More Delay for HS2, and how should we proceed?

[MPW]

My hope and gut feeling (please comment if unrealistic) is that keir will push for political structural reforms (eg his plan for Lords). If pay per mile road pricing were introduced in some form and budget reduced for highways projects then many more rail projects become viable to fund. Will be interesting to see what they do with GBR or whatever they will call it.

For example if M25 was made into a toll then that creates political incentive for improved alternative connections. I won't go into anymore detail as that drifts away from HS2 topic. But essentially political reform should be done before any further national scale infra projects.

 

[Howardh]

My hope and gut feeling (please comment if unrealistic) is that keir will push for political structural reforms (eg his plan for Lords). If pay per mile road pricing were introduced in some form and budget reduced for highways projects then many more rail projects become viable to fund. Will be interesting to see what they do with GBR or whatever they will call it.

For example if M25 was made into a toll then that creates political incentive for improved alternative connections. I won't go into anymore detail as that drifts away from HS2 topic. But essentially political reform should be done before any further national scale infra projects.

Nice idea, but political suicide, and pay-per-mile road tax would be also unless they scrapped car tax (and some cars like mine only pay £20/yr). So if we want to improve rail, the money has to come from somewhere, and I don't think extra green taxes on air travel would assist much either.

 

[Dan G]

We already have a pay per mile road tax that handily takes into account the climate impact of the vehicle and the way it's operated – fuel duty. Chancellors have been too scared to increase it for 12 years, handing a subsidy to drivers and costing HMT £80bn since 2011 https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-fuel-duty-freezes-have-increased-uk-co2-emissions-by-up-to-7/ .

Btw seems no-one have linked to Labour's comments yesterday, so here they are https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66836341

Asked if Labour would keep the pledge to deliver HS2 in full, Mr McFadden said: "We want to see the railway being built, it looks as though the government is now putting a question mark over this, there may be revised costs to that.

"When this started a price tag of about £30bn was put on it - those prices haven't been raised since 2019 - we've had quite a lot of inflation since then.

"So, I want to see what happens in the coming months, we want to see the railway being built but we've also - like everything else - got to look at the cost of everything we do."

"I want to see what this costs and we'll make those decisions when it comes to the manifesto."

 

[matacaster]

Not really, when you consider which lines and terminals a freight line would need.to connect to (Wembley, Daventry, Acton, Northampton, Manchester, Crewe, Liverpool). Lots of surface connections in London for that.

Wasn't there a proposal to build a freight trunk route from London to Liverpool?

 

[trebor79]

Wasn't there a proposal to build a freight trunk route from London to Liverpool?

Was that the one about 20 years or so ago where they wanted to reuse part of the GC alignment? It was going to be privately funded IIRC but didn't get consented, partly because (I think, could wee be wrong) at that time the GC alignment was being mooted for a nascent HS2 option, and there were question marks over economic viability with teh government not wanting to get saddled with cost if it went toes up (how ironic!).

 

[Energy]

On radio 4 Prof Tony Travers just said that £6-7bn is being spent on HS2 a year, and that's projected to continue to 2040+.

That is, by any stretch, a lot.

Any clue of how he got to that number?
Currently HS2 is about half of the £96bn IRP. The rest of the IRP funding including NPR, TRU, MML electrification and some smaller schemes.

 

[camflyer]

My hope and gut feeling (please comment if unrealistic) is that keir will push for political structural reforms (eg his plan for Lords). If pay per mile road pricing were introduced in some form and budget reduced for highways projects then many more rail projects become viable to fund. Will be interesting to see what they do with GBR or whatever they will call it.

For example if M25 was made into a toll then that creates political incentive for improved alternative connections. I won't go into anymore detail as that drifts away from HS2 topic. But essentially political reform should be done before any further national scale infra projects.

Any attempt to charge for the M25 would make the fuss over ULEZ seem like chickenfeed.

That's not to say road pricing doesn't have a future, especially in an age of lower petrol/diesel duties because of the switch to EVs, but it has to be handled very carefully as it could blow up badly in the face of any government which tried it first.

 

[Mikey C]

Road pricing will have to come in, but to replace the current duty on fuel, not as an additional tax. It currently raises £24bn for the government.

 

[CdBrux]

We already have a pay per mile road tax that handily takes into account the climate impact of the vehicle and the way it's operated – fuel duty.

maybe drifting a bit off topic but this will need replacing in the coming years as fuel sales drop off

 

[LickeyIncliner]

Was that the one about 20 years or so ago where they wanted to reuse part of the GC alignment? It was going to be privately funded IIRC but didn't get consented, partly because (I think, could wee be wrong) at that time the GC alignment was being mooted for a nascent HS2 option, and there were question marks over economic viability with teh government not wanting to get saddled with cost if it went toes up (how ironic!).

There were proposals for the "Central Railway", originally from Leicestersire to the Channel Tunnel, in the 1990s and 2000s - see https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00688/SN00688.pdf. There have been some subsequent suggestions - see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Central_Main_Line, near the end ("Freight and relief line reopening").

In addition to the questions about the financial risk to the Government if the project was not completed, and questions about proposed management of the line and operations, there was a lot of concern about the potential blighting effect on property which might need to be compulsorily purchased. My recollection is that some Conservative MPs who were very gung-ho about the supposed benefits of privatising BR - innovative, entrepreneurial firms coming into the industry, etc, etc - were suddenly outraged when an innovative, enterpreneurial private-sector firm came up with a proposal which might have taken slices off their constituents' gardens...

 

[Roast Veg]

We already have a pay per mile road tax that handily takes into account the climate impact of the vehicle and the way it's operated – fuel duty. Chancellors have been too scared to increase it for 12 years, handing a subsidy to drivers and costing HMT £80bn since 2011

The problem is that fuel duty increases are known to cause rioting and poor behaviour in the "terminally in-car" plebiscite, both in the UK and abroad. Better to stealth tax them to avoid disruptive behaviour.

 

[Xavi]

On radio 4 Prof Tony Travers just said that £6-7bn is being spent on HS2 a year

Travers and other commentators need to bring perspective to their broadcasts. HS2 annual budget is circa 0.6% of total government expenditure, creating jobs and tax revenues directly and through the supply chain. We also get a carbon-free railway for 140 years+.

By contrast welfare expense was £262bn in 2022/3 increasing to £295bn in 2023/4.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Travers and other commentators need to bring perspective to their broadcasts. HS2 annual budget is circa 0.6% of total government expenditure, creating jobs and tax revenues directly and through the supply chain. We also get a carbon-free railway for 140 years+.

By contrast welfare expense was £262bn in 2022/3 increasing to £295bn in 2023/4.

Remember that the carbon benefits of the line only start to outbalance the carbon cost of building it around the turn of the century, on HS2's figures... so a problem if the environmental crisis won't wait that long.

 

[Roast Veg]

Remember that the carbon benefits of the line only start to outbalance the carbon cost of building it around the turn of the century, on HS2's figures... so a problem if the environmental crisis won't wait that long.

The carbon crisis doesn't have any start date, it began in the early 1800s. The fact that HS2 will ever be carbon positive is enough.

 

[Trainbike46]

Remember that the carbon benefits of the line only start to outbalance the carbon cost of building it around the turn of the century, on HS2's figures... so a problem if the environmental crisis won't wait that long.

HS2 will reduce carbon emissions well before the end of the century.

HS2 is part of building the infrastructure for the future - one where travel can be done in a low-carbon way.

you might find this article by a group of the green party of england and wales of interest, which makes the point that HS2 will contribute to reducing emissions, as opposed to all the roadbuilding and airport expansion projects, which will only increase them: https://hs2.green/the-carbon-numbers-what-is-the-full-potential-of-hs2/

There's also this article, pointing out how rail is very much part of the solution for transport's contribution to the climate crisis: https://www.carbonbrief.org/eight-charts-show-how-aggressive-railway-expansion-could-cut-emissions/

 

[AlbertBeale]

The carbon crisis doesn't have any start date, it began in the early 1800s. The fact that HS2 will ever be carbon positive is enough.

Not if the project is currently carbon negative, hence increasing the problem in the short term. If all carbon improvements only kicked in in a couple of genratins time, and meanwhile were making things worse, we might all be under water before the improvements ever happen... and it's a bit late then. The urgency at the moment is to stop making the situation worse.

 

[Trainbike46]

Not if the project is currently carbon negative, hence increasing the problem in the short term. If all carbon improvements only kicked in in a couple of genratins time, and meanwhile were making things worse, we might all be under water before the improvements ever happen... and it's a bit late then. The urgency at the moment is to stop making the situation worse.

I agree, but HS2 is objectively not the problem here. The problem are road-building and airport expansion, as well as licensing 100 new oil and gas wells as the government is planning

 

[AlbertBeale]

HS2 will reduce carbon emissions well before the end of the century.

HS2 is part of building the infrastructure for the future - one where travel can be done in a low-carbon way.

you might find this article by a group of the green party of england and wales of interest, which makes the point that HS2 will contribute to reducing emissions, as opposed to all the roadbuilding and airport expansion projects, which will only increase them: https://hs2.green/the-carbon-numbers-what-is-the-full-potential-of-hs2/

There's also this article, pointing out how rail is very much part of the solution for transport's contribution to the climate crisis: https://www.carbonbrief.org/eight-charts-show-how-aggressive-railway-expansion-could-cut-emissions/

Of course railways - rather than roads and airports - are the right route to go down. But that general point doesn't of itself prove the ecological worth/usefulness of any particular rail project.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2023 ==

I agree, but HS2 is objectively not the problem here. The problem are road-building and airport expansion, as well as licensing 100 new oil and gas wells as the government is planning

Indeed - it's only a bit of the problem, alongside the horrors you mention. But that doesn't mean its not a problem at all, nor does it mean that there aren't better ways of using that level of resources on public transport projects which are net-negative (in carbon emission terms) much more quickly.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

More ping-pong in the Commons this afternoon, with Richard Holden (junior transport minister, normally covering roads and local transport) answering an urgent question on HS2 tabled by Labour.
He followed the line of not confirming HS2 north of "Birmingham" or from OOC into Euston.
The belief is that Sunak has decided to cull Phase 2 and Euston, and increase the scope of the NPR project.
But nobody knows what that means in railway terms.
See 1548 in this Guardian blog:

Transport minister refuses to say if government still committed to extending HS2 to Manchester and Euston – as it happened

Richard Holden responds to urgent question from Labour about HS2 but refuses to say if HS2 will still reach Manchester or Euston in London

www.theguardian.com

Labour wants the SoS (Mark Harper) to answer the question.

 

[Trainbike46]

Of course railways - rather than roads and airports - are the right route to go down. But that general point doesn't of itself prove the ecological worth/usefulness of any particular rail project.

HS2 will increase capacity and speed along the UK busiest domestic air route (london-Scottish central belt), and along some of the busiest motorways. It has huge potential to create a modal shift away from those highly polluting forms of transport, if build in full. That's why it is necessary to build it completely, and as soon as possible. Politically introduced delays only delay the point at which carbon savings start (Politically induced delays also increase costs). Fighting HS2 from an environmentalist position does not make sense, as HS2 not being build will lead to larger emissions than if it is build, so a "succes" would lead to more carbon emissions. That's not a productive position for fighting the climate crisis

 

[Energy]

The belief is that Sunak has decided to cull Phase 2 and increase the scope of the NPR project.

So effectively loosing the East Midlands and 2a from Handsacre to Crewe? Great levelling up...

 

[HSTEd]

Well I guess I will get my high speed tube-style operation after all! Just it will be only going as far as Curzon Street and OOC.

 

[chris2]

Given that phase 2A and the stretch of phase 1 from OOC to Euston are both part of projects that have received royal assent, what does cancelling these look like in legislative terms?

Does an amended bill have to come back before parliament and be voted on?

 

[350401]

The absolute worst case scenario is Old Oak Common to WCML via Handsacre operation. 3x400m trains OOC, Interchange and Curzon Street, 3 x 200m trains OOC to Manchester, 2 x 200m Trains to Liverpool and Crewe. As mentioned up thread, OOC can if required handle around 18tph. The previously mooted 6tph limit is simply what was planned to be used before Euston Opened, with 6 platforms and the ERTMS signalling system; 18 tph is do-able. However, the issue is the Elizabeth Line and onward connections, which provides a practical limit of around 11tph. It's far from ideal, but it is still a lot of services removed from the south WCML, thus freeing up capacity. Other mitigations would be possible should OOC emerge as a semi-permanent terminus, including much better walking links to Willesden Junction and North Action, and building the mooted Overground station on the Stratford to Richmond Overground line. There is also planned to be a new bus interchange with bus services redirected to serve the new station.

Birmingham to Crewe has Royal Assent, and it's highly unlikely the government would find the find to pass a bill cancelling that. It's likely just to be delayed further, and then revived post general election.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Given that phase 2A and the stretch of phase 1 from OOC to Euston are both part of projects that have received royal assent, what does cancelling these look like in legislative terms?

Does an amended bill have to come back before parliament and be voted on?

350401:
Birmingham to Crewe has Royal Assent, and it's highly unlikely the government would find the find to pass a bill cancelling that. It's likely just to be delayed further, and then revived post general election.

Exactly. Delay don’t cancel.

 

[trebor79]

I agree, but HS2 is objectively not the problem here. The problem are road-building and airport expansion, as well as licensing 100 new oil and gas wells as the government is planning

You know that oil and gas are used for much more than just being burnt, right?
"Just stop oil" and you "just stop" almost every single thing you take for granted.

 

[snowball]

Within the last couple of minutes on PM on Radio 4, a Labour spokesman has apparently committed to building HS2 and NPR "in full", apparently including the eastern arm (probably just to EM Parkway). He wasn't probed on whether it included the Golborne link! This seems to contradict remarks reported in the last day or two.

 

[Roast Veg]

Not if the project is currently carbon negative, hence increasing the problem in the short term. If all carbon improvements only kicked in in a couple of genratins time, and meanwhile were making things worse, we might all be under water before the improvements ever happen... and it's a bit late then. The urgency at the moment is to stop making the situation worse.

Eggs and omelettes. The project is known to be a net good, and there is no other solution to the same problem available. Other posters have made the point better than I can.

Within the last couple of minutes on PM on Radio 4, a Labour spokesman has apparently committed to building HS2 and NPR "in full", apparently including the eastern arm (probably just to EM Parkway). He wasn't probed on whether it included the Golborne link! This seems to contradict remarks reported in the last day or two.

Labour have a prime opportunity to spin this as a golden egg to the red wall. I hope they do not squander it.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Within the last couple of minutes on PM on Radio 4, a Labour spokesman has apparently committed to building HS2 and NPR "in full", apparently including the eastern arm (probably just to EM Parkway). He wasn't probed on whether it included the Golborne link! This seems to contradict remarks reported in the last day or two.

That was Nick Thomas-Symonds, Shadow minister without portfolio.
He's repeating the current Labour position on HS2.
But the Shadow Treasury people are much more cautious, because they know the challenges of the fiscal position on all government spend.
And they aren't in power yet.
I expect we'll get more clarity (on both sides) at the party conferences.

 

[snowball]

Labour have a prime opportunity to spin this as a golden egg to the red wall. I hope they do not squander it.

I doubt that, among voters in red wall seats who turned from Labour to the Tories, there are many who are enthusiastic supporters of HS2.