HS2 - register your support.

[jon0844]

Cost is a factor, yes, but sometimes I simply don't want to drive. For a weekend break, the train will often beat driving - but not always. As I said, it depends on my needs.

Now, I've only really got into long distance travel by train since commuting and accept that those who don't use trains regularly may never consider them - and be of the stereotyped opinion that they're slow and dirty. That's more likely a barrier than the cost, as you can get cheap train tickets in just the same way as you can with a flight or coach.

I doubt many people don't know you can get cheaper tickets in advance, just as I doubt many people turn up at an airport and expect to fly cheaply (if they do, my goodness will they be surprised most of the time!).

Rail may have a speed advantage, but sometimes I'll want or NEED a car. Given HS2 and other new lines may be 15-20 years away, we can't really wait on the basis that most of us may prefer to use our cars. Especially when cars become excessively expensive to use, which is bound to happen before HS2 has opened. Imagine letting that happen and then having to start on building new lines, which will take 20+ years from then!

We can also think people will just stay at home and communicate via their computer, but what life will that be if people can't travel around the UK and the world to see friends, family, see the sights etc?

Rail doesn't just have to be cheap. It has to be reliable, inviting and make people want to travel again. Anyone who has used Eurostar is surely going to be converted, and a good Intercity service will probably do the same.

Likewise, you need joined up thinking to make sure that if I leave the car at home, there will be some transport for onward connections, whether that's another train that isn't hours later, a bus or taxis, or even hire cars (which may be something akin to the Streetcar service) and bikes (like the Boris Bikes).

Get information of all of these modes of transports linked up, a nice ticketing system that is simple (and hopefully smart) and works nationally, even Internationally (EU at least) and there will be much less hassle and worry about leaving the car at home.

HS2 isn't the ultimate solution, but will form part of it. The rest of the network will need to be updated too, obviously.

 

[Zoe]

Rail may have a speed advantage, but sometimes I'll want or NEED a car.

The issue is that there could be a time when having a car is simply not an affordable option for most people and so invenstment needs to be made now in conventional heavy rail and light rail. HS2 will not remove the need for as many car journeys as other public transport improvements could.

 

[Metroland]

You are correct in that people are moving from road and air to rail but I'm not sure HS2 is going to encourage more people to use rail as I said above the type of journeys that HS2 will be for are the journeys that people would likely use rail for even without HS2. Any modal shift from HS2 will likely be rail to rail.

Well you'd have to find some empirical evidence to back that assertion us, I'm not so sure. Most of the modal shift will come from other rail services, but this does mean more space for commuter trains (which serve quite local journeys) and there's more room for freight. Most car drivers want less trucks on the road!

 

[Zoe]

Well you'd have to find some empirical evidence to back that assertion us, I'm not so sure. Most of the modal shift will come from other rail services

I doubt many people commute from Central London to Birmingham now by car. Yes there will be extra space for commuter services to London and this will reduce overcrowding but I doubt you are going to get many people transferring their commute from road to rail as most use rail now.

 

[Metroland]

Metro Chairman Cllr James Lewis has welcomed the pledge made by Transport Secretary Philip Hammond to the BBC’s Look North that high-speed rail links to Leeds and Manchester will be built at the same time.

Mr Hammond told Look North correspondent Alan Whitehouse that once the high-speed line had reached Birmingham, ‘we will then build out the Manchester and the Leeds branches simultaneously’.

“It’s great news to hear this pledge from Philip Hammond, because fears had been expressed that the western line to Manchester might be built before the eastern one,” said Cllr Lewis.

“Having gained the support of the Transport Secretary, we now need local businesses and individuals to go to the Yorkshire Needs High-Speed Rail website and show their support for High-Speed 2 and the £2bn+ transformation it will bring to our region before the Department for Transport’s consultation closes this Friday,” warned Cllr Lewis.

“Because if the well-organised opponents of high-speed prevent it reaching Birmingham, we’re never going to feel the benefits in West Yorkshire and the Leeds City Region.”

As well as delivering economic benefits, High-Speed Rail would also much-needed extra capacity for the North’s congested rail networks. The transfer of a significant number of the journeys currently made on the East Coast Main Line to the high-speed route would free up the space in the timetable and on track for more, fast, frequent commuter services, local trains and freight.

“Now that we have the Secretary of State’s assurance that both legs will be built at the same time, we’d like to see the plans for the whole network brought forward so that the benefits can be felt as quickly as possible,” added Cllr Lewis.

Research by the Eastern Network Partnership, which brings together the Leeds, Sheffield, Tyne & Wear, Tees Valley, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire regions showed that the benefit : cost ratio for eastern the eastern arm of the high-speed network is is 5.6.

http://www.wymetro.com/news/releases/110726hsrsimultaneous

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We are now in the final three day period to submit responses, as detailed in the thread thoughtfully supplied by the OP, for those still undecided on the matter.

 

[exile]

My mention of the small percentage of commuters travelling by rail outside London was just to point out the limited contribution of rail to the economy of the UK as a whole. It's important in the South East and to a lesser extent for inter-city business travel. For most of the population it wouldn't matter if the network shut down tomorrow. That's the reality.
Numbers commuting by rail/tube/tram into major English cities:=
London(Inner) 1.1 million (car 460,000)
Birmingham 26,000 (car 270,000)
Liverpool 16,000 (car 120,000)
Manchester 24,000 (car 160,000)
Newcastle 17,000 (car 90,000)

Warrington (as an example of a typical car-dependent medium sized town)
-train 1,200 car 77,000

 

[Greenback]

My mention of the small percentage of commuters travelling by rail outside London was just to point out the limited contribution of rail to the economy of the UK as a whole. It's important in the South East and to a lesser extent for inter-city business travel. For most of the population it wouldn't matter if the network shut down tomorrow. That's the reality.
Numbers commuting by rail/tube/tram into major English cities:=
London(Inner) 1.1 million (car 460,000)
Birmingham 26,000 (car 270,000)
Liverpool 16,000 (car 120,000)
Manchester 24,000 (car 160,000)
Newcastle 17,000 (car 90,000)

Warrington (as an example of a typical car-dependent medium sized town)
-train 1,200 car 77,000

I fear it would be noticed by quite a lot of the non rail using population that road traffic had increased should the network close down. There are even likely to be 1,000 more cars on the road in Warrington! Pkus the people who aren;t commuters but use the trains anyway, whether semi regularly or occasionally.

Remember to include the freight as well - what would be the economic cost, and the environmental cost, of the additional lorries? The increased journey time would have to be quantified, plus the associated costs of dealing with more road traffic accidents.

Fortunately, governments, and ordinary people in general seem more aware of the true cost of roads now than they wer etwenty years ago.

 

[TrainfanBen]

I'm sat on the fence, is there a dedicated thread to: "For" or "against"?


If it goes ahead...
I hope that HS2 decreases congestion on the WCML, without negative impact to frequency or times or rolling stock.

 

[exile]

Despite all I've said I'm pro-HS2, I can just see the arguments that can be marshalled against it and would change to no if I thought the money would be spent on other rail projects.

 

[Metroland]

My mention of the small percentage of commuters travelling by rail outside London was just to point out the limited contribution of rail to the economy of the UK as a whole. It's important in the South East and to a lesser extent for inter-city business travel. For most of the population it wouldn't matter if the network shut down tomorrow. That's the reality.
Numbers commuting by rail/tube/tram into major English cities:=
London(Inner) 1.1 million (car 460,000)
Birmingham 26,000 (car 270,000)
Liverpool 16,000 (car 120,000)
Manchester 24,000 (car 160,000)
Newcastle 17,000 (car 90,000)

Warrington (as an example of a typical car-dependent medium sized town)
-train 1,200 car 77,000

You can do a lot with statistics in this area, but it's important to read them carefully. The road network is very large, as I said some 24 times larger than the rail network. In most towns there is a single railway line through the town, compared to many miles of roads used by buses, cars, trucks, pedestrians and cyclists.

It is a strawman argument to suggest it's not important, when the core market will never be as large as road, simply by virtue of the size of network. Where rail is important is commuting into the heart of cities, or inter-urban travel between cities and towns and these are the areas you need to look at before making your mind up. You need to compare like-for-like.

So take your statistic for London (I'm not sure where you get your figures from), but it's obviously not the share in Central London: Which is a small space, which is just not large enough for large amounts of cars to enter without gridlock.

The statistic for 2008 for the AM peak is

Rail 43%
LUL/DLR 36%, overall rail based 79%
Bus 10%
Coach 1%
Car 6%
Taxi 1%

[Source http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/Travel_in_London_Report_2.pdf]

Birmingham Rail is 27% [Source http://www.transporttimesevents.co.uk/Admin/uploads/Geoff-inskip.pdf]

Leeds Rail is 16% [Source http://www.leeds.gov.uk/files/Internet2007/2011/17/12 transport.pdf]

And so on

Of course all this is fairly irrelevant to HS2, you really need to look at what the intercity network does and mode shares, here there are some in the command document for inter-urban travel in 2006 (It's risen quite a lot since then to Scotland and NW for Rail because of WCML improvements)

London - Scotland

Car 6%, Rail 24%, Air 64%, Coach 3%

London - North West

Car 46%, Rail 40%, Air 8%, Coach 5%

London - North East

Car 24%, Rail 52%, Air 21%, Coach 3%

London - Yorkshire & Humber

Car 49%, Rail 39%, Air 2%, Coach 9%

London - West Midlands

Car 73%, Rail 20%, Air 0%, Coach 6%

London - East Midlands

Car 62%, Rail 33%, Air 0%, Coach 4%

These need to be viewed in the context that the London to WM travel market is twice the size of that between London and North West and 6 times the size of London and Scotland.

http://www.hs2.org.uk/assets/x/55872

But we can conclude, where rail is applicable to the market: Commuting into cities and inter-urban travel, it's very strong. This needs to be viewed in the context that, where people view cars as important, 1/4 of journeys are less than 2 miles and over half (56%) are less than 5, many of which could be replaced by walking and cycling, and very few would be applicable to rail (perhaps only light rail or metros in dense urban corridors). In fact, 90% are less than 17 miles, so if we're looking at the context of city-city connections, or what things rail is good at and designed for, rail IS important, and congested because its such a relatively small network.

You could actually get rid of any one form of transport, but in the context of quality of life and urban development there are consequences. Yes get rid of the rail network, and some 200,000 people use the south end of the MML and WCML - would they all head onto the M1, a motorway already beyond it's design capacity of 120,000 cars per day, most of which have 1 person in? Even if you built another motorway, where would all that traffic go, around cities where little can be done to improve the road network because of the density of the urban population? And what would be the effect on cities and towns whose economic vitality depends on commuting to or visiting London for business, and suddenly the travel time is doubled or tripled? What about the 1/4 of households with no car, or the 1/2 of households with one, where there is more than one person that needs to move about the country and may not have access to it.

 

[Zoe]

If the car was banned today, the public transport network simply wouldn't be able to cope with the extra demand and HS2 wouldn't help much. If as may well be the case that the age of the car as nearing its end then investment into alternatives needs to be made now so as to avoid chaos when the car is no longer an option. HS2 is not going to be the to result in a car free society.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If the car was banned today, the public transport network simply wouldn't be able to cope with the extra demand and HS2 wouldn't help much. If as may well be the case that the age of the car as nearing its end then investment into alternatives needs to be made now so as to not avoid chaos when the car is no longer an option. HS2 is not going to be the to result in a car free society.

As far as I am aware, I have never read any proposals for a car-free society, that you have mentioned in your posting. Can you elucidate further please, on this matter.

If there were such proposals, and to use your phraseology "The public transport network simply wouldn't be able to cope with the extra demand", how do you propose to answer this conundrum?

 

[Zoe]

As far as I am aware, I have never read any proposals for a car-free society, that you have mentioned in your posting.

It's quite simple, due to various reasons the private car may not an option long term with the reality of climate change and peak oil. The book "After the car" by Kingsley Dennis and John Urry goes into some detail about this.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's quite simple, due to various reasons the private car may not an option long term with the reality of climate change and peak oil. The book "After the car" by Kingsley Dennis and John Urry goes into some detail about this.

I checked with amazon.com and they stock both hardback and paperback copies:-

Hardback....$ 59.95...This is rather pricey!!
Paperback...$ 19.95

 

[LE Greys]

If the car was banned today, the public transport network simply wouldn't be able to cope with the extra demand and HS2 wouldn't help much. If as may well be the case that the age of the car as nearing its end then investment into alternatives needs to be made now so as to not avoid chaos when the car is no longer an option. HS2 is not going to be the to result in a car free society.

This is an interesting hypothesis. I can't see it happening overnight, if it ever does. It might start with a massive escalation of petrol prices (£10 a litre, increasing 25% a year) followed by rationing. Cars would take a couple of decades to go completely, apart from a few museum pieces still kept going by preservationists (who would bemoan the death of the car).

Meanwhile, there would be a massive dash for electrification, of roads as well as railways. Then what? Well, capacity would increase, trolleybus and tram services would spread and become denser. Electric taxis might mix with the trolleybuses. Trolleytrucks would handle local goods deliveries, while goods facilities would appear at stations everywhere, leading to a revival of the pick-up goods train and many shunting yards reopening. Smaller stations and closed lines would suddenly be viable again. In twenty years, the railways would return to the dominance they had in the Edwardian era, simply because there would be no alternative.

 

[Zoe]

I have edited the orignal post as by mistake I said "not avoid chaos" when my point was that investment needs to be made to avoid the chaos.

 

[Greenback]

This is an interesting hypothesis. I can't see it happening overnight, if it ever does. It might start with a massive escalation of petrol prices (£10 a litre, increasing 25% a year) followed by rationing. Cars would take a couple of decades to go completely, apart from a few museum pieces still kept going by preservationists (who would bemoan the death of the car).

Meanwhile, there would be a massive dash for electrification, of roads as well as railways. Then what? Well, capacity would increase, trolleybus and tram services would spread and become denser. Electric taxis might mix with the trolleybuses. Trolleytrucks would handle local goods deliveries, while goods facilities would appear at stations everywhere, leading to a revival of the pick-up goods train and many shunting yards reopening. Smaller stations and closed lines would suddenly be viable again. In twenty years, the railways would return to the dominance they had in the Edwardian era, simply because there would be no alternative.

This scenario is far more likely than cars being banned. Zoe was only using a banned cars expression in order to illustrate that thigns need to be done soon as the days of the private car as we know may well be numbered.

We may well have electric cars with longer range than now, there may be a national netwrok of charging points, but that will merely increase the demand for electricity. As a society we do need to face up to the facts; the level of car and road use is going to fall due to the price and availabilty of energy in the future.

Despite this, I am still sceptical about HS2!

 

[Gareth]

I still don't get why Birmingham, Manchester & Leeds need dedicated HS terminuses and full-length HS trains whilst Liverpool can supposedly do without.

 

[Toots]

Because of their size,Birmingham has a population of 992,000,Leeds 720,000 and Manchester with Salford (Salford ends in Manchester's town centre) 635,000,whereas Liverpool has a population of 440,000.The trains to the the former three are already showing signs of full capacity yet the WCML services to Liverpool do not.

 

[Gareth]

Ah, Manchester includes Salford now, whilst Liverpool doesn't include places like Bootle or Huyton. Leeds' actual local authority area has places like Otley, which aren't actually Leeds. Despite this being a silly interpretation of the size of these cities, I doubt a couple of hundred thousand people determines the difference between a twee town and an urban metropolis.

As for capacity, that's interesting. Liverpool's always getting conned out of services because Lime Street and it's approaches apparently have capacity issues. Of course, when capacity issues means infrastructure investment, these issues seem to go away.

 

[exile]

If only Central High Level hadn't been closed in 1972 it could have taken some local services from Runcorn/Warrington and left extra paths for London and the South/South West to Lime St.

 

[Nonsense]

Ah, Manchester includes Salford now, whilst Liverpool doesn't include places like Bootle or Huyton. Leeds' actual local authority area has places like Otley, which aren't actually Leeds. Despite this being a silly interpretation of the size of these cities, I doubt a couple of hundred thousand people determines the difference between a twee town and an urban metropolis.

Its not just population, there's the regional economic activity of Leeds/Manchester to consider too, and of course, Leeds/Manchester aren't just terminus stations, they are calling points for services further north, whereas a branch to Liverpool is just a branch to Liverpool.

 

[Gareth]

Right, so because Liverpool is supposedly behind these two places economically, that justifies leaving Liverpool out of infrastructural investment that other cities are getting, which will make it more difficult for the city to make any ground on these places. Makes sense, I guess.

Liverpool is a big city. It's sad how people need constant reminding of that. It's amazing how many people seem to think it's closer to Stoke in size and importance rather than Manchester. The silly regionalism brought in by Labour 14 years ago has a lot to do with this. Liverpool is in an artificial province who's artificial capital is Manchester. This relegates Liverpool to being just some small/medium-sized town nearby, like Warrington Wigan, Bury etc. Of course, Newcastle is a massive metropolis, as is Bristol, both also having kudos of being artificial capitals of their artificial provinces. Liverpool & Sheffield are larger than these places in most respects, but you'd never have guessed it.

It's like regional ITV, but with high speed trains.

Additionally, I see no plans to make Manchester a through destination on HS2 and certainly not Birmingham.

 

[Nonsense]

Right, so because Liverpool is supposedly behind these two places economically, that justifies leaving Liverpool out of infrastructural investment that other cities are getting, which will make it more difficult for the city to make any ground on these places. Makes sense, I guess.

Liverpool is a big city. It's sad how people need constant reminding of that. It's amazing how many people seem to think it's closer to Stoke in size and importance rather than Manchester. The silly regionalism brought in by Labour 14 years ago has a lot to do with this. Liverpool is in an artificial province who's artificial capital is Manchester. This relegates Liverpool to being just some small/medium-sized town nearby, like Warrington Wigan, Bury etc. Of course, Newcastle is a massive metropolis, as is Bristol, both also having kudos of being artificial capitals of their artificial provinces. Liverpool & Sheffield are larger than these places in most respects, but you'd never have guessed it.

It's like regional ITV, but with high speed trains.

There is a limited pot and the line can't go everywhere. If HSL takes off here in any big way, I'm sure Liverpool will eventually get on the map, but until then, its baby steps, and Liverpool will have to wait its turn.

Additionally, I see no plans to make Manchester a through destination on HS2 and certainly not Birmingham.

I somehow gathered the impression that HS2 to Scotland would eventually continue North after reaching Manchester, but in the meantime, the conventional route north would be used. Same goes for Leeds, using the classic track toward Newcastle. I'll gladly be corrected though.

 

[WatcherZero]

They draw a circle round the stations to measure how many people would potentially use the station for a certain distance radius. Liverpool being on the coast with half of its radius being the Irish Sea lucks out in that respect.

 

[pablo]

Well, that's just not true. The other half of LPL is across the water and there's a very good commuter service from there into LPL, for those not familiar with the place. So the catchment area is actually a full circle divided by a river. I saw a proposal to make South Parkway an HS2 terminus. OK if you could actually get across the city to it conveniently.

Are not the capacity problems to do with length of platform and the restricted throat and lack of space to extend at Lime St.?

 

[GodAtum]

I apologise for my ignorance, but why dont the government spend the billions of pounds improving current public transport?

 

[Tim B]

Passionnate and robust performance by Pete Waterman on Channel 4 News just now on the benefits of HS2. He nearly come to blows with his opponent from Stop HS2 who, for me, lost out on the arguments. It was like a boxing match: "Go, Pete, go !"

 

[Nonsense]

I apologise for my ignorance, but why don't the government spend the billions of pounds improving current public transport?

They are. Thats the purpose of HS2.