High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Metrailway]

This may be because they are smaller places with a large number of students (which has a disproportionate affect upon the population statistics).

Fair point but even when you remove students there is still a higher proportion of 16-24 years old in many northern cities than in London, although the difference is smaller.

Assuming (16-24 population - Student population) = True 16-24 population
then the True 16-24 population makes up:

4.1% of population in London
5.5% of population in Leeds
4.2% of population in Sheffield
3.2% of population in Newcastle
7.3% of population in Stoke on Trent.

These are estimates as the student population of each city has differing demographics and the 16-24 population and student populations were taken at different times (March vs June)

 

[brianthegiant]

Yes if the relevent bills for phase 1 do not become acts before the election, then the project is likely to be dead.

On what basis? the project has cross party support & is only actively opposed by a couple of MPs on the phase 1 route. Simon Burns said in oral evidence, that if Hybrid bill doesn't complete before the election it will be completed in the first term of the next parliament. If Tories win they'll continue where they left off. If Labour get in they're probably a bit more Pro HS2 than Tories anyway, having more northern MPs. Viable coalition possibilities are Lab-Dem or Con-Dem so that doesn't make much difference either. UKIP wont get any seats due to the voting system.

 

[HSTEd]

Fair point but even when you remove students there is still a higher proportion of 16-24 years old in many northern cities than in London, although the difference is smaller.

Assuming (16-24 population - Student population) = True 16-24 population
then the True 16-24 population makes up:

4.1% of population in London
5.5% of population in Leeds
4.2% of population in Sheffield
3.2% of population in Newcastle
7.3% of population in Stoke on Trent.

These are estimates as the student population of each city has differing demographics and the 16-24 population and student populations were taken at different times (March vs June)

Its probably not that simple as we don't have any idea if the students were "double counted" or not.
We need more data which is apparently not in the public domain, all we have are anecdotes really.

 

[Muzer]

Is it possible at all to have one thread for news about HS2 and one thread for arguing about HS2? It's rather annoying scrolling past pages and pages of arguments that have already been done to death.

 

[yorksrob]

This is why the population of most northern cities is dropping, the best example of this being Sheffield.
People might not like the idea of proud northern cities being reduced to dormitories for commuters, but the alternative is massive economic decline that will eventually leave something that most resembles Detroit.

Is this really the only choice we have though ?

Bearing in mind, the model of a country economically and politically dominated by one overbearing City is more a trait of the developing world than properly functioning western economies, do we really want to exacerbate either of these models ? Even with Detroit failing, the USA is far from dominated by a single cultural, political and economic centre.

From a wider economic point of view I would argue that whilst we don't want all the population being sucked to London (as you argue will happen with the status quo), neither do we want further economic and cultural activity being sucked there from the Cities to London (which some might say HS2 would exacerbate).

The only remedy I can see for this situation would be to devolve more power of self Government and autonomy to the regions so that they can begin to develop their own economic and political presence in the same way that the lander in Germany, or indeed, the devolved Nations over here are already doing.

 

[JohnB57]

People might not like the idea of proud northern cities being reduced to dormitories for commuters, but the alternative is massive economic decline that will eventually leave something that most resembles Detroit.

So no hope at all for the residents of, say, Sheffield who can neither afford, nor wish to, commute to London? I'm sorry, this is complete nonsense and your extreme HS2-at-all-costs arguments are sounding silly and beyond any credibility.

 

[YorkshireBear]

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.584028164981570.1073741828.174535812597476&type=3

I don't believe you need Facebook to view the following photos. It shows the connectivity from all the Northern branch HS2 stations. Particularly interesting is Sheffield where it shows a potential Bus Rapid Transit system. Also shows several stations built to SW of Sheffield between Dore and Sheffield. Could be interesting.

 

[Gareth]

Is this really the only choice we have though ?

Bearing in mind, the model of a country economically and politically dominated by one overbearing City is more a trait of the developing world than properly functioning western economies, do we really want to exacerbate either of these models ? Even with Detroit failing, the USA is far from dominated by a single cultural, political and economic centre.

From a wider economic point of view I would argue that whilst we don't want all the population being sucked to London (as you argue will happen with the status quo), neither do we want further economic and cultural activity being sucked there from the Cities to London (which some might say HS2 would exacerbate).

The only remedy I can see for this situation would be to devolve more power of self Government and autonomy to the regions so that they can begin to develop their own economic and political presence in the same way that the lander in Germany, or indeed, the devolved Nations over here are already doing.

To answer your question: no it isn't the only option. It's not desirable and I would say it's not even practical either. Sheffield will never be a dormitory town for London. It's simply too far away, no matter how much London grows and Sheffield (and near enough the entire rest of the country) declines. Yes, HS2 would dramatically cut journey times down but the cost of commuting to London five days a week would make little sense for the vast majority of people. It would also be an inefficient use of energy for someone to be, largely needlessly, travelling that many miles a week. I mean, what TfL zone would Sheffield be in? 30, 31 maybe? If London continues to ever-expand (and UK economic policy suggests it will), then it will develop population densities akin to the likes of Tokyo before Sheffield ever comes into the equation.

Your analysis about how centralized and London-centric this country is is spot on. Our cities and counties need far more economic independence, be allowed to raise more taxes locally (rather than central government taking them and returning them with strings attached) and be allowed to take decisions that best fit their local situations. Instead, our national government thinks it runs a city state more akin to Hong Kong or Singapore and that large cities such as Sheffield are small villages full of slow people who for some insane reason don't want to work in finance in 'The City'. As a result, the economy is built around London, so London flourishes whilst the rest of the country doesn't. This then justifies focusing on London and largely ignoring everywhere else and so London continues to flourish whilst the rest of the country doesn't. It's a self-supporting cycle. The rest of the country could only do better with more autonomy and less 'one size fits all' central decisions which usually benefit London and London alone. The thing is, most people in this country don't really believe in this. They've been sold the lie that the status-quo is somehow the natural order of things. People in the North, Midlands, Wales etc actually believe London is what stops them starving, rarther than essentially being what stops them from having more than they actually have. They call it Stockholm Syndrome, I believe. Not that I believe it should be wholly reversed and that we should rape and pillage London [much] but there's plenty of space in this country for more than one city.

 

[Deerfold]

To answer your question: no it isn't the only option. It's not desirable and I would say it's not even practical either. Sheffield will never be a dormitory town for London. It's simply too far away, no matter how much London grows and Sheffield (and near enough the entire rest of the country) declines. Yes, HS2 would dramatically cut journey times down but the cost of commuting to London five days a week would make little sense for the vast majority of people. It would also be an inefficient use of energy for someone to be, largely needlessly, travelling that many miles a week. I mean, what TfL zone would Sheffield be in? 30, 31 maybe? If London continues to ever-expand (and UK economic policy suggests it will), then it will develop population densities akin to the likes of Tokyo before Sheffield ever comes into the equation.

I already know a number of people who commute daily from distances at least as far away from London as Sheffield including Leeds. If commuting time decreases, I see no reason why this number wouldn't increase. I used to know someone who commuted daily from Sheffield - he doesn't now as he's moved north of Leeds...

 

[HowardGWR]

Is it possible at all to have one thread for news about HS2 and one thread for arguing about HS2? It's rather annoying scrolling past pages and pages of arguments that have already been done to death.

Just start one up called 'HS2 news'?

 

[HSTEd]

Is this really the only choice we have though ?

Bearing in mind, the model of a country economically and politically dominated by one overbearing City is more a trait of the developing world than properly functioning western economies, do we really want to exacerbate either of these models ? Even with Detroit failing, the USA is far from dominated by a single cultural, political and economic centre.

The US is also absurdly massive, in order to travel across it in the same time it takes to travel the length of the UK by surface transport you would probably need to use a jet.
And if you use a jet in the UK you would need a suborbital transport in the US.

From a wider economic point of view I would argue that whilst we don't want all the population being sucked to London (as you argue will happen with the status quo), neither do we want further economic and cultural activity being sucked there from the Cities to London (which some might say HS2 would exacerbate).

Dormitory towns are not really devoid of economic and cultural activity, for instance Watford still has cinemas, places to eat, drink and make merry.
And I think the latter is infinitely preferable to the former.

The only remedy I can see for this situation would be to devolve more power of self Government and autonomy to the regions so that they can begin to develop their own economic and political presence in the same way that the lander in Germany, or indeed, the devolved Nations over here are already doing.

Germany has managed significant dispersal of its economy over numerous locations, but you have to remember how much larger it is than Britain.
The distance between Stuttgart and Berlin is comparable to the distance between London and the Scottish Central Belt.

Likewise the distance between Barcelona and Madrid is comparable, these countries really are huge compared to the UK.
Devolving government to the regions would be extremely dangerous because it would break up what little joined up thinking is left in economic policy, probably resulting in beggar-thy-neighbour competitions for limited industrial resources.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If London continues to ever-expand (and UK economic policy suggests it will), then it will develop population densities akin to the likes of Tokyo before Sheffield ever comes into the equation.

But it can't.

Take a look at the Tokyo skyline then at the London one, population density is being artificial suppressed by the planning system.
Additionally it cannot grow contiguously because of the green belt getting in the way, which means that it is likely that 'London' itself will be surrounded by a 'Groene Haart' esque park around which development will occur.

It will have to grow north to a large degree as the London LUZ cannot grow much larger without impinging on the Channel, it is within a few miles of it in Kent already.

 

[Bonemaster]

I'm starting to get really confused as to whether the pro HS2 case is that it makes London commutable from the north, or whether it creates jobs in the regions, it appears to have flipped 180 degrees over the course of this thread.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm starting to get really confused as to whether the pro HS2 case is that it makes London commutable from the north, or whether it creates jobs in the regions, it appears to have flipped 180 degrees over the course of this thread.

Those are not really contradictory positions.
It will do both at the same time in all likelyhood, the question is merely which effect is larger.

 

[yorksrob]

The US is also absurdly massive, in order to travel across it in the same time it takes to travel the length of the UK by surface transport you would probably need to use a jet.
And if you use a jet in the UK you would need a suborbital transport in the US.



Dormitory towns are not really devoid of economic and cultural activity, for instance Watford still has cinemas, places to eat, drink and make merry.
And I think the latter is infinitely preferable to the former.



Germany has managed significant dispersal of its economy over numerous locations, but you have to remember how much larger it is than Britain.
The distance between Stuttgart and Berlin is comparable to the distance between London and the Scottish Central Belt.

Likewise the distance between Barcelona and Madrid is comparable, these countries really are huge compared to the UK.
Devolving government to the regions would be extremely dangerous because it would break up what little joined up thinking is left in economic policy, probably resulting in beggar-thy-neighbour competitions for limited industrial resources.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

dy.

I have to say, I‘m not convinced by your argument here. Whilst I recognise that Germany and spain are larger geographically than England, I don‘t see why in a country of one size, regional government forms an effective and beneficial form of Government, yet on a marginally smaller scale, this would automatically lead to beggar thy neighbour policies.

 

[HSTEd]

I have to say, I‘m not convinced by your argument here. Whilst I recognise that Germany and spain are larger geographically than England, I don‘t see why in a country of one size, regional government forms an effective and beneficial form of Government, yet on a marginally smaller scale, this would automatically lead to beggar thy neighbour policies.

The fact that people would be able to move from one region to another easily in a short period of time (even today its only 2hr from Manchester to London) would cause the areas to be in direct competition with each other to a far larger degree.

There are a lot more places which Barcelona can 'compete' against for the industrial resources it needs.
Regional Government does not tend to suppress centralisation, it is only viable because centralisation's drivers are far less powerful.
If you could travel from Stuttgart to Berlin in half the time then you would expect a far greater degree of centralisation, whether de jure or merely de facto.

 

[yorksrob]

Then again, I don‘t believe that the modern British economy is that reliant on industrial resources (located in Britain) to have such an effect. Most industrial resources are surely imported in this day and age. Of course, North sea oil is a relevant case study, but we will have to work those issues out anyway with Scottish independence.
I simply cannot believe that Germany is so much more stable under federal system on account of its cities being an extra hour and a half apart by train.

 

[Gareth]

To clarify; it would be impractical for large swathes of commuters from cities such as Sheffield, Manchester etc to commute into London. It would be way too costly in terms of the energy required to transport such an amount of people over such a large distance, as well as an environmental disaster. Yes, there may be isolated examples of people from Sheffield commuting to London (and by this, I mean working 40 hours a week, not the occasional business trip), but this will be a minute proportion of the population. I'm aware that density is restricted in London (as it is to varying extents in all of the UK) but that would go out the window long before sprawling suburbia reached improbable and impractical distances such as Yorkshire (which would also be an environmental disaster).

And if HS2's business case is built around such assumptions, then it quite simply shouldn't happen.

 

[Philip Elliott]

HS2 has a capacity of circa 20,000 per hour including trains from Newcastle and Scotland. Take a 2-hour peak window and you've got at absolute most 40,000 commuters (of course there is all the business and leisure traffic to take care of). Now correct me if I'm wrong but there is a lot more than 40,000 people in the north (and midlands). The idea of the north being a commuter dormitory is just well...........

 

[Gareth]

Correct but you could even multiply that number by 100 and it would still make little difference in terms of practicality.

 

[snowball]

Bearing in mind that the population of a town includes children, retired people, shopkeepers, teachers, stay-at-home housewives/husbands, etc, what proportion of the population of even the most commuting-oriented towns in the Home Counties actually commute to London?

 

[HSTEd]

To clarify; it would be impractical for large swathes of commuters from cities such as Sheffield, Manchester etc to commute into London. It would be way too costly in terms of the energy required to transport such an amount of people over such a large distance, as well as an environmental disaster.

A TGV Duplex has a 0.037kWh per seat km.
Assuming a 50% capacity factor that is ~ 0.074kWh per passenger km.
Assuming a London to Manchester distance of roughly 320km, that translates to approximately 23.68kWh of electricity used.

Supposedly the emissions per kWh of British electricity will be down to 50 grammes of carbon dioxide per kWh by ~2030 (although without a crash nuclear programme that won't happen).
Which means that 23.68kWh will release 1184g of carbon dioxide.

For reference that is about as much as driving a Toyota Prius ~10km or a comparable distance for a Volkswagen Golf BlueMotion.

Either way, having people commute that distance, while not going to reduce energy use, is hardly going to end the world or cause an "environmental disaster".

Yes, there may be isolated examples of people from Sheffield commuting to London (and by this, I mean working 40 hours a week, not the occasional business trip), but this will be a minute proportion of the population.

It is now, but that is with a travel time of 2 hours or more.
When the travel time is only about an hour that could be rather different.

I'm aware that density is restricted in London (as it is to varying extents in all of the UK) but that would go out the window long before sprawling suburbia reached improbable and impractical distances such as Yorkshire (which would also be an environmental disaster).

HS2 will prevent the sprawl reaching Yorkshire, since it will transplant sections of the 'sprawl' into the existing cities it services.
The alternative is that we abandon already existing cities to reduced population and have to build new ones nearer london to handle the overspill.
Which will result in a far greater overall loss of greenfield land.

Britain is already a city state and will become more of one as time goes by.
We can either let London fly off by itself or we can harness the rest of the country to it.

 

[jon0844]

Shock horror. Sunday Telegraph has another anti HS2 story - on the front page this time.

Only seen the cover on Sky News but I wonder if it's the resident HS2 with his latest rant?

 

[Polarbear]

Shock horror. Sunday Telegraph has another anti HS2 story - on the front page this time.

Only seen the cover on Sky News but I wonder if it's the resident HS2 with his latest rant?

Here's the link to the article;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10192925/How-HS2-will-tear-up-rural-England.html

Official documents also disclose that hundreds of acres of green-belt land will be lost and more than 1,000 buildings are to be demolished.
Conservationists and other campaigners reacted angrily to the figures, which were buried in a mass of documents published without fanfare by the Department for Transport.

They are the fullest assessment of the environmental impact of the HS2 route, from London to Manchester and Leeds. Until now only the impact of the first stage, from London to Birmingham, had been fully detailed.

The high-speed rail link is backed by both parties, with George Osborne, the Chancellor, and other senior Cabinet ministers arguing that HS2 is vital infrastructure that will transform Britain’s “economic geography”.

Its supporters say it will bring tens of thousands of jobs to the North by slashing journey times from London to Birmingham in the first phase, then Manchester and Leeds in the second.

Critics have claimed that HS2’s business case does not stack up and opposition to the project is building in Westminster, with doubts voiced recently by a number of senior figures. Archie Norman, the former Conservative minister, writing in The Sunday Telegraph today, calls the risks “enormous”. Earlier this month, ministers revised up the scheme’s projected cost from £33 billion to £42 billion. Thousands of properties within a mile of the route have already been blighted, even though construction of the line is not set to begin until 2017.

The Sunday Telegraph can disclose that a full “sustainability statement” drawn up by the Department for Transport outlines the scheme’s expected impact, which includes:

* Depots and railway hubs will be built on 250 acres of green-belt land. Green-belt land will have to be crossed west of Newcastle-under-Lyme, north of Northwich, along a spur into Manchester and outside Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds;
* Around 25 miles of the line will be built on floodplains;
* More than 616 homes will be bulldozed, up from the 565 initially forecast;
* 342 homes will be cut off from their community, 207 more than previously thought.

The document acknowledges that HS2 could increase the risk of flooding in some areas. The area around Manchester Piccadilly station would be “at risk of flooding” because of building over watercourses. It said there would be plans to set aside money for flood compensation for potential victims. Trains will run along viaducts in floodplains to mitigate the risk of flooding. However, the analysis says “other solutions” to reduce the threat may have to be worked out later on.

Several sites of “special scientific interest” will be carved up by the train line, including Bogs Farm Quarry, near Selston, Notts, containing rare grassland rich in wildlife, and the River Mease in the Midlands, which is home to otters.
Trains will also speed through four country parks that attract hundreds of thousands of visitors a year, including Kingsbury Water Park and Pooley Country Park in Warwickshire, and Rabbit Ings Country Park and Rothwell Country Park in South Yorks. In Nottinghamshire, the remains of the county’s only known Roman temple will be concreted over. At least 32 ancient woodlands that have existed since at least the time of Elizabeth I will also be affected.

Sue Holden, the chief executive of the Woodland Trust, said there could be “no mitigation” for loss of the “irreplaceable” wooded areas that have been there for at least four centuries.

The route will affect 27 listed buildings, putting at least five Grade II-listed structures including a 12th-century church building in Derbyshire, a hotel in Manchester with an 18th-century farmhouse, and a Victorian bridge in Leicestershire at risk of demolition.

Ralph Smyth, a transport campaigner for the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, said: “The Government says it will leave 'no stone unturned’ in trying to maximise jobs and growth from HS2. Why is there no similar ambition to minimise the woodlands and nature sites that would be damaged by HS2?”
Penny Gaines, chairman of the Stop HS2 campaign group, said: “We have been saying for a long time that the Department for Transport is failing to acknowledge the enormous damage this project will cause to the countryside.
“First they show that the financial cost of HS2 is higher than they thought it would be. Now we know the same is true of the environmental damage. It’s time for this project to be cancelled so the Government can get on with delivering improvements to our rail network that do make sense.” Ministers have been accused of insensitivity to the risk of environmental damage. Last year, Justine Greening, transport secretary at the time, suggested “transplanting woodland to an adjacent site” in a letter to another MP.

Meanwhile, Archie Norman, the former Conservative shadow transport secretary who is now chairman of ITV, today joins the growing number of critics of the Coalition’s flagship transport project. In the Business section of today’s Sunday Telegraph, Mr Norman writes that the “economics are very unattractive and the risks enormous”.

“Since it was first announced, the costs have escalated relentlessly,” the article reads. “It now looks as if HS2 will cost £50 billion — nearly £2,000 for every household in Britain for a railway that probably only about one to two per cent of the population will use each year.”

The former minister says it is a “delusion” the project will make impoverished parts of the North more affluent. “It would certainly make London more prosperous. It will do nothing for deprived East Manchester and will bypass many of the most needy areas of Britain.”

In recent weeks senior figures in the Labour Party who were previously in favour of HS2 have criticised the project.

Lord Mandelson, the former business secretary, said the project could prove an “expensive mistake”, while the former chancellor Alistair Darling warned that HS2 would “suck money” out of Britain’s rail budget. Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, said he was “concerned about rising costs” associated with the scheme, adding that it could not be handed a “blank cheque”.

Adding to the growing mood of uncertainty about HS2, Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, said last week that the case for the project was “still being made”. Although still a supporter of HS2, Mr Cable acknowledged the calculations were “being revisited” and said it had “to meet a standard of cost/benefit analysis which the Treasury seeks”.

 

[Ironside]

Archie Norman, the former Conservative shadow transport secretary was a director of railtrack so I wouldnt take his opinion too seriously!

 

[jon0844]

Lots of ifs and maybes there.

Some valid concerns but I'm not sure how much is front page news.

Still, didn't the first railway pioneers have exactly the same problems? It's amazing we ever got some of our existing mainlines built.

 

[tbtc]

Trains will also speed through four country parks that attract hundreds of thousands of visitors a year, including ... Rothwell Country Park in South Yorks

Maybe if we had a High Speed railway link between London and "the north" we could educate some southern journalists that Rothwell is in Leeds, which is West Yorkshire.

Here's a link to a picture of Rothwell https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=LS...cvnPNkcstE5sl57Ampztwg&cbp=12,124.21,,0,10.76 (you may notice that this picturesque corner of West Yorkshire has recently had a motorway extension - maybe the Telegraph forgot to reserve some front page when the Government decided to build this motorway?)

 

[Martin222002]

Maybe if we had a High Speed railway link between London and "the north" we could educate some southern journalists that Rothwell is in Leeds, which is West Yorkshire.

Here's a link to a picture of Rothwell https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=LS...cvnPNkcstE5sl57Ampztwg&cbp=12,124.21,,0,10.76 (you may notice that this picturesque corner of West Yorkshire has recently had a motorway extension - maybe the Telegraph forgot to reserve some front page when the Government decided to build this motorway?)

Oh there's worse errors than that. Apparently Leonards wood, a protected ancient woodland near Lostock, Cheshire is close to the Sheffield Meadowhall station, as well as Old Heath church, grade II listed, near junction 29 of the M1, being on the route to Manchester.

 

[Holly]

Apparently Leonards wood, a protected ancient woodland near Lostock, Cheshire is close to the Sheffield Meadowhall station, ...

I guess that depends on what you mean by near.

Now why don't they make everyone happy and put a parkway station there, right where it crosses the Cheshire Lines?

 

[hs2critic]

HST Ed -

For reference that (London-Manchester) is about as much as driving a Toyota Prius ~10km or a comparable distance for a Volkswagen Golf BlueMotion.

Either way, having people commute that distance, while not going to reduce energy use, is hardly going to end the world or cause an "environmental disaster".

You are making the classic "Eurostar is 10x greener than flying" comparison, by assuming all electricity will be nuclear and not looking at all the other sunk costs - including the line itself and all the embodied energy contained within.

Also, your assumption of 50% load factor hardly sounds like a convincing case for a peak time commuter service, and if it is that quiet then, it will just be moving air back up to Manchester for the return run.

 

[Snapper]

Archie Norman, the former Conservative shadow transport secretary was a director of railtrack so I wouldnt take his opinion too seriously!

Indeed. A political appointee who knows naff all about railways...