High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[tbtc]

Let me leave you with one last thought. What monetary value would you put on the loss of countryside? No I can't either.

We have to put a value on things like this, just like we have to put a value on human life (e.g. given the recent headlines would you accept Borris Johnson spending £1,000,000 a year to save five cyclists lives in London? £100,000 a year to save those five lives? £10,000 a year? £100 a year? Where do you draw the line?).

It may not be attractive for sentimentalists, but that's how Government works - trying to put a "cost" on abstract things.

 

[YorkshireBear]

As tbtc says that is what we have to do. Two years ago the Dft cost for a road fatality was 1.1 million.

 

[IKBrunel]

Borris Johnson spending £1,000,000 a year to save five cyclists lives in London?

Your post implies that spending on cycle superhighways is excessive. I think the number of deaths and serious injuries to cyclists in London per year is somewhat higher than 5. Furthermore additional cycle facilities save the NHS money not just in A&E but also in reduced heart disease, obesity etc. Also there are wider economic benefits which are harder to measure.
(sorry going off topic a bit, but this pushed my buttons I suppose).

 

[jon0844]

[off topic]There have certainly been more than 5 cyclists killed in London.

Given how I see both motorists and cyclists behave, I'm not massively surprised that the deaths are increasing.

Inexperienced people hiring Boris Bikes (and no doubt cycling when drunk at times) can't have helped matters, and if something isn't done soon then we can expect to see more cyclists killed.

Sometimes it will be the fault of a motorist. Sometimes the cyclist. However, in the majority of cases, whoever is at fault still means the cyclist getting killed.

I have noticed some signs to tell cyclists to stop at red lights, so wonder if that will make any difference? What's more, when I was in London earlier this week, I crossed a number of roads where cyclists were all stopped and not chancing their luck across junctions... so maybe some of them are a bit more conscious of the dangers given recent accidents?[/off topic]

 

[edwin_m]

If Boris could save five cyclists per year by spending £1m per year then that would be very worthwhile. However apart from obvious blackspots like Bow Roundabout there are probably some many potential danger zones that the spend in reality would have to be much higher. And it's unlikely any amount of spending would change the behaviour of certain road users.

 

[Deerfold]

Your post implies that spending on cycle superhighways is excessive.

No it doesn't. Their post asks how much is worth spending to prevent a death. To prevent every death may need billions spending. Where do you draw the line? What is excessive spending and what is reasonable to prevent death and injury?

I think the number of deaths and serious injuries to cyclists in London per year is somewhat higher than 5.

The number 5 has come up in recent newspaper headlines as 5 cyclists have died in London in 9 days recently.

Furthermore additional cycle facilities save the NHS money not just in A&E but also in reduced heart disease, obesity etc. Also there are wider economic benefits which are harder to measure.
(sorry going off topic a bit, but this pushed my buttons I suppose).

I'm all for more and better cycle facilities and encouraging cycling but feel there should also be more safety information aimed at cyclists - I'm shocked how many are cycling without lights at this time of year. I've nearly been hit by a couple by walking out in front of them recently - I've poor eyesight in low light and if they cycle up in dark clothing and no lights I simply don't see them until they're very close - I'm sure there must be similar car drivers about.

Obviously there are some cyclists who are very safety concious and cycle safely at all times -but there are plenty who don't.

 

[Bonemaster]

Probably a similar amount to the value of the improvement to other parts of the countryside where there is a reduction in road traffic as less people are forced to use the roads due to the lack of rail capacity.

Not really what is proposed is a hub to hub system which will encourage people to drive to hubs and parkways, resulting in at best no difference at all. Any difference will be on trunk roads and motorways.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

 

[HSTEd]

Not really what is proposed is a hub to hub system which will encourage people to drive to hubs and parkways, resulting in at best no difference at all. Any difference will be on trunk roads and motorways.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

You might not have noticed.

But a rather large fraction of passengers from Manchester Picadilly use methods of transport other than cars to reach the station.

Ditto for Birmingham New Street (and almost certainly for Curzon Street when it opens) and Leeds.

 

[The Ham]

I'm all for more and better cycle facilities and encouraging cycling but feel there should also be more safety information aimed at cyclists - I'm shocked how many are cycling without lights at this time of year. I've nearly been hit by a couple by walking out in front of them recently - I've poor eyesight in low light and if they cycle up in dark clothing and no lights I simply don't see them until they're very close - I'm sure there must be similar car drivers about.

If there was less street lighting then cyclists would mean that more cyclists would have lights. As in many urban areas even fairly bright bike lights don't assist much in being able to see, however often cyclists forget that lights are more useful for them in that they assist other road users in being able to see them.

I tend to turn my bike likes on sooner than I would turn my car lights on for that very reason.

 

[Bonemaster]

You might not have noticed.

But a rather large fraction of passengers from Manchester Picadilly use methods of transport other than cars to reach the station.

Ditto for Birmingham New Street (and almost certainly for Curzon Street when it opens) and Leeds.

You might have noticed the quoted post was about the countryside it might be a bit of a push to term Manchester, Birmingham or Leeds countryside

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

 

[Spaceflower]

This is what HS2 should aspire to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE4A0nPjyqQ

 

[tbtc]

We have to put a value on things like this, just like we have to put a value on human life (e.g. given the recent headlines would you accept Borris Johnson spending £1,000,000 a year to save five cyclists lives in London? £100,000 a year to save those five lives? £10,000 a year? £100 a year? Where do you draw the line?).

It may not be attractive for sentimentalists, but that's how Government works - trying to put a "cost" on abstract things.

Your post implies that spending on cycle superhighways is excessive. I think the number of deaths and serious injuries to cyclists in London per year is somewhat higher than 5. Furthermore additional cycle facilities save the NHS money not just in A&E but also in reduced heart disease, obesity etc. Also there are wider economic benefits which are harder to measure.
(sorry going off topic a bit, but this pushed my buttons I suppose).

As someone who cycles to work, I didn't intend to drag this thread off topic or give the impression that I'm anti-cycling.

I'm trying to make the point that someone in Government has to make a decision over how much money it is worth spending to save one life (YorkshireBear has helpfully pointed out the £1.1m figure used in road accidents).

Obviously there are more than five cyclists killed in London a year, most don't make the headlines (just like many people in Sheffield will be unaware of a cyclist killed here last weekend), don't trying to dismiss the figure.

But when I see something like "how can we possibly put a price on the countryside", the answer is that we have to put a price on everything and we do put a price on everything. Otherwise we'd never build on an inch of countryside.

 

[HowardGWR]

But when I see something like "how can we possibly put a price on the countryside", the answer is that we have to put a price on everything and we do put a price on everything. Otherwise we'd never build on an inch of countryside.

Why I originally asked the question is that in fact no such price mechanism has been incorporated in the CBA system. It remains a 'value judgement'.

There are others, for instance, noise, smell.

In our planning system, if you can't see it, you can't hear it, you can't smell it and you can't feel it (e.g. radiation), then it isn't a planning issue.

Additionally loss of house value and loss of a view from the house are also not allowed reasons to object, from any individual house owner's standpoint.

 

[Kettledrum]

You might not have noticed.

But a rather large fraction of passengers from Manchester Picadilly use methods of transport other than cars to reach the station.

Ditto for Birmingham New Street (and almost certainly for Curzon Street when it opens) and Leeds.

Not sure where this argument is going, but it with these "statistics" you could "prove" anything. There's loads of people who don't live within walking distance of a station, there's loads of people where public transport is virtually none existent. They might drive to a commuter station where they park and then take a train to Manchester Piccadilly or New Street. How are you going to count these people? In the future, some of these will use the new HS2 parkway stations, thus freeing up parking spaces at some of the commuter stations - some of which are already full to over flowing.

So I would maintain you need to cater for both the people who will need to use the parkway stations as well as the city centre stations.

 

[6Gman]

Surely the £50-odd billion earmarked for the HS2 white elephant vanity project would be better invested in getting a significant proportion of long-distance freight off the roads and back onto existing railways. Think what could be done in that direction with £50 billion in terms of freight terminals, new locos and rolling stock, new connecting spurs here and there (as at Ipswich), further electrification on top of the existing announcements, etc, etc. - and the public benefit would be much greater.

Questions to which the answer is No!

 

[deltic]

Why I originally asked the question is that in fact no such price mechanism has been incorporated in the CBA system. It remains a 'value judgement'.

There are others, for instance, noise, smell.

In our planning system, if you can't see it, you can't hear it, you can't smell it and you can't feel it (e.g. radiation), then it isn't a planning issue.

Additionally loss of house value and loss of a view from the house are also not allowed reasons to object, from any individual house owner's standpoint.

the environmental statement (ES) for HS2 does take into account many of these issues - one of the largest sections of the ES is about visual impact, noise is also covered in massive detail. Smell is not relevant but is included in planning applications where it is. So while they are not included in the CBA they are included in the decision making process. In certain cases property owenrs can obtain compensation for reduction in value of their property

 

[The Ham]

Surely the £50-odd billion earmarked for the HS2 white elephant vanity project would be better invested in getting a significant proportion of long-distance freight off the roads and back onto existing railways. Think what could be done in that direction with £50 billion in terms of freight terminals, new locos and rolling stock, new connecting spurs here and there (as at Ipswich), further electrification on top of the existing announcements, etc, etc. - and the public benefit would be much greater.

The only people who would benefit form more frieght on the rail network are road users. However, although there would be some advantage it would be so small that it would not be worth mentioning. It would be a lot less than the 2% daily variation in traffic flows which are seen on the road network.

Conversly by increasing capaicity on the passenger rail network (even just along one spine, such as HS2 woudl create) it would make a vast differeance to those rail users and would enable a lot of car divers to stop using the road. It may even allow more rail freight to use the network than would be possible by just spending the money on rail freight.

Just for the record the Rail Freight Group (RFG) released a statment in September this year stating:

The Rail Freight Group strongly supports the development of HS2, which will provide additional rail capacity, a benefit of the project which is absolutely essential for the future growth of the rail freight sector and to continue to encourage more goods off of the UK’s road network.

Yes they have some concerns, however they are more easy to overcome than they would be without HS2, as their statement went on to say:

And the RFG went to urge DfT, HS2 and Network Rail to work now to ensure that:
* Freight benefits are fully integrated in the case for HS2
* A fair proportion of released capacity is safeguarded for freight
* Capacity is available to meet freight's reasonable requirements on the existing network after HS2 services re-join the route
* Freight use of the North London Line is not compromised by the HS1/2 connection.

...so unless there is something that the RFG didn't know at that time and/or you can clarifiy for us which would be useful for this debate then we'd be glad to hear it.

 

[edwin_m]

The only people who would benefit form more frieght on the rail network are road users. However, although there would be some advantage it would be so small that it would not be worth mentioning. It would be a lot less than the 2% daily variation in traffic flows which are seen on the road network.

I don't entirely agree with that. There would be some reduction in noise and pollution in the vicinity of the roads in question, which would almost certainly outweigh the increase in noise (and pollution, if diesel) near the railways that are carrying more freight. There would also be a greenhouse gas benefit as moving the same amount of freight by rail uses much less fuel and correspondingly emits much less CO2.

I do agree however that these effects would be fairly small.

 

[HowardGWR]

the environmental statement (ES) for HS2 does take into account many of these issues - one of the largest sections of the ES is about visual impact, noise is also covered in massive detail. Smell is not relevant but is included in planning applications where it is. So while they are not included in the CBA they are included in the decision making process. In certain cases property owners can obtain compensation for reduction in value of their property

Indeed, otherwise they will lose the Supreme Court case!
Compensation is an issue but not a planning issue (I can tell you knew that).

 

[The Ham]

I don't entirely agree with that. There would be some reduction in noise and pollution in the vicinity of the roads in question, which would almost certainly outweigh the increase in noise (and pollution, if diesel) near the railways that are carrying more freight. There would also be a greenhouse gas benefit as moving the same amount of freight by rail uses much less fuel and correspondingly emits much less CO2.

I do agree however that these effects would be fairly small.

All of which is true, however it is true for either spending £50bn on HS2 and getting freight paths as a byproduct or by spending £50bn to get just advantages for freight, However it is likely that the benefits would be much larger for freight if the money was spend on HS2 (which was the point I was making).

With HS2, at least for the short and medium term esp. if we need to undertake capacity ehancements whilst it is being built, it should be fairly easy to find 1 path per hour on the WCML, ECML and MML for freight, whilst without it (even spending £50bn) it would be a lot harder.

 

[Snapper]

The anti Hs2 mob are clearly getting frustrated.They've failed to stop the Paving Bill, which will pass through the House of Lords this afternoon. Instead, they've ganged up to get my Twitter account suspended! They really don't like someone taking the fight to them. Hopefully, some of you whom are on Twitter can continue the work on the #hs2 hashtag until my account's unblocked...

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I have seen some drivel on the stop HS2 website before but this takes the biscuit! :roll:

http://stophs2.org/news/9772-so-hs2-driven-eu

 

[Snapper]

They do like their anti EU rhetoric! I doubt many of them really believe it but they use it to appeal to UKIP.

 

[jon0844]

Three times as many people will come to London as away from it according to the stop HS2 site?

That would mean an awful lot of people will pile up in London won't it? Won't any of them ever go back??

And even if, what it meant to say, was that more people will travel from home to London than the other way around - is it such a terrible thing if this enables people to come to London for work instead of being at home without one?

The stupidity of this assumption is that everyone already in London would never wish to use HS2 to go anywhere else, in which case who are all those people travelling on the WCML and ECML today for meetings and doing business, or going on holiday, to cities from London to Scotland?

 

[6Gman]

I have seen some drivel on the stop HS2 website before but this takes the biscuit! :roll:

http://stophs2.org/news/9772-so-hs2-driven-eu

That's a very bizarre article. It seems to hint at an EU plot, then wastes hundreds of words demolishing the theory, and then concludes that maybe it is.

Or isn't.

Perhaps.

 

[Ironside]

The anti Hs2 mob are clearly getting frustrated.They've failed to stop the Paving Bill, which will pass through the House of Lords this afternoon. Instead, they've ganged up to get my Twitter account suspended! They really don't like someone taking the fight to them. Hopefully, some of you whom are on Twitter can continue the work on the #hs2 hashtag until my account's unblocked...

It does look like their main goal is to try to prevent people from seeing objective debate, facts and results of govenment votes. And trying to silence twitter seems pretty fruitless.

I just realised that it's the Full works in the House of Lords tonight ie second reading, committee, report and third reading. If that goes through its just a few formalities (consideration of amendments and royal assent) then preparations can be underway.

 

[jon0844]

That's a very bizarre article. It seems to hint at an EU plot, then wastes hundreds of words demolishing the theory, and then concludes that maybe it is.

Or isn't.

Perhaps.

It's a massive conspiracy!

Despite all the nonsense on there, I quickly spotted plenty of posts and comments that were about the 30% drop in property values, thus confirming my ongoing belief that most opposition is purely down to the impact during construction (it seems there's an acceptance that once it's finished, prices will values will sort themselves out).

So stop HS2 should be renamed 'Stop HS2 because we may wish to sell our houses in the next 10-15 years'.

 

[IKBrunel]

paving bill debate on in Lords right now

www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14203

 

[Ironside]

paving bill debate on in Lords right now

www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14203

I'll let you post the results, I am unlikely to pay attention all the way through this time.

 

[Snapper]

The House of Lords debate is actually worth listening to. It would burst the bubble of some of those who think politicians (and the Lords) aren't informed. Plus, there's a surprising number of ex-railwaymen in the Lords!