HS2 Manchester leg scrapped: what should happen now?

[HSTEd]

Not equally, no. Rail can absorb significantly more traffic using a given quantity of land than road traffic can.

Kind of off topic, but the amount of traffic that can be carried per unit land is not part of that argument though.
The argument is based upon an argument where travel has no value and demand for travel is entirely unbounded and will rise without limit.
This is a bad model, but it is used because it supports the position that no road upgrades should happen..

That same model will also find that building railway lines to alleviate congestion is entirely pointless, although the proponents of this position never follow the argument that far.

But in any case, HS2 has not been able to build an independent support base with the public. Unfortunately, now that the political consensus behind it has disintegrated, it's finished.

118,000 vehicles per day on the M6 at Penkridge, 17% of that is HGV. Further up you get 100,000 at Keele, 140,000 at Sandbach, 126,000 around Knutsford, 43,400 on the A556 at Mere. I think its relatively safe to say a lot of that traffic at Mere is M6 to Greater Manchester and vice versa.

It's an awful long way from Mere to Birmingham, with several significant population centres adjacent to the motorway before you get there.
A lot of the people using the motorway are likely to be coming from further north than Birmingham and are questionably impacted by HS2.
The "up and down" nature of the data suggests that the motorway is dominated by traffic not travelling the full length of route between Penkridge and Mere.

 

[Greybeard33]

Quite, a 3 lane motorway has a theoretical capacity of 5,400 vehicles each way, if we assume 1.2 people per vehicle (which is typical for a lot of travel, whilst it can be as high as 1.4 there'll be a fair amount of goods vehicles, so it balances out) that's 6,500 people.

HS2 (400m) trains, even at 50% occupancy, on a single track in each directioncan carry that at a frequency of 12tph (even at 1.4 it'll be 14tph), yet alone 16+ tph.

Also the vast majority of roads have to be at ground level, which gets very expensive to cater for them within cities.

Or replace more of the cars by road coaches carrying 50-odd people per vehicle. A lot cheaper than HS2....

 

[Meerkat]

Quite, a 3 lane motorway has a theoretical capacity of 5,400 vehicles each way, if we assume 1.2 people per vehicle (which is typical for a lot of travel, whilst it can be as high as 1.4 there'll be a fair amount of goods vehicles, so it balances out) that's 6,500 people.

HS2 (400m) trains, even at 50% occupancy, on a single track in each directioncan carry that at a frequency of 12tph (even at 1.4 it'll be 14tph), yet alone 16+ tph.

Also the vast majority of roads have to be at ground level, which gets very expensive to cater for them within cities.

But the cars are going from all over the place to all over the place. The trains can’t replace that demand.
Roads can be put underground.

 

[Wolfie]

Oh no, I see we will have to learn that lesson all over again. And then the conclusion will be do't spend money on any kind of rail improvements.

I can see HS2 Phase 1 looking like an expensive white elephant as far as travel from London to the North of the Midlands is concerned.

Yup, cos the WMCL upgrade went so well lol....

 

[The Ham]

Or replace more of the cars by road coaches carrying 50-odd people per vehicle. A lot cheaper than HS2....

Relatively few people will opt for a coach as they take a lot longer and are generally less comfortable than a train. That's not to say that there shouldn't be more bus/coach travel (far from it), just that there should be more rail travel too.

But the cars are going from all over the place to all over the place. The trains can’t replace that demand.
Roads can be put underground.

Rail does a reasonable job, yes it can't replace all car travel (and I've never said that it could), however where there's reasonable rail travel (for example between Manchester and London), increasing capacity to reduce the need to go by car should be happening.

Where we've got an increasing population, often with higher levels of car ownership, unless we are willing to build new motorways to cater for that (and the significant environmental impact, both at a local and international level) there's a need to provided more rail capacity.

From 2008/09 to 2022/23 London/Northwestern rail travel has increased by 30.6%, based on the HS2 growth model (2.5% growth year in year) it should have increased by 41.3%.

However, in the time periods since March 23 Avanti has seen some decent growth, which would likely mean that for the 2023/24 data the numbers could well be much closer to the 44.8% growth number expected in the HS2 model.

Based on the Avanti quarterly data it's seen growth of 17.3% from the last full year (April 22 to March 23) vs the current rolling 4 months (Jan 23 to Dec 23).

If we take 2008/09 as 100 passengers, 2022/23 would be 130, if the full year data for 2023/24 has 15% annual growth (bearing in mind the above 17.3% growth for the current rolling for months shows for a drop off in the last quarters data compared to that in the previous year), that would mean 150 passengers.

The HS2 model, was 145 for this year.

However based on the Avanti numbers that would mean that the January to March passenger numbers would have to go back to those seen for the same period in 2022. As such, there's a fairly good chance that the 2023/24 year will once again be back beyond the predictions for the HS2 passenger model. (I accept that I'm comparing London/Northwest travel with Avanti travel as a whole, so it's not quite that straightforward - yet, it's as much data as there is easily available and even if doesn't reach the HS2 model value is likely to be very close).

Also, whilst it's possible to put cars underground, not as easily as you can rail. I refer you to the capacity of a 3 lane motorway vs a train line. A 3 lane motorway would likely require 2 bores in each direction and probably a whole load more safely provision, making the cost prohibitively expensive, even before your consider trying to park those cars in a city center location and the significant engineering to create any firm of junction.

Yes there's still going to be a need for a lot of car travel, but you could shift 5% to rail (which would be around 50% more added to rail that it currently carries) and it would hardly turn the clock back on how busy the roads are (maybe 2017).

Ah, you might say, given how little that's changing road traffic is it worth it?

As I said, unless you're willing to build roads (and recent governments have been reluctant to do so) giving a few extra years before the roads get busier than they currently are then it's likely to be worth it.

The other thing to consider is that rail, for moving a given number of people, generally uses less energy than cars (obviously low numbers are the exception, but with millions of people travelling between London and the Northwest east year, that's not really the case) given the soft away from gas and petrol (homes and cars) towards electric, having more rail travel would likely require less electricity generation than those going by car. Therefore more rail travel could, if it were to be an issue (and there's no certainty that will be an issue), help keep the lights on.

 

[Greybeard33]

Relatively few people will opt for a coach as they take a lot longer and are generally less comfortable than a train. That's not to say that there shouldn't be more bus/coach travel (far from it), just that there should be more rail travel too.

I agree there should be more rail travel, but now that the Tories have cancelled HS2 Phase 2 and Labour has no appetite to resurrect it, there is little scope for increasing west coast rail capacity north of Birmingham for the foreseeable future.

My point was that the passenger carrying capacity of the M6 could be substantially increased by modal shift from car to coach. Other countries, e.g France and Ireland, levy toll charges on cars using their motorways. These can act as an incentive for car users to switch to public transport, including buses/coaches, thereby reducing motorway congestion.

The only alternative, with major investment in rail and road infrastructure ruled out, is the do-nothing approach of allowing congestion to curtail demand for travel, with consequent suppression of economic activity.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I agree there should be more rail travel, but now that the Tories have cancelled HS2 Phase 2 and Labour has no appetite to resurrect it, there is little scope for increasing west coast rail capacity north of Birmingham for the foreseeable future.

My point was that the passenger carrying capacity of the M6 could be substantially increased by modal shift from car to coach. Other countries, e.g France and Ireland, levy toll charges on cars using their motorways. These can act as an incentive for car users to switch to public transport, including buses/coaches, thereby reducing motorway congestion.

The only alternative, with major investment in rail and road infrastructure ruled out, is the do-nothing approach of allowing congestion to curtail demand for travel, with consequent suppression of economic activity.

Out of interest, and at the risk of going too far off topic, how much road tax do motorists pay in countries with many toll roads.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Roads can be put underground.

What is currently seen as the optimum way of dealing with any type of fume emissions in such underground roads of any length? Also would the emergency services have difficulties in the case of a large road accident?

 

[Peter Sarf]

What is currently seen as the optimum way of dealing with any type of fume emissions in such underground roads of any length? Also would the emergency services have difficulties in the case of a large road accident?

And furthermore where do all these cars park when they reach their destination ?.

 

[JamesT]

Out of interest, and at the risk of going too far off topic, how much road tax do motorists pay in countries with many toll roads.

The two countries mentioned; France has no annual car tax, Ireland has a similar system to the UK based on emissions that looks to be at an equivalent level (their top end is €2,400 (£2,060), ours is £2,365).
The issue with just tolling motorways is whether it would dissuade people driving and force them onto another mode, or merely disperse them onto other roads that may be less suited to cope with increased traffic.

 

[krus_aragon]

What is currently seen as the optimum way of dealing with any type of fume emissions in such underground roads of any length? Also would the emergency services have difficulties in the case of a large road accident?

A recent visit to Chicago (where there are hundred-year-old underground roadways in parts of the inner city area, with through routes for cars and service access roads for the skyscrapers) suggests that this is not always an insurmountable problem.

Closer to home, I think the North and Mid Wales Trunk Road Agent (NMWTRA) is probably the local expert to consult, as it maintains and operates the Conwy, Penmaenbach, and Penyclip tunnels along the A55.

 

[Krokodil]

Other countries, e.g France and Ireland, levy toll charges on cars using their motorways.

You'll hear no objection from me, but expect the motor lobby to spit feathers!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The issue with just tolling motorways is whether it would dissuade people driving and force them onto another mode, or merely disperse them onto other roads that may be less suited to cope with increased traffic.

Human nature being what it is and car drivers not seeing any Damascene moments as they want to keep their freedom to drive wherever they want (something always stressed in the TV adverts for new cars), I am certain the latter would apply.

Closer to home, I think the North and Mid Wales Trunk Road Agent (NMWTRA) is probably the local expert to consult, as it maintains and operates the Conwy, Penmaenbach, and Penyclip tunnels along the A55.

I think that my posting was making reference to any newly projected underground roads of much greater length.

 

[Greybeard33]

The issue with just tolling motorways is whether it would dissuade people driving and force them onto another mode, or merely disperse them onto other roads that may be less suited to cope with increased traffic.

Motorway tolls certainly induce some car drivers to use other roads. That makes those roads more congested, further increasing journey time, whereas congestion on the motorways is reduced, improving journey times for the buses and coaches that continue to use them. So there is a clear incentive to switch from private car to public transport.

Motorway tolls on cars have an additional economic benefit in reducing freight transport costs, through reduced delays to long distance HGV traffic.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So there is a clear incentive to switch from private car to public transport.

I was discussing the subject in general with a friend of a similar "advanced-in-years" age to myself and he said, in his usual witty way, perhaps once such a matter becomes a reality, the next step will be to encourage people to give up their smart phones and to form neat orderly queues outside red painted telephone boxes.....

 

[cle]

Motorway tolls certainly induce some car drivers to use other roads. That makes those roads more congested, further increasing journey time, whereas congestion on the motorways is reduced, improving journey times for the buses and coaches that continue to use them. So there is a clear incentive to switch from private car to public transport.

We tend to do them only on new roads, but tunnels/bridges - but I think more could be done here, especially on the longer stretches of singular motorways (M1, M4, M5, M6 mainly) - camera activated fees - could be low cost but frequent (disincentivize short trips)...

 

[GJMarshy]

I was discussing the subject in general with a friend of a similar "advanced-in-years" age to myself and he said, in his usual witty way, perhaps once such a matter becomes a reality, the next step will be to encourage people to give up their smart phones and to form neat orderly queues outside red painted telephone boxes.....

As a young person I'd happily vote for any party who made that a policy! Off topic I know, but smartphone/social media addiction is an epidemic that can't be fixed on an individual basis. If you check-out of SM and smart phones, you risk (and do) lose your social, professional and even academic circles. Everyone needs to stop for it to have any positive effect. All or nothing.

I give it 15 years and it'll be considered a global health crisis, and Meta/Google and the likes will be in endless trials over manipulating users (particularly children) by exploiting dopamine addiction with algorithms that punish those who don't regularly check/conform.

So yes, lets for queues outside telephone boxes, and perhaps (god forbid) chat to people in the queues as we did for shops during lockdown. It was only then people truly understood the value of in-person connection. Now everyone seems to have forgotten.

 

[krus_aragon]

I think that my posting was making reference to any newly projected underground roads of much greater length.

Agreed, but they operate three tunnels of a fair length, which are part of a major international traffic route (Euroroute E22), and are regarded as one of the most modern operations of road tunnels in the UK. If you were to consider building long road tunnels, I'd suggest having a word with NMWTRA to benefit from their expertise.

(I've had the priviledge of having a site visit to their control centre and one of their tunnels during a maintenance closure. There's a heck of a lot going on in terms of lighting, ventilation, vehicle detection, traffic monitoring, lane control, fire risk management, etc. that the average driver doesn't notice as they whip through.)

 

[Krokodil]

Agreed, but they operate three tunnels of a fair length, which are part of a major international traffic route (Euroroute E22), and are regarded as one of the most modern operations of road tunnels in the UK. If you were to consider building long road tunnels, I'd suggest having a word with NMWTRA to benefit from their expertise.

(I've had the priviledge of having a site visit to their control centre and one of their tunnels during a maintenance closure. There's a heck of a lot going on in terms of lighting, ventilation, vehicle detection, traffic monitoring, lane control, fire risk management, etc. that the average driver doesn't notice as they whip through.)

Better to talk to the French about the operation of the Mont Blanc tunnel. It's more comparable length-wise.

If a rail tunnel from Manchester Airport to Manchester Piccadilly will cost a fortune, it's nothing compared with the cost of a motorway tunnel - look at Boston's Big Dig as an example, adjusted for inflation that 7.5 mile section would cost £27bn today. Even without tunnels, motorway infrastructure is expensive to build and maintain, Toronto recently spent $3bn repairing a 1.75km section of freeway. No planner with half a brain cell would consider new motorways as a transit solution these days, the costs are too great.

 

[The Ham]

Agreed, but they operate three tunnels of a fair length, which are part of a major international traffic route (Euroroute E22), and are regarded as one of the most modern operations of road tunnels in the UK. If you were to consider building long road tunnels, I'd suggest having a word with NMWTRA to benefit from their expertise.

(I've had the priviledge of having a site visit to their control centre and one of their tunnels during a maintenance closure. There's a heck of a lot going on in terms of lighting, ventilation, vehicle detection, traffic monitoring, lane control, fire risk management, etc. that the average driver doesn't notice as they whip through.)

Would I be right in assuming that these are straight tunnels with no junctions, if that's the case they would still be far simpler to operate than something with a junction on it.

Even if you could find an exit portal location within a city, what then happens to those vehicles? Unless it directly links to a car park those cars are just going to clutter up the city, either by driving around or needing somewhere to park (or most likely both).

If you're going to the expense of building a multi lane tunnel you might be better off building a logistics hub at one end and have a system similar to those the airports use for dealing with baggage to get deliveries in and waste out.

For those expecting deliveries they could be delivered to the hub and get a notification that they have a parcel, they could then schedule a delivery slot at time which suits them to a hub within (say) 100m of their address. With a large enough system shops could deliver items directly to individual building, especially for blocks of flats (for example you could get your supermarket shopping without the supermarket needing to operate vans within the city, but also independent shops could also offer a delivery service when they otherwise couldn't).

Even large items could be delivered (although you may want to have a more limited number of hubs which could deal with those items beyond a certain weight), likewise waste could be taken away (almost) straight away, meaning no need to store large bins and the problems that causes.

It would have a big impact on public transport use too, as the need to move large items by car (even if that's rarely) would be significant reduced.

You could even have a car hire hub on the system, so people could send their luggage to it to then pick up a hire car to go somewhere with limited public transport. This would also reduce range anxiety when using EV's, as the total distance travelled would be smaller.

Of course, by doing something like this it would mean disposing if a lot of jobs (postal services, fast food deliver, etc.), however given the working aged population is likely to continue shrinking (at least as a percentage of population) arguably that's going to free staff up to do other work. However depending on how close the hubs are too people there could still be some demand for hub to door delivery, so that may not remove all the delivery jobs (especially if more deliveries are made due to it being easier).

It would however create other jobs, for example, maintenance staff. Likewise, it could mean more opportunities for businesses, meaning that they require staff for their core business (for example, Dominos may require more people to make the food, and whilst this may not replace all the staff lost from their deliveries, it's likely to reduce the impact - it could also change the pricing, in that you don't need to price to your delivery capacity, just look at the better offers you can get by collecting or at certain times).

Postal services could send a pack of letters/parcels to a location for delivery, in doing so there would be no need for vans. As even if the delivery was from the local hub to your front door, the number of items such a delivery worker needed to move would be quite small at any given time, and so they could either carry them or push them on a trolley (especially if there was a larger parcel) the short distances required.

All movements are likely to incur a charge, however the staff time savings are likely to be significant and so the cost would most likely be offset. For example, whilst sending a single letter would be more expensive than posting it, sending a small parcel (which could contain a hundred letters) would be cheaper. You could, (once you've got a delivery to the hub) go and get it or pay a bit extra for a to your door service.

It wouldn't work in places with limited population density (although it should be noted that it's much more likely to work in the UK than the US, as even small towns here can have the population densities which put them into the top 10 most dense cities in the US, as anywhere with a population density of over 3,200/km2 would meet that requirement (somewhere like Alton in Hampshire is like that), somewhere like Manchester is 4 times that, with it likely that areas of the city are even higher still.

Of course, such a system is far too disruptive to actually happen, even if it was of a cost that was comparable to other projects which wouldn't have the same benefits.

 

[spyinthesky]

Building road tunnels takes longer than HS2 (A303)

 

[stephen rp]

2/3 of the proposed route for NPR would alreadt be in tunnel anyway. There’s only the short stretch between High Leigh and the airport which would need safeguarding, and most of that roughly follows the M56 anyway.

The question is more “Is such a route viable without HS2 attached?” To which the answer would most certainly be “no”. It just seems a tactic to talk the talk and commit to thinks that won’t happen to distract from the obvious: It won’t happen.

Especially as the £12bn promised is apparently just for High Legh to Manchester with another £5bn to find to get to Liverpool (and that's unrealistic).