More Delay for HS2, and how should we proceed?

[Dave_Cardboard]

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?

The Acts of Parliament confer on the Govt. the power to do a thing (e.g. build a railway,) they do not compel the Govt to actually do it. So no "extra" legislation or votes are required to simply not exercise such powers once they have them. IIRC the HS2 Acts have sunset clauses in them so if the powers they grant are not exercised by prescribed dates, then they lapse automatically.

For example, I could get Parliament to grant me the powers (and money) to buy everyone an ice cream on Fridays until the end of the year. But just because I have the Act that says I can do it, doesn't mean I have to. I don't need to seek any extra permission to not do something I've been allowed to in this kind of legislation.

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

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.

IIRC HS2 were predicting Carbon Neutral (at least for phase 1) somewhere in the 2030's. (2035 springs to mind, but I can't remember where that came from.) The narrative about "HS2 won't be carbon neutral for 120 years" is a lie propagated by StopHS2 and others based on a gross misrepresentation of a report that investigated the residual carbon impacts after 60 and 120 years (two arbitrarily selected time frames - note StopHS2 choose to use the bigger of the two numbers.) They then spun that as "120 years to Carbon Neutral" and hoped no-one would actually read what the report really said. Plenty fell for it, especially if it suited their prejudices.

 

[The Ham]

Things like huge amounts of land being set at zero value for compulsory purchase et al. Which poisons all downstream calculations and optimisations and renders them ultimately worthless.

Not all the land being brought is being used for the construction of the project (blighted homes for example).

Some of those homes are being rented out before construction starts (and some may do during construction).

After construction is complete those dwellings are likely to be sold.

Overall it's not unreasonable for some purchases to be valued at £0.

Likewise some "green" land could be compulsory purchased (farm land is cheap at a few thousand per acre), if the farmer isn't willing to lease it (which has a cost) and it's then sold off at the end - again the cost would be next to nothing.

If HS2 have any sense they may even look to get planning permission for some land parcels and sell it off for more than they brought it for.

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 soft from road/air to HS2 was assumed at fairly low rates (about 2 million from air port year; when more than that shifted to rail after the WCML upgrade).

There's still (2022) about 50:50 passengers between London and Edinburgh who fly vs go by train:

Rail now preferred choice over air travel between Edinburgh and London as 1 million passengers pick Lumo

Lumo to have carried a million

www.firstgroupplc.com

Lumo carried 1 million passengers in its first year between London and Edinburgh, whilst not all of those would have shifted from air, HS2 would likely increase the shift due to reduced journey times.

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.

Whilst oil is used for a lot of things, that doesn't mean that we have to burn other parts of it to be able to use the other useful bits.

The reality is that part of the reason that plastic is so well used is in part down to the fact that it's almost a by-product of us burning other bits of oil.

The "need" for plastic has reduced and whist we'll still need other uses from oil is sourcing it from the North Sea necessarily the best location (for example a LOT of plastic is used in China, the North Sea isn't the best location for use there only for it to come back here as products).

There's also the fact that the amount of oil and gas coming out of the North Sea is falling and those 100 licences doesn't mean that they actual show that reduction down by much (and certainly not at all for a good few years yet). It could even be that several don't result in any new oil being extracted.

 

[GardenRail]

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.

Can't remember the last time we rioted over Petrol Prices. The UK population is a tad lame like that.

I'm speaking as a "terminally in car" who uses a car to get to work at 4am to run your public transport network, because there's no public transport to get me to work.

 

[fishwomp]

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

I expect that the current Trans-Pennine upgrade will get more press/spin now - it's clearly waiting to be rebranded as NPR, and is actually going to deliver much sooner than original NPR. Except no tunnel to Bradford (nor from Bradford) but let's not go through that one again

 

[350401]

I expect that the current Trans-Pennine upgrade will get more press/spin now - it's clearly waiting to be rebranded as NPR, and is actually going to deliver much sooner than original NPR. Except no tunnel to Bradford (nor from Bradford) but let's not go through that one again

NPR as detailed in the IPR requires a new line from Warrington to Manchester - which HS2 delivers/delivered. It also requires a new line from Manchester to Marsden. Otherwise it’s literally the same as the TRU.

 

[chris2]

I don't need to seek any extra permission to not do something I've been allowed to in this kind of legislation.

Thanks for the answer.

So if the govt cannot be compelled by the existing legislation to build any of it, is there anything else that might?

Eg contract obligations / impact on jobs / commitments in the IRP etc

 

[matacaster]

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!).

Yep

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

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.

....and Keir Starmer has already abandoned most of the pledges he made to get elected as Labour leader, so I would have no confidence in that assertion. Warm words on opposition are easy!

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

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.

....and Keir Starmer has already abandoned most of the pledges he made to get elected as Labour leader, so I would have no confidence in that assertion. Warm words on opposition are easy!

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

Of all the various rail projects, the smart money is on a sort of TRU+ (ie TRU with some of NPR). Trying to sell extra capacity from Milton Keynes, bletchley etc on the southern wcml together with extra freight paths (how many of the general public know it's very busy or even care) will not win any red wall or northern votes. It will be so long before the northern HS2 branches are operational even if they did get the go ahead immediately that many voters (me included) are likely to be dead first. Governments work on 5 year cycles and need to deliver tangibles to be seen to be effective.

 

[SynthD]

So if the govt cannot be compelled by the existing legislation to build any of it, is there anything else that might?

You can tell the contractors to resume their work, but you can’t tell Parliament what they must do next.

 

[camflyer]

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.

The Conservative Party conference is in Manchester. It would take some nerve to announce the cancellation HS2's northern phase there so I suspect it will be left until the Autumn Statement.

 

[Parjon]

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.

Many??... Ahem.

 

[trebor79]

Whilst oil is used for a lot of things, that doesn't mean that we have to burn other parts of it to be able to use the other useful bits.

The reality is that part of the reason that plastic is so well used is in part down to the fact that it's almost a by-product of us burning other bits of oil.

The "need" for plastic has reduced and whist we'll still need other uses from oil is sourcing it from the North Sea necessarily the best location (for example a LOT of plastic is used in China, the North Sea isn't the best location for use there only for it to come back here as products).

There's also the fact that the amount of oil and gas coming out of the North Sea is falling and those 100 licences doesn't mean that they actual show that reduction down by much (and certainly not at all for a good few years yet). It could even be that several don't result in any new oil being extracted.

I never said we shouldn't reduce fossil fuel use. But oil and gas are more than fossil fuels.
Your last paragraph is a bit reductive. You purported to be against the new oil and gas licences on environmental grounds, yet you now seem to be saying they shouldn't be granted because they won't result in much production anyway.
Which is it?

 

[Mikey C]

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/

The Green Party itself is against HS2.

As Greens4HS2 put it on the front page of that link

We think the Green Party’s position is politically harmful and short-sighted: it puts us at odds with other green parties in Europe and with our own policy, at the same time aligning us with the IEA, TPA, UKIP and other fringe groups with no interest in sustainability.

 

[JamesT]

You can tell the contractors to resume their work, but you can’t tell Parliament what they must do next.

The trick is how you do the contracts. Make it like the carriers where it’s more expensive to cancel than finish the job.

 

[The Ham]

I never said we shouldn't reduce fossil fuel use. But oil and gas are more than fossil fuels.
Your last paragraph is a bit reductive. You purported to be against the new oil and gas licences on environmental grounds, yet you now seem to be saying they shouldn't be granted because they won't result in much production anyway.
Which is it?

I was saying that there's not necessarily a strong link between oil extraction and other oil uses given how much oil we currently burn.

Yes I think we should reduce our oil/gas burning, however that's going to take time, so the impact on other uses is likely to be limited for at least a while.

There's two reasons why I think that the licenses shouldn't be granted, firstly we should be reducing our oil/gas burning, so given the timeframe between issuing and any production starting is at least a few years the benefit of any extra oil/gas could well be limited.

Secondly, because the North Sea is a mature oil/gas field there's no certainty that exploration will result in new extraction. there may well be areas which are worth looking at, however upon inspection they may not be viable to extract. This further limits the benefits from any extra oil/gas.

It's perfectly reasonable to hold both views or either view (for example someone way be happy to burn oil/gas, but not think the licences are worth doing as they'll likely only produce small, uneconomic, volumes - as ask the good sites have been tapped before).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

NPR as detailed in the IPR requires a new line from Warrington to Manchester - which HS2 delivers/delivered. It also requires a new line from Manchester to Marsden. Otherwise it’s literally the same as the TRU.

The Liverpool-Ditton-Warrington-Millington route is not defined or costed, and neither is the Piccadilly-Marsden line.

 

[MPW]

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.

Statistically they are highly in favour of HS2, even supporting an HS1 link and extending further, right through Europe and down to Rwanda. The suella express.

 

[Merle Haggard]

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.

On Times radio yesterday, when questioned, he committed to full HS2 and said that this included re-instatement of the Leeds section cancelled by the Tories.
A few minutes ago on the same station, the shadow treasury minister was not so clear on how it would be funded. Well, actually, she wouldn't answer the question.

 

[camflyer]

The Green Party itself is against HS2.

As Greens4HS2 put it on the front page of that link

We think the Green Party’s position is politically harmful and short-sighted: it puts us at odds with other green parties in Europe and with our own policy, at the same time aligning us with the IEA, TPA, UKIP and other fringe groups with no interest in sustainability.

The Greens have been all over the place on HS2. They want low carbon, sustainable transport which takes vehicles off the road and reduces domestic flying. If HS2 doesn't do that then I'm not sure what scheme would. More often than not the Greens at a local level are the Nimby Party (though the Lib Dems aren't far behind them) in opposing any new developments

 

[Trainbike46]

The Green Party itself is against HS2.

As Greens4HS2 put it on the front page of that link

We think the Green Party’s position is politically harmful and short-sighted: it puts us at odds with other green parties in Europe and with our own policy, at the same time aligning us with the IEA, TPA, UKIP and other fringe groups with no interest in sustainability.

That's why I said a group of GPEW, rather than GPEW. I am aware that, unfortunately, GPEW is against HS2, hopefully greens4HS2 manages to convince the rest of the party. I cited the Greens4HS2 page, as it clearly explains why the 120 years claim is wrong, and it is more likely to be persuasive to people coming against HS2 from an environmentalist angle, like the poster I was replying to.

I also cited a more general carbon brief article, which as usual for that website, is very well thought-through.

 

[Energy]

The Greens have been all over the place on HS2. They want low carbon, sustainable transport which takes vehicles off the road and reduces domestic flying. If HS2 doesn't do that then I'm not sure what scheme would. More often than not the Greens at a local level are the Nimby Party (though the Lib Dems aren't far behind them) in opposing any new developments

TBH the environmentalists who are against HS2 are usually hiding NIMBYism behind environmentalism or they just don't want people to leave their local area.

While the latter is best environmentally it is unrealistic.

 

[AndrewE]

Today's news (which might fit in here, somewhere else, or be worthy of a thread of its own.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-road-building-report-motorways-funding-rail ("European governments shrinking railways in favour of road-building, report finds. Rail networks in most countries have been starved of funding while motorways lengthen")

European governments have “systematically” shrunk their railways and starved them of funding while pouring money into expanding their road network, a report has found.
The length of motorways in Europe grew 60% between 1995 and 2020 while railways shrank 6.5%, according to research from the German thinktanks Wuppertal Institute and T3 Transportation. For every €1 governments spent building railways, they spent €1.6 building roads.


“This is a political choice,” said Lorelei Limousin, a climate campaigner with Greenpeace, which commissioned the report. “We see the consequences today with the climate, but also with people who have been left without an alternative solution to cars.”

The report found the EU, Norway, Switzerland and the UK spent €1.5tn (£1.29tn) between 1995 and 2018 to extend their roads – but just €0.93tn (£0.8tn) to extend their rail networks.

In the four years that followed (2018-21), the average gap in investment in rail and road decreased from 66% to 34%. During that time, seven countries invested more in rail than roads – Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the UK – while the rest spent more on roads than rail.

Dr Giulio Mattioli, a transport researcher at the Technical University of Dortmund, who was not involved in the study, said: “Most European countries have been actually encouraging car use by investing large amounts of public money into expanding motorway infrastructure.”
In the public and political debate, Mattioli added, small investments into bike lanes and railways were heavily scrutinised while investments in roads were taken for granted. “This absolutely needs to change if we are to meet climate mitigation targets in the transport sector.”

 

[CdBrux]

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.

I suspect, unfortunately, there are many more that aren't, including the shadow Home Sec.
Edit: sorry, just read what you wrote again - we agree!

 

[Mikey C]

Today's news (which might fit in here, somewhere else, or be worthy of a thread of its own.)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-road-building-report-motorways-funding-rail ("European governments shrinking railways in favour of road-building, report finds. Rail networks in most countries have been starved of funding while motorways lengthen")

The UK has hardly built any new roads for decades, when you compare the massive Motorway programmes of the 60s and 70s, with what has been built recently, which is a bit of widening and the odd bypass or bridge.

The biggest public transport failure in this country is the massive decline in the bus network, and it's that which has left people dependant on cars. And they run on roads anyway.

 

[trebor79]

There's two reasons why I think that the licenses shouldn't be granted, firstly we should be reducing our oil/gas burning, so given the timeframe between issuing and any production starting is at least a few years the benefit of any extra oil/gas could well be limited.

Secondly, because the North Sea is a mature oil/gas field there's no certainty that exploration will result in new extraction. there may well be areas which are worth looking at, however upon inspection they may not be viable to extract. This further limits the benefits from any extra oil/gas.

On the first point you still aren't recognising that oil and gas are needed to produce the chemicals that modern life relies upon, as well as being used as fuels. Actually north sea oil is more suited to chemical production rather than fuel.

On the second point, that's risk for the oil and gas companies, which are private companies to bear. If the well is a duster then they move on to the next one. That not an argument against allowing exploration and production licences to be granted.

 

[Taunton]

The biggest public transport failure in this country is the massive decline in the bus network, and it's that which has left people dependant on cars. And they run on roads anyway.

Actually the public transport failure was in the previous 50 years, when the buses were progressively run with increasingly nobody in them.

Something currently still being played out in Central London - where one of a number of current telling features is the amount of space in bus garages now given over to staff car parking !

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The UK has hardly built any new roads for decades, when you compare the massive Motorway programmes of the 60s and 70s, with what has been built recently, which is a bit of widening and the odd bypass or bridge.
The biggest public transport failure in this country is the massive decline in the bus network, and it's that which has left people dependant on cars. And they run on roads anyway.

You have to go to places like Ireland and Poland to see the massive recent expansion of their motorway networks, with a static or reducing rail network.
In many ways the UK was ahead of the curve and has now stopped motorway enhancements while trying to expand rail with a few reopenings.
France/Germany/Italy/Spain have massively grown high speed rail, but generally let local/regional rail drift or decline.
Eastern Europe generally couldn't wait to build new motorways with EU cohesion money, while letting rail services rot.
There are signs of this trend reversing though, again with EU money for things like the TEN freight routes.
As ever, Switzerland bucks the trend with its new trans-alpine rail routes, while maintaining a dense network of local services.

 

[AndrewE]

The UK has hardly built any new roads for decades, when you compare the massive Motorway programmes of the 60s and 70s, with what has been built recently, which is a bit of widening and the odd bypass or bridge.

That can't be true. Thre's been loads of motorway widening and huge junction improvements, like Catthorpe and Jn 19 Tabley on the M6.

The biggest public transport failure in this country is the massive decline in the bus network, and it's that which has left people dependant on cars.

That may well be right. However the cost of train travel has deliberately been skewed away from support to the farebox, and as a consequence our fares are high compared to almost everywhere else (regardless of whether trains are a low-pollution, low congestion mode of travel use of which should be encouraged...)

 

[The Planner]

That can't be true. Thre's been loads of motorway widening and huge junction improvements, like Catthorpe and Jn 19 Tabley on the M6.

That may well be right. However the cost of train travel has deliberately been skewed away from support to the farebox, and as a consequence our fares are high compared to almost everywhere else (regardless of whether trains are a low-pollution, low congestion mode of travel use of which should be encouraged...)

Depends if smart motorways are "real" widening.

 

[JamesT]

Page 44 of the report states length of motorway network. For the UK it has 3,380km in 1995 and 3,838 in 2020.

 

[camflyer]

Page 44 of the report states length of motorway network. For the UK it has 3,380km in 1995 and 3,838 in 2020.

Most of that will be upgrades of A roads to motorway standard (e.g stretches of A1). I think the only totally new motorway since 1995 was the M6 toll.