High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[YorkshireBear]

Mmm, apparently the inflated £80bn even includes the full cost of Crossrail 2 added to the HS2 tally.

:roll: Words fail me.

 

[Dave1987]

Mmm, apparently the inflated £80bn even includes the full cost of Crossrail 2 added to the HS2 tally.

Crossrail 2 is just an idea at the moment, and they included it in the building cost of HS2. Wow they really have tried to cobble every conceivable cost possible into the main headline figure.

Then again why are we all surprised? The antis have already spent a hell of a lot of public council money on high court battles. Buckinghamshire council recently admitted they knew they wouldn't win but they were determined to continue with the court battles using public money.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Mmm, apparently the inflated £80bn even includes the full cost of Crossrail 2 added to the HS2 tally.

That particular matter of Crossrail 2 inclusion needs stressing ad nauseum in news items and hopefully put by an interviewer to a leading member of the "anti" campaign who should be asked for the reason why it was felt necessary to have included that particular cost in the inflated £80 billion project cost figure they have stressed recently.

 

[The Ham]

Mmm, apparently the inflated £80bn even includes the full cost of Crossrail 2 added to the HS2 tally.

The report lists Crossrail 2 as costing £20bn (which is half of the extra cost) however, even without HS2, Crossrail 2 could still need to be built at some point in the next 15-30 years.

 

[jon0844]

Why not include Trident in the figure and just lump it all together as 'Government wastage'.

I'd probably throw in the welfare bill too, and maybe pensions. Sod it, let's include the rising costs of A&E too.

Seriously though, I wonder if there would be the same level of opposition to Crossrail 2? Probably not.

 

[Stats]

I always prefer to read the actual report rather than relying on media reports and to be fair to the author he did say the rationale for some schemes, such as crossrail2, were far wider than just facilitating a link to hs2 and it would be misleading to view the full costs as a direct consequence of hs2.

 

[YorkshireBear]

HS2 statements today.

http://www.hs2.org.uk/press/hs2-ltd-statement-cpres-report

“HS2 Ltd is still developing transport routes for the construction of the line; accordingly it is not possible to definitively say
how the road network will be used. The information supplied to the CPRE is based on the most accurate assessment given
the progress of the line’s design at the time. The routes highlighted in the information provided to CPRE show all roads that
might be used for the construction of HS2 including those travelled by people working on the line and therefore driving by car.
HS2 Ltd is working to ensure that over 95% of excavated material is beneficially reused for the construction of the railway,
including noise and visual screening, therefore reducing the need for long distance transportation.”

http://www.hs2.org.uk/press/hs2-ltd-statement-ieas-report

“The IEA report is extremely speculative and completely lacking in concrete facts. The headline £80bn figure appears
to have been arrived at by lumping together transport schemes that are not part of HS2 and in some cases are many
miles from the line. The report claims a theoretical and unsourced cost of £30bn for these projects, although elsewhere
admits many will never be built. The IEA also fails to show how a myriad of piecemeal incremental transport schemes
would address the capacity and connectivity issues that we face or how they would even come close to providing the
opportunities that HS2 as an Engine for Growth will bring to the national economy. The fact is HS2 is absolutely vital for this country. Without it the key rail routes
connecting London, the Midlands and the North will be overwhelmed. This report does nothing to challenge these undeniable facts.”

 

[Chris125]

Great blog from Zelo Street - HS2 IEA report one high turkey

This sums up their laughable maths quite succinctly:

But the way in which the £80 billion figure has been arrived at can be summarised very easily: the cost of the HS2 “Y Network” is increased to £50 billion (no citation is given), and then has, for starters, the whole cost of Crossrail 2 added to it. The only difference between the TPA and IEA is that the latter have taken the TPA number (£10 billion) and doubled it, to make it twice as scary.

That is plainly fraudulent, and twice over, but, as the man said, there’s more. A spur from HS2 to Liverpool is added in (not part of the project) because it is held that more of those vested interests will successfully lobby for it. That the city will see journey times to London cut to little over one and a half hours under the current proposals is not mentioned.

More transport schemes are added to get to the £80 billion figure: as I expected, all the cost of extending the Nottingham tram system to Toton figures, as does a tram extension west to Derby, the business case of which would stand on its own, thanks. Railway electrification in West Yorkshire – already planned – is similarly held to be part of the HS2 cost. And the benefits are talked down to a mere £30 billion.

Chris

 

[jon0844]

Sadly a lot of this is too late. The release was very cleverly timed so as not to allow a near instant response - and now it's old news.

I am presuming the report wasn't issued in advance under embargo, in case it gave a chance to a detailed response to be formulated and to undermine the impact.

I've checked the BBC website and it hasn't updated its story. Have any of the papers? If not, it just shows the damage is done.

However, on the plus side, when it does go ahead then HS2 can show itself to have been built WAAAAY under the budget people have now got in their heads.

And, just like the Olympics, once it's built and open all the moaning will be forgotten about.

A few days before the one-year-on Olympic event in London, I was reading some articles posted just 24 hours before the opening ceremony at the Olympics, and besides the cost and the G4S 'scandal', one particular journalist was attacking the transport network and saying how impossible it would be to get around and the games were doomed because nobody would get to the stadium or other games locations.

Of course, within about 24-48 hours the opinions of the media did an almighty U-turn. Almost as quick as everyone in the media suddenly deciding they loved Princess Diana...

 

[WatcherZero]

It was issued in advance, but just to the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph for their sunday editions.

 

[Dave1987]

Sadly a lot of this is too late. The release was very cleverly timed so as not to allow a near instant response - and now it's old news.

I am presuming the report wasn't issued in advance under embargo, in case it gave a chance to a detailed response to be formulated and to undermine the impact.

I've checked the BBC website and it hasn't updated its story. Have any of the papers? If not, it just shows the damage is done.

However, on the plus side, when it does go ahead then HS2 can show itself to have been built WAAAAY under the budget people have now got in their heads.

And, just like the Olympics, once it's built and open all the moaning will be forgotten about.

A few days before the one-year-on Olympic event in London, I was reading some articles posted just 24 hours before the opening ceremony at the Olympics, and besides the cost and the G4S 'scandal', one particular journalist was attacking the transport network and saying how impossible it would be to get around and the games were doomed because nobody would get to the stadium or other games locations.

Of course, within about 24-48 hours the opinions of the media did an almighty U-turn. Almost as quick as everyone in the media suddenly deciding they loved Princess Diana...

That is a very good point. If the British public are under the impression that it is now going to cost £80bn and it is actually built for say £38bn, HS2 ltd can proudly announce it was built for £42bn less than the antis said it would

 

[jon0844]

That would then mean enough money for HS3!

 

[WatcherZero]

Treasury opponents trying to sabotage HS2 by calculating the cost at £73bn in 2033 money (factoring in inflation and interest payments) rather than stating the cost in todays (2011) money or using 2002 prices which is normal for index linking investment.

The Treasury opponents concede that the Lib Dems and Conservatives are committed to the scheme and will force it through but think they could possibly convince an incoming Labour government to look again.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f331cde-0988-11e3-8b32-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2cXt3j01H

 

[Morden Via CHX]

Having a discussion with a work colleague tonight about this, his first comment was simply "well why can't they just run more trains".

People genuinely don't understand the reason for building HS2, and that's why they cannot get their head round the cost - they think that the govt is spending 40 million or however much they've decided it will cost this week on cutting journey times by 20 minutes. If it was explained to people that in 10-15 years time, people could literally be turned away from boarding trains at a terminus because it's too busy, I think they'd be a lot more forgiving.

 

[Dave1987]

Having a discussion with a work colleague tonight about this, his first comment was simply "well why can't they just run more trains".

People genuinely don't understand the reason for building HS2, and that's why they cannot get their head round the cost - they think that the govt is spending 40 million or however much they've decided it will cost this week on cutting journey times by 20 minutes. If it was explained to people that in 10-15 years time, people could literally be turned away from boarding trains at a terminus because it's too busy, I think they'd be a lot more forgiving.

Remember a lot of the antis are convincing the public that the WCML can be upgraded to provide the same level of capacity that is required. What they aren't saying is it would cost just as much provide very little extra capacity and would cause mass disruption while it took place. But of course they wouldn't tell anyone that would they.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Remember a lot of the antis are convincing the public that the WCML can be upgraded to provide the same level of capacity that is required. What they aren't saying is it would cost just as much provide very little extra capacity and would cause mass disruption while it took place. But of course they wouldn't tell anyone that would they.

I'd love to see the proposed 8 tracking. :roll:

 

[HowardGWR]

That would then mean enough money for HS3!

What's that then?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Then again why are we all surprised? The antis have already spent a hell of a lot of public council money on high court battles. Buckinghamshire council recently admitted they knew they wouldn't win but they were determined to continue with the court battles using public money.

In all fairness Buckinghamshire County Council are just trying to get the best deal for the people affected by the construction of the line and there is nothing wrong with that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Having a discussion with a work colleague tonight about this, his first comment was simply "well why can't they just run more trains".

People genuinely don't understand the reason for building HS2, and that's why they cannot get their head round the cost - they think that the govt is spending 40 million or however much they've decided it will cost this week on cutting journey times by 20 minutes. If it was explained to people that in 10-15 years time, people could literally be turned away from boarding trains at a terminus because it's too busy, I think they'd be a lot more forgiving.

I agree with everything that you've said here but for people living to the south of the Thames who seldom travel north it's to understand how HS2 represents value for money.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

At least in UK politics there is accountability, in so much as we can vote out a party we don't like. In the mean time, the likes of Murdoch continue to rake in the dosh year after year, practically unanswerable to anyone.

In all fairness Rupert Murdoch only makes money because we read his newspapers and subscribe to Sky.

The report also lists a set of proposed additional infrastructure that will be needed to make HS2 link in better with the current system. It then presents them as if having an integrated transport system is a bad thing! The objection to this appears to be that it will cost public money to create these links. It seems that the £80 billion figure isn't actually for HS2 itself, but the perceived extra costs that will be incurred as a result of the project. All in all it's very gloom and doom, and very much a worst case scenario rather than a fair assessment.

With respect, the transport links to HS2 are only being built because of HS2 so I think its right that they should be treated as an incremental cost. However, I certainly think it's wrong to include Crossrail 2 in this.

 

[tbtc]

As I've said before on this thread, there's got to be a worry about long term infrastructure/ planning in the UK if HS2 doesn't get built - if a small committed "anti" mob can stop something getting built then we may never see another airport runway/ motorway/ nuclear facility etc built.

for people living to the south of Thames who seldom travels north it's to understand how HS2 represents value for money

The same could be said of those living north of Watford who seldom travel into London finding it hard to understand how Crossrail represents value for money.

I say this, living north of Watford and believing that Crossrail is an important part of the jigsaw that needs to be built, just like HS2.

What, in a nutshell, would you change in the 'design' as you put it?

Leave the London terminus /OOC/ two lords route, etc issue aside please.

Long story, but basically:

It needs a Zone 1 terminus in London (not hung up about whether that's Euston/ Paddington/ Liverpool Street/ Waterloo/ wherever, they all have their advantages and disadvantages), so I'm happy to leave that aside.

The main problem is that HS2 is trying to solve a lot of problems/ link a lot of places, presumably for political reasons - hence the Leeds branch and the parkway stations.

This means that we end up with a muddled map/ service pattern, trying to be "all things to all people" (with "classic compatible" services and a tricky compromise).

I'd rather that we started with one simple line from London to Manchester
with stations at:

• Zone 1 in London (as above, not going to argue where specifically)
• Outer London (whether OOC/ Heathrow/ Willsden/ Watford)
• "Birmingham South" (maybe Leamington, maybe Rugby - somewhere to connect to local services for those south of Birmingham)
• Birmingham (somewhere in the centre - like currently planned)
• "Manchester South" (maybe Crewe, maybe Manchester Airport, maybe Hartford/Greenbank - somewhere to connect to local services for those elsewhere in the north west of England/ north Wales)
• Manchester (probably as planned for Piccadilly)

One simple route, one simple "turn up and go" service pattern (no branches etc), rather than the complicated service pattern planned for HS2. Keep it simple, get it up and running a lot faster, leave scope to extend it in future - give the opponents less of a headline figure to baulk at.

One reason for suggesting this is that it leaves a gap for an "eastern" High Speed line that could link places in the East Midlands/ Yorkshire properly. Once HS2 is up/ running we should be able to design a further line better, learn lessons. Because HS2 tries to serve this market it means there's little chance of an "HS3" (or any further new lines).

But, whilst HS2 isn't how I'd design it, I support it because it's a lot better than any realistic alternative - we need something radical to
meet future demand - and people need to remember that HS2 isn't about meeting demand in 2013 or even about meeting all demand in 2033, it's about 2043/ 2053 etc too.

 

[HSTEd]

In all fairness Rupert Murdoch only makes money because we read his newspapers and subscribe to Sky.

He actually has control of important infrastructure and intellectual property relating to satellite broadcasting.
It is one of the reasons the BBC has to pay money to Sky over Freesat.

 

[RichmondCommu]

He actually has control of important infrastructure and intellectual property relating to satellite broadcasting.
It is one of the reasons the BBC has to pay money to Sky over Freesat.

But only because our Government sold it to him! The basic point is that without the British public buying his products he wouldn't be here!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I've said before on this thread, there's got to be a worry about long term infrastructure/ planning in the UK if HS2 doesn't get built - if a small committed "anti" mob can stop something getting built then we may never see another airport runway/ motorway/ nuclear facility etc built.

The point is though living in a democracy the majority vote will always prevail. You and I know that Heathrow will get a 3rd runway, Trident will be replaced, more nuclear power stations will be built and HS2 will get built!

 

[tbtc]

The point is though living in a democracy the majority vote will always prevail. You and I know that Heathrow will get a 3rd runway, Trident will be replaced, more nuclear power stations will be built and HS2 will get built!

I don't know.

The majority of people who have a view on Trident seem to be very against it.

It looks like the same is true of HS2 - since nobody is championing it in the media (other than politicians) I'd imagine that most people who have an opinion are against it.

Do we let the angry/ organised minority to rule? You could argue that in a lot of areas, we do (given how some interests are well represented in the corridors of power).

 

[RichmondCommu]

I don't know.

The majority of people who have a view on Trident seem to be very against it.

It looks like the same is true of HS2 - since nobody is championing it in the media (other than politicians) I'd imagine that most people who have an opinion are against it.

Do we let the angry/ organised minority to rule? You could argue that in a lot of areas, we do (given how some interests are well represented in the corridors of power).

Sorry, when I said majority I was referring to our elected MP's!

 

[Darren R]

Having a discussion with a work colleague tonight about this, his first comment was simply "well why can't they just run more trains".

People genuinely don't understand the reason for building HS2, and that's why they cannot get their head round the cost - they think that the govt is spending 40 million or however much they've decided it will cost this week on cutting journey times by 20 minutes. If it was explained to people that in 10-15 years time, people could literally be turned away from boarding trains at a terminus because it's too busy, I think they'd be a lot more forgiving.

The problem is this though: however many times the pro-HS2 lobby explain this to journalists and campaigners they're just not listening. HS2 Ltd have probably been shouting this from the roof-tops 'til they've gone blue in the face - it's just not being reported. All of the national newspapers are anti-HS2 for various reasons, and an awful lot of journalists are against it on a personal level. Even the BBC seems to be showing a distinct 'anti' bias in their reports (although some of this may just be down to poor standards of journalism.) One would have thought that since so many BBC staffers spend so much time commuting between their London and Salford studios that they'd be more likely to be in favour.

Mention has been made of Murdoch en passant, but personally I think the most accurate and un-biased reports on the HS2 debate are on Sky News.

 

[jon0844]

I can sort of get why people may not want the line in their back yard, especially if they don't have a station nearby.

I can also understand why some would claim to be against it (those with nice big houses and lots of land) to simply secure more compensation, as they're effectively bribed into dropping their objections.

What I can't understand is why other people are now against improving our railway network, when I am sure I remember reading articles that spoke of how pathetic our railway network is, how slow our trains are - and how we're a laughing stock compared to high speed rail networks around the world.

Anyone would think it has just become fashionable to be against it, and that the press are just going with what they believe is the popular opinion. Sadly, in many cases they're steering popular opinion.

 

[Dave1987]

I can sort of get why people may not want the line in their back yard, especially if they don't have a station nearby.

I can also understand why some would claim to be against it (those with nice big houses and lots of land) to simply secure more compensation, as they're effectively bribed into dropping their objections.

What I can't understand is why other people are now against improving our railway network, when I am sure I remember reading articles that spoke of how pathetic our railway network is, how slow our trains are - and how we're a laughing stock compared to high speed rail networks around the world.

Anyone would think it has just become fashionable to be against it, and that the press are just going with what they believe is the popular opinion. Sadly, in many cases they're steering popular opinion.

Many many people don't appreciate how big the problem is though. I mean on GEML we have a lot of people complain at how crowded the trains, but during the peaks we run as many trains as is really possible. So the trains are very close together, so every slight delay causes trains behind to have to slow down delaying them. You then have people commenting that their train always crawls along. They just don't understand that the infrastructure that there is cant really cope with the amount of trains.

The same goes with HS2. Most people are very naive to the problem. Then you get a small group of very vocal antis who claim that its all a waste of money and we can just upgrade why we already have. People who don't really understand the problem then get drawn into thinking that it is a waste if money.

The anti have also been getting very nasty recently with some of them using the Spanish train crash as a reason we don't want high speed rail. They are getting desperate and will do anything to try and get it stopped. Hopefully they won't succeed.

 

[TheKnightWho]

But only because our Government sold it to him! The basic point is that without the British public buying his products he wouldn't be here!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The point is though living in a democracy the majority vote will always prevail. You and I know that Heathrow will get a 3rd runway, Trident will be replaced, more nuclear power stations will be built and HS2 will get built!

Actually, that's not true at all. We live in a representative democracy, giving a mandate to politicians to make decisions on our behalf, and that includes decisions that we might not necessarily like on their own, but the government deems necessary in the grand scheme of things.

It's why we don't have referenda on things all the time (although some people would like to see that changed, of course; I'm not one of them).

EDIT: Just saw your other post. Ignore this!

 

[jnjkerbin]

I was amused on Radio 4 this morning to hear that the ex transport minister thought that spending money on HS2 would result in the decline of the rest of the network. I mean, apart from electric spine, IEP, Northern Hub, loads of new trains, Crossrail, Thameslink and all that, there's been no investment in the conventional railways whatsoever(!)

Also he claimed HS1 runs into Kings Cross hock:

An argument that antis often use is that the WCML/ECML/every other line should be upgraded instead. Result? Years of weekend, overnight and Bank Holiday closures causing, in the words of the media "untold misery to the travelling public." Also there isn't much room by the side of railways to build more tracks. They'd have to demolish some houses and we all know how much people love that. :roll:

 

[WatcherZero]

I was just as amused yesterday, someone asking why we should spend on HS2 when they arent investing any money in new rolling stock for the East Coast.

*Cue facepalm

 

[PR1Berske]

I've changed my mind about HS2, and am gladdened by Alistair Darling sounding exactly like me in his comment in the Times this morning.

My support for HS2 has been switched to outright opposition just by basic research. A £80bn project to make commuter times 20/30 minutes faster is obscene, not least because it's based on the wrong assumption that commuters/workers in 2030/2040 would be using the railways for the same reason as they do now.

It'd be far better to scrap HS2 and focus part of the money on where it really matters - Brum to the east coast, the South West in general, Manchester and Liverpool, cross-Pennine routes.

My support for HS2 was on the basis of the "big picture", the ideal of a nationwide infrastructure project bigger than any other. But the ideal is fractured. As a country - as an island no less - we cannot afford, justify, or allow HS2 to happen. It's too big a pricetag for too little a product.