument that the NHS is a vanity project, costing every family over £7k per year, used by only a few percent of the population per year, most of whom are economically inactive - if they could get away with it.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The BBC is simply reporting the news. And today's news (very widely reported) is that the Institute of Economic Affairs believes that HS2 is a vanity project with no economic justification.

HS2 high speed rail link flawed, says think tank

High-speed rail 'recipe for disaster

I wouldn't put any weight on what the Institute of Economic Affairs say. Only a few days ago they were saying we should scrap the NHS, stop putting money into STEM areas and privitise the roads and motorways. Because of course that would do this country good :roll:

 

[exile]

Indeed. We shouldn't get upset if someone points out the counter-arguments to HS2. Even if as in the case of this particular right-wing think tank the report was entirely predictable, the BBC and media are bound to report it. Various MPs (including our local Tory MP) and the like are making pro-HS2 noises but that tends to get reported in local media only.
Even people who are pro-rail are not necessarily pro-HS2. If we could have half the 32 billion to spend on general upgrading of the railways I'd prefer that, but I guess that's not an option.

 

[Squaddie]

I wouldn't put any weight on what the Institute of Economic Affairs say. Only a few days ago they were saying we should scrap the NHS, stop putting money into STEM areas and privitise the roads and motorways. Because of course that would do this country good :roll:

I'm not making any judgement on the IEA's proposals. Simply making the point that the BBC is reporting a story and not offering its own opinion.

 

[Skimble19]

(BTW, where does that horrible graphic of the yellow train come from?)

Network Rail, I believe..

 

[TDK]

It is said that HS2 is going to cost every tax payer in Britain £1000 each, bin HS2 and spend that money where it is really needed.

 

[SS4]

It is said that HS2 is going to cost every tax payer in Britain £1000 each, bin HS2 and spend that money where it is really needed.

I wonder how much money is being spent in Libyan airspace yet nobody moans about? HS2 will benefit this country, it will provide capacity more efficiently than updating existing lines.

As for the topic on hand there is clearly an anti-HS2 bias in the press as a whole and neutrality is the dirtiest word in the world.

 

[Hydro]

Network Rail, I believe..

Looks like someone left the microwave on and melted the NMT.

I bet a grands worth of my taxes get spent on more crap than a new railway line. I personally think it doesn't go far enough. Get it to Scotland. Have some more of my taxes. I'm bored of wadges of my twenties going pop on Gaddafi or funding another public enquiry into the press hacking phones, did Tony Blair push for war, or whether bears crap in the woods..

 

[Zoe]

it will provide capacity more efficiently than updating existing lines.

You can't build your way out of congestion though. There is a time when the only real solution is demand management as is now the case with roads.

 

[SS4]

You can't build your way out of congestion though. There is a time when the only real solution is demand management as is now the case with roads.

You can in the short to medium term. In the long term you're right but trains are a lot more efficient than road transport for moving passengers. Eventually population will need to be reduced/maintained at a good level considering local services etc...
You quite correctly mention that demand management is on the roads but what do you intend to do when those car users move to the train?

 

[Zoe]

trains are a lot more efficient than road transport for moving passengers.

I doubt many people drive from Central London to Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow. I actually can't see there will be much of a modal shift to Birmingham. For Manchester there will be a shift from air and the same for Glasgow. I can't see how HS2 is going to get people out of their cars.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I doubt many people drive from Central London to Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow. I actually can't see there will be much of a modal shift to Birmingham. For Manchester there will be a shift from air and the same for Glasgow. I can't see how HS2 is going to get people out of their cars.

With regards to Manchester, which like Leeds, sits upon the top of the Y-axis, the time proposals for HS2 are many years in the future. Unlike BAA controlled airports, Manchester is run by the ten Greater Manchester autonomous council bodies that make up the airport governing body.

I am sure that TfGM see HS2 as a positive move forward for their area and on the TfGM website last week was a mention of a co-ordinated response to be made to the current proposals. They will also be mindful of how this matter may affect the passenger number levels at their airport, which will be a matter that will have been considered, which I note is a matter you mention above with regard to "a shift from air".

 

[YorkshireBear]

Well a search of rail news into google revels every newspaper reporting what BBC reported yesterday, not one has mentioned anything other than what they said no counter arguements or challenges.

I have a feeling it is the beginning of the end.

 

[Metrailway]

I doubt many people drive from Central London to Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow. I actually can't see there will be much of a modal shift to Birmingham. For Manchester there will be a shift from air and the same for Glasgow. I can't see how HS2 is going to get people out of their cars.

There won't be a huge modal shift from car to train for direct London - Birmingham journeys but as HS2 will free capacity from the WCML, it allows more local services, thus there could be a shift from car to train for commuter journeys into London and Birmingham.

 

[brianthegiant]

I doubt many people drive from Central London to Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow. I actually can't see there will be much of a modal shift to Birmingham. For Manchester there will be a shift from air and the same for Glasgow. I can't see how HS2 is going to get people out of their cars.

You seem to think HS2 only stops in central London and central Birmingham?
Bham international & Old Oak would make a good parkway stations would they not?

IEA is a right wing think tank that would shrink government to a size that would fit in a terrace house if they got their way (with all the ensuing social hisharmony that would go with such a 3rd world government).

Not the first time the BBC is found guilty of bias this week, an independent report upheld the view that BBC has given dispropotionate coverage of climate change sceptics, despite that their views hold no sway in peer-reviewed climate science journals...

 

[Zoe]

You seem to think HS2 only stops in central London and central Birmingham?
Bham international & Old Oak would make a good parkway stations would they not?

Old Oak Common is too close to Central London to work as a Parkway station. The site is close to the congested A40 Gypsy Corner Junction so the last thing anyone is going to want to do is encourage more traffic in the area. Birmingham International is better but I doubt many wanting to go to HS2 destinations (Central London and Old Oak Common) would have done the journey by car.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not the first time the BBC is found guilty of bias this week, an independent report upheld the view that BBC has given dispropotionate coverage of climate change sceptics, despite that their views hold no sway in peer-reviewed climate science journals...

Unfortunately, viewers are not given a true perception of both sides of the argument. The so-called work of the BBC Trust has not made one iota of difference to the output from the BBC.

Thank goodness there is now a choice of considered opnion on the various other forms of comunication available.

 

[Metroland]

I think the trouble with many media organisations (including the BBC) is they just quote soundbites from one lobby group in one article, whereas they should always get both sides of the story.

Lobby groups are incredibly clever at distorting arguments through statistics, and you need some knowledge to cut through the crap to make a considered opinion.

It's very easy to get to stuck up on things like 'It will cost every family £1000' and most will gain no benefit, when the truth is transport schemes HAVE to show benefits derived from a universal framework to get ANY approval. The very same people who make the same arguments are also likely to believe people should pay for their own education, and why should I pay for X persons child? Again the reason, like decent infrastructure, a well educated population allows us to compete with the rest of the world and have a decent standard of life.

Take the quote from the RAC trust, that more should be spent on roads because 93% of passenger KM are by this mode. What isn't pointed out is there are over 24 times more roads than railways (245,000 miles v 10,072 miles). Given that rail passenger KM have grown faster, and there is a hell of a lot less of it, and on some of the main line sections the railways carry far more than the competing roads, you would think the logical solution was to improve the railways, especially as they fit more in with some of the other [Government] objectives concerning energy prices (and demand), congestion, pollution etc. The same organisation also points out that rail spending is comparatively high right now compared to roads. Yes, that's because 1) past underinvestment 2) the trunk road network is effectively complete 3) projects like Crossrail or Thameslink, in dense urban cities (areas where rail is usually the better solution than road) are always going to be more expensive than say bypasses in Lincolnshire (where road is often a better solution than rail).

 

[Squaddie]

Not the first time the BBC is found guilty of bias this week, an independent report upheld the view that BBC has given dispropotionate coverage of climate change sceptics, despite that their views hold no sway in peer-reviewed climate science journals...

That's the first time I've ever heard the BBC accused of giving too much air time to the opponents of climate change; the usual charge is that they constantly peddle the global warming "myth" as part of their evil left-wing agenda.

I guess the truth is that the BBC, in trying to be fair and impartial in its reporting of the news, attracts the wrath of extremists from both ends of every argument who want their own bias to be reflected in the output of our national broadcaster.