High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[jon0844]

As said countless times, there is opposition to just about everything. We have a company wanting to put in a solar panel 'farm' and someone is objecting. To what? It's a field that is shielded from view, so only visible from the air!!

 

[brianthegiant]

As said countless times, there is opposition to just about everything. We have a company wanting to put in a solar panel 'farm' and someone is objecting. To what? It's a field that is shielded from view, so only visible from the air!!

Indeed, even the arguments against using farmland for electrical energy are open to question, given the amount of arable crops going into biofuel energy these days..

 

[jon0844]

In the case of this development (according to the local newspaper);

There would be enough space to allow a mowing machine between each row, but the applicant said there would be “sufficient [space] to allow sheep to pass between enabling grazing between and beneath the solar panels... thus retaining agricultural use of the site and also generating additional income for the farmer”.

 

[AndyLandy]

YouGov has asked about HS2 - a majority are against it (see http://twitpic.com/dchsot)

So, the sample size of 2,000 does seem a tad on the low side to be particularly representative, but you have to start somewhere.

Personally, I'm more interested in the way they phrased the question. It's that old adage: "There's lies, damn lies, and statistics." (See also: that excellent Yes Prime Minister clip, linked above by The Ham.)

But even still, it highlights a point that Bonemaster made a few pages back. I do think he's right that there just hasn't been enough in the way of hearts and minds campaigning for HS2. People genuinely believe we're spending billions of pounds, just to allow commuters to get from Birmingham to London a little bit quicker. That's what needs to be fixed.

 

[jon0844]

Yes, what it needs is a slick PR campaign, except that will cost more money to be added on to the bill.

However, people seem to be more convinced by slick marketing campaigns and spin.

What it needs is for someone like Stephen Fry to Tweet that HS2 needs to be built!

 

[ainsworth74]

What if someone from an anti HS2 group posted the link to the poll, as I'm sure they did?

It was invitation only to YouGov members. No public link to pass around.

Personally, I'm more interested in the way they phrased the question. It's that old adage: "There's lies, damn lies, and statistics." (See also: that excellent Yes Prime Minister clip, linked above by The Ham.)

The question was phrased in exactly the way that you see it on the link. It was also out of the blue, no build up just click the next button and there was the question.

 

[jon0844]

It was invitation only to YouGov members. No public link to pass around.

Fair enough. But, I still think that some positive PR would get people to change their mind (that's assuming it matters) and that would quickly change the results of such surveys.

A lot of people will go with the flow. The general feeling is that HS2 is bad (that's what they've heard all over the media - like the £80bn figure they'll remember, but not the analysis that showed it was bull) and not everyone wants to have a conflicting opinion - especially if they think HS2 must be Tory idea as they've not really heard about it before.

 

[The Ham]

It was invitation only to YouGov members. No public link to pass around.



The question was phrased in exactly the way that you see it on the link. It was also out of the blue, no build up just click the next button and there was the question.

I'm aware of YouGov polls, now although they are by invite only they do tend to be funded by someone. As such it is possible for the funder to put in a fairly bland question which could make a number of people vote one way.

For instance, by only mentioning the price (and nothing about the reasosn behind it) those people in the public sector who have had no pay rise for the last few years (and to a certain amount those in the public sector) or those who have seen their services affected by cuts are more likely to vote in a negitive way.

If the question was "is HS2 a good way to relieve overcrowding on the WCML?" then you may find that more peopel were positive towards it.

 

[tbtc]

I'm not too fussed that 55% of the people in the poll were against HS2 - given the one-sided media stories (and the fact that the only people promoting it in the press are unpopular politicians!), I can't say I'm surprised that a small majority are against it.

Its too far in the future for people to appreciate the benefits ("why are we waiting twenty years..." etc etc), a lot of people only think it'll go to Birmingham, a lot of people don't appreciate the other infrastructure spending that'll happen before 2033 (so I can see why you'd think that HS2 will starve existing lines).

Look at how against the London Olympics people were a few years beforehand, when they expected it to fail.

Can't generally find fault with YouGov - they are probably the best firm at the inexact science that they work with - I think that the important thing is that most people who have understood HS2 and the (lack of) alternatives tend to come round to it - I'm confident that the Great British Public will too as passenger numbers continue to rise on the finite system that we currently run.

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm aware of YouGov polls, now although they are by invite only they do tend to be funded by someone. As such it is possible for the funder to put in a fairly bland question which could make a number of people vote one way.

I'm not disputing that for sure as it could have been phrased in several different ways (like the one you mention below), just trying to give everyone a bit of context around what was asked

 

[AndyLandy]

The question was phrased in exactly the way that you see it on the link. It was also out of the blue, no build up just click the next button and there was the question.

Indeed. And posed with that as a question, I'd have expected the vast majority of people who don't know the details to respond along the lines of. "No, that's an awful lot of money for one railway!"

If you'd asked me that question about 12-18 months ago, that's how I would have replied as well. It's only through participation on here and discussions with railway people that I've come to understand just why we do need it.

Which brings me right back to the above remark about hearts and minds. The general public need to be sold on the idea.

 

[ainsworth74]

Quite, the lack of any real noise from HS2 Ltd is probably the single most dangerous thing to HS2's future...

 

[jon0844]

Look at how against the London Olympics people were a few years beforehand, when they expected it to fail.

It wasn't just a few years beforehand.. it was a few DAYS. In fact, probably even a few hours.

A lot of people seemed to want the Olympics to fail and the media wrote many stories that had us all thinking it would be a disaster, from the G4S fiasco to the fact that our transport network would never cope and the volunteers would be rude and useless.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Quite, the lack of any real noise from HS2 Ltd is probably the single most dangerous thing to HS2's future...

Patrick McLoughlin has written in the Sunday Times today describing the time savings to Birmingham as irrelevant and emphasising the capacity argument as the main needs for HS2.

 

[RichmondCommu]

It is time this countries leaders grew a set and said HS2 is needed, and is going to be built on the most efficient line and level, and that the NIMBY's can get stuffed. With the money saved by avoiding wasteful legal bullS**t and tunnels to placate those who shout the loudest, being spent on fair compensation for the deserving.

Well exactly. And while we're at it let's get rid of democracy; the cause of all this country's problems :roll:

 

[PR1Berske]

If Patrick is right, then why is the project called "High Speed", and if it's all about capacity, why are there no intermediate stations?

Anyway, this morning the very influential Public Accounts Committee has poured much doubt and scorn on the project. Quote below, source at the end.

The public is very acutely aware that governments tend to waste money, and more than ever, hate that they do. It would be very interesting to see if the general public hear about this report - the PAC has perhaps greatest "reputation" of all the Committees - and increase pressure on the Government to either bring down costs or scrap the idea entirely. You only have to see what is going on with the BBC Trust to know just how powerful PAC can be.

“The Department for Transport has yet to present a convincing strategic case for High Speed 2.

“It has not yet demonstrated that this is the best way to spend £50 billion on rail investment in these constrained times, and that the improved connectivity will promote growth in the regions rather than sucking even more activity into London.

“The pattern so far has been for costs to spiral - from more than £16 billion to £21 billion plus for phase one – and the estimated benefits to dwindle.
“The Department has been making huge spending decisions on the basis of fragile numbers, out-of-data data and assumptions which do not reflect real life, such as assuming business travellers do not work on trains using modern technology.

“As usual with NAO reports, the Department had agreed the facts in the report as accurate before publication. However, as soon as the report was published, the media reported unnamed departmental sources as claiming that it contained errors and was based on out-of date analysis. These claims were quite unfounded.

“The Department has ambitious and, in our view, unrealistic, plans for passing the Bill for High Speed 2. The timetable is much tighter than for either High Speed 1 or Crossrail, despite the fact High Speed 2 is a much larger programme.
“In my Committee’s experience, not allowing enough time for preparation undermines projects from the start. A rushed approach contributed to the failure of the InterCity West Coast franchise award.

“The Department has increased its High Speed rail team, but getting the right mix of skills is challenging and the Department lacks the commercial skills necessary to protect taxpayers’ interest on a programme of this size.”

Source -http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/high-speed-2-report/

 

[AndyLandy]

Well exactly. And while we're at it let's get rid of democracy; the cause of all this country's problems :roll:

That's a big fat straw man and you know it! Governments make lots of decisions based on information that the general public isn't always privy to, sometimes these decisions are opposed by a majority of the public. This doesn't mean that democracy has failed.

If Patrick is right, then why is the project called "High Speed", and if it's all about capacity, why are there no intermediate stations?

Do we really have to go through this again? The answers to these questions and many many others have been stated previously in this thread.

 

[PR1Berske]

Are you going to address the many concerns in the PAC report? On cost, on outdated assumptions, on any of that?

Could you address the issues in this post - http://www.highspeedrailuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/hs2-and-north-south-divide.html - that uses a HS2 document to prove that direct services to London will be reduced or even scrapped as a result of the project?

 

[NSEFAN]

Could you address the issues in this post - http://www.highspeedrailuk.blogspot....th-divide.html - that uses a HS2 document to prove that direct services to London will be reduced or even scrapped as a result of the project?

It is odd that, despite the loss of traditional intercity services being concentrated largely in the north, the Government still suggests that HS2 will help close the north-south divide!

You have your answer there. If you want more room for local services in the regions, you have to move the long-distance trains to another line (or add more tracks to the current lines, but we've done this issue to death already).

With regard to the PAC's concerns, the costs haven't actually spiraled. More contingency money has been added to the project in case it runs into difficult.

We all moan about how useless the DfT is on here, so it's actually quite pleasing to see them get grilled over this issue, especially after the serious errors made in the GW Franchising saga. This doesn't mean however that all DfT projects are suddenly all wrong, just that they need to be more careful about the sums!

 

[digitaltoast]

Did anyone hear the 07:32 item on Radio 4 about scathing report on the benefits of HS2? EDIT: NOW AVAILABLE TO LISTEN TO HERE

Much was being made of the average £1,700 it will cost every UK taxpayer.

This is precisely what I mean by people basing their opinion on negative press - if you looked into this whole issue you would quickly see that a) their 'original projections' simply uses the standard analysis that any such project does for calculating the value of saving time and b) it was never actually suggested that people don't work on trains.

This is also being heavily mentioned this morning.

The MPs' report said: "The department has yet to demonstrate that this is the best way to spend £50bn on rail investment in these constrained times."

They said out-of-date assumptions included not taking into account that people could work on trains using laptops and other mobile devices.

Committee chairwoman Margaret Hodge said: "The pattern so far has been for costs to spiral - from more than £16bn to £21bn plus for phase one - and the estimated benefits to dwindle."

Seems that, according to you, all these committees and MPs are wrong about this aspect of the report. Where's the part of the report that says that work is done on the train?

 

[Carlisle]

It wasn't just a few years beforehand.. it was a few DAYS. In fact, probably even a few hours.

A lot of people seemed to want the Olympics to fail and the media wrote many stories that had us all thinking it would be a disaster, from the G4S fiasco to the fact that our transport network would never cope and the volunteers would be rude and useless.

The Olympic timescale was realistic enough for most folk to get their head round ie bid won in2005 and games seven years later ,however in these times of austerity it will be a monumental pr task of the highest order convincing the public to spent billions on projects which will not be up and running till 2026 and 2033

 

[joeykins82]

HS2 is a capital spending project: the government borrows money to build an asset that then generates income. It's not going to cost any taxpayer a single penny unless it is scrapped before it is built (in which case all of the expenditure to this point goes down the toilet) or it is used much less in reality than the business case claims. If HS2 Ltd & Network Rail's assumptions are correct though it will eventually pay for itself via track access fees/franchise premiums and the reduction in operational spending required to squeeze yet more capacity out of the southern end of the WCML.

The "it's costing taxpayers money" arguments are generally made by those who feel aggrieved at the amount of tax that they pay and want to see all government expenditure wiped out, despite the fact that their (often vast) wealth wouldn't exist if the country's infrastructure and public services weren't there.

 

[jon0844]

If Patrick is right, then why is the project called "High Speed", and if it's all about capacity, why are there no intermediate stations?

Oh dear.

Let's imagine you upgraded the WCML to Birmingham and beyond, by say, building two new tracks.

That would then allow faster trains to pass stations, and keep the slower lines free - thus giving you loads more capacity for those stations (meaning people might get more trains every hour).

Imagine now that these two extra tracks were built a little bit away from the existing line, so you could make it straighter and more direct to give you the additional benefit of greater speed?

 

[PR1Berske]

Had I not asked that first question, would you have addressed the points raised by the influential Public Accounts Committee?

“The Department for Transport has yet to present a convincing strategic case for High Speed 2."

“The pattern so far has been for costs to spiral

“The Department has been making huge spending decisions on the basis of fragile numbers, out-of-data data and assumptions which do not reflect real life, such as assuming business travellers do not work on trains using modern technology.

“In my Committee’s experience, not allowing enough time for preparation undermines projects from the start. A rushed approach contributed to the failure of the InterCity West Coast franchise award

I suspect none of you will, because the report cuts too close to the bone. Such is the way with inconvenient truths.

 

[YorkshireBear]

In your own words PR1berske nevet believe what politicians say. Or does it change when they agree with you.

 

[jon0844]

The Olympic timescale was realistic enough for most folk to get their head round ie bid won in2005 and games seven years later ,however in these times of austerity it will be a monumental pr task of the highest order convincing the public to spent billions on projects which will not be up and running till 2026 and 2033

Even in a democracy though, sometimes you just have to ignore public opinion! You vote people to run things, but can't then get involved in every little issue.

Otherwise I'm sure we'd have risked giving up the Olympics, would axe HS2 and anything else that cost money and would decide to just nuke places like Syria!

Of course, if people do their own research and can give informed opinions then it's a lot different - but a lot of things are simply people jumping on bandwagons.

We had the same with opinions on what to do with MPs (expenses scandals) and bankers (people that don't seem to realise we do actually need banks and people to make money for pension funds etc) so it doesn't surprise me that HS2 has now become unpopular for many reasons other than whether it would actually be a good idea or not for the future of transportation.

 

[RichmondCommu]

That's a big fat straw man and you know it! Governments make lots of decisions based on information that the general public isn't always privy to, sometimes these decisions are opposed by a majority of the public. This doesn't mean that democracy has failed.

I'm sorry but you're missing the whole point here. We should be celebrating the fact that in this country people are able to challenge things that they don't agree with. It would be a sad day if we started to try and force things upon the population without allowing them the right to question those decisions, both through Parliament and the courts.

 

[anthony263]

Personally I put the blame for any cost increases on building HS2 down to the nimbies.

A good number of the people campaigning against HS2 will be dead and burried on in a care home by the time HS2 is fully up and running and we start to see the benefits. Just another case of the oldies spoiling things for the younger genertaions (Little wonder why there is resentment towards oap's etc?)

That being said I do think the Pro-HS2 camp have to take some flack since I think they could have promoted the scheme better and it has only been those like Pete Waterman etc who have really been out there in the public domain promoting HS2.
One mistake being made up til now has been the promotion of the reduction in journey times especially between London & Birmingham. The transport secretary and others are now seeing this themselves and are pushing the argument that HS2 is more than just reductions in journey times sine it releases capacity on the west and east coast mainlines.

It is possible that services operated by other franchises could use parts of HS2 for their journies Crosscountry for example. With all the freight coming from Southampton and Felixstowe then something has to be done sooner or later.

There is one argument I will side with the Anti-HS2 lot and that is the Euston station. I do think the proposal put forward by those to lords for the Euston Cross station with a tunnel connecting with HS1 is the better solution. Euston Cross station can then have subway connections to Kings Cross and Euston stations

 

[jon0844]

Even as someone who thinks we need to build a new line (and possibly more), I have never pretended that the scheme as-is is absolutely perfect.

But there's a big difference between tweaking things and making the scheme better, than just axing it completely.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Personally I put the blame for any cost increases on building HS2 down to the nimbies.

A good number of the people campaigning against HS2 will be dead and burried on in a care home by the time HS2 is fully up and running and we start to see the benefits. Just another case of the oldies spoiling things for the younger genertaions (Little wonder why there is resentment towards oap's etc?)

I'm sorry but that entire paragraph is at best uninformed nonsense. Age is not an issue here when it comes to challenging the planned construction of HS2. And this comes from someone who actually supports the construction of HS2!