Despite the government's announcement, should HS2 be cancelled?

[AlbertBeale]

The comment was saying you were using the rhetoric the right wing, oil lobby think tanks also use (like the IEA). And you were.

In fact, the allegation was not simply that I had a similar opinion to those organisations about the value of HS2, but that I was associated with the organisations. Eg - "...so please forgive my skepticism as to your protests against any association with discredited extreme right-wing causes." That's saying more than just that I and some right-wing groups say something similar about a particular issue.

I have no association with them, even if, over one issue, one of my conclusions is similar to theirs. Hence my point that I would like the libel to be withdrawn.

In any case, I hardly think that a perspective such as mine (ie that the current dangers are such that carbon emissions have to be curtailed now, which obviously includes urgently stopping oil extraction) really has much in common with the oil lobby anyway! So the criticism of me being made isn't even sensible on that level - hence my understanding that the criticism was a smear tactic against someone with a different opinion.

I fully agree the climate crisis is critical, and carbon emissions need to go down fast. That means using all levers available to reduce emissions, including in transport.
But that is the point. HS2 emissions are actually relatively tiny and HS2 can and should play a big role in reducing UK transport emissions.

And looking at transport emissions more broadly, there's two things we can do to get them down quickly:
- Less Transport (so less people/goods moving, or over shorter distances)
- Change transport over to more sustainable modes, moving them to the most sustainable mode suitable for the specific transport needs (Electric car, lorry, van / Electric bus, tram, metro / the Railway, remember the electric railway is by far the most sustainable mode out there)

I think both of these are necessary to some extend. However, in order to achieve the second one, it is essential that the railway capacity increases. So if we weren't building HS2, how will we shift transport to more sustainable modes? The only realistic answer to that question is we won't. And we really can't afford that in the climate crisis.

And the upfront emissions do matter, which is why HS2 has taken a range of steps to reduce the emissions from construction, as reported upthread.

The upfront emissions argument can be dangerous: all things that are essential to fighting the climate crisis have upfront emissions (think solar panels, wind turbines, home insulation), but if that prevented us from us from deploying them, then our emissions wouldn't drop. So we need to consider what the best options are to reduce both operational and upfront emissions, and HS2 is a key part of our steps to reduce emissions from transport

I agree with a lot of the principles set out here - but it's a matter of judgement as to timing, priorities, urgency, etc, and what's environmentally necessary even if it seems politically difficult. And my judgement as to where that has to lead, policy-wise, is different from yours.

 

[snowball]

There's supposedly going to be three tracking between Leeds - York.

Where have you heard that? Three-tracking has recently been confirmed for Marsden-Huddersfield but I haven't heard it suggested for any other sections. Some people have suggested four-tracking for part of Leeds-York but I think that's unofficial?

 

[Trainbike46]

Where have you heard that? Three-tracking has recently been confirmed for Marsden-Huddersfield but I haven't heard it suggested for any other sections. Some people have suggested four-tracking for part of Leeds-York but I think that's unofficial?

I think I heard somewhere on the BBC that there will be some 3 and 4 track sections between Leeds and York

 

[Nottingham59]

Some people have suggested four-tracking for part of Leeds-York but I think that's unofficial?

It'll be four tracks north of Church Fenton, which is half way. So an average of three.

 

[Xavi]

Whilst Phase 2b was not mentioned in the autumn statement, work is ongoing. I will post if that changes in the weeks ahead.

 

[Peterthegreat]

It'll be four tracks north of Church Fenton, which is half way. So an average of three.

It already us

 

[Roast Veg]

So in a rare twist, Jeremy Hunt has said something I agree with. Nothing in the statement contradicted the IRP, but the Birmingham to Nottingham omission is noted. This has got to be a long way behind on planning though, since it was pretty much invented for the IRP.

 

[snowball]

Whilst Phase 2b was not mentioned in the autumn statement, work is ongoing. I will post if that changes in the weeks ahead.

It was mentioned:

So today I can announce that I am not cutting a penny from our capital budgets in the next two years and maintaining them at that level in cash terms for the following three years.

This means that although we are not growing our capital budget as planned, it will still increase from £63 billion four years ago to £114 billion next year and £115 billion the year after – and remain at that level..

Smart countries build on their long-term commitments rather than discard them.

So today I confirm that because of this decision, alongside Sizewell C, we will deliver the core Northern Powerhouse Rail. HS2 to Manchester. East West Rail. The new hospitals programme. And gigabit broadband rollout.

All these and more will be funded as promised, with over £600 billion of investment over the next five years to connect our country and grow our economy.

The Autumn Statement 2022 speech

The Autumn Statement 2022 speech as delivered by Chancellor Jeremy Hunt.

www.gov.uk

 

[The Ham]

Given the intensity of projected HS2 operations, the fact that the trains will pass every 100 seconds according to a timetable is likely to be little comfort.

Compare that to a motorway where even at a fairly quiet part of the day could see a lorry pass every 75 seconds.

In fact I live about 1 mile from a motorways with a railway line on an embankment between us and the motorway, and the motorway is what I can hear when outside.

I accept that HS2 might reduce overall carbon emissions somewhere down the line. The point is that even optimistic scenarios put that decades away. Meanwhile, in ecological terms, it's part of the problem now - and the situation is critical.

If we were really determined to cut carbon emissions we'd be closing motorways down as we replace then with High Speed rail.

As remember that 3 tonnes of carbon you highlights as being the net emissions from HS2 over a 60 year period, well that's also the operational emissions (i.e. almost all from traffic) of the Lower Thames Crossing.

Over a 12 year period our SRN (Strategic Road Network) is due to add 381 million tonnes of CO2. As there's 4,500 miles of it that's about 7,000 tonnes per mile per year.

As such if we could cut 15 years of emissions by closing a 60 mile section of motorway we could build the equivalent of HS2 (assuming we need to "save" 6 million tonnes of emissions) to cater for the traffic displaced. Now we're unlikely to be able to do away with all the SRN (arguable we'd be better off keeping it and closing local roads to through traffic to achieve the same emission reductions).

Even if we just looked at the London/Manchester section of HS2 that's about 200 miles of track, so the scale of track being laid down as replacement for the road is several times larger.

As such it shows the falsely of the argument that for carbon emissions we shouldn't be building HS2. If we really wanted to cut carbon emissions we should be building HS2 several times over and closing down motorways to compensate for the emissions from construction.

Then with the extra land released we should then build wetlands as they are far better carbon sinks than forests, by quite a margin.

 

[stuu]

Compare that to a motorway where even at a fairly quiet part of the day could see a lorry pass every 75 seconds.

In fact I live about 1 mile from a motorways with a railway line on an embankment between us and the motorway, and the motorway is what I can hear when outside.

I went to University in Hatfield. We lived right next to the A1 just north of the tunnel. My girlfriend lived the other side of the town right next to the ECML (more or less where the crash happened). Whilst the A1 made a constant noise, the intermittent nature of the trains on the ECML was much more disturbing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Compare that to a motorway where even at a fairly quiet part of the day could see a lorry pass every 75 seconds.

In fact I live about 1 mile from a motorways with a railway line on an embankment between us and the motorway, and the motorway is what I can hear when outside.

Milton Keynes is near the M1 and A5, and is crisscrossed with National Speed Limit roads, which create a fair bit of noise. However, that noise is more or less constant as there are always vehicles passing. Like noise from air conditioning in hotels and the likes, humans are generally quite good at tuning out and ignoring constant noise. It's more noticeable when you go outside at 3am and it's near silent.

By contrast, occasional noises, e.g. a train every 75 seconds, are disruptive and stress the brain out.

 

[Xavi]

It was mentioned:

The Autumn Statement 2022 speech

The Autumn Statement 2022 speech as delivered by Chancellor Jeremy Hunt.

www.gov.uk

Apologies, I meant Phase 2b East.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Compare that to a motorway where even at a fairly quiet part of the day could see a lorry pass every 75 seconds.

In fact I live about 1 mile from a motorways with a railway line on an embankment between us and the motorway, and the motorway is what I can hear when outside.



If we were really determined to cut carbon emissions we'd be closing motorways down as we replace then with High Speed rail.

As remember that 3 tonnes of carbon you highlights as being the net emissions from HS2 over a 60 year period, well that's also the operational emissions (i.e. almost all from traffic) of the Lower Thames Crossing.

Over a 12 year period our SRN (Strategic Road Network) is due to add 381 million tonnes of CO2. As there's 4,500 miles of it that's about 7,000 tonnes per mile per year.

As such if we could cut 15 years of emissions by closing a 60 mile section of motorway we could build the equivalent of HS2 (assuming we need to "save" 6 million tonnes of emissions) to cater for the traffic displaced. Now we're unlikely to be able to do away with all the SRN (arguable we'd be better off keeping it and closing local roads to through traffic to achieve the same emission reductions).

Even if we just looked at the London/Manchester section of HS2 that's about 200 miles of track, so the scale of track being laid down as replacement for the road is several times larger.

As such it shows the falsely of the argument that for carbon emissions we shouldn't be building HS2. If we really wanted to cut carbon emissions we should be building HS2 several times over and closing down motorways to compensate for the emissions from construction.

Then with the extra land released we should then build wetlands as they are far better carbon sinks than forests, by quite a margin.

Indeed - if motorways were being closed and car production being stopped, etc etc, then building unnecessarily high-spec new railway lines might not be so dangerous. But they're not, unfortunately.

Politicians are - perhaps naturally - in favour of nominally pro-environmental changes that involve shiny new projects which tie in with their self-aggrandisement, rather than the hard slog of less "sexy" changes which mean people have to change their behaviour.

And of course politicians could be calling for people to stop flying now anyway, given the urgency, without waiting for new rail capacity to come on line first. But they don't, and we currently have the double carbon-whammy of continuing aviation and big infrastructure projects.

 

[Sonik]

Milton Keynes is near the M1 and A5, and is crisscrossed with National Speed Limit roads, which create a fair bit of noise. However, that noise is more or less constant as there are always vehicles passing. Like noise from air conditioning in hotels and the likes, humans are generally quite good at tuning out and ignoring constant noise. It's more noticeable when you go outside at 3am and it's near silent.

By contrast, occasional noises, e.g. a train every 75 seconds, are disruptive and stress the brain out.

I think this is subjective.

I used to live in a house literally 10m from WCML on the busy commuter section, didn't find it caused any disturbance at all other than when doing overnight maintenance, which isn't very often.

And of course politicians could be calling for people to stop flying now anyway, given the urgency, without waiting for new rail capacity to come on line first. But they don't, and we currently have the double carbon-whammy of continuing aviation and big infrastructure projects.

Stopping people flying is highly politically sensitive for all income groups. Unfortunately most people are in denial over their personal impact and it's just not popular with all income groups.

An alternative has to be offered.

 

[NoRoute]

If we were really determined to cut carbon emissions we'd be closing motorways down as we replace then with High Speed rail.

You can't because motorways have lots of junctions and serve cities and towns along their route, and the wider area conneced to the regional road network. They don't just serve the cities at each end!

HS2 doesn't directly serve any of the population between its few major stations and while it may release some capacity on existing rail routes, in most cases that won't make rail any more attractive or viable for a lot of travellers. I doubt it will deliver much of reduction in motorway traffic at all.

 

[D365]

So… no mention of HS2 ’Phase 2’ to the East Midlands. A cause for concern?

 

[The Ham]

You can't because motorways have lots of junctions and serve cities and towns along their route, and the wider area conneced to the regional road network. They don't just serve the cities at each end!

HS2 doesn't directly serve any of the population between its few major stations and while it may release some capacity on existing rail routes, in most cases that won't make rail any more attractive or viable for a lot of travellers. I doubt it will deliver much of reduction in motorway traffic at all.

Whilst HS2 doesn't serve places between a few major cities, the point was more that we could build a lot of lines to high speed standards (including a LOT of tunnels) but use it like any conventional rail line. In doing so the carbon emissions from construction would be higher than needed.

Obviously there'd be a need other policies (such as mile based road charging and/or reduced train tickets) to encourage a modal shift. However with a rail line able to cater for 1,000 seated on each train and the potential for 16tph there's plenty of scope to pile them high sell it cheap tickets. As one of the reasons for the current high ticket prices is to stop overcrowding on our congested rail network.

At 16 coaches long the cost per passenger of the driver would be tiny (even if each train carried a total of 600 passengers per leg, which given each seat could be used more than once the loading would be lower than 60%, and 4 legs per shift with drivers being paid £80,000 and working 100 days a year the ticket cost per passenger is 33p), it's why SWR (at least used to) do well in terms finances.

 

[Starmill]

The problem is that HS2 was over-specified.
I didn't support it originally, but now realise that it is the only effective way to put a better service back on the WCML. Unfortunately, to "sell" it they went for an unnecessarily fast line, with higher costs for alignments, cemented ballast, contractors carrying all the risk and higher speed (more energy-wasting) trains: all these bring disproportionate increases in costs - plus more noise.

The success of the railway we had shows that not much improvenment was necessary in the way of speed, just capacity.

Speed (i.e. journey times) was and will still be an important element for journeys between London and the Central Belt of Scotland. However, you're quite right that there's every possibility that the business case for a slightly lower speed would have been better, and journey times from London to Northern England are much less sensitive.

SNCF, one of the world leaders in high speed rail, have used their decades of research and experience to settle on an equilibrium of 320 km/h for new-build lines. Faster than this increases operating cost, and thus upwards pressure on ticket prices, of a greater value than the journey time saving stimulates demand - at least in France that is! It's therefore very possible that HS2 trains will be costing much more in energy consumption and marginal maintenance from the extra wear and tear for every km/h over 320 that it simply isn't worth it. Older routes in France, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands are slower at only 300km/h.

What's very uncertain is that there would have been any meaningful difference in the capital costs between 320km/h and 360 km/h.

 

[Sonik]

The thing people seem to miss is that HS2 isn't intended to be a 360Km/h railway.

The higher speed will only be used for recovery of delays which in turn allows more intensive use of the infrastructure, and thus better overall resource efficiency.

 

[Starmill]

People often come to similar policy conclusions though starting from different perspectives. Some very right-wing people supported Brexit for reasons that made sense to them. Some very left-wing people also supported Brexit, for reasons that followed logically from their political worldview. Some people are militant pacifists because of their religious beliefs; some are militant pacifists because of their rationalist and anti-religious beliefs. The world is like that.

I wasn't suggesting that you were sharing merely a conclusion with the IEA and others. Of course, that could just be a coincidence, as you say. I was suggesting that your reasoning on HS2's carbon budget was both firmly incorrect, to the point it's so unreasonable nobody can seriously believe it's an argument being made in good faith, and also lifted, almost word for word, from the kind of hard-right think tank or commentator who is very clearly advancing a bad-faith argument against HS2 on environmental grounds, when the real reason they oppose it is because they think that governments shouldn't be doing any public spending at all.

The Green Party in England & Wales have directly lifted fallacious arguments and talking points on two key issues, HS2 and trans rights, from the hard right. Therefore people are asking deeply searching questions of where they came by these lines of reasoning and why they're pushing them, when they seem to be so deeply in conflict with every other policy they claim to support.

Your post sought to be misleading about the carbon impact of HS2 by presenting outdated statistics in a very slanted manner. Few people would choose to do this organically, not having seen someone else make the same representation against the project previously.

 

[AlbertBeale]

I wasn't suggesting that you were sharing merely a conclusion with the IEA and others. Of course, that could just be a coincidence, as you say. I was suggesting that your reasoning on HS2's carbon budget was both firmly incorrect, to the point it's so unreasonable nobody can seriously believe it's an argument being made in good faith, and also lifted, almost word for word, from the kind of hard-right think tank or commentator who is very clearly advancing a bad-faith argument against HS2 on environmental grounds, when the real reason they oppose it is because they think that governments shouldn't be doing any public spending at all.

The Green Party in England & Wales have directly lifted fallacious arguments and talking points on two key issues, HS2 and trans rights, from the hard right. Therefore people are asking deeply searching questions of where they came by these lines of reasoning and why they're pushing them, when they seem to be so deeply in conflict with every other policy they claim to support.

Your post sought to be misleading about the carbon impact of HS2 by presenting outdated statistics in a very slanted manner. Few people would choose to do this organically, not having seen someone else make the same representation against the project previously.

That's quite unfair. My argument was most certainly made in good faith; I read the figures put out by HS2 itself and came to my own conclusions. I have no other source of information. What on earth have I "lifted word for word", and from whom? Please point out something written by some hard-right think tank that you think I've copied. I've never read anything written by a hard-right think tank, on HS2 or anything else as far as I'm aware. It might well be that if such organisations claim to use environmental arguments against HS2 (if they do - I have no idea) that's only a front for some other reason, as you suggest. But none of that is relevant here since I'm quite capable of forming my own view from the evidence I have available without copying anyone else.

Why do you feel the need to insult and make up things about someone whose view is different from yours? Is your view the only one that can possibly be arrived at in good faith? I could just as well say that you've copied your pro-HS2 views from fat-cats running big construction firms, and suggest that you're in cahoots with their vested interests. But I don't always assume the worst in people who have a different view from mine. I'm not a rabid conspiracy theorist.

I certainly wasn't presenting statistics in "a slanted manner" - they were straight from HS2 itself. If the precise numbers have been superseded in a later document, fair enough; though from what others have said it seems that any difference is one of degree.

NB - I hold no brief for the Green Party, and to the extent that I know what their polices are I don't agree with them all. So what's the relevance?

How can you say that my reasoning on HS2's carbon budget is "so unreasonable" that no-one can believe it's an argument "made in good faith". Why on earth else would I make that argument? I read their own figures; I drew my conclusions, which - based on the arithmetic in their document - seems to me eminently reasonable. That's all there is to it.

You're obviously entitled to disagree with me, but it's extremely arrogant to dismiss those who you disagree with as being unable to have come to a different conclusion based on their own understanding and in good faith. Your continued attempts to suggest I'm some sort of front for right-wing groups is outrageous.

 

[Bald Rick]

Because the capacity benefits aren't released as they would've been with a proper eastern leg.

What extra capacity would be released with a ‘proper eastern leg’ ? In your answer, you might want to explain origin and destination of the additional train services.

And the Marsden - Manchester route will not be a high speed line.

It will be a damn sight higher speed than it is now! AIUI Piccadilly to Marsden (pass) in 10/11 minutes…

 

[Starmill]

You're obviously entitled to disagree with me, but it's extremely arrogant to dismiss those who you disagree with as being unable to have come to a different conclusion based on their own understanding and in good faith.

I disagree with lots of views, but don't suggest they've been put forward in bad faith - I was only saying that specifically about your claim.

I do suggest that an argument that HS2 will have a net negative carbon impact in 2100, which is your contention, is not only wrong but outlandish. Look, you're obviously an intelligent person who has a strong understanding of climate science. Therefore you cannot possibly believe that building a railway line (unlike a road) will have a net negative carbon impact over a sixty plus year appraisal period? The numbers you used make no account at all of mode shift. I've explained this several times now. If you still don't get it then I'm afraid I can't really assist you further. Sorry.

HS2 is vital to decarbonise our transport network. We cannot possibly achieve decarbonisation without it. There's simply no alternative to it for providing the necessary capacity on our rail network. That's clearly backed up by the business case. Why would you argue against that?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Nov 2022 ==

How can you say that my reasoning on HS2's carbon budget is "so unreasonable" that no-one can believe it's an argument "made in good faith". Why on earth else would I make that argument? I read their own figures; I drew my conclusions, which - based on the arithmetic in their document - seems to me eminently reasonable. That's all there is to it.

So you deny specifically going out and finding those figures to make the project look bad because you already don't like it, and want to have something with a veneer of credibility to use to argue against it?

 

[Parjon]

What if HS2 doesn't create mode shift?...

What if it's just a lot of fast trains carrying the same amount of people as the not quite so fast trains gone before?

 

[Starmill]

What if HS2 doesn't create mode shift?...

What if it's just a lot of fast trains carrying the same amount of people as the not quite so fast trains gone before?

It will effect a large reduction in generalised cost, so it is all but certain that mode share for rail will rise.

 

[Nottingham59]

AIUI Piccadilly to Marsden (pass) in 10/11 minutes

Well, Piccadilly to Marsden is 15 miles, as the crow flies. So an average speed of 90 mph.

Do you have any other performance projections you are able to share? I'll be surprised and disappointed if it will actually pass through Marsden station: the curve there is very sharp and joining the current line before Marsden would be a significant constraint on linespeed.

 

[SynthD]

What if HS2 doesn't create mode shift?...

What if it's just a lot of fast trains carrying the same amount of people as the not quite so fast trains gone before?

Then the clear and consistent pattern of people to be won over from other forms of transport will have suddenly ended to the total surprise of everyone.

 

[Bald Rick]

What if HS2 doesn't create mode shift?...

Then it will be the first ever example of a significant reduction in journey times for long distance journeys not doing so. After 60 years of transport planners modelling and assessing such things, they generally get these things right now…

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Nov 2022 ==

Well, Piccadilly to Marsden is 15 miles, as the crow flies. So an average speed of 90 mph.

Do you have any other performance projections you are able to share? I'll be surprised and disappointed if it will actually pass through Marsden station: the curve there is very sharp and joining the current line before Marsden would be a significant constraint on linespeed.

yes, sorry, I should have said ‘Marsden’ pass…

 

[NoRoute]

HS2 is vital to decarbonise our transport network. We cannot possibly achieve decarbonisation without it. There's simply no alternative to it for providing the necessary capacity on our rail network. That's clearly backed up by the business case. Why would you argue against that?

You would argue against it because it is wrong. Rail's share of transport miles and journeys is small, under 10% so whatever you do with rail won't make that much difference. What matters is decarbonising road transport, so if decarbonisation is the goal then forget rail, you would be better taking a fraction of the cost of HS2 and using it to roll out a decent EV charging network across the UK, which would do far more to cut carbon.

 

[AlbertBeale]

I disagree with lots of views, but don't suggest they've been put forward in bad faith - I was only saying that specifically about your claim.

I do suggest that an argument that HS2 will have a net negative carbon impact in 2100, which is your contention, is not only wrong but outlandish. Look, you're obviously an intelligent person who has a strong understanding of climate science. Therefore you cannot possibly believe that building a railway line (unlike a road) will have a net negative carbon impact over a sixty plus year appraisal period? The numbers you used make no account at all of mode shift. I've explained this several times now. If you still don't get it then I'm afraid I can't really assist you further. Sorry.

HS2 is vital to decarbonise our transport network. We cannot possibly achieve decarbonisation without it. There's simply no alternative to it for providing the necessary capacity on our rail network. That's clearly backed up by the business case. Why would you argue against that?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Nov 2022 ==


So you deny specifically going out and finding those figures to make the project look bad because you already don't like it, and want to have something with a veneer of credibility to use to argue against it?

The figures I quoted from HS2 explicitly included modal shift, as I'm sure I made clear when I quoted them in the first place.

I don't understand the "We cannot possibly achieve decarbonisation without it" - that seems so absolutist. If someone says "I think that's the best way to achieve decarbonisation", I might disagree with them but I take their argument seriously. But your absolutist stance seems so weird that I wonder what your real agenda is.

Your last sentence is absurd - I criticised HS2 because of its impacts, such as being a net emitter of carbon for many years. I didn't look for figures to make it look bad; on the contrary, because people argued about it I went to the source a few years ago, HS2 itself, and drew my conclusion from their own figures. If I saw no downsides to it (such as its level of carbon emissions during construction, which is the issue in contention here), why on earth would I criticise it?

You now seem to be suggesting that I must be perverse or stupid - but that's at least an improvement on claiming that I'm a tool of right-wing extremists; so if you're no longer making that claim, thank you for that at least.