High Speed History

[LS-Colin]

I have previously said that i'd like to see High Speed rail routes in the UK if they are done in the same way as our European neighbours. That said, recent history has proved that any High Speed service doesn't really improve the economies of the provincial towns and cities they end up serving. The introduction of 125 services from Paddington in the 1970's did little to improve the job/wages situation in Swindon, Bristol and Cardiff etc. They have all gradually become commuter towns/cities to London. The same happened with Peterborough, Grantham, Doncaster and York since 125's began running there. HS1 has done it again to the towns it serves in Kent. Without being too offensive, Folkestone, Dover, Deal and Margate etc. appear to be really run down and shabby with a high proportion of residents surviving on benefits. It seems that any High Speed service just sucks any viable employment (however small it may be) out of the provinces it serves and just draws more people and businesses to London. Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds seem to be just hanging in there as far as employment is concerned, but I fear that HS2 will suck them dry too - recent history has proved it.

 

[edwin_m]

Is this just opinion or do you have some evidence to back it up?

There may be objective evidence of decline, but that doesn't prove the decline wouldn't have happened if the train service had stayed the same. There are plenty of medium sized towns further north which have declined with no significant change in their train service, and some places like central Manchester and Leeds which would appear to have escaped the general decline, and (whether by coincidence or not) have had improvements in their train services during the same period.

So while it is a valid concern, sorting out cause and effect is not simple. I imagine the government must feel it has enough evidence, otherwise it would not be committing to spending money on HS2 if it then thought it would have to spend more money than otherwise supporting the regions at its north end!

 

[gordonthemoron]

I think we should go back to the horse and cart, that'd sort out long distance commuting

 

[MarkyT]

Is this just opinion or do you have some evidence to back it up? There may be objective evidence of decline, but that doesn't prove the decline wouldn't have happened if the train service had stayed the same.

And without the rail improvements, perceived or actual decline may have been even worse. With property still booming in London, commuters move further and further out taking advantage of faster trains, and that spreads the house price inflation as demand increases in these areas. It can be a mixed bag for the provincial towns so annexed, perhaps with lower income locals squeezed out, or at least having to buy further and further away from prime locations around stations. On the other hand the new commuters do become part of of the local community and spend at least some their higher incomes through local businesses. Once an increased highly skilled and diverse workforce exists in a town, businesses may consider locating there, especially if in addition to London connections the improved railway also offers connections to other nearby towns from which a workforce may be sourced. Well planned rail improvements can benefit regional towns, but in addition to faster trains to London, associated local transport links must be improved dramatically, partly to mitigate a 'parkway effect' on local traffic congestion by providing reasonable alternatives to driving to the hubs, but also to allow the new station areas and towns and cities linked nearby to develop their economies.

 

[HowardGWR]

And without the rail improvements, perceived or actual decline may have been even worse. With property still booming in London, commuters move further and further out taking advantage of faster trains, and that spreads the house price inflation as demand increases in these areas. It can be a mixed bag for the provincial towns so annexed, perhaps with lower income locals squeezed out, or at least having to buy further and further away from prime locations around stations. On the other hand the new commuters do become part of of the local community and spend at least some their higher incomes through local businesses. Once an increased highly skilled and diverse workforce exists in a town, businesses may consider locating there, especially if in addition to London connections the improved railway also offers connections to other nearby towns from which a workforce may be sourced. Well planned rail improvements can benefit regional towns, but in addition to faster trains to London, associated local transport links must be improved dramatically, partly to mitigate a 'parkway effect' on local traffic congestion by providing reasonable alternatives to driving to the hubs, but also to allow the new station areas and towns and cities linked nearby to develop their economies.

All excellent points.

SACTRA (Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment) studied the economic issue and came to the conclusion that improvements in trunk road / motorway access could lead to firms deciding that a more centralised organisation could replace local branches. Thus supermarkets are served from regional or national depots rather than more local ones and offices are similarly concentrated. Comparison shopping is now often served by regional centres rather than local outlets and people travel 50 miles on a motorway to do so.

So the jury is out on 'improved transport links are good for the local economy' and I think the same considerations apply to HSR.

 

[MarkyT]

All excellent points.

SACTRA (Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment) studied the economic issue and came to the conclusion that improvements in trunk road / motorway access could lead to firms deciding that a more centralised organisation could replace local branches. Thus supermarkets are served from regional or national depots rather than more local ones and offices are similarly concentrated. Comparison shopping is now often served by regional centres rather than local outlets and people travel 50 miles on a motorway to do so.

So the jury is out on 'improved transport links are good for the local economy' and I think the same considerations apply to HSR.

Interesting. Fuel and other motoring and distribution costs also affect this, and those companies who aggressively centralise their operations inevitably scream blue murder for fuel tax cuts and road improvements once the assumptions which shaped their business decisions change (and they're not in a position to reverse that centralisation easily or quickly). 50 miles to look at some clothes - madness, and probably mostly the higher spending suburban dwellers! Lower waged city urbanites probably don't do that as a matter of course, or at least not very often. Those regional shopping centres are really just modern 'city centres' anyway. Its just an accident of history they were established on cheap land at a time when car dependency was assumed to be the norm and it follows that if that changes then either the shopping centres must themselves become better integrated with public transport alternatives, or those centres which don't may decline in favour of those that can. Then we've got the click and collect phenomenon, and it's polar opposite select in store and deliver, both of which require a journey by the customer. The latter could work better with public transport, but the former doesn't neccessarily need a large glitzy store in a major retail centre, just a warehouse perhaps more locally based. I wonder how these will affect the retail landscape.

 

[HSTEd]

Those small towns that have been annexed would likely be in even worse straits if they had not been.
Grantham may not be in the best shape but people still live there and its not some post industrial nightmare like some of the pit towns in Nottinghamshire.

 

[quantinghome]

Those small towns that have been annexed would likely be in even worse straits if they had not been.
Grantham may not be in the best shape but people still live there and its not some post industrial nightmare like some of the pit towns in Nottinghamshire.

True. And I'm not sure York is in bad shape.

Also There are plenty of places with good fast rail links that have had strong economic growth - Cambridge, Reading, Oxford, Milton Keynes.

It seems too simplistic to say that high speed rail has this sort of negative effect. I can only think that places tend to become dormitory towns if they have little else going on economically to begin with. I must say I do find the HS2 'transforming the country' arguments somewhat unconvincing. However, it doesn't make it any less necessary. We need more capacity and high speed rail is the best way to deliver this.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It would be impossible for HS2 to turn Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds etc into dormitory towns for London because their populations are so massively disproportionate to the available rail capacity for commuting. What will happen is that these cities will become the centres of major city regions with a similar pull as London. Small and medium towns around these areas where industry is no more have little choice but to become dormitory communities, as the sorts of businesses which could sustain them independently no longer exist in the knowledge-based economy.