As the FT notes today:
The Green party is calling for the billions of pounds earmarked for HS2 to be diverted into a nationwide upgrade of local transport as part of its longstanding opposition to the contentious high-speed rail project.
Party co-leader Jonathan Bartley said the £88bn scheme, which has been beset by delays and cost overruns, made no economic sense. He said the line would do little to resolve the lack of public transport across much of the UK.
I agree with this, completely.
HS2 is a plan for an era that no longer exists. It is about saving ‘executive' time in getting to London. It has always been about indifference to the countryside. It has always ignored the fact that it is a plan to support the south-east. And it has always glossed over the fact that it is a subsidy to those already wealthy, who are the only people who will be able to afford its fares, which are bound to be even more absurd than those already charged on West Coast routes.
We do not need HS2.
We do need freight capacity to get lorries off roads.
We do need local rail capacity.
We need that local rail capacity to be more widely spread.
We need electrification of the Midland main line.
And throughout to South Wales.
And across much of the North, where our rail system is a disgrace.
Scotrail needs major upgrading.
But we do not need another vanity scheme.
So I support the Green's logic here.
What I do not support is their suggestion that the money ‘saved' can be spent somewhere else. This is not true. Not spending is not saving. The money in question does not exist if it is not spent. The real issue is how can the resources that would have been wasted on this project be better used in the Green New Deal?
Some of my list is noted above.
Bit it's also worth saying that the Green New Deal spend needs to be more than an HS2 a year. I have shown that this is possible. The need is to do it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
there was a chap on LBC recently from (IIRC) a transport/economics think tank.
his argument was:
– rail infrastructure investment in the north is a waste of money because of the lack of supporting infrastructure.
– there’s no point improving the rail links between e.g. Leeds and Manchester because many folk will need need to travel for an hour to connect from either station.
– hence money is better invested in transport infrastructure in London, because pound for pound it has the most immediate benefit.
I found it the most absurd, ridiculous logic ever. It’s the argument for not developing anything ever. Over fuel the capital cities and let everything else rot.
Clearly the answer to many of our economic, social and climate woes are to make local communities and regions habitable, prosperous, healthy and happy. Sustainable and effective local transport links are essential to this. To turn his argument on its head, it’s then better to invest the HS2 money to improve the connecting infrastructure and modal interchange at the northern hubs before shaving X minutes off the travel time to London.
In any case, HS2 died when they decided to not connect directly with Eurostar. Utterly stupid, but perhaps consistent with the Tories’ brexit worldview.
Typical cost / benefit analysis nonsense
Yes, straight out of the Johnson book of quotable quotes: “A pound spent in Croydon is worth more than a pound spent in Strathclyde.”
There’s also a question of equity. Of course Tories (especially, but not only) are not interested in equity, but fairness tells us we need to spend more in those regions which have suffered a lack of infrastructure spend over many years, particularly in contrast to the largesse shown to London. (the IPPR has issued several reports on this)
HS2 = HS Poo
There are still areas of track on the network where capacity was reduced (de-quadrifying on the Midland Mainline and even East Coast/West Coast Mainline) that were taken up in the name of reducing costs prior to or because of privatisation that should be restored.
If it were up to me, I would electrify the whole lot and re-gauge to the Bern gauge so that our trains could eventually be built to European standards. Such investment would create work and jobs for a long time but eventually deliver a network fit for the 21st century and beyond.
On my route I have seen the amount of people travelling with bikes rocket up. Sometimes there is not enough room for the bikes yet they still put 2 car (and even 1 car) trains on these routes and at certain times. Get rid of the ROSCOS.
Add an expanded tram system and bring back trolley buses. Make sure the transport systems provides more jobs for those who will patrol it 24/7 so we feel safe (bring back station masters and people we can talk to) – what’s not to like?
This is the Night Mail crossing the Border
Bringing the cheque and the postal order
Letters for the rich, letters for the poor
The shop at the corner, the girl next door
Could Auden write ‘Night Mail’ today ? You can guess what he’d write about HS2.
Completely agree. It is a pretence that HS2 is about improving connections to the Midlands and the North. It is about increasing capacity into and out from London, nothing else. That is why it has so much support in the London government (i.e. the government of the UK by London, in London, for London). Nothing will change unless and until the UK’s capital city is moved to somewhere else (e.g. Teesside).
Some sort of indie government for the North of England seems to be called for.
Or just an indie North of England 🙂
How do we know the Government would put this £88bn back into transport as opposed to defence, education or the health service???
That is not how government spending works
By way of explanation regarding govt spending https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/lee-carnihan/tax-and-spend_b_17452090.html
I agree completely with your aspirational list, and the necessity of all of those (and far more revolutionary measures like regulated, and free, bus travel), but I believe you are mistaken about the nature of HS2: above all, it is about capacity. Even at the latest cost estimates (or even the likely real end cost!) it is still by far the most cost effective way of freeing up capacity on the existing network, which in several places adjacent to the route of HS2 is already at damn-as-near-it full capacity. Upgrade existing lines? The work to do that over a relatively limited mileage of the West Coast Main Line took over 10 years and cost over £10Bn. A mixed-use railway (and the WCML is the busiest such in Europe) will always be constrained by trying to fit different types of traffic with different acceleration profiles and top speeds: a dedicated high speed line with only one train profile to fit together can make maximum use of the fullest potential capacity. (Slighty reductio ad absurdam, but imagine what the effect on frequency of service of running even a single goods train on the Victoria Line would be…) Where I think you are right is that the other improvements you listed need to happen alongside this leap, not as an either/or. Above all, we should have a continuous rolling programme of electrification: not least because we already know that the part-aborted disaster of the Great Western electrification cost so much and went so wrong precisely because we had completely lost the skills and knowledge of how to do it, are we really going to let the same thing happen again?
Like so much in our time and place, the West Coast Upgrade was very poorly planned and executed. An excellent example of this concerns the Virgin Pendolinos.
The Pendolino trains are designed for 140mph running, but even the enormous overspend on the upgrade failed to carry out the necessary improvements to the signalling system that would allow these trains to run at their maximum design speed.
The West Coast line therefore has the capacity for further improvement, and these should be given utmost priority.
In addition, that HS2 would not connect into the Channel Tunnel line is totally, absolutely unacceptable. Nothing short of a national shame and disgrace.
Well, the whole point is that the West Coast doesn’t have that capacity: the 140mph facility was always illusory, and remains so today – it is simply not possible to apply the electronic moving block signalling technology required for running at that speed to a mixed traffic railway catering for maximum speeds ranging from 60 to 140 mph. It was upon this technology that Railtrack’s original £2Bn proposal was based – but that decision had been made by finance directors (who foresaw that this technology would be far cheaper to maintain than conventional fixed signalling and the investment would thus pay for itself.) Unfortunately, in the brave new world of privatisation, they thought that engineering was dispensable, and committed to this without ever actually doing an appraisal of whether it was practical. Neither the Pendolinos, nor any other train, will ever run on the WCML at 140mph, at least in the foreseeable future, and certainly not at a cost less than that of HS2 – the only cost-effective answer is either to farm out the high speed or the low speed traffic to separated infrastructure. There was a proposal to build a dedicated high-capacity freight-only railway from the Channel to the Northwest which would had even more potential to get traffic off our roads to a transformative degree, but the government opposed it, even though it was nominally a purely commercial venture and didn’t rely on government funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Railway_(UK). Personally, I thought it was a great idea, though I wouldn’t pretend to any expertise to be able to judge whether it was a viable commercial prospect. In the absence of that, HS2 is the only practical option, and would cost massively less than upgrading the WCML alone, never mind all the other lines on which it will free up capacity – if that’s the metric on which those things are to be judged (personally, I think both need doing, and the money spent achieving that would only be a positive contribution to our economy.)
It’s a shame that HS2 has been sold as means of knocking 20-minutes off the journey time from London to Birmingham. In fact, it is much more than that and offers a modern rail service that will free up capacity so that more freight and local passengers can use the existing network. In addition, it will provide a much needed alternative to flying between UK cities. It is arguable whether HS2 construction should start in the north and gradually work south to London and it is disappointing its London terminus is not at St Pancras to allow easy transfer to Eurostar. Why haven’t we learned from the problems of crossing Paris to transfer from the TGV to Eurostar?
No amount of fiddling with the existing network will provide the benefits that HS2 will deliver and will undoubtedly cost more (both economically and environmentally) and will cause a great deal of dislocation to existing services.
If HS2 is cancelled or delayed, the UK rail system will creak on with commuter delays, poor intercity services and freight continuing to be moved by road.
This recent article in the IMechE’s journal (Professional Engineering) outlines the real benfits of HS2:
https://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/opinion-hs2-has-been-unfairly-maligned-it-is-not-just-a-line-to-birmingham
But there is so much more that could be done elsewhere with limited resource
I do not dispute it is not just about 20 minutes off Birmingham
But there is greater need on other issues
The sad truth is that, under privatisation, rail upgrades and renewals have become SO expensive that there isn’t that much that could be done elsewhere with, as you say, limited resource. That in itself is something of a scandal, and I think there is a strong base for something like the Monopolies and Mergers Commission running an investigation into Network Rail’s pricing of these matters – but in the absence of change on that front, HS2 is astonishingly cost-effective compared to upgrading existing lines.
@Robin Trow
“….it will provide a much needed alternative to flying between UK cities. ”
People fly between London and Birmingham ?
There is more to HS2 than the section from London to Birmingham. Once it is extended to Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle, and potentially to Glasgow and Edinburgh it will be a viable option to flying.
But the suggestion is it will never get beyond Manchester now
Robin Trow says:
IF, very big ‘if’ … “it is extended to Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle, and potentially to Glasgow and Edinburgh it will be a viable option to flying.”
I think it ought to be, or something of the kind by way of fairly high speed railway. I’m inclined to think the obsession with high speed is something of a trap and a snare. If it isn’t as fast as the TGV we won’t be able to wave our willies about it, but how much does that matter ? Not as much as is made out I think.
The faster it goes the more expensive it will be to deal with the problems of a diminishing margin of error. And the bigger the bang when it goes wrong.
I’ve only done it once, but the best rail travel experience I ever had was in the dining car having breakfast on the way. Many people use the travel time to work on their laptops in comparative peace, or to ‘catch up’ with some reading (I wonder why we are always behind with our reading ? )
Until we can do ‘Star Trek’ style teleporting it probably makes more sense to improve the travelling experience than to simply make the misery shorter.
Supporters are falling into the same trap as government and their kow towing to the motoring lobby. People want to drive ok give them more and more roads. There were other solutions. Why does anyone need to get to London 20 minutes quicker? There are other solutions. Move stuff out of London. Parliament for a start.
I thought the new West Coast rail franchise was sold (Italians and um, first group? Sorry, I’ve forgotten all the details already) on the basis that they’d get to run HS2 when the line was ready, except it’s already apparently 10 years behind schedule. I’m guessing that if HS2 doesn’t go ahead, the government – us – will be in a world of hurt from breaking the west coast contact. That’s all hearsay and gossip I’m afraid. HS2 is yet another uk government stupid costly vanity project that definitely does not benefit the country.
I live within one mile of the line of HS2 and the planned massive maintenance depot at Calvert/Steeple Claydon in north Bucks. I am seeing the devastation to the landscape of this part of rural England and the assault on local wildlife already taking place in this very early stage of preparation for the construction of the railway. I know of the decline in property prices of houses close to the line – not necessarily properties owned by comfortable middle class high salaried bourgeoiseie I have to say. I have attended innumerable local forum meetings where we parish councils were supposed to represent our interests and give HS2 the benefits of our local knowledge. I remember us telling the engineers that their plans to use a particular bridge for carrying construction vehicles was perhaps unwise s the bridge was propped up by scaffolding and was usable only by light vehicles. Along with several hundred other petitioners, I attended the House of Commons to petition, in our case to suggest that planning to drive 2500 HGVs per eight hour day (one HGV every 23 seconds for 4 years) through the narrow lanes of a small village was perhaps not the best of ideas. From our local perspective, we were able to see that the estimated costs of construction were wildly out, and that there was a vast amount of waste and gross inefficiency: the main construction company dealing with our area was Carillion – say no more. So you can see that I am not perhaps the best person to make an objective comment on the value of HS2 and the benefits it will bring to our country. But I will try to be objective. I do think our rail infrastructure needs upgrading, and vast investment. I do think there is a need for the construction of new inter-dity rail links to benefit the economy as a whole, and to relieve congestion on exsistoing rail links. And I do think that we need to be transferring freight and people carrying from raoad (using carbon based fuels) to rail. All of these were supposed justifications for HS2; myself, however, apart from my natural prejudices (see above) I do feel we need new rail links and a massive investment. Why was no freight line planned to link east coast ports to the midlands? A freight line would remove masses of HGVs from the road. Why, too, was no Liverpool -Manchester-Leeds/Bradford- Hull link not proposed. The idea of new railways is a good one. HS2 is the wrong new railway, however. I could go on; Richasrd has summed up more concisely than in these raging meanderings what should be the strategy for our rail system.
Thanks
I’ve read the arguments defending HS2, and the cost effectiveness of such a line compared with that of upgrading existing ones, or/and restoring disused ones.
The environmental cost doesn’t seem to be taken into account though, nor the social & economic costs to isolated communities.
We’ve been campaigning locally to get increasing numbers of large lorries off our dangerous narrow winding roads in mid-Wales. South-Wales, which has very congested motorways, has been doing the same. Freight trains are part of the answer. We need help with that, we’ve not been heard at all. We’re not the only ones in this situation, far from it. But move away from South-East England, and voices disappear.
Rail travel must become easier and cheaper for those communities which don’t or can’t depend on cars.
HS2 was a vanity project, without a doubt.
If we had the luxury in the UK of very large spaces and unlimited funds, we could have both HS lines ( London-Edinburgh would make sense) and well maintained & subsidised local ones.
I come from a country where TGV lines cut travel times for over three decades now.
The TGV wasn’t just about making travel faster and easier in one country though. It was a technology which was developed and showcased in order to be exported and deliver huge returns on investment. It was a multinational business project.
We’ve seen the positives and the negatives. The positives for citizens are only felt on very long distances, but tickets aren’t cheap and most people rarely use the TGV for that reason.
I can’t speak for Alstom…they’ve had their ups & downs.
The TGV is often more practical, as quick door to door, and greener than planes. I’d rather take it to go from Rennes to Madrid or from Marseille to Amsterdam than a plane. It costs more, but it’s just as fast and it’s greener.
However, regional lines have become dangerously neglected because of funds being diverted to maintain the hugely expensive TGV lines.
There has to be a sensible balance, and limits to vanity projects.
I too can remember the freight only line idea. It may have also used some of the ex great central route. It would have helped with congestion. The busiest place I can think of on the WCML is the line that goes through Manchester Oxford Road. You get freight, local and inter regional trains on it on two lines that goes on for miles. It might be a little less busy now that trams go to Altrincham but it is still a nightmare to operate – a real bottleneck on the system.
I was in favour of HS2 until The Independent reported in 2013 that it would destroy or greatly damage around 50 ancient woodlands.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/ios-investigation-hs2-the-hidden-cost-to-britains-wildlife-8478609.html
In 2015 they increased the estimate to almost 100 ancient woodlands
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hs2-significantly-more-ancient-woodland-at-risk-of-being-destroyed-by-rail-line-than-previously-10433917.html
The most prominent features of wildlife to a lot of the general public are trees and birds, but ancient woodlands are so much more than that, and there are so few left that I believe everything should be done to preserve them as they are so precious. You can’t simply replace an ancient woodland by planting trees, or even planting a range of trees and other woodland plants, because what you would end up with would only be a shallow approximation, as ancient woodlands are complex ecosystems that evolved over hundreds, possibly thousands of years, with unique sets of invertebrates, soil microbiota, soil chemistry, fungi, plants, mosses, lichens, and so on interacting in so many ways in a complex finely balanced system that cannot be reproduced. They are amongst the most wildlife rich habitats we have in the UK. Ancient woodland soil in particular is a unique and complex ecosystem. I believe losing so much of something so precious that we have so little of is far too high a price to pay for HS2.
I was worried about the quoted 100 ancient woodlands being affected by HS2, So I searched on line for the amount to be be taken by HS2, The largest amount quoted was 59 hectares or approximately ½ a hectare per wood land (1.2 acres each).
Of course a significant amount of money will be spent on going around or expensive tunnelling under homes and hiding HS2 but this just shows people rate visual amenity higher the woodland.
One point I would like to make is about the project taking 5 years longer. I believe this is partly due to how the treasury department looks at financing capital projects. They focus on annual cost because this is how the treasury evaluates spending, So by extending the time the annual cost goes down despite the overall cost going up and if HS2 cancelled because of the increased cost they will be very happy.
It is undoubtedly a difficult issue that ancient woodlands will be destroyed, but I’m afraid there is a lot of poor, or worse, plain wrong, information put about on this. HS2 will destroy about 29 hectares of ancient woodland over 140 miles. (To put that in perspective, widening just 2.5 miles of the A21 between Pembury and Tonbridge in Kent destroyed 9.5 hectares.)
And while I fully accept the argument that just planting new woods doesn’t equate to the ecological value of the ancient woodland being removed, the fact that HS2 will create 650 hectares of new woodlands – that’s 22 times what will be lost – is quietly glossed over or omitted altogether. In my view, that’s dishonest.
It’s often said too that ‘we don’t have much ancient woodland left’: that too simply isn’t true, we have 3.19 million hectares of woodland, of which around 1 million is ancient – in other words, HS2 is costing less than 0.03% of what we have remaining.
All things being equal, I’d absolutely rather none were destroyed: but to portray HS2 as some environmental catastrophe which will wipe out the last vestiges of a disappeared natural resource is emotive and plain wrong.
HS2 is yesterday’s solution to tomorrows problem.
There is a false perception (as noted in this article) that additional freight capacity is required.
Our country’s infrastructure needs to be (and will be) better utilised with upcoming technology advances. With autonomous vehicles, freight can be transported from source to destination throughout the night and at other low traffic times.
To ensure that we remove lorrys from peak time traffic we need to start planning tax legislation to incentivise autonomous electric journeys outside of peak times.
That doesn’t seem to make much sense: there is no difference whatsoever between the ability of driven or autonomous vehicles to travel at off-peak times: the fact that they don’t do so now, when it would already be cheaper and quicker for them to do so, indicates that there are other reasons for their choices of timings.
And even were that utopian vision of autonomous vehicles to come to pass, and even if they were all electric (and we’re a LONG way from either of those being practical to the point of every day use), they would still be only a fraction as efficient as an electrified train at shifting high volumes over anything but short distances.
Someone has to load and unpack them….
Somebody does indeed have to load and unload… Take a look at the new amazon warehouses and take a guess who will be doing that across the board in 10 years time!
Also, agreed that we are a few years off mass adoption of electric and autonomous technology. However, these will almost certainly hit mass adoption before HS2 lands… HS2 is backwards looking and not in any way future proofed…
“…there is no difference whatsoever between the ability of driven or autonomous vehicles to travel at off-peak times:”
Somebody has to drive them, and not everybody likes working nights. I’d go so far as to say most people definitely don’t like working nights. I suggest a) there is therefore a big difference and
b) autonomous transport could be closer than we think. Consider for example semi autonomous convoys where HGVs are not vying to be one truck length ahead and clogging the overtaking lanes of motorways for miles at a time (?) Road-user protocols would need to change, and I’ve no doubt there would be a new raft of problems to address, but… we are remarkably good at adapting systems when we put our minds to it. (Better at it than staying alert driving in the dark, for example)
“Someone has to load and unpack them….”
Containerisation was supposedly going to address the handling problems. Have we got that wrong and are using too few container sizes. ?